Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Brianith 06-14-07, 09:00 AM	I can't seem to find this anywhere, so I hoped maybe someone could enlighten me. We had a small tiff during one of our sessions over a PC's ability to use diplomacy on another PC. (This particular instance was my vampire trying to persuade another PC to *not* kill the vampire that turned my character.) I can't seem to find the rules on this, and I had assumed that Diplomacy vs. another PC would be exactly the same as vs. an NPC. Does anyone know anything different? Thanks.
Jason Snyder 06-14-07, 09:08 AM	The answer is no, Diplomacy doesn't work on PCs. In the Diplomacy skill description it says "You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters)". That's pretty clear. Perhaps you could use a NPC diplomacy check to determine how charming a NPC is to the PC, but that's about it. Diplomacy & bluff don't work on PCs because they aren't magic and have no coercive element to them. Imagine the counter-example: PC: "I strike at the vampire!" DM: "Your character likes the vampire" PC: "Uh, no, I want to kill the vampire" DM: "Your character doesn't do what you want" PC: "Am I charmed?" DM: "No." PC: "Dominated?" DM: "No." PC: "So my character is free to do what I want?" DM: "Yes" PC: "I want to kill the vampire" DM: "Sorry, your character refuses to do what you want". :p
Brianith 06-14-07, 09:11 AM	I would think, though, that a member of your own party would be more apt to consider your persuasion than even most NPCs. And if your PC is very charismatic, has a high diplomacy check, etc, I don't see why it would have no effect on a PC.
Banatine 06-14-07, 09:11 AM	The diplomacy skill works no matter who you use it on. We had a passifist bard in our group who kept trying to use diplomacy to stop me killing the monsters in the dungeon we were in. I was so happy when i found out it doesn't work in combat situations. e.g. You can't convince your friend to not kill the vampire. Words don't work once the gauntlet is down.
lint trap 06-14-07, 09:22 AM	e.g. You can't convince your friend to not kill the vampire. Words don't work once the gauntlet is down. Sure you can, you just take a -10 penalty for a rushed Diplomacy check. And no, Diplomacy doesn't work on PCs. The skill description states that multiple times ("Influencing NPC Reactions"). If you want to convince a PC of something, you have to do it the old fashioned way: with diplomacy, not Diplomacy.
Knightblde 06-14-07, 09:39 AM	I our game we make the check when using it against other PCs. This has nothing to do with any binding rules, it just lets us know how good of a case we have made. For example, I tell my fighter friend that it would be a good idea 'not' to kill his sister's murderer because she would want us to bring him to justice. I roll my diplomacy skill, if I get a 20, we might say, "well that was a really good speech, I think I will agree with you", or he might say, "sorry you wasted your breath on that really good speech." While it doesn't 'do' aything, it helps us measure our character's skill at the task anyway.
Grogmir 06-14-07, 10:59 AM	It doesn’t work on PC’s – simple as. Might as well play a computer game if you want to go around ‘making’ your team mates (and I assume friends OOC) do what you want them to do. Grogmir
Brianith 06-14-07, 11:04 AM	Well, Dungeons and Dragons is all about playing a character... And if my friend's PC would listen to my PC, then why shouldn't a diplomacy check be appropriate to determine whether the other PC is successfully persuaded? I completely understand that players have a choice on what their characters do, however I have witnessed diplomacy acting very much like a charm or suggestion, and it makes sense that if my character is skilled in that way that it should reflect on all members of the fantasy world. I mean no offense to anyone, but I still have not seen any rule that explicitly states that Diplomacy may *not* be used on other PCs. I understand that it mentions NPCs and nothing else, but that does not mean it doesn't work on PCs. I suppose it all comes down to speculation, and what the DM believes it should be.
lint trap 06-14-07, 11:15 AM	I understand that it mentions NPCs and nothing else, but that does not mean it doesn't work on PCs. I suppose it all comes down to speculation, and what the DM believes it should be. Usually, the description of a skill states what a skill can do, not everything it can't do. For instance, the skill description doesn't say that Diplomacy can't work on Golems, but that doesn't mean you can sweet talk a Stone Golem. Here's the closest explicit passage I could find, from the DMG 128. NPC charisma Checks to Alter Other SPCs' Attitudes: Should it come up, an NPC can use a Diplomacy or Charisma check to influence another NPC. However, NPCs can never influence PC attitudes. The players always make their characters' decisions. That last sentence is the kicker.
