Handling Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidation - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Handling Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidation

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
koosemose
Apr 17, 2009 1:47:49 I've always treated Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidation rather simplistically, even though I know it's not entirely accurate. Generally, I call for Diplomacy if someone is trying to convince someone of the truth, Bluff if they're trying to convince someone of an untruth, and Intimidate when doing either threateningly.

After reading some of the conversation in the thread regarding duration of Diplomacy, I've been considering some of the finer nuances of the three skills.

Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states. So basically Diplomacy is trying to convince someone (or group of someones) of something, it could include lying (bluff), threatening (intimidate), and/or general persuasion. So it would, in some cases, consist of abilities that are covered by two other skills and a third ability covered by neither. Does that mean that Diplomacy ultimately covers lying and threatening, and persuasion, but only if being used to shift someone's attitude? And Bluff and Intimidate only if using it on a short term scale of frightening someone for a few rounds or convincing someone of a single lie? Personally it seems rather strange to me that the skill used is determined by the specific effect wanted as opposed to how you are attempting to achieve it.

Personally I feel my simplified explanation (actually contrary to what I thought before I started to think about it as I typed this) is more accurate, other than the name of diplomacy being a bit misleading.

I'm not really sure if this thread is a call for suggestions for house rules, or discussion of what (if any) house rules are already in use, or if it's just simply an attempt to start a discussion on the three skills.

As far as house rules go, I actually think I will continue doing as I have been, and, in cases where I am tweaking rules and/or character sheets, rename Diplomacy as Persuasion, and allow Bluff and Intimidate to shift NPC attitudes. Though Bluff would be more likely than Diplomacy to go away, since you are after all lying. Intimidate, while you would get the effect of the appropriate attitude, the target would be acting that way because they are afraid of you not because they liked you and would resume their previous attitude or worse as soon as they were no long afraid for whatever reason. Not sure on the balance of handling it this way, as Diplomacy's effects can be gotten by the other two, and they can do other things. Diplomacy would be near permanent (you wouldn't be lying when you used it, so doing something that would break it should be very rare, assuming honest/responsible players), but I'm not really sure if that is a proper balance.

So opinions, comments, jeers?
#2
TheRealOrion
Apr 17, 2009 7:44:45 I like the separation you've made between truth, lies, and bullying. I think that's an interesting way to go. It's not the RAW, but it could work. By the RAW, the difference is that Bluff is a short-term lie, Diplomacy is long-term convincing, and Intimate is just bullying. The separation is kinda weird, to be honest, but I found a proposed patch that I quite like. It's Rich Burlew's Diplomacy. Instead of convincing someone that you are trustworthy, in Rich's version, you're convincing someone that the deal you're currently offering is in your interest. That means that, as you say, the subject(s) will continue to believe you until such time as they have a reason not to. If you're a fair dealer, they'll keep trusting you. If you betray them or sell them crap, they'll know not to enter deals with you in the future. I really like it. Give it a look. Might inspire you.
#3
backstabbist
Apr 17, 2009 10:32:20 Something to consider is the tendency of Intimidate to be a short term gain but ending up with the guy mad at you when you're gone.

If BigAl leans on a waiter to get a doublecut slice of pie for the single price,
that waiter may be intimidated to let him have it,
but after we sit he will harbor ill feelings about the bullying and spit in the food.

But when BigAl puts the squeeze on Vinny the mook,
Vinny aint sayin nuthin cause he is still intimidated by what Fat Tony will do if he talks.

That second one is the longterm intimidate, rathet than just long enough to get a slice of pie.
#4
DwarfFighter
Apr 17, 2009 12:35:04 There are a few things I don't like about the Diplomacy skill.

One is a combination of two factors: the static DC and the "open" result. Essentially this means that the PCs (NPC's don't factor in). These elements combine to radically reduce the risk involved. Even a poor roll is likely to yield some result.

If the player was required to specify a target result then he would have to at least apply a bit of moderation, opting for an Indifferent attitude instead of risking out-right failure by going for Firendly. It should also make the GM more inclined to reward success appropriately. I know - it's Old School. But I feel that it's fair that when you bet on Red you double your money, bet on 0 and you get x35. Risk = Reward.

