Results 21 to 30 of 91
Thread: Debate and Diplomacy
-
03-29-2007, 11:37 PM #21
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- Redding, California
- Posts
- 220
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
you either offer some input in a discussion, or you don't. So I suggest we clean things up as best as possible.
I would post to defend my assertions, but I beleieve if anyone really wants to know about the facts they can read the prior posting.
But who really cares.
Lets get back to the subject of Diplomacy, and I will post to how I might address the issues with skills 3.? / non weapon proficiencies 2nd ed. There is a paralell. *If I feel like digging up the full detailed comparison, I will post it later. I don't think it would really serve a useful purpose, so I will really have to want to draw up the paralells to do so. I do have all the pertinent books, so I can do so later.
Later
-
03-30-2007, 09:36 AM #22
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally Posted by MatanThunder
You already covered in good detail how it would/could work with 2nd ed rules.
Now the only thing missing is how to do that with 3.5 rules. Kenneth had at least a start on this path in the original post.Duane Eggert
-
03-30-2007, 06:36 PM #23
An idea of how debates can be run is a contested check between relevant skills; possible skills include Administration, Alchemy, Appraise, Craft, Knowledge, Lead, Profession, Spellcraft, Survival, Warcraft, or any skill otherwise called for in the task at hand. The DM should allow a player to roll his highest relevant skill modifier, even if that pits two players against different skills (for example, a player could claim that traps work one way [Knowledge {dungeoneering}], only to be countered by a trapsmaster [Craft {trapmaking}]).
Players who roll 10 or higher receive a +2 bonus on their Diplomacy checks; the player that rolls highest receives an additional +2 bonus on his Diplomacy check, +2 for every 5 points by which he surpasses the other's roll.
-
03-31-2007, 06:30 PM #24
Using two different skills presents some problems. While sometimes it can make sense, it is probabaly best used when you solve a dispute with a single contested skill check, rather than an extended test using several checks. If a PC is using Knowledge (Dungeoneering) and an NPC representative of Guilder Kalien is using Craft (Trapmaking) then your PC will simply seek to shift the debate into areas of Dungeoneering that don't involve traps, and the Kalien fellow will seek to stay focused on traps until he rolls really well.
If you simply want a single contested roll to resolve this debate, contested checks between these different (or any different but related skills) might suffice.
If you want an extended check to build excitement and tension - because this is a form of combat - it really makes more sense to fight over a specific skill rather than letting characters constantly shift the terms of the debate. For one thing, if I am arguing survival and you are arguing knowledge (nature) we will have a good chance of talking past one another. That would be unpersuasive to observers. Likewise with K(Dungeoneering) and C(Trapmaking). In an extended debate, references to dungeon conditions other than traps is off topic if the issue is traps, and if the real issue is dungeon conditions, one fellow is going to spend all of his time talking about dungeon ecologies, hierarchies, expected population and the trap maker will have no reply.
Extended debates should focus on one skill at a time.
How should debates over skills effect Diplomacy checks?
This depends on how the debate will effect the decision maker(s). In my first example in this thread, Queen Freila is being advised by her Steward, the ranger Hruthwulf that the proposed course of action is impossible (crossing the Hjarring river with an army at a given time of year). In this case, the diplomacy check would be irrelevant. Indeed, I stipulated that because of an existing helpful attitude toward both the PC's and the home realm, Hogunmark wanted to help. But wanting to help in general is not the same thing as wanting to do whatever it is that you propose.
Certainly if you want a single Diplomacy check to resolve this issue, you can impose a stiff penalty because a trusted member of the court offers serious objections to the practicality of the PC's plan. In an extended check, generally, the DM has to decide what kind of check and how many checks can cause the whole check to fail. Generally if the same skill is being checked several times, such as an extended Craft (Weaponsmith) check, the process is more forgiving.
In the mechanic I first proposed, success or failure was determined by who outlasted their opponant in a debate, like physical combat, according to how many skill points a character had in the skill being debated. This approach, I feel, is the most like combat, and will offer the most drama and excitement in debate.
-
03-31-2007, 07:27 PM #25
Why debates in extended checks
Why fun things can you do with an extended diplomacy or debate check?
This is an excellent way to introduce rivals or villan minions. Or to establish re-occuring rivals that will plague PC's over and over again.
