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

[PhoneLobster]

First and foremost, having a social system means ...

... did you not read the proposed mechanic. This isn't a social system it's a reaction roll. A complex initial reaction roll. That is it. You talk about a bunch of stuff that this mechanic does not do, relate to or even mention as advantages of this mechanic.

That's not how it works.

[Grek]

How is a reaction roll not a social system?

[PhoneLobster]

How is a reaction roll not a social system?

It is, at best, a part of one. That's like saying "I have an mechanic for the damage a thrown rubber chicken deals, so I have a combat system!".

I mean it's right fucking there in the opening post. This mechanic only generates four broad outcomes.

Three of which all leave the situation definitely open to some sort of talking. And one of which... still could leave the situation open to some further talking.

All utterly undefined further social manipulation.

If you think you have a "Social system' with just this mechanic you are crazy. If you think this mechanic productively adds more to that unspecified further social manipulation than if you just had someone picking those four basic essentially random opening choices made by the NPCs... you are also crazy.

[Username17]

Spot versus Hide.

Bzzzt. Wrong.

Spot vs Hide is the equivalent of the bit of this system that hasn't been written yet. It's the actual attempt to execute some diplomacy AFTER you have gone through this proposed mechanic.

The equivalent in spot vs hide would be a random weighted table of how sneaky the NPCs are feeling and whether they are open to even considering attempting an ambush or not. With four possible outcomes and seventeen different modifiers just in the brief draft version.

No. Spot Versus Hide determines whether you can take a combat action. A reaction roll determines whether you can take a diplomatic action. It's exactly the same thing.

As to "four possible outcomes" being a big deal, I remind you that the scouting minigame also has four possible outcomes: Both Sides Aware, Your Side aware, Your Side Surprised, Neither Side Aware (no encounter). As for seventeen modifiers, you realize that Hide and Spot have 16 modifiers listed in their SRD writeup, right? And that those aren't even comprehensive, because the rules for camouflage and weather are not in the skills. I mean, you're seriously arguing that this is totally different from the Surprise mechanics by... pointing out ways that it is literally exactly the same as a surprise mechanic.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

No. Spot Versus Hide determines whether you can take a combat action. A reaction roll determines whether you can take a diplomatic action. It's exactly the same thing.

Only there is not a damn mention in this mechanic of whether any of those outcomes actually in any way prevent you from taking a diplomatic action.

The ENTIRE fucking mechanic revolves around what diplomatic actions the NPCs are going to CHOOSE to make. None of this even touches on ANY results of attempted actions. Just what choices the NPCs are making. It is, rather literally like rolling to determine if the NPCs feel like firing their arrows. Actually. it IS literally rolling to determine if the NPCs feel like firing their arrows.

If your attempt to pretend it was the same as a hide vs sneak roll were remotely true then this mechanic would be the same as actually firing the arrows and seeing if they hit.

The argument that the hide vs spot equivalent would in fact be a random roll to determine if the NPCs WANT to try and hide remains quite strong and just saying "nuh ah!" isn't going to fly. I mean fuck "The NPCs Choose to try and Sneak Off" could in fact actually be a fifth generated outcome of a mechanic like this without looking out of place in the insanity one tiny jot. THAT is how equivalent it is.

[MGuy]

I'm not sure what's to disagree with what PL is saying. The whole intent of this 'mechanic' is to set up the initial inputs for the diplomatic encounter. No, it's worse than that. It is not even all the inputs. This mechanic doesn't determine place, factions, how the various parties 'feel' about the situation, what can influence them to feel differently about the situation, none of that. It just randomly generates the initial attitude so that then you can determine what you need to roll or do for the actual diplomacy system to start churning out results. Hell the system can even generate a results where you just don't get a social encounter anyway.

The argument that this some how prevents non randomly determined diplomatic reactions ignores meeting things that are mindless, on orders to kill (or how to otherwise treat) the party on sight, numerical bonus adjustments that prevent hostile (or 'weird') initial reactions, numerical bonus adjustments that guarantee hostile (or other) initial reactions, ambushes, etc. Most of the problems brought up in this very thread is the chances of having inappropriate or unwanted initial reactions to which these concerns were met with ideas for adjusting the math to prevent these random occurrences.

