[3.X] Diplomacy Hack: Reaction Rolls (PL, please stay out)

[zugschef]

I don't think anyone should ever be forced to talk. You should always have the option of just trying to greataxe the other guy in the head. Negotiations are something that both sides have to agree to before they start.

I totally think you should. If one of the players is a diplomancer he damn sure wants to be able to talk himself out of seemingly inevitable fights.

And I'm not sure that team monster shouldn't be able to persuade pcs against the players' will. After all, team monster can cast charm/dominate person on them. What's the difference?

[Omegonthesane]

I don't think anyone should ever be forced to talk. You should always have the option of just trying to greataxe the other guy in the head. Negotiations are something that both sides have to agree to before they start.

I totally think you should. If one of the players is a diplomancer he damn sure wants to be able to talk himself out of seemingly inevitable fights.

And I'm not sure that team monster shouldn't be able to persuade pcs against the players' will. After all, team monster can cast charm/dominate person on them. What's the difference?

Some players - including my current GM - will argue that your mechanical persuadertron abilities are limited by RAELIZARM when fired against players, and that occasionally you will hit a brick wall. In this case, apparently there was no possible argument that would convince our PC lord to not send all available troops Oop North to fight the army of death leaving our home vulnerable to the civil war also going on, due to his Freudian associations with a family we'd royally pissed off and wanted to regain favour with.

If I'd been literally using Charm Person rather than using a mundane-fluffed set of feats that allow me to make everyone my best friend after one social combat, I might have had more success as Magic Gets Shit Done.

[Lago PARANOIA]

After all, team monster can cast charm/dominate person on them. What's the difference?

Well.

[*] Having NPCs diplomatize PCs opens up a brand new frontier in laying down shiny railroad tracks. We've had a couple of DMs on these boards who openly salivate at the thought of being able to diplomatize PCs *coughRandomCasualty2Swordslinger* and I see nothing good coming from this.
[*] Even if every DM was reasonable about it, if your diplomacy system generates a plausible but unusual result like pissing on yourself in public pranknet-style or having your militant lesbian/straightjacket/bear character seduced by someone of their non-preferred gender you'll have some players throw a bitch fit anyway. It doesn't matter if the result is realistic or plausible or even likely; once your character trades their loyal warhouse mount they've had for several years for a sack of magic beans, people will demonize the system as 'bullshit randomness telling people how to roleplay their character'.

The reason why people are okay with charm/dominate but not mundane diplomacy is threefold.

[*] The first is, well, mundane diplomacy is mundane. People have odd conceptions about dualism or how they'd defy the implications of the Milgram experiment and they just won't accept mundane diplomacy making them do what they see as 'extreme' things.
[*] Secondly, charm/dominate have a build-in escape hatch as far as characterization is confirmed. The way they're fluffed is that whatever results were generated by these game effects they're not really 'you' and don't reflect anything about your character. No one really thinks that Mindbender King Howard compelling your character to lynch a retarded teenage boy in public with his evil eye means that you're a bad person.

However, if Smooth-Talking Bastard Hannibal Minderbinder convinces your character to lynch a retarded teenage boy in public with his diplomacy, it casts your character in an entirely new light. Your character development from now on is 'willingly murders children if whipped up enough'.
[*] Charm/dominate are exceptional methods of character control. Like once-a-session, if that, methods of an NPC dictating player behavior. If you make it more common than that, trust me, people will start to complain.

[ishy]

Charm/dominate also have a lot of countermeasures like protection from X making you immune to them, dispelling them and many others.

The skill doesn't really have that (yet).

[Lago PARANOIA]

Not in every game, though. The number of games that have readily available, blanket $TEXAS protection from supernatural mind control is seems to be restricted to D&D. And not even every revision at that.

[Cyberzombie]

I totally think you should. If one of the players is a diplomancer he damn sure wants to be able to talk himself out of seemingly inevitable fights.

Yeah, just like the enchanter wants to be able to charm everything and the rogue wants to be able to sneak attack every monster. Having one schtick that works on everything is something every player seems to want at first glance, because it makes their life easy to just have one tool they use to beat everything. I played 4E, that style makes an incredibly dull game. Not to mention you've got people playing PCs that aren't diplomancers and those people want to do shit too.

