Actual Anatomy of Failed Design: Diplomacy

[hogarth]

The MC determining whether the NPCs start the combat music or not before dice are rolled robs the players of agency and in many cases prevents the diplomancer's abilities from even existing in the game.

This is stupid. Every encounter decision the GM makes means that some class abilities will not be usable in that encounter. If the PCs fight a skeleton, they can't use diplomacy. So the GM changes the skeleton to an orc. But now the cleric can't use turn undead, and the ranger still can't use wild empathy. OH NOES!!!

And what's laughable is that if "Diplomacy" was an entry on a Winds of Fate matrix, Frank would be arguing the complete opposite, i.e. that it's a good thing when the PCs don't have the choice of using diplomacy.

The MC determining whether the NPCs start the combat music or not before they've identified traits, behavior, and circumstances related to the PCs violates causality.

Frank, do you agree or disagree that some people in the world are generally friendly to strangers or generally unfriendly to strangers? Or do such people instantly vanish in a vortex of violated causality?

[MGuy]

@Artless: Yes you've got it exactly. I'm saying that the initial meeting's initial disposition shouldn't be random but based on the influences relevant to the character and the situation. I believe that making mechanics that surround each and every possible situation and background would be impossible so its best to keep it abstract and just let the DM decide what the character's disposition is at the get go. The most unbelievable thing about this argument is that Frank actually agrees with me:

Don't you think that keeping this in the realm of MC fiat acts as a roadblock to actually putting together functional diplomacy rules? It turns every "talking encounter" into a MTP dice charade where the MC has probably pre-determined the ultimate outcome (the sphinx will always eventually attack, you cannot provoke the baron to attack you in the square, the prisoner will always reveal/withhold information, etc.).

Not to mention, it leaves a lot of encounters wholly unprepared to mechanically deal with a social attack as a result. How many monsters/NPCs have noticable Sense Motive scores, for example? How do you even fairly determine a creature's bonus vs. a Bluff of, "Dad? Is that you?" I'm willing to bet that you've given no thought to the mating practices of the variety of people the PCs come in contact with, so how do you determine whether or not that's a -5 to +20 Sense Motive modifier without essentially deciding whether or not you want the PC to succeed at this gambit?

Yes, you have to be able to strike some sort of balance between writing rules and mechanically determining outcomes versus roleplaying, but I don't think sticking with MTP is the solution. We've had MTP for 30+ years and nobody's really satisfied with it. You have people that get pissed off because their awesome speech failed by the dice, and those that are pissed off because all the points they sunk into social abilities feel wasted.

At some point its going to have to be called though. Someone is going to have to decide that a given argument is a "good" speech or a "bad" one. People get unsatisfied if they have made a "good" speech yet don't have the diplomacy to back it up. That doesn't mean I think people should be given diplomacy for free. People get pissed off if someone can't make a "good" speech and yet have the highest diplomacy. These things don't matter though because this is an argument about mechanics.

Let's take a look at another skill. Seriously in the bluff skill you have a scale that goes from believable lies to unbelievable lies. Who calls that? Essentially the MC. It should be the same for diplomacy. Now if you or anyone can come up with hard coded rules for what constitutes a "believable bluff" vs an "unbelievable bluff" then yes you can probably start making the journey to making an even more complicated judgement system for how a given character should feel~ when you first meet them. However, even then, the MC sets a given character's motivations and background in general and will of course still be the one who essentially sets the character's initial attitude/disposition anyway. I fully support a reaction system being made up to that could incorporate various situations but seriously I can't imagine one being made up that isn't just ridiculously complex. I could imagine it being done though. I'd think it much easier to make a less complex reaction system that is mostly abstract and requires the MC to make a call or two about shit that's going on as the Bluff skill does.

[RadiantPhoenix]

And what's laughable is that if "Diplomacy" was an entry on a Winds of Fate matrix, Frank would be arguing the complete opposite, i.e. that it's a good thing when the PCs don't have the choice of using diplomacy.

The difference is that you are generating it according to a known set of rules (roll a d6, on a 4 you can use diplomacy), rather than an unknown set of rules (When I feel like it).

[hogarth]

And what's laughable is that if "Diplomacy" was an entry on a Winds of Fate matrix, Frank would be arguing the complete opposite, i.e. that it's a good thing when the PCs don't have the choice of using diplomacy.

The difference is that you are generating it according to a known set of rules (roll a d6, on a 4 you can use diplomacy), rather than an unknown set of rules (When I feel like it).

So? I'm addressing Frank's specific comment:

The MC determining whether the NPCs start the combat music or not before dice are rolled robs the players of agency and in many cases prevents the diplomancer's abilities from even existing in the game.

Randomly taking away "player agency" is still taking away "player agency".
Randomly determining that a diplomancer's abilities can't be used in many cases is still determining that a diplomancer's abilities can't be used.

[mean_liar]

I totally agree.

As far as I interpret it, Frank's main thrust is that there should be an option for a random dieroll to determine initial reaction, so long as "insta-attack" and "we wuv yoo" are not possible random results.

