[3.X] Diplomacy Hack: Reaction Rolls (PL, please stay out)

[virgil]

In summary of those rules Blicero's posted; for those who don't want to have to scroll through everything...

Roll 2d6+modifiers

• 2 or less - Hostile, attacks (shift 2 negative)
  3 to 5 - Unfriendly, threatens (shift 1 negative)
  6 to 8 - Neutral, uncertain
  9 to 11 - Indifferent, uninterested (advance 1 positive)
  12 or more - Friendly, helpful (advance 2 positive)

Whether you use diplomacy modifiers, intimidation modifiers, or seduction modifiers all depends on the circumstances; and you roll at the first introduction. After you get the result, so long as the target didn't get Hostile, you can roll again after a round of more interaction using the new modifiers. You can roll again after a minute of interaction, again after 10 minutes, again after an hour, and one more per day of interaction.

This is more of a full-on attempt at a diplomacy system akin to D&D's usual fare, where you move their opinion of you up and down and leave the definition of 'helpful' and 'neutral' entirely up to the DM.

[deaddmwalking]

So how do you work the 3rd party that wants to influence an opinion either for or against you.

For example, Aladdin meets the Sultan and wants to make him like him so he can marry the princess. Jafar wants to say mean things about Aladdin so the sultan will throw Aladdin in the river.

Under your system, I think I get how Aladdin makes the sultan like him. I don't know how I could have 3rd parties using the system to influence the outcome of the 'primary actors'.

[deaddmwalking]

So how do you work the 3rd party that wants to influence an opinion either for or against you.

For example, Aladdin meets the Sultan and wants to make him like him so he can marry the princess. Jafar wants to say mean things about Aladdin so the sultan will throw Aladdin in the river.

Under your system, I think I get how Aladdin makes the sultan like him. I don't know how I could have 3rd parties using the system to influence the outcome of the 'primary actors'.

[virgil]

I'm consolidating posts so it's not just me posting three times in a row


That multiple check thing I posted was supposed to be a summary of what Blicero suggested we look at for inspiration rather than anything I was seriously positing for this thread itself. The problem with it is that because the bonuses don't really change between checks, all it really does is randomize how long you can go before you start either the fight music or the porn music. For that purpose, it's not terribly helpful unless people think the suggested modifiers would do well to include.

Now, if your question was referring to my system, then the only thing Jafar can influence before Aladdin enters the scene is the Sultan's Bias. Changing Bias is part of the next stage of design, and will need to include one's ability to change someone's Bias toward another.

---

As the only complaints over the OP at this point are those that question the existence of rolling dice to have a social encounter, I'm going to consider this first step a success that can we can move forward; not to say you're forbidden from pointing out flaws, but PL's earlier crap has made much of the debate muddled and difficult to parse.

As a reminder, the context for all of this is for the D&D genre. Combat is required to be a major facet, and so a dedicated Diplomancer is not on the table the way it is for Shadowrun or Eclipse Phase. I am curious as to whether it should be detailed sufficiently to necessitate new skills or even an entirely parallel "social class" system players to use; or whether it would be better to simply keep Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, & Sense Motive as the active skills and simply tie everything to them.

With that out of the way - the current setup creates a circumstance where the reaction roll essentially outlines the battle field. We are inherently restricting the time frame for any and all social actions, which implicitly constrains the potential social collateral that can be called upon; no matter how silver-tongued that hobo is, disinterested parties cannot be convinced to part with more than pocket change from a minor diplomatic action. Social gambits or specific abilities may make this restriction a soft cap, but it remains a restriction to aim for when designing the social minigame.

Before going off the deep-end, what are the general situations we need to be able to handle? We need to handle the shopping trips where people haggle over a trade, and should differentiate between discrete negotiations like the purchase of a sword and the release of captured prisoners; even if it's something like a simplified skill check for the former and option list for the more abstract latter. Depending on what the minimum outputs are, we may be able to create categories and simply interpret scenes and available social gambits through the lens of the category.

---

Additional question, if the party wins initiative or even has a surprise round, should there be a basic Diplomacy/Intimidate check allowed to shift the reaction one step toward attentive; or even just move from Dismissive to Disinterested?