Brianith 06-14-07, 11:19 AM	Ah, thanks very much. That's not spot on what I was looking for, but I suppose it's close enough. Although in later D&D versions I would like to see it explicitly stated in the rules whether or not PCs can be influenced by other PCs. I'm pretty surprised that this subject is so controversial. I've read a few articles online about some peoples' disdain for many of the current problems with Diplomacy, it'd be nice to see the system reworked in 4th Edition. Diplomacy is my favorite aspect of the game, but right now the rules governing it are somewhat sloppy and unclear.
Kouk 06-14-07, 11:37 AM	Almost without fail, players hate losing control of their characters. Charmed - hate it Dominated - hate it Confused - hate it Stunned - hate it Miss due to concealment - hate it (rogues hate this a lot, concealment messes with SA) For these reasons, you don't enforce that skill checks work against PCs. Usually, in a game you are allowed to make checks against each other, but only for purposes of roleplaying. For instance, one player wants to convince another of something but they can't resolve it out of character, or they are just very heavy into roleplaying, so as a tie-breaker one rolls Diplomacy to convince the other. This is purely a roleplaying choice "Ok, my character believes him". If one player is not roleplaying like that, or is very adamant about his position he is perfectly within his rights to refuse to be influenced by a mere skill check. You can feel free to institute a rule that skill checks work on other players, but this just seems to allow manipulation of other players. The PC with the most Diplomacy that can throw his weight around, and force the other players to do his bidding, just because he has a high skill check really doesn't seem right though.
Brianith 06-14-07, 11:41 AM	Right, but personally I would entertain another PC if he wished to use diplomacy on my PC. (No matter what my diplomacy would be.) To me, it seems like a courtesy. I just don't like the separation of PCs vs NPCs. Other than a player being behind a PC, a PC should be influenced by anything an NPC would be influenced by, if only for the purpose of immersion and consistency.
Kouk 06-14-07, 11:44 AM	Right, but personally I would entertain another PC if he wished to use diplomacy on my PC. (No matter what my diplomacy would be.) To me, it seems like a courtesy. I just don't like the separation of PCs vs NPCs. Other than a player being behind a PC, a PC should be influenced by anything an NPC would be influenced by, if only for the purpose of immersion and consistency. And that is actually pretty common, but it should not be enforced by the rules. Without the previous passage about NPCs using skills on players, the DM would easily be able to railroad the party to do anything he felt like just by introducing a Bard npc.
Psikerlord 06-15-07, 08:43 AM	I think there is a wizards article about this which suggests diplomacy can affect PCs, but I prefer the DMG rule. In our group, we've found diplomacy checks have killed roleplaying, and I expect we won't be using the diplomacy skill at all next campaign. Back to old fashioned roleplaying instead.
Grogmir 06-15-07, 08:54 AM	we've found diplomacy checks have killed roleplaying In our group we have to at least try to act out the scene for this very reason. Ok the actual success is rolled by the DM but we do have to put the effort in.
Brianith 06-15-07, 10:12 AM	As we do in our game. When it's a serious roleplay situation, our DM insists that we act it out, and it doesn't matter if we have a 50 bonus to Diplomacy, if what we say isn't sufficiently inspiring then we have to try again. As for silly things, though, usually "Please, I implore you!" with an accompanying Diplomacy check does the trick :-P. It just depends on the severity of the situation.
