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

[PhoneLobster]

I'm not abandoning hard mechanical modifiers. ... the next step is to shove numbers back in. ...I'm eagerly awaiting for you to edify how wrong I am [/sarcasm].

Sure why not.

You tried it with numbers.

People said the numbers generated stupid stuff.

You have now changed it to a system that boils down to "Roll a dice, but pull numbers out of your ass until you effectively pick the results that aren't stupid".

So... why aren't you just not rolling that dice and just picking directly from the results that aren't stupid. Or if you insist on rolling between that subset for an as yet unexplained reason, why not just do it with a table and striking off/rerolling stupid results as required?

Current answer... because you are going back to the first option. Because you inexplicably believe you really CAN just "fix the numbers right". Even though no one ever has, you have already failed, and your interim fix was not a tweak of the numbers but rather a total and complete abandonment of formal numbers.

Once you DO go back to option 1... you are going to generate stupid results again. It will happen. It always happens. It's the long since proven problem with this general approach.

[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.

That's a schmott guy, I should listen to 'im.

[RadiantPhoenix]

So... why aren't you just not rolling that dice and just picking directly from the results that aren't stupid.

Because people suck at dealing with "some of the time" and other unquantified numbers.

People are naturally bad at understanding quantified numbers too, but we have developed this thing called "math" that lets us do so in spite of our natural handicap.

Or if you insist on rolling between that subset for an as yet unexplained reason, why not just do it with a table and striking off/rerolling stupid results as required?

Because that generates more or less the same results as MTP, but requires you to actually roll dice and look things up in a book.

[tussock]

If you're going to have a morale system too, you can combine Fight and Flight into the one result on your reaction chart, which says to check morale to distinguish. Morale table should cover trapped rats quite easily without messing up this check.

Thus Zombies and Constructs can be fighty high-morale, predators and prey fighty low-morale, and dragons talky high-morale. Villiagers are your classic talky low-morale, they won't often freak out, but when they do it'll usually be to grab the kids and run for the hills. Alcohol raises morale (more fight, less flight ... all the way to more fucking, less friending).

Ooh, so your social system has to manipulate two vectors for ideal results, and diplomacy (lowers morale) can be different to intimidate (lowers aggression).

I suppose PL can tell us why rolling morale checks is bad too.

[infected slut princess]

Phonelobster's criticisms of this system, seem valid. I don't know why Virgil thinks previous attempts at diplomacy mechanics only failed because Phonelobster was not nice and not at all because the diplomacy mechanics being attempted were not good.

[PhoneLobster]

Because people suck at dealing with "some of the time" and other unquantified numbers.

So like the some of the time where you arbitrarily choose whether or not to use the hard bonuses from the initial failed attempt?

Or the unquantified numbers of the current "pull four numbers out of your ass that make the results not stupid" methodology?

but we have developed this thing called "math"

Math has hardly reared it's head within this system. In attempt one the methodology was basically "pick non-stupid result range, now go arbitrarily decide a bunch of sometimes options and add up bonuses until you are in that non-stupid result range". The adding up was the only math in use and it was an unnecessary step that made you do math for no reason. The current terribad pull numbers out of your ass alternative is actually superior to that. Low bar as that may be.

Because that generates more or less the same results as MTP, but requires you to actually roll dice and look things up in a book.

That's the damn point. Virgil's "system" generates the same (or inferior) results to MTP, and requires you to roll dice and look things up and either pull several numbers out your ass or accumulate arbitrary bonuses until reaching your decided non-stupid result range.

The table alternative ALSO generates the same results. But it does it fucking faster. It is a more efficient means of reaching the same somewhat questionable ends Virgil seems to have set for himself.

I suppose PL can tell us why rolling morale checks is bad too.

A functional morale system in an RPG might in fact be a very nice thing.

But... morale systems are complex. The closest I've seen to paying off are in larger scale miniature war games, and the types of results they generate are not really the same level of detail you'd want to aim at in an RPG.

In the end your RPG type morale system comes up against pretty much all the same potential problems as a diplomacy mechanic. And if you approach it with the same sorts of failed design methodologies that Virgil is attempting here... it will have remarkably similar looking failings.

So in the end making a functional Morale mechanic that generated the results and RPG would want AND somehow doing it within an acceptable complexity cost would be really good but also insanely hard.

To the point that it's pretty damn hard to say it is at all likely that you'd end up with anything better than "GM decides when it seems reasonable for dudes to retreat".

And you just KNOW that all the proposals for how to make it work are actually going to BE "GM Decides when it seems reasonable for dudes to retreat, only with pretend math and some fake dice rolls".

