Actual Anatomy of Failed Design: Diplomacy

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:39 am

Kaelik wrote:Reaction and disposition are the same fucking thing. What the hell are you talking about.

i have a cheery disposition.

my reaction to you jumping out from behind the bush yelling BOO was to become frightened.

yup...look like the same thing to me...one requires no outside influence, while the other does. wait...they arent even remotely the same fucking thing!

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:10 am

Kaelik wrote:Reaction and disposition are the same fucking thing. What the hell are you talking about.

Did you not read my example? Friendly disposition towards friend. He comes in cheery I react appropriately. Comes storming in angry, still friendly disposition, altered reaction. My REACTION is the only thing that changes not the fact that I'm still friendly. That's the difference Kaelik.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:01 am

MGuy wrote:
Kaelik wrote:Reaction and disposition are the same fucking thing. What the hell are you talking about.
Did you not read my example? Friendly disposition towards friend. He comes in cheery I react appropriately. Comes storming in angry, still friendly disposition, altered reaction. My REACTION is the only thing that changes not the fact that I'm still friendly. That's the difference Kaelik.

No, your attitude towards your friend changes. Because your attitude dictates your actions. Your actions don't exist in a netherworld separate from your attitude.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:03 am

Disposition is not my reaction. Yes MY REACTION changes based on what mood he shows up with but HE IS STILL MY FRIEND unless he DOES SOMETHING to change it. Please read what the disposition DOES. I will still wish a person I'm fucking FRIENDLY with well, I will offer limited help, advice, blah blah blah because despite him banging on my door he's still a god damn friend PLEASE stop refusing to argue about what the fuck I'm talking about and then being retarded about it PLEASE!

Don't tell me I have actually reference the god damn player's handbook about what DISPOSITION IS AND MEANS!

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:11 am

MGuy wrote:Disposition is not my reaction. Yes MY REACTION changes based on what mood he shows up with but HE IS STILL MY FRIEND unless he DOES SOMETHING to change it. Please read what the disposition DOES. I will still wish a person I'm fucking FRIENDLY with well, I will offer limited help, advice, blah blah blah because despite him banging on my door he's still a god damn friend PLEASE stop refusing to argue about what the fuck I'm talking about and then being retarded about it PLEASE!

Don't tell me I have actually reference the god damn player's handbook about what DISPOSITION IS AND MEANS!

THIS IS NOT ABOUT 3.5 DIPLOMACY! I CAN USE CAPS TOO!

Attitude. Attitude. It's a fucking attitude roll. For attitude. Which changes based on how they walk in, which is what we are fucking talking about.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:18 am

WHAT?!!!!

If you weren't talking about what the fuck I was talking about then why the FUCK did you chime in?! The thread is about how 3.5 Diplomacy is fucked up and I started a discussion about why disposition should be rolled for when people meet and even attitude wise I STILL would be friendly to a fucking FRIEND even when he bangs on my fucking door! I'm not talking about being agitated, grumpy, bullshit I'm talking about whether or not my overall attitude towards him is indifferent, friendly, hostile, etc, the stuff under the original fucking rule!

Even if you didn't want to talk about that I very very clearly pointed out exactly what the fuck I was talking about. So for you to shift your argument specifically to something I've made obvious that I'm NOT talking about is just you fucking up and blaming it on me. Had you started out saying, we're not talking about that, or at some point while I was pointing out what I was talking about, said the same thing THEN you get to be pissed. At this point you don't, you get to realize YOU FUCKED UP.

For Valor · Post by **For Valor** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:20 am

Kaelik, give up. You know MGuy is right, but you're not willing to admit it. Disposition and actions both need to be considered separately.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:23 am

No Mguy, Frank started this thread, so when frank is talking about the attitude of someone, ie how they will react to the PCs, that's fucking important, and your bullshit story about how you are still friends has nothing to do with how NPCs react to the PCs.

Since what the PCs do causes the NPCs to react differently, and because it's the reactions we care about, it's important that if the PCs are good at obtaining favorable reactions before they even start talking to the NPC in question, or even before they know the NPC is there, they should have some method of doing that independent of hoping the MC is nice. Just like if the PCs are good at lighting NPCs on fire, that should also be a part of their character separate from hoping the DM is nice.

