[3.X] How do you guys handle diplomacy?

[Fuchs]

Unless of course the king's personal assassin has kill on sight orders and attacks before the players can even claim to have kidnapped the princess. Then you have diplomancy in the middle of combat, trying to stop the killing. RR doesn't really help with that, unless of course we're stating "for some rason, the assassin will not follow his orders today".

Diplomacy being useable in combat seems to work better though.

[PhoneLobster]

...King might spend his diplomacy phase to ... tell other people in the room to seize you. ...

You also list a whole bunch of other things that the diplomacy phase is suddenly "for" that quite frankly should never be off the table because the combat music starts.

If we actually take your claim at face value you are telling us RR can result in no diplomacy phase and if there is no diplomacy phase the king cannot tell his own guards in the same fucking room to attack you presumably he just froths silently at the mouth and charges in to bite your ankles off personally.

Also you apparently have decided now that if PCs have done something to modify social outcomes, like kidnap the princess, or the previously mentioned heal the guards sick child or whatever the PCs actually now need to have a favorable roll on RR before they can even TELL people that. Bringing in the insane bullshit of effectively the "RR is rolled before things that should fucking well influence RR". The players, all the players with full agreement and enthusiasm from the GM can do an awesome princess kidnapping setup for hours on end and RR can render it worthless for no fucking reason.

Now all your other stupid RR demands aside... this is one of the stupidest posts on what RR does yet. It takes RR from an utterly needless waste of effort to an outright scourge on the game.

This IS the natural (and fucking stupid) outcome of trying to artificially segregate this stuff from the dreaded "combat music", but this particular description is arguably one of the most stupid and destructive ways to perform that segregation that I've seen yet and even worse than any strawman I might have envisaged.

[zugschef]

I have the impression that people really don't know what the RR is actually supposed to do, and this includes the people advocating it. Frank says it's social initiative. DDMW says it's a tool to decide between two (or more) plausible NPC actions. PL's argument is that if your dice determine that combat music starts immediately, there's still no possibility outside of MTP for the PCs to tell the king or his guards that they have kidnapped the princess and thus, stop combat.

That's what I don't get about the whole thing: it doesn't solve anything on its own as presented. You'd still need an overhaul of all the other social mechanics. I honestly fail to see how that's any better than MTP.

[MGuy]

THANK YOU. I was just going to point out that what Frank just said is completely different from what Dead and Virgil want the system to do. I found it amusing for him to, instead of actually disavowing what dead/virgil have been saying about what the system does, he merely puts the blame on 'dishonest asshats'. Talk about your intellectual dishonesty there. I mean it's not like I didn't say this was exactly the case pages ago when I said:

The only people that have suggested it would limit bad DMs are the people who oppose Reaction Rolls - they have suggested it as the only possible benefit and then pointed out that it won't stop a bad DM. Building up a straw man just to tear it down.

Ultimately, a reaction roll system is a type of Random Plot Twist Generator (RPTG). For example, if your reaction roll system suggests an NPC will be Indifferent 80% of the time, Unfriendly 10% of the time and Friendly 10% of the time, then that's the same as saying he's Indifferent with a 20% chance of a plot twist.

I think most people agree that there are some GMs in the world who are so bad that their adventures could benefit from being forced to use a RPTG. But it's clear to me that good GMs would frequently suffer from being forced to use a RPTG.

I frankly don't see the point. Every instance of a Reaction System that I've actually seen people put numbers to falls into two categories.
1) It 'forces' a Diplomacy only minigame. Basically the idea seems to be that there WILL be social combat each time PCs meet NPCs and it determines how long the combat lasts.

2) It randomly generates how targets react to the PCs. This seems to be the one that people really want and every time I see it it is immediately math hammered in order to keep things from being random (making the whole exercise fairly deterministic) and then it is worded so vaguely/blandly that the lion's share of what actually happens is STILL GM fiat.

Now 1 may be agreeable if that's a thing you want. In a game where the Social Engine is as big a 'thing' as the combat engine I'd have no qualms about an Initiative like system that determined how many 'social rounds'' you have to operate in. This, however, does not seem to be the thing people are arguing about. The second seems unnecessary and either has been repeatedly constructed in a way that makes it pointless to use or is ripe for abuse (no take backs) by the bad GMs it is supposed to stop. The GMs who can just fiddle with the numbers to make sure that not only do they force combat every time they want but the rules will actually support their decision.