Suppose your PC's represent Roesone, and everywhere your players go to find allies, you encounter Pherick, Lord Brona, Ambassador at large for Ghoere. This able diplomat might hope to thwart every effort by Roesone to find aid and frienship in case of war with Ghoere. Even if swords are never crossed with Lord Brona, he might become a major adversary for the PC's and get the PC's blood going at the very mention of his name.
Perhaps at the start, he's just a guy with the same number of character levels as the PC's, but he's all noble (or maybe in this case, noble x/cleric of Haelyn y) and has maxed his diplomacy skill. Sure, he's going to be a tough diplomat and may vex the player's hopes two out of three times, forcing the players to fight solo and save the day by the skin of their teeth.
As the game develops, perhaps Lord Brona takes the Negotiator feat, is discovered to have max'd his Intimidation as well, and continues to make the PC's struggle for every friend and ally they are able to win. By this time, perhaps the PC's heroic actions have earned them bonuses to counter the skill bonuses that Lord Brona is max'ing out, and diplomacy feats he's taking.
Still later perhaps the DM decides that Lord Brona has information contacts in each of the courts he's normally active in, and rolls for each of these information contacts once per season, to keep Brona up to date on diplomatic activity throughout the South Coast and Eastern Marches.
In such a campaign, Gavin Tael is the real enemy. And players may have fought Marshal Bhelira at several battles in several wars. But players will also know Pherick, Lord of Brona, no wait, now Pherick, Count of Tornilen, as he thwarts them time and time again.
-
03-31-2007, 08:52 PM #26Originally Posted by kgauck
That said, I recently had a large debate IMC within the Militant Order of Cuiraecen. Only two PCs were involved but around 7 NPCs. When planning how to resolve this debate I started with the debate/voting system provided in Atlas Games' Dynasties&Demagogues but found that to complicated to explain to my players simply for a debate scheduled for one to two sessions (turned out to be around 4). So I got my remaining players to assist me by taking over some of the NPCs, each with his/her own agenda and came up with a simplified version:
In general, the debate runs like combat. Initiative checks are based on Charisma or Intelligence (choose your best). Your Debate Armour Class (DAC) is 10 + the average of your best two skill bonuses from the following: Bluff, Intimidation, Diplomacy and Perform (oratory), i.e. Fyhlie the Sword has Diplomacy +11, Bluff +2, Intimidation +8 and perform (oratory)+9. She uses Diplomacy and Perform (oratory) to get a DAC of 20.
Add up your Reputation and your Charisma modifier. The result are your Debate Hit Points. Note: I use a reputation system and this was a handy tie-in. The Dynasties&Demagogues rules use Constitution+Charisma modifiers. Fyhlie again has 11 DHPs. If she looses all of them she's out of the debate.
The participants could use the following skills in the debate.
- Bluff causes 1d4 damage, but if the attack misses, the intended victim gets an attack of opportunity in return.
- Diplomacy causes 1d2 damage but the damage can be increased if you bid your own DHPs on the attack (you loose these if you miss)
- Intimidation causes 1d3 damage, you loose one DHP if you miss.
- Perform (oratory) causes 1d2 damage but you can attack two opponents simultaneously
- Knowledge (Religion) does not cause damage but your opponent looses his next action if your attack succeeds OR you can heal 1d2 points of damage with a successful check against DC 22.
Several other actions might also be possible, notably Aid Another. Well, what a charge or a flanking attempt looks like in a debate or if it's even possible is up to you...
Well, IMC this system worked very well. My players had a lot of fun arguing with each other and I granted a DM fiat bonus to arguments I found esspecially convincing. In the end, the debate ended in turmoil with blades drawn between Fyhlie the Sword and Stiele Ghieste from the Ghoerean Arm of the Militant order.
-
03-31-2007, 11:48 PM #27Originally Posted by Beruin
Distraction works best as a tactic when the observers are unfamiliar with any of the issues involved. That's certainly possible in front of a popular assembly, but its not likely in front of a body of people who know the issues of the debate already. Ask if the average member of the assembly or if the decision maker has enough ranks in the skill under debate to follow the issues and offer their own analysis of the issues. If they don't distractions and red herrings might well win the day. If they do, it only makes those who use them look foolish and desperate.
