Skill: Diplomacy

[cmosier]

For the record, if a character rolls a Diplomacy Check in most reasonable situations, I play along. Making it after a bit of RP is always helpful. After all, your character may be diplomatic even if you're not.

[Jhickey]

I have gotten in the habit of just being a diplomatic with my words, in hopes that the other player sees it. Even though Datton is really good at the diplomacy skill, I try to avoid it because back in the day when I used it on players, I got grief for it. So I just avoid it at this point. I Like to think my words are slick enough, but I have been wrong before.

[Farmboy2003]

I always tell the kids in larp at work that the best RP is when your character reacts in a different way than they would usually do. Either by character flaw and weaknesses or manipulation or force.

The dnd social skills are a great way to do this, here on sundren.

If someone invest into a skill that does not have a direct mechanical effect, I believe you should you accept and respect it being used in RP, within reason. Its what keep RP flowing.

[Jhickey]

I always tell the kids in larp at work that the best RP is when your character reacts in a different way than they would usually do. Either by character flaw and weaknesses or manipulation or force.

The dnd social skills are a great way to do this, here on sundren.

If someone invest into a skill that does not have a direct mechanical effect, I believe you should you accept and respect it being used in RP, within reason. Its what keep RP flowing.

I can agree with this. I wanted to say in my early post is that there are far to many preconceived notions about players. If Datton walked up to the Second Wind, one of two things occur, even before a word is said, people scatter (this is funny by the way), or they confront me right away. The issue with it is that no matter what is said, you as the player have come to a conclusion that there is going to be some sort of combat. I do not mind the PvP aspect one bit, what I love is the RP aspect, the theological banter created by two opposing ideals. Why not have a a successful diplomacy check allow for a interaction, that would not otherwise occur; I am not saying that it is going to change your overall attitude towards a a person, but it could lead to interesting RP, and take your PC to places you never thought to go. I will use an example here, plus I am riding on a train and nothing better to do. If anyone remembers Bree, the RP I would have with her over a long period of time created a differant side of Datton that is still presistent today. This was all because of a theological conversations and banter. We did not need to roll anything, because we had an agreement that we would allow our RP to go where it took us.

The point is that when RP we need to sometimes disregard the preconceived notions that we carry into a conversation. No, "oh there goes Datton, he is pure evil and chaotically murders people". Let's let the RP dictate what our actions are, not a preconceived notion. I do need to cite the players of River and Byrun, while they may not like Datton; they have on more that one occasion just allowed the RP go where it went. I thank you two a ton, because there are a million reasons your PCs could hate Datton.

(I may have to edit this when in can get to my laptop. It's harder than I thought to put a complete thought into writing from my phone.

[Memnoch1962]

I agree with jhicky, it is funny how when team evil shows up that people either run or start pvp. And typing on a phone sucks

[cmosier]

*coughs* Not everybody *coughs*

Also... "Team Evil" should look into information on Cheliax, The Empire of Devils from Pathfinder. Might be some good stuff in there for you guys.

[sonuvalich]

2 cents:

Diplomacy and intimidation can be used to sway people. Not every situation will be swayable. Yes, negotiators talks suicides and hostage takers down: this is usually because people are conflicted about killing themselves or other people, so there is somewhere to gain traction. Someone who is determined to end his and/or others lives (e.g. a psychopath) is not going to be talked down.

RP example:

Sandro crafts you a magical item and tells you it will cost you 50,000. Then one of two scenarios unfolds:

1. You roll diplomacy and get a nat 20 and have huge stats and get a 59 diplomacy. You tell Sandro it should be free because of how good of buddies you are and also he is so devilishly handsome. Sandro chuckles and blushes and holds out his hand for the 50,000 stags because no.
2. You roll diplomacy and get a nat 20 and have huge stats and get a 59 diplomacy. You tell Sandro you think maybe a discount is in order because of how good of buddies you are and also he is so devilishly handsome. Sandro chuckles and blushes and holds out his hand for 45,000 stags because you make a compelling case and he was gouging you anyways. He recognizes your silver-tongued talent and offers to hire you on as a negotiator on a case-by-case basis.

I have had people in the past roll diplomacy on Artemis to get in bed with her and be like "I got a 40, let's see them boobs!" It is a skill that needs to be used with tact and consideration by both players. As said, it does not equal mind control, but players have to be receptive to allowing it to influence them. Datton should be able to persuade a paladin to stay his hand a moment to let him speak with a good roll, unless maybe he is mid-chomp on a baby or something.

[GodBeastX]

People are wrong and right when they say "There's a House Rule."

I've commented on this before in the past in various threads, but nothing has been stickied/wikied on it. I'll just reiterate what I said before and my reasonings on it.

Social interactions are a colorful expression of so many variables it's difficult to contain them all. D&D makes it worse with one of the crappiest set of social interaction skills. D&D is meant for combat and when social interactions come into play they sum everything up into about 3 skill rolls with Black & White results.

Other systems handle this better and referencing one of them on any subject would turn up enlightening results. For example, people like to use intimidate to scare people into whatever, but let's consider what intimidation can result in truly.

Take for example a GURPS excerpt (Probably the best P&P game for social interactions and even won an award for their book specifically on social interaction).

Intimidation

This is the skill of hostile persuasion. The essence of Intimidation is to convince the subject that you are able and willing, perhaps even eager, to do
something awful to him.

The results of a successful Intimidation attempt depend on the target. An honest citizen probably cooperates, sullenly or with false cheer. A low-life might lick your boots (even becoming genuinely loyal). A really tough sort might react well without being frightened: “You’re my kind of scum!” The GM decides, and roleplays it.