Every goal that people have set for RR can be done better with just letting the GM handle it. Different supporters seem to take different stances on it though.

Deaddm seems to think it should stand in place of Disguise checks and leads to greater variance in social interactions. The resultant systems don't support this notion and I've yet to see him actually give numbers or even a framework of a system that actually is more variant or even more workable than the GM making shit up.

Frank believes that Diplomacy cannot exist without this mechanic and any evidence to the contrary is completely ignored.

Lago is completely ok with completely random stuff happening all the time so there's no argument there.

The RR system currently being trotted out in the "RR Thread" seems to support every claim I, and PL, have made about what people actually do with the system. That is make it objectively worse (read fiddly) than just allowing the GM to make shit up and ultimately producing samey, deterministic, results just like any GM could do without the extra numbers.

[Username17]

I have the impression that people really don't know what the RR is actually supposed to do, and this includes the people advocating it. Frank says it's social initiative. DDMW says it's a tool to decide between two (or more) plausible NPC actions. PL's argument is that if your dice determine that combat music starts immediately, there's still no possibility outside of MTP for the PCs to tell the king or his guards that they have kidnapped the princess and thus, stop combat.

That's what I don't get about the whole thing: it doesn't solve anything on its own as presented. You'd still need an overhaul of all the other social mechanics. I honestly fail to see how that's any better than MTP.

I don't think DDMW or I am confused. What we are dealing with is a denial in depth strategy. It's very annoying.

Look, we all know that the diplomacy system of 3e is bad. It has numerous failure points and gives bad outcomes. If you want to fix the diplomacy minigame, you're going to have to produce a new set of diplomatic actions and numeric inputs that give you outputs that aren't stupid. But long before you get to that problem, you have the much earlier problem that diplomatic actions cannot, in 3e rules, be used at all. If someone is angry there is no chance to talk them down. If someone might be hostile, there is no chance to use any diplomatic actions before that determination is made and thus no way to affect any meaningful outcomes with any actions that could exist in that framework.

So before you even start discussing "problem 1" which is that you need diplomatic actions that aren't boring and RNG breaking, you have to solve "problem 0" which is that there needs to be an opportunity for diplomatic actions to be taken in the first place.

There are two suggestions on the table for solving problem zero. The first is the reaction roll - a roll at the beginning of an encounter that may give you an opportunity to take a diplomacy phase (more advanced version: also determines whether you get a short diplomacy phase or a full diplomacy phase). This is the version Virgil and I champion. The other is to make diplomatic actions be combat actions, so that people can jolly well negotiate treaties or whatever while arrows are flying around. That is the version championed by PhoneLobster and Fuchs.

Then there is the "full nihilism" option, which is espoused by Kaelik. He hates diplomancers and doesn't want them to be able to take actions, so he doesn't want problem zero solved at all. He's been very explicit about that.

I have multiple reasons why I think that diplomacy in combat time is fucking stupid and oppose PhoneLobster's attempt at a problem zero solution on that basis. And that's the state of the debate, save for a whole lot of tired strawmanning from the anti-RR people.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

So backing riiiiight away from the alarming stupidity of "king tells guards to attack is one of the things the RR/Diplomacy phase is for!" then?

Because if you ARE going to do that the intellectually honest way is to admit that most of the actions like that which you just described actually CAN happen in combat.

If you aren't actually doing that... you are actually proposing a "King cannot tell guards to attack on (of all things) the most aggressive results of the RR table".

[MGuy]

PL once again I'm shocked that you didn't go right for the jugular and just point out that everything Frank outlined about getting the chance to do stuff before the King orders an attack can be solved with regular initiative.

[PhoneLobster]

PL once again I'm shocked that you didn't go right for the jugular and just point out that everything Frank outlined about getting the chance to do stuff before the King orders an attack can be solved with regular initiative.

They'd just say "but this IS initiative!" and ignore the bit where it isn't. It's not like they have not already done it.

Anyway the whole "not just social actions, now basic communication and simple two word orders to existing allies are off the table once the combat music starts" is a new low of sheer insanity.