I also like Burlew's ideas on establishing a dynamic Base DC since it allows for scaling the DC rather than seeing the challenge of Diplomacy skill checks drop out of the picture after a number of levels.
#5
TheRealOrion
Apr 17, 2009 13:39:06 This fix might suit you, then:

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html]Rich Berlew's Diplomacy Fix

I've installed something very similar in Phoenix.
#6
koosemose
Apr 17, 2009 16:08:39
Something to consider is the tendency of Intimidate to be a short term gain but ending up with the guy mad at you when you're gone.

If BigAl leans on a waiter to get a doublecut slice of pie for the single price,
that waiter may be intimidated to let him have it,
but after we sit he will harbor ill feelings about the bullying and spit in the food.

But when BigAl puts the squeeze on Vinny the mook,
Vinny aint sayin nuthin cause he is still intimidated by what Fat Tony will do if he talks.

That second one is the longterm intimidate, rathet than just long enough to get a slice of pie.

I'm not entirely certain that I'm following exactly what you're saying.

Is it that the second example would be diplomacy as it's long term? Or are you just giving examples of two different types of intimidation? Personally I would call them both Intimidation as in both you are a result of fear and threats, even though the second result is more in line with the results you get from Diplomacy, except of course as soon as Fat Tony is vulnerable, Vinny's attitude is going to shift immediately to hostile.
#7
DwarfFighter
Apr 18, 2009 13:01:15 Burlew's Diplomacy rules are great for dealing with "selling" a specific issue: The player specifies what he wants the NPC to do, and the GM establishes a check DC.

They must be taken as a replacement of the "change attitude" function of the standard Diplomacy rules since they don't ofer a different way of resolving this. In fact their whole premise is that the standard implementation of the "change attitude" check is flawed.

I don't disagree on that, but I still think there's room for a "change attitude" check. After all the clearly defined attitudes are a good "rules of thumb" for as far as NPCs are concerned.

-DF
#8
TheRealOrion
Apr 18, 2009 22:05:42 Well, what I'm picturing now is a combination of three things. Diplomacy has three aspects: Making a Deal, Engendering Trust/Endearing Yourself, and Parley.

Making a Deal is Burlew's version, Endearing Yourself is RAW Diplomacy, and Parley is doing either of the above in combat. It's a lot for one little skill, but I think it's legitimate that there are lots of things you can do with the ability to speak clearly and forcefully.
#9
koosemose
Apr 19, 2009 1:47:25
Well, what I'm picturing now is a combination of three things. Diplomacy has three aspects: Making a Deal, Engendering Trust/Endearing Yourself, and Parley.

Making a Deal is Burlew's version, Endearing Yourself is RAW Diplomacy, and Parley is doing either of the above in combat. It's a lot for one little skill, but I think it's legitimate that there are lots of things you can do with the ability to speak clearly and forcefully.

Hmm that's not a half bad idea... From what I can tell Burlew's (that's the one you linked earlier, correct?) functions fairly close to diplomacy as I've been running it, just a bit more streamlined. And it helps solve a bit of a problem I've had... the Social skills have always felt a touch too weak to me (admittedly because I don't handle them exactly as written, being able to to talk down someone who is raving mad with a fairly simple dice roll seems a bit much to me) especially Diplomacy, as I've generally allowed Bluff and Intimidate to achieve similar effects leaving, this gives Diplomacy some extra options to match my versions of bluff and intimidate (all three can shift attitude, and all three would have additional tricks now).

Seems to me though that Parley could use some additional rules, as it would be a lot harder to talk down actively hostile opponents. Perhaps first you have to get them to at least unfriendly, then use Make a Deal/Persuade to convince them not to continue fighting. If unsuccessful they go back to Hostile and hostility ensues.

Also I think I rather like the idea of having to basically set your target attitude, which I think was mentioned in the other thread, as it seems to me it would take a drastically different approach trying to get someone to just stop trying to kill you for a bit than it would to get someone to be actually friendly. At least use that version for parley as while it may be possible to shift as you go along in peaceful extended negotiations it wouldn't be in the midst of combat. Actually using it only for parley would make a decent drawback in exchange for it being on a much shorter time-scale than normal.
#10
TheRealOrion
Apr 19, 2009 2:04:01 I agree that there should be some risk of screwing up a Diplomacy attempt, and possibly ruining someone's ire. Imagine, if you will, someone's coming at you with a shiv, and you say "I can make it worth your while to spare me!" That leads you into a negotiation of some kind. Or you say "Come on, man, do I really look like someone who deserves to die?" That's an Endearment check. Both viable options. Now let's say that blurt out "Spare me and I'll make sweet love to you." This might work, but it also has a good chance of making him so angry that he's even more determined to shove that shiv in your eye.