That's just a small clip of what it has to say on intimidation. They give modifiers, thoughts on people immune to intimidation (Like paladins) and so on. The important thing is outcomes are variable. GM decides the results. The problem in PVP is people who roll Intimidation expect a certain outcome. They expect you to pee yourself. They expect you to run away screaming. They expect all sorts of things! Fact is, it's a threat, and a successful intimidation roll really just means "I'll make good on this threat" what that means to people cannot be easily represented for PVP with an all encompassing roll.

What makes it worse is we have skill bonus items upon skill bonus items that make people have rolls upwards of 80! How does someone even react to that? Someone that intimidating would likely have gods pissing themselves by D&D mechanics. It gets unrealistic for the social interactions involved!

So in general the typical response I give people is as follows:

When someone rolls a social skill, do your best to honor their results. Let the guy who is a bluff master get some leighway on his deception. Let the diplomatic individual have his influence, and let that intimidating guy seem like he might be dangerous.

However, in GURPS, if people RP out what they're trying to roll in social situations poorly, the GM is ENCOURAGED to give them penalties to their roll. This would be similar to the DC raising based on what was done during the interaction.

"The sky is red." [Rolls Bluff, gets 80]

"Dude, the sky is blue."

(( I rolled 80, come on!

(( Sorry, I'm not going to start believing the sky is red just because you rolled.

I'd never penalize the guy who says the sky is blue in this case. That's just plain ludicrous. Rolls DO NOT replace good roleplay ever. They supplement it. As said it's ROLEplay not ROLLplay.

However, the world is full of Internet Tough Guys who are disconnected from their characters. If a bunch of people drew swords around me and started intimidating me in the real world, I'd likely try to diffuse the situation or run for the hills! Yet, time and again, I see people charge into that same scenario and die. It'd be even worse if the person said "Well, I charged in cause they failed intimidation rolls" and then luls ensue.

So, honor the roll, but don't use the roll to cover over your interactions. People utterly ignoring someone who invested skill into something are as bad to me as people who use skill points invested to try and autowin. There's a middle ground and it's just not easily defined in a set of laws players must obey.

I think people do relatively well with them, however.

[Yevelian]

So, honor the roll, but don't use the roll to cover over your interactions. People utterly ignoring someone who invested skill into something are as bad to me as people who use skill points invested to try and autowin. There's a middle ground and it's just not easily defined in a set of laws players must obey.

I think people do relatively well with them, however.

Ahh... could not have said it better myself.

[Valhalla]

[snip]
If Datton walked up to the Second Wind, one of two things occur, even before a word is said, people scatter (this is funny by the way), or they confront me right away. The issue with it is that no matter what is said, you as the player have come to a conclusion that there is going to be some sort of combat. I do not mind the PvP aspect one bit, what I love is the RP aspect, the theological banter created by two opposing ideals.

The thing I'd like to point out here: this is the problem that arises when PCs can join the "true" badguy faction. Right now, the Black Hand is the biggest visible threat that Team Good and parts of Team Neutral are fighting (or hiding from). Especially when the groups that encounter each other have a paladin on one side, there's very few instances where that isn't going to end in smiting. The Black Hand stands for everything that makes life harder for Team Good and there's no larger threat that might, on occasion, unify parts of Evil and Good.

It makes no sense for my Helmite, or most Legion/Triad I know, to let a vampire or a known champion of the Tyrant waltz up into neutral territory and start preaching to the masses. They're something to be hated and feared, and a major part of most wartime propaganda campaigns is trying to convince your side that the other side is somehow less than human. (Or in a paladins case, to protect the minds of the innocent from the Tyrant's silky lies! ) There's a lot of reasons why encounters end in PvP, and most of them are totally legitimate.

The point is that when RP we need to sometimes disregard the preconceived notions that we carry into a conversation. No, "oh there goes Datton, he is pure evil and chaotically murders people". Let's let the RP dictate what our actions are, not a preconceived notion.

Unless you're talking about OOCly preconceived notions here, I respectfully disagree. If someone's PC hasn't met Datton but avoids/attacks him because they OOCly know he's a Banite, yeah that's bad. But if someone has heard of Banites by reputation, or Datton specifically, that "preconceived" notion is very much a part of their roleplay. If someone I trust with my life tells me Datton drinks the blood of innocents from his skull goblet, why wouldn't I take their word for it!

There's a reason why after a bunch of time invested in Gwynn I decided to go neutral - eternal games of cat and mouse and endless PvP isn't nearly as exciting for me as inter-faction politics and scheming.


Brief derail aside, I'll throw my lot in with the others who said "You should take rolls into account but don't let someone dictate your RP to you."

[cmosier]

I have had people in the past roll diplomacy on Artemis to get in bed with her and be like "I got a 40, let's see them boobs!"

Do you know how hard it is for Byrun to roll a 40? Be a Bro and show some nip. :-)

Seriously, things like this is why people tend to not give these skills a fair chance. They aren't meant to "make somebody do something" they are meant to convince or enhance RP.

I think most of us are pretty reasonable when it comes to Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive. I'd like to think I am.

[ManUtd4Ever]

I think most of us are pretty reasonable when it comes to Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive. I'd like to think I am.

I would agree that most remain reasonable, but I have witnessed countless times when Bluff was used in an attempt to convince another character of any number of outlandish claims.

It is a skill that needs to be used with tact and consideration by both players. As said, it does not equal mind control...

This is spot on. It can be funny, but too often it just breaks immersion and causes me to walk away.

Cheers!

[Farmboy2003]

Don't be a dick. Make sure others have fun too. There's your house rule.

[sonuvalich]

Be a Bro and show some nip.

I nominate this for immediate consideration as a new house rule...the juxtaposition alone....

[ManUtd4Ever]

Don't be a dick.

The only house rule we should ever need.

Cheers!