Actual Anatomy of Failed Design: Diplomacy

[Username17]

@Frank,

so would you say his "disposition" is Peaceful, as opposed to his "reaction" which is rolled for?

You could say that. The thing they are preparing themselves to do with whoever it is that they expect to come through the door could be called "disposition" or "stance" or "presentation" or any of a number of things. I could even see people using Bluff or Disguise to present themselves one way but get the combat modifiers of another if it came to that.

The important part is that you really can't be "Hostile" to Blip #42 if you don't know it's there. Once you do know it exists, you could attack it or whip out your penis or whatever, but you can't have a reaction to it until it's part of your world.

So whether you're creeping around with an arrow knocked or strolling along playing a lute, you still can't be friendly or hostile to a gnollish warrior or a dryad cheerleader until you have identified them as such.

-Username17

[MGuy]

@Frank: Please don't jump on Kaelik's stupid wagon. I have repeatedly talked about how I'm very specifically NOT talking about "reactions", how I'm not saying everyone is neutral about everyone else ever, and how I'm not saying that someone can't be pissed off/like someone on their first meeting. I've said it several times. You probably aren't even reading my posts because that's the only way I can fathom you being retarded and stating these things I've explicitly asked Kaelik to stop saying. Please, please, please don't be retarded about this like him as I have higher expectations of you.

I'm talking about the start off point, attitude/disposition wise, of an NPC when PCs run into them. I EXPECT the NPC may have prejudices that may raise or lower this starting attitude/disposition when the PC first arrives. I expect the MC to be able to gauge mentioned prejudices and effectively plan for the major ones that might be likely to come about. [The Witch Hates local authority/Loves children]. I have acknowledged that PCs can play on these prejudices, gaining a higher/lower initial disposition based on how they do it.

This seriously even applies to the players going out and saving the day. Heroes that have saved the kingdom and are rich and powerful now are associated with something positive by the king making his initial disposition toward them a step or two more friendly when they come to him. This means that he is already on the "be friendly to them" bandwagon that the rest of the kingdom is on. That seriously can happen just by the MC saying, "damn you saved the day, you are a hero I guess the king should have a friendlier attitude toward these powerful saviors". There is NO REASON that what I've outlined can't do this.

I have mentioned, several times, that "indifference" is not the only starting disposition though for people that an NPC doesn't have a strong opinion about it is the best starting attitude/disposition. Now some NPCs may be unduly friendly because of certain motivations [religious reasons] or unduly unfriendly [depression] but those can be accounted for by raising/lowering initial disposition.

The shop keeper is generally "indifferent" when people enter his shop. He is a business man and he's trying to make a sale. He may throw a smile and calm voice around but its all just a front to make a sale. What does this mean? It means he doesn't have strong feelings for the PCs. It's unlikely that he'd go out of his way to help them or hinder them beyond the capacity of selling them stuff. Its not especially hard to be diplomatic with him. Now they kick down his door armed and dangerous his initial disposition drops. Now he is more likely to not want to deal with them. He will attempt to now avoid them or have them leave, and will be harder to deal with diplomatically.

Disposition, attitude, whatever you want to call it, as per the fucking PHB which Frank and Kaelik want to ignore, does not determine exact actions. It merely determines what actions/reactions/etc are LIKELY to happen based off of where someones at on the scale. It is not a reaction in and of itself.

[Username17]

I have repeatedly talked about how I'm very specifically NOT talking about "reactions", how I'm not saying everyone is neutral about everyone else ever, and how I'm not saying that someone can't be pissed off/like someone on their first meeting. I've said it several times. You probably aren't even reading my posts because that's the only way I can fathom you being retarded and stating these things I've explicitly asked Kaelik to stop saying. Please, please, please don't be retarded about this like him as I have higher expectations of you.

I'm talking about the start off point, attitude/disposition wise, of an NPC when PCs run into them.

Uh... fuck you. Just stop. Stop talking. The "start off point" is the reaction. That's exactly the same fucking thing. You just said that you were not talking about how people responded to the PCs on first contact, but you were talking about how people responded to the PCs on first contact!