The fact that people have complained about these inappropriate social reactions and the proposed fixes that all revolve around preventing those from happening is very telling about what people want. Essentially people do not want 'inappropriate' encounters being spawned at random.

So you either swallow the fact that this random reaction system is going to produce these weird results or you adjust it so they can't happen, and if you want to do THAT then WHY have it in the first god damn place? There should be a compelling reason why you'd want this seemingly unnecessary step when you can simply rely on the GM to set the initial attitudes and build a system around that that allow PCs to determine what the initial attitude is and why it is there and then provide tools for influencing the outcomes from there.

[Username17]

I'm not sure what's to disagree with what PL is saying.

Well, he's deliberately being obtuse and retarded, making hyperbolic tyrades that don't even support his thesis, directly contradicting himself repeatedly, and generally making an ass of himself. You know, like always.

The whole intent of this 'mechanic' is to set up the initial inputs for the diplomatic encounter. No, it's worse than that. It is not even all the inputs.

So? It's the surprise mechanic. The thing that determines whether you get to act. Of course it doesn't set up all the inputs for the encounter. It does however set up an absolutely essential input for the encounter: whether or not you get to fucking act.

See the thing is that even initiating a parlay action in 3e D&D takes ten fucking combat rounds. If anyone even looks at rolling initiative for taking a combat action, the parlay action is aborted automatically. Since "taking combat actions" is one of the entirely valid actions that a newly encountered creature can take, and that action cancels any diplomatic actions before they have even been rolled, the diplomancer is pretty much completely fucked if there isn't a die roll he can make that will make the Hobgoblins at least hear him out before things come to stabbing.

For a diplomancer, someone "taking a combat action" is worse than being surprised. Because not only does he lose his first diplomacy action, he doesn't ever get to take any diplomacy actions in that encounter. If it's just "GM decides," then the diplomancer is completely at the whim of the GM for when he even gets to act. It's like he spends every encounter surprised and dazed unless and until the GM decides to let him act. That is disempowerment so extreme that people who even suggest implementing a system that is not a fifth as disempowering as that for surprise determination in combat are laughed out of the room. And rightly so.

-Username17

[hogarth]

Obviously, you're going to have to jigger the numerical inputs, but once you've done that you have a functional diplomacy system that allows people to wander around in the wilderness and diplomacize creatures they meet.

"GM Decides" is not a functional diplomacy system, it's the absence of a diplomacy system. When the GM decides, your numbers on your character sheet don't decide. And that means that you can't play a diplomancer, only the GM's girlfriend can play a diplomancer.

I'm worried about gun violence in America, so I'm proposing a new law: every gun that's made in America has to fire a bullet 17% of the time, shoot out candy 3% of the time, and do nothing 80% of the time. Problem solved!

[Username17]

Obviously, you're going to have to jigger the numerical inputs, but once you've done that you have a functional diplomacy system that allows people to wander around in the wilderness and diplomacize creatures they meet.

"GM Decides" is not a functional diplomacy system, it's the absence of a diplomacy system. When the GM decides, your numbers on your character sheet don't decide. And that means that you can't play a diplomancer, only the GM's girlfriend can play a diplomancer.

I'm worried about gun violence in America, so I'm proposing a new law: every gun that's made in America has to fire a bullet 17% of the time, shoot out candy 3% of the time, and do nothing 80% of the time. Problem solved!

If there was supposed to be anything at all insightful in that post, you have failed your craft post roll.

-Username17

[virgil]

Y'know, I'm just going to ignore PL for this thread. It's been firmly established years ago that the only social mechanic he supports is a twenty page rape simulator. Countless threads left as naught but cinders litter this forum as a testament to how his arguments are no longer in good faith the moment the topic involves diplomacy or dice resolution or centaurs.

Now, onto trying to make progress. Part of the set up is that outside of extreme situations, even hostiles will at least occasionally be open to parlay with swords drawn; just look at the Doctor whenever he runs into Daleks. And even hosting a party, not everyone is going to be jolly. And it's been firmly established that NPCs don't have some kind of dice in their heads that determine whether to fight or hug someone, but you retroactively write their personality and backstory to accomodate the result, with broad strokes of control.