If Jaison Raenech wants to demagogue the people of Moriel with bluffs and lies about an invented threat from Ghoere, the IHH, or Diirk Watershold he might well be able to use whatever tactics he likes, and depending on whether he makes his checks or fails them, succeeds or fails.
But if Jaison Raenech wanted to debate an Ambassador from Ghoere, Hubaere Armiendin, or Diirk Watershold, he'd probabaly weaken his position, let alone get no result, by attempting distractions and avoiding the subject.
Sometimes no result is a good result. If the Baron of Roesone needs the approval of the Noble's Council to send aid to Aerenwe, the trouble maker who is menancing Aerenwe just needs to keep the nobles of Roesone divided. This could backfire, if attempts at obfuscation just irritate the nobles.
In general, those kind of tactics are only adopted by those who are weak. If you think you can win the debate, you debate. Distractions only make sense if you doubt your ability to win on the merits of your case.
I'll also note that in modern electoral politics, often times you are not addressing your immediate audience, but you really intend to communicate with other observers who you think are more important. Generally delivered as polemics, this kind of debate tactic, is designed to rally a base of supporters rather than actually engage with the ideas of the other party. I'm not sure that this kind of tactic is all that useful for BR. If there are a lot of assemblies in a campaign, and speeches there have an effect on public opinion, polemics can be useful. Otherwise polemics often turn people off.
-
04-01-2007, 01:26 AM #28Originally Posted by MatanThunder
No-one denies you your artificial privilege to post in this forum, and you should not deny their right to be unimpressed by your recidivistic maunderations.
Cheers!John 'Trithemius' Machin
The Other John From Dunedin (now in Canberra)
"Power performs the Miracle." - Johannes Trithemius
-
04-01-2007, 05:48 AM #29
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- Redding, California
- Posts
- 220
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
No-one denies you your artificial privilege to post in this forum
you should not deny their right to be unimpressed by your recidivistic maunderations.
What really hardly matters at all is the way you try to tune up the verbage in order to talk down to people.
I really do hope you enjoy your system, because it appears that 4.?? may not make it into print, through Hasbro in any case. In the meantime it appears that you and your fellow gamers on the site will have to do the work for WOTC.
I'll still be playing and posting to the birthright game in 2nd edition.
Also, you might note that all Pencil and Paper sites are in trouble with the advent of the instant gratification of the MMORPG systems, all site should want as many and diverse viewpoints as it can find. There are a heck of a lot LESS Pencil and Paper gamers out here.
Later
-
04-01-2007, 06:45 AM #30Originally Posted by MatanThunder
My preferred system for resolving debates is my current flavour-of-the-month system, the Extended Contest mechanic from HeroQuest. It doesn't use a single roll and this, I think, is a feature not a flaw of it.
It's factual not artificial in the least. Talk down to me all you want, there are a cadre of older gamers which will never ever see it the 3.??????????? way. We just turn the system back to something usuable.
I am not sure what you mean by a "cadre of older gamers"?
I am also not sure of what relevance they have to this current discussion.
I, despite being rather fond of other systems, can set aside my preferences to consider Kenneth's D&D3.5 suggestions even if I would be inclined to use another method. I might even suggest my alternative. However I would try not to abuse those who disagree with my proposal, nor would I attempt to invoke the authority of a possibly-mythical fraternity of AD&D2E grognards, who at any rate are not present in this community, to justify my poor behaviour.
I did allow for all other viewpoints as you are deserving of yours.
What really hardly matters at all is the way you try to tune up the verbage in order to talk down to people.
I really do hope you enjoy your system, because it appears that 4.?? may not make it into print, through Hasbro in any case. In the meantime it appears that you and your fellow gamers on the site will have to do the work for WOTC.
I'll still be playing and posting to the birthright game in 2nd edition.
Also, you might note that all Pencil and Paper sites are in trouble with the advent of the instant gratification of the MMORPG systems, all site should want as many and diverse viewpoints as it can find. There are a heck of a lot LESS Pencil and Paper gamers out here.
Later
John 'Trithemius' Machin
The Other John From Dunedin (now in Canberra)
"Power performs the Miracle." - Johannes Trithemius
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks