Can we try rolling dplomacy and talking this out with them?

Still can try, though....

Play Everything like W101.

>"Surrender Immediately!"
>"What? No."
>"Diplomacy has failed, team!"

Why would he shoot me? I live in a pretty decent city in the USA. If he shoots me, things are not gonna end well for him.

If he's that desperate then I'll just give him the money anyways.

Does "give him my money" count?

>muggers are always stone-cold killers who will commit murder instantly just to prove user's point

There is a world of difference between being suddenly mugged by a scared, desperate thug and being stopped in the middle of the road by a band of bandits trying to threaten you into paying their toll.

The fact that the mugger started threatening you, instead of just killing you right away, says that he'd prefer to avoid violence.

>this
i got mugged by two niggers when i was in my early 20's, killed one and crippled the other. they had a gun on me and did manage to shoot me in the arm after i was halfway through with one. i stabbed that guy more times than the other.

Technically one side is dead to begin with.

>anons are always stone-cold killers who will commit murder instantly just to prove a point

>Claims to be pass early twenties
>Still can't be bothered in this modern day to hit shift and that little dot called a period once per post.

I can look pass the lack of commas, but come the fuck on user. You don't even have to capitalize your "I"s

DA DUANE!!!

>I'm sorry I don't have any money
"I have a gun"
>no thanks I don't need a gun
and then I walk away.

It's been done man

>Alright fine
>I rolled a 19
>What did you say?
>"Stop doing bad things."
>Oh. Well you failed.
>What? I rolled a 19 though.
>And you and every single other party member dumped Charisma, giving you a -2. The Diplomacy for a Hostile target starts at 25.
>But it's practically a natural 20. I try again for the next hour. Can I take a 20?

>why would he
Because looting corpse is easier than listening, especially when time is the enemy and you can get caught.
>If he shoots me, things are not gonna end well for him.
>Implying robbers give any shit about the law or not desperate enough to don't care.

>rolling for diplomacy

You mean you fuckers can't even roleplay your way through a parley? Because it's not like this is called a -roleplaying- game!

Why did he threaten you with a gun in the first place? By that line of reasonING he should have popped you in the back of the head before you have a chance to react.

Because if you give him what he want right away there will be no reason to do so. If you're not doing what he said that means you're trying to resist, simple as that.
He might think maybe you're just idiot that value money over his life or maybe you're cop and/or plan to disarm him and trying to stall for now, why take chances? He also might be high on some serious shit and may misinterpret your words.
Have you heard anything about Brazil, by the way? Brazil is not even close to what medieval setting can be.

>Be me
>Party fighter, only character to be grown up around war and weapons and violence
>Every time I suggest some strategy or tactics the other players say something along the lines of "Hurr Durr you're just a fighter- swing your sword when you're told to"
>After most sessions the Gm says my plans would have been not only deadly but fun as well.

I can't wait for my character to die- I want something different now.

If you're GMing and one of the players does a really good job of actually being diplomatic would you lower the DC?

>Why not?
>They are mindless zombie dinosaurs.

I'd not require a roll altogether and just make him succeed. Diplomacy skill is cancer.

Depends on too many factors. If it's just a throwaway random encounter, the roll will determine if they're receptive. If the other party is more important, a sufficiently diplomatic speech will be enough, and a diplomacy roll will allow the player to ask for an additional favour.

It's called that because you role dice to attack things.

>Uncle iroh.png

In a realistic scenario? Probably shit my pants and pay up.
In a fictional one? There's tonnes of examples

>pay up, but then clock him in the face while he's distracted
>do I look like I have anything worth stealing?
>do you know who I'm with? Ever seen this tattoo?
>you don't look like a lowife. Whatever your problem is, I'm willing to help.
>cheese it it's the cops!

>hire him
>implying anyone on this site isn't NEET, let alone has hiring power

...

What I did: pull out my moleskine that I use as a wallet, then proceed to unload all my library books and go "sorry dude, that's all I got"

The response I got: "shit nigga you brokern I am" and he bolted. Saved my tablet and my dosh. Helps that I walk around reading a book and generally look broke unless I'm "out on the town"

This. Language isn't necessarily communication; sometimes strings of words are just a spell you say to get what you want. There is always an arrangement of words to acquire what you desire.

I authorize any attempt at diplomacy but If the person is really unreasonable the dice roll will have to be perfect for it to work and the player must have good arguments.

>P1: "Can we try rolling Diplomacy and talking this out with them?"
>GM: "You can try a lot of things, but think about it - are you sure you have a chance of succeeding?"

I give him all my money, then I shoot him in the back of the head when he turns away.

>have a high charisma character
>group attacked by challenging number of bandits
>former bandit myself
>try to negotiate with them
>give good roleplayed speech asking them to let us be or to talk this out and remind them i was once one of them
>"ok roll diplomacy"
>do i get advantage from the speech
>"i changed the dc"
>roll
>get a total of 12
>"the bandits attack you"
>what
>"the dc was 35"

Because you failed your surprise check and his gun to gives him a bonus to his intimidation roll.
The fact that he already has his weapon drawn means he'll act first in initiative order and shoot you if you don't comply.

