The Campaign Builder's Guild

I've been wondering about d20 Diplomacy and how it always seems poorly done, and then I read this essay:

URL

It's starting to make me wonder if there's even a point to a Diplomacy skill.  Am I just being obsessive about the rules?

WotC has hinted/said that social mechanics will be much different and more interactive for 4e. I think we can also believe (based on their new philosophy) that they will be affected by level of both the user and subject this time round.

I swear that every fourth new thread that comes up describes a reason I don;t play d20.
LC (who has been missing and is sorely missed) had a thread called 'Combat vs. Everything', which when read sideways gives a good answer to you.

You are not being obsessive.  D20 is a combat system, with a few rules patches thrown in.  That combat bias makes the game more and more unplayable the less combat you have.  

I had a post on my wiki about this, but the wiki is being reconstructed and the post hasn't been copied over yet. The upshot is that just changing someone's attitude doesn't really change the realities of the situation, although it might change someone's reaction to it. Diplomacy against the leader of a barbarian horde might make him like and respect you, but he's still got his own realities to deal with.

Yeah, the social mechanics suffer in the detail of treatment. D&D (and by inheritance, D20) has always been a combat-oriented game. I'm not holding my breath for a big improvement, although you never know.

Social interaction rules are always somewhat uncertain, because you don't want to overshadow the role-playing aspects of social interaction, but at the same time you may need rules to understand what is possible for a truly legendary negotiator. Common sense only takes you so far in a world where negotiations may be affected by magic, by the Force, or what have you.

Quote from: LordVreegI swear that every fourth new thread that comes up describes a reason I don;t play d20.

Do you have a favorite system that does Diplomacy better?

(**pinned to the walls in the corner of the tavern, no means of escape available**)

I use my own.  

But almost any skill based system deals with social skills better than D&D.  Frankly, I enjoy the social stuff as much as the armed conflict.  My Igbarians are deeply involved with the Bardic sub-culture of Igbr, which is where almost all news, normally with an editorial slant, is publically discussed.  They are embroiled in a war about public opinion.

Look for versions that resolve diplomacy in a similar way to combat.  Systems that make someone your best buddy with one roll of a die while making fighting the same creatuer an hour long affair are probably not too good for social situations.

(I knew my game had hit another level when the skill 'Basic Carnal' was introduced)

Unfortunately the only one I know of that does anything other than a straight roll is Spycraft's Dramatic Conflict system, which is d20 based.  But I'm not up for buying a $24 PDF just to get a couple of new rules.  I've looked over the free download from their website that put all the possible choices on a bunch of cards, but I'm leery of trying to adapt a single part of a system.

Then, my friend, we are going to have to suggest you create your own.  STart a thread, and figure out what kind of situations you want it to take care of.  also if you want it to deal with intial impressions.  
Or, you can blow it off...

The Burning Wheel has an interesting social combat mechanic.

Or just handle it by roleplaying, which I've done for plenty of games.

Or check out 4e in a couple of months. Or just get rid of static DCs which solves much of the problem. Or adjudicate with common sense, and assume diplomacy is a tool, not a weapon that solves all problems. Or just don't give XP for anything where there was no risk, since that seems to be the basic logic in the CR/XP system.

Best of luck with it.

I emplore my players to roleplay their social encounters out, and give attributal bonuses on the backend when they roll their Influence skill (a homebrewed skill for intimidate, diplomacy, etc...). If they roleplay poorly, or don't roleplay whatsoever, they incur a severe penalty.

Basically, if they roleplay well, they will generally succeed. If they don't, they won't ever succeed. Beyond that, I still feel using a d20 mechanic as a stand-in for an opportunity to roleplay is a huge waste, and entirely unhinges the ideal behind a tabletop roleplaying game.

Quote from: MonikerBeyond that, I still feel using a d20 mechanic as a stand-in for an opportunity to roleplay is a huge waste, and entirely unhinges the ideal behind a tabletop roleplaying game.

I think, though, that this misses one of the biggest reasons to play an RPG: you can be someone you can't be in real life.  I wouldn't want anyone to roleplay poorly just because they have a mechanical bonus, but I don't want to tell someone one who's terrible at RL diplomacy that they aren't allowed to play a diplomatic character.

As an aside I kind of think that the person who wrote the essay I URLed is being way too obsessive about what rules should handle: he/she/it wants rules for a kid asking a parent for a cookie.  Unless the PC is the kid it beats me why rules need to be involved.  Plus I think in some cases people aren't pursuaded by outside people but rather pursuade themselves.  Result: they make a decision without the rules being involved.

I think his cookie example is a bit off.  He never took into account how close it was to dinner/bed time, whether or not the child's homework was done, etc.  All those effect the grandmother's decision.  Not to mention that every time he asks for another cookie the deal bar slides, making it harder to obtain another cookie.

The games that I run are very much DnD 3.5. We follow the rules closely and my games go over fairly well, but we keep combat to a minimum. We enjoy combat, don't get me wrong, but we play DnD for the role playing. Diplomacy is very rarely rolled, but we have an unspoken rule of requiring it on the sheet if you're going to play the character that does a lot of "diplomatic" things. For example, the barbarian who doesn't really talk and stuff, who has no points in diplomacy keeps his head out of the things better left to bard or paladin or other party leader because they will be met with awkward glances and the like.

A character with higher diplomacy has a better chance at succeeding in such things that require it, and we keep that in mind without actually rolling the dice.

Now, we have rolled it in rare occasions when it comes down to the wire.

Okay, so this isn't going by D&D rules, but this is what I do regardless....

I've used diplomacy a pretty good deal.  I see it as a reaction -- if you tell something to an enemy they'll react one way, whereas if you tell something to a friend you'll get a very different reaction.  

Say you go up to a random guy.  You fail your diplomacy check, so this random guy doesn't like you.  He's no happy today, and you can't make him that way.  You want to get some information from him, but he thinks your up to no good.  If you can convince him to give it to you, he still will.  But he'll struggle.

Likewise, on a good check, you remind him of his son who's off to war and he offers you a mango when you approach him.  He's willing to work with you, but maybe not give away all of his secrets.

A character is roleplayed by the player, so the player controls everything they say, but how well that character fits into the world, how convincing their nonverbals are, and just the overall attitude of the character is largely determined by their diplomacy check.  

I also use diplomacy checks when the character puts forth a good thought and effort, but is asking the NPC in question to do or say something against its nature.  It's akin to a coin toss then.