Yes, jiggering the numbers for some randomness to not have actively stupid results is a good thing; otherwise you might as well argue that the Stealth system (randomly seen or not) is stupid because modifiers can make it impossible to hide when you do cartwheels while on fire.

For the moment, the use of the intimidate skill very roughly accounts for relative power, and how 'morale' is being handled. A penalty for failure should probably be included.

Yes, it needs some numerical jiggering, and I of course welcome assistance; including areas that need elucidation and reworking. Some kind of accounting for groups should be included, as I'd rather not have the tavern roll for each individual member of the party. Ambushing bandits for example can choose to attack, jump out and threaten, and in some cases choose to do nothing as the party passes by; which fits the range for a reaction roll and is a situation that needs to be examined. Mindless entities need to be accounted for, as do given orders (KoS guards can still conceivably open with commands to die peacefully),

EDIT: Yes, the whole handling this as the equivalent of a social surprise mechanic is a good idea, and it means that the diplomacy system needs to work from the end result of this. For the moment, that's a separate project and will be considered once the reaction rolls look properly polished.

[Cyberzombie]

See the thing is that even initiating a parlay action in 3e D&D takes ten fucking combat rounds. If anyone even looks at rolling initiative for taking a combat action, the parlay action is aborted automatically. Since "taking combat actions" is one of the entirely valid actions that a newly encountered creature can take, and that action cancels any diplomatic actions before they have even been rolled, the diplomancer is pretty much completely fucked if there isn't a die roll he can make that will make the Hobgoblins at least hear him out before things come to stabbing.

I don't see a problem with that. Diplomancer shouldn't be the be-all, end-all of every encounter. Negating people's schticks is good for the game, since it makes different encounters feel different.

If there's a counter for diplomacy, that's a good thing and makes for a deeper game.

[RadiantPhoenix]

If there's a counter for diplomacy, that's a good thing and makes for a deeper game.

There is already a counter for diplomacy. It's called being an unrepentant asshole.

The point of having a system with numbers and dice for determining whether a randomly encountered creature is one you can use diplomacy on is that sometimes you do get to use diplomacy.

EDIT: Note: with this system, even if the PCs try their best to be diplomatic (/+2//), if they're in hostile territory, and encounter members of a faction that doesn't like theirs who they've never met before (-2//-4/+0), they still have a 72% chance of not getting to use diplomacy.

If they don't make an effort to be friendly, that encounter has a 100% chance of rejecting diplomacy.

[PhoneLobster]

Note: with this system, even if the PCs try their best to be diplomatic

I'm just going to leverage this to point out one of the big bug bears of this "system" that hasn't been covered here and should.

Now it actually hasnn't been spelled out on this thread clearly which outcomes actually do what to further diplomacy. As it stands Virgil's terrible system doesn't even provide modifiers to further diplomacy actions depending on the initial result (or indeed... anything much depending on the initial result). But this is basically a continuation of Frank's old crazy rants about how reaction rolls are necessary because... underpants gnomes.

And the direction that is going in means that eventually he or someone is going to say yeah, that hostile attack reaction result rules out further diplomacy. It's already implicit in what Frank is already saying.

I want to underline that. I want to make that 100% clear. These people want a diplomacy system in which once you encounter a truly hostile party it is actually impossible to diplomacy them to be friendly. They want it so you can only diplomacy an already friendly party. That is the ENTIRE point of this "mechanic" and it is a giant failure of a diplomacy system. Because if you can't make hostiles into friends your diplomacy system fucking sucks.

[Username17]

Wow. Even trying to read PhoneLobster's diplomacy rants is just an exercise in futility these days. I should really just leave him on ignore.

-Username17

[name_here]

I might re-center it a bit; passing(+0, unarmed nonthreatening) some guy you've never met(+0, stranger) from a group that's never heard of you(+0 unknown)on a random street(+0 neutral ground) probably should never jump directly into combat, and making them more likely to be hostile than indifferent seems a bit odd. Even if they're highway robbers, I'd expect them to open with threats. If rejiggering the numbers makes it too unlikely that hostiles would initiate combat, I guess you could use a different RNG and set of modifiers, but you'd have to ask Frank for help on that one.