Vegepygmy 06-15-07, 04:22 PM	In our group, we've found diplomacy checks have killed roleplaying...I will probably never understand why so many people try to blame the rules of the game for their decision not to role-play. :thinks:
Brianith 06-15-07, 05:46 PM	I agree. The rules are meant to keep things in check. Roleplaying while not taking the rules into consideration is metagaming. Just as your illiterate barbarian would not know what "Do not open this door" says, but you as a player do, a character with a low diplomacy and/or charisma simply would not have the social capacity to persuade NPCs as you as a player might have. In essence, the rules encourage roleplay, rather than inhibiting it. Roleplay is no fun without a challenge. Yes, the rules currently governing Diplomacy are muddled, but a good DM can make it right again. A good DM will still ensure that players are properly roleplaying, and not just using their skills to powergame. That is the main reason many of us play D&D. In a video game, you're bound to the same set of challenges, and since you have limited input (and usually very few predetermined responses), you have no choice but to power game just so you can make it through. D&D, at least for me, is not like that. I'm a fan of conversations between characters and NPCs in-game, rather than battle. A good campaign has a balance between both. Basically what I'm trying to say is that Diplomacy does not kill the roleplay aspect. A DM does. If a DM is too lazy to want to go through a full persuasive conversation, then it is their fault that Diplomacy is ruining anything. All you have to do is say "I would like to act out the conversation." Otherwise, then it's your own fault for the lack of roleplay. It's all about having fun, after all. :-P
JBW 06-16-07, 03:01 AM	If you want to convince a PC of something, you have to do it the old fashioned way: with diplomacy, not Diplomacy. As the player of a Bard, I would certainly require that this same standard be held to all PC vs. PC interactions. If the Fighter threatens my character I have no worries because I can beat the living hell out of the Fighter's pansy-ass player. Sorry. Any rule that treats an aspect of the game as 'out-of-bounds' for PCs but not NPCs is a BAD decision. Why should it matter if it's a Charm or just a really persuasive guy?
Brianith 06-16-07, 09:16 AM	Exactly. As I said, consistency and immersion are key. The best games are ones in which the players *do not* feel special. The more you feel like a member of the world, not someone outside of it, the better game experience you're having. What about the other Charisma based skills that definitely work on players? Intimidate and Bluff namely. An NPC can lie to you. An NPC can frighten you. But an NPC can't try to persuade you? And the same with a PC... A PC can lie to you. A PC can frighten you. But a PC can't try to persuade you? I rest my case. :-D
demoniciron 06-16-07, 10:34 AM	[QUOTE=Banatine;12721721]I was so happy when i found out it doesn't work in combat situations. QUOTE] uh... yeah it does, albeit with a +10 to the DC of an already very high DC. Imade the tarrasque my friend with a DC 60 Diplomacy check, taught him to read and made him read the tome of clear thought +5.
Prince_of_Parkness 06-16-07, 01:56 PM	Exactly. As I said, consistency and immersion are key. I rest my case. :-D If in the game you are in a bar fight and someone hits your character with a chair, does your DM do it to you in real life for the sake of "consistency and immersion"? If yes i suggest you should find a new DM, and untill you stay with him, dont engade in fights with anyone wielding great swords. Yes, D&D is more fun when its as life like as possible, but some sacrifices need to be made. How do you plan to resolve the problem presented earlier on about the DM telling the PC he cant attack the vampire?
Prince_of_Parkness 06-16-07, 02:09 PM	What about the other Charisma based skills that definitely work on players? Intimidate and Bluff namely. An NPC can lie to you. An NPC can frighten you. But an NPC can't try to persuade you? And the same with a PC... A PC can lie to you. A PC can frighten you. But a PC can't try to persuade you? I rest my case. :-D Yes a NPC can lie to you, but you dont need to believe it. If you fail your sense motive check, all you know is that he's either very telling the truth, good at lying or thinks hes telling the truth, they themselves do not automatically belive the lie. (This is not my idea, I copied it from some1 else but I forget who and were). They need not react to this information in any way. Just as someone earlier said, a character can be told a very emmotive speech arguing against his suggested action but still complete them. For games sake, I say "Your mind is half convinced by what they just said, and you are unable to concentrate completly. This manifests as a -3 penalty to hit, damage and AC" (in the case of a figh, i know this wont always work). If you can think of a good way for PC's to be persuaded that doesn't involve the DM saying, "Your character doesn't want to do that do he wont" then that would be exellent and would fill up one of the main gaps in D&D, but untill then lets just stick to the unsual rules. Also, dont blame the DM for not applying persuadion well to the game. Sometimes it may be there fault, but as i hope i just demonstrated its a hard job to do properly.
