"Bargaining" with players?

Mouseferatu said:

a technique referred to as bargaining with the players

Click to expand...

I'd refer to it as "slowing the game down." But since I want my players to be able to do cool things...

Mouseferatu said:

• I have this really cool stunt I want to pull, but I don't have quite enough movement to pull it off.
• We set up this elaborate maneuver that culminates with the cleric casting a certain spell at a certain time, but the rogue's about to die. The cleric wants to utter a desperate plea to her god and try to break the "can't cast a spell except a cantrip in the same round you cast a spell with a bonus action" rule.

Click to expand...

I know, examples. Still, these are the moments when you need to enforce RAW, because they require a player to ask "what would my character choose?"

Mouseferatu said:

• We have a whole crowd of innocent bystanders here. I want to to throw myself at the incoming Fireball "bead" to trigger it early.

• I want to shoulder-check the death knight into the path of the lightning bolt trap we know is about to go off.
• I want to leap off the back of the House Orien lightning rail, jam this metal spike into the nightmare that's flying after us, and then let the chain attached to the spike fall to dangle in the lightning stones that power the rail, electroucting the nightmare.

Click to expand...

These are good candidates for a difficulty (class) hierarchy. Want to chuck yourself in front of a fireball? That's difficulty 20. Have at it. Want to shoulder-check the death knight? Difficulty 12. Piece of cake - roll. Electrocute the nightmare? Difficulty 30. Frickin' impossible. But go ahead and roll.

Let us know if you find for what you were looking, I'd be interested to see how to codify such a thing.

DMMike said:

I'd refer to it as "slowing the game down." But since I want my players to be able to do cool things...

<snip>

Still, these are the moments when you need to enforce RAW, because they require a player to ask "what would my character choose?"

<snip>

These are good candidates for a difficulty (class) hierarchy. Want to chuck yourself in front of a fireball? That's difficulty 20. Have at it. Want to shoulder-check the death knight? Difficulty 12. Piece of cake - roll. Electrocute the nightmare? Difficulty 30. Frickin' impossible. But go ahead and roll.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "slowing the game down". Nor by "requir[ing] a player to ask 'what would my character choose?'".

Skill checks aren't a very good way of achieving the sort of thing that the OP was asking about. They're pretty much the opposite of "baragaining with players", because there is no bargain, no counter-stakes.

The thing that appeals to me about bargaining is that you can use it when some player pushes for something that you would normally, by RAW, have to shoot down. Instead of just saying 'no', you can say 'ok, but in return...' And then come up with a real devil's pact!

I do think this is the kind of thing you have to have an instinct for. Not sure I do, tbh, but it's an interesting approach to be sure.

pemerton said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "slowing the game down". Nor by "requir[ing] a player to ask 'what would my character choose?'".

Skill checks aren't a very good way of achieving the sort of thing that the OP was asking about. They're pretty much the opposite of "baragaining with players", because there is no bargain, no counter-stakes.

Click to expand...

Off-topic discussion:
[sblock]Slowing the game down: this discussion is about wandering outside of RAW. Under normal circumstances, the GM has the immediate and final say on what happens based on PC actions, and the rules dictate the rest. So if you introduce bargaining into that formula, the one-way communication of GM-to-players or rules-to-players becomes a feedback loop: GM-to-players-to-GM. Which is a longer process, or as some would call it, a slower process.

What would my character choose: a lot of roleplaying decisions are just knee-jerk reactions. "Would my character attack an orc? YES!" But when there's a time, action-economy, or moral decision involved, there's an opportunity to think a little deeper about not just what a character would think, but how he would feel.[/sblock]

Correct, skill checks are not bargaining with the players. But isn't there a roll required anyway? If the player says "hey, I can't do this unless I can break the rules." Then the GM says, "okay, but if you fail, then I'll break the rules." Well, the succeed/fail is still determined by a roll. Or a skill check.

Dungeoneer said:

I do think this is the kind of thing you have to have an instinct for. Not sure I do, tbh, but it's an interesting approach to be sure.

Click to expand...

Totally. Included in that instinct: the ability to herd players. It seems like it could be a stampede, telling players that they're allowed to negotiate the rules.

DMMike said:

Totally. Included in that instinct: the ability to herd players. It seems like it could be a stampede, telling players that they're allowed to negotiate the rules.

Click to expand...

Well, I think you need to be the kind of DM who is willing to push back against your players. But if you're not, why would you even be interested in this??

Dungeoneer said:

Well, I think you need to be the kind of DM who is willing to push back against your players.

Click to expand...

Some of the best GMing advice I've read along these lines is from Luke Crane, in Burning Wheel and especially the Adventure Burner.

The extent to which this sort of play involves stepping outside "RAW" depends in part on how rigid the rules are. For instance, as I posted upthread in 4e this sort of stuff can mostly (perhaps not completely) be handled via p 42, which is part of the rules (DC guidelines, damage-per-level guidelines, etc).