[Username17]

I might re-center it a bit; passing(+0, unarmed nonthreatening) some guy you've never met(+0, stranger) from a group that's never heard of you(+0 unknown)on a random street(+0 neutral ground) probably should never jump directly into combat, and making them more likely to be hostile than indifferent seems a bit odd. Even if they're highway robbers, I'd expect them to open with threats. If rejiggering the numbers makes it too unlikely that hostiles would initiate combat, I guess you could use a different RNG and set of modifiers, but you'd have to ask Frank for help on that one.

I agree that the base numbers don't look like they work all that well, but for a while we we were dealing with people who were doubling down on epistemology attacks on the idea of even having a roll to see if you could initiate diplomacy.


But anyway, the primary purpose of a reaction roll is to determine whether you're allowed to take diplomatic actions. So while certainly one of the results should be "combat music starts: no diplomatic actions can be taken," it probably makes more sense for the other results to be how much time they are willing to talk to you rather than how friendly they are. And if it turns out that you're actually enemies, you can jolly well slide into combat normally after the amount of interest based conversation time has elapsed if you haven't successfully convinced them to not do that in the interim.

So your reaction results might be:

• Combative - Roll initiative, no social actions.
• Disinterested - You have only enough time for a "short pitch," a minor diplomatic action such as intimidate or plead before the creature reverts to team behavior (villagers keep walking, monsters attack, etc.).
• Interested - You have enough time to take a standard diplomatic action before the creature reverts to team behavior.
• Attentive - You can take multiple diplomatic actions.

And you'd want to scale things so that in general, Bugbears in the wilderness would mostly be Combative or Disinterested; villagers on the street would mostly be Disinterested or Interested; and merchants would mostly be Interested or Attentive. What exact chance you feel is optimal for characters to get black swan events is something that I'm sure varies from person to person.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

But anyway, the primary purpose of a reaction roll is to determine whether you're allowed to take diplomatic actions. So while certainly one of the results should be "combat music starts: no diplomatic actions can be taken,"

Just wanted to say called it.

[virgil]

Part of the problem is that people have been assuming that the +0 must baseline, which wasn't the design goal. Being a +0 with Alliance means you're of a species they don't recognize or you're actively being The Stranger. Neutral Ground means you're traveling down a road or in a part of town you aren't familiar with. It's been established that we need to define what constitutes an encounter; as there's a difference between being the shopkeeper seeing you walk by, and buying stuff from him while being curt enough that the best description of your behavior is "not threatening" (+0), which implies that there really should've been a friendlier entrance option (warmly offering a free beer, +4).

I do like the reaction results Frank offers, as they seem less subject to reinterpretation than mine.

[rampaging-poet]

One way of handling diplomacy after the combat music has started is to tie it in to the morale system. Morale checks could cause people to surrender and start diplomacy or at least back off and talk for a moment even if they're still on guard. That would allow the diplomancer to turn a combat draw into a diplomatic win, or a combat win into an even better win. It would also avoid the pitfalls of a single condition track, something I know has been discussed here multiple times. In turn, it means a character who exclusively uses diplomacy is somewhat hosed, but since mindless creatures like skeletons and oozes exist in D&D that's not a new problem.

[PhoneLobster]

Part of the problem is that ... [trust us one day we are totally going to get infinite numbers of infinite modifiers right]

Yeah... so lets pretend that you ARE going to get the bonuses right on this roll.

You still haven't answered the absolutely basic criticism of "What about this roll, and counting up all the modifiers is in any way superior to just picking your result?".

You also haven't actually explained what any of these results actually do and that leaves the whole thing as a massive exercise in wasted time.

And that's just the start of the problems here.

[JonSetanta]

I'm in favor of shrinking the list of modifiers.

Wow. Even trying to read PhoneLobster's diplomacy rants is just an exercise in futility these days. I should really just leave him on ignore.

You could almost say he failed his social check.

womp womp



EDIT:
And then there's what I consider the holy grail of RPG diplomancers:

http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Orator

Look at the list of powers and how they work.
Each one takes a single turn, a single action.

[virgil]

The end-goal for this isn't for a robust diplomacy system in which a player can hang their entire character concept around at the expense of combat ability, because this is still going to be D&D in genre and that's what you've signed up for.