Prince_of_Parkness 06-16-07, 02:35 PM	Without the previous passage about NPCs using skills on players, the DM would easily be able to railroad the party to do anything he felt like just by introducing a Bard npc. True but irelivant. A DM already has more than enough resources to railroad an adventurer. There are many valid arguments against PC-PC, but this one isnt
Antioch 06-16-07, 03:12 PM	I can't seem to find this anywhere, so I hoped maybe someone could enlighten me. We had a small tiff during one of our sessions over a PC's ability to use diplomacy on another PC. (This particular instance was my vampire trying to persuade another PC to *not* kill the vampire that turned my character.) I can't seem to find the rules on this, and I had assumed that Diplomacy vs. another PC would be exactly the same as vs. an NPC. Does anyone know anything different? Thanks. I remember that there is either a Sage ruling or mention of this in the FAQ that you cannot use Cha skills to influence the actions/reactions of another PC.
Prince_of_Parkness 06-16-07, 06:19 PM	I remember that there is either a Sage ruling or mention of this in the FAQ that you cannot use Cha skills to influence the actions/reactions of another PC. I NPC can still bluff to a PC...and they can still demoralize them in combat
Brianith 06-16-07, 09:06 PM	If in the game you are in a bar fight and someone hits your character with a chair, does your DM do it to you in real life for the sake of "consistency and immersion"? [...] How do you plan to resolve the problem presented earlier on about the DM telling the PC he cant attack the vampire? In my experience, Diplomacy has been very much like a charm spell. As Intimidate is like a Fear spell. Sometimes, a PC must do things that the player does not wish for them to do. A charm spell is one of these times. A PC can cast a charm spell on another PC with no problem at all. I believe that Diplomacy should be *no* different. As far as the bar fight example... where did that come from? I don't see how that silly example is at all relevant to the argument. And resolving the Vampire problem... It would be *exactly* as a charm spell. It would be as if I had cast charm on the other PC, he failed, and became interested in hearing what I had to say. It would certainly be more than enough to make him reconsider what he was doing long enough to listen to me.
Ghostwheel 06-17-07, 03:49 AM	Considering that ceding a single round of action to a vampire is liable to get a character killed, allowing Diplomacy to be treated as a charm is definite overkill. A penalty to hit, or a penalty to AC, is something a player can expect from getting the worst of some skill checks (especially if they are opposed checks). But to lose control of a character with no magic or similar power involved is more than most players will accept.
Radiant117 06-17-07, 04:49 AM	Diplomacy never works on a PC, whether the diplomat is another PC or an NPC. That is CORE. Definite No to influencing PC attitudes and emotions through skill checks. Bluff, however, works well, with the following important differences. When an NPC is bluffing a PC, failing a Sense Motive check would indicate you fail to see through the ruse (though you might be still unwilling to act on the information). When a PC successfully bluffs an NPC (with all the modifiers taken into account), the NPC goes along with the bluff. When a PC tries to bluff an NPC, and his bluff check is penalized due to high risk for the target involved (that is, the NPC gains +10 to SM), and the check fails by 10 or less, the NPC believes you but is reluctant to act on it. When a PC absolutely fails at bluffing (either by generally failing a simple check of by failing a "high risk" check by 10 or more), the NPC sees through the bluff. When a PC unexpectedly bluffs another PC, perhaps by being charmed (mechanically), or dominated (mechanically), or intimidated (RP only), where by unexpectedly I imply that it's a generic party where characters are friends, not PK psychopaths, the DM can make the Bluff check automatically succeed, based on circumstances. I believe there's an example of this DM call in DMGII, where a rogue is charmed by a drow sorceress to tell he did not see her, and another player asks whether he's allowed SM this, and the DM says no. It bears notice that SM is, in fact, used to sense enchantment, but I strongly believe it only pertains to situations where the character's opinion in particular becomes a point in the discussion (i.e., if the aforementioned sorceress, captured, charms one of the PCs into letting her go, and a conflict with the other PCs arises as they seem to be having a hard time persuading him