Why NPC-on-PC diplomacy in most TTRPGs shouldn't be allowed.

[Lago PARANOIA]

1.) There are some character development avenues that will alienate players to the point of them immediately leaving the table. It doesn't matter how plausible or well-written or whatever they are. If it happens in the game, they're done. Me, if I get kidnapped by criminals in my D&D or Street Fighter or Dragonball game and the DM reveals that my character was raped in captivity, I will immediately ask the DM to retcon it and demand an apology. If I don't get it, I quit the game. And this goes way beyond NPC-on-PC diplomacy. It's just the most obvious example of how a ruleset can unwittingly facilitate these kinds of confrontation.

Now, not all DMs do this kind of extreme character development. Some DMs really weren't on a power trip when they had you sell your heirloom sword for a pack of magic beans or saddle you with a sidequest to help the thieves' guild; they thought that they had good stories planned and didn't anticipate your hugely negative reaction. Nonetheless, if you introduce a mechanic that does a DM override of PC character development.

What's more, the acceptability of character development avenues are not the same from game-to-game. The DM revealing that I flip out from stress and in my rampage I kill a kid will get a different reaction from me if I'm playing Twilight Sparkle, Batman, Iron Man, or a werewolf. Hell, even if you define 'flips out in a violent rage and kills people' as part of werewolf playspace, I'll get very mad if the DM reveals that when I'm playing a PG-13 rated Monster Mash comedy. If you want to avoid these game-ending plot introductions, you need to define as much potential playspace as possible and get agreement to it. I'll talk more about this in point three.

2.) If talking to someone on a corner will get you to join a racial supremacy party or have sex with a 14-year old prostitute, players are going to interpret any social encounter as a potential assault on their character. Read Knights of the Dinner Table to see how the players will respond to that. It is incredibly stupid for PCs in a game like D&D or Marvel Superheroes to shack up in tents outside the city and teleport right into the inn after sending their familiar to pay for room and board as the cost for not being saddled with character development that they don't want.

This holds true even if you implement some kind of DM cockblock that sneaks in an unwanted social encounter anyway. Talk about how players can't avoid social encounters by putting bags over their head and putting wax in their ears and walking around with swords drawn because you're putting a limit on modifiers misses the point. Once players are incentivized to do WSoD-breaking things like that to be more empowered to play their characters the way they want then things are ruined.

This can be made to work for you sometimes. In their ongoing quest for players to avoid dying (a negative character development) they do things like wear armor and scout the area and research spells and do training montages with their superpowers and build underground bases in the Batcave. That's awesome and what we want to encourage. Unfortunately, it can very easily backfire. People complain bitterly about spiked chains and teleport ambushes and difference engines and suiciding characters out of CharGen for a reroll. The obvious solution to those maladaptive responses is to do spot fixes and plug holes in the rules.

Unfortunately, I don't think this is possible for diplomacy mechanics. Let's take a look at the third point.

3.) Now, here's the fulcrum of the argument. Social interaction is way too broad of a plot point to salami-slice until you plug all the 'flip the table' holes like you can do for, say, combat or city-building.

Making social encounters go your way is probably THE superpower. You can use that power to turn back alien fleets, get your lover raised from the dead, permanently forge peace between murderous nations, convince governments to free their slaves, get anyone you want in your harem, get adversaries to betray their causes, etc. etc. It's extremely open-ended and what's more, everyone has the 'power'. People don't (immediately) go 'bullshit' when a pre-teen girl innocently defangs a lynch mob or when Hannibal Lector convinces another patient to kill himself.

To me, the bare minimum of what diplomacy needs to do is convince strangers to strip and pee themselves in public with an obvious plus. It's a real thing that real people manage to convince other real people to do. If your diplomacy system can't theoretically generate a result at least as extreme as 'convinces total stranger to shock a screaming man into heart failure', it's bullshit and not worth talking about. And stories can get much more crazy with the social interactions than that, especially if you introduce the idea of supernatural manipulation. Like, seriously, read Richard III or Puss n' Boots or something.