He even says that "attack on sight" should be a GM option because orcs from the trees man (and I agree), but then decries it later, so I'm personally confused on how he reconciles that.

[Kaelik]

so long as "insta-attack" and "we wuv yoo" are not possible random results.

Where did you get this idea.

As far as I can tell, insta attack and we wuv you should be possible results when the diplomancer rolls his attitude response check.

[mean_liar]

Initial reaction, Kaelik. As in, you round the corner and the GM rolls to determine their initial reaction, pre-Diplomacy and pre-anything, really.

[Kaelik]

Initial reaction, Kaelik. As in, you round the corner and the GM rolls to determine their initial reaction, pre-Diplomacy and pre-anything, really.

Right, but why can't the initial reaction be insta fight? Nothing Frank said indicates that's not a viable option.

If you round the corner, roll bad, maybe the Orc is a really bad elf hater, and you forgot to cover your ears?

[hogarth]

Initial reaction, Kaelik. As in, you round the corner and the GM rolls to determine their initial reaction, pre-Diplomacy and pre-anything, really.

Right, but why can't the initial reaction be insta fight? Nothing Frank said indicates that's not a viable option.

Because in Frankland, that's robbing the diplomancer of the chance to do his thing, and that's badwrongfun? Except when it isn't?

[Kaelik]

Because in Frankland, that's robbing the diplomancer of the chance to do his thing, and that's badwrongfun? Except when it isn't?

No you retard. That's the diplomancer getting his chance, rolling for it, failing to do his thing, and thus, having failed to do his thing, it is now the Wizard and Fighter's chance to do their thing.

This is what determining the results of action by a die roll fucking means, that once you have rolled the die, the action was resolved, and it either succeeded or failed.

[Orion]

The business about "what if I've heard of the guy before I meet him" is a red herring. In that case, you still have to make observations which allow you to identify him as the guy you've heard of, so you can model it the same way as the case where you've never heard of him before.

[mean_liar]

Kaelik, you're missing some stuff. Here's Frank's thoughts (again, so far as I can tell):

1. Initial reaction. No random insta-gibbing, sometimes (Frank contradicts himself here: he doesn't want to tell the Diplomancer no, but he did say that he thought there ought to be attack-on-sight orcs) the GM decrees they attack on sight.

2. Diplomacy enters. All results in play. This is the second opportunity for die-rolling.

3. Attack/parlay/negotiate.

[Kaelik]

Kaelik, you're missing some stuff. Here's Frank's thoughts (again, so far as I can tell):

1. Initial reaction. No random insta-gibbing, sometimes (Frank contradicts himself here: he doesn't want to tell the Diplomancer no, but he did say that he thought there ought to be attack-on-sight orcs) the GM decrees they attack on sight.

2. Diplomacy enters. All results in play. This is the second opportunity for die-rolling.

3. Attack/parlay/negotiate.

And you are wrong, because the only part of that is what Frank is saying, is initial reaction.

You are making up the part about it robing the Diplomancer for an initial reaction to never result in combat, because you fail to understand that the initial reaction is the diplomancer getting his shot to defuse combat, and sometime, he'll have to keep talking afterward in order to avoid combat. And sometimes not. And either way, the initial reaction is the diplomancer getting his chance.

[mean_liar]

Eh. Whatever. Frank should clarify then.

If you want, you can try to parse this then:

An NPC can be angry, jumpy, fearful, tired, aggressive, peaceful, exhausted, territorial, or whatever before the PCs round the corner. The MC is well within his rights to set those kinds of conditions. But they can't be friendly or hostile to the player characters until the player characters and the NPC actually meet. Because being hostile to someone is a transitive fucking verb. It requires not only the NPC (who is hostile), but also the interaction of the PC (who the NPC is hostile to).

And if the DM simply determines that shit in a non-random fashion, then the PC has failed at diplomacy without rolling dice. Since the purpose of diplomacy is to prevent hostilities and all that. Which means that yes, the attitude of the NPC (as defined in D&D terms) not only should, but needs to be "fucking random".

Looks to me like he's advocating randomly determining shit before the PCs round the corner, and that initial reaction shouldn't be so extreme as to preclude the Diplomat from Diplomat-ing. I mean, I posted variants of this breakdown at least twice and Frank's only real beef with it that he bothered to post was that he felt like Hostile was a reasonable thing to have an outside random chance of.

Honestly, I don't really care.

[Username17]

Kaelik, you're missing some stuff. Here's Frank's thoughts (again, so far as I can tell):

1. Initial reaction. No random insta-gibbing, sometimes (Frank contradicts himself here: he doesn't want to tell the Diplomancer no, but he did say that he thought there ought to be attack-on-sight orcs) the GM decrees they attack on sight.

Random insta-gibbing is fine, as long as that's up front. Even if diplomancy was only possible one time in ten, that would be acceptable because the ability could be costed as an ability that was usable in one tenth of the encounters.

What's not OK is the non-random insta-gibbing. Because then the player didn't get a chance for their powers to work.

