>"It's over, Bard! I am immune to enchantment spells!">"[Roll: Diplomacy 57] You should kill yourself.">"Yes, I should kill myself because even with the -20 penalty my relationship has went from Hostile to Reverant from the sheer scale of your skill check." *BLAM*How do you fix this without making it gay and lame like 4e's skill challenges?
>>97688874speech checks arent mind control, so you cant force them to do something they wouldnt normally do it could just simply intimidate them and cause them to wonder if the bard has a trick they dont know about
>>97688874Limits on how much a single check can actually do for you.Limits on how many checks you can make against a given target per day/session/week/year.Make diplomacy and other social skills having huge rolls more relevant for influencing huge groups at once rather than influencing a single individual into cultist-like devotion in a single interaction.
>>97688874By not being retarded?
>>97688874Make it straight and awesome like 4e's skill challenges.
>>97689079This one in part.A diplomacy check can move a subject from Hostile to Reverant, but Reverence is still open to interpretation. I could see a DM Making the call that pulling someone to Reverent only to cap it off with "Kill Yourself" could easily result in the entire check being taken in bad faith; they were Reverent until you failed to respect what that reverence was established upon, and dying for someone is within grasp, but only if you can keep up the kayfabe that you established with the check's results.Immediately demanding suicide upon getting that result disrespects the entirety of your check. Make a new one without the penalty to represent the person they thought you were opposing the falsehood with the -20 check.
>>97688874the only edition where diplomacy let you do outright mind control did have it resisted as if were actual magical mind control
>>97688874Someone's been playing Mass Effect 1 again huh
>>97688874Have a GM
>>97689193this goes back to Fallout 1, if not earlier
>>97688874Based on how Diplomacy works in most games. This guy was already suicidal, he just needed the encouragement.
>>97688874>How do you fix this
>>97688874Have you tried not playing D&Dogshit?
>>97689189Based and 3.5e pilled. It's hardly my game of choice however 90% of its supposed problems are due because people not reading the fucking manuals.
>>97688898>it's impossible to talk someone into committing suicide
>>97688874Where does it say in the rules that you can make people kill themselves?Hell, where does it say in the rules that you can make people do anything that they wouldn't normally do?
>>97690968Yeah it probably takes longer than a 6 second combat round though.>>97688874If you want it to be a mechanic, you have to track some system of influence relative to time and number of successes. I don't really know the 4e skill challenges very well, but most of the things called skill challenges I've done have felt very artificial. I would if trying to mechanically represent this probably have a number of things that can be discovered using insight or research about a character, that then make different things possible with diplomacy checks, with a scoring system. I also like how BRP has an Appearance score and multiple variations on the diplomacy skill like Charm or Persuade or Command for different approaches that should work better on different people, and that different characters are better at. Diplomacy tends to be either irrelevant or god-skill, so splitting it up helps if you're going to have it matter.If you just want to resolve the issue without tick boxes of progress and skill challenge stuff then you as a GM need to just arbitrarily decide ahead of time what +37 Diplomacy means, and how supernatural an effect that can achieve, and how literally supernatural you're going to treat it. As in antimagic effecting it or resistance to spells. So long as the players know ahead of time, and understand it can be done back to them, then it's fair.
>>97691011Kys
>>97688874Use the system from Exalted 3e. People have Intimacies, which are Minor, Major, and Defining. You can only Persuade somebody to do something that's almost certain death with a Defining Intimacy. You can't raise an Intimacy's rank more than once per scene, so you can't talk somebody from zero to Defining over one session.Thus, if you want to persuade somebody to kill themselves, you have to either slowly work them into the kind of psychotic loyalist you need, or play on some preexisting extremely intense value they hold.
>>97688874You're the DM. Say 'it doesnt work'. Simple!
>>97691545Except that has a hard rule for Unacceptable Influence which includes suicide and pretty much anything else the ST doesn't want to do which renders that entire suite of mechanics completely irrelevant.
>>97691606>includes suicide and pretty much anything else the ST doesn't want to doNo it doesn't. There are quite restricted rules on what is "unacceptable influence," and it mostly amounts to ignoring the other rules.Though, yes, technically suicide commands are always unacceptable influence. I forgot because you don't actually try to make characters kill themselves through talking because it is stupid. If you actually have that level of influence over somebody, they are an ally or tool, not somebody kill.
>>97691675Yes it does. Read the fine print. Unacceptable influence is whatever the ST says it is.
>>97691679No, it doesn't. I literally just went to look. It's:- Try to strengthen or weaken an intimacy without an appropriately powerful other intimacy (the rules for how instills work)- Try to persuade without an appropriately powerful intimacy (the rules for how persuasion works)- A bargain (I'll give you X for Y) without a good enough offer, or a threat without a sufficient threat. This is just how bargain and threaten actions work - the offer/threat has to be proportional to the request.- Making somebody suicide- Abandon or end a Defining Intimacy (without first weakening that intimacy)- Seduction that goes against the character's sexual orientation. (woke)
>>97691706Yes it does. There's no argument to be had here. It simply works that way.