For the time being, we'll stick to the 2d6 curve for reasons I've mentioned before. I'll update the OP depending on reception from this point.

Behavioral Script When players opt out of touching the combat system, NPCs and creatures will follow basic behavior for the circumstances. The following a rough guideline.

• Beast, Predator Will attack, retreats when sufficiently wounded
  Beast, Herbivore Will ignore unless interacted with; runs when threatened, fights when attacked.
  Beast, Prey Will ignore unless threatened or attacked, then flee, only fights when cornered (unable to flee without provoking an AoO) or children threatened
  Sentient, Civilized Performs standard social activity; guards ignore unless self or ward is threatened/attacked, villagers do their job, etc
  Sentient, Monstrous Attacks 'food', ignores 'peers'.

Reaction Results When encountering the PCs, roll 2d6+modifiers, the result will determine how receptive they are to social interaction.

• Combative (3 or less) Subject feels either sufficiently threatened or offended to initiate combat, disregarding basic diplomatic actions.
  Disinterested (4 to 6) Engaged in their preferred behavioral script, they will only pause to accept basic diplomatic actions such as intimidation or pleading
  Interested (7 to 9) They are intrigued by the party, and will permit a standard diplomatic action before reverting to their standard script
  Attentive (10 or more) In a state of magnanimity, the subject will permit complex diplomatic actions to influence a change from their standard state

Modifiers are going to be in rough categories & ranges, which will hopefully make it about as MTP as the Climb skill (which is very, by PL's standards). As it stands, I am obviously partial to the following modifiers, and I'll come up with specific numbers tomorrow or something when I've had more time to list them and consider the outputs.

• Ambiance How dangerous or safe the subject feels will obviously influence their behavior
  Stance How dangerous the party's intentions are, ranging from having already stabbed someone to entering the scene with a cart of free hot dogs. Please note that social context is required, as strangers busting into the bedroom is an invasive stance at best even if they're brandishing cupcakes (and an assaulting stance if they're brandishing weapons)
  Allegiance Prejudice is important here, and is usually predicated on race; though social faction can be important. At worst, we touch upon drow/elf relations and move our way up to shadowy strangers; capping out at members of the subject's own social circle, such as a human noble meeting a duke, or a Bloodfist ork meeting another.
  Past Experience The personal touch, this covers how well you treated them and will also include any extra behavioral script added as personal promises made to their beer the night before for when next they meet you. This covers a range, from the subject you personally made an orphan to your shag buddy.

[PhoneLobster]

So after all that criticism of how shonky modifiers on a shonky roll mechanic resulted in shonky stuff...

...your actual "fix" for the numbers that you eventually provide is to just out right remove hard mechanical modifiers and replace them with "pull numbers out your ass four times in a row".

...really? No, fucking way, REALLY?

That is not "making the numbers work". That is not even moving closer to "making the numbers work". That is a flat out admission of defeat when faced with the obstacle of "making the numbers work' and retreat away from anything resembling functional numbers or a formalized mechanic.

At this point we must ask, more so than before, with all this ass pulling why is that roll even there?.

[...You Lost Me]

These things should exist along with a half-page or so of examples that allow a DM to adjudicate where diplomacy modifiers line up, so making the categories very clear-cut is important.

With that in mind, I think Allegiance, Stance, and Ambiance are good, but Past Experience is a bit vague and I'm not sure what it would cover that isn't under Stance or Allegiance anyways (owing someone beer money is allegiance, isn't it?)

[virgil]

I'm not abandoning hard mechanical modifiers. I'm working on rewriting the descriptive text to be more clear. The first step is making sure the structural outline is acceptable, since some might feel that the 'ambiance' modifier shouldn't exist and there should be a category to handle 'hat size' or something.

AFTER that's settled, the next step is to shove numbers back in. For that, I'll start positing various circumstances; best-case, worst-case, and a handful of the most common. Then we look at preferred ranges for the final modifier to create. Then we reverse engineer the individual modifiers to get those final numbers required to create the preferred circumstances.

While I think what I just gave is sufficient explanation, I'm eagerly awaiting for you to edify how wrong I am [/sarcasm].