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

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

We want beggars to get piles of gold out of powerful people, barmaids to seduce the hero into a one-night stand, etc. However, we don't want the wizard bewitched by any tart, but from a peer like the Lady of the Lake. The D&D genre doesn't engender players to accept actual beggars getting players to give up their +5 vorpal longsword, and it's self-evident the entire level-system will break if 1st level bards convince the king to give up their pants and the Dark Lord to turn good.

What I mean to conclude is that if the favor is relatively innocuous to the target (beg the hero to slay the housecat without reward or donate a gold piece), or the person requesting is very close to the subject (Dark Lord's five year old daughter), then Diplomacy's DCs should be relatively static and modified by circumstances & actions rather than level.

Once you start trying to force people to surrender or even endanger their lives for people with a Bias less than Unguarded, then tying it to level is necessary. At which point, I think the simplest approach should be to have those circumstances actually force a level-scaling Will save that's loosely tied to the skill check.
Last edited by virgil on Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:27 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
ishy
Duke
Posts: 2404
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:59 pm

Post by ishy »

virgil wrote:barmaids to seduce the hero into a one-night stand, etc.
If the hero doesn't actually want that, it sounds too much like rape to me.
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

ishy wrote:
virgil wrote:barmaids to seduce the hero into a one-night stand, etc.
If the hero doesn't actually want that, it sounds too much like rape to me.
Are you deliberately troll-baiting? You're going to need to put up a more loquacious response than that. The definition of a successful Diplomacy check means the hero actually wants the offer as presented by the bar maid.
Last edited by virgil on Tue Feb 18, 2014 5:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

virgil wrote:
ishy wrote:
virgil wrote:barmaids to seduce the hero into a one-night stand, etc.
If the hero doesn't actually want that, it sounds too much like rape to me.
Are you deliberately troll-baiting? You're going to need to put up a more loquacious response than that if you want me to not treat you as a Phonelobster sock puppet. The definition of a successful Diplomacy check means the hero actually wants the offer as presented by the bar maid.
Look, in the actual game world the barmaid is saying something seductive and then the character is choosing to have the sexy times because of how alluring it was. But we all know that most DMs are not comfortable or good at saying something alluring that will actually change the players mind, and we want to avoid that.

I think we can all agree what the in game world looks like, and we can all agree that one stupid out of game method of simulating it doesn't work.

The problem is that you keep casting the solution as if it can only be possibly that you have an opposed check of the barmaid against the character and if the barmaid succeeds then obviously the character chooses to sexy time.

But that has two major problems, the first is that it characterizes the actions as adversarial, when in the in game situation they are cooperative, so you have all kinds of bullshit like the Player being able to choose to have sex if the barmaid fails, but having to have sex if the barmaid if she succeeds, which leads to all sorts of weird things like defenses and people being less likely to choose to have sex if they have higher X, even though the entire point is that the choose to have sex. Also it makes players less likely to choose to have sex if the barmaid "fails" because fuck that bitch she just made an attack on them and attempted to steal the player's agency.

The second problem is that by definition even if you didn't make it adversarial, anything you do that makes the character's decision determined by anything besides the PC is taking away the player's agency in controlling their character and they will be pissed off about it.
Last edited by Kaelik on Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

Kaelik wrote:The second problem is that by definition even if you didn't make it adversarial, anything you do that makes the character's decision determined by anything besides the PC is taking away the player's agency in controlling their character and they will be pissed off about it.
While I have agreed with the premise that PCs should be subject to the same diplomacy minigame as the NPCs, I haven't actually moved away from the decision to not do that; and have explicitly stated this before. PCs make requests and are not subject to commands through the minigame. Granted, if they start doing stuff like performing trades or selling loot (negotiations with a sliding scale of success on both sides), agency is a secondary concern; just look at how many blindly accept that their stuff only goes for half market price.

