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

infected slut princess · Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:16 pm

Keep this thread rolling. The failure is hilarious.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:21 pm

With a large population, the beggar side of the equation can be approximated as an income.

From the hero side, something that occurs to me is to have donating to beggars be a way of turning turnip-economy goods into good-aligned social currency, which can be spent on things like, "convincing angels to do things for you"

TheNotoriousAMP · Post by **TheNotoriousAMP** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:33 pm

RadiantPhoenix wrote:With a large population, the beggar side of the equation can be approximated as an income.

From the hero side, something that occurs to me is to have donating to beggars be a way of turning turnip-economy goods into good-aligned social currency, which can be spent on things like, "convincing angels to do things for you"

I'm not sold on direct conversion (good deeds to favors), but being nice to the poor amongst other small, invisible deeds that might not have concrete rewards (defeat the wizard, gain the treasure) should help open the door to the angels. From that point on, you could then bargain larger deeds for favors, as well as maybe getting a freebee every now and then for being a nice bloke. Being nice to the waiter should not have a reward in and of itself, but sort of like in Communist systems where gaining a position could bring upon it access to special stores, it should then lead to the possibility of accessing rewards.

On a side note, this could also help prevent certain types of players (basically munchkins and joker wannabes) from derailing your game. If you increase the return of investing in others (giving gold to beggars, doing good deeds for perhaps little reward, ext) vs investing in yourself (killing a peasant for his one gold piece, shaking down people for more money), then you give players, especially power gamers, a reason to be helpful heroes.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:56 pm

A possible idea to work with is to merge haggling into the favor system; your standard asking price is inconsequential, a discount is inconvenient, wholesale or at a slight loss is awkward, free is inappropriate.

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 6:39 am

I like that idea. I think a quick and lite haggling system would be the most used part of a new social system.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 4:03 pm

Yes, I am aware that this is a slow process, but I will continue to poke at it as the wherewithal strikes me. The subject for today shall be favours.

As discussed earlier, inconsequential to awkward favours are 'safe' enough for level to not be a major concern. This means static DCs as seen in regular D&D can be used.

Our initial guideline is to look at the bonuses being talked about. At the bottom, we have the aggressive orc (Cha 6, no ranks). At the top before PC-shenanigans, we have the level 3 half-elf aristocrat. This gives us a rough skill range of -2 to +11. Contextual modifiers should also be included; I'm thinking Bias and Presentation, but is there something else I'm missing?

More significant favours need to factor the level of the target, and raw skill checks are not appropriate for that. If we revamped the system such that skill bonuses were as tightly controlled as saving throws, then we could keep the entire thing on pure skill checks, but this is intended to be an add-on to the standard D&D system rather than a revamp of the entire skill system. My first thought is to have it be a mundane, language-dependent, mind-affecting, charm effect resisted with a Will save; the DC of which is level-based and improved by a Diplomacy check. The skill check would be tightly controlled, on the order of +1 per 5 points over the minimum.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:58 pm

Favor Level

1. Negligible inconvenient at worst; delivering message from across town, directions to appropriate people
2. Minor leaving backdoor unlocked, obtaining item of questionable legality, helping find a safe-house, give money/equipment valued at 1/4 NPC's lifestyle
3. Moderate lying to authorities, risks imprisonment or fine, give money/equipment valued at 1/2 NPC's lifestyle
4. Major explicitly illegal act, morally questionable if legal (fraud via loophole), risks loss of status and livelihood (flogging, long-term prison, etc)
5. Extreme risks death, exile, or even life in prison

An additional caveat is one of Favor Debt. Performing any of the above favors for the NPC will grant a significant bonus to all checks to convince them to perform any favor of lesser value (smaller bonus for favors of greater value), and the bonus will remain until they perform a favor of equal or greater value. The inverse is true if the character attempts to ask for any favors from an NPC they are still in debt to, and failing to perform a requested favor will result in an even greater penalty to future checks with them.

Note that the monetary value of the debt is always in relation to the NPC's lifestyle, whether it's a favor to or from; creating a notable social imbalance between wealthy and destitute characters.

