Post/Author/DateTime	Post
clunkthebarbarian 05-17-05, 03:03 AM	i had a small problem last night, it went something like this: PC1: i tell that NPCx to get his lame, sorry, ass over here. DM (me): fine, make a diplomacy check, with a -5 modifier. PC1: WHAT???? and continued something like this, out game: PC1:but the diplomacy check is just to make sure i tell it him in the correct way (etiquette and all). DM:that might be so, but you tell it him (albeit in the correct way) still in a rude and aggressive way, hence the modifier. PC1: but how do i know how to address each individual NPC? i cant possibly , as a player, know in what tone of voice to address him. DM:Well, its still roleplaying , and not roll-playing, if i dont take that into account you could just 'roll the check' and do nothing else. besides, you could always ask for a knowledge or INT check and ask me what the correct behaviour on that moment would have been. some NPCs are more susceptible to aggressive behaviour then others... i still think i was right adding a modifier to the roll.. any DM wanna tell me how he would have handled it?
Aeromus 05-17-05, 03:07 AM	You were wrong. The skill is there so player's that don't have the type of ettiquite to handle the situation can still play a character that does. If you are going to add-hoc penalties you may as well just get rid of the skill all together. EDIT: This would be like a player swinging his arm, in a downward motion to emulate his sword fighting technique and you slap a negative 5 mod on his attack rolls because of the movement he made. All in all just bad buisiness.
WCH 05-17-05, 03:08 AM	I'd have just not made a diplomacy check at all. If he were trying to make one, I'd have it automatically fail. No one will ever become more friendly towards you if you refer to their "lame, sorry ass." Maybe if it was sarcastic and you were lovers or good friends... but excluding that... no way.
FreeTheSlaves 05-17-05, 03:10 AM	This should have been intimidate. Ad hoc modifiers are fine but only after you've read & know the rules.
WCH 05-17-05, 03:12 AM	This should have been intimidate. Ad hoc modifiers are fine but only after you've read & know the rules.I was thinking that, too, but doesn't quite apply... scaring someone into obediance is not at all the same thing as just insulting them. A successful diplomacy check makes them friendly, a successful intimidate check makes them cower in fear, a successful insult makes them really angry. None of the three are really that similar.
Telperion 05-17-05, 03:32 AM	It depends on your players. Personally I let them know that when we are going into a "roleplaying" encounter where player reactions and behavior are part of character behavior. So, if a player is acting boorish or hostile towards an NPC his character is doing the same, which incrues a penalty on any Diplomacy checks. The reverse is also true, since a clever player can stack the odds in his benefit by coming up with intelligent little ways to gain an edge in a social encounter. The bottom line is that I don't force my players to roleplay. I simply let them know that if they do so they can gain bonuses on their social rolls, whatever they are, and that is usually quite enough to make most of them at least try. On the other hand sometimes a player is simply too tired or just can't manage to roleplay properly and then there are fewer modifiers to his roll. Whatever the circumstances the actual roll still defines what happens next and only extraordinary roleplaying and a good roll can truly replace high social skills. So, my suggestion to you is: don't force roleplaying on your players, but instead suggest it as an alternative way of getting bonuses, which they otherwise couldn't get.
Al2902 05-17-05, 06:03 AM	You were absolutely right. I think of Diplomacy as essentially the "force multiplier" that any PC can deploy. But that force still needs to be applied in the right direction. It is thus part of the role-playing that you need to find out what motivates particular PCs, just as in real life. For example, whilst there might be a bonus to Diplomacy if you were trying to persuade a greedy mercenary to accompany you on a quest with guaranteed hoards of treasure, appealing to the possible wealth when talking to someone with a Vow of Poverty would give no benefit or even a penalty. Diplomacy does give the character the tools, but the player still has to use them correctly. I don't think that you were being too harsh. Unless the player is an utter social retard, he should appreciate that getting someone to get his "lame, sorry, ass over here" isn't exactly motivational. Edit: Indeed, there is already a RAW precedent with respect to social skills. If you read the description of Bluff, it specifically mentions the possibility of adding circumstance modifiers depending on the plausibility of the lie. The deployment of the reductionist argument that the roll determines all seems to be contradicted by this particular section of the rules.