So let's go back to the idea of other negative character development avenues, like flipping out in an PC-uncontrolled rage. These game mechanics aren't completely defined, but they're pretty well-defined. People can decide not to go to nightclubs or pick up high-stress jobs, they can spend willpower not to flip out then and there, etc. etc. What's more, players are aware that failing a rage check won't generate results outside of what the mechanic says. A blood rage won't convince a vampire to pick up a mission of 'find Cain as soon as you feed and punch him out' or 'strip and pee on yourself in public'.

But as for diplomacy? Not so. Diplomacy encounters start whenever you talk to someone who wants something and every potential social encounter runs the risk of you betraying the Merry Men for gold coin or having sex with a 14-year old who might have STDs or pledging fealty to eco-terrorists or giving up the secrets of the spell you just researched or whatever the fuck. In a game which has NPC-on-PC diplomacy and your diplomacy engine is worth its salt, it means going to the bazaar or court or just to the fucking orphanage is more risky for your character in terms of character development than going to the dungeon. And that's just unworkable.

[Korgan0]

So, the crux of your argument is that while NPC's should be able to do to PC's what PC's can do to NPC's, this doesn't apply to diplomacy, because then players will regard it as a loss of agency (given what good diplomacy systems enable certain actors to do) and flip the table?

[virgil]

So, the crux of your argument is that while NPC's should be able to do to PC's what PC's can do to NPC's, this doesn't apply to diplomacy, because then players will regard it as a loss of agency (given what good diplomacy systems enable certain actors to do) and flip the table?

I've said as much in my own attempts at the social game, though Lago is certainly more loquacious about it.

[Lago PARANOIA]

So, the crux of your argument is that while NPC's should be able to do to PC's what PC's can do to NPC's, this doesn't apply to diplomacy, because then players will regard it as a loss of agency (given what good diplomacy systems enable certain actors to do) and flip the table?

I'm not making an 'agency' argument. Games like D&D have death as a probable outcome of a combat and I know very few people who haven't made peace with the fact that people die when they're killed. And untimely death obviously robs you of a lot more agency than betraying the Merry Men for coin.

Check out the title of the thread. I mean 'most' for a reason. For a game based on an adaptation of Game of Thrones, strangling your loving wife of twenty years because of some pointed words from your guard or having an incest baby with your twin sister the queen after she flashes you some leg is just part of the game. NPC-on-PC diplomacy is okay, because the results space implicitly is 'if you fail a social test hard enough, the winner makes you their bitch and because this game is incredibly grimdark you can get involved in some twisted shit'.

[PoliteNewb]

The keys to having any kind of functional social combat system (where NPCs can 'win' and have effects on PCs) are as follows:

1.) All results should be genre appropriate. If you are playing a 4-color superheroes game, a result of "you are persuaded to rape and kill a six-year old" should not even be a possibility. If you are playing a western, a result of "the President of the United States appoints you ambassador plenipotentiary to Great Britain" should not be a possibility. If you are playing D&D, a result of "a beggar convinces you to hand over all your magic items" should not be possible.

Your RNG should be tailored to produce results that are appropriate to the game you are playing. You cannot put together a generic "social combat" system that is appropriate for all games/genres. I'm not even sure you can put one together for multiple campaigns.

2.) DCs should be weighted by several factors, but the primary ones are
a.) Relationships between parties; it is usually easier to get friends and lovers to do stuff for you than strangers and enemies. Some types of social combat (threats, for instance) may not have this as a strong factor.
b.) Negative consequences; it is easier to convince a random beggar to pee himself than the President, because the beggar is less harmed by doing this. Likewise, it is easier to get a mafia hitman to kill someone for you than to get a Catholic priest to do it.
c.) Positive consequences; it is easier to get most people to do most stuff if there is a large pile of money involved.

The hard part is weighing all these factors and working them into your RNG. But that leads us to...

3.) Your RNG should be fairly steep. IMO, you want the possibility of fairly outrageous results, but you by no means want it to be likely. Most results using standard DCs and "assumed" PC/NPC modifiers should be fairly vanilla. And I would put a hard cap on how innately good characters should be at convincing people...the "persuasiveness" of the person should actually IMO be the LEAST important factor. Hitting the very high ends should involve piling on the circumstancial modifiers (as noted under 2). If the circumstances are stacked against you (you are trying to buy the king's palace for a ball of string), it really shouldn't matter how good a salesman you are.