Spells like charm person will probably do something like convince them to perform any favor of level 3 or less.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Sat Apr 12, 2014 8:41 pm

How about Charm Person sets your social credit balance with someone to a certain value based on caster level, and then when it wears off, it adjusts to whatever it was before +/- what happened while they were under the influence?

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Sat Apr 12, 2014 9:13 pm

I agree with monetary favors being based on lifestyle. Also I don't think there's a need for your category 5 favors. 4 categories seems to cover basically everything. Telling me I might be imprisoned for life or might get shot are basically equal to me in how much I want to avoid them. It also might be important to not overvalue risking death on your favor scale because basically anything the PC's do risks death so if you make that the greatest possible trade then PC's basically can basically ask for anything each time they quest for someone. If you made it so that doing a service for someone made it so they would almost certainly grant you one level lower favor that would do nicely.

Finally if "Lifestyle" is valued at a month worth of expenditure I think the level three service should not be 1/2 lifestyle but full lifestyle. If someone got me out of something I was going to be imprisoned for I would gladly part with a months salary. I wouldn't be psyched about it but I'd definitely do it.

EDIT: Keep up the good work Virgil. I think you're making your way towards a workable social system. If you get a reaction system, a favor system, and some haggling toggle you're 90% there.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:45 pm

Went ahead and upgraded 3rd level to a month's lifestyle and added basic outline to OP. I'm tentatively trying out removing the highest favor level; though I can see an argument toward acts more severe than just losing their job & status or being flogged, such as committing treason, facing down a charging dragon, etc.

EDIT: One thing that needs to be handled is how the NPC asks/receives/values favours; since they obviously shouldn't feel indebted to a random stalker who appears with a blood-soaked diamond necklace and a gleam of love in their eyes.

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 12:23 am

That level of favor simply shouldn't exist. I love my Mom but I wouldn't face a firing squad for her no matter how nicely she asked. Those aren't favors anymore. No amount of bribery, debt, seduction or smooth talk would make a rational person try to shoot the president or fight a Tyrannosaur. The thing where you can roll really well and make shopkeepers murder themselves for you is an error and should be removed.

Removing those cases from the favor system doesn't mean they can't happen. People could still sacrifice their lives for loved ones or take on suicide missions for noble reasons but those things will be their choice. In that system you could not mandate that someone sacrifice themselves heroically, they have to do it of their own free will. Which is rather the point.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 5:56 am

deanruel: What about cults?

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:31 am

I said a rational person. If I talked to a million people and told them all that Obama was secretly the devil and it was up to them and only them to murder him I bet I could convince a few dozen that that was true. Because many people are mentally damaged or deranged.

Of those few dozen I seriously doubt any of them would actually get to the stage where they would be willing to take a gun and actually try to murder the man themselves. I accept that such a request is not literally impossible but it lies well within the bounds of what I'm happy to put outside of my 20 sided RNG. I don't need the social system to give me accurate odds on convincing schizophrenics to go on murder missions for me. That rule space could be better spent elsewhere and the result of actually including those rules is that people will walk around turning people to "Fanatic" with a song and a handshake like the current diplomacy system allows. You gain basically nothing by keeping self murder on the table as far as I can see.

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:53 am

deanruel87 wrote:That level of favor simply shouldn't exist. I love my Mom but I wouldn't face a firing squad for her no matter how nicely she asked.

And yet your mom totally would have (or still would).

Shit go read the medal of honor citations. Altruism itself is really fucking strong sometimes.

Those aren't favors anymore.

Very true, shit of the magnitude you're talking about shouldn't qualify as a favor.

No amount of bribery, debt, seduction or smooth talk would make a rational person try to shoot the president or fight a Tyrannosaur.

Not sure again that I agree with that. Propaganda is a seriously powerful thing. I can come up with plenty of historical examples of people doing truly suicidal shit because someone convinced them it was a good idea.

Case in point since I'm reading about it: Late war German U-Boat crews were so outclassed technologically and tactically that the service became floating coffins and strategically ineffective. And yet, though morale was in the toilet, men still joined the branch of the service and did their duty, knowing that it was probably a one-way trip.