*the mugger teleports behind u*

>shoot him in the back of the head
Spotted the edgy kid.
You shoot to wound and disable, not to kill. Let the law sort the fuckers out.

...

You went up against two people who had a gun, using a knife? I hope you learned your lesson and bought an M&P shield and a CC license... jesus christ

This just reminds me of one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

>walking home with uncle
>uncle is a weirdo that just gives no fucks
>go down alley
>guy pulls knife on us and demands phones
>uncle doesn't break stride "Fuck off I'm not in the mood"
>guy drops spaghetti and says ok and clumsily backs off
>I was shitting myself
>uncle just tells muggers to go away and they do

> shoot to wound and disable, not to kill
I am not american but I have always heard the exact opposite concerning gun use. If you're shooting someone you should only do so under the assumption you're going to kill him

Not American, either. As I understand it, there is no such thing as "shoot to disable". You shoot centre of mass, because the time spent aiming at the head or extremities can mean the difference between life and death (yours).

Also, guns kill people. Even less-lethal (note no "than") ones.

>If you're shooting someone you should only do so under the assumption you're going to kill him
That means that if you're shooting someone, you must accept the fact and the responsibility that you might kill him no matter where you actually aim and/or hit. It doesn't mean "shoot to kill".

>there is no such thing as "shoot to disable"
There is, though.
Well, it depends on a lot of things, but basically, if you have a drop on your target and can aim accurately, you aim for their limbs. If you're in an involved firefight, you aim for their center of mass and hope that they will go into a shock and/or flee after the first hit.

Aiming for the head or the vital organs as the user above suggested is retarded anyway, no matter how you slice it.

Thanks for pointing that out. Does it really apply to people who aren't military or police, though?

>not rolling for diplomacy and then roleplaying the results

>Does it really apply to people who aren't military or police, though?
Law-wise - something something "reasonable force". The concept is rather vague, though, and almost always twisted to suit the needs of the powerful.
Reality-wise - no one will give you shit for accidentally killing your assaulter if there was a clear risk for your wellbeing.

>the "aim for the limbs" meme

People can still be shockingly dangerous when shot in the arms or legs. Probably more so since they're no longer thinking clearly.
This is not even mentioning people that are so hopped up on drugs that might not even react to being shot until they start to come down from their high.

Oh, also your legs are full of big arteries and veins that, when shot, can cause you to bleed out and die super fast, so you might end up killing the guy anyways

I mean, sometimes it's impossible. You can't jump to the moon, you can't talk the bloodthirsty barbarian big bad into a compromise.
And sometimes it's not what your DM or what the other players are interested in RPing, they might just want combat, and that's entirely fine too..

Sometimes it's utter bullshit though. If the GM doesn't want players to use diplomacy and they state it, alright, but they better not advertise the game as "you can do anything" bullshit.

That's why I mentioned that it depends on a lot of things, though.
We get it, you want an argument, but I really don't have the time for this right now.

>playing in a group with a lawful good paladin
>he tries to diplomacy his way out of every encounter because hurr durr violence is terrible.
>we're fighting against literal drink the blood of orphan children and use their souls as back scratchers cultists
>we've just come from the orphanage they attacked
>two of us are drenched in orphan blood from burying their remains.
>he's still trying to find a peaceful solution
>he keeps doing it everytime we encounter a bad guy.
There's a time and a place for talking people out of things. And the time and place is not the beginning of every damn encounter. Fucking diplomancers never realize that.

This -> Also Player Characters aren't regular people in the vast majority of games. If a PC has high charisma, that means they've got some extraordinary force of personality that could get the meanest of street thugs to back down and/or reconsider their life choices. Just like how high-STR characters can take down small hordes of armed enemies in melee combat, even though that shouldn't be humanly possible.
Finally, you've got plenty of stories from people who've talked their way out of a mugging. Sure, most of them are probably fake, but you shouldn't underestimate how easily humans can lose track of what they were doing (or lose confidence) when confronted with something they absolutely didn't expect.

Nah, I just like to shoot down "common sense" myths that people learn by watching tv like this "leg shot = totally disabled but alive" shit and "if you shoot a car enough it explodes into a fireball" garbage

>tfw the mutie's ride is over

If you talk them into not fighting, you can always execute them after they surrender.

I don't know about military, but police are trained to always shoot to kill. They are, at least supposed to, only use their gun if you are endangering their life, or the life of another civilian. They have things like tazers, mace, and batons for non-lethal force.

You probably roleplay your swordfights and magic spells too ya fookn larper

My DCs change depending on methods and circumstances. I don't care about whether the player is eloquent as hell or a stuttering mess (whether the character is depends on Charisma) but if they bring up good arguments, then yes, absolutely. Especially if they can appeal to the characters' values through sheer luck or guesswork.