otherwise). There was a heated discussion in 2004 (http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-353255) about whether Diplomacy should be abolished or not, because it makes a mechanical, not a situational distinction between PCs and NPCs, and ultimately between players and the DM (meaning that the players can have bad social skills and still roleplay, as in "A player might justifiably say, "Hey, my character is the one who's suave and cool. I don't know jack about negotiating, but his +22 Diplomacy modifier means that Marcos Talks-a-Lot is great at it!" And this objection makes a great deal of sense. After all, you wouldn't penalize a character's Tumble checks because the player is a klutz, now would you?", but the DM who lacks same social skills can't roll-play the NPCs' Diplomacy. Personally, I don't use Diplomacy at all, and I agree with most of what Archtyrant Terevoth says in the linked thread. Regardless, everything except the previous sentence is COMPLETE CORE 100%, as confirmed by the SRD (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/skillsAll.html#diplomacy) and the DMG p. 15: Handling PC actions The important point to remember regarding the actions of player characters during an adventure is that each player controls his or her own character. Don't force a character to take a specific action (unless the character is under a magical compulsion; see below). Don't tell a player character what his or her character's emotions are. Even if an NPC with a high Charisma score attempts to persuade a character, no mere die roll should force a character into doing something. Some rules in the game apply specifically to NPCs and not PCs, the most significant of which are the rules concerning NPC attitudes (see NPC attitudes, page 128, and the Diplomacy skill on page 71 of the Player's Handbook). These rules should never be used to enable an NPC to change the way a player character views that NPC. When running an NPC, feel free to try praising, misleading, tricking, cajoling, or maligning a character, but don't use your authority as DM to exert control over what a player character does. ((The grayed part is about NPCs and is irrelevant, but I provided the whole paragraph for the sake of completeness, and what's in bold in that quote is regular text in the DMG)). If you're for some reason immune to magical fear you can play a totally fearless character, or you can voluntarily get scared by non-magical things (dragonfear being a noticeable exception - but it's an extraordinary ability, not a skill, and it's actually called Frightful Presence, the same as the Su ability of the tarrasque (which is magical), so I foresee much confusion arising, and yes, I checked the errata), and paladins are immune to fear of any kind (one more incentive to play them). If you're immune to charms, you can still allow yourself to be persuaded (mind the word "allow") non-magically. So, for the last time, no, skill checks are not magic, so Intimidate is not Fear, and Diplomacy is not Charm.
Prince_of_Parkness 06-17-07, 08:57 AM	As far as the bar fight example... where did that come from? I don't see how that silly example is at all relevant to the argument. I brought it up to illistrate a point: Whilst the more life like D&D is, there are somethings that cannot be applied to a game, and I think Diplomacy is one. A charm spell could stop a serial killer from attacking you whilst diplomacy shouldn't really work (albeit it might though). As Radiant117 said, a skill check isn't magic. There are something that are just that we just have to accept as unrealistic (though I do try to change as many unrealistic rules as can) Consider levelling for example. It not stupic that a fighter can suddenly gain as much as +13 hit points in the middle of a fight. Or when he fights 10 goblins and a young dragon he learns nothing, but when he defeats 2 he suddenly gets improved trip (levels and chooses it as his bonus feat) Or even the mentality. Characters dont need to worry about loosing life, but in real life they shoul. A PC will fight monsters just for XP is they have no treasure, but in real life someone would think twice before doing so because to them an attack is more than just a loss of hitpoints that can be regained by resting or by paying a local cleric. Its really going to hurt them and it could leave a permanent scare. K, so a fighter will be resistent to pain and may even value scares, but he's still not going to shrugg of potential damage the way a PC does. However, unless the PC are willing, you cant force them to think like this. You either need to think of an effective system to accomidate this or accept it as an illogical mart of the game.