[Dean]

I was thinking more about these mechanics and I wanted to introduce a couple ideas. I like the numbers they generate but wanted to request some writing clarifications for how they work in particular instances so people can be clear.

First I wanted to request the reaction roll rules tell you that reaction rolls don't occur until some social or diplomatic action is taken. Meaning when you walk into a tavern with 10 people you don't make 10 reaction rolls. If you walk up to the Bartender and decide to use the basic social action "Request trade" you would make one reaction roll for him. If his roll was "Dismissive" then your "Request Trade" action would then not work as the character will not receive your requests and will generally ignore you or possibly after a warning even fight you.

The scenario where this would need to be clarified is ambushes. If a creature is ambushing the party there would normally be no option to take social action before attacks started. I want to give even ambushes the possibility of having a social phase but I don't want ambushers to have to give up their advantage to do so. As such what if you said that in an ambush scenario the attackers make a social roll when they see their targets. If they roll dismissive they attack immediately. If they roll disinterested they demand surrender while still moving to attack. If they roll interest they will come out and allow longer negotiation of surrender or parley.

My suggestion to make that work would be to allow people who had a surprise round to hold over their surprise round under certain strict conditions very similar to readied actions. You have to choose the standard action you will use and while holding it you can only take 5ft steps and free actions. If anyone rolls initiative you get to take your standard action and then roll initiative with everyone else. This would both allow the option of reasonable diplomatic requests even in ambushes and would replicate the way films and media do ambushes that allow characters who "Got the drop" to take as long as they'd like explaining their evil plans because the good party knows they would start this fight with an action economy disadvantage.

[Username17]

Honestly deanrule, that seems like a horrible idea. You don't roll reactions for all ten people in the pub for the same reason and to the same extent that you don't roll spot checks or initiative for them: you don't care what the result is. If Farmer #2 would or would not be willing to speak with you, it just doesn't fucking matter.

But we still have the "walking into the forest of the hostile but non-evil Elves" situation to worry about. We genuinely care whether they verbally challenge you (giving you a chance to speak) or start shooting arrows at your eye. And you genuinely care what the result of this is before anyone says or shoots anything. You're cluttering up a problem we do have by attempting to address a problem we don't have.

-Username17

[Dean]

I was actually directly thinking of the hostile Elves scenario. My thinking was either they saw you first and the pre ambush reaction roll would occur, or you would see them first and say something and thus having made some social action (like Greet or Warn) the regular reaction roll would occur.

I just want the if/when's of the rules properly codified because I actually don't want them to be like the spot rules. Where if you actually did have people roll to try to see every DC0 Large object in plain sight it would produce insane and impossible results. I want the rules to tell us when they occur in writing so they don't become like hide or spot where no one knows when you make the checks or how many.

I want the rules to tell us what "Dismissive, Disinterested, Interested, Attentive" mean in the context of particular scenarios. I think we should write what they mean for an Ambush, a Barter/Shop, an Armed Encounter, and a Negotiation because that covers most of the play space I've experienced. The rules as they are talk about "team behavior based on context" and I want to codify what those contexts are. The most problematic of the contexts I could imagine was the Ambush scenario so I thought it sensible to create some special rules for that because it is different from the rest because, by definition, there is no chance for the PC's to interact with or "encounter" the enemy before combat took place. I think to address that unique factor you'll need to write rules for it.

[virgil]

So as to keep the conversation on topic, I am importing something from the other diplomacy thread.

I am asking you what I need to do to end the social phase and start combat in your system. Also, do the PCs have to do a RR too, or can they simply bypass that if they start an ambush?

While I can see the merit in having the social phases be mandatory on both sides of the table, the design I've been aiming for so far has assumed that the reaction roll is purely a restraint on NPCs. If the players aren't interested in parlay, then they can begin combat normally. The goal is to essentially open up a menu of social options for both sides, restricted by the time frame of the conversation, making the social phase one 'round' (abstract time frame) long regardless.

The reason I chose the social phase to be optional on the part of the players is to avoid the disapproving uproar; it's already an uphill battle dealing with PL and other anti-RR arguments.