[Fuchs]

Frank will never, ever admit a mistake. No matter how much he has to twist his own words, and how many insults and lies he has to use.

[angelfromanotherpin]

PL once again I'm shocked that you didn't go right for the jugular and just point out that everything Frank outlined about getting the chance to do stuff before the King orders an attack can be solved with regular initiative.

Except that a social action takes 10 rounds to perform. So if you use the normal initiative rules, you start to talk, and then you get stabbed. Nine times. Before your words get to have an effect.

You know, just like Frank said back on page 2.

The hole is that the action to attempt to change someone's attitude takes 10 combat rounds, which is about twice as long as a battle in 3e D&D actually takes to go to completion. So if you want to persuade someone to not attack you, you can't do it. You will win or lose the combat before you even get to roll the dice to keep people from fighting you.

Frank will never, ever admit a mistake. No matter how much he has to twist his own words, and how many insults and lies he has to use.

Examples refuting this statement have been posted and linked on this actual thread. Repeating it at this point just kills your credibility.

[Username17]

Frank will never, ever admit a mistake. No matter how much he has to twist his own words, and how many insults and lies he has to use.

Imagine how much more effective that insult would be if you had actually presented any evidence at all that I was wrong about anything. Your last great assault on me was to claim that the unnamed test to resist seduction attempts in SR4 was not a "resistance test" on the grounds that it didn't have the words "resistance test" in its nonexistent name and that it wasn't listed in the definition of "resistance tests" which also does not exist. Which is an argument that is extremely weak and doesn't require me to lie, twist words, or insult anyone to simply laugh at. You were seriously arguing that an unwritten definition did or did not include something based on what you assumed would have been written there had it been written. To act like my refusal to accept your argument represents hubris on my part is... fascinating.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

...King might spend his diplomacy phase to ... tell other people in the room to seize you. ...

You also list a whole bunch of other things that the diplomacy phase is suddenly "for" that quite frankly should never be off the table because the combat music starts.

The argument for reaction rolls is an argument for (the possibility of) a pre-combat phase exclusive to social actions. I do not know how you would work backwards from that to conclude that social actions can only occur pre-combat. You may as well have argued that merchants can only do business by stabbing eachother to seal the deal; it's a complete and total pants-on-head retarded misunderstanding of what a reaction roll is and does. Social actions exist, take time, and do things. Reaction rolls delay the combat music.

If we actually take your claim at face value you are telling us RR can result in no diplomacy phase and if there is no diplomacy phase the king cannot tell his own guards in the same fucking room to attack you presumably he just froths silently at the mouth and charges in to bite your ankles off personally.

While the above argument is pretty much game over for that post, there's something else this makes me want to address: I don't think you can say all communication is an action in the social minigame. Convincing your lackeys to attack the intimidating figure who's stormed into the room would be a social action, but once you've won that particular contest the orders you might give them are practically infinite and very likely involve neither dice nor meaningful time.

Also you apparently have decided now that if PCs have done something to modify social outcomes, like kidnap the princess, or the previously mentioned heal the guards sick child or whatever the PCs actually now need to have a favorable roll on RR before they can even TELL people that. Bringing in the insane bullshit of effectively the "RR is rolled before things that should fucking well influence RR". The players, all the players with full agreement and enthusiasm from the GM can do an awesome princess kidnapping setup for hours on end and RR can render it worthless for no fucking reason.

Again: you really do not understand how this reaction roll thing is supposed to work. The approach is covered by shit like "stances" and you actually do get to declare that you approach the king shouting "I have a contingent everyone dies and I'm not afraid to use it!" or that you approach the king smiling with a giant sack of gold or that you approach the king waving your sword around shouting "put 'em up you bastard!" And all of these might influence the reaction roll.

[Fuchs]

Frank will never, ever admit a mistake. No matter how much he has to twist his own words, and how many insults and lies he has to use.

