Actual Anatomy of Failed Design: Diplomacy

[fectin]

Okay, that sort of makes sense, but doesn't the same arguement say you should randomly generate NPC stats/gear/military rank/etc?
I'm not trying to be pedantic; NPC starting conditions seem like they are fairly within the DM's purview, and this seems to fit that description.

You don't normally take actions that have the intended consequence of changing the items that NPCs own. And if you do (as in the case of Sleight of Hand), you fucking roll for it.

-Username17

I must be missing something; that makes sense, but I can't make it mesh with your earlier points. Stop me where I go off the rails:

Lord Fancypants has many, many moneys in his house (range of potential values). When the party encounters him halfway through one of his pub crawls(specific situation), he has 200G on him (amount by DM fiat. Rolling for money is functionally fiat, because the DM makes up the roll anyway, and regardless doesn't increase player agency). Bungler the Rogue quickly takes an action to steal all his money (player action changes value).

Compare with:
Lord Fancypants is generally unfriendly (range of potential values). When the party encounters him halfway through one of his pub crawls(specific situation), he immediately dislikes them (DM fiat. Rolling for reaction is functionally fiat because the DM makes up the roll anyway, and regardless doesn't increase player agency). Smarmy the Diplomancer quickly takes an action to improve his attitude (player action changes value).

I don't understand why these situations aren't equivalent.

(I picked "attitude" becasue that's what the PHB says diplomacy affects, not because I want to pick a terminology fight.)

[quanta]

Holy shit, I can't believe there are 4 fucking pages of arguments about whether its better to roll for initial reactions and have the MC arbitrarily set modifiers to guarantee against shit he doesn't want happening (like PC's walking into a shop to buy something and the shopkeeper randomly whipping out a crossbow and shooting a PC) or whether it's better for the MC to just arbitrarily say that doesn't happen by setting a different initial disposition which leads to different possibilities from later rolls or something. You can make the two mathematically equivalent to the point that the players could never tell which system you were using from the opposite side of the screen, because nobody fucking specified exactly how the rules would work down to the goddamn tables, precise possible range of modifiers, die rolls made, and outcomes allowed by the dice.

[Agrinja]

Call me an idiot if I'm being one, but from reading this, what seems to make the most sense would be this.

NPC is angry. PCs are coming along. They have pie for him. You roll to see how he feels about the PCs. He is angry, so there is a negative somewhere on the roll or a positive to the DC to make him like the PCs. The PCs have a gift in the form of a delicious pie, this is a positive to the roll to make him like them.

Another NPC, let's say the shopkeeper is sitting in his shop. Times are hard. In come PCs with jangling bags of gold, and they seem eager to buy. Oh no one of them is one of those horrible drow. Roll to see how he feels. Money makes the roll easier. Being a drow makes the roll harder.

I feel the NPC's general mood should have some effect on things, if he's angry he's going to have to get over being angry to like the PCs and want to help them, or if he's happy it'll be easier to persuade him. That said, there still should be a bit of a swing, and there shouldn't be an initial reaction until after the roll is made with appropriate modifiers going in appropriate directions. Hell, if you've got an angry NPC and you have no pie, you might just get lucky and he might decide that maybe he shouldn't be an asshole to you to start with. Or maybe an NPC having a good day just hauls off and decides that there's something he doesn't like about you. These things happen.

Simplified situations, but well, that's how this one feels.

[Username17]

I must be missing something; that makes sense, but I can't make it mesh with your earlier points. Stop me where I go off the rails:

Lord Fancypants has many, many moneys in his house (range of potential values). When the party encounters him halfway through one of his pub crawls(specific situation), he has 200G on him (amount by DM fiat. Rolling for money is functionally fiat, because the DM makes up the roll anyway, and regardless doesn't increase player agency). Bungler the Rogue quickly takes an action to steal all his money (player action changes value).

