Actual Anatomy of Failed Design: Diplomacy

[Josh_Kablack]

If you want a quick and easy "fix" that's at least mostly modular, then non-scaling DCs with a harsh divisor are nearly workable.

You could use something like a 2e reaction roll or Grek's -10 to +10 scale and then have a diplomancy check modify that by something like 1/10th of the check result minus some constant N, and then you're at least on the RNG, and not bending it too badly until you're making 50+ check results, and by then the rest of the game is also bending badly.

You could even maybe base that N on HD, CR, or save bonus to make things semi-scaling.

You'd have to add rules for how Charm spells and Wild Empathy fit in, and personally, I'd be want to write a "combat diplomacy" skill use that specified how you could use the skill in combat to make an enemy prioritize another target, maybe waste an action or similar options.

It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be simple enough that players could understand and remember it, nobody would need to rebuild their character (unless they were abusing the Charm+Diplomacy >= Dominate RAW, but the point of this is to fix such shenanigans) and you wouldn't need to rewrite existing monsters and modules to use it.

[Zinegata]

So, how's this look?

A bit on the complex side, but conceptually it sounds rather good.

Just needs fewer variables.

[MGuy]

I'm talking about Initial Disposition. not the guidelines to change it. Frank rants about initial attitudes not being made on a roll. Why can't the DM legitimately say this creature, when you run into it, is probably going to be ~this~ pissed off at you/love you ~this~ much/ doesn't give a shit that you are there.

Because unless it's a fucking wild animal, the circumstances of you running into it aren't determined until the players actually meet up. Especially if you write the creatures up ahead of time, there is a fundamental difference in how I would expect the witch to respond to the players if they showed up at her candy house:

• Talking amongst themselves like Monty Python characters, and then stopped in the clearing to have an argument about whether anyone could live inside a pile of candy or not.
• Snuck up on the house and broke in special forces style.
• Jovially stopped at the fence and shouted "Hello the candy house!"
• Walked up to the house and said the password of the dark one's agents.
• Shouted "As agents of the crown, we demand hospitality!"

Because when you write down the presence of the witch and the house, you have no idea which of these the PCs are going to do. Essentially what you said is that the MC is supposed to decide ahead of time how successful every possible set of introductions could be. While they're at it, why don't they decide ahead of time how successful every possible set of social interaction is after the introduction? Or decide ahead of time how successful every possible type of attack will be? We could just not roll dice at all and play the game like a giant game of Mastermind, where you just guess what actions the MC has decided will work and/or kill your character - like a Choose Your Own Adventure book.

Everything that has player interaction needs a form of adjudication. "The MC totally makes up responses and rules with an iron fist" is a form of adjudication, but it's certainly not the most fair. When the players try something (like helloing the candy house), it is extremely frustrating to have the MC announce that it doesn't work without rolling dice.

I'm sure I'm missing some key parts in your thinking because all of this seems kind of silly. Yes I can reasonably expect an MC to write up the witch's general disposition towards guests. And even with the scenarios you laid down I can expect any MC that's even half awake to be able to effectively swing the initial attitude based on the player's choices/the situation without dropping a die and still seem fair.

I mean the Witch logically SHOULD have a general way she reacts to regular [unexpected] guests. If her guests do something to antagonize (sneaking into her house/threatening her with authority/plotting her destruction)or placate (come with a nice greeting/bring a gift) her upon first meeting then the MC should simply raise or lower her initial disposition a step or two as appropriate.

The problem with the MC deciding to fuck over a PC no matter what is just them doing a bad job or this witch may specifically be out for the PCs (IE Hostile). Why should there be a random roll to determine whether a generally indifferent/hostile/friendly witch just so happens to not feel the way.

I don't know why you continue on, [past] initial disposition with some other hyperbole about doing up DCs for this and that, but that has nothing to do with my issue. [Edit] Just to be clear. I am talking about the NPC's attitude towards a character as soon as they meet. Nothing beyond that, if that is not clear.

[Username17]

Mguy, how do you respond to "people" you encounter?

If it has anything to do with what the other people are doing and how they present themselves, then your suggested method of handling things is unsatisfactory.

-Username17

[Vnonymous]

I think the diplomacy system should actually still allow people to be diplomancers - after a certain point. The legendary Hero of the silver tongue should totally be able to convince people to give them everything they own and a blowjob to make the rest, much like the legendary acrobat can walk on clouds or the legendary escape artist waltz through anuses. It just needs to be something that happens at high levels or to low level people, as opposed to the current system where it happens at level 1 to everyone.

Figuring out an appropriate scale for this to happen isn't too big of a problem, but finding some way to tie that into the diplomacy skill without keeping the same problems. The simplest way to do it I can see is to just make diplomacy itself kind of unimpressive and have a skill feat which lets you do the really impressive stuff.

[tzor]

So, how's this look?

I like it. Only one question. Why would you ever want to remove a positive modifier?

[Grek]

If your diplomancing to make people hate the king's evil vizer, you'll want to remove as many of his possitive modifers as possible.

[MGuy]

Mguy, how do you respond to "people" you encounter?

If it has anything to do with what the other people are doing and how they present themselves, then your suggested method of handling things is unsatisfactory.

-Username17

How I "respond" to people is a different matter to my "attitude" toward them. If you are asking about my starting disposition to people I don't know I'd say Indifferent. I am generally indifferent towards people I JUST MEET. Now sure before coming face to face with someone certain things may adjust that, Do I know tat they are a part of a group I like/dislike, are they doing something I like/dislike at the moment I meet them, etc etc all would possibly change my initial disposition. This change can be predicted by the MC when the character is made because the MC knows what the NPC knows and how the character FEELS about it because they are the god damn person who made the character.

Now I want to be explicitly clear that any diplomatic moves made after first contact are not what I am talking about. Like at all. So tell me WHY should there be a fucking ROLL made about a preemptively made character's contact disposition. It doesn't make any sense that there would even be a chance that if someone was breaking into my house I somehow found them so appealing, at a glance, that my attitude wouldn't be somewhere down in hostile or unfriendly range. Should the PCs try to diplomatize their way out of it AFTER first contact in order to change disposition when all the greeting are shared then I have no argument with you because that isn't what I'm talking about.

[jadagul]

MGuy: you keep saying that "This change can be predicted by the MC". I think Frank wants some system for making this change--for determining NPCs' initial attitudes based on outside factors, that doesn't boil down to "the MC eyeballs it and says something."

[Kaelik]

Mguy, I'm sure the MC can predict "initial attitude" and the change your actions will have on the NPCs attitude. The MC can also predicate how likely the NPC is to get hit by a fireball. But we still roll for that, because you roll to resolve actions. Sometimes what actions PCs take needs to be abstracted out, I'm not a Diplomancer, and I'm not an expert Marksman, why am I allowed to play an archer, and not someone who naturally comes off as friendly?

[fectin]

I'm pretty sure that all Mguy is saying is that roles for starting attitude are silly; the MC should just set it.
If the players want to be diplomatic, that's a separate issue, and should be resolved separately, even if it happens right away.

[MGuy]

@Jad: I understand what Frank is looking for. My question is why is it necessary? Why, in this specific case, shouldn't NPC initial attitudes be eyeballed by the person who made the character? The MC knows the thing's general attitude, motivations, [demeanor] already ahead of time, they did of course create them, and so the MC setting it seems to make sense.

@Kaelik: I'm not sure what most of what you said has to do with what I said. Again I'm talking about initial attitude and not actually using diplomacy. What I'm talking about comes before the hellos, the greetings, any action that should actually require a [roll] and that includes the initiative one. Attacking, as you compare what I'm talking about to, requires action. What I'm talking about merely involves the PCs and the NPCs existing in close enough range to interact.

@Fect: Exactly.

[Grek]

The deciding initital attitude of the creature in question should definately be part of the encounter design process.

[Kaelik]

@Kaelik: I'm not sure what most of what you said has to do with what I said. Again I'm talking about initial attitude and not actually using diplomacy. What I'm talking about comes before the hellos, the greetings, any action that should actually require a [roll] and that includes the initiative one. Attacking, as you compare what I'm talking about to, requires action. What I'm talking about merely involves the PCs and the NPCs existing in close enough range to interact.

To which I can only reply: "What the fuck is an initial attitude before any of the actions that one takes to meet."

Witch in a Cottage, she does not have an initial attitude modified by diplomacy. She has a different attitude for children coming to play, men in metal armor with swords, or a witch who she's never seen before. There is no such thing as initial attitude. What the PCs do is what determines the initial attitude.

[MGuy]

To which I can only reply: "What the fuck is an initial attitude before any of the actions that one takes to meet."

Witch in a Cottage, she does not have an initial attitude modified by diplomacy. She has a different attitude for children coming to play, men in metal armor with swords, or a witch who she's never seen before. There is no such thing as initial attitude. What the PCs do is what determines the initial attitude.

That is simple. The initial disposition is whatever is appropriate for the witch's character. The MC has some very simple questions to ask them self about how the which might react to people like the PCs but they have even less to think about in terms of starting attitude. The only thing I'd imagine I'd have to ask myself is How does she feel about uninvited guests? Does she like them/dislike them or doesn't really care. Then based on the answer to this one simple question you can set her initial disposition to unfriendly, indifferent, or friendly or whatever lies in between those as appropriate.

Now lets say the PCs decide to make it so that they appear to be something they are not. They show up as children, knights, another witch, dirt farmers, etc. The MC is still going to probably know this well in advance and since they know how the witch "would" react to it they can adjust/or not adjust the witch's disposition as appropriate when the meeting occurs.

Why the fuck would a dice roll be dropped before the PCs DO anything?

[Kaelik]

It's like you aren't even paying attention. The PCs have to do something, some kind of thing, before the meeting can take place. That's a prerequisite to meeting.

What the do when they approach is a factor, but not the only factor, in how friendly they come across. Other factors are things like "what do they look like" and do they give off an impression of friendliness.

Those things are what the attitude roll is. The attitude roll determines how good of an impression they make when they first show up, before trying to convince the witch of anything.

You can't have an attitude towards "things" Things includes agent smith out for your blood, and your brother coming to visit, you can only have an attitude towards a specific thing, and since it's toward "the PCs" the PCs should have the ability to influence that attitude before they begin negotiation just by having characters who are friendly and seem like nice people.

[shadzar]

It's like you aren't even paying attention. The PCs have to do something, some kind of thing, before the meeting can take place. That's a prerequisite to meeting.

What the do when they approach is a factor, but not the only factor, in how friendly they come across. Other factors are things like "what do they look like" and do they give off an impression of friendliness.

Those things are what the attitude roll is. The attitude roll determines how good of an impression they make when they first show up, before trying to convince the witch of anything.

You can't have an attitude towards "things" Things includes agent smith out for your blood, and your brother coming to visit, you can only have an attitude towards a specific thing, and since it's toward "the PCs" the PCs should have the ability to influence that attitude before they begin negotiation just by having characters who are friendly and seem like nice people.

ever have someone visit when you were having a ba day? is your disposition towards this person the same as if you were having a good day and they came over?

this is the whole point of initial attitude.

if a king is constipated them it doesnt matter how kind you might be latter, he probably already just isnt in the mood to deal with you...and this all comes before a diplomacy roll is made.

ANY number of factors could determine what this initial disposition could be unless your world is in a vacuum and exists solely for the PCs to met and thus everyone is neutral to the PCs because nothing happens to them unless the PCs interact with them.

so should you come tomorrow after the king has spewed out as much crap as you have been, then he may be more receptive of visitors in general and the initial attitude may be different.

[MGuy]

It's like you aren't even paying attention. The PCs have to do something, some kind of thing, before the meeting can take place. That's a prerequisite to meeting.

What the do when they approach is a factor, but not the only factor, in how friendly they come across. Other factors are things like "what do they look like" and do they give off an impression of friendliness.

Those things are what the attitude roll is. The attitude roll determines how good of an impression they make when they first show up, before trying to convince the witch of anything.

You can't have an attitude towards "things" Things includes agent smith out for your blood, and your brother coming to visit, you can only have an attitude towards a specific thing, and since it's toward "the PCs" the PCs should have the ability to influence that attitude before they begin negotiation just by having characters who are friendly and seem like nice people.