Imagine how much more effective that insult would be if you had actually presented any evidence at all that I was wrong about anything. Your last great assault on me was to claim that the unnamed test to resist seduction attempts in SR4 was not a "resistance test" on the grounds that it didn't have the words "resistance test" in its nonexistent name and that it wasn't listed in the definition of "resistance tests" which also does not exist. Which is an argument that is extremely weak and doesn't require me to lie, twist words, or insult anyone to simply laugh at. You were seriously arguing that an unwritten definition did or did not include something based on what you assumed would have been written there had it been written. To act like my refusal to accept your argument represents hubris on my part is... fascinating.

-Username17

It was not an "unnamed" test, it was an opposed test with Cha+Con vs. Int+Con or Negotiation. At no point ever it was called a "resistance test". The book did, however, name other tests as resiatance tests. The logical conclusion is that a test not named a resistance test is not a resistance test. Resistance tests are a small group of tests, called that when they are mentioned.

If we follow your claim then we'd have to ask why only a seduction attempt is treated as a resistance test for the victim, but not a negotiation or con check unrelated to seduction. Unless suddenly you want to claim that being wounded shouldn't make negotiating a sale harder either - even though that goes against the rules.

So, yeah, you are lieing through your teeth when it comes to rules you misremembered.

[zugschef]

I have multiple reasons why I think that diplomacy in combat time is fucking stupid and oppose PhoneLobster's attempt at a problem zero solution on that basis.

Which reasons are these, if I may ask, and how would you solve the problem that it is a common theme in movies that guys engage in a fight and find out that they're on the same side, stop and then actually team up (honest question)?

And what about this argument:

PL once again I'm shocked that you didn't go right for the jugular and just point out that everything Frank outlined about getting the chance to do stuff before the King orders an attack can be solved with regular initiative.

Now I know that a combat round is only six seconds and that that's not enough for a social encounter, but why not use regular initiative and then let the PC's social skill (providing that he goes first by winning initiative) decide if he can convince the other side to not attack him?

[Starmaker]

Imagine how much more effective that insult would be if you had actually presented any evidence at all that I was wrong about anything.

September 12, 2011. The internets never forget.
It doesn't help Fuchs, though. At all:

Frank will never, ever admit a mistake. No matter how much he has to twist his own words, and how many insults and lies he has to use.

FrankTrollman[/url]]Oh snap, you're right.

[Fuchs]

Ah, Frank's insane view of how old countries are. His utter failure to understand the difference between annexiation and occupation. His insane opinion that the French Republic "was founded 1945, when it gained its independence from Germany"...

[MGuy]

PL once again I'm shocked that you didn't go right for the jugular and just point out that everything Frank outlined about getting the chance to do stuff before the King orders an attack can be solved with regular initiative.

Except that a social action takes 10 rounds to perform. So if you use the normal initiative rules, you start to talk, and then you get stabbed. Nine times. Before your words get to have an effect.

You know, just like Frank said back on page 2.

EXCEPT that you forgot that DURING Frank's diatribe he mentions FIXING THE DIPLOMACY SYSTEM. Which if you wanted to make the '10 rounds thing' not a problem you could just FIX THAT by making a more robust Social system but HEY feel free to keep in mind what Frank is saying at one point and not another while simultaneously ignoring my entire argument because 'reasons'.

[deaddmwalking]

Ah, Frank's insane view of how old countries are. His utter failure to understand the difference between annexiation and occupation. His insane opinion that the French Republic "was founded 1945, when it gained its independence from Germany"...

That's not totally insane.

The French 4th Republic was from 1946-1958. They're currently in the 5th Republic.

You could argue that France is the same country now as it was under Clovis and/or original occupation by the Franks, or you could argue that France is Gaul and always has been, or you can accept that the country has changed over time and the way they break down regimes actually makes sense.

The 5th Republic has a lot of commonality with the 4th Republic, but there are some important differences.

Anyways, point is that if you want to talk about France between 1946-1958 as a different country than post 1958, you pretty much can.

[RadiantPhoenix]

If I was going to put social actions onto combat time, I'd consider doing it by making the combat round longer like in AD&D rather than by making the social actions take less time.

[DSMatticus]

Ah, Frank's insane view of how old countries are. His utter failure to understand the difference between annexiation and occupation. His insane opinion that the French Republic "was founded 1945, when it gained its independence from Germany"...