I just can't decide how to make that work, mathematically, such that the bigger effect you go for, the worse the outcome if you screw it up.
#11
koosemose
Apr 19, 2009 2:53:26 Ok, lets try this...

Stage 1: Getting them to talk. Before you can accomplish any form of diplomacy there has to be someone willing to talk to you.
Determine Targets: Are you trying to talk down just one guy or the whole group. If trying the whole group you receive a penalty to your roll (or a higher DC).
Determine Target Attitude: This sets the stage for what sort of negotiations you are going for, are you trying to convince them to just not kill you? That should only require an unfriendly attitude. Want them to make sweet sweet monkey love to you? That will take at least a Friendly attitude (and then some). You can aim higher than the minimum needed attitude, and will receive a bonus to the second stage checks if you do. (This could be either a flat bonus depending on their temporary attitude, or a bonus scaled to how many stages above the minimum necessary you got them)
Roll: Now Roll with DC determine by target attitude adjusted by targets, this functions basically like RAW diplomacy, except as mentioned otherwise. If you succeed proceed to stage two. If you fail you may either continue your attempt (treating it as an extended skill check) or give up attempts at negotiations. If you continue, your allies must avoid attacking your target(s), or automatically cause you to fail. If you give up negoations (or your allies attack your target(s) causing you to fail) you may not try again.

Stage two: Perform a Diplomacy check (per Burlews Rules) to make the attitude (semi)permanent, and possibly additional checks to achieve any other things you may wish to convince them of.

For the purposes of parley I think a worse backfire for failure depending on how high you aimed is mostly pointless, they're already trying to kill you, it couldn't get much worse than that, and with this suggestion theres already incentive to not aim to high, as your allies can't attack your targets while your attempting to get them to talk. I would say they can't attack any of your target's allies, but if you're just talking down one guy, you are already trying to get him to seperate from his group in some way, either getting him to betray or abandon them (which may have penalties of it's own if they are loyal to their group and not just a team of random people hired to work together, but you would have similar penalties trying to convince the whole group if they are similarly loyal to their cause.

The other two options might need some tweaks for a worse reaction. Taking a look at standard diplomacy, it makes it look as though it's possible to worsen their reactions by getting a total result 0 or less, but as there aren't any penalties it's not possible to get a total of 0 or less... though Unfriendly to hostile is possible (but not likely)... Hmmm perhaps adjust that a bit, perhaps if you miss getting them to go up a reaction by 5 or more they shift down... so for example, to go from Unfriendly to Indifferent is DC 15, if you get a total 10 or less they shift down one.

If you want worse reactions that should be simple, when they fail by 5 or more instead of just going to the next worse attitude they fall by however many steps you were trying to take them up... so trying to go from Indifferent to Friendly, fail by 5 or more and they fall 2 steps to Hostile. Alternately, for every additional 5 you fail by they slip another step down, this doesn't exactly mimic them having a worse reaction the bigger you aim, but it will achieve a similar effect, as the higher you aim the higher the DC so the more likely you are to fail by more and them go down multiple steps, plus it matches the only way I can think to handle the pursuade (roughly) I'm not sure I personally like the worse reaction if you try to go higher, seems jsut making it possible to go down on a bad enough failure is harsh enough for me... but nonetheless if one were to add that on to Diplomacy, I think it'd work.

One could institute something simlar for the Persuade, hmm taking a look at them it seems it's complete failure threshold is -10, I don't like the inconsitency with how most rolls work but I can see why it was done... anyways if you fail by 10 or more, and proceed to try to negotiate their attitude slips by one, only way I can think of to have a a worse effect is an additional step down for every additional 5 you fail by, but again I personally think it may be a bit harsh.

Only problem I can see, if you use the threshold for the worse the failure the more their attitude goes down, is pursuade starts off at -10 and Diplomacy starts at -5...
#12
TheRealOrion
Apr 19, 2009 11:28:28
when they fail by 5 or more instead of just going to the next worse attitude they fall by however many steps you were trying to take them up...

That's it! A set DC for "backfire" (instead of just failure) and base the penalty on how many steps up they tried to achieve. Brilliant.
#13
koosemose
Apr 26, 2009 2:08:55
That's it! A set DC for "backfire" (instead of just failure) and base the penalty on how many steps up they tried to achieve. Brilliant.

