On Behavioral Realism

[Reynard]

It's a bit odd to say the least that you'd want modern realism in a medieval setting.

It seems the complant is that the players are not acting in exactly the ways you want them to act so you can feel the fictional characters are real people. You might say ''all people" do whatever it is you say they ''must" do....but you'd be wrong. People are people. People do lots of...well, stuff. Watch the news and go meet some people: you will find everyone does not think like you.

You force the players to do things...but it's a bit pointless, and will only last as long as you force it too. Have the king say he won't meet with the smelly, dirty characters and just the player will just say "whatever my character cleans up...so, ok, now we go to the king". If having the players do that for a second counts, then you have a 'win'.

I don't feel like this is an accurate representation of the situation or my motivation or desires as I have presented them. I can only assume I have not been clear in that case. At the risk of sounding like a broken record:

I am asking for is some thoughts on what kinds of tools a GM can employ to encourage players viewing and then presenting their characters in a more viscerally realistic fashion. Some folks have been very helpful, and I have enjoyed most of the discussion. The question of whether mechanical incentives are more worthwhile than in-fiction ones is an interesting one with no clearly superior answer.

 

[Reynard]

What incentives are in place? There's an incentive for modern people to bathe -- social ostracism being a real thing most eould like to avoid. Saying it's just a "some players" thing is passing the buck and ignoring that without incentive all you're doing is hoping people play the way you'd like. That there's zero benefit to the players, and often a cost, for doing so gets elided. I mean, you could get lucky and have players that find enjoyment in such play and so incentivize themselves, but, again, that relying on wistful wishing rather than a good look at whether you're actually playing the game you want.

I don't think just the sphere of social ostracism is the only, or even primary, reason most people maintain some level of hygiene. Especially in the modern first world where for most people the cost of cleanliness is negligible people do it because it is healthy and comfortable.

Of course, individual definitions of "clean" vary and there can be some social pressure to conform to a certain cultural standard, but I don't think people in general would be filthy if it weren't for social pressure.

 

[Maxperson]

It's entirely arguable that they are. People in real life react to incentives. It appears that your players are reacting to the incentives in your game: avoiding unecessary costs so they can prioritize thise things that actually relate to survival and goal realization. If you want them to act as you want them to, no amount of generalized aesthetic desire will do so if the incentives you have in place support acting differently. In other words, this is partly your fault for not establishing an incentive structure that encourages desired behavior. Continuing to wistfully wish it would be different while not changing the incentives is a waste of time: it won't magically change on its own.

I'm just wondering what the purpose of this post was. He's clearly talking about having PCs acting like real people, not having his players acting like real people.

 

[Maxperson]

It's a bit odd to say the least that you'd want modern realism in a medieval setting.

D&D isn't set in a medieval setting unless you make your own setting as such. It's vaguely, kinda, sorta medieval in a modern setting kinda way.

 

[MGibster]

D&D isn't set in a medieval setting unless you make your own setting as such. It's vaguely, kinda, sorta medieval in a modern setting kinda way.

Yeah, D&D is an odd duck. Most of the settings are quasi European feudal societies but with a strong streak of western liberalism and individualism thrown into the mix.

 

[John Dallman]

Yeah, there are some very strange impacts on culture and society if we decide to take the rules of the game as the physics of the world. It's not bad, necessarily, but it creates a world that resembles our own less and less.

I don't see that as a problem, but an opportunity. I came to gaming from SF fandom (written SF, not film/TV), so thinking about weird societies is fun. Most of the people I've gamed with down the years have had similar backgrounds, so it seems normal to me.

Imagine what a society would look like if it were true that the more peril you put yourself in, the more superhuman you became and more quickly?

The cumulative risk of getting killed counts against that. I've played a lot of characters over the last 40 years, and most of them have retired, with varying degrees of commitment to staying that way. There are some with reasons for keeping on adventuring, but most have settled down, or died. I have seen characters decide after a first expedition that adventuring is too dangerous for them, and that's a decision one has to live by.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm just wondering what the purpose of this post was. He's clearly talking about having PCs acting like real people, not having his players acting like real people.

Players are real people. They react to incentives like real people (because, well, they are real people). When they make choices for their PCs, incentives matter. If you do not incentivize, or worse disincentivize, a course of action, the real people players will not chose to direct their PCs towards those actions. I thought this pretty straightforward, but if I was unclear, thanks for the opportunity to explain.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think just the sphere of social ostracism is the only, or even primary, reason most people maintain some level of hygiene. Especially in the modern first world where for most people the cost of cleanliness is negligible people do it because it is healthy and comfortable.

Of course, individual definitions of "clean" vary and there can be some social pressure to conform to a certain cultural standard, but I don't think people in general would be filthy if it weren't for social pressure.

People don't wash their hands after using the bathroom terribly often, despite it being a negligible cost in time and effort and it being a healthy and comfortable action. This is because they can do so without being noticed and so avoid the social opprobrium such boorish behavior asks for. If they do not shower with regularity, then this becomes apparent and cannot be hidden and they will receive social opprobrium. People act towards incentives. Things being easy, or low in cost, are not incentives by themselves and do not drive behavior. Low cost can make it easier to incentivize behavior, but it's not an incentive on it's own. Cost never is.

 

[Maxperson]

Players are real people. They react to incentives like real people (because, well, they are real people). When they make choices for their PCs, incentives matter. If you do not incentivize, or worse disincentivize, a course of action, the real people players will not chose to direct their PCs towards those actions. I thought this pretty straightforward, but if I was unclear, thanks for the opportunity to explain.

Unless you talk to them and let them know what direction you would like the game to go, and they agree to do it that way. People aren't dogs. You don't have to give them treats to get them to do something.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't feel like this is an accurate representation of the situation or my motivation or desires as I have presented them. I can only assume I have not been clear in that case. At the risk of sounding like a broken record:

I am asking for is some thoughts on what kinds of tools a GM can employ to encourage players viewing and then presenting their characters in a more viscerally realistic fashion. Some folks have been very helpful, and I have enjoyed most of the discussion. The question of whether mechanical incentives are more worthwhile than in-fiction ones is an interesting one with no clearly superior answer.

I think you've arrived at looking for a solution before you've identified the problem. The problem isn't 'my players aren't playing their PCs as if they are "real" people' where "real" means acting in specific ways that you think they should. It's actually "what is my game's incentive structure, and how does that encourage play?"

I think, if you'll look, that you may be running a game with a reasonable amount of difficulty and with relatively low resource flow to the PCs. This means they don't get treasure as often as they want to be confident in their ability to overcome presented challenges, and so they are acting in ways to minimize outflow of treasure because that's the game -- get enough treasure to get the gear to be able to overcome the challenges. I futher think that you, based on some statement earlier in the thread, have many ways you attempt to separate PCs