That's what Frank is talking about, and if that's not what you are talking about, then you are the one that needs to go away and talk about your distraction someplace else.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:26 am

For Valor wrote:Kaelik, give up. You know MGuy is right, but you're not willing to admit it. Disposition and actions both need to be considered separately.

No, he's not. Disposition is a retarded term for a retarded idea that has no effect on anything of note in the game.

The ability of some people to cause good reactions on first meeting even before talking should be modeled in the game by the PC having some way of causing good reactions on first meeting even before talking. Not by hoping the MC is super nice to them.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:32 am

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=183540#183540

MGuy wrote:Why is it bad that initial disposition be MC fiat? The MC can and, by god, should know the initial dispositions of stuff he introduces you to even if it simply doesn't care about you IE indifference.

MGuy wrote:WHAT?!!!!

If you weren't talking about what the fuck I was talking about then why the FUCK did you chime in?! The thread is about how 3.5 Diplomacy is fucked up and I started a discussion about why disposition

Kaelik wrote:No Mguy, Frank started this thread

diplomacy fails because of lack of reading skills?

discussion != thread.....

MGuy...i think Kaelik is on more drugs than me right now....

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:44 am

shadzar wrote:http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=183540#183540
MGuy wrote:Why is it bad that initial disposition be MC fiat? The MC can and, by god, should know the initial dispositions of stuff he introduces you to even if it simply doesn't care about you IE indifference.

MGuy wrote:WHAT?!!!!

If you weren't talking about what the fuck I was talking about then why the FUCK did you chime in?! The thread is about how 3.5 Diplomacy is fucked up and I started a discussion about why disposition

Kaelik wrote:No Mguy, Frank started this thread
diplomacy fails because of lack of reading skills?

discussion != thread.....

MGuy...i think Kaelik is on more drugs than me right now....

This. Seriously this says it all.

For Valor · Post by **For Valor** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:47 am

shadzar... did you just contribute positively towards a thread?

I need to boil my eyeballs in vinegar.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:44 am

Mguy. Define "disposition" so that it is anything that anyone cares about, and explain why it fucking matters to this conversation.

Because right now, you've emphatically stated many times that for sure disposition has no effect whatsoever on your actions, and you treat every single person who shows up differently even though you have the same disposition for all of them.

To which I reply, who the fuck cares. If your disposition is the same to every single person who shows up, but it doesn't effect your actions. Then we don't care, and you can go make a thread about how you care so much about dispositions that don't effect actions, and how they should not be changed before talking.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can talk about how people have different reactions to different people, and the PCs should be able to control those aspects that they can in influencing others reactions, and they should do this with a roll of a dice that occurs before the action of attempting to convince the NPC of something.

If you want, the always indifferent Witch can indifferently murder in rage the Knights who arrive, or indifferently shower the children in hugs and smiles while indifferently serving them cookies. That's fine, but that has no bearing on what we are talking about.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:37 am

i think something has been lost for this whole bit of that discussion and that is a minor suffix pre-

one has a predisposition to be friendly towards friends, and hostile towards enemies.

in a better than normal mood, ones predisposition may make them neutral towards enemies, and a bad mood not as friendly towards friends...

i been trying hard to figure out this entire "diplomacy skill" as it became form a simple reaction adjustment that would alter ones disposition from 2nd edition.

it seems the "initial attitude" is what disposition they have towards you to begin with..aka initial...and through using this "skill" you are simply trying to move them closer to "helpful" as a "reaction" to whatever you are doing.

the chart agrees with MGuy, that if you are friendly with someone the DC is 1...so they will remain acting friendly towards you as they are already of the disposition to be friendly to you for whatever reason...your actions, plot requirement, etc.

use of the diplomacy skill doesnt appear to be able to fuck up and make it worse than the disposition the NPC held of you to begin with....but you could fail to make it better using the skill.

you could do other things to piss the NPC off if the DM goes... outside of the rules, but NOT through use of the "diplomacy skill".

if i am reading right and there isnt errata to pages 71-72 of the PHB...then the first failure would be for diplomacy to not be able to make their disposition to you worse because of their reaction to your attempt.

right?