With those (especially #1), an NPC-vs-PC system should be viable. But it's not easy, which is why successful systems like that are rarer than hen's teeth (I know of only one that I'd even consider 'halfway decent').

[Dean]

In before phonelobster explodes the thread

[Username17]

All results should be genre appropriate. If you are playing a 4-color superheroes game, a result of "you are persuaded to rape and kill a six-year old" should not even be a possibility. If you are playing a western, a result of "the President of the United States appoints you ambassador plenipotentiary to Great Britain" should not be a possibility. If you are playing D&D, a result of "a beggar convinces you to hand over all your magic items" should not be possible.

I disagree. There is actually kind of a lot of D&D source material where beggars successfully get people to hand over all their armor, weapons, and magical doodads. From Xena to the Arabian Nights, it's kind of a genre staple.

Hasn't been allowed since 3rd edition instituted wealth by level. But in the old days, missions where you ran around with no gear for a while were pretty common. So much so that one of the main arguments in the classic "Why Monks?" discussion was that Monks were able to fight at full effectiveness in missions where you get railroaded into not having any gear. Which doesn't actually happen in 3rd edition, but in 2001 people still thought it did. Because in 2nd edition AD&D, it did.

-Username17

[Atmo]

I disagree. There is actually kind of a lot of D&D source material where beggars successfully get people to hand over all their armor, weapons, and magical doodads. From Xena to the Arabian Nights, it's kind of a genre staple.

Real beggars blessed with luck on their rolls or some master of true lies disguised as a beggar?

[Koumei]

Does that not just incentivise the outright murder of every single person the PCs ever meet, lest that person swindle them out of their shiny stuff?

I say this despite willingly falling for the old succubus trick every single time it comes up, mind you, so possibly I answered my own question, but then again I'm shallow enough that really I'm making an exception because boobs.

[PhoneLobster]

Simple question. If you don't allow NPC on PC social actions what do NPCs even DO in pure social encounters?

Ever?

[Wiseman]

I thought that npc's already couldn't use diplomacy against PC's? (at least in D&D?)

[fectin]

I thought that npc's already couldn't use diplomacy against PC's? (at least in D&D?)

It's not well defined. Presumably they can, and it would affect how you described their demeanor and actions, but it's completely undefined.

[Fuchs]

If you are worried about the GM crossing lines you don't want crossed, that's what talking to him is for. "I don't like losing all my stuff, please don't run such adventures" works far better than preemptively killing all NPCs that might be conmen out to steal your stuff, or making it impossible for NPCs to lie, negotiate or seduce PCs.

[Starmaker]

Simple question. If you don't allow NPC on PC social actions what do NPCs even DO in pure social encounters?

Ever?

1. Influence other NPCs ina contest against PCs, with dice rolls and shit.
2. Lie and be lied to, with dice rolls and shit.
3. Diplomacize PCs through MTP.

It's been said time and again that every printed rule must be better than MTP. Whatever rules, social or otherwise, you institute should be [obviously] better than MTP - result in measurably more fun and produce a more interesting story.

Ye Olde D&D is a game of asymmetric collaborative storytelling. Several players run one character each, one player runs everything else, which includes a countably infinite number of PC equivalents in power, each of whom is super fucking disposable.

As such, it is blindingly obvious why you shouldn't leave "do I hit in combat" to MTP - because holy shit it turns out deciding when it's dramatically appropriate for your character to hit and miss doesn't actually generate enjoyable drama.

PC on NPC diplomacy should be rolled for the same reason: playing "read the MC's mind / suck the MC's cock" isn't interesting. Look at the Creature of Havoc thread - and it's a printed book where you actually know words won't slide off the page the moment you aren't looking, so there *is* some [bullshit] objective difficulty. You know UK Steve wrote the book in 1986 and cannot possibly be influenced by the posts in the thread, whereas the MC who runs your adventure cannot be relied upon to fairly "roleplay" elf scout #12 or Her Royal Highness the Hobgoblin Princess Viyanna. The MC is sitting right there, he knows everything there's to know about the world including your character's capabilities. If you don't limit the MC's knowledge and control over NPCs via dice rolls, the result is exactly as stupid and unfun as when you the player decide whether you feel like missing on this round.