Neither an annexed nor occupied entity is a sovereign one. That is incredibly unambiguous and anyone who would argue otherwise is stupid. Any and all further debate on the topic is a word game that involves swapping back and forth between multiple definitions of the word country/state/nation/whatever in order to create the illusion of coherence. Thought experiment in the form of historical example:

1) Texas is a big chunk of Mexico.
2) Texas revolts against Mexico and becomes an independent and sovereign state.
3) Texas is voluntarily annexed by the U.S. without significant change to its existing local government (it merely cedes sovereignty).
4) Texas secedes from the U.S. without significant change to its existing local government (it merely reclaims sovereignty).
5) Texas joins the Confederacy, ceding sovereignty again and, again, without significant change to its existing local government.
6) The confederacy loses, and Texas surrenders to being reannexed by the United States without significant change to its existing local government.

At which of the above steps is Texas a country? How many different countries has Texas been? Note that the government of Texas stays (mostly) in tact throughout the entire period, but it gains and loses its sovereignty repeatedly, so even if you went with the second strongest definition of country (a political administrative body), you would be forced to argue that not only is Texas a country today, it's the same country it was when it was created after its revolution against Mexico. The only way to get coherent results and declare that Texas is not a country is to introduce concerns of sovereignty, and once you introduce concerns of sovereignty you necessarily must admit Frank is right.

[PhoneLobster]

...[In which he shifts all the goal posts]...

...
Wow. Really? Look the combat music NO SOCIAL thing? That's not a working backwards think, that's there because Frank and other RR fans have, in front of us, on this forum worked forwards from that position to "therefore must have RR!".

The whole "orders are social actions now, so they happen in social phase IF it happens" is the direct interpretation of Franks latest post where he extended social phase actions to all these other things to say "See all these things the social phase is for!" Now either the social phase is required for all those things so they need to happen there (which is stupid), or it isn't and they can happen elsewhere and his entire post is bullshit obfuscation AND sets a precedent for the more typical social actions to ALSO not need the social phase.

And no. The king does not fucking have to social contest his guards to get them to later obey a free action "Kill them" in the same encounter and you don't get to paint it as that to make it suddenly sensible. Because if you DO paint it as that and the king misses his fucking opportunity for the initial "social the guards" action in the social phase the "King can't tell the guards to attack when RR rolls final destination combat" still stands you ass. If the king could social the guards and wait forever then give the "Kill Them" order that would be all very well, but that isn't the position Frank took since he was talking about the social phase of the same fucking encounter.

And stances? Really you know what. Frankjust spent a post saying telling the King you have kidnapped his daughter is an action you perform IN the social phase generated by RR your defense of that is "NOOOO! it's an action you perform BEFORE RR!" well too bad you guys are apparently in disagreement. You need to decide what is and isn't a social action or a modifier to RR, and you don't get it both fucking ways.

I know you and the RR crowd have no fucking idea what you are even arguing in favor of. I know a potential shiny dice roll has had your eyes glaze over and you've all just been reaching so damn hard for entirely random justifications ever since. But try and keep those justifications consistent and try and keep them sane Frank's "king can't say Kill Them! when he gets angry" is one of the stumbles. And backing away from it requires you actually stand up and dust your entire argument off before you try to continue forward at full speed into the next brick wall.

[deaddmwalking]

Personally, I'm in favor of 'social actions' being available in combat. The king can order his guards to 'kill the intruders', and a character that doesn't want to kill the guards can try to convince them that the king is really a doppelganger. Social actions should be able to be taken in combat time, but they're going to be noticeably harder. And there's a couple of reasons why.

If the guards believe the intruders, they're still intruders, and if they just killed two of the guards, maybe it's better to stab them to death before even considering what the ramifications of the king being a doppelganger really are. So here's the thing - the social character succeeds in convincing the guards that the king isn't really who he is, but what does that mean?

It can mean that the DM decides how the guards will react (DM fiat) which is pretty much the existing standard. If he decides the guards continue to attack, the success is meaningless because it achieves nothing for the PCs.

With a system that ties into reaction, ideally the modifiers will help calculate the result. If 'orders to kill' are a -8 on the modifier roll, but you have successfully 'countered' that modifier, that's effectively a +8 on the modifier. Maybe the guards are going to give you a little time to explain yourself or maybe they're going to keep stabbing you. Having a system let's the DM figure it out when ideally, both options are totally plausible and are based on the PCs actions.