The adversarial problem is only a potential problem, as you apparently can't read and I have said absolute jack on whether or not the roll is opposed or just a DC with modifiers; except for situations that can be more closely described as mind control, like asking them to fight a dragon. Having a certain level of intransigence for powerful NPCs, at least so far as endangering themselves beyond their own self-interests, is actually an acceptable result. The players are the pro-active force of the campaign setting, after all.
Last edited by virgil on Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
Neo Phonelobster Prime
Knight
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:55 am

Post by Neo Phonelobster Prime »

virgil wrote:... a Phonelobster sock puppet...
Wow, still obsessively butthurt that much hey?

But why would Phonelobster use a sockpuppet with over a thousand posts when he theoretically by chance already has a sockpuppet no one would ever suspect with posts in excess of half a dozen!

While I'm here. Accusing people criticizing your social mechanic for seeming sort of like rape as being somehow in agreement with Phonelobster seems... somehow logically flawed in someway...

Indeed in the face of your own posts about other social mechanics accusing people of using that criticism against your system of being trolls and sock puppets it almost seems... what's that word something to do with hippos...
- The rarely observed alternative timeline Phonelobster
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

virgil wrote:While I have agreed with the premise that PCs should be subject to the same diplomacy minigame as the NPCs, I haven't actually moved away from the decision to not do that; and have explicitly stated this before.
Except for that whole thing were I was specifically commenting on you talking about how we need to have barmaids seduce "the hero" But you yeah. Sure. You weren't talking about PCs at all in that post I was just responding to.
virgil wrote:The adversarial problem is only a potential problem, as you apparently can't read and I have said absolute jack on whether or not the roll is opposed or just a DC with modifiers;
It doesn't matter if it is opposed or against a PC. You just fucking said if the barmaid succeeds then the character wants sexy time. It doesn't matter if she is rolling against a DC or opposed roll or DC modified by stats, the very act of saying "if this number come up X or above you don't control your character, if it comes up Y or below, you do" means that the roll is now adversarial, and the player wants it to come up Y or below and the barmaid to fail to seduce him so that he can choose to have sex with her or not at his discretion.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
User avatar
fbmf
The Great Fence Builder
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by fbmf »

Neo Phonelobster Prime wrote:
virgil wrote:... a Phonelobster sock puppet...
Wow, still obsessively butthurt that much hey?

But why would Phonelobster use a sockpuppet with over a thousand posts when he theoretically by chance already has a sockpuppet no one would ever suspect with posts in excess of half a dozen!

While I'm here. Accusing people criticizing your social mechanic for seeming sort of like rape as being somehow in agreement with Phonelobster seems... somehow logically flawed in someway...

Indeed in the face of your own posts about other social mechanics accusing people of using that criticism against your system of being trolls and sock puppets it almost seems... what's that word something to do with hippos...


[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Phonelobster, I am inclined to let this one go as Virgil sort of summoned you by sort of invoking your name. You've said your piece, now get off the lawn as requested.

Virgil, even indirectly talking shit about PL when you've invoked a rule forbidding him to reply is in poor taste even by the standards of The Den.
[/TGFBS]
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

Very well.
Last edited by virgil on Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

Kaelik, I'm going to repeat myself, and make your entire response pointless.
Virgil wrote:PCs make requests and are not subject to commands through the minigame.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
Starmaker
Duke
Posts: 2402
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Redmonton
Contact:

Post by Starmaker »

virgil wrote:
Virgil wrote:PCs make requests and are not subject to commands through the minigame.
You can absolutely make attacks on PCs through a minigame where when the attack is successful and they choose to not go along with the command they lose social credit, the flavor and scope of said credit being capped by the level of the attacker.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

virgil wrote:Kaelik, I'm going to repeat myself, and make your entire response pointless.
Virgil wrote:PCs make requests and are not subject to commands through the minigame.
And I'm going to repeat you and myself and make your entire response hypocritical.
Virgil wrote:I have agreed with the premise that PCs should be subject to the same diplomacy minigame as the NPCs

...

We want ... barmaids to seduce the hero into a one-night stand
You fucking shouldn't goddam take away player's goddam agency with fucking barmaid seduction.