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:11 am

Disposition is the way you supposedly tend to act or feel toward a person or type of people in generic situations. Kaelik, I get that you are a behaviorist and will jump in to point out that it means nothing to say then I "generally tend" to be nice to orphans if I happen to be setting one on fire at the moment. That tendencies are invisible and unprovable, often people never once act in accord with the tendencies we ascribe, and that therefore they aren't part of a good model of the brain. All of which is true.

It doesn't mean they're not useful in a game though. Actually it could help clarify the language. Currently in 3.5 an NPC starts with some reaction, or attitude, I forget which, and then diplomacy can change that. Leaving open all kinds of questions about when and how it can be adjusted again. Instead, suppose that every NPC had a "disposition" toward you which, on first meeting, was cross-checked against a diplomacy check to determine reaction (what they do). Then, until their disposition changed you would know that that was as friendly as you could get them--and various game events or skill feats or whatever could change their actual disposition, allowing you to build on the friendship in later encounters.

Note that in this case the disposition has "no effect on your actions" and "you treat everyone differently even though your disposition is the same" but it would still be a useful feature.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:14 am

Kaelik wrote:Stuff.

Kaelik... Are you being serious right now? I almost want to just not respond. The last few times you've been called out for this bullshit you refuse to believe it. I... almost just want to say fuck it. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt this one time since you're one of the self proclaimed "best posters on this board".

Ok first off by Disposition, since this is not clear to you I am referring to the capacity that it is used in the PHB as shad has so pointed out. If you don't understand what that means I can't help you. I shouldn't even need to point it out since I've been talking about the ruling in the book this entire time...

Why is it important? Again something I shouldn't need to discuss. Disposition is what diplomacy changes.

Why doesn't it directly make choices for the character? Because your general attitude toward someone doesn't dictate your actions directly. It is just how you generally feel about someone/thing. It determines what things you're willing to do to someone and at times what you're not willing to do. It determines the likelihood of certain reactions.

I have a friend. I'm Friendly toward them. I'm willing to converse, aid (within reason), allow them to borrow items/money from me, etc. Does this determine how I react to them every time I meet them? No. Does this mean I will do the same thing every time I see them? No. Does it mean I probably won't try and stab them when I open the door? Yes. Does it mean its easier for them to ask me for help? Yes.

I agree the PCs should be able to influence others. But that is not part of what I'm talking about.

Your witch thing... is obvious bullshit. If the witch is indifferent towards both children and soldiers she's not likely to do either of the things you listed. Unless there is some kind of crazy character motivations that make her act that way toward them. Generally though if the witch is "hostile" towards soldiers because she associates soldiers with bad things she is more likely to attack them on sight. If she associates children with good things she's probably gonna start off friendly toward them and thus is more likely to react kindly to them. If it was an Indifferent witch (which apparently is "my" witch it is more likely that the door would be opened just a crack and the witch would ask: "What do you want?".

Kaelik I have limited hopes that you either just stop responding and no hope of you actually admitting you fucked up. But please stop being retarded.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:45 am

MGuy wrote:you're one of the self proclaimed "best posters on this board".

When the fuck did I ever proclaim that?

MGuy wrote:Ok first off by Disposition, since this is not clear to you I am referring to the capacity that it is used in the PHB as shad has so pointed out. If you don't understand what that means I can't help you. I shouldn't even need to point it out since I've been talking about the ruling in the book this entire time...

Why is it important? Again something I shouldn't need to discuss. Disposition is what diplomacy changes.

So in other words, you shouldn't need to discuss the actual point of contention, that there is an initial attitude that you have independent of appearance, action, or thought that applies to everyone in the world you've never met, and this attitude should not be changed until the PCs specifically start talking to the NPC with the goal of changing it.

We should just start by accepting every one of your premises without any thought.

Seriously. Frank says that there is no such thing as an initial attitude. You say there is and that the MC should make it up. WTF, you can't say "but the rules say there is" as an argument for why we shouldn't change the rules, we are talking about changing the rules. There is no such thing, in reality, as a general attitude applicable to all people, even those I have never seen or met. So obviously the NPC starts with no fucking opinion of anything. Then, when a fucking PC shows up and does something, whatever something is, the PC doing something causes the NPC to have an attitude towards the PC. Since it is the PC doing something that causes the attitude, the PCs action should have a roll and modifiers, to resolve the results of the PCs action.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:06 am

... Kaelik. I don't know why you are being stupid. Seriously. You are being retarded. Initial disposition doesn't become important or even necessary until both the PCs and the NPC(s) meet. I've.. already fucking said this. So if you haven't met someone and don't know they exist that's not even a part of this discussion. If the PCs do something then it should have a roll. I've already said, yes, that's exactly the case. If they don't do something, it doesn't deserve a roll. If the situation warrants a significant change in initial disposition then adjust it as appropriate. Been over this. Repeatedly.

You know what I don't even want to know why you put your retard hat on. I gave you a small amount of credit so fuck it. Forget it Kaelik there is no discussion with you and you're not even arguing about what I'm arguing about.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:10 pm

For Valor wrote:Kaelik, give up. You know MGuy is right, but you're not willing to admit it. Disposition and actions both need to be considered separately.

No, MGuy is retarded and trying to have it both ways.

You can have prejudices towards certain behaviors or reactions, but you can't react to anything that hasn't happened yet. The witch can't be angry or happy to meet the PCs until she meets them. Until the meeting actually occurs, you don't know if the first impression is going to be the PCs showing up blasting her favorite song on their boom box while dressed in the team colors of her former university or kicking down her door with drawn weapons and blood in their eyes.

What impression the meeting gives to the witch is very much dependent on what the PCs are doing and how they are presenting themselves. The number of creatures that will actually simply attack anyone they meet are pretty rare - that's pretty much relegated to non-sapient monsters.

So when MGuy ad other people who are morons go on about how the MC should use their knowledge of the NPCs to determine what impression they get from the first meeting with the PCs, they are saying that the MC should determine without rolling dice whether the choices and actions of the player characters in how they present themselves succeed or fail and to what degree this is true. And honestly, fuck that.

-Username17

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:16 pm

Not in any way a part of the above argument

What if diplomacy in whatever fashion of roll it was done could only allow one to affect the targets "State" not actions. So you don't have an ability to make a roll to see if you can get the King to hand you his vault keys. There literally is not a roll where that can be done. There isn't a DC 128 check you can make to try it because it's not "hard" it just doesn't work that way. Instead you can roll to make a target "Fond" or "Very Fond" of you or whatever meaning you can get the king to like you, you might even be able to make such an impression that he thinks you're a really cool guy but if he's had you captured to send to prison then that will still probably happen. You'll probably just get sent down some nice food and maybe you can finagle a request to see him again to talk things out. So you can use diplomacy to change peoples attitudes and then at that point you basically throw it to DM fiat thereafter. It seems very magical tea party but I think it provides -enough- mechanical control over the social minigame to both matter and be good to have and it would be simple enough to fit on any RNG. Despise, Dislike, Nuetral, Fond, Very Fond is only a 5 point chart and it's easy for new players to see that and understand that Charisma is cool because it has the power to make people you interact with treat you more favorably within the options they conceivably have available to them.

It lets the DM tell the story without allow diplomancy to ruin it but still allows it to change and affect it.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:21 pm

There should be a sort of "pre-meeting" initial attitude.

Merchant X, a secret member of the order of "We Hate Demi-Humans." is 'Unfriendly verging on Hostile' towards demi-humans. So if the party is all demi-humans, they don't start at neutral. Now of course, they show up, and there should be a shift based on a first impression.

But I totally disagree that everyone is neutral about everyone until you meet them.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:25 pm

sabs wrote:There should be a sort of "pre-meeting" initial attitude.

Merchant X, a secret member of the order of "We Hate Demi-Humans." is 'Unfriendly verging on Hostile' towards demi-humans. So if the party is all demi-humans, they don't start at neutral. Now of course, they show up, and there should be a shift based on a first impression.