deadDMwalking 05-17-05, 06:58 AM	You were wrong. The skill is there so player's that don't have the type of ettiquite to handle the situation can still play a character that does. I disagree. You were in the right. First of all you are the DM. Your game, your rules. As long as you're consistent, it doesn't matter what you do. You don't even have to tell the players that you've applied a circumstance penalty. Secondly, and more importantly, you are playing a role-playing game. Even if the character is better at diplomacy than the player, the roll still takes that into account. Even if the player is really bad at diplomacy, they should still try to avoid insulting the target. As an example, imagine if the player had said "I try to convince the NPC to come over to me." That is clearly not role-playing, but it would not generate a penalty, because the player is not actively working against the success of the diplomacy check. This is different from what the player did. Just in the way of another example - "I try to convince the king to give me the full amount up front - I have a +32 diplomacy". It isn't good role-playing, but it doesn't hurt. "I tell the king that he is a pathetic loser, but even though he sucks, he's going to give me the money up front. And if he even tries to say no, I'll *****-slap him. Remember, I have a +32 to diplomacy." Oh yeah, there would be a penalty is not out-right failure. If you are going to add-hoc penalties you may as well just get rid of the skill all together. The DMG is pretty clear that you should use ad-hoc penalties. Generally a -2 is sufficient. A -5 is about the worst penalty one could expect for something along those lines. EDIT: This would be like a player swinging his arm, in a downward motion to emulate his sword fighting technique and you slap a negative 5 mod on his attack rolls because of the movement he made. That is stupid. It isn't like that at all. This is a terrible example. It is more like a character locking himself in Master Work Manacles, and then attempting to perform a tumble check - a -5 might be appropriate. Really, the player didn't have to sabotage the efforts of his character, but he chose to do so. All in all just bad buisiness. I agree with that. It is too bad that your player too immature to believe that what he does in social interaction should have some bearing on how the dice play out. If he had even qualified it by saying "I try to do this the most diplomatically way possible", there might be some consideration. In my book, you did the right thing. And your player should get over it, and try to do better in the future. I'm sure this wasn't a terribly important roll, and now that he knows what you expect, there should be no problems.
pkrerc 05-17-05, 07:33 AM	Err.. You don't have to roll diplomacy to ask someone to come over. You roll diplomacy to beg the dragon to spare your life, or the vampire to kill your friend instead of you.
Thoronmir 05-17-05, 09:55 AM	While relying solely on the player’s powers of persuasion and erudition does moot the skill, relying solely on the skill moots the roleplaying. It sounds to me like this player never speaks in-character, and that just doesn’t work at our table. We don’t require players to know when to bow, when to kneel, and which salutations to use. But we expect them to at least roleplay their characters’ demeanors. Had the player simply said, “I call the NPC over to me,” I doubt I would have required a Diplomacy Check. However, given the circumstances, I think you made appropriate use of the skill to determine how the NPC would react to such harsh behavior. As was noted, the RAW recognizes that a circumstance bonus can apply due to good roleplaying using the Bluff skill. So, precedent exists to support using a similar rule for all “interactive” skills (Diplomacy, Intimidate, Perform … when it’s verbal). However, our position is that, if it ain’t in the book, it ain’t in the RAW. So, applying a circumstance bonus to skills other than Bluff would be a houserule in our opinion. But, it’s a houserule we’ve embraced because it encourages roleplaying. You were justified in applying a circumstance modifier to the PC’s Diplomacy Check. However, as has been noted, -2 would have been more appropriate than -5. And, for the record, I’ve been known to give a +2 circumstance bonus to such checks when the player makes a good effort to win over the NPC.
StormKnight 05-17-05, 10:11 AM	The PC chose a particular verbal tactic; in this case, being aggressive and insulting. Against some people, in some situations, that might be a good idea. (Say, you're in a position of authority wanting to let an underling know you are mad at them at they better do as you say, fast). In this case it wasn't. The player should not be penalized for not being as diplomatic as their character, but when they try to use a certain tactic, it should modify their rolls accordingly. Bribing a greedy, corrupt law enforcer is a good idea. Trying to bribe a noble paladin is a bad idea. This is not like "penalizing a player for describing a downward swing". This is like a player taking an attack of opportunity to get into flanking position...on a creature immune to flanking. Wrong tactics for the situation.
Loren Pechtel 05-17-05, 11:22 PM	Given the way he worded it, it's an intimidate check, not a diplomacy check. If he persists in trying to do it as diplomacy, -5 is quite reasonable. How I see it: His words portrayed his true opinion of the NPC. Unless his diplomacy is high enough people will tend to know what other's general attitude is. Furthermore, if he fails the diplomacy check I would apply that -5 to all dplomacy between them for a while, not just this one roll. I'm not dinging him for a poor choice of words but rather applying a modifier for his attitude towards the NPC.
clunkthebarbarian 05-18-05, 03:22 AM	thx for the advice.. and now for the REAL situation that was presented: the party is currently under attack by a very powerfull, chaotic evil, NPC. one member of the party tries to stop him from attacking the party (and thus stopping a party wipe) with something along these lines: PC:" oh great and all-powerfullone, we are *gives names* and on an important quest for *gives name* , oh please spare us.. etc" as i figured it, the NPC wasnt really in a talking mood, and i think , in accordance with the situation/alignment, begging to be spared wasnt going to work ,if anything, it would provoke him even more (ooh, easy target). the only thing that would have worked (to atleast STOP him momentarily from attacking and listening) was a 'show of force'. since i figured he wasn't in a talking mood i incured a penalty on their diplomacy roll. i know this take away part of the use of the diplomacy skill, but i still expect some role-playing from my players (even if its only to determine the general direction they want the conversation to go). as was stated before, some things work in certain situations, and some things dont.
WCH 05-18-05, 04:03 AM	Technically, way the PHB handles it, that'd be a boost to the DC, not a penalty to the roll. Effect is the same, but the implications and reasons behind it are way different. :)
FriendoftheDork 05-18-05, 05:06 AM	You were way too kind. If a player had said that at my table, I would first warn him with DM: Is that what you say to the guy? Player: No of course not (if he's IQ>80) DM: Then what do you say? Player: Hi, can you come over here for awhile? DM:Ok. Now if that's totally ok with the NPC I wouldn't ask for a check at all. If he wants a good reason I would have him say so IC, and let the PC respond. If this becomes a dialogue where the PC tries to persuade the NPC, then I have the player roll diplomacy, with modifiers according to his tone and politeness/arguments, and perhaps penalties according to how hesitant the NPC is to help him in the first place. The only time I would allow diplomacy check as stand alone, is when it is something boring or not important at all, in which case I'll have them take 10.
was_fired 05-18-05, 05:09 AM	Meh I just removed the diplomacy skill from the game. To those who disagree with me. You still have intimidate, bluff, and sense motive. Just like in combat you have attack rolls, AC, and damage. There is no "just win" skill in combat. You need to be smart enough to position yourself properly. In social situations the same is true. Get yourself in a situation where you can use your skills to an effect and your golden, but if you can't get to the king oh well. I don't give you a roll to determin that your fighter could activate his winged boots to engage the flying lich in melee.
FriendoftheDork 05-18-05, 05:44 AM	Meh I just removed the diplomacy skill from the game. To those who disagree with me. You still have intimidate, bluff, and sense motive. Just like in combat you have attack rolls, AC, and damage. There is no "just win" skill in combat. You need to be smart enough to position yourself properly. In social situations the same is true. Get yourself in a situation where you can use your skills to an effect and your golden, but if you can't get to the king oh well. I don't give you a roll to determin that your fighter could activate his winged boots to engage the flying lich in melee. So the 6 cha dwarf with an eloquent player is better at diplomacy than the charismatic bard played by a shy inexperienced player? I've seen it happen alot, even by players I consider the best of roleplayers. You just can't beat natural charisma and RL "diplomacy skill" That's why I use the skill, to better represent the character and not the player.
Count Arioch the 28th 05-18-05, 05:56 AM	I prefer Rich Berlew's diplomacy variant. http://www.giantitp.com/Func0010.html It's pretty nice, it changes the skill, while still allowing it to have game effect, does not turn high-level play into the bard making everyone friendly to them.
deadDMwalking 05-18-05, 07:25 AM	I've also used Rich Burlew's variation, and prefer it. Diplomacy is EXTREMELY difficult to use in combat. Generally it requires at lesat a full minute. I believe attempting to use diplomacy as a full-round action incurs a -20 penalty.
was_fired 05-18-05, 07:36 AM	Friend, I do the same thing I do when a wizard with a -1 to attack goes after a great wyrm. I ask them for their bluff checks and sense motive checks when required. Then I use ego whip on them. :) If your playing a fighter and you don't know how to pick feats and anticipate enemy movements in combat your screwed. If your playing a cleric/druid/wizard and you don't know how to pick or use your spells your screwed. If your playing a charisma skill character and you lack any force to your personality your screwed.