Shut the fuck up! You are contradicting yourself so hard that your penis is up your own ass. Stop shitting on this thread. If you want to be a moron and rant about how people can be hostile to or allied with people that they don't know exist, but you somehow aren't talking about how people react to their first contact with those people, go make a new thread. You can entitle it "Mguy's rants about Timecube".

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

So, to further elaborate on Orion's question: MC sets the base disposition for a reason (shop keeper is friendly, guard is suspicious, angry drunk orc is unfriendly), but the reaction is still determined by dice (and not necessarily based on any conscious PC diplomacy)?

[Username17]

So, to further elaborate on Orion's question: MC sets the base disposition for a reason (shop keeper is friendly, guard is suspicious, angry drunk orc is unfriendly), but the reaction is still determined by dice (and not necessarily based on any conscious PC diplomacy)?

Sure. Although I wouldn't put in Friendly as an available disposition, because it is ambiguous.

An angry orc may be aggressive. But he isn't hostile to his team mates. And he isn't hostile to you until you've actually met. And depending on the circumstances of your meeting (including the die roll), he may never be.

-Username17

[shadzar]

i think frank is looking at Schrodinger's cat, as you cannot know the state of the NPC until you interact with it.

This may be true for PCs, but with some exceptions....

The friendly NPC has no reason to be thought of as unfriendly if they have been helping the PCs all along, and the enemy has no reason to be viewed as anything but hostile.

The DM knows exactly what "mood" the NPC is in and what their disposition is before the PCs interact with it though...otherwise he wouldnt be able to look up on the DC chart what would be needed from a roll for a diplomacy check.

Take NWN and what little i remember of it and i THINK it used 3rd edition...

in NWN you had factions where conditions changed the reaction based on certain things even before coming into contact with a particular NPC...same as EQ which i remember more.

being an ogre and wanting to be in good/decent standing with the dwarves, you had to kill the orcs for orc belts and take them into hostile territory and turn them in to an NPC before that NPC kills you as well as everyone else int he city to raise your faction standing with the dwarves so they wouldnt kill you and you could do other things within the dwarf city.

Hell! Gimli didnt like elves so his disposition towards Legolas was "I will be dead before I see the Ring in the hands of an Elf!" Legolas had done NOTHING yet and Gimli was already at a hostile disposition towards him. only later did they become friendly towards each other through actions that would be resembling to D&D "diplomacy". Gimli's reactions towards Leglolas changed because his disposition (initial attitude) was changed over time.

so you MUST have an initial attitude (disposition) in order to react via diplomacy.

so the disposition (initial attitude) is set by the DM, and the dice CAN alter this with use of the diplomacy skill for the better. Nothing indicates the diplomacy skill would make the reaction worse, only the disposition will remain the same or get better.

The disposition from time to time changes based on the previous reaction, but must be set first in order to be able to react to diplomacy (dice or roleplaying).

[Sashi]

Hell! Gimli didnt like elves so his disposition towards Legolas was "I will be dead before I see the Ring in the hands of an Elf!" Legolas had done NOTHING yet and Gimli was already at a hostile disposition towards him. only later did they become friendly towards each other through actions that would be resembling to D&D "diplomacy". Gimli's reactions towards Leglolas changed because his disposition (initial attitude) was changed over time.

so you MUST have an initial attitude (disposition) in order to react via diplomacy.

You're confusing things like opinion or bias with attitude.