Thanks... Nothing much really, honestly just applying a fairly standard D20 skill mechanic, (failure by 5 tends to cause worse results than just failure) and then extending the concept for further failures.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 koosemose Apr 17, 2009 1:47:49	I've always treated Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidation rather simplistically, even though I know it's not entirely accurate. Generally, I call for Diplomacy if someone is trying to convince someone of the truth, Bluff if they're trying to convince someone of an untruth, and Intimidate when doing either threateningly. After reading some of the conversation in the thread regarding duration of Diplomacy, I've been considering some of the finer nuances of the three skills. Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states. So basically Diplomacy is trying to convince someone (or group of someones) of something, it could include lying (bluff), threatening (intimidate), and/or general persuasion. So it would, in some cases, consist of abilities that are covered by two other skills and a third ability covered by neither. Does that mean that Diplomacy ultimately covers lying and threatening, and persuasion, but only if being used to shift someone's attitude? And Bluff and Intimidate only if using it on a short term scale of frightening someone for a few rounds or convincing someone of a single lie? Personally it seems rather strange to me that the skill used is determined by the specific effect wanted as opposed to how you are attempting to achieve it. Personally I feel my simplified explanation (actually contrary to what I thought before I started to think about it as I typed this) is more accurate, other than the name of diplomacy being a bit misleading. I'm not really sure if this thread is a call for suggestions for house rules, or discussion of what (if any) house rules are already in use, or if it's just simply an attempt to start a discussion on the three skills. As far as house rules go, I actually think I will continue doing as I have been, and, in cases where I am tweaking rules and/or character sheets, rename Diplomacy as Persuasion, and allow Bluff and Intimidate to shift NPC attitudes. Though Bluff would be more likely than Diplomacy to go away, since you are after all lying. Intimidate, while you would get the effect of the appropriate attitude, the target would be acting that way because they are afraid of you not because they liked you and would resume their previous attitude or worse as soon as they were no long afraid for whatever reason. Not sure on the balance of handling it this way, as Diplomacy's effects can be gotten by the other two, and they can do other things. Diplomacy would be near permanent (you wouldn't be lying when you used it, so doing something that would break it should be very rare, assuming honest/responsible players), but I'm not really sure if that is a proper balance. So opinions, comments, jeers?
#2 TheRealOrion Apr 17, 2009 7:44:45	I like the separation you've made between truth, lies, and bullying. I think that's an interesting way to go. It's not the RAW, but it could work. By the RAW, the difference is that Bluff is a short-term lie, Diplomacy is long-term convincing, and Intimate is just bullying. The separation is kinda weird, to be honest, but I found a proposed patch that I quite like. It's Rich Burlew's Diplomacy. Instead of convincing someone that you are trustworthy, in Rich's version, you're convincing someone that the deal you're currently offering is in your interest. That means that, as you say, the subject(s) will continue to believe you until such time as they have a reason not to. If you're a fair dealer, they'll keep trusting you. If you betray them or sell them crap, they'll know not to enter deals with you in the future. I really like it. Give it a look. Might inspire you.
#3 backstabbist Apr 17, 2009 10:32:20	Something to consider is the tendency of Intimidate to be a short term gain but ending up with the guy mad at you when you're gone. If BigAl leans on a waiter to get a doublecut slice of pie for the single price, that waiter may be intimidated to let him have it, but after we sit he will harbor ill feelings about the bullying and spit in the food. But when BigAl puts the squeeze on Vinny the mook, Vinny aint sayin nuthin cause he is still intimidated by what Fat Tony will do if he talks. That second one is the longterm intimidate, rathet than just long enough to get a slice of pie.
#4 DwarfFighter Apr 17, 2009 12:35:04	There are a few things I don't like about the Diplomacy skill. One is a combination of two factors: the static DC and the "open" result. Essentially this means that the PCs (NPC's don't factor in). These elements combine to radically reduce the risk involved. Even a poor roll is likely to yield some result. If the player was required to specify a target result then he would have to at least apply a bit of moderation, opting for an Indifferent attitude instead of risking out-right failure by going for Firendly. It should also make the GM more inclined to reward success appropriately. I know - it's Old School. But I feel that it's fair that when you bet on Red you double your money, bet on 0 and you get x35. Risk = Reward. I also like Burlew's ideas on establishing a dynamic Base DC since it allows for scaling the DC rather than seeing the challenge of Diplomacy skill checks drop out of the picture after a number of levels.