Sometimes it's just plain impossible though. If the characters should know at first glance, I generally tell my players that's the case.

>dat gif
Come on, if you a knife you could stab the robber when he was seating onto motocycle,

Not him but...
>role
You obviously dumped INT.
>not just cutting out the middle-man and roleplaying by default
>Equating combat rules (where the game actually covers everything in detail) with social rules (where the game just boils it down to DM fiat and a binary outcome)
Looks like you dumped INT as well.

>player wants to try and reason with their opposition
>dm allows it
>instead of trying to propose a deal or trick them or something, he basically just says "STOP DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND GIVE ME WHAT I WANT" and expects it work because he rolled high
Worst fucking bard ive ever played with

Tell those guys to go fuck themselves and make your plans happen anyway

>You shoot to wound and disable, not to kill. Let the law sort the fuckers out.

Retard alert.

He probably raised it because you asked for advantage. Also, you don't get advantage for role playing good, you get inspiration. Even then you shouldn't ask for it.

A simple no would've sufficed, rather than raising the DC to a level beyond impossible just out of spite.

In all honestly he probably never changed the DC and just lied about. He made it impossible on purpose because he wanted you to fail it. Also, how did you know the DC anyway?

Ahem
>"the dc was 35"

>not just cutting out the middle-man and roleplaying by default

We tried that but our DM kept either being way too on our side or way too against us so we compromised on that. We talked it out like adults and compromised on that. It gets real fun when you know you failed the roll and the NPCs seem to be on your side (while actually leading you into a trap).

No, how did you know? Did the DM tell you? Why did he?

not him but the quotation marks kinda imply that DM said that part

>No, how did you know? Did the DM tell you?
I linked you to the post yet you're still asking this question?
>Why did he?
Because he's an asshole?

It was probably 15 and he lied and said it was 35 just to fuck with you.

>Rolling
>For diplomacy
And you are surprised your GM said "no"?

Then why not just say it was 15 rather than 35? Why not just say I failed by three points and move on with the campaign? Right, because he's an asshole.

>stab person that has a gun
thanks god natural selection reduced your kind of dumb to nothingness through human history, but I guess not all

And go to jail for it?

The minute he no longer presents a threat to you, you can't attack him. If the dude turns his back on you, you don't get to murder him.

I'll play Cleric characters who are all about redemption and conversion and will at least offer a chance to surrender and be rehabilitated to literally every sapient villain, but a Paladin? Motherfucker, if you're an enemy of Justice your ass is getting smote.

>Killing someone over a phone

That's some fucking negro -10 INT racial adjustment shit, son.

>"I'd prefer not to..."
>'Nigga I'm actually super lazy and you gonna get me heated and I don't fuk wit dat'

...

>can we try rolling dplomacy and talking this out with them?
>Did I call for a Diplomacy check just now?
>No…?
>Then maybe try talking first and if you need to roll any dice, I'll let you fucking know

>Invade secret lair of evil monsters first red flag
>Murder at least half of them second red flag
>Looting their corpses and stealing their possessions third red flag
>Find the Big Boss
>Have a short conversation ending in initiative
>"WAAAH WHY CANT WE DIPLOMACY EVERYTHING JUST WANTS TO ATTACK US"

GG

>not speaking in character, suggesting a deal in a way that causes the DM to say "Roll for diplomacy"

Get gud

Even a lich should be able to be diplomacied [sic] if you're good enough. Obviously its going to be like DC 40, but if you can roll that high.... (I once did - High CHA cleric of mephistopheles with something like +14 Diplomacy, and the ability to add my level (which was about 14) to a diplomacy check once per day (iirc it was once of the abilities from the book of vile darkness, fully legal)

So yeah I once rolled 42 with a diplomacy check and convinced a lich to let us keep his phylactery. The DM would never let that one slide again...

Dude, no. There is no such thing as shooting to disable. Shoot someone anywhere, and he might die.

People have died from being shot in the hand. The shock literally makes their heart stop.

people have also lived after being shot in the head.

If you shoot someone with a small caliber pistol in the hand or arm, they will survive if given medical attention within an hour or so.

If you shoot someone with a hollow point .308 round, the muscle damage is so massive, the tissue starts to die around the wound and its likely they will die no matter where you shoot them - even in the foot, and even with urgent medical attention afterwards.

You could still shoot to disable, but by the time you're shooting someone, its likely your life or someone elses life is in danger and lethal force is all good, so even though one could shoot to disable, one probably wouldn't

He probably asked if he had Advantage because his character was an ex-bandit, not because he roleplayed his speech.

It may be nitpicking/irrelevant to the main debate, but this is correct.

I go the ERPG route in that bandits are shorthand for people that have gone insane to the point they live with monsters and it is thus 100% ethical to treat them like animals down to hunting them for meat or catching them in bear traps or stuffing them them. They aren't human anymore, and its frankly insulting to humanity to treat them as such.

what do I have to say to get you to never post on this board again?

...