It's never a good thing to have one skill that wins the game. Remember, diplomacy is valued the same as other skills like spellcraft, knowledge skills and athletics. Those skills don't win fights instantly. I'm not sure why anyone would want to make diplomacy super-powered. It's already a top tier skill at dealing with opponents that want to talk, because it's still far better than knowledge (religion).

[ishy]

Not in every game, though. The number of games that have readily available, blanket $TEXAS protection from supernatural mind control is seems to be restricted to D&D. And not even every revision at that.

Yeah few games have blanket protection, but many games have countermeasures (like say dispel magic) or limitations (like only PCs can use them, doesn't work on bosses etc)

Yeah, just like the enchanter wants to be able to charm everything and the rogue wants to be able to sneak attack every monster. Having one schtick that works on everything is something every player seems to want at first glance, because it makes their life easy to just have one tool they use to beat everything. I played 4E, that style makes an incredibly dull game. Not to mention you've got people playing PCs that aren't diplomancers and those people want to do shit too.

If you do make diplomacy interesting, you're going to need everyone to be able to do something during the diplomacy phase.

[zugschef]

I totally think you should. If one of the players is a diplomancer he damn sure wants to be able to talk himself out of seemingly inevitable fights.

Yeah, just like the enchanter wants to be able to charm everything and the rogue wants to be able to sneak attack every monster. Having one schtick that works on everything is something every player seems to want at first glance, because it makes their life easy to just have one tool they use to beat everything. I played 4E, that style makes an incredibly dull game. Not to mention you've got people playing PCs that aren't diplomancers and those people want to do shit too.

That's not an argument. Just because they want to do it every time, it doesn't mean they can do it every time, but they sure as fuck will do it some of the time.

It's never a good thing to have one skill that wins the game. Remember, diplomacy is valued the same as other skills like spellcraft, knowledge skills and athletics. Those skills don't win fights instantly. I'm not sure why anyone would want to make diplomacy super-powered. It's already a top tier skill at dealing with opponents that want to talk, because it's still far better than knowledge (religion).

Diplomacy is not a top tier skill it's a broken skill which you simply cannot use as printed. And I think you completely missed the point of this thread. Most of the time you don't even get to use social skills because the game has no mechanic for introducing them. It's flat out GM-fiat.

[virgil]

Next, we must come up with the equivalent of the Social Same Game Test, which is a list of the most common scenarios.
[*]Dungeon Crawl: The party bursts through the door, taking the guardian monster by surprise
[*]Bandit Ambush: Unaware, the party is spotted by a group of bandits looking for trouble
[*]Ale & Whores: Pockets bursting with treasure, the party enters the tavern for a party
[*]Hansel & Gretel: A wicked witch stirs her brew, and our party happens upon the gingerbread house on their quest to find the missing children, several avenues of attack present themselves

• They smell long pork, so they bust down the door to negotiate by sword point
  Cautiously, they knock & ask if she's seen any children

Now, with a range of four results; we've got, in ascending order, Combative, Disinterested, Interested, Attentive.
Dungeon Crawl This is our typical D&D scenario, where players are expecting to fight oozes and other monstrous malcontents. Social niceties aren't desired, and I think even Interested might be a bit much; so we want predominantly Combative, Disinterested less so, and Interested at either 0% or the far side of the RNG.
Bandit Ambush More friendly, the equivalent of "your money or your life" banter is fine here, but extended discourse is still not preferred. So options here are still in lower range; so a more 'friendly' curve with a distance from Attentive retained is desired.
Ale & Whores Essentially the opposite of the dungeon crawl. We don't want bar fights to crack open in response to visiting heroes ladened with treasure, and even Disinterested is going to be a bit much; but a sullen guy nursing his beer in response is not out of the question, so Combative is off the RNG.
Hansel & Gretel: Bad Cop The witch isn't expecting anyone, but defending herself is not out of the question, while neither is her throwing up her hands to ask for calm heads to explain that it's just ketchup on the table. While the entire RNG is desired, the bell curve should peak around Disinterested (out of surprise)
Hansel & Gretel: Good Cop Obviously defensive, the party's posing only a potential threat, so while combat is on the table and not rare, we want the option for discourse to be available.