I am paying attention. And I don't understand how you get through life basing your attitude of people you don't fucking know based off of how charming you don't know they are.

If I'm a witch and you come through my forest/swamp, as long as you don't associate yourself immediately (through clothing, visible features etc) with something I care about then I will react to you the same way I react to any other uninvited guest as per my character motivation/general disposition. If you come dressed in a particular way to associate yourself with something I care about then my disposition toward you will be altered as appropriate.

If you are dressed in a manner that makes me think you're part of a group I associate with then I will have a friendly disposition toward you. If you come in a fashion I dislike I will be more hostile. No fucking roll needed because you didn't make a fucking action. That's just the situation.

Being charming enough for me to fucking care is going to actually require action. Bringing a gift and opening your mouth or doing other things upon meeting me (doesn't even have to be face to face) to try to win me over is taking action to change my disposition, thus requiring a roll. And it is also explicitly NOT what I'm even arguing about.

Giving people diplomatic auras to make them seem more friendly is fine but still shouldn't require a roll. This is a skill we are fucking talking about and to use a skill you must be taking an action. Perception is a skill that is constantly on because you're constantly looking. You're not constantly charming.

[Kaelik]

Being charming enough for me to fucking care is going to actually require action.

Once again, think mof every single person or animal you have ever met in your life. Did you react exactly the same to all of them until they started talking, or did you react differently?

Giving people diplomatic auras to make them seem more friendly is fine but still shouldn't require a roll. This is a skill we are fucking talking about and to use a skill you must be taking an action. Perception is a skill that is constantly on because you're constantly looking. You're not constantly charming.

No, the attitude roll is not a skill. It's a roll, that occurs, when you meet someone. And it's 1d20+cha mod+circumstance bonus (ie trappings of knights vs little kids coming to see the witch)+ synergy bonus from diplomacy.

That's it. It's not a skill, there is no action, it's a reaction to the people who just showed up, because you don't just react to all people the same, you react to some people better than others, because they are friendly.

[MGuy]

Again you bring up "react" instead of "attitude" toward or "disposition". And no. Some things, because of the situation, dress, my motivations, etc MAY or may not change my disposition. But that has to do with my character, my motivations, combined with my general attitude. My disposition towards shit I don't know about is indifferent. I am indifferent toward any man/woman/child that isn't specifically close to me or that doesn't identify itself as something I oppose.

How I "react" to them is a completely different story and has NOTHING to do with what is being talked about. At the very least you should argue about what I'm arguing about. Frankly I'd disagree with you anyway but that's another argument i'm not even going to get into.

[Xenologer]

I don't understand how you get through life basing your attitude of people you don't fucking know based off of how charming you don't know they are. (...)

If you are dressed in a manner that makes me think you're part of a group I associate with then I will have a friendly disposition toward you. If you come in a fashion I dislike I will be more hostile. No fucking roll needed because you didn't make a fucking action. That's just the situation. (...)

Giving people diplomatic auras to make them seem more friendly is fine but still shouldn't require a roll. This is a skill we are fucking talking about and to use a skill you must be taking an action. Perception is a skill that is constantly on because you're constantly looking. You're not constantly charming.

Career canvasser chiming in here. Being dressed in a particular manner, making certain facial expressions, standing a certain way, knocking a certain way, giving particular regard to certain things on their porch or in their yard and even how uncomfortable with the ambient temperature I can visibly be? All questions of the canvasser's judgement, and part of being charming.

Before anything happens that you'd define as "an action," the diplomacy has already begun. As someone who has done a lot of what D&D 3.x would consider "making diplomacy checks," I can absolutely tell you that I give people an idea of how they want to react to me before I take what you'd define as an action and "make my roll" (AKA say hi, introduce myself, etc.) that absolutely does have to do with how I come across.

In some cases these are not variables the canvasser has control over (being an ethnicity people in this state have been taught to view as "scary," or the canvasser's apparent gender or age, etc.) but in many many cases there are. If you don't spend a lot of time consciously thinking about manipulating people, I can see why this would be easy to overlook, but you are defining "take an action" in a way that bears absolutely no relation to how actual diplomacy works (such as assuming that nobody could possibly optimize their appearance or "aura" to give them a bonus, which I can tell you right now I have done).