You know, the option always exists to agree with me that you shouldn't use diplomacy to fucking take away player's agency instead of calling me an idiot for being right, and then saying you are sill looking for that one way that you can fuck PCs and as soon as you find it you will immediately implement it because fuck PCs.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

Selective reading there, Kaelik. Go lean at some other windmill.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
User avatar
Foxwarrior
Duke
Posts: 1626
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:54 am
Location: RPG City, USA

Post by Foxwarrior »

Sounds like Virgil means for the barmaid to be the PC in that instance, Kaelik.

Edit: Or perhaps the Hero has a Flaw: Very Close to All Barmaids. The idea being that if the player chooses to be vulnerable to that sort of attack, it's okay?
Last edited by Foxwarrior on Tue Feb 18, 2014 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

Foxwarrior wrote:Sounds like Virgil means for the barmaid to be the PC in that instance, Kaelik.
No it sounds like he intends for the PC to be the hero, because that is very obviously who the PC is, and he specifically said he wants the PC to be subject to the same system as NPCs, but once it was pointed out that having the PC be convinced by the barmaid in that fashion is bad, he backed way the fuck off and backpedaled to "but I promise I won't implement the thing I want to implement, so pleasarino no criticorino."
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

Foxwarrior wrote:Sounds like Virgil means for the barmaid to be the PC in that instance, Kaelik.

Edit: Or perhaps the Hero has a Flaw: Very Close to All Barmaids. The idea being that if the player chooses to be vulnerable to that sort of attack, it's okay?
I was just pulling random examples of diplomacy out of a hat, no real agenda was intended with it. I had previously stated on this very thread (several times) that reaction rolls, and diplomacy by implication, are something that happens to NPCs and not PCs. To dispel such misconceptions, I have since clarified the implicit assumption with an explicit one.

Yes, I agree with the premise that players should be subject to the same rules as NPCs, and have said as much at least twice before on this thread (likely more). On every occasion, in the same post, I added that this wasn't something I was actually going to go forward with as a consideration for design. But, Kaelik gonna Kaelik, and has decided to write his own reality
Last edited by virgil on Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
User avatar
Foxwarrior
Duke
Posts: 1626
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:54 am
Location: RPG City, USA

Post by Foxwarrior »

Well, I hope Kaelik Kaeliked enough to make you think more carefully about your example choices in the future.
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

A repeat of earlier statements, since there's been a page of pointless crap...

The following presumes the use of the lifestyle rules in the DMG. Not 100% certain how the murderhobo lifestyle translates.
Social Action Options
Minor Diplomatic Action Occurs in a single combat round.
  • Negotiate inconsequential favor
  • Gain attention - Gain option for standard diplomatic action
  • Demoralize
  • Perform baseline business transaction (Haggle, Take 0 both sides)
Standard Diplomatic Action Approximately one minute or 10 combat rounds for actions to resolve
  • Improve Bias - Maximum of one step, cannot exceed innocuous
  • Negotiate Inconvenient Favor or less
  • Basic Haggle
  • Prolong diplomatic scene
  • Antagonize/Fluster
Favor Scale
Inconsequential Costs virtually nothing, such as directions to the King or goods/services valued at a maximum of .1% their monthly lifestyle/income.
Inconvenient Costs small amount of time (approx. 10 minutes), minor inconvenience, or goods/services equal to 1% monthly lifestyle.
Awkward Risk of serious inconvenience
Inappropriate Poses small danger
Dangerous Severe risk to life and livelihood
X Fundamentally conflicts with ethics
Difficulty Checks
We want beggars to actually want to beg the rich, warlords to be convinced to sleep with local wenches, etc. We don't want the Dark Lord to kneel in defeat nor the king to sell their castle for frayed twine, at least we don't want this while ignoring the whole level system in regards to opposition. One conclusion is that so long as the favor is relatively innocuous or the request comes from someone very close (Dark Lord's little girl is not very high level), the DCs for Diplomacy checks and such should be relatively static and modified by circumstances rather than level. Once it becomes a means of defeat on the combat level, then it needs resistance to scale; level-based Will save loosely tied to the skill check being the easiest approach. Doing this will grant the diplomancer a reliable source of noncombat capabilities that eventually ignore extreme circumstances, but not surpass the enchanter when it comes to convincing them to accept Jesus Christ; especially in light of the difficulty in dispelling and near-infinite resource pool (not that it will lower the effects by a lot, but some).
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
rampaging-poet
Knight
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:18 am