Gemstone 06-17-07, 10:27 AM	Or even the mentality. Characters dont need to worry about loosing life, but in real life they shoul. A PC will fight monsters just for XP is they have no treasure, but in real life someone would think twice before doing so because to them an attack is more than just a loss of hitpoints that can be regained by resting or by paying a local cleric. Its really going to hurt them and it could leave a permanent scare. K, so a fighter will be resistent to pain and may even value scares, but he's still not going to shrugg of potential damage the way a PC does. I have to disagree. If you see a bug on the floor, are you afraid that you will loose your life against it if you decide to stomp it? Character's in DnD are much like akilles. They are skilled and they know it. They can fight an endless swarm of unskilled opponent without taking a scratch and can go up against powerful opponents and live about it. True, characters should feel fear when they see the ancient demon lord flagflagan, but often they do not feel fear.
Prince_of_Parkness 06-17-07, 12:02 PM	I have to disagree. If you see a bug on the floor, are you afraid that you will loose your life against it if you decide to stomp it? Character's in DnD are much like akilles. They are skilled and they know it. They can fight an endless swarm of unskilled opponent without taking a scratch and can go up against powerful opponents and live about it. True, characters should feel fear when they see the ancient demon lord flagflagan, but often they do not feel fear. But a bug doesnt even hav the potential to harm me, a goblin can still harm a high level fighter, as much as the odds are against it. I think a better example would be a bee or a wasp. Will they are easy to kill, they still have the potential to cause you quite a bit of pain so you'd think twice before going out of your way to kill one. Also, its not about dying, its about getting hurt. No one (exept masochis) likes to get stabbed by a dagger, even if it would take 100 such attacks to kill you.
Prime361 06-17-07, 12:13 PM	Cast Suggestion, it works better than Diplomacy if the group is low lvl, and spells still work on PCs. May not be the best idea though, lots of parties will kill PC casters for casting offensive spells on other PCs, seen it happen a few times.
Gemstone 06-17-07, 12:15 PM	But a bug doesnt even hav the potential to harm me, a goblin can still harm a high level fighter, as much as the odds are against it. I think a better example would be a bee or a wasp. Will they are easy to kill, they still have the potential to cause you quite a bit of pain so you'd think twice before going out of your way to kill one. Also, its not about dying, its about getting hurt. No one (exept masochis) likes to get stabbed by a dagger, even if it would take 100 such attacks to kill you. yes, but even if you are hit 1/20 times, you can still slay potentially up to 80 goblins (with four attacks each round) before anyone lands a single blow on you, that you just roll away from thanks to the hp system.
Prince_of_Parkness 06-17-07, 01:17 PM	yes, but even if you are hit 1/20 times, you can still slay potentially up to 80 goblins (with four attacks each round) before anyone lands a single blow on you, that you just roll away from thanks to the hp system. Exactly, my entier argument is based on the following assumption so tell me if it is wrong: When a fighter is that strong, he doesnt get any XP for doing that, so in real life a fighter would never risk getting cut when he stands to gain nothing. A PC would say could say I'll kill them for a laugh, whilst a real fighter never wpould. My point is that this another bit of reality that D&D can't accomidate, just like PC controlling there fellows with diplomacy checks
Archtyrant Terevoth 06-17-07, 01:21 PM	Nope diplomacy doesn't work on PCs, which is the first indicator that the diplomacy rules are crazy broken and don't work at all.
Brianith 06-17-07, 05:13 PM	I agree ArchTyrant. As far as the current rules go, it seems that PCs cannot be influenced via Diplomacy by other PCs. The kicker quote, for me, is "...unless under magical influence." Which essentially nixes *any* sort of non-magical influence. Personally, I wish it was more strongly worded. And, I disagree with the current ruling that a PC is invulnerable to Diplomacy, especially while an NPC isn't. The problem now is not whether or not it is stated in the rules, it's whether or not the rules make sense. Which they don't. As I said earlier, I just hope they clear things up in 4th edition.