Compare with:
Lord Fancypants is generally unfriendly (range of potential values). When the party encounters him halfway through one of his pub crawls(specific situation), he immediately dislikes them (DM fiat. Rolling for reaction is functionally fiat because the DM makes up the roll anyway, and regardless doesn't increase player agency). Smarmy the Diplomancer quickly takes an action to improve his attitude (player action changes value).

I don't understand why these situations aren't equivalent.

(I picked "attitude" becasue that's what the PHB says diplomacy affects, not because I want to pick a terminology fight.)

OK, now do the comparison: Lord Fancypants goes out with various amounts of money on different days. The PCs watch his behavior and attempt to intercept him on a day when he will have more or less money than usual on his person. How would you feel about the DM telling you in that case that Lord Fancypants had no gold on him without rolling dice?

When you approach an encounter to attempt being diplomatic at it your character is doing something. They are attempting to start a non-combat encounter. If the DM says "Nope, you fight now." without rolling dice, then the DM has made a player character's action fail without rolling dice. And that has extremely broad impact on how the rest of the game works or doesn't work.

-Username17

[hogarth]

OK, now do the comparison: Lord Fancypants goes out with various amounts of money on different days. The PCs watch his behavior and attempt to intercept him on a day when he will have more or less money than usual on his person. How would you feel about the DM telling you in that case that Lord Fancypants had no gold on him without rolling dice?

When you approach an encounter to attempt being diplomatic at it your character is doing something. They are attempting to start a non-combat encounter. If the DM says "Nope, you fight now." without rolling dice, then the DM has made a player character's action fail without rolling dice. And that has extremely broad impact on how the rest of the game works or doesn't work.

You should only be rolling dice when there's a plausible amount of randomness in the result. So saying that there's a 1% (or 0.1% or 0.01%) chance that Lord Fancypants is staggering around with a 300 lb sack of gold is stupid, and so is saying that there's a 1% chance that a random stranger will fall in love (or hate or like or dislike) with you before you even have a chance to say anything.

I take the subway to and from work every day. There's exactly one word to describe my initial attitude to each person who gets on: Indifferent. Now maybe my attitude will be changed after a minute (corresponding to a successful or unsuccessful Diplomacy check), but that initial reaction is pretty damn constant. Similarly, if a Jehovah's Witness rings my doorbell on Saturday morning, my initial reaction is Unfriendly; I politely but firmly tell them I'm not interested and I close the door. If there's a JW out there that is somehow magically capable of changing my reaction to Hostile or Indifferent in less than six seconds, I haven't met him or her yet.

Now I suppose I can imagine a flakey person who falls in love at first sight (and/or hate at first sight) with the people that he meets each day. But frankly that sounds like it borders on mental illness to me.

[RobbyPants]

When you approach an encounter to attempt being diplomatic at it your character is doing something. They are attempting to start a non-combat encounter. If the DM says "Nope, you fight now." without rolling dice, then the DM has made a player character's action fail without rolling dice. And that has extremely broad impact on how the rest of the game works or doesn't work.

Is there supposed to be one roll or two? You roll for disposition, but is there also a diplomacy roll that can be done as a player action?

I'm not sure I see the difference between MC saying the orcs are hostile, and the bard attempting to smooth things over before it comes to blows, and MC rolling to determine the orcs are hostile and the bard attempting to smooth things over before it comes to blows.

Is this difference supposed to be taken into account based on what actions the PCs took before meeting the orcs (wearing orc skull necklaces vs. arriving with beer and burgers in hand instead of weapons)? If that's the difference, I can get on board with it.

[hogarth]

I'm not sure I see the difference between MC saying the orcs are hostile, and the bard attempting to smooth things over before it comes to blows, and MC rolling to determine the orcs are hostile and the bard attempting to smooth things over before it comes to blows.

As I understand it (and as you note), he's trying to avoid the case where the orcs are robots who automatically attack before anyone can try Diplomacy. For instance, if the party comes grovelling and supplicating and flattering and bearing gifts, that should pause the orcs for at least a minute. That makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is the insistence on rolling dice and overwrought comments about how you're not playing a game if you're not rolling dice.