[PhoneLobster]

[quotes himself in circles while dribbling meaningless trash out his mouth]

That's not a "social same game test". That's you picking the results you want for various scenarios and declaring the general vicinity of bonuses you intend to pull out of your ass to get the result you decided upon in advance.

It's the same total non-mechanic you've not produced for this whole fucking thread.

And that's actually a charitable description.

[virgil]

PL, since you've not gotten the hint yet, I've formalized the request to keep your nonconstructive self out of this thread.

[Ice9]

[*] Having NPCs diplomatize PCs opens up a brand new frontier in laying down shiny railroad tracks. We've had a couple of DMs on these boards who openly salivate at the thought of being able to diplomatize PCs *coughRandomCasualty2Swordslinger* and I see nothing good coming from this.

...

The reason why people are okay with charm/dominate but not mundane diplomacy is threefold.

...

Pretty much this. It's just not something most players want out of the game, and for every diplomancer-fan who think's it'd be cool there are like three other people who will at best grumble about it. And that's not even going into the extremely undesirable territory of diplomancer PCs trying to use their mojo on the rest of the party.

Also, I definitely second the view entering diplomacy should be more often good than bad for the PCs, and never 'lose the encounter and give the BBEG a blowjob' bad even in the worst case. Because otherwise, you have the very real incentive to start all battles with a surprise attack from long range. At which point there are two options, neither very good:
A) Diplomacy doesn't actually happen because all battles start with sniping.
B) You aren't allowed to snipe people who look too charming, no, not even with an AoE where you don't have to look at them in any detail. Stupid and fourth-wall breaking.

It's similar to the "if any negotiations can turn into 'trade all your worldly possessions for this potato', then people will refuse to talk to any outsiders." factor. You don't want to set up a situation where paranoid antisocial behavior is the better choice.

[Cyberzombie]

That's not an argument. Just because they want to do it every time, it doesn't mean they can do it every time, but they sure as fuck will do it some of the time.

Nobody is saying that diplomacy should never work, but the idea that a monster can't decide to start a combat because of some metagame diplomancer protection rule is dumb.

Diplomacy is not a top tier skill it's a broken skill which you simply cannot use as printed. And I think you completely missed the point of this thread. Most of the time you don't even get to use social skills because the game has no mechanic for introducing them. It's flat out GM-fiat.

I don't really see a problem with introducing diplomacy being a DM fiat thing. You can't use disable device if the DM doesn't use traps. You can't use open locks if the DM doesn't place locked doors in the adventure. Knowledge skills are entirely reactive depending on your opposition. For almost every skill, the DM creates instances where you can use that skill and can render the skill useless by not placing any objects the skill is useful at defeating. That's just how adventure design works.

I don't see why diplomacy gets to be placed on a pedestal. If open locks doesn't force a mandatory quota of at least 3 locked things per adventure, then diplomacy shouldn't force NPCs to converse.

[zugschef]

That's not an argument. Just because they want to do it every time, it doesn't mean they can do it every time, but they sure as fuck will do it some of the time.

Nobody is saying that diplomacy should never work, but the idea that a monster can't decide to start a combat because of some metagame diplomancer protection rule is dumb.

I honestly don't even know what you're talking about.

Diplomacy is not a top tier skill it's a broken skill which you simply cannot use as printed. And I think you completely missed the point of this thread. Most of the time you don't even get to use social skills because the game has no mechanic for introducing them. It's flat out GM-fiat.

I don't really see a problem with introducing diplomacy being a DM fiat thing. You can't use disable device if the DM doesn't use traps. You can't use open locks if the DM doesn't place locked doors in the adventure. Knowledge skills are entirely reactive depending on your opposition. For almost every skill, the DM creates instances where you can use that skill and can render the skill useless by not placing any objects the skill is useful at defeating. That's just how adventure design works.

I don't see why diplomacy gets to be placed on a pedestal. If open locks doesn't force a mandatory quota of at least 3 locked things per adventure, then diplomacy shouldn't force NPCs to converse.

-.-

We're talking about social interaction not the diplomacy skill, which is a pile of BS, btw, per se. And just because other parts of the game have deficits, it doesn't mean that the social minigame can't have a better way of being implemented.

Are you done with your non-arguments, yet?