It absolutely is "taking an action" and a use of my IRL diplomacy skill to keep a set of Catholic medals in my pocket for canvassing areas I know are predominantly socially conservative. It definitely is a use of diplomacy to know how much jewelry people in another area are probably going to respond well to me wearing. It's definitely a use of diplomacy to know which of my winter overcoats is more likely to win someone over (and I seriously could tell you which ones give me "bonuses" with which kinds of people).

If you think that someone's "diplomatic aura" or how friendly they seem has nothing to do with actions they've taken and choices they've made which are a direct result of how canny they are, then you aren't paying attention to why some real people are more charming than others.

[MGuy]

Career canvasser chiming in here. Being dressed in a particular manner, making certain facial expressions, standing a certain way, knocking a certain way, giving particular regard to certain things on their porch or in their yard and even how uncomfortable with the ambient temperature I can visibly be? All questions of the canvasser's judgement, and part of being charming.

Before anything happens that you'd define as "an action," the diplomacy has already begun. As someone who has done a lot of what D&D 3.x would consider "making diplomacy checks," I can absolutely tell you that I give people an idea of how they want to react to me before I take what you'd define as an action and "make my roll" (AKA say hi, introduce myself, etc.) that absolutely does have to do with how I come across.

In some cases these are not variables the canvasser has control over (being an ethnicity people in this state have been taught to view as "scary," or the canvasser's apparent gender or age, etc.) but in many many cases there are. If you don't spend a lot of time consciously thinking about manipulating people, I can see why this would be easy to overlook, but you are defining "take an action" in a way that bears absolutely no relation to how actual diplomacy works (such as assuming that nobody could possibly optimize their appearance or "aura" to give them a bonus, which I can tell you right now I have done).

It absolutely is "taking an action" and a use of my IRL diplomacy skill to keep a set of Catholic medals in my pocket for canvassing areas I know are predominantly socially conservative. It definitely is a use of diplomacy to know how much jewelry people in another area are probably going to respond well to me wearing. It's definitely a use of diplomacy to know which of my winter overcoats is more likely to win someone over (and I seriously could tell you which ones give me "bonuses" with which kinds of people).

If you think that someone's "diplomatic aura" or how friendly they seem has nothing to do with actions they've taken and choices they've made which are a direct result of how canny they are, then you aren't paying attention to why some real people are more charming than others.

Actually I've heard of such a thing before. But none of this goes against anything I've said. If you have an "aura" fine. It still shouldn't require a roll but should give you bonuses on whatever roll you DO get or auto increase something's disposition by a step (upon failing some possible will save) but true diplomacy shouldn't happen until it is tried. Additionally the tricks you lay down and in all the books I've read about "The Game", persuasion, etc dolling yourself up, carrying regalia for this or that religion, etc is meant to associate yourself with something people perceive as a positive thing, and even this I've agreed to an accounted for but still wouldn't require a roll.

On a side note I will give you this: I've never encountered a time when on-sight or through some mystic aura I've felt mysteriously more positive or negative about someone I've never met. It may just be a feeling I've never had. However the most charismatic people I know or have met all either looked physically attractive or were good speakers. But even they needed to speak with someone before their disposition changed in any significant manner.

[Kaelik]

Once again.

The Witch sees some people walking up to her house. They are the exact same group of five people.

One time, they point at the house, and it's trappings, talking about it, smile jovially, and generally saunter up and knock on the door.

In the other, those same people walk up stone faced and suspicious and bang on the door.

Does the witch treat them identically?

Did either group engage in diplomacy? They don't know anything about the witch, or even if anyone is in there.

Why is it so hard to understand that the witch might treat these groups differently?

[MGuy]

Again Kaelik, at least try to argue with me about the same thing. Your argument this time is asking about a reaction. I'm talking about disposition. Disposition doesn't dictate exact actions. In both cases I'd rule the witch was indifferent. She'd probably have different things to SAY to either group but overall she'd still be neutral. Why are you attributing Disposition directly with action?


Here's My example. I have a friend. I'm already friendly disposition wise with them. They come to my house smiling jovially or stone faced and banging. I STILL treat them as FRIENDLY no matter how I react.

[Kaelik]

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