[MGuy]

Grovelling and supplicating are actual actions though and would thus should have a roll. There sure as hell shouldn't be one over whether or not the orcs are hostile. That's the been the only thing I've been questioning since the beginning because the way Frank is putting it there should be a roll to determine both which I don't think there should be one to determine that the orcs already don't like you. Whether or not there should be a roll on what they do about hasn't been a part of any argument I've made.

I agree that I wouldn't have hostile creatures with intelligence go on auto attack when they see the players. Hell people don't attack people they are hostile in real life against if they think the person they don't like is likely to beat them up.

However to frame the many many many reactions someone of any disposition can have toward a certain set of events is deserving of a breakaway system. I mean seriously when you start getting into what individual reactions someone can have towards any kind of stimulus you could be writing possibilities for days when you start considering the character's motivations, background, culture, etc etc.

[hogarth]

I agree that I wouldn't have hostile creatures with intelligence go on auto attack when they see the players.

As Frank noted, there are some circumstances when that's totally justified (e.g. the orcs find the PC in the middle of their camp wearing ninja pyjamas and holding a big bottle marked "Poison").

[sabs]

Or you stumble across a Drow Ambush where they're on a kill the surface dwellers rite of passage or something

[RobbyPants]

Grovelling and supplicating are actual actions though and would thus should have a roll. There sure as hell shouldn't be one over whether or not the orcs are hostile. That's the been the only thing I've been questioning since the beginning because the way Frank is putting it there should be a roll to determine both which I don't think there should be one to determine that the orcs already don't like you. Whether or not there should be a roll on what they do about hasn't been a part of any argument I've made.

If I'm reading you and Frank correctly, I don't think you're too far off from what he's saying. I'm getting the impression it goes like this:

1) MC sets a starting disposition for the orcs (aggressive).

2) MC takes into account anything the PCs have passively or preemptively done (Do they have weapons drawn? Are they on neutral ground? Does the group contain any dwarves?).

3) Based on the starting disposition (MC-fiat) and the modifiers (passively determined by circumstance and by any actions the PCs took before hand), MC makes an initial attitude roll. So, the aggressive orcs could become hostile to armed dwarves on sight, or they could become cautious to humans out in the middle of a neutral area that don't have weapons drawn, or whatever.

4) The encounter has started, and people can start to make decisions as to whether to use Diplomacy, fight, run, or whatever.


So, from what I can tell, you setting the initial attitude is akin to Frank setting the initial disposition: 100% MC fiat. It's just that after that, Frank is taking actions into account that happen before the encounter. The initial attitude roll is to determine how successful those actions are.

So, if your goal is to put aggressive orcs at ease, you might walk around with your weapons sheathed, have your half orc barbarian "leading" the group up front, and avoid disputed territories to boost your modifiers. Once that part is done, assuming MC doesn't roll "the orcs want to kill you, no questions asked", then the group can always attempt to engage in Diplomacy once the encounter starts (a second roll).

[fectin]

Stuff.

Grovelling and supplicating are actual actions though and would thus should have a roll. There sure as hell shouldn't be one over whether or not the orcs are hostile. That's the been the only thing I've been questioning since the beginning because the way Frank is putting it there should be a roll to determine both which I don't think there should be one to determine that the orcs already don't like you. Whether or not there should be a roll on what they do about hasn't been a part of any argument I've made.

If I'm reading you and Frank correctly, I don't think you're too far off from what he's saying. I'm getting the impression it goes like this:

1) MC sets a starting disposition for the orcs (aggressive).

2) MC takes into account anything the PCs have passively or preemptively done (Do they have weapons drawn? Are they on neutral ground? Does the group contain any dwarves?).