No. They should have a modifier to their reaction roll. Something like "Hates Demi-Humans (-2 if party includes demi-human, -4 if party is all or mostly demi-human)". Before you meet you aren't positive or negative. You aren't even neutral. You literally have no opinion at all. There can be no "Starting Attitude" before the start. Generating the starting attitude could be based on all kinds of factors - and yes the character's prejudices should have a big effect on them. But the MC assigning a first impression before the PCs have done anything to make one is railroading bullshit. And a blatant violation of cause and effect.

deansrule wrote:What if diplomacy in whatever fashion of roll it was done could only allow one to affect the targets "State" not actions. So you don't have an ability to make a roll to see if you can get the King to hand you his vault keys. There literally is not a roll where that can be done. There isn't a DC 128 check you can make to try it because it's not "hard" it just doesn't work that way. Instead you can roll to make a target "Fond" or "Very Fond" of you or whatever meaning you can get the king to like you, you might even be able to make such an impression that he thinks you're a really cool guy...

I'm going to cut you off there because I don't think you are on the right track. First of all, after a bit of introspection I doubt anyone really feels that badly about the king giving away half his kingdom to a mighty hero he's really happy with. That's the end of like every fairytale. Aladdin gets half the kingdom. Hans gets half the kingdom. Fuck, it's the Standard Hero Reward on TV Tropes for a reason.

People aren't unhappy with Dipomancy because you can get the kingdom, you're supposed to get the kingdom. People are unhappy with it because it's deterministic and not particularly related to what's going on. If you march in with the head of the dragon, charm the pants off everyone, and throw money around like gold was going out of style, the king probably should try to pimp his daughters to you and throw the kingdom in as dowry. Seriously, he should do that. People don't like the fact that half elf diplomacers are getting that result while showing up in hobo garb before they've even been told that the dragon exists. Which is the actual failing of the diplomacy rules.

People should have an initial reaction that is based on their prejudices, your actions, and your diplomacy skill. And people should have their initial reactions moved to create new attitudes by actions - of which diplomatic speeches are simply one.

An ideal system would give you some kind of choice of whether to get an initiative bonus by approaching the encounter weapons drawn or a reaction bonus by approaching the encounter with weapons sheathed. Maybe a sliding scale of stances: aggressive, wary, neutral, friendly, peaceful. NPCs could certainly have one of those (and yeah, if they are aggressive, they get an initiative bonus and you get a reaction penalty, ha ha).

-Username17

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:07 pm

When you walk into a shop, the shopkeeper is friendly (or whatever his default attitude is). He doesn't attack 5% of his clientele as they come in the door, nor does he hand 5% of them stacks of gold. He's just friendly. It's seriously not an attitude roll, in the same way there's no "eat soup" roll: there is no success or failure because even having those options is bad and dumb. You don't sometimes eat your soup and sometimes chip teeth; and the same applies to starting attitude.
Similarly, if you roll in to La Rez in your hobo suit, they are unfriendly. You can try to bluff them or diplomacy them from there, but it is never randomly "smelly hobo appreciation day".

And by the way, arguments about realism can die in a fire. We don't roll to see if the orcs are currently asleep/out to lunch/on the pot when the door gets kicked down, and the game does not benefit from a robust shitting simulator.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:27 pm

fectin wrote:When you walk into a shop, the shopkeeper is friendly (or whatever his default attitude is). He doesn't attack 5% of his clientele as they come in the door, nor does he hand 5% of them stacks of gold. He's just friendly. It's seriously not an attitude roll, in the same way there's no "eat soup" roll: there is no success or failure because even having those options is bad and dumb. You don't sometimes eat your soup and sometimes chip teeth; and the same applies to starting attitude.
Similarly, if you roll in to La Rez in your hobo suit, they are unfriendly. You can try to bluff them or diplomacy them from there, but it is never randomly "smelly hobo appreciation day".

This is bullshit. The shopkeeper is Peaceful, because he is in a fucking shop and trying to make money. If people come through the door spec ops style with swords flaring, he may indeed call for help, run away, or fire off the crossbow he has under the counter.

All this means is that if you stack the "area is stable" modifier with "PCs peaceful" and "NPC peaceful" modifiers that you don't generate a hostile result no matter what you roll. A robust reaction chart should be able to guaranty that. But when you stack on "Shopkeeper Hates Drow" or something, then actually you should have at least a small chance of getting threatened with a crossbow.

-Username17

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:26 pm

@Frank,

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