[Username17]

Personally, I think that if things like Majesty and Frightful Presence are abilities that NPCs can have, that NPCs should be able to force diplomacy phases too.

-Username17

[Omegonthesane]

Personally, I think that if things like Majesty and Frightful Presence are abilities that NPCs can have, that NPCs should be able to force diplomacy phases too.

-Username17

As mentioned before, this is one case where any Fighter who might attack a PC is not allowed to have nice things, because PCs will yell and bawl if "not completely magical bullshit" abilities are used to fuck with their characters' actions. "He'd never willingly do that! You can't magically come up with the argument or rhetoric that makes him break his oath! Wah!"

[TarkisFlux]

Because the other thread is toxic, I'll join this one I think.

PCs will yell and bawl if "not completely magical bullshit" abilities are used to fuck with their characters' actions. "He'd never willingly do that! You can't magically come up with the argument or rhetoric that makes him break his oath! Wah!"

Frank's not making a case for domination/suggestion style abilities that override player action choices (at least I don't think he is), but more of a debuff state that limits player action choices to some non-obviously hostile subset. Casting sanctuary or solid fog or whatever doesn't mean that you get what you want, it just means you've used a combat action to buy space to talk without being stabbed in the face. That's all that "forcing a diplomacy phase" even means - you get to have a diplomacy phase over the objections of the other side, presumably after they've begun the face stabbing.

The only way you get from there to "He'd never do that wah!" is if the results of the diplomacy phase are also being mechanically determined for both sides, but I haven't seen that proposed yet. I'm not even sure it would be a deal breaker if framed properly. People get fast talked and make shitty decisions with bad information on their own all the time. Magic is not required, even if it does make the bitter pill easier to swallow.

[deaddmwalking]

I'd really like to see things like [fear] to impart penalties to the PCs for certain actions, rather than force particular actions. If something is scary, players should probably run away. If the opponent is 'level-appropriate' and they're forced to take something like a -8 on EVERYTHING (what that specifically means, especially in the case of 3.x style casters is ambiguous), smart players would retreat and come back when they are no longer subject to the fear (no penalty).

I could see Social Actions imparting those types of conditions with minimal protest; but specific actions are still problematic.

[TarkisFlux]

I'd really like to see things like [fear] to impart penalties to the PCs for certain actions, rather than force particular actions. If something is scary, players should probably run away. If the opponent is 'level-appropriate' and they're forced to take something like a -8 on EVERYTHING (what that specifically means, especially in the case of 3.x style casters is ambiguous), smart players would retreat and come back when they are no longer subject to the fear (no penalty).

Here you go then - revised fear effects. Note that I stripped out fear stacking 'because reasons', but the penalty structure should be what you're looking for, and includes flat spell failure percentages for casters to deal with the issue you hint at.

I could see Social Actions imparting those types of conditions with minimal protest; but specific actions are still problematic.

The Intimidate skill already has extremely crappy provisions for doing that (see demoralize opponent). Expanding and improving upon it is not particularly difficult.

[Kaelik]

but more of a debuff state that limits player action choices to some non-obviously hostile subset. Casting sanctuary or solid fog or whatever doesn't mean that you get what you want, it just means you've used a combat action to buy space to talk without being stabbed in the face.

Yes, and not stabbing in the face the guy who is in the middle of casting a ritual spell that will burn the world (or the guy guarding the guy casting the spell) is exactly the kind of mind control that people don't want applied to their characters.

Magically controlling someone's mind to force them to not attack is acceptable. Magically not using mind control is not. It breaks versimilitude to have people willingly refuse to do the only thing they want to do for no reason other than you want your speech to buy time for the ritual to blow up the world, so people have to listen to you.

If the PCs don't want to make stupid decisions and be the but of the joke in their own game then you shouldn't fucking make them. A character who is mindcontrolled with magic is not a joke, because he didn't make a bad decision. A character who chooses to let the world blow up because he really wanted to hear the BBEG's speech even though he knew hearing it would result in the explosion of the world is a joke.

You fix the joke by not forcing diplomacy phases to happen at all, either by PC immunity to diplomacy, or by allowing anyone to negate diplomacy by accepting that they lose the social encounter and this has whatever negative effects it would have.