3) Based on the starting disposition (MC-fiat) and the modifiers (passively determined by circumstance and by any actions the PCs took before hand), MC makes an initial attitude roll. So, the aggressive orcs could become hostile to armed dwarves on sight, or they could become cautious to humans out in the middle of a neutral area that don't have weapons drawn, or whatever.

4) The encounter has started, and people can start to make decisions as to whether to use Diplomacy, fight, run, or whatever.


So, from what I can tell, you setting the initial attitude is akin to Frank setting the initial disposition: 100% MC fiat. It's just that after that, Frank is taking actions into account that happen before the encounter. The initial attitude roll is to determine how successful those actions are.

So, if your goal is to put aggressive orcs at ease, you might walk around with your weapons sheathed, have your half orc barbarian "leading" the group up front, and avoid disputed territories to boost your modifiers. Once that part is done, assuming MC doesn't roll "the orcs want to kill you, no questions asked", then the group can always attempt to engage in Diplomacy once the encounter starts (a second roll).

Agree with your summary. However, I also assert that steps 1-3 yield a result functionally identical to MC fiat. Furthermore, I assert that direct MC fiat is better. Consider:

In your (MC) game, I (PC) say "I tear up that shrubbery and eat it. Do I start flying?" You, being a reasonable MC, do which of the following:
a) assign a low probablilty of success and roll for it.
b) "No."
c) "Not no, but hell no."

Adding in wacky randomnesses makes games stupid. It removes player agency (because thier actions have less predictable outcomes and it's easier to start eating things and hoping you roll high on "Does it give me a divine rank?"). Setting cohesion goes to shit, etc.

OK, now do the comparison: Lord Fancypants goes out with various amounts of money on different days. The PCs watch his behavior and attempt to intercept him on a day when he will have more or less money than usual on his person. How would you feel about the DM telling you in that case that Lord Fancypants had no gold on him without rolling dice?

I would say unkind things about the DM whether or not he rolled the dice if the players plotted a stickup and Lord Fancypants had no money. That's just asshattery. That doesn't mean Fancypants ever carries a lot of money, or that he doesn't take precautions when he does, but any rolling should be to make the number more flavorful (20k GP -> 20117 GP), not to actually change it.
There should be a pattern that players can work out (or at least recognize) and plan around, and deviations from that pattern should be plot points. In Pirates of the Carribean, pirate fights always stop when you say "Parley." That's not a diplomacy roll, that's just how pirates work. Diplomacy comes later, when you try to actually talk.
In DnD, it should work the same. If your Orc Raiding Party #327 are fanatically opposed to the color red, they aren't likely to attack redshirts, they should always attack redshirts. If there's something making them not want to attack, the DM should conciously decide how his characters' motivations balance.


Overall, it's the same rection I get for players who instead of playing their damn character, announce "I'm making a wisdom roll to not tell the king his pants are ugly." I'm more sympathetic because the MC has more work, but it's still the same thing.

[hogarth]

Overall, it's the same rection I get for players who instead of playing their damn character, announce "I'm making a wisdom roll to not tell the king his pants are ugly." I'm more sympathetic because the MC has more work, but it's still the same thing.

I'm also reminded of the idiot who argued that you shouldn't be able to "take 10" on Disable Device checks because you might have randomly forgotten your tools at home.

[RobbyPants]

Agree with your summary. However, I also assert that steps 1-3 yield a result functionally identical to MC fiat. Furthermore, I assert that direct MC fiat is better. Consider:

In your (MC) game, I (PC) say "I tear up that shrubbery and eat it. Do I start flying?" You, being a reasonable MC, do which of the following:
a) assign a low probablilty of success and roll for it.
b) "No."
c) "Not no, but hell no."

Adding in wacky randomnesses makes games stupid. It removes player agency (because thier actions have less predictable outcomes and it's easier to start eating things and hoping you roll high on "Does it give me a divine rank?"). Setting cohesion goes to shit, etc.

