Actual Anatomy of Failed Design: Diplomacy

Lokathor · Post by **Lokathor** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:39 am

The problem of divergent skill bonuses is a part of DnD 3e and onward at basically any level above 1st. It's not at all specific to E6 in any way.

I would say that E6 adds very few problems to the game if playing a Low Level Only game is what you're looking for. If that isn't what you're looking for then obviously you won't like E6.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:22 pm

What if you just had a limit to how high a skill mod can get based on level?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:36 pm

OgreBattle wrote:What if you just had a limit to how high a skill mod can get based on level?

Then you would divide the bonus cap increase per level into 20 to determine at what level it would finally break the RNG completely between an invested and non-invested party member. And that would be the level that your diplomacy system stopped outputting workable effects unless passed through the Aid Another Filter we were just talking about.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:13 am

I will never understand all of that crap about social combat and whatever.

Seriously, why put that shit into the game?

If I want to do something like convince the guard captain to kick in an extra 50 gold pieces with the bounty or get the local snitch to tell me where the mob bosses play their twice-year poker game, I should be able to get it done in two or three rolls. It doesn't need to be a fucking Einstein project.

I know I made a post awhile back about how I said that a quickly resoluting diplomacy system will never be accepted, but you idiots need to get over yourself. Not every (or even many) fucking thing in D&D needs to be an epic knock-down battle for the ages.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:06 am

You make social combat if you want social encounters to be as engaging as combat. Like when you fight a bunch of mooks in combat there may be social combats that aren't all that challenging but the point remains the same.

If you don't want it to be that complicated then its just not something you want. Simple as that.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:43 am

MGuy wrote:You make social combat if you want social encounters to be as engaging as combat.

And that's pretty much the answer to your question Lago.

People tell us all the time how they want awesome games that aren't just hack and slash and care about "court intrigue", "Machiavellian politics" and "seducing princesses" and so on. They frequently describe elaborate social encounters.

And really the demand isn't that unreasonable. Making friends and enemies and drawing on allies and so on is INTERESTING and will progress stories in interesting ways. Every RPG worth a crap should have SOME level of support for social plot development events. And a high level of support is easily warranted for many.

The solution to the very real demand for interesting social flavored stuff is simple. If you want it to matter you need an appropriately complex and rewarding mechanic.

We know how to do that, we've done it before with another major focus of "blood and guts combat" (a focus that many declare they want to be of equal or LESSER importance to social mechanics) and Fairy tea party is inadequate.

If you think that Fairy tea party can provide us with an adequate solution to a major focus like "engaging and complex social encounters with fair outcomes that don't break the game"... then you had BEST be explaining why Fairy Tea party isn't the best solution for ALL major focuses of an RPG system.

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:49 am

The only way I can see Diplomacy working is if it is one option in the non-combat game. A non-combat game where there is an opposing force to the party, the whole party acts in one turn and then the opposing force (Opfor) acts against the party. And there are offensive and defensive actions for most if not all skills. Otherwise obstacles which don't have any opposition just take time and effort with no real danger.

So, in one turn the PCs all make offensive uses of skills while the Opfor makes defensive uses of the skills, then the Opfor makes offensive uses of skills against the party while the PCs defend against those skills. Skills which require going away and coming back or taking longer such as going back to town and using Diplomacy to convince people to help take more than one turn so that the PC using that skill can't defend for a round or more.

This means that any non-combat happening needs to be more than just one thing. Instead of the task being:
[*]Convince the King to go to war against the elves.

You have:
[*]The opposing force being the guards whose job it is to stop random people harassing the King, the group that doesn't want war and possibly the King himself,
The task is:
[*]Get into the court,
[*]Get an audience with the King,
[*]Convince him of the action
[*]Stop the Opfor from changing his mind or delaying any action until it is useless.
At each stage the Opfor is blocking or stopping your moves, as well as attacking the party's reputation or evidence's validity so that after several rounds of the non-combat game they would fail.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:04 pm

MGuy wrote:You make social combat if you want social encounters to be as engaging as combat.

Again, what if my social encounter was just to convince the bartender to join the riot or for the eunuch to let me into the harem for a few minutes? If I was filming a movie or writing a book or programming a video game, these things would take 30 seconds of the reader's attention at best, not the 20+ minutes needed to create combat.

Post by **fbmf** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:52 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
MGuy wrote:You make social combat if you want social encounters to be as engaging as combat.
Again, what if my social encounter was just to convince the bartender to join the riot or for the eunuch to let me into the harem for a few minutes? If I was filming a movie or writing a book or programming a video game, these things would take 30 seconds of the reader's attention at best, not the 20+ minutes needed to create combat.

Okay, but actual sword slinging combat also takes way longer to resolve at the the table than the actions they represent. I would think (20 minutes pass while in game maybe a minute passes) is an RPG staple.

Game On,
fbmf

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:35 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote: not the 20+ minutes needed to create combat.

Only that is incorrect. As MGuy already mentioned. Some combats are just easy.

If you corner a lone minor character on his own how long does it take to stab him?

Combat style mechanics, good ones, scale in their time and complexity with the difficulty and number of opponents. This is a good thing on many levels.

And it means that your "but what about easy scenarios?" angle gets the answer "those would be quick and easy". Because that's how combat style mechanics actually scale.

Also however. It makes for ANOTHER good point as to why the difficulty and complexity of a social encounter needs to scale primarily off the characters involved and not arbitrary context or other bullshit. Because if it's off the characters then we can say "that's an easy amount of opposition and you can expect to finish it in like 1 combat round or a lot less". If it's based off arbitrary context just because it's one low level barmaid does NOT mean you get to rule out taking 20 minutes plus to resolve the encounter.