[TarkisFlux]

but more of a debuff state that limits player action choices to some non-obviously hostile subset. Casting sanctuary or solid fog or whatever doesn't mean that you get what you want, it just means you've used a combat action to buy space to talk without being stabbed in the face.

Yes, and not stabbing in the face the guy who is in the middle of casting a ritual spell that will burn the world (or the guy guarding the guy casting the spell) is exactly the kind of mind control that people don't want applied to their characters.

Pretty sure that spellcasting or any sort of ritual would not qualify as among the non-obviously hostile subset of actions (particularly not if you knew what the ritual did). If a team initiates the diplomacy phase and then doesn't carry through with it in good faith, it should end the phase and the alternate side can continue with the stabbing. I suppose I could have clarified that earlier, but since that seemed the default position it didn't seem necessary. It's not like the NPCs are required to let you do that sort of thing if their RR says they allow a diplo phase and then you shoot them in the face / start a world ending and hostile ritual.

[Kaelik]

Yes, and not stabbing in the face the guy who is in the middle of casting a ritual spell that will burn the world (or the guy guarding the guy casting the spell) is exactly the kind of mind control that people don't want applied to their characters.

Pretty sure that spellcasting or any sort of ritual would not qualify as among the non-obviously hostile subset of actions (particularly not if you knew what the ritual did). If a team initiates the diplomacy phase and then doesn't carry through with it in good faith, it should end the phase and the alternate side can continue with the stabbing. I suppose I could have clarified that earlier, but since that seemed the default position it didn't seem necessary. It's not like the NPCs are required to let you do that sort of thing if their RR says they allow a diplo phase and then you shoot them in the face / start a world ending and hostile ritual.

I already forestalled this trite apologia by parenthetically stating "or the guy guarding him."

The system is not any better when the ritual is taking place in another room, and the guy in this room is stalling for time by trying to convince them the world burning is a good thing, and they have to sit there and listen because after all, this guy isn't doing anything hostile.

Nor is it better if the bad guys stall for non hostile time, like the reinforcments everyone knows is coming, but the PCs have to wait for because the bad guy is giving a speech. Or the escaping kidnappers create distance while you talk to the guy that stayed behind to discourage pursuit.

[deaddmwalking]

Here you go then - revised fear effects. Note that I stripped out fear stacking 'because reasons', but the penalty structure should be what you're looking for, and includes flat spell failure percentages for casters to deal with the issue you hint at.

That's very similar to something I had come up with for my homebrew (but at the moment, running away is back in).

In this system, if something had a Terrifying Presence (meaning it could impart a -8 to opponents of a lower CR), but you succeed on the save, there is no chance of a reduced penalty. Ie, if Joe Peasant rolls a Natural 20 on the save versus a Dragon, not only is he not panicked, he is not frightend or shaken.

[TarkisFlux]

I already forestalled this trite apologia by parenthetically stating "or the guy guarding him."

No, you didn't. Because I said "team". If his minion or boss or partner or whatever is not joining in good faith the attempt fails outright (which also prevents players from forcing diplo phases on other players). If someone wants to stop combat with you and you believe there's a ritual guy in the other room about to blow you all up, the front man has two options:
[*]Convince you that he's not on team ritual, in which case you are only restricted to non-hostile options with respect to him and whoever else he convinces you isn't on team ritual. You can still go beat up ritual guy (this depends on the system supporting more than 2 sides each with potentially different reaction states simultaneously, which I assumed but didn't state. So bad on me I guess);
[*] Convince you that the ritual has been ended and there's no longer a threat, which probably involves you getting into the room where it was happening because 'evidence needed' or whatever.

Neither of which interferes with your ability to get into the ritual room and beat up ritual guy. Even in those cases where it succeeds, "you have to sit there and listen to him" was not the whole set of non-hostile actions you were allowed to take towards them. You can walk around or even leave for all I care if he's not saying something worth your time. Mind-controlled time wasting is simply not happening in these cases.