#5 TheRealOrion Apr 17, 2009 13:39:06	This fix might suit you, then: http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html]Rich Berlew's Diplomacy Fix I've installed something very similar in Phoenix.
#6 koosemose Apr 17, 2009 16:08:39	Something to consider is the tendency of Intimidate to be a short term gain but ending up with the guy mad at you when you're gone. If BigAl leans on a waiter to get a doublecut slice of pie for the single price, that waiter may be intimidated to let him have it, but after we sit he will harbor ill feelings about the bullying and spit in the food. But when BigAl puts the squeeze on Vinny the mook, Vinny aint sayin nuthin cause he is still intimidated by what Fat Tony will do if he talks. That second one is the longterm intimidate, rathet than just long enough to get a slice of pie. I'm not entirely certain that I'm following exactly what you're saying. Is it that the second example would be diplomacy as it's long term? Or are you just giving examples of two different types of intimidation? Personally I would call them both Intimidation as in both you are a result of fear and threats, even though the second result is more in line with the results you get from Diplomacy, except of course as soon as Fat Tony is vulnerable, Vinny's attitude is going to shift immediately to hostile.
#7 DwarfFighter Apr 18, 2009 13:01:15	Burlew's Diplomacy rules are great for dealing with "selling" a specific issue: The player specifies what he wants the NPC to do, and the GM establishes a check DC. They must be taken as a replacement of the "change attitude" function of the standard Diplomacy rules since they don't ofer a different way of resolving this. In fact their whole premise is that the standard implementation of the "change attitude" check is flawed. I don't disagree on that, but I still think there's room for a "change attitude" check. After all the clearly defined attitudes are a good "rules of thumb" for as far as NPCs are concerned. -DF
#8 TheRealOrion Apr 18, 2009 22:05:42	Well, what I'm picturing now is a combination of three things. Diplomacy has three aspects: Making a Deal, Engendering Trust/Endearing Yourself, and Parley. Making a Deal is Burlew's version, Endearing Yourself is RAW Diplomacy, and Parley is doing either of the above in combat. It's a lot for one little skill, but I think it's legitimate that there are lots of things you can do with the ability to speak clearly and forcefully.
#9 koosemose Apr 19, 2009 1:47:25	Well, what I'm picturing now is a combination of three things. Diplomacy has three aspects: Making a Deal, Engendering Trust/Endearing Yourself, and Parley. Making a Deal is Burlew's version, Endearing Yourself is RAW Diplomacy, and Parley is doing either of the above in combat. It's a lot for one little skill, but I think it's legitimate that there are lots of things you can do with the ability to speak clearly and forcefully. Hmm that's not a half bad idea... From what I can tell Burlew's (that's the one you linked earlier, correct?) functions fairly close to diplomacy as I've been running it, just a bit more streamlined. And it helps solve a bit of a problem I've had... the Social skills have always felt a touch too weak to me (admittedly because I don't handle them exactly as written, being able to to talk down someone who is raving mad with a fairly simple dice roll seems a bit much to me) especially Diplomacy, as I've generally allowed Bluff and Intimidate to achieve similar effects leaving, this gives Diplomacy some extra options to match my versions of bluff and intimidate (all three can shift attitude, and all three would have additional tricks now). Seems to me though that Parley could use some additional rules, as it would be a lot harder to talk down actively hostile opponents. Perhaps first you have to get them to at least unfriendly, then use Make a Deal/Persuade to convince them not to continue fighting. If unsuccessful they go back to Hostile and hostility ensues. Also I think I rather like the idea of having to basically set your target attitude, which I think was mentioned in the other thread, as it seems to me it would take a drastically different approach trying to get someone to just stop trying to kill you for a bit than it would to get someone to be actually friendly. At least use that version for parley as while it may be possible to shift as you go along in peaceful extended negotiations it wouldn't be in the midst of combat. Actually using it only for parley would make a decent drawback in exchange for it being on a much shorter time-scale than normal.
#10 TheRealOrion Apr 19, 2009 2:04:01	I agree that there should be some risk of screwing up a Diplomacy attempt, and possibly ruining someone's ire. Imagine, if you will, someone's coming at you with a shiv, and you say "I can make it worth your while to spare me!" That leads you into a negotiation of some kind. Or you say "Come on, man, do I really look like someone who deserves to die?" That's an Endearment check. Both viable options. Now let's say that blurt out "Spare me and I'll make sweet love to you." This might work, but it also has a good chance of making him so angry that he's even more determined to shove that shiv in your eye. I just can't decide how to make that work, mathematically, such that the bigger effect you go for, the worse the outcome if you screw it up.