[virgil]

Now, with a range of four results; we've got, in ascending order, Combative, Disinterested, Interested, Attentive.
Dungeon Crawl This is our typical D&D scenario, where players are expecting to fight oozes and other monstrous malcontents. Social niceties aren't desired, and I think even Interested might be a bit much; so we want predominantly Combative, Disinterested less so, and Interested at either 0% or the far side of the RNG.
Bandit Ambush More friendly, the equivalent of "your money or your life" banter is fine here, but extended discourse is still not preferred. So options here are still in lower range; so a more 'friendly' curve with a distance from Attentive retained is desired.
Ale & Whores Essentially the opposite of the dungeon crawl. We don't want bar fights to crack open in response to visiting heroes ladened with treasure, and even Disinterested is going to be a bit much; but a sullen guy nursing his beer in response is not out of the question, so Combative is off the RNG and Disinterested is uncommon.
Hansel & Gretel: Bad Cop The witch isn't expecting anyone, but defending herself is not out of the question, while neither is her throwing up her hands to ask for calm heads to explain that it's just ketchup on the table. While the entire RNG is desired, the bell curve should peak around Disinterested (out of surprise)
Hansel & Gretel: Good Cop Obviously defensive, the party's posing only a potential threat, so while combat is on the table and not rare, we want the option for discourse to be available.

I realized that there should be an additional scenario, the zero-point for modifiers
Shoe Shopping The range result from nothing of note, our zero point being nonthreatening strangers entering town just to buy pizza (terse). Terse will in fact be our go-to behavior due to popular assumption on this thread, so actually waving hello gives you a bonus. Disinterested is perfectly fine, as people are going to be busy with their own lives and just want your money for that loaf of bread you picked up, but Combative is off the table.

Going off of this basis, assuming we use a 2d6 bell curve...

Because we want Shoe Shopping to be without modifiers, combative needs to only happen on a 1 or less. The range of disinterested and interested will determine our modifier sizes.

• Combative 1 or less
  Disinterested 2 to 5
  Interested 6 to 9
  Attentive 10+

The sum of the largest negative modifiers must be -7 to -10, depending on how unlikely you want the invading drow your elf party just shot to be willing to hear a "short pitch" for negotiations before fighting back. If we narrow the RNG such that Interested comes up on a 5 to 7, then our maximum modifier becomes -8 to -10; and the opposite happens if we widen the RNG (7 to 11 for Interested, -6 to -10).

[hogarth]

• Combative 1 or less
  Disinterested 2 to 5
  Interested 6 to 9
  Attentive 10+

This is nitpicking, obviously, but if it were me I'd rename "Combative" to something like "No Discussion" or whatever. As it is, there are three terms describing levels of interest (which is unrelated to how hostile someone is) and one level of hostility.

[virgil]

Let's, for the moment, set the range such that it comes up as follows:

• Combative 1 or less
  Disinterested 2 to 4
  Interested 5 to 7
  Attentive 8+

I'm going to go ahead and set the invading drow who just got shot have a near 3% chance of being willing to listen for a couple seconds, which makes the sum of all three negative modifiers at maximum as -10. Security, Presentation, & Bias are our three modifiers currently...the obvious option is to set the worst negative modifiers for -3 each.

Security
This covers the scene as a whole, basically deciding how safe the subject feels. Note, it is possible to be worried in an environment normally safe. If an intruder takes the subject by surprise, they are still feeling the environment is safe. If the subject is warned of their coming, be it a note of warning or even breaking down the door downstairs; their mind will adjust their perceived security downward to accommodate.

• -3: Threatened: Safety is actively questioned, such as high stakes drug deal or an invasion site.
  -1: Worried: Dangerous neighborhood, carrying high value items in public, exposed condition.
  +0: Safe: Public, yet non-threatening

Presentation
This covers how the party presents itself to the subject, indicating its desired outcome.

• -4: Assaulting: Direct attacks have been made.
  -2: Threatening: Weapons are drawn, aspersions are cast, and is otherwise making their hostile intent clear.
  +0: Terse: Isn't threatening, but is presenting the bare minimum of social niceties.
  +1: Normal: Engaging in a non-hostile, friendly manner
  +2: Aiding: Is actively improving their condition, offering gifts or aid

Bias
Personal prejudices and assumptions the subject has, including prior history with the specific person.