How do you feel about an actual Diplomacy roll, once both sides have seen eachother? The PCs have met the orcs, and the orcs are in a [insert mood] attitude. The bard attempts to make them friendly and rolls. Is this kosher?

If so, how is that different than the PCs knowing that there are orcs about, so they take actions that would be non-threatening ahead of time, in case they run into orcs? The idea is, in both cases, the PCs are trying to influence the orc's attitude. The difference is in the first case, they're already face to face, and they're not in the second case.

Also, I'm not sure what you're getting at about flight-inducing shrubberies. If there is zero chance of some bush letting people fly, then a roll is pointless. The difference here is that maybe the PCs sheathing their weapons will put the orcs at ease and maybe they won't. How do you determine that?

MC Mother-may-I, or a die roll? A die roll sounds a bit less like MC fiat to me.

[hogarth]

How do you feel about an actual Diplomacy roll, once both sides have seen eachother? The PCs have met the orcs, and the orcs are in a [insert mood] attitude. The bard attempts to make them friendly and rolls. Is this kosher?

If so, how is that different than the PCs knowing that there are orcs about, so they take actions that would be non-threatening ahead of time, in case they run into orcs? The idea is, in both cases, the PCs are trying to influence the orc's attitude. The difference is in the first case, they're already face to face, and they're not in the second case.

Suppose the party doesn't take any particular actions at all. Then why is the GM rolling a reaction? To see if they did "nothing in particular" really well or really poorly? That really sounds like "oops, you left your tools at home" bullshit to me.

[RobbyPants]

Would it work to simply not roll in that case? The way I understand it, the whole point is to see if anything moves the monsters from their initial disposition at the onset of the encounter. This could be due to passive things on the PCs part or actions they took. So, having dwarves in the group might be a passive modifier.

If there are no modifiers, would it hurt anything to simply ignore the roll in that case?

[hogarth]

Would it work to simply not roll in that case??

It would work to simply not roll in every case. That's what I've been saying.

Why don't you come up with a scenario where you think it would make sense to roll for reactions, and then explain what a low, medium and high roll are supposed to represent? We can make up scenarios all day where it doesn't make sense (e.g. "love at first sight" on the subway).

[RobbyPants]

Okay, so the PCs want to smooth things over with the orcs. The orcs are initially aggressive before even knowing the PCs are coming, due to blahblahblah. The PCs want to avoid a fight. So they show up with their weapons sheathed and the orc equivalent of a white flag. At this point, they haven't met with the orcs, but they've still taken some preemptive actions. So, they meet some orc patrol out in the woods, notice the PCs with their sheathed weapons and white flag, and MC rolls:

High: the orcs start out either neutral, with their guard lowered somewhat.

Medium: the aggressive orcs start out cautious.

Low: the orcs are quite suspicious of the PCs, and borderline hostile.


I guess what I'm saying is, it doesn't make sense if the PCs aren't trying to do anything. It's sort of like saying that you'll shoot the first thing that you see (hoping it's an orc), before seeing what it is. It still requires an attack roll, regardless of if it's an orc or a human. It's just, in this case, you're hoping to run into orcs, so you take precautions to put the orcs at ease.

[Kaelik]

Would it work to simply not roll in that case??

It would work to simply not roll in every case. That's what I've been saying.

Why don't you come up with a scenario where you think it would make sense to roll for reactions, and then explain what a low, medium and high roll are supposed to represent? We can make up scenarios all day where it doesn't make sense (e.g. "love at first sight" on the subway).

The PCs approach the witchs candy house. In approaching the house, they perform actions which the witch notices and judges them on. The Witch has a stance of Content. The PCs roll their attitude roll 1d20+Cha+2 synergy bonus for having 5 ranks in diplomacy -5 for being a change to the status the witch was content in.

0 or lower Witch instantly attacks.
1-5 Witch forcefully warns them away, demanding they leave right then.
6-10 Witch opens the door if they knock or approach, but is dismissive and engages their questions like you would a mormon at your door.
11-15 Witch invites them in for tea and crumpets.
16-20 Witch likes the cut of their jibb and offers help in whatever their goal is, supplies/info/ect.
21-25 Witch will lead them to their destination, offering advice the whole way.
26-30 you have gained a new party member.