But the same does NOT hold true for PCs. They are accountable to the MC and to each other, they only know what's been actually said at the table, and they are only capable of what's written on their character sheets. There's no reason why letting the players decide how their characters feel about a particular situation should be bad for the game.

If you are worried about the GM crossing lines you don't want crossed, that's what talking to him is for. "I don't like losing all my stuff, please don't run such adventures" works far better than preemptively killing all NPCs that might be conmen out to steal your stuff, or making it impossible for NPCs to lie, negotiate or seduce PCs.

Fuchs, you're a strawmanning idiot. No one's saying it should be impossible for NPCs to lie, negotiate or seduce, I'm saying the PCs should be the ones to decide whether a negotiation directed at them succeeds or not, because they are the protagonists and they are at a HUGE informational disadvantage so that them doing it doesn't fuck over the game. There IS a difference between randomly determining whether your character achieves their goals or not and randomly determining your character's goals.

The king sent you to kill the evil rebel baron. You corner him and he says, "Whoa wait, how about we join forces and overthrow the king? I get to keep the barony and be loyal to you and you get to run the whole country - nice, eh?"

That's diplomacy. Suppose the baron is honest (the MC decided it would be "in character" or he failed a morale check or whatever). Name one reason why you think the game from this point onward would be improved by the PCs randomly deciding whether to side with the baron or not and the players having to roleplay the consequences.

Ok, now suppose he's lying and the usual procedure for lie detection is unavailable. The PCs don't know for certain, so they roll Sense Motive against Bluff or whatever. Those who succeed get (sekritly) told "you think he's full of shit", those who fail get (sekritly) told "you don't detect any falsehood". Then, acting on this information, the PCs can communicate their trust or lack thereof to the group (or lie about that, too), other PCs get to roll Sense Motive against that, blah blah.

Seduction is just an example of negotiation. The barmaid / elven queen / centennarian vampire highschooler offers sex; it's up to you to decide whether your character is interested or not. If they actually plan to rob or murder your character, you get to roll and get told "you think they aren't interested in your dick as much as in your wallet and kidneys" and have the benefit of this additional information when making your decision.

[deaddmwalking]

I disagree. There is actually kind of a lot of D&D source material where beggars successfully get people to hand over all their armor, weapons, and magical doodads. From Xena to the Arabian Nights, it's kind of a genre staple.

I'm not sure if it qualifies as the type of NPC-on-PC Diplomacy being discussed. Essentially, we're saying the player doesn't want to give up equipment and/or treasure, but the character does.

There are plenty of situations where players DO want to give vast amounts of treasure to NPCs. That's part of power-fantasy. When you're 10th level and are the equivalent of billionaires, you can leave a $30 million tip for your waitress.

I think there are plenty of times you can give PCs reasons to do something that might not make sense, and they'll do it anyway. You can give six players the same set of inputs and get six different reactions.

The problem on the reverse is the DM is only one person - taking the same set of inputs today will likely produce the same result as yesterday. To ensure variation in the GM reaction and player agency, Diplomacy needs to be something PCs can do to 'unwilling' NPCs. But giving NPCs the same power doesn't fulfill either ensuring variation from the GM or increasing player agency. Therefore, it is not necessary.

[PhoneLobster]

1. Influence other NPCs ina contest against PCs, with dice rolls and shit.

There aren't any. This is a standard encounter in which like the majority of normal encounters without bullshit edge case assumptions is between the group of PCs and ONE group of fucking NPCs. You don't just get to throw more NPCs into every fucking encounter so the first NPCs have any fucking thing to do.

2. Lie and be lied to, with dice rolls and shit.

They can't. PCs are immune to NPC bluff actions if you accept Lago's premises about social influence and player agency. Because bluff can achieve all the things Lago said must not happen due to social effects.

If NPCs can bluff then there is no reason they can't diplomacy. If you live with the intellectual dissonance and just run the double standard then all NPCs are compulsive liars and only PCs ever try and make friends. And that's just plain dumb.

3. Diplomacize PCs through MTP.

So... nothing on point 3 then.

MTP can do stuff, but you can't have it going up directly against formal rules. That's a cluster fuck.

If one sides actions have formal compulsory outcomes and the otherside only has MTP actions that the first side gets total veto on then the first side laughs and laughs and laughs and laughs.

Now. AGAIN. What do NPCs do in a pure social encounter?

[Username17]

NPCs are going to use social abilities on PCs and you are going to roll dice for it. If an NPC wants to swindle the players by passing off fake gold or gems, you roll a die. If an NPC wants to haggle the players into accepting a worse price for their goods, you roll a die. If an NPC wants to scare the PCs into flight or surrender with the frightful presence, you roll a fucking die. And so on.

That the NPCs will use social abilities on the PCs and that you will roll a god damn die to determine whether it works or not is not even up for discussion or debate. That is going to fucking happen.

Basically, Lago's position is sleight of hand. 3e Diplomacy is frustrating bullshit when used on PCs, therefore social abilities shouldn't be usable on PCs. But that's horseshit. 3e Diplomacy is frustrating bullshit because it's frustrating bullshit, not because it's a social ability aimed at an NPC's head. It's just as much frustrating bullshit that the diplomancer's chances of success don't change when he's talking to someone who is angry at him particularly for being a liar and a sister-raper as when he's talking to a group of orcs who just happen to be on patrol in a dangerous part of the swamp.

3e Diplomancy has inputs and outputs that don't make sense. But that does not mean that social abilities used on PCs have anything wrong with them inherently.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

That the NPCs will use social abilities on the PCs and that you will roll a god damn die to determine whether it works or not is not even up for discussion or debate. That is going to fucking happen.

This thread looks an awful lot like an attempt to put that up for debate.

[deaddmwalking]

I think your NPC rolls a die, and you say the NPC is only offering 25% of the regular price, not 50%, but the PCs get to choose to accept or reject the offer.

There's little benefit to saying 'he offers you 2 copper pieces and you accept'. Now, if you want the PCs to accept 'magic beans' you say 'he sounds sincere - he is being utterly truthful when he says they are magic'. But the PCs still get to decide.

But when you reverse the situation, you have to roll. Some people are more or less gullible than the DM. Even if the NPC is equally gullible to the DM, the DM has more information. If you try to sell a +1 sword as a +5 sword, the GM might be inclined to say 'nobody would fall for that', but we know that kind of thing happens all the time in the real world. So, NPCs have to roll to see if they can be suckered into buying the Brooklyn Bridge. For PCs, you have to lay out the benefits and let them make their own decision. The thing is that you can use social actions to help 'sell' them. If the NPC succeeds on a Bluff check, he sounds honest and sincere.

[Fuchs]

[quote="Starmaker]Fuchs, you're a strawmanning idiot. No one's saying it should be impossible for NPCs to lie, negotiate or seduce, I'm saying the PCs should be the ones to decide whether a negotiation directed at them succeeds or not, because they are the protagonists and they are at a HUGE informational disadvantage so that them doing it doesn't fuck over the game. There IS a difference between randomly determining whether your character achieves their goals or not and randomly determining your character's goals.[/quote]

That's what diplomacy does in my game. I don't know why people play it like it was Dominate Person. I tell players "He sounds trustworthy" or such if the NPC rolls well, I don't tell them "you agree to his proposal". But the same goes for PCs too - there are limits for an NPC as to what will be agreed upon, both for simple haggling as well as diplomacy.

[Username17]

I think your NPC rolls a die, and you say the NPC is only offering 25% of the regular price, not 50%, but the PCs get to choose to accept or reject the offer.

There's little benefit to saying 'he offers you 2 copper pieces and you accept'. Now, if you want the PCs to accept 'magic beans' you say 'he sounds sincere - he is being utterly truthful when he says they are magic'. But the PCs still get to decide.