Because while the DM may have known that the king was going to order the guards to kill the intruders, knowing everything the PCs were going to do is patently impossible.

[DSMatticus]

Wow. Really? Look the combat music NO SOCIAL thing? That's not a working backwards think, that's there because Frank and other RR fans have, in front of us, on this forum worked forwards from that position to "therefore must have RR!".

I think you are conflating the "beating people and seducing people should be on different damage tracks" with "you should not social at things during combat." It's possible that Frank (or someone else) has said something stupid like "you shouldn't be able to convince people who are near death to surrender because combat can't have social actions," but I have strong doubts that they actually have.

You are more than welcome to produce quotes and evidence to that effect, and then I will join you in pointing and laughing at stupid people who said stupid things. And then I will point out that despite winning the battle you still lost the fucking war because it is objectively true that a pre-combat phase exclusively for social actions is not the same thing as not having any social actions in combat phases, and reaction rolls by definition produce the former (and not the latter).

The whole "orders are social actions now, so they happen in social phase IF it happens" is the direct interpretation of Franks latest post where he extended social phase actions to all these other things to say "See all these things the social phase is for!"

If the RR roll gives a diplomacy phase, you might use it to try to stay the King's hand with a diplomatic ploy, threat, or bluff. You might use it to attempt to demoralize people or tell other people in the room to stay out of it - just as the King might spend his diplomacy phase to demand your surrender or to tell other people in the room to seize you.

PL, you are being a dishonest twat. Frank is very clearly not describing ordering your lackeys. He sets up a situation in which PC's are trying to demoralize or otherwise persuade everyone else to stay out of it, and the king is ordering them to do so. You are conflating an opposed social contest with directing minions at all.

And stances? Really you know what. Frankjust spent a post saying telling the King you have kidnapped his daughter is an action you perform IN the social phase generated by RR your defense of that is "NOOOO! it's an action you perform BEFORE RR!" well too bad you guys are apparently in disagreement. You need to decide what is and isn't a social action or a modifier to RR, and you don't get it both fucking ways.

Actually, we don't. The existence of two or more plausible reaction roll implementations is not in anyway a criticism of reaction rolls. If you were arguing that RPG's shouldn't use dice, and then person A responded with a lengthy rant about how dicepools are awesome, and person B responded with a lengthy rant about how the 1d20 system is awesome, you would not be able to turn to them and say "ah-hah! The two of you disagree! Clearly I can't be wrong if you two can't agree which die mechanic is best!" That would make you a total moron. And yet, here we are.

But you are right that I criticized you for the wrong thing in context: I should have criticized you for conflating "earning an advantage in the social phase" with "getting a bonus on the reaction roll." Under Frank's system, kidnapping the princess or whatever is absolutely an advantage - but sometimes swords will get drawn and the stabbing will start before you have a chance to use it. That's not particularly surprising. If you're delivering a message by breaking into a throne room, the messenger getting metaphorically shot should probably be a viable outcome. Your decision to hold this up as a self-evident example of incomprehensibility is still ridiculous, and any attempt to pretend that the players haven't earned an advantage by kidnapping the princess would be very dishonest.

[RadiantPhoenix]

How does this sound for a combat-time social mechanic:

Morale Damage: Morale Damage is basically ultra-nonlethal damage. A character with combined nonlethal and morale damage in excess of his or her current hitpoints will retreat if able, or try to surrender, whether because they're afraid, or because they just don't care enough to fight. Mindless creatures and other creatures without free will (or at least something that looks like it) are immune to morale damage.

And then your social characters get combat-time abilities that do Morale damage.

[deaddmwalking]

I've just been talking to one of my friends about our heartbreaker and the discussion here. We're toying with the idea of Morale as one track and Hostility as another. If you really hate someone (hostile) but you're really afraid of them (low morale), you'll still flee.

Guards with a low morale would be harder to command. Elite troops would be valued in part because they have a high morale, and therefore follow orders - even suicidal ones.

Intimidate and other actions would directly impact the morale rating of opposing troops. Low morale troops would be harder to command and more likely to flee.

There was a chart that someone (probably Frank) linked to that offers a pretty good starting place.