>>97691717I literally just copied the entire Unacceptable Influence section, you are full of shit and retarded and probably one of the many, many trolls ruining this board.
>>97691719Textbook paranoid delusion. Doesn't change reality though.
>>97691725Filtered.
>>97691569The rules will even back you up on this.
>>97688874roleplaying.
>>97688874By punching your teeth off your mouth and throwing you down concrete stairs.
>>97690968It's possible to talk someone into committing suicide. Not everyone, but someone who's already kind of suicidal, or maybe someone who cares enough about something to die for it, or someone who doesn't care much about anything, including his life. That's more a matter of finding the right target than just rolling well, though.
>>97691717>>97691725Go read the section on Unacceptable Influence on page 220 of Exalted 3E core, anon. It defines what Unacceptable Influence is.
>>97691948I just did. >>97691606 is right on the money.
>>97691961It does have a hard rule including suicide, but not "pretty much anything else the ST doesn't want to do".
>>97691990It does. Read it again and really think about what it means. Try reading out loud, maybe that will help.
>>97688874Does any edition of DnD even have rules for "killing yourself" on the spot?You can't coup-de-grace yourself, since the target needs to be helpless. Performing a melee attack against yourself is questionable (and likely won't one-shot you anyway). You can throw AoE spell/effect with yourself in the range, which again, likely won't one-shot. And for single targe spells it's case-by-case is self is a legal target. Eg. (5e) Power Word Kill has "One creature you can see within range." Which spins off into a debate whether you can you see yourself (for the purpose of targeting spells).
>>97691990There's no point talking to this guy, he's a troll. That's why he won't back his claims up with anything, just repeat them over and over. He's wasting your time and getting off to it.
>>97688874By informing anyone who tries such retardation that I'm going to drag them away from my table into my garden, where I will bash their head into pulp with a chunk of my rockery and bury them under the compost heap.
>>97688874>how do you fix this problem that doesn't actually exist?You should kill yourself.
>>97688874By actually bothering to read the fucking rules, retard.
>>97689304In Fallout 1 to talk down the Master you had to actually dig up and present evidence.
>>97690968Not on a 6 seconds interactionNow, if you want to try over the course of many weeks you're free to do it, but hes intention is to kill you right now
>>97688874The penalty is -120.
>>97691706>Seduction that goes against the character's sexual orientation. (woke)I don't think "you cannot gay mind rape straight men" is woke. I think it's good, actually, that they don't let people do that
>>97693629Clearly you've never played Monsterhearts.
>>97693629>I don't think "you cannot gay mind rape straight men" is woke. I think it's good, actually, that they don't let people do thatI'm joking.>>97693643They added rules for asexuals to Monsterhearts 2. La woka wins again.
>>97688874>How do you fix thisReading the rules helps
>>97690968Basically true unless they're on the verge of it anyway. Or you have months to spare getting them to join a cult which makes suicide seem more meaningful to them than life, and even then you have to start with the emotionally and socially vulnerable."You should shoot yourself instead of me" is never going to work.
>>@EveryoneCounterpoint: If you ignore the RAW and just go "DM says no" then you may as well be playing a storyslop game
>>97696897You're right, but you said "@Everyone", so I'm now obligated to call you a massive faggot and to tell you to go back.
>>97696897That's a bit of a catch 22 when games include "DM may ad-hoc override any other rule" in the rules.
>>97696897>>97690976
>>976890794pbp
>>97696928Games don't include that.Collaborative activity books do, though.
>>97698414>4pbp'ing your own postSad and trans
You will only roll diplomacy if I call for it. Skills arent a hammer you just strike people with to solve your problems.
>>97699713>I would like to unlock this door>Okay, how>Um... uh... I have the Lockpicking sk->NO THAT'S METAGAMING. ROLEPLAY HOW YOUR CHARACTER PICKS THE LOCK OR I'LL FAIL YOU
>>97699734More like>I-I want to roll lockpic->why would you do that? Its unlocked
>>97690968It's impossible to just LowTierGod someone with a speech check. The only correct response is:>No, I think it's you I should kill insteadFollowed by the Bard being hit with an Antimagic field and grappled and mauled by the BBEG's minions.
>>97696897>NOOOO I CANT AUTOMATICALLY WIN EVERY ENCOUNTER!Which one of us is playing storyslop?
>>97700185How does abiding by rules as written automatically win every encounter?
>>97700223Because by your logic, if number is big enough, you can literally do anything, which is not and should not be the case.
>>97696897If the rules as written suggest anything like OP's claim then you're probably better off with any other game.
>>97700603Where in >>97696897 were large numbers mentioned?Point it out.
>>97690968>>97688898I mean if you are a level 12 intellect like Luthor or something you could do this kind of shit, but I would say that it is for epic level games.
that's impossible
>NOoo!!! You can't just tell the BBEG to kill himself!
