Debate and Diplomacy

[Trithemius]

I saw it as a mechanic to aid the resolution of a talkie interaction - all too often a very articulate player playing a cretin would win arguments against a novice player playing a genius - this system recognises the skill of the character more.

I think this is a tremendously good point. Sometimes it is very easy for the player's capabilities to overshadow those of the character. Traditionally D&D has had fairly good systems for enabling combat interactions to be resolved mechanically, although it has suffered in other areas. I think that this proposal of Kenneth's provides a pretty good framework for people to determine the results of a bout of debate and then to let them roleplay it.

I know when I am playing other games with a much stronger focus on persuasion (The Dying Earth in particular) I like to have people resolve each round of the contest first and then roleplay the dialogue. This, at least, ensures that epic performances are not wasted by mechanical failures!

[Trithemius]

It is realistic, but it doesn't resolve anything. My friends go away thinking I'm right and your friends go away thinking you're right. If the stakes are high and the clock ticking, resolving nothing is a kind of failure

Dramatically its also kind of boring!

I personally am a big fan of contests being important. Die-rolls for tying shoelaces and opening unlocked doors detract from the importance and drama of the major events, as do die-roll contests that have no result. It might be that the representatives argue a bit about their specialities to no avail until they strike upon the topic where the important victory can be had (or the crippling loss). Kalien's fellow might go on about Traps for a while, but its only when both sides are engaged that something significant is contested and important outcomes imposed.

The game rules, and the attention and time of the players (including the GM), should be focussed on the interesting parts of the narrative.

[irdeggman]

Before some editing there were statements about the proficiencies was irrelevant to the subject.

I assume you are talking about my posts.

Which weren't edited but were clarified, a common practice on any board I've ever posted on/visited.

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 don't know what you mean by cadre. I'm 49 and pretty much have been under the impression that I'm the oldest gamer posting on this site, if not then I'm the oldest gamer who posts frequently.

What really hardly matters at all is the way you try to tune up the verbage in order to talk down to people.

As opposed to a frequent change of font (and color) to emphasize certain aspects and challenging other's history of gaming?

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.

As opposed to what people have been doing on this site since WotC dropped Birthright in the first place?

I'll still be playing and posting to the birthright game in 2nd edition.

And power to you, it is a great setting and a decent system, although nearly everyone has made their own modifications to the system in order to fit their play better and to fill in the gaps left by TSR's real poor editing at the time.

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.

Actually I think what happened and is happening is the change in how gaming is viewed. What I mean is that 3.0 was much more rules intensive then previous editions and 3.5 (and subsequent products) have progressed that. People are getting "tainted" by WoW (which I refuse to play as a matter of principle, by the way) and how the MMORGs are structured.

Birthright via its nature of a domain level of play was probably the quickest and most easily adapted game to a play-by-post/e-mail style of game. There have been many, many play-by-post/e-mail Birthright games since the home computer revolution and invention of the internet (thank Al Gore ). Many are still 2nd ed based.

[irdeggman]

It occurs to me that if someone is using a hit points style of measuring success of a debate then the Leadership score would be the best fit for the basis.

It "measures" what we are really talking about, the ability to lead and influence people on a grander scale (that is more than 1 person at a time). Plus it already has built in modifiers, etc. I'm a big fan of trying to use existing systems/mechanics whenever possible.

[kgauck]

Using Leadership is an interesting idea. It certainly makes sense as the audience gets larger or the appeal to one's command grows. Persuading the assembled coallition commanders that the army is ready to face the Gorgon certainly could be done this way.

Though I still think that sometimes issues are technical and the leader sits and watches before making a decision based on the presentations of his subordinates. Another key case where knowledge skills should remain the core measure of indurance in debate are legal proceedings. Doctrinal disputes in matters of religion.

This brings me back to one of the issues I think is so key to Birthright: the different types of holdings. Of these, law and temple holdings would give considerable weight to formal debates over matters of substance. Knowledge of these matters will be important. The province leaders, should be able to stand among their peers and debate something besides Knowledge (Nobility) and often times Leadership is the real core issue. This is especially true when the matters are ambigious (can we win) rather than based on authority (what does the text say).

[irdeggman]

Personnally I think Diplomacy is the skill check used. It is the one used for "barter" and the like.

I can see where different skills could give bonuses due to synergy depending on the situation.

I would not, however, count any knowledge skills that are not germaine to the topic at hand though. For example if someone is debating an issue of magic item history then knowledge (local) should have no bearing - you'd be better off bluffing.