But when you reverse the situation, you have to roll. Some people are more or less gullible than the DM. Even if the NPC is equally gullible to the DM, the DM has more information. If you try to sell a +1 sword as a +5 sword, the GM might be inclined to say 'nobody would fall for that', but we know that kind of thing happens all the time in the real world. So, NPCs have to roll to see if they can be suckered into buying the Brooklyn Bridge. For PCs, you have to lay out the benefits and let them make their own decision. The thing is that you can use social actions to help 'sell' them. If the NPC succeeds on a Bluff check, he sounds honest and sincere.

That's horseshit. The players can look at the negotiation rolls and they can look at the game's price lists. The players know whether a price being offered is high or low, and they know why the quoted price is high or low.

If you think it's a problem that some NPCs are more or less gullible than the MC, how is it not a problem that the players have access to the game's actual price lists and know with absolute certainty whether an offer is good or bad? No roll haggling can't work in a standard RPG format. Rolling a fucking die is not just the best solution, it's the only solution.

-Username17

[Koumei]

Yeah, rolling for it does seem to be the only way it can work, getting people to actually try to fool one another at the table is not going to really work. And really, I think that in most cases of anything, NPCs should follow the same rules as PCs once they're made. I don't care so much about how they're generated, but the bit where 2Ed Rust Monsters can't make Dexterity checks (because they don't have Dex scores) is bullshit. The bit where 4Ed monsters apparently are unable to actually be the same kind of spellcaster as you is bullshit. Once they've been made, the actual rules they use should be the same.

So if a PC is able to Social an NPC, then a PC should also be able to Social a PC, an NPC should be able to Social an NPC and an NPC should be able to Social a PC. And using the same methods, which should involve rolling some kind of check rather than trying to bullshit each other behind screens. And any given game can have limits of what Socialing people does, too, if you want a hard counter to "Everyone is primed and ready to shoot the first person who tries talking".

[PhoneLobster]

And any given game can have limits of what Socialing people does, too

You've apparently found a solution to "Here hold my mystery bag" then?

[Cyberzombie]

2.) If talking to someone on a corner will get you to join a racial supremacy party or have sex with a 14-year old prostitute, players are going to interpret any social encounter as a potential assault on their character. Read Knights of the Dinner Table to see how the players will respond to that. It is incredibly stupid for PCs in a game like D&D or Marvel Superheroes to shack up in tents outside the city and teleport right into the inn after sending their familiar to pay for room and board as the cost for not being saddled with character development that they don't want.

I never thought of it this way, but this is absolutely true. If social encounters are potentially a big risk, like losing all your magic items, the rules are going to heavily deter PCs from talking to anyone when any NPC can theoretically assault them socially to screw them over.

[Username17]

2.) If talking to someone on a corner will get you to join a racial supremacy party or have sex with a 14-year old prostitute, players are going to interpret any social encounter as a potential assault on their character. Read Knights of the Dinner Table to see how the players will respond to that. It is incredibly stupid for PCs in a game like D&D or Marvel Superheroes to shack up in tents outside the city and teleport right into the inn after sending their familiar to pay for room and board as the cost for not being saddled with character development that they don't want.

I never thought of it this way, but this is absolutely true. If social encounters are potentially a big risk, like losing all your magic items, the rules are going to heavily deter PCs from talking to anyone when any NPC can theoretically assault them socially to screw them over.

Combat encounters are a potentially big risk. Like losing all your magic items and shit. When the game institutes kill XP and gold drops (like Diablo or 3e D&D), then players scour the kitchens and kennels of enemy compounds looking for more combat encounters to have. When the game gives little or no XP and loot for extra kills (such as Shadowrun or Vampire), the players bypass every set of goons they can.

Players respond very strongly to the perceived incentives of encounters. If you set up encounters which have a high risk to reward ratio, the players will avoid them. If you set up encounters with a low risk to reward ratio, the players will seek them out.

If you're gonna make social encounters risky, you have to also dangle rewards for them, or the players will avoid them. That seemed so obvious that I didn't think it had to be said. But in retrospect I guess it wasn't. So I'm saying it now.

-Username17