[virgil]

Phonelobster's criticisms of this system, seem valid. I don't know why Virgil thinks previous attempts at diplomacy mechanics only failed because Phonelobster was not nice and not at all because the diplomacy mechanics being attempted were not good.

It's not that previous attempts have failed because of him, but because his contributions have consisted of nothing but personally shitting all over the place. He has proven that his pet issues will be filled to bursting with vitriol, contradictions, disingenuous tirades, and if you squint just right with a bottle of vodka in hand, accidentally also have a valid point. It's not worth the effort to listen to him when it comes to those topics.

I don't understand most of these criticisms that question the point in even having reaction rolls. Why the fucking fuck do people think that entering the room with swords drawn versus entering the room with a warm smile is pulling numbers out of my ass? How the fuck is making an elf more attentive/friendly to frat brothers than to drow nothing but MTP? Is the act of writing a goddamn adventure or even the immediate setting for the players to interact with too much DM fiat & MTP?

Why do we have attack rolls? Armor and Dexterity and magic are just arbitrary numbers to give you the range you want for a binary result, right? Isn't it superior to just have the GM decide when it seems reasonable for dudes to die from your sword swing, or if the guards see the rogue when he sneaks by? With PL and people who take his stance, why the fuck do you do anything but write cooperative fanfiction?

If you're going to question the existential point of reaction rolls, get the fuck off this thread, because you have ceased to even be vaguely constructive. If you think having X number of modifiers is unnecessary and feel it would be simpler/better to have two numbers attached to the behavioral script (-6 for foes, +4 for everyone else) of an NPC, that is potentially constructive, but as of right now I think that's too simplistic so a more detailed suggestion would be necessary to sway me in that direction.

[PhoneLobster]

If you're going to question the existential point of reaction rolls, get the fuck off this thread

Well. I even have experience to share on how the fingers in your ears you can't hear us lahlahlah strategy will turn out for you too.

Everyone who has tried it proceeded to rapidly get nowhere and has yet to report back with anything remotely functional after in some cases YEARS of not being bothered by all the "unproductive" nay sayers.

[virgil]

So currently, we have four factors that modify how a subject reacts to the party; ambiance, stance, allegiance, & past experience. Should there be more modifier types? Should any be added or removed?

[MGuy]

Phonelobster's criticisms of this system, seem valid. I don't know why Virgil thinks previous attempts at diplomacy mechanics only failed because Phonelobster was not nice and not at all because the diplomacy mechanics being attempted were not good.

I don't understand most of these criticisms that question the point in even having reaction rolls. Why the fucking fuck do people think that entering the room with swords drawn versus entering the room with a warm smile is pulling numbers out of my ass? How the fuck is making an elf more attentive/friendly to frat brothers than to drow nothing but MTP? Is the act of writing a goddamn adventure or even the immediate setting for the players to interact with too much DM fiat & MTP?

It is a bit worse than just being MTP but here is how it is pulling numbers our of your ass. Who decided the elf had frat brothers? The GM. Who decided that smiling at someone was a good thing instead of an insult (or being creepy)? The GM. Who gets to set the hostility of a given place? The GM. So it stands to reason that 'if' the GM wants to get a certain set of results he simply has to place the PCs in a situation where he gets the results he wants or within the range of those results. You might say that's just bad GMing but then we have to go back to all the 'adjustments' that were/are being made just to keep random people from doing something that is inappropriate. If you wanted truly arbitrary random results you wouldn't try so hard to make it so that the GM can set up situations where random results just plain weren't likely. The fact that you are doing exactly that is exactly PL's point. YOU and really everyone who's criticized or offered help with the system have all leaned toward making it so that a certain result range is all you can achieve most of the time in order to keep weird shit from happening. I still have not heard any argument against this notion and that is where I need some kind of clarification of why you'd even want such a thing to be random in the first place if you're making it so that the GM can pretty much press the PCs into predetermined reaction ranges anyway.

Why do we have attack rolls? Armor and Dexterity and magic are just arbitrary numbers to give you the range you want for a binary result, right? Isn't it superior to just have the GM decide when it seems reasonable for dudes to die from your sword swing, or if the guards see the rogue when he sneaks by? With PL and people who take his stance, why the fuck do you do anything but write cooperative fanfiction?

Attack rolls don't decide anything but whether or not an attack hits. It is an action that is actually taken by PCs and you use the roll to see whether or not it is successful. A 'reaction roll' requires no action on the part of the PCs and just determines whether or not an encounter can take place. There's been some comparison to stealth deciding whether or not encounters take place but as PL pointed out the comparison is not the same. Stealthing is something you decide to do and it goes against perception. There's no roll you really make for whether a character decided to be stealthy or decides whether or not to perceive things. There is no entry roll to your stealth minigame.