Nor is it better if the bad guys stall for non hostile time, like the reinforcments everyone knows is coming, but the PCs have to wait for because the bad guy is giving a speech. Or the escaping kidnappers create distance while you talk to the guy that stayed behind to discourage pursuit.

This is an actual problem because retreating is an explicitly non-hostile action. A guy sent to delay you couldn't actually stop you from pursuing though, even if he might be able to stop you from firing at them or taking similarly direct hostile action. Seems more of a problem of formulation and implementation (which barely exists at this point) rather than one with the general idea, and a solvable one in any event.

<tangent>response to deaddmwalking spoilered</tangent>

In this system, if something had a Terrifying Presence (meaning it could impart a -8 to opponents of a lower CR), but you succeed on the save, there is no chance of a reduced penalty. Ie, if Joe Peasant rolls a Natural 20 on the save versus a Dragon, not only is he not panicked, he is not frightend or shaken.

You're looking at carry over from the SRD Frightful Presence ability I think (which never gets up to the -8 panicked state), retained back when I did that for legacy reasons and a desire to not go through and make sure I wasn't breaking anything in the MM with broader changes. I agree that save partial and variable penalties with CR differences is a nicer setup though, and may get to changing it later. It's been a while since I looked at it critically to be honest.

[MGuy]

Is there a protocol for how SRCD works when one or the other side simply decide not to participate in it?

[Kaelik]

Is there a protocol for how SRCD works when one or the other side simply decide not to participate in it?

Well apparently, you absolutely mandatory have to participate in it according to some people.

So I guess you can stand at rapt attention hanging on every word of the guy who murdered your family instead of chasing the person who just kidnapped the princess, or you can periodically respond by telling him how much you want his dick in your mouth.

[virgil]

Is there a protocol for how SRCD works when one or the other side simply decide not to participate in it?

You need to refresh my memory on what SRCD stands for. In my version, NPCs don't have a choice in whether they participate or not; well, they do, but they choose whatever the RR tells them to unless the PCs choose to ignore it and go straight to the stabbing.

[MGuy]

SRCD is shorthand for Frank's version. Stands for Social Round Count Down. The way Tarkis is describing it, walking away is a legitimate action you can take during the Social Scene so I was wondering whether or not this indeed a part of it.

[TarkisFlux]

I am not describing SRCD, because that's a stupid term that I don't think describes Frank's thing. I'm not describing Frank's thing because it doesn't exist in sufficient detail to discuss if you're not Frank writing it down so that it can be discussed. Nor am I describing Virgil's system, which does exist in sufficient detail to discuss but refers to discrete social actions in the social space which haven't been defined so far as I can tell. It may be the case that walking away doesn't fit into those setups; it certainly doesn't fit into Virgil's except at disinterested but then the whole pause combat thing is entirely undefined in his setup so who knows. I am only describing a general form that they could take which would not offend me off-hand, and that might be a workable start for one of the systems half finished here.

[MGuy]

Works well enough for me. A countdown timer that determines how long a Social Scene lasts. Well maybe SSCD would be more accurate.

[virgil]

The following presumes the use of the lifestyle rules in the DMG. Not 100% certain how the murderhobo lifestyle translates. DCs are going to be figured out later, but this is a rough structure before I forget.
Social Action Options
Minor Diplomatic Action Occurs in a single combat round.

• Negotiate inconsequential favor
• Gain attention - Gain option for standard diplomatic action
• Demoralize
• Perform baseline business transaction (Haggle, Take 0 both sides)

Standard Diplomatic Action Approximately one minute or 10 combat rounds for actions to resolve

• Improve Bias - Maximum of one step, cannot exceed innocuous
• Negotiate Inconvenient Favor or less
• Basic Haggle
• Prolong diplomatic scene
• Antagonize/Fluster

Favor Scale
Inconsequential Costs virtually nothing, such as directions to the King or goods/services valued at a maximum of .1% their monthly lifestyle/income.
Inconvenient Costs small amount of time (approx. 10 minutes), minor inconvenience, or goods/services equal to 1% monthly lifestyle.
Awkward Risk of serious inconvenience
Inappropriate Poses small danger
Dangerous Severe risk to life and livelihood
X Fundamentally conflicts with ethics