#11 koosemose Apr 19, 2009 2:53:26	Ok, lets try this... Stage 1: Getting them to talk. Before you can accomplish any form of diplomacy there has to be someone willing to talk to you. Determine Targets: Are you trying to talk down just one guy or the whole group. If trying the whole group you receive a penalty to your roll (or a higher DC). Determine Target Attitude: This sets the stage for what sort of negotiations you are going for, are you trying to convince them to just not kill you? That should only require an unfriendly attitude. Want them to make sweet sweet monkey love to you? That will take at least a Friendly attitude (and then some). You can aim higher than the minimum needed attitude, and will receive a bonus to the second stage checks if you do. (This could be either a flat bonus depending on their temporary attitude, or a bonus scaled to how many stages above the minimum necessary you got them) Roll: Now Roll with DC determine by target attitude adjusted by targets, this functions basically like RAW diplomacy, except as mentioned otherwise. If you succeed proceed to stage two. If you fail you may either continue your attempt (treating it as an extended skill check) or give up attempts at negotiations. If you continue, your allies must avoid attacking your target(s), or automatically cause you to fail. If you give up negoations (or your allies attack your target(s) causing you to fail) you may not try again. Stage two: Perform a Diplomacy check (per Burlews Rules) to make the attitude (semi)permanent, and possibly additional checks to achieve any other things you may wish to convince them of. For the purposes of parley I think a worse backfire for failure depending on how high you aimed is mostly pointless, they're already trying to kill you, it couldn't get much worse than that, and with this suggestion theres already incentive to not aim to high, as your allies can't attack your targets while your attempting to get them to talk. I would say they can't attack any of your target's allies, but if you're just talking down one guy, you are already trying to get him to seperate from his group in some way, either getting him to betray or abandon them (which may have penalties of it's own if they are loyal to their group and not just a team of random people hired to work together, but you would have similar penalties trying to convince the whole group if they are similarly loyal to their cause. The other two options might need some tweaks for a worse reaction. Taking a look at standard diplomacy, it makes it look as though it's possible to worsen their reactions by getting a total result 0 or less, but as there aren't any penalties it's not possible to get a total of 0 or less... though Unfriendly to hostile is possible (but not likely)... Hmmm perhaps adjust that a bit, perhaps if you miss getting them to go up a reaction by 5 or more they shift down... so for example, to go from Unfriendly to Indifferent is DC 15, if you get a total 10 or less they shift down one. If you want worse reactions that should be simple, when they fail by 5 or more instead of just going to the next worse attitude they fall by however many steps you were trying to take them up... so trying to go from Indifferent to Friendly, fail by 5 or more and they fall 2 steps to Hostile. Alternately, for every additional 5 you fail by they slip another step down, this doesn't exactly mimic them having a worse reaction the bigger you aim, but it will achieve a similar effect, as the higher you aim the higher the DC so the more likely you are to fail by more and them go down multiple steps, plus it matches the only way I can think to handle the pursuade (roughly) I'm not sure I personally like the worse reaction if you try to go higher, seems jsut making it possible to go down on a bad enough failure is harsh enough for me... but nonetheless if one were to add that on to Diplomacy, I think it'd work. One could institute something simlar for the Persuade, hmm taking a look at them it seems it's complete failure threshold is -10, I don't like the inconsitency with how most rolls work but I can see why it was done... anyways if you fail by 10 or more, and proceed to try to negotiate their attitude slips by one, only way I can think of to have a a worse effect is an additional step down for every additional 5 you fail by, but again I personally think it may be a bit harsh. Only problem I can see, if you use the threshold for the worse the failure the more their attitude goes down, is pursuade starts off at -10 and Diplomacy starts at -5...
#12 TheRealOrion Apr 19, 2009 11:28:28	when they fail by 5 or more instead of just going to the next worse attitude they fall by however many steps you were trying to take them up... That's it! A set DC for "backfire" (instead of just failure) and base the penalty on how many steps up they tried to achieve. Brilliant.
#13 koosemose Apr 26, 2009 2:08:55	That's it! A set DC for "backfire" (instead of just failure) and base the penalty on how many steps up they tried to achieve. Brilliant. Thanks... Nothing much really, honestly just applying a fairly standard D20 skill mechanic, (failure by 5 tends to cause worse results than just failure) and then extending the concept for further failures.