A case could be made for perform (oratory) since that skill is the one that is deseigned to reflect one's skill in speaking and grasping an audience's interest. So I would guess that skill should always apply a bonus due to synergy for any type of debate.

[Trithemius]

I would not, however, count any knowledge skills that are not germaine to the topic at hand though. For example if someone is debating an issue of magic item history then knowledge (local) should have no bearing - you'd be better off bluffing.

Unless the item was made by a famous local?

[AndrewTall]

Perhaps based on diplomacy with a synergy bonus from a relevant knowledge skill (+2/5 points say) if the argument is technical, substituting a bluff check if desired to try and obtain a synergy bonus with faked knowledge/examples although they'd better hope no-one sees through their ruse...

Similarly perform, intimidate, or leadership could add synergy bonuses depending on the audience and argument in question.

It might be simpler, albeit doubling the number of dice rolls, to separate the diplomacy check and the second skill check, i.e. splitting the argument into the ability to convey the message, and the message itself.

So if a player wanted to dazzle the audience with science they would make a skill check to obtain knowledge and then a diplomacy check to use it effectively. Passing the knowledge/whatever check would give a bonus to the diplomacy check and vice versa.

The GM could decide which audience members would be affected by the type of argument (i.e. if persuading a king to send aid, the king might be swayed by examples from his realms glorious history, the king's general by an argument based on strategy, the guilder by intimidate, the average courtier by perform, and the like)

In that way the player would have to think about who they were talking too and how the target would respond to different types of argument, and it would be possible for both sides to win partial victory by appealing to different parts of the audience. Similarly even if a player knew everything about a topic, if they didn't have the diplomacy to get their message across they would likely fail.

[kgauck]

Diplimacy is basically what the Scholastics called Rhetoric, the art of persuasion, but the Scholastics rated the lowest of the basic education, below Grammer, and certainly below Logic.

For the Scholastics, Logic was neccesary for any formal disputation. Persuasion was considered an appeal to ignorance because you didn't have the facts on your side. In Law, for instance, you might be able to bamboozle a modern jury (though not a medieval one) but judges will not ignore the law because you make your points well.

As an aside, medieval juries were expected to know the case and know the principles before the case. They were all experts in the situation. Modern juries bar such people. Medieval juries were a jury of peers in a way modern ones are not. If I know John the Tanner to be a liar and a theif, a good lawyer won't persuade me John is a nice guy. However if my lawyer can argue that under law the John the Tanner was the legal owner of the objects in question, I'm in a much better position.

As such, the real test is a Knowledge (Law) check, not Diplomacy or Oratory. Any formal dispuation on a subject of fact before experts is unlike a matter of persuasion.

The Humanists in the Renaissance desired to change the curriculum because they were more worldly, and instead of considering law, theology, and medicine to be the highest purposes of education, they hoped to educate young men to enagage in public affairs. Part of their plan involved elevating Rhetoric to the highest of the basic education, and adding History and Literature (the Humanities) to the upper level education.

Debating from a knowledge is a technical argument about fine points of religion, law, arcana, nobility, geography, history, or what have you.

Persuasion using Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate is an attempt to change someone's mind about a subject.

[irdeggman]

As such, the real test is a Knowledge (Law) check, not Diplomacy or Oratory. Any formal dispuation on a subject of fact before experts is unlike a matter of persuasion.

But in the 3.5 sense knowledge represents personal knowledge not the ability to convey that knowledge to other people. Those skills are either diplomacy or perform (oratory). Not arguing from a historical snese, only from a 3.5 mechanics one.

Debating from a knowledge is a technical argument about fine points of religion, law, arcana, nobility, geography, history, or what have you.

Which is why knowing about the topic you are discussing would provide a bonus due to synergy for disucssions of the topic at hand.

Persuasion using Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate is an attempt to change someone's mind about a subject.

Wasn't that the idea of the debate in the first place?

It seems to me that either diplomacy or perform (oratory) would be the "key" skill with bonuses due to related or supporting skills.

Bluff and sense motive should always provide bonuses to a debate IMO since they pertain to being able to take advantage of a situatin - much like gambling.


But I guess it comes down to determing what the purpose of debating is.

IMO it is to have an effect towards changing someone's attutude.

Now this can either be the direct result of the debate or the debate could be used to affect a suplemental diplomatic action.

Again, only my opinion - but it is important to figure wout what the debate function is attempting to do before we could adequately figure out a way to "get 'er done". I mean it makes no sense to discuss things if people are looking at different ends in mind., that only leads to long term arguements because there is no common goal.

So what is the purpose of debate?