If you're going to question the existential point of reaction rolls, get the fuck off this thread, because you have ceased to even be vaguely constructive. If you think having X number of modifiers is unnecessary and feel it would be simpler/better to have two numbers attached to the behavioral script (-6 for foes, +4 for everyone else) of an NPC, that is potentially constructive, but as of right now I think that's too simplistic so a more detailed suggestion would be necessary to sway me in that direction.

All of his suggestions, were he to make them, would really just match what you're trying to do anyway. He's skipping all that and telling you what the goal you're striving for is and saying that it is pointless to pursue it because at the end of the day you create a complex system to map initial reactions and creating a system where a GM can pretty much predetermine the likelihood of an encounter happening before the PCs show up. He's pointing out that for all the effort you put into working that out the end results produce similar (if not worse) results than if you just let the GM arbitrarily assign these things and IN ADDITION TO THAT you then have to create an actual diplomacy system.

[Chamomile]

It is a bit worse than just being MTP but here is how it is pulling numbers our of your ass. Who decided the elf had frat brothers? The GM. Who decided that smiling at someone was a good thing instead of an insult (or being creepy)? The GM. Who gets to set the hostility of a given place? The GM. So it stands to reason that 'if' the GM wants to get a certain set of results he simply has to place the PCs in a situation where he gets the results he wants or within the range of those results. You might say that's just bad GMing but then we have to go back to all the 'adjustments' that were/are being made just to keep random people from doing something that is inappropriate. If you wanted truly arbitrary random results you wouldn't try so hard to make it so that the GM can set up situations where random results just plain weren't likely. The fact that you are doing exactly that is exactly PL's point. YOU and really everyone who's criticized or offered help with the system have all leaned toward making it so that a certain result range is all you can achieve most of the time in order to keep weird shit from happening. I still have not heard any argument against this notion and that is where I need some kind of clarification of why you'd even want such a thing to be random in the first place if you're making it so that the GM can pretty much press the PCs into predetermined reaction ranges anyway.

This is true of almost every sub-system in every RPG. If you remove the GM's ability to fiddle with numbers in order to reflect the narrative, you've removed the GM entirely. You might still have a guy whose job it is to run the monsters, but if he doesn't decide what monsters show up, what kind of walls you're climbing, or how this particular elf feels about frat brothers, you don't actually have a GM. You have an opposing player in an asymmetric game, or a guy whose job is to hammer the other players' decisions and die rolls into a narrative without influencing them or some other thing that is not a GM.

[Username17]

He's skipping all that and telling you what the goal you're striving for is and saying that it is pointless to pursue it because at the end of the day you create a complex system to map initial reactions and creating a system where a GM can pretty much predetermine the likelihood of an encounter happening before the PCs show up. He's pointing out that for all the effort you put into working that out the end results produce similar (if not worse) results than if you just let the GM arbitrarily assign these things and IN ADDITION TO THAT you then have to create an actual diplomacy system.

And that's still horse shit. While the DM is free to place stealthy enemies like Bugbears or gauche enemies like Ogres, it's still wholly unacceptable for the DM to simply decide that the players are surprised and don't get to act in one encounter and aren't surprised and can act in another. Taking away the players' ability to act is way too dickish an effect to be left to whim, the "fairness" of a die roll is absolutely required for that to not be the actual person who is behind the DM screen being a dick to you.

Fair and open dice based adjudication is the only way to tell a player whether or not they are allowed to act in an encounter without a whole lot of butthurt. And if you don't understand that: get the fuck out of this thread.

-Username17

[spongeknight]

So currently, we have four factors that modify how a subject reacts to the party; ambiance, stance, allegiance, & past experience. Should there be more modifier types? Should any be added or removed?

I'm not in favor of the "past experience" category, actually. Why are we having reaction rolls for people who have some sort of diplomatic relationship with the PCs already? If the party talked to Tom the Blacksmith yesterday and were friendly with him, they really shouldn't have to suffer through another potential reaction roll that could make Tom less friendly with them today. Tom should already have his stance in regards to the players; further interaction should be handled by the second part of the system, whatever happens during the actual diplomacy stage.

[PhoneLobster]

Fair and open dice based adjudication is the only way to tell a player whether or not they are allowed to act in an encounter without a whole lot of butthurt. And if you don't understand that: get the fuck out of this thread.