Gimli has some modifier like "racist (elf): -10", which skews his reaction rolls vs. elves into defaulting to hostile unless the elf has tons of modifiers to stack up like Galadriel's Beatific Presence (plus Legolas chipping down at his racism modifier by being a generally cool dude)

It doesn't mean that Gimli is walking around as "hostile" all the time like "Hey Frodo I SURE DO HATE ELVES DON'T YOU HATE ELVES? RAAR ELVES SUCK." Because his disposition is whatever mood he's in right now (which might very well be a -5 to all reaction rolls because he's grumpy about being in elftown)

[shadzar]

Hell! Gimli didnt like elves so his disposition towards Legolas was "I will be dead before I see the Ring in the hands of an Elf!" Legolas had done NOTHING yet and Gimli was already at a hostile disposition towards him. only later did they become friendly towards each other through actions that would be resembling to D&D "diplomacy". Gimli's reactions towards Leglolas changed because his disposition (initial attitude) was changed over time.

so you MUST have an initial attitude (disposition) in order to react via diplomacy.

You're confusing things like opinion or bias with attitude.

Gimli has some modifier like "racist (elf): -10", which skews his reaction rolls vs. elves into defaulting to hostile unless the elf has tons of modifiers to stack up like Galadriel's Beatific Presence (plus Legolas chipping down at his racism modifier by being a generally cool dude)

It doesn't mean that Gimli is walking around as "hostile" all the time like "Hey Frodo I SURE DO HATE ELVES DON'T YOU HATE ELVES? RAAR ELVES SUCK." Because his disposition is whatever mood he's in right now (which might very well be a -5 to all reaction rolls because he's grumpy about being in elftown)

disposition is the initial attitude. he is hostile towards elves to begin with. being hostile doesnt me he goes for their throat.

it is opinion and bias that SET disposition (initial attitude) in order to have something diplomacy can cause a reaction in.

[Orion]

So dispositions might be things like deferential, belligerent, suspicious, and open.

[fectin]

So, to further elaborate on Orion's question: MC sets the base disposition for a reason (shop keeper is friendly, guard is suspicious, angry drunk orc is unfriendly), but the reaction is still determined by dice (and not necessarily based on any conscious PC diplomacy)?

Sure. Although I wouldn't put in Friendly as an available disposition, because it is ambiguous.

An angry orc may be aggressive. But he isn't hostile to his team mates. And he isn't hostile to you until you've actually met. And depending on the circumstances of your meeting (including the die roll), he may never be.

-Username17

What does the die roll add? Everything else makes perfect sense, but how does adding randomness here make better games?

[shadzar]

So dispositions might be things like deferential, belligerent, suspicious, and open.

or as the PHB table shows the attitudes go in this order...from worst to best

hostile, unfriendly, indifferent, friendly, helpful

your terms, their terms...pretty much all the same thing.

[Judging__Eagle]

So.....


This is what I'm gathering.


Pre-Disposition is based on

Environment, NPC status, NPC [other]

Reaction is based on

What the NPC actualluu sees and hears.

The friendliest shop owner is going to get mighty fucking pissed if they see you trying to steal from them. Likewise, a customer who wants to buy a bunch of ancient stock is going to make the shop owner happ(y/ier).

The surliest asshole at a bar is going to be actually a bit happy if you buy them a fucking drink. The creature of [species they have a prejudice against (aka, anyone not their species)] is going to make them go from surly to potentially offensive; or at least make a comment and slide down to a part of the bar where there aren't any filthy humans.

Their pre-disposition is "where their minds are"; their "reactions" are what they do when they see/hear an other person.

Is that something that's accurate? or am I missing whole icebergs of data here?


edit:

Pre-disposition is GOAL. Your pre-disposition is based on what you want to do. If it's cook children in your oven (or bake new walls for your Sugaromacy Shack), sell your wares (or fleece clients), or get tanked at the Hobgoblin Piss-Bar (or go looking for a drunken brawl); that is your pre-disposition.

Reaction is actions based on other creatures helping or hindering said goal.

Would that be more reasonable? NPCs are given "a" goal, that is their pre-disposition. Their reaction is how other creatures affect their goal.

For the constipated king; their goal is "void my bowels in an effective manner"; so anything that isn't helping their pre-disposition, is going to create a negative reaction.

I'm not sure if that's better than what was previously said though.