[fectin]

Some stuff.

How do you feel about an actual Diplomacy roll, once both sides have seen eachother? The PCs have met the orcs, and the orcs are in a [insert mood] attitude. The bard attempts to make them friendly and rolls. Is this kosher?

I feel the same way I do about it as I do about an Open Lock roll once someone has seen a locked door: it doesn't just happen because a rogue is in the same room, he has to actually go do something. Other than that, nothing's wrong.
A Diplomacy roll is a full minute action and needs an actor.

If so, how is that different than the PCs knowing that there are orcs about, so they take actions that would be non-threatening ahead of time, in case they run into orcs?

Depends how they're trying to do that. Looking non-threatening is probably bluff or disguise, depending on what they're going for. Figuring out what is non-threatening to an orc is either common knowledge that you just know from living in the setting, or some sort of knowledge check. etc.

The idea is, in both cases, the PCs are trying to influence the orc's attitude. The difference is in the first case, they're already face to face, and they're not in the second case.

I'm going back to locked doors for this (binary is easier): players are trying to sneak into a keep without raising an alarm so that interior security doors don't get shut and locked. They are taking game actions to affect the locked/unlocked state of the doors. That is different from having a rogue come in and use Open Locks to change that state.
Is that a fair analogy?

Also, I'm not sure what you're getting at about flight-inducing shrubberies. If there is zero chance of some bush letting people fly, then a roll is pointless.

Real game example. I shouldn't have used it. I wanted to show that artificially injecting chance into a system is dumb, but it fell flat.

The difference here is that maybe the PCs sheathing their weapons will put the orcs at ease and maybe they won't. How do you determine that?

MC Mother-may-I, or a die roll? A die roll sounds a bit less like MC fiat to me.

From a player perspective, it's MC fiat either way. MC is assigning all the DCs and all the modifiers. Player stats don't have any predictable part in it, and the only discernable difference is that the orcs' motivations are less well defined.
From the MC perspective, it's just playing Magical Solitare Party. He's making up some numbers, rolling some dice, and then making up a result based on that, instead of roleplaying the character. We don't complain about "Player Fiat" affecting PC actions and attitudes, why is MC fiat bad for guiding the same things for NPCs?

[hogarth]

Okay, so the PCs want to smooth things over with the orcs. The orcs are initially aggressive before even knowing the PCs are coming, due to blahblahblah. The PCs want to avoid a fight. So they show up with their weapons sheathed and the orc equivalent of a white flag. At this point, they haven't met with the orcs, but they've still taken some preemptive actions. So, they meet some orc patrol out in the woods, notice the PCs with their sheathed weapons and white flag, and MC rolls:

High: the orcs start out either neutral, with their guard lowered somewhat.

Medium: the aggressive orcs start out cautious.

Low: the orcs are quite suspicious of the PCs, and borderline hostile.

But you don't explain why the orcs' reaction is neutral/cautious/hostile. What did the PCs do in those cases to cause a different reaction?

If the answer is "nothing", then you're just adding random noise to the orcs' reaction (e.g. the orcs are falling in love at first sight for no apparent reason).

If the answer is "something", then what is the "something" that the PCs did wrong (or right) and why isn't it covered by another skill (like Knowledge [orcs])?

[PoliteNewb]

Okay, so the PCs want to smooth things over with the orcs. The orcs are initially aggressive before even knowing the PCs are coming, due to blahblahblah. The PCs want to avoid a fight. So they show up with their weapons sheathed and the orc equivalent of a white flag. At this point, they haven't met with the orcs, but they've still taken some preemptive actions. So, they meet some orc patrol out in the woods, notice the PCs with their sheathed weapons and white flag, and MC rolls:

High: the orcs start out either neutral, with their guard lowered somewhat.

Medium: the aggressive orcs start out cautious.

Low: the orcs are quite suspicious of the PCs, and borderline hostile.

But you don't explain why the orcs' reaction is neutral/cautious/hostile. What did the PCs do in those cases to cause a different reaction?

If the answer is "nothing", then you're just adding random noise to the orcs' reaction (e.g. the orcs are falling in love at first sight for no apparent reason).

If the answer is "something", then what is the "something" that the PCs did wrong (or right) and why isn't it covered by another skill (like Knowledge [orcs])?

I thought the random roll in there was to represent the fact that "orcs" are not a homogenous group who always act the same way...or even act the same way on different days.

The PCs have weapons sheathed and a white flag...you could say "orcs recognize those as peace signs, so they get that the PCs probably want to parley".

BUT...maybe the orcs think it's a trap (hell, maybe somebody pulled the false-white-flag gambit on them a week ago). Maybe these particular orcs are getting flack from their boss about not collecting enough ears, or maybe they're just in a really shitty mood.

The answer to whether any of the above is true could be "DM fiat". But it could also be, "I don't have time to decide if any particular band of orcs is feeling grumpy, so let's roll a die and find out". Using a baseline and adding the modifiers based on PC actions keeps the results within an acceptable range...so the orcs reaction to a white flag and sheathed weapons isn't "throw a celebratory party", and their reaction to bare blades and menacing looks isn't "kneel down and suck cock".

[shadzar]

The PCs have weapons sheathed and a white flag...you could say "orcs recognize those as peace signs, so they get that the PCs probably want to parley".

Wouldnt action on the PCs part already be using some sort of "diplomacy" to change the initial state of the orcs?

If they were mad to begin with, the white flag is diplomatic (even without the roll, because it would be DM fiat) in an attempt to change their behavior.

So you are already using diplomacy, just not rolling for it, before you come into contact with them?

I would say waving a "orc white flag" would require a diplomacy check since you are trying to change their attitude.

It still doesnt change the fact they are initially aggressive as you have already acted to change that behavior, and they were still initially aggressive.

[Kaelik]

If the answer is "something", then what is the "something" that the PCs did wrong (or right) and why isn't it covered by another skill (like Knowledge [orcs])?

Why do we roll search and disable device checks instead of having that covered under "knowledge traps and knowledge what traps look like."

Important clarification.

The stances that everyone else wants to call dispositions. Those are not "helpful, friendly, indifferent, hostile" and rolling well on the attitude roll moves the orcs from one to another.

They are "Aggressive, cautious, content, exuberant, focused, pineapple." And when you roll well against the aggressive orcs, they don't become cautious or content, they are still aggressive, they just treat you nicely.

[RobbyPants]

But you don't explain why the orcs' reaction is neutral/cautious/hostile. What did the PCs do in those cases to cause a different reaction?

If the answer is "nothing", then you're just adding random noise to the orcs' reaction (e.g. the orcs are falling in love at first sight for no apparent reason).

If the answer is "something", then what is the "something" that the PCs did wrong (or right) and why isn't it covered by another skill (like Knowledge [orcs])?

How is that different than a sword swing that failed to connect? Do you have to explain why you fucked up your second swing when it's made with the same modifiers against the same AC as the first attack that succeeded.

The dice are an abstraction. They take things into account to keep this from being a 100% MC fiat game. In the case of an attack roll, you figure you overswung, or you slipped in some mud, or the other guy parried. In the case of diplomacy, maybe you made some stupid faux pas without meaning to.

I totally agree with you that we don't need randomness for the sake of randomness. Rolling a d20 to see if you can drink your beer is dumb. Rolling to see the initial disposition of monsters is dumb (except maybe in the case of wandering monsters). However, rolling to determine the success of a PC action is what makes this a game. I'm not talking about rolling disposition. I'm talking about rolling for the reaction based on some actions taken by the PCs.