Post by rampaging-poet »

The most obvious pitfall with this is that one minor favour is inconsequential, but an arbitrarily large number of minor favours is not. While an individual beggar should be able to get a little spare change every now and then, an army of beggars should not be able to bankrupt someone by each asking for an inconsequential amount of money. I don't currently see any provisions to deal with this.
DSMatticus wrote:I sort my leisure activities into a neat and manageable categorized hierarchy, then ignore it and dick around on the internet.
My deviantArt account, in case anyone cares.
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

Well, at some point, a minor favour will stop being minor in the face of repeated performance. For example, that 1 round favour stops being minor if you're going to miss the train, and a silver piece donation is no longer minor once your purse is nearly empty.

One could just make a contextual decision. One could also set up a scaling difficulty, where favors make further requests progressively more difficult (resets after a time). Those are the first two ideas that pop up.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
User avatar
deaddmwalking
Prince
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am

Post by deaddmwalking »

virgil wrote:where favors make further requests progressively more difficult (resets after a time). Those are the first two ideas that pop up.
I think that is something you ultimately have to do. If you do nice things for people (say, save the beggar's life and give him a donation), when he finds a way to do a favor he's going to consider you guys 'mostly even'. Once you've killed the dragon and the king has given you half the kingdom, you can't ask for the other half because he likes you (you just killed a dragon). Once again, you're even.

And so when you get something from your contacts it should slide their attitude slightly downward. If you keep asking for things and you NEVER help (hey king, can you give us magical weapons so we can kill our own PERSONAL enemies, rather than ridding your kingdom of monsters), even people that like you are going to make themselves less available to you.

To be able to continually draw favors, you're going to have to keep paying in favors. If you do a big favor, it's possible that no number of small favors will 'pay you back for it' so they won't erode the social currency you've invested. But if someone does a moderate or big favor back, they should consider themselves 'even', even if still friendly.

I think if you're 'friendly', you'd be willing to 'go into the hole' for your friend, but you're going to expect being paid back before you do another big favor.
User avatar
RadiantPhoenix
Prince
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Trudging up the Hill

Post by RadiantPhoenix »

Thinking about a social currency system that avoids apple-stacking made me think of d20 Modern's wealth checks.
User avatar
deaddmwalking
Prince
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am

Post by deaddmwalking »

While I'm not a fan of the rules for Modern Wealth, something along those lines actually might make sense.

Think of your best friend for a moment. You'd probably lend them the clothes from your closet anytime - and no matter how often they ask, it won't reduce your likelihood of saying 'yes' next time. Since the relationship is so solid, minor favors no longer have a cost - even if it is daily.

Now, same friend asks you to help murder someone that really deserves it and maybe you're inclined to say yes (best friend afterall). But that's a major favor and you're not going to do it again next week when he asks. Or is that just me?

Maybe let's say 'borrow your car'. Or 'borrow $1,000'. Those types of 'major favors' should make you less likely to grant additional favors unless/until they've been repaid in some form.
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

As things shouldn't get too complicated, it's probably best to have it be really simple. Being in debt with someone dramatically increases the difficulty in getting further favors from them, and if they're in debt to you, you get no penalty for repeated requests of favors less than what they owe you.

This doesn't really cover the beggar train, which may require just making multiple favors be a contextual thing.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
fectin
Prince
Posts: 3760
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:54 am

Post by fectin »

Being in debt gives you a completely different set of leverages. Roughly, 'if you can't pay your $100k debt, you have a problem. If you can't pay your $100M debt, the bank has a problem.'
Vebyast wrote:Here's a fun target for Major Creation: hydrazine. One casting every six seconds at CL9 gives you a bit more than 40 liters per second, which is comparable to the flow rates of some small, but serious, rocket engines. Six items running at full blast through a well-engineered engine will put you, and something like 50 tons of cargo, into space. Alternatively, if you thrust sideways, you will briefly be a fireball screaming across the sky at mach 14 before you melt from atmospheric friction.
Post Reply