[Orion]

Not all, Shadzar. The point of my terms is that they are not in a hierarchy, they're just different. A "deferential" character isn't necessarily more helpful than an "open" one. They're more likely to lie to you if they don't expect you to like the answer, or to straight run if they can get away from you.

A "competitive" disposition could be fun too.

[shadzar]

Not all, Shadzar. The point of my terms is that they are not in a hierarchy, they're just different. A "deferential" character isn't necessarily more helpful than an "open" one. They're more likely to lie to you if they don't expect you to like the answer, or to straight run if they can get away from you.

A "competitive" disposition could be fun too.

that is why i keep stressing the "disposition = initial attitude".

you can describe this disposition anyway you want for as far as telling the PCs about an NPC...but when the mechanics come into play for the diplomacy skill you use the initial attitudes as listed to move along the chart.

"Gerard the guard is known to be open to strangers. He has offered aid to travelers that have come to visit this city."

your "open" disposition them translate to the table as one of "indifferent" initial attitude, thus depending on the action you wish to try to get Gerard to perform, your "diplomacy skill check" will be opposed by an appropriate DC based on his initial attitude set by his disposition in order to see what his reaction to that diplomacy would be.

(for fuck's sake someone get me the fuck out of a discussion where I am explaining 3.x rules!)

your exposition of the NPC's disposition must translate into one of the provided initial attitudes in order to use diplomacy skill.

[Username17]

What does the die roll add? Everything else makes perfect sense, but how does adding randomness here make better games?

If you approach the witch's cave saying "We have to talk!" or you show up to the orc encampment wearing black armor covered with spikes, or whatever, you are doing stuff with the intended goal of having the creatures in question do something other than roll initiative and stab you in the eye.

Without a random roll, your actions have no chance of success. And that is bullshit.

The MC either decides that your ploy works, in which case you are playing pass the story stick, or the MC decides that your ploy doesn't work - in which case your character's actions were slapped down by a power mad dungeon master who didn't like the idea of you leaving his intended railroad. Either way, you are not playing a game.

And that's the first problem with 3e Diplomacy. The very first part of the diplomat's job: getting people to not attack in the first place long enough to negotiate - is not part of the subsystem and is handled entirely by DM fiat. There aren't even guidelines.

-Username17

[hogarth]

Without a random roll, your actions have no chance of success. And that is bullshit.

The MC either decides that your ploy works, in which case you are playing pass the story stick, or the MC decides that your ploy doesn't work - in which case your character's actions were slapped down by a power mad dungeon master who didn't like the idea of you leaving his intended railroad. Either way, you are not playing a game.

Say what? That makes about as much sense as saying that you should have a random roll to determine whether an earthquake occurs every round because having earthquakes only by GM fiat is not playing a game either.

[Red_Rob]

The earthquake is not the result of any player actions. A closer analogy would be if a player casts a spell that has a 50% chance of causing an earthquake. You could roll for it, or the DM could decide.

[hogarth]

The earthquake is not the result of any player actions. A closer analogy would be if a player casts a spell that has a 50% chance of causing an earthquake. You could roll for it, or the DM could decide.

I'm not disputing the part of the post where Frank says "If you approach the witch's cave saying "We have to talk!" or you show up to the orc encampment wearing black armor covered with spikes, or whatever, you are doing stuff with the intended goal of having the creatures in question do something other than roll initiative and stab you in the eye. " That part is trivially obvious.

The idiotic part is that somehow it's non-game-like to elicit a hostile reaction to a hostile act (or a peaceful reaction to a peaceful act) without rolling dice.

[Red_Rob]

The point is that in order for the players to have an impact on the game beyond what the MC has decided for that session they have to be able to do things he doesn't expect. If he is deciding the results of their actions that possibility gets more and more remote.

When the master mage casts his mind control spell at the dumb brute it is likely he will succeed, but we don't just say "Fuck it, its an 18+ to save, I'll just say it works".

[fectin]

Okay, that sort of makes sense, but doesn't the same arguement say you should randomly generate NPC stats/gear/military rank/etc?
I'm not trying to be pedantic; NPC starting conditions seem like they are fairly within the DM's purview, and this seems to fit that description.

[Maj]

Disposition, attitude, whatever you want to call it, as per the fucking PHB which Frank and Kaelik want to ignore, does not determine exact actions. It merely determines what actions/reactions/etc are LIKELY to happen based off of where someones at on the scale. It is not a reaction in and of itself.

This whole argument is pretty much irrelevant, actually.

I think that the 3.X system's disposition was a way to determine what numbers PCs were up against. And the question remains in whatever new system is created. So the PCs have to make a diplomacy roll. What are they rolling against? What does the equation look like?

PCs diplomacy modifier + +2 cute bonus + -2 height penalty + +2 I-Look-Rich bonus = 25?

How does the equation work?

[shadzar]

but you have to have a starting point if you are moving along a line, to tell you where to start counting, so initial attitude is very much relevant.

the numbers just tell you how far along the number line to move, but you still need that starting point in order TO move at all.

[MGuy]

I have repeatedly talked about how I'm very specifically NOT talking about "reactions", how I'm not saying everyone is neutral about everyone else ever, and how I'm not saying that someone can't be pissed off/like someone on their first meeting. I've said it several times. You probably aren't even reading my posts because that's the only way I can fathom you being retarded and stating these things I've explicitly asked Kaelik to stop saying. Please, please, please don't be retarded about this like him as I have higher expectations of you.

I'm talking about the start off point, attitude/disposition wise, of an NPC when PCs run into them.

Uh... fuck you. Just stop. Stop talking. The "start off point" is the reaction. That's exactly the same fucking thing. You just said that you were not talking about how people responded to the PCs on first contact, but you were talking about how people responded to the PCs on first contact!
-Username17

Frank. You are being really really idiotic. I can't believe you honestly quoted what I said, right there and then ignored it then said I said something that wasn't in the part you quoted.

I have sat here and read this single post at least 4 times and all I can think is that you stopped right where the end of your quote and didn't read any further because I am sure there is no other way I can rationalize what you said afterward.

No "Attitude/Disposition" is not a response. I clearly pointed out what it was. Gave examples about how it worked and why it wasn't a response or a reaction. How the fuck can you go through every one of my posts and omit the part where I qualify all this? I gave examples, pointed to the PHB, you even have a version of it that you're talking about RIGHT NOW!

Aggressive?! Peaceful?! Those are fucking dispositions! They do the EXACT same thing as what I've outlined except that they are more specific. That really could have been an attack on what I've laid out in that dispositions, as in the manual, aren't specific enough. That really would've been a fine thing to come at me with and it would've been on topic. I mean I honestly could have switched out the words "Unfriendly" for "Aggressive" and "Friendly" for "Peaceful" and the functions would still be the same!

[MGuy]

The point is that in order for the players to have an impact on the game beyond what the MC has decided for that session they have to be able to do things he doesn't expect. If he is deciding the results of their actions that possibility gets more and more remote.

When the master mage casts his mind control spell at the dumb brute it is likely he will succeed, but we don't just say "Fuck it, its an 18+ to save, I'll just say it works".

And that's a solid concern. The MC deliberately fudging likely initial dispositions for ones that he likes. I get that, and that is something to be concerned about but I'd honestly would rather leave something like a random person's starting attitude up to MC fiat. Just like I don't roll up my character's back story, reactions, decisions I wouldn't want my MC having to do that for every character (s)he creates and portrays. Perhaps it can be done for some random stooge no one really cares about anyway or when he's setting up and the MC wants to randomize people's attitudes for some reason.

[Username17]

Okay, that sort of makes sense, but doesn't the same arguement say you should randomly generate NPC stats/gear/military rank/etc?
I'm not trying to be pedantic; NPC starting conditions seem like they are fairly within the DM's purview, and this seems to fit that description.

You don't normally take actions that have the intended consequence of changing the items that NPCs own. And if you do (as in the case of Sleight of Hand), you fucking roll for it.

-Username17