• -3: Enemy: Active dislike of target; be it prior history of violence, target of heavy racism, or even faction enemy.
  -1: Distrust: Outsider (in an insular community), negative history, and similar negative prejudices.
  +0: Stranger: Unremarkable, passive
  +X: Innocuous: Friendly & familiar history, nonthreatening prejudice such as cute children or frat brothers
  +X: Unguarded: Hold great personal fondness, feels secure with their presence

Let's run down the list.

Dungeon Crawl requires a total modifier of -7 or -8 to get the distribution we think we want. As they're opening the door arrows flying and Team Monster is hostile to adventurers, the fact they're home means we have a -7 right there. If the party is unaware of the monster or doesn't attack on sight (swords still drawn), then we have a 16% chance of an Interested result, unless the alarm's been raised to Red Alert and then we're back to -7's distribution.

Bandit Ambush is a tricky one. The party is likely unaware, their status as a mark makes them Distrusted, and the bandits are actively preparing for a fight to liberate their valuables from their corpses. This makes Attentive only 3% of the time, which is fine. It does make it possible for them to open with an attack, nearly a third of the time, in fact.

The next three involve positive modifiers on the part of the PCs, which takes a bit more finagling to decide upon for the final range. For Ale & Whores, if the party enters the first town they find while feeling generous with their treasure, we want Disinterested to only happen 3% to 8% of the time. This is a Safe zone, and the PCs are Strangers. Meaning Aiding should be no more than +2 modifier, making Normal Presentation a +1.

Bad Cop: Hansel & Gretel involves the party entering with an accusatory, hostile demeanor. The witch is at home but doing eating children (at least slightly cautious), but the party is being Threatening and are obvious heroes (Distrust), giving us a total modifier of -4; which makes Disinterested happen 41% of the time & Combative about 28% of the time.

Good Cop: Hansel & Gretel involves largely the same situation, but the party is being friendly with their questions. This actually makes it a net -1, which means the witch will only be Combative 3% of the time. This is a bit more rare than I'd like, but everything else has been behaving properly thus far.

[virgil]

So, the question is what to set the modifiers at for positive bias. Does anyone have any good ideas for sample scenarios likely to commonly happen in a D&D genre campaign, along with ideal distributions?

EDIT: The OP has been edited to use the numbers we're currently at.

[vermithrx]

The royal adviser has tricked you (the party) into killing the king's beloved brother by framing him for planning a failed coup, which you now know was actually planned by the adviser. How does the king react upon hearing of this secondhand from the adviser:

• a. Order your execution and place a bounty for your heads. (Combative)
  b. Order your capture and subsequent interrogation by his subordinates. (Disinterested)
  c. Order your appearance at court to answer for your actions publicly. (Interested)
  d. Summon you to a private audience to explain the situation. (Attentive)

His security is already Threatened (-3) by the failed coup, and since you've killed a family member you're seen as Assaulting (-4). How do you want his probable actions to change based on:

• 1. The party leader is his beloved only daughter. (Unguarded +X)
  2. The party have acted as his loyal enforcers in the past. (Innocuous +X)
  3. The party have acted as paid mercenaries with a law abiding track record. (Stranger +0)
  4. The party is just another roving pack of murder hobos he needs to keep in line. (Distrust -1)
  5. The party leader is his estranged bastard son vying for the throne. (Enemy -3)

EDIT1: Removed some confounding detail.

EDIT2: According to the graphic:

• Stranger (-7) leads to 2.77% Interested, 24.99% Disinterested, and 72.24% Combative
  Distrust (-8) leads to 16.65% Disinterested and 83.35% Combative
  Enemy (-10) leads to 2.77% Disinterested and 97.23% Combative.

Unguarded and/or Innocuous must offer at least +3 for Attentive to be on the RNG and at least +7 for Combative to be off it.

[virgil]

This mechanic is intended to be the equivalent of social initiative when the party begins an encounter, so this scenario is a bit strained. The only way you can have it be Assaulting is if the party had killed the king's brother in front of the king and/or his security; as Presentation is a behavior on the part of the PCs.