Pentar 06-17-07, 05:29 PM	I'd personally have a real problem if the rules allowed Diplomacy to force PCs to take actions that they normally wouldn't. Think about it; it would make Diplomacy a must have skill for everyone. If you could "Diplomacy" your Fighter to hand over all his loot, well, let's just say it would cause a lot of OOC problems! :) Ultimately, this is a roleplaying game. You take the role of the character, so you decide his scruples, his morals and all the decisions he makes. If you are convinced by a fellow PC's argument(s), then that's up to you. No amount of rules lawyering or dice rolling should ever determine what your character will or will not do ... unless under some sort of magical influence.
Brianith 06-17-07, 06:11 PM	That makes perfect sense as well. I guess it should either be: Diplomacy works on everyone, or doesn't exist at all. Sometimes the notion of skills in general sounds silly to me. I find it strange that someone can take everything you can do and narrow it down into 30 or so skills you can put skill points into... But that's another discussion :-P
Prince_of_Parkness 06-17-07, 06:16 PM	The problem now is not whether or not it is stated in the rules, it's whether or not the rules make sense. Which they don't. The rules do make sense: its a simplification. Yes in someways its an unfair advantage to PC's but i think its worth it.
Brianith 06-17-07, 06:17 PM	Well, the rules on Diplomacy don't make any sense in a lot more ways other than just the current discussion lol.
Prince_of_Parkness 06-18-07, 07:12 AM	How bout what someone else suggested: diplomacy not Diplomacy?
Brianith 06-18-07, 09:36 AM	Technically if I convince my acquaintance OOC to do something in game, and he does it, it's metagaming. :-P (In an immediate situation like that, at least.)
Radiant117 06-18-07, 04:21 PM	Yes in someways its an unfair advantage to PC's but i think its worth it. It' s an unfair advantage, but only for PCs with Diplomacy as a class skill. Everyone else is plainly unable to contribute to a meaningful part of the game. As Archtyrant Terevoth said back in 2004 (when I wasn't around to second that), No PC class should suck in combat. Nobody. No noncombat ability is worth being awful at fighting. Fighting is just too integral to the game. Social skills are just as integral. Being able to talk shouldn't be a choice that you have to make when you're making your character. That just sucks. Sometimes, though, a social action would benefit from a d20 roll. You cannot possibly quantify psychology, so why not just roll a die and tie an in-game explanation to it? The blacksmith does not want to lower his price? Maybe this very day he's sold a sword with a substantial discount (to an adventurer who reminded him of his own son) and is determined to make up for this money loss. Or maybe he's just stingy. The folks in a randomly rolled village respect the orc warrior PC and strongly dislike the human arcanist? Maybe they're orcs themselves (it actually happened in a game as a result of a botched teleport roll). And what about the case when two PCs with conflicting goals try get an initially neutral NPC on their respective sides? If both of them are trying their best to succeed and use good reasoning and logic, awarding an automatic victory to whichever player is more eloquent won't probably enhance the game. Roll a die, then find an in-game explanation. Maybe the NPC really found PC1 more likable for his eloquence, or he preferred PC2's blunt honesty, or he has hidden agendas which require him to side with a particular PC (as directed by the die roll). True, characters should feel fear when they see the ancient demon lord flagflagan, but often they do not feel fear. But they do. They always do with a sufficiently good DM. We all know PCs are supposed to win. A good DM is a DM who follows this principle, but makes the players forget it while playing. When the enemy shows up, there is always a chance that the PCs would lose, however small, and good DMing makes this chance seem significant in the PCs' eyes, so they are afraid for losing and all the more happy when eventually victorious. I recall being told about a really bad DM who made the PCs roll Will saving throws before attempting *anything* risky. Failure meant the character was too afraid to do what he intended to. I was lectured on the advantages of this system: "See this rope between two building? Will you walk it? No. Because you're afraid." And I said, "No, I'm not afraid, I just have a negative DEX and zero ranks in Balance. If I had both and falling was no more probable than getting hit by a car as we walk home, sure I would."