Skill: Diplomacy

[Yevelian]

I know it's a generally well established house rule, but I would only suggest instead of limiting Diplomacy to NPC interactions, allow it also for PvP interactions as well, not even all of them hostile


I have played many table top games with variant rules on this. The most common form I've used is a five tiered system. When two hostile parties interact, one could essentially talk down a hostile situation to an unfriendly one, or even further. There are many characters who have devoted skill points to Diplomacy, and some who have taken feats for this reason. To me, with a lack of Diplomacy interactions with static NPCs Sundren has (there are a few), it would make sense to not out right ban it for players, but perhaps allow it in some situations.



Now of course, it's not going to talk down someone who is a bounty hunter out for your head, but I have been in several situations where things (and lives) could have been sparred by a check.



The way my PnP DMs, and I did, when I was a DM, according to the Player Handbook for 3.5e was that it was not exclusively used against NPCs. The system I used most often is copied and pasted below, along with the skill description as I have found it.


I submit this for input.




-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Initial Attitude ————— New Attitude (DC to achieve)————— Hostile Unfriendly Indifferent Friendly Helpful Hostile Less than 20 20 25 35 50 Unfriendly Less than 5 5 15 25 40 Indifferent — Less than 1 1 15 30 Friendly — — Less than 1 1 20 Helpful — — — Less than 1 1


Diplomacy (CHA)

(PHB, p. 71, or p. 66 depending on your version)
Description

Use this skill to persuade the chamberlain to let you see the king, to negotiate peace between feuding barbarian tribes, or to convince the ogre mages that have captured you that they should ransom you back to your friends instead of twisting your limbs off one by one. Diplomacy includes etiquette, social grace, tact, subtlety, and a way with words. A skilled character knows the formal and informal rules of conduct, social expectations, proper forms of address, and so on. This skill represents the ability to give others the right impression of oneself, to negotiate effectively, and to influence others.
Check

You can change the attitudes of others with a successful check. (The Dungeon Master’s Guide has more information on influencing NPCs.) In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage. Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party.

[Yevelian]

Oookay, so my copy and paste didn't work.... uhm.. and I can't seem to edit this... uh, the five tiered system is found here, but this variant has been reworded from the PHB handbook.

http://dndtools.eu/skills/diplomacy/

[Phantom Lamb]

This one pains me. It isn't a house rule from anything I've seen documented. I know the source material, but that's for a PnP environment where (similarly to what you're pointing out) you rarely oppose another player. PNP is typically set up for a party that is together in some aspect of the word. They are not two separate groups frequently set up against one other.

In the end, I guess I don't care what the official statement on it is. Yes, the source material says one thing, but the dice tool and skill character sheet say other things. I would like to see this resolved one way or the other though, so people would stop picking and choosing when Diplomacy or Bluff is appropriate depending on the day of the week. Causes too much strife when there are "house rules" that aren't documented, though I don't think this is a house rule... yet.

[Valhalla]

The problem with this sort of thing is that system is also supposed to take into account the environment, the situation, etc.

If a man clad in black full plate without an inch of skin shown walks up to a band of merry paladins (& Co.) with a symbol of the God of Murder and Baby Eating hanging around his neck, that's the sort of situation that an intelligent PnP DM would apply modifiers to or just outright deny the right to roll.

There's a point where it just doesn't matter how high your diplomacy score is - you've crossed that line in the sand and no PC in their right mind is going to let you off the hook because you're suave. Diplomacy is not an inherently magical skill, it's not going to mind control someone to think something directly counter to their principles.

Not to mention changing the attitude of another is, per the SRD, an action that takes a full 10 rounds, or rushed in a single round with a -10.

[Yevelian]

Granted, a man in black walking up on blood thirsty Paladins is precisely what I'm talking about, and wouldn't necessarily apply in that situation. There are situations I've been in, say.... diplomatic talks, where it should have been allowed, and wasn't.

(edit) I would be happy with a modifier situation however. Even as a rogue, I have been denied the diplomacy, which didn't sit right. I suppose every situation is different, and DM intervention would be preferred, but isn't always available.