What would be more accurate to say is that the vizier presented the events so as to escalate it to Threatened. In order for it to be vaguely close to appropriate, what needs to happen is for the king to walk in on the PCs standing over a corpse (Threatening); giving us a baseline of -5 before Bias. Looking at the most extreme example, the princess with blood all over her, I don't want the Combative response to even be an option. This sets Unguarded as between +5 to +7, as I can still see Disinterested as a possible response by the king. The lower values (Stranger & Distrust) don't even permit the Attentive result, which is an acceptable outcome for me.

I'm tempted to set Unguarded for +6 and Innocuous for +3 as a compromise and one of simplicity, but I don't know if you think the outcomes are acceptable. It's late, but I don't see any undesirable outcome ranges from that numerical setup.

[vermithrx]

This mechanic is intended to be the equivalent of social initiative when the party begins an encounter, so this scenario is a bit strained. The only way you can have it be Assaulting is if the party had killed the king's brother in front of the king and/or his security; as Presentation is a behavior on the part of the PCs.

What would be more accurate to say is that the vizier presented the events so as to escalate it to Threatened.

In the absence of specific mechanics for third parties adjusting the Presentation modifier or a working definition of "encounter" I'll admit my example was reaching a bit. Still, you might expand its scope to be more generally applicable by making reactions to new social information via gossip and hearsay use similar modifiers for the overarching diplomacy mini-game later.

In order for it to be vaguely close to appropriate, what needs to happen is for the king to walk in on the PCs standing over a corpse (Threatening); giving us a baseline of -5 before Bias. Looking at the most extreme example, the princess with blood all over her, I don't want the Combative response to even be an option. This sets Unguarded as between +5 to +7, as I can still see Disinterested as a possible response by the king. The lower values (Stranger & Distrust) don't even permit the Attentive result, which is an acceptable outcome for me.

I'm tempted to set Unguarded for +6 and Innocuous for +3 as a compromise and one of simplicity, but I don't know if you think the outcomes are acceptable. It's late, but I don't see any undesirable outcome ranges from that numerical setup.

Yes, that seems acceptable. I was originally thinking along the lines of an attack on one of the king's family members and political supporters to be commensurate with a direct attack on the king himself, but in the moment one should be more damning than the other I suppose.

[virgil]

Reviewing it, everything that covers the standard PC activity seems to work. The biggest flaw is recreating this guy

"Is there still time for hot chocolate?

The character who, while never getting Combative, is lucky to get more than Disinterested. As hogarth points out, it might work better to rename Combative to Dismissive; they do not listen to whatever they have to say, and revert to non-communicative Team Behavior.

Before going into detail for what to do once you have their attention, we should probably go into detail as to what they do if you don't have their attention; aka, formalizing Team Behavior. It doesn't need to be a huge matrix, but something like simple and broad MTP-fueled keywords.

[RobbyPants]

I agree that a rename is a good idea, if for no other reason, to avoid confusion based on the name alone.

As for team behavior, what are you thinking? Is it going to be random, as well? If so, obviously it would have certain parameters (a group without a ranger or druid isn't going to parlay with bears and skeletons won't ever try to sell you something).

[virgil]

As for team behavior, what are you thinking? Is it going to be random, as well? If so, obviously it would have certain parameters (a group without a ranger or druid isn't going to parlay with bears and skeletons won't ever try to sell you something).

Random would add too much resolution. I'm thinking more along the lines of key words that act as cue markers for stereotypical behavior when not communicating: crawling darkness for the mindless attack monsters like lemures & evil skeletons that either ignore or eat you, background civilian for NPCs that either ignore or flee from you, territorial monster for dragons & aboleths that either attack or ignore you as dependent on perceived threat, etc.

[Blicero]

ACKS (a retroclone that is surprisingly interesting at points) uses Reaction Rolls. The book has a very basic treatment, but the lead designer just posted a more "advanced" set of rules here (http://autarch.co/forums/ask-autarchs/r ... d-stacking). (The rules start maybe halfway down the page.)

The treatment features three different types of reaction rolls (Diplomacy, Intimidation, and Seduction). There seem to be way too many possible modifiers that you have to check for, so I feel that using this system in actual play would be horrifically slow. Also, there's still a fair amount of mtp involved, since this is a retroclone. But it contains some useful ideas, probably.