FriendoftheDork 05-18-05, 08:05 AM	Friend, I do the same thing I do when a wizard with a -1 to attack goes after a great wyrm. I ask them for their bluff checks and sense motive checks when required. Then I use ego whip on them. :) If your playing a fighter and you don't know how to pick feats and anticipate enemy movements in combat your screwed. If your playing a cleric/druid/wizard and you don't know how to pick or use your spells your screwed. If your playing a charisma skill character and you lack any force to your personality your screwed. You compare 2 similar things and one that is very similar. The first two you need knowledge of the game rules and how to properly use it. Anyone, given time, can learn and do that, all you need is a modicum of intelligence. But you don't expect fighters to know RL sword techniques do you? Or wizards how to use medieval whitchcraft and rituals? So why do you demand that the player has to be as charismatic and trained as his character? Of course the player will need to know which skills to max out, what gives synergy, and which feats might be good for a social character just like the fighter must know his feats and tactics. He must also know when to use what skill to gain the preferred result. Should he intimidate the guard or make a bribe with diplomacy? The diplomacy skill isn't there to bypass roleplaying any more than the other skills are, but you don't have to remove it either. And why forbid those players with less social grace and personality to play a successful social character? You don't expect wannabe rangers to actually know survival tricks and how to light a fire with sticks do you?
snowlynx 05-18-05, 09:56 AM	Usually, I use a diplomacy check only in situations where I think the NPC might go either way. If the character is being rude or obnoxious, a diplomacy check isn't going to get them out of it. if the character has something the NPC wants very badly, I'm not going to require a diplomacy check to make the NPC act favorably to the characters. For example, I had a group of PCs that were intending on possibly fighting an adventuring group of NPCs in a town. They talked to the guard on shift first, explained the situation in a clear and reasonable manner, and I decided that the guard was hesitant about allowing this fight, so I had the player roll a diplomacy check. The player got well enough on the roll that I ruled that the guard took a 'break' rather then object; had the player really gotten a good roll, I might have had the guard help them out since their cause seemed pretty fair.
snowlynx 05-18-05, 09:59 AM	The diplomacy skill isn't there to bypass roleplaying any more than the other skills are, but you don't have to remove it either. And why forbid those players with less social grace and personality to play a successful social character? You don't expect wannabe rangers to actually know survival tricks and how to light a fire with sticks do you? I think the problem is that, no matter how unsociable for the player, if is a bit of a stretch to say insulting someone will encourage cooperation. If the character has maxed out his diplomacy but is acting rude to every NPC he meets, he probably should have invested the ranks in some more appropriate skill. The player should at least understand that their character needs to behave properly if they want to roll that diplomacy at all.
Lord of the Underdark 05-18-05, 11:33 AM	I'd say you were right. I don't feel the penalty was too "hefty", and honestly I would have made the situation an "auto-fail" you can't make nice with someone by being rude. Let's just say this; the PC is lucky he doesn't sit at my table. He would have been the focus of all the NPC's attacks for the next few rounds to "teach him a lesson". Example: Mentally Handicapped PC: "The NPCx to get his..." (I'm sure we all can recite the rest by heart now) NPCx: "Why....you...insolent little twit." *Fireball, fireball, maximized-enlarged-quickened-silent-still-empowered fireball...etc.* "And as for the rest of you, go....quickly, while you still can...."
Salla 05-18-05, 12:35 PM	I would have taken the way the player referred to the NPC as how the PC thinks of the NPC, and thus that would have 'flavored' his interactions, through body language and vocal inflections. Of course, I also make my players go in-character and at least try to say what their characters are saying, and I apply modifiers based on that. Things like coherent lies and respectful terms of address count. The skill mechanics and role-play are not mutually exclusive; they are cooperative.