So... then I assume you are asking Virgil to get the fuck out of his own thread since his mechanic is to totally side line to the point of outright discarding "fair dice based adjudication" whenever it would be appropriate to you know "avoid stupid stuff" by means of the GM just deciding, with ass numbers.

[MGuy]

He's skipping all that and telling you what the goal you're striving for is and saying that it is pointless to pursue it because at the end of the day you create a complex system to map initial reactions and creating a system where a GM can pretty much predetermine the likelihood of an encounter happening before the PCs show up. He's pointing out that for all the effort you put into working that out the end results produce similar (if not worse) results than if you just let the GM arbitrarily assign these things and IN ADDITION TO THAT you then have to create an actual diplomacy system.

And that's still horse shit. While the DM is free to place stealthy enemies like Bugbears or gauche enemies like Ogres, it's still wholly unacceptable for the DM to simply decide that the players are surprised and don't get to act in one encounter and aren't surprised and can act in another. Taking away the players' ability to act is way too dickish an effect to be left to whim, the "fairness" of a die roll is absolutely required for that to not be the actual person who is behind the DM screen being a dick to you.

Fair and open dice based adjudication is the only way to tell a player whether or not they are allowed to act in an encounter without a whole lot of butthurt. And if you don't understand that: get the fuck out of this thread.

-Username17

All of the suggestions and 'improvements' and number twerking have been made for explicitly to give control to the GM. If you're going to tell me that this system is supposed to prevent that why does this system not embrace the randomness you feel is good?

[Username17]

All of the suggestions and 'improvements' and number twerking have been made for explicitly to give control to the GM. If you're going to tell me that this system is supposed to prevent that why does this system not embrace the randomness you feel is good?

Did you eat a lot of paint as a child?

Discussions of changing the numeric inputs have been so far about making the outputs more verisimilitudinous. When the outputs seem more reasonable, it actually gives more control on both sides of the screen. Having the players be able to take actions with predictable consequences is a central theme here.

-Username17

[Omegonthesane]

So currently, we have four factors that modify how a subject reacts to the party; ambiance, stance, allegiance, & past experience. Should there be more modifier types? Should any be added or removed?

I'm not in favor of the "past experience" category, actually. Why are we having reaction rolls for people who have some sort of diplomatic relationship with the PCs already? If the party talked to Tom the Blacksmith yesterday and were friendly with him, they really shouldn't have to suffer through another potential reaction roll that could make Tom less friendly with them today. Tom should already have his stance in regards to the players; further interaction should be handled by the second part of the system, whatever happens during the actual diplomacy stage.

After some thought, I have to disagree. Leaving the willingness of a person to negotiate to total and obvious DM fiat is unacceptable in a way that leaving it to a random roll the DM can almost completely control is not; the dice can be blamed instead of the GM if it turns out that your one-time Nemesis is in fact not open to negotiations.

[PhoneLobster]

Fair and open dice based adjudication is the only way to tell a player whether or not they are allowed to act in an encounter without a whole lot of butthurt. And if you don't understand that: get the fuck out of this thread.

When the outputs seem more reasonable, it actually gives more control on both sides of the screen. Having the players be able to take actions with predictable consequences is a central theme here.

Frank Trollman's message to Frank Trollman of 1 hour later. "Get the fuck out of this thread".

[MGuy]

All of the suggestions and 'improvements' and number twerking have been made for explicitly to give control to the GM. If you're going to tell me that this system is supposed to prevent that why does this system not embrace the randomness you feel is good?

Did you eat a lot of paint as a child?

Discussions of changing the numeric inputs have been so far about making the outputs more verisimilitudinous. When the outputs seem more reasonable, it actually gives more control on both sides of the screen. Having the players be able to take actions with predictable consequences is a central theme here.

-Username17

Are you serious? None of what you fucking said contradicts what you just quoted. What the fuck was the point of even responding if all you were going to do is reiterate exactly what I said with different words. The shit started by giving out truly random (and stupid) results and were twerked until the GM could reasonably set up situations to prevent things going in a way they didn't want. That is exactly what all these changes did. I don't care if you want to slap "for verisimilitude" in there to make yourself feel better about it the intent and results are effectively the same.

[Username17]

The shit started by giving out truly random (and stupid) results and were twerked until the GM could reasonably set up situations to prevent things going in a way they didn't want. That is exactly what all these changes did. I don't care if you want to slap "for verisimilitude" in there to make yourself feel better about it the intent and results are effectively the same.

