[3.X] How do you guys handle diplomacy?

[RadiantPhoenix]

The first system that occurs to me is this:

1. Detection occurs
2. Mister Cavern decides what reactions he thinks are plausible
3. The players suggest reactions they think are plausible
4. Mister Cavern rolls on a table that contains the range of results suggested

There's almost certainly a better system with less MTP, but this seems like something simple and inoffensive to consider.

For another reference point, here's the 2e reaction table, where Charisma modifiers normally have a magnitude of up to 7: (Note that your Charisma modifier is actually subtracted from the table because fucking 2e, how does it work, but whatever)

	PC stance
2d10+X	Friendly	Indifferent	Threatening	Hostile
2	Friendly	Friendly	Friendly	Flight
3	Friendly	Friendly	Friendly	Flight
4	Friendly	Friendly	Cautious	Flight
5	Friendly	Friendly	Cautious	Flight
6	Friendly	Friendly	Cautious	Cautious
7	Friendly	Indifferent	Cautious	Cautious
8	Indifferent	Indifferent	Cautious	Cautious
9	Indifferent	Indifferent	Cautious	Threatening
10	Indifferent	Indifferent	Threatening	Threatening
11	Indifferent	Indifferent	Threatening	Threatening
12	Cautious	Cautious	Threatening	Threatening
13	Cautious	Cautious	Threatening	Hostile
14	Cautious	Cautious	Threatening	Hostile
15	Cautious	Threatening	Threatening	Hostile
16	Threatening	Threatening	Hostile	Hostile
17	Threatening	Threatening	Hostile	Hostile
18	Threatening	Threatening	Hostile	Hostile
19	Hostile	Hostile	Hostile	Hostile
20	Hostile	Hostile	Hostile	Hostile

Flight: Avoidance, panic, terror, or surrender.
Friendly: Kind, helpful, conciliatory, or simply non-aggressive.
Indifferent: Neutral, bored, businesslike, unconcerned, unimpressed, or simply oblivious.
Cautious: Suspicious, wary, dubious, paranoid, guarded, untrusting, or mildly conciliatory.
Threatening: Boastful, bravado, blustering, intimidating, short-tempered, or bluffing.
Hostile: Irritable, hot-tempered, aggressive, or violent.

EDIT: Fucking tables, how do they work?

[John Magnum]

It's pretty strange that PCs can't be cautious.

[RadiantPhoenix]

It's pretty strange that PCs can't be cautious.

A lot about 2e is strange.

Maybe it's assumed that PCs are always cautious, and the listed stances are all flavors of that? I dunno.

[Username17]

An important thing to remember is that social interactions are so complicated that they appear non-deterministic. A random number generator is actually going to produce results that are more realistic than following an MC's gut or using logic to determine what they "should" do. Kaelik may think that it is logical for Dwarves and Hobgoblins to never start fighting each other when the city guards are right there to arrest them for doing it - but we all know it's more realistic if sometimes they do. Zack S may think it's logical that a King won't care about the apples a farmer gave him when he was cold and hungry because in the big scheme of things he is actually rich enough to have all the apples - but we all know that is bullshit.

It would genuinely be a failure of the model for villagers to random start fighting in the middle of the work week without any special current tensions to speak of. But it would not be a failure of the model for Orcs or Demons to sometimes shout "Who goes there?" and give the PCs time to talk before they start swinging axes and throwing fire.

-Username17

[zugschef]

My impression of what the most basic reaction roll is supposed to be is something like this:

The (NPC) watchman sees someone moving in the darkness, but can't make out the details. Does he...

• Attack?
• Fire a warning shot?
• Shout, "Stop! Put your hands in the air, and come out where I can see you?"?
• Ask, "Who goes there?"?
• Alert the rest of his camp?

Those are all reasonable responses, but how do you linearly order them? Remember, this is supposed to be in the context of a system where there are positive and negative modifiers that make the situation better or worse somehow, so you have to be able to place these on some kind of linear, valued spectrum.

Frank at least has a sensible ordering: Higher values means people will listen to you for longer before combat music starts to play. That's actually useful and easy to determine. But how do you order the reactions you listed?

• Combatitive: Raises the alarm immediately and then attacks you
• Hostile: Raises the alarm, draws weapon, but stays where he is.
• Unfriendly: "Stop! Put your hands in the air, and come out where I can see you!"
• Indifferent: "Who goes there?"

And then once he can see you, he can react further.

And why should you have to roll for that? The MC just flat out declares that this guard is fuckin' hostile or indifferent. A guard has fuckin' orders and a fuckin' personality. Do you roll for every motivation and personal trait of your NPCs? That's bullshit a priori because the MC creates the world in his head anyway, so he can just as well create all of the NPC's personalities as he sees fit.

When you create that guard you give him an order like "shoot on everything suspicious" or "just don't let anyone in" and give him a personality like "shoots before talking". When he shoots at the PCs before giving them any chance to do anything that's totally ok. What you need to create is the possibility for the PCs to still try to talk to the guard and make him listen.

You don't need any fuckin' reaction roll for that and even if you had a reaction roll you'd still need to do that, so what good does a reaction roll do?

You expect players to really throw a tantrum because "MC beingz so MEANZ to us! Every guard is hostile!!!" They'll throw a tantrum if they can't fuckin' do anything about it. That's the reason for arguments. A shitty mechanic makes for a shitty game and not for a better game because players suddenly aren't mad at the MC but at the shitty mechanic. You can't help it if players don't like the campaign -- and that doesn't change if stuff happens at random, it might even get worse by that --, but you need to make it possible for the players to influence the campaign.

[PhoneLobster]

The first system that occurs to me is this:

1. Detection occurs
2. Mister Cavern decides what reactions he thinks are plausible
3. The players suggest reactions they think are plausible
4. Mister Cavern rolls on a table that contains the range of results suggested

There's almost certainly a better system with less MTP, but this seems like something simple and inoffensive to consider.

What? No! How can you even... Look that system has literally more MTP as in more time spent making things up, because you don't make up one thing that works you have to make up a whole bunch of things that might work. That is literally the opposite of less MTP.

THEN even though you just spent all that time making up things that work instead of just picking the thing that works best... you pick a random thing, you might pick the crappy idea lame ass Larry made up and doesn't even like himself.

You don't reduce MTP by layering an MTP negotiation over modifiers of a roll on top of a table filled with MTP entries. That's raw insanity.

An important thing to remember is that social interactions are so complicated that they appear non-deterministic. A random number generator is actually going to produce results that are more realistic than following an MC's gut or using logic to determine what they "should" do.

And THAT'S why all our fiction is written by random number generators, because human authors are less capable of writing convincing personalities than a roll on a 2d6 table.

HOW FUCKING CRAZY CAN YOU GET. When your argument to justify your mechanic is seriously "2d6 are better at convincing human interaction than any/most GMs!" you have gotten so lost up your own ass that you are never going to see daylight again.

[John Magnum]

PL, read RP's post carefully. He's not saying that the system he outlined is less MTP, he's saying he thinks that there could exist some hypothetical other system that has less MTP than what he outlined. Which is to say, he is saying that the four steps he wrote down are more MTP than some hypothetical alternative. Which is in fact what you just said.

[PhoneLobster]

...he is saying that the four steps he wrote down are more MTP than some hypothetical alternative...

However he heavily implies this is a step in the direction of less MTP with his "simple and inoffensive" description. The whole statement is "Well I'm sure you could get even better, but here is a proposal to improve things!".

And really the idea isn't even simple and inoffensive. It's on overly elaborate means of doing nothing other than wasting ideas, time and energy. And as such is in fact offensive at a gaming table with limited resources.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Everyone coming up with things, and then rolling to pick one takes less resources than arguing for a long time about which one to pick.

EDIT: But if you want the ultimate simple and quick system reaction roll system, here's one: No diplomacy rounds, all violence all the time, final destination.

It's a reaction roll system because I rolled to see whether I'd post that or the mirror. (i.e., there would always be a diplomacy round)

[PhoneLobster]

Everyone coming up with things, and then rolling to pick one takes less resources than arguing for a long time about which one to pick.

What argument? This isn't "What's the elaborate plan to secretly attack the stronghold and rescue the good princess without killing the evil princess?" this is "Do the murder orcs waiting to ambush people on the trade road attack you or invite you to tea party?" and "Do the tea party fairy merchants invite you to fairy tea party and try to sell you fairy tea?"

The answers to these questions do not require elaborate multi-level simulations or organized group story writing. They are a single small element of content generation that the GM is nominally entirely responsible for largely behind the scenes. Indeed the GM has ALREADY generated the murder orcs, the trade route, the ambush, the fairy tea party merchants, and the fairy tea merchandise.

Turning around and asking for group submissions on "What Next?" is a thing you can, informally do in an RPG, and perhaps should when you run out of ideas it should not be a routine D&D mechanic, it should not be used in the default situation, even if you DID it should not be executed like that, and it is wasteful and costly to attempt to do so.

[RadiantPhoenix]

If you have a social character in the party who wants to social, then unless you have an established rule for when people get to talk instead of fighting, every non-ambush encounter that starts with fighting is asking to start an out-of-game argument.

[PhoneLobster]

EDIT: But if you want the ultimate simple and quick system reaction roll system, here's one: No diplomacy rounds, all violence all the time, final destination.

A good thing that isn't actually the alternative.

So why are you offering it as one?

It couldn't be because only a really crappy false choice could make "Pull a table out of your group's ass and roll on it on the spot every damn time" sound like a good idea?

[PhoneLobster]

If you have a social character in the party who wants to social, then unless you have an established rule for when people get to talk instead of fighting, every non-ambush encounter that starts with fighting is asking to start an out-of-game argument.

Did you just not read half this thread?

This is not a problem if you have a robust social system that permits social actions in the event of a combat. As long as you don't stupidly adopt "combat music has started NO MORE SOCIAL" as a design goal this is an absolute non-issue.

[RadiantPhoenix]

EDIT: But if you want the ultimate simple and quick system reaction roll system, here's one: No diplomacy rounds, all violence all the time, final destination.

A good thing that isn't actually the alternative.

So why are you offering it as one?

Because "it takes time to use this rule" isn't enough reason on its own to dismiss a rule.

[RadiantPhoenix]

If you have a social character in the party who wants to social, then unless you have an established rule for when people get to talk instead of fighting, every non-ambush encounter that starts with fighting is asking to start an out-of-game argument.

Did you just not read half this thread?

This is not a problem if you have a robust social system that permits social actions in the event of a combat. As long as you don't stupidly adopt "combat music has started NO MORE SOCIAL" as a design goal this is an absolute non-issue.

PL, can you link to a thread containing a social system you support?

Preferably one that does not contain a standard process that looks something like, "hit the princess over the head with a lead pipe --> be closer to convincing her to have sex with you"?

EDIT: On second thought, a link to a specific post might be better than a link to a whole thread.

[PhoneLobster]

EDIT: On second thought, a link to a specific post might be better than a link to a whole thread.

Just present a remotely convincing argument for why the hell I should support your system. I don't even need to present an alternative other than "Status Quo" because yours is flat out obviously a step in the wrong direction.

I've spent plenty of time defending my system, and will again in future. Put half the effort into presenting yours as anything other than a brain fart or stop pulling childish "Aw yeah well if my idea is so stupid YOU do better!" in place of it.

[shadzar]

• Combatitive: Raises the alarm immediately and then attacks you
• Hostile: Raises the alarm, draws weapon, but stays where he is.
• Unfriendly: "Stop! Put your hands in the air, and come out where I can see you!"
• Indifferent: "Who goes there?"

And then once he can see you, he can react further.

so basically DMG table 59? or simply a "hostility die"

but do you use this always, or sometimes? is tehre EVER a time when one of these is SET for the NPC and he will automatically react in that specific way?

[hogarth]

If you have a social character in the party who wants to social, then unless you have an established rule for when people get to talk instead of fighting, every non-ambush encounter that starts with fighting is asking to start an out-of-game argument.

A player with a social-specialized PC who insists on every encounter being a social encounter is being just as petty as a player with a melee-specialized PC who insists on every encounter taking place within melee range.

Do players like this really exist? Who rage-quit when they don't get their way 100% of the time? Who wants to play with someone like that?

[shadzar]

It's pretty strange that PCs can't be cautious.

reaction only occurs when two people see each other, one acts, the other reacts. if the PCs are cautious, then they probably aren't being seen and have seen the thief to scout unseen. this means the NPC doesn't get to react, UNLESS the thief is noticed.

common sense is required for D&D.

it would be VERY hard for the PCs too appear "cautious" to an NPC, unless they are acting super nervous, which would make them look suspicious, not cautious.

this is why DMs other than Gary actually set a mode for NPCs to react with rather than leaving it to some dice roll.

However, there are times when the DM doesn't have a clue about what the monsters will do. This is not a disaster--it's not even all that unusual. When this happens, the DM can randomly determine an encounter reaction by rolling for a result on Table 59 .

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

rolling for reaction should be a RARE thing to happen in normal games.

for Gary when you just map a dungeon and randomly roll to populate it, then you also randomly roll to gill it with treasure, and randomly roll to see how things in it will react.

just watch Futurama to see how Gary used dice for EVERYTHING when he needed something that wasnt prepared.

[Username17]

If you have a social character in the party who wants to social, then unless you have an established rule for when people get to talk instead of fighting, every non-ambush encounter that starts with fighting is asking to start an out-of-game argument.

A player with a social-specialized PC who insists on every encounter being a social encounter is being just as petty as a player with a melee-specialized PC who insists on every encounter taking place within melee range.

Do players like this really exist? Who rage-quit when they don't get their way 100% of the time? Who wants to play with someone like that?

Dude. The melee character's player does have a chance to roll dice to start combat at melee range. There's a whole scouting minigame, and if they stealth up well enough, they get to start combat in range to stab people.

The social character isn't demanding to get their way 100% of the time, they are asking to get their way some of the time. And without a die roll to roll, the only way they can do that is by arguing.

-Username17

[shadzar]

3. The players suggest reactions they think are plausible

Player: The BBEG just decides to start sucking my cock until he suffocates.

the thing is about an NPC it is a NON-PC, and for a reason. the players do NOT get any say in it.

i really wish, not that you are doing it, that people would learn what D&D is and stop tryint to use it for something else like writing mini novels.

if EVERYTHING is under the control or veto power of the players down to NPC actions and whether it is raining or not, then there is not DM, and no NPCs, only cluster fuck PCs, and it isn't a game, just a group writing session. there are no players, only authors telling each other bedtime stories.

there is a reason that a DM runs NPCs monsters, etc. this is because it removes the chance for players to be partial and allows them easier to be impartial. they only have to worry about THEIR character.

to counter many examples people like to toss around, you would end up with dickish players that lord their choices over others rather than dickish DMs if the players are given control over too much of the game like monster reactions. they shouldnt have any say in it so the DM can be impartial to ALL the players, as well as the monsters. that is his job to make the game work, not to pamper the players wishes.



and if you didnt intend MC to mean a D&D DM, then you shouldnt have presented a D&D table with it and left it system agnostic and generic. but D&D works the way it works for a reason, as shown with 4th and DDN; players do NOT know what they hell they want and you cannot incorporate every players wishes to make something that will work, let alone be a decent game or experience even as small as an encounter.

[shadzar]

The social character isn't demanding to get their way 100% of the time, they are asking to get their way some of the time. And without a die roll to roll, the only way they can do that is by arguing.

-Username17

are there no merchants? no towns? no kings? nobody to request a meeting with through his "people"?

this is where the social character does his thing, not every random encounter along the road or in a dungeon.

go back and learn D&D please.

[Fuchs]

The social character isn't demanding to get their way 100% of the time, they are asking to get their way some of the time. And without a die roll to roll, the only way they can do that is by arguing.

In a decent group they do not need to argue, since the GM will make sure they get their way some of time. Like he tries to accomodate all players.

[virgil]

The social character isn't demanding to get their way 100% of the time, they are asking to get their way some of the time. And without a die roll to roll, the only way they can do that is by arguing.

In a decent group they do not need to argue, since the GM will make sure they get their way some of time. Like he tries to accomodate all players.

How is that not the Oberoni Fallacy? Rules are the reason we have tabletop games, and adding good rules; or even discussing rules to decide whether they're good, is something you do instead of this all-too-common "don't be a dick" rule people like to fall back on.

[shadzar]

Rules are the reason we have tabletop games

no, rules only facilitate compromise. to PLAY* is the reason we have tabletop games.

*play meaning have fun, pass time, enjoyable activity.....

bitching over the rules is jsut waht the rules lawyers deem as the "fun" part.