Similarly, when you use a battle ending spell like Flesh to Stone on the BBEG, your spell doesn't need to always work. It doesn't need to usually work even. It could have a pretty small chance of working, but it still needs an actual chance of working. If you cast Stone to Flesh and the MC simply determines that the spell failed based on what he thinks would probably happen with the strength of the spell ad the fortitude if the BBEG ad the "needs" of the plot, that is bullshit.

-Username17

[MGuy]

Which makes me wonder why setting the target's disposition to hostile then allowing you to roll against that is unacceptable.

[Archmage]

Which makes me wonder why setting the target's disposition to hostile then allowing you to roll against that is unacceptable.

In most game systems, you can't talk to people who are actively trying to kill you--Diplomacy and "social attacks" either take too long or simply don't work.

[Dean]

Which makes me wonder why setting the target's disposition to hostile then allowing you to roll against that is unacceptable.

Because in the very least that's something that can be known and accounted for by the players in a stable rules environment.

If DM's decide whether NPC's roll in the hostile range, the ambivalent range or the docile range then even if you KNEW every BBEG was going to be hostile and you KNEW that that means theres only a 1 out of 10 chance of your diplomacy being able to have any effect then that's still you KNOWING BAD ODDS. As opposed to knowing nothing and being able to predict nothing because there is no rules framework.

It's not a problem for Rogues to know that the odds of them soloing a gelatinous cube are piss poor. It would be a problem if you could never know what your odds were when going into a fight with a monster.

[MGuy]

Which makes me wonder why setting the target's disposition to hostile then allowing you to roll against that is unacceptable.

In most game systems, you can't talk to people who are actively trying to kill you--Diplomacy and "social attacks" either take too long or simply don't work.

"Hostile" is something that some enemies are going to be feeling. It makes perfect sense. Especially in "hostile" situations, such as the battle field. What's more is that you can have people that are "hostile" toward you not actively kill you when you attempt like when making an attempt to surrender, parlay, etc. As I said before "hostile" does =/= trying to kill you necessarily.

@Dean: I don't really understand what you're getting at or whether it has anything to do with what I posted.

[hogarth]

What's not OK is the non-random insta-gibbing. Because then the player didn't get a chance for their powers to work.

Frank, what's your opinion on rolling for hit points? If a GM doesn't roll for hit points for NPCs, is that robbing the players of "agency"? After all, a monster with minimum hit points opens up a lot more useful options for player characters (e.g. Cleave or Fireball are more useful).

[Grek]

When I saw this again, I thought it was a rant about the board game. Thread does not satisfy expectations. Would not read again.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Frank, what's your opinion on rolling for hit points? If a GM doesn't roll for hit points for NPCs, is that robbing the players of "agency"? After all, a monster with minimum hit points opens up a lot more useful options for player characters (e.g. Cleave or Fireball are more useful).

I know I'm not Frank, but...

I think that both rolling for hit points and determining them according to some known formula are both valid options, because again, they are being determined according to a knowable set of rules. I personally prefer a formula, because I dislike rolling low more than I like rolling high.

[Username17]

Rolling hit points and taking formula derived hit points are both fine things to do. The hit point equivalent of Mguy's suggestion would be the DM deciding by fiat that some goblins had a lot of hit points because they weren't "supposed" to drop easily and possibly deciding that other goblins had few hit points because they were.

-Username17

[Novembermike]

Adding randomness to the campaign (not to the player or campaign actions, but to the campaign itself) reduces player agency. Any reasonable DM will take player feedback into account, increasing player agency, while randomness doesn't allow the players to make any meaningful decisions about the campaign.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Adding randomness to the campaign (not to the player or campaign actions, but to the campaign itself) reduces player agency.

It does if the alternative is 'the DM decides everything'.

There isn't some magical hidden option somewhere between arbitrary decision and randomness. Either you let the players, DM, or gamewriters decide or you rely on randomness. Considering that players will always want to have their actions succeed, DMs have too much of a temptation to decide 'fuck you guys, these orcs are going to attack', and gamewriters don't have a goddamn clue what's going on in individual campaigns the choice is obvious.

Any reasonable DM will take player feedback into account, increasing player agency,

Read the responses in this thread. Several people have said that they would decide reactions for the NPCs before the PCs ever got a chance to interact with them. Where the fuck is the player agency then? This is not an uncommon position and I'm laughing right in your face at this naive magic tea party non-solution.

while randomness doesn't allow the players to make any meaningful decisions about the campaign.

That's a fucking retarded thing for someone who has played D&D to say. Jesus Christ, because you have to roll for Stealth or Perception or Acrobatics or Trap Disarming or whatever, is your agency reduced? No. At the very least you get to choose how you want to approach a problem and you can also get to stack modifiers on top of it (for example, you take off your chainmail and head out at night for your Stealth roll). It's random, but it's still a lot more player agency than the DM deciding whether they should do this or not.

Players can choose to come out in a hostile stance, they can send the official a bribe beforehand, they can shag the king's wife before the audience, etc. etc. These are choices a player can make that, while not eliminating the randomness, can influence the story meaningfully. This is a whole lot better than the stupid days of the PCs and DMs having a pow-wow about how an NPC is supposed to respond.