[Fuzziebunny]

The problem with this is that what you might consider as a lame argument or tactic, someone else might take it as bloody brilliant. So in the course of the conversation one party feels cheated or forced into RP by a dice roll.

I am not saying this is always the case. I am saying the skill is subjective and situational. If you want to use your skill with another player though, nothing is stopping you from talking to him or her and working something out. Could be you slam down some creativity on them and they tell you to dazzle them with an epic roll. Never know until you ask.

[Talleyman99]

With all diplo checks rolled against my toons I generally take what they know about you, what they have seen you do, what they, have spoken to you before about, and the topic at hand all into the mix and let ti adjust my responses. Some things can be forgiven, ignored and such because you choose to roll to show your toon was being diplomatic. Somethings just cant be over looked as stated above.

[cmosier]

The 3.X Social Interaction Mechanic has always been odd. Then most games that have tend to be so. By 3.X and Pathfinder rule, reaction and belief is left up to the PC. Probably best to leave it that way.

[Memnoch1962]

How is rolling a diplomacy check any different than rolling an intimidate check? Why is one ok and the other apparantly not ok?

[Fuzziebunny]

Well in the RP I have seen, people don't try to use intimidate to get you to agree with them. Generally it is used as a "scare" tactic. But Valhalla hit the nail on the head in his post.

Most of the time I see the skill diplomacy used, it is an attempt at low grade mind control. Like a few polite words or a witty remark are going to prevent you from your course of action no matter what. Diplomacy is more then just a " I will f you up" stare from the scary looking biker that makes you get off your barstool and exit stage left. Which would be intimidation.

I still think that as long as you are talking with the other players however you should be able to work something out so that both of you are happy.

[Valhalla]

I honestly see Intimidate used even less than Diplomacy, though maybe I don't run in the right circles?

Like Fuzziebunnie said, Intimidate is a scare tactic though, which makes having it rolled at you a lot easier to respond to. Folks respond to fear through fight or flight, giving your PC a hell of a lot more 'options' available than "You shift 1 step to the left on the JEDI MIND TRICKS scale".

If someone I'm trying to arrest rolls diplomacy at me and passes, they might take it as bad form if I persist. If someone I'm trying to arrest rolls Intimidate, I'm more than within my rights to immediately attack them, run away scared, or run away and get help (and come back).

Tl;dr - More options that make everyone happy = better.

[cmosier]

How is rolling a diplomacy check any different than rolling an intimidate check? Why is one ok and the other apparantly not ok?

Unless you're immune to Fear, Intimidate actually causes a special condition. There are penalties involved. Just like when Bluff is used with Fient. As a player, you have to take the result of the rolls.

I'm not saying it's necessarily right, I just don't see very many functioning alternatives.

[Yevelian]

I am not talking about using Diplomacy to work your way into controlling someone. Negotiators talk down suicide jumpers, talk down armed hostage takers all the time using this skill in RL. I just think there is a use for it in this setting against others. You'll never make a L/G player follow/believe a C/E character, well... in most situations, but things can be "talked down" given this skill. I was addressing more the aspect of negotiations however, but talking down someone isn't the same thing as "intimidating" a jumper off a ledge.

[Fuzziebunny]

The heart of the issue is this. You want to use your skill to influence another characters actions. This can be fun RP.

What is no fun is when someone uses their skill to influence another characters actions and the player of the character does not believe the RP was sufficient to warrant the influence.

IE: dice roll trumping RP.

I am not saying you yourself will ever do that, but some people would.

[wangxiuming]

The way I have always played with diplomacy and intimidate as follows:

1. If the target of a diplomacy or intimidate roll succeeds on their counter, the attempt has no effect.
2. If the target of a diplomacy or intimidate roll fails their counter, then I would expect them to react in some way. However, i believe it's up to that player how his or her character would react, however much or however little. Whether they only take a moment to reconsider their current actions or whether they do a complete 180 or hightail it and run should be up to them.

Just my personal approach and opinion!