The thing where you can roll really well and make shopkeepers murder themselves for you is an error and should be removed.

I agree this shouldn't be a "normal" output of a social system.

Removing those cases from the favor system doesn't mean they can't happen. People could still sacrifice their lives for loved ones or take on suicide missions for noble reasons but those things will be their choice. In that system you could not mandate that someone sacrifice themselves heroically, they have to do it of their own free will. Which is rather the point.

Agreed totally here. Maybe a midpoint is to have a social system where an individual is open to contemplate such extreme limits, but you can't ever compel a rational person to go sacrifice their kid instead of a goat: That's something reserved for the gods, or at least for really, seriously epic-level play.

In a way I miss the willpower points from World of Darkness. You could blow a temporary dot of willpower to resist for one turn or sometimes one scene any compulsion or instinct or urge or whatever. So a diplomancer could roll fucking awesome for you to sacrifice your child, but you'd just have to burn a willpower point to defeat the effort and be safe for a while. But repeated, extended, intense efforts will eventually wear someone down, and sooner or later you catch them with depleted willpower and you start doing the bending to the really extreme shit.

I kind of wish D&D had something like that.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:50 pm

deanruel87 wrote:I accept that such a request is not literally impossible but it lies well within the bounds of what I'm happy to put outside of my 20 sided RNG. I don't need the social system to give me accurate odds on convincing schizophrenics to go on murder missions for me. That rule space could be better spent elsewhere and the result of actually including those rules is that people will walk around turning people to "Fanatic" with a song and a handshake like the current diplomacy system allows. You gain basically nothing by keeping self murder on the table as far as I can see.

This and Flatline's ranting feel legit enough to convince me to stop looking down that road and move on.

When it comes to gifts to NPCs, do I want it to be a check to get them to accept it as a gift and make it another potential social action? Do I inherently tie consent to reaction roll, or even make it a secondary reaction roll (they'll talk, but they won't accept large gifts)? Do I want the roughly binary decision to be left to arbitrary decision on the part of the DM?

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:43 am

PL's bomb bag shit is retarded and you shouldn't care about it at all. I give absolutely ZERO fucks about characters "tricking" people into accepting innocuous objects that have been smeared with deadly poison. If your character has access to the ability to murder someone by handing them something there is no fucking way they couldn't have found a more direct way to do it instead. No sane person cares about rules for how people accept gifts. Devote no space to it.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:31 am

deanruel87 wrote:PL's bomb bag shit is retarded and you shouldn't care about it at all. I give absolutely ZERO fucks about characters "tricking" people into accepting innocuous objects that have been smeared with deadly poison. If your character has access to the ability to murder someone by handing them something there is no fucking way they couldn't have found a more direct way to do it instead. No sane person cares about rules for how people accept gifts. Devote no space to it.

Ha! Don't worry about that, as that's not my concern. It's actual, unsolicited gifts that are of concern; especially from total strangers.

The above is not a message I want to encourage, especially if the NPC distrusts the character. If they ask for diamonds, that is a better scenario. If rules for how people accept gifts is unneeded, then DM arbitration is a perfectly acceptable thing, but will need to be at least noted.

ACOS · Post by **ACOS** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:11 am

virgil wrote:If rules for how people accept gifts is unneeded, then DM arbitration is a perfectly acceptable thing, but will need to be at least noted.

I must admit that I'm a bit confused: are you suggesting that everything that needs DM arbitration needs to be noted as such?
I'm not sure that you can murder enough trees to actually do that.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:21 am

ACOS wrote:
virgil wrote:If rules for how people accept gifts is unneeded, then DM arbitration is a perfectly acceptable thing, but will need to be at least noted.
I must admit that I'm a bit confused: are you suggesting that everything that needs DM arbitration needs to be noted as such?
I'm not sure that you can murder enough trees to actually do that.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that the specific matter of consent to enter social debt (accepting a gift) is something that needs to be noted.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:44 am

I believe the phrase would be, "I couldn't possibly accept this..."