I am not going to further discuss this with you unless and until you explain why you think it's a good thing to roll for surprise when the DM could place an invisible super ninja as opposition, or why you think it's a good idea to roll to see if attacks hit when the DM could place a super strong paragon giant as opposition. If you can't see why having a system to resolve encounters is valuable even in light of the fact that the DM ultimately has final say on what creatures are encountered, you have no insights to offer any discussion about any system.

The fact that extreme inputs produce predictable outputs is a feature of any system, and in no way invalidates the use of dice as an impartial adjudicator for non-extreme inputs.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

I am not going to further discuss this with you unless and until you explain why you ...

Level appropriate challenges... oh that's right you inexplicably demand that social mechanics be level independent and rant on for pages about how level 1 barmaids MUST be able to get circumstantial modifiers to totally screw the RNG and socially kick the asses of level 20 barbarian kings.

Yeah. Maybe the difference here is clearly evident to anyone other than you Frank.

[ishy]

And that's still horse shit. While the DM is free to place stealthy enemies like Bugbears or gauche enemies like Ogres, it's still wholly unacceptable for the DM to simply decide that the players are surprised and don't get to act in one encounter and aren't surprised and can act in another. Taking away the players' ability to act is way too dickish an effect to be left to whim, the "fairness" of a die roll is absolutely required for that to not be the actual person who is behind the DM screen being a dick to you.
-Username17

Honestly, I think my players would feel more dicked over, if I told them that if they failed their perception check they couldn't act in the encounter.
Because if I told them that they'd be ambushed and basically cut-scene it away, they'll still feel dicked over, just less, because there is probably some kind of (probably bad) story I'd want to tell.

[MGuy]

The shit started by giving out truly random (and stupid) results and were twerked until the GM could reasonably set up situations to prevent things going in a way they didn't want. That is exactly what all these changes did. I don't care if you want to slap "for verisimilitude" in there to make yourself feel better about it the intent and results are effectively the same.

I am not going to further discuss this with you unless and until you explain why you think it's a good thing to roll for surprise when the DM could place an invisible super ninja as opposition, or why you think it's a good idea to roll to see if attacks hit when the DM could place a super strong paragon giant as opposition. If you can't see why having a system to resolve encounters is valuable even in light of the fact that the DM ultimately has final say on what creatures are encountered, you have no insights to offer any discussion about any system.

The fact that extreme inputs produce predictable outputs is a feature of any system, and in no way invalidates the use of dice as an impartial adjudicator for non-extreme inputs.

-Username17

You refuse to discuss this unless I explain some strawmen you pulled right out of your ass? How about I explain why I don't have a roll to make a monster decide whether it is going attempt to be stealthy at all or to decide whether it attacks or uses an ability in a given round of combat because that would be closer to what you're actually proposing. I could alternatively explain why having a complicated system (that the GM is liable to game anyway) to achieve the results they want anyway is a complete waste of time.

This whole system is being brought up on a scare that a GM may make some number of creatures or people PCs encounter immediately hostile and thus not allow for Diplomacy. Unfortunately this system does not prevent this from happening IN ANYWAY and has been specifically adjusted to allow GMs to make sure that it doesn't impede them from making it happen.

[Username17]

You refuse to discuss this unless I explain some strawmen you pulled right out of your ass?

It's not a strawman, dipshit. Strawmen are when you mischaracterize someone else's argument. Since it's my argument, I can't be strawmanning it. It's an analogy. If you refuse to accept the premises of those analogous events (surprise rolls and attack rolls), then we have nothing to discuss.

If and only if you accept that it is (or at least can explain why it might be) desirable to roll dice to determine whether you are allowed to take an action at the beginning of a combat encounter, then we can have a reasonable discussion like civilized fucking people about whether it's a good thing or a bad thing to roll dice to determine whether you are allowed to take an action at the beginning of a social encounter. Until you do that, there's nothing to discuss and you are shitting on this thread for no damn reason.

If you cannot or will not engage with this discussion honestly and on its own terms, I and many other people will put you on ignore. There are really very few premises here, if you refuse to discuss or even acknowledge even the simplest of them, we are not having a discussion and there is no compelling reason to read anything you write.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

It's an analogy.

It's not analogous unless you are openly stating that this mechanic is an iconic example of bad GMing. Because your two examples of invulnerable player stomping auto-successes in other fields ARE iconic examples of bad GMing and bad game design.

Within ANY sort of sane level appropriate system your supposedly analogous examples don't fucking exist. So if you are wondering why people are looking at you like a fucking mad man and calling out your argument as bullshit and demanding you talk about something sane like say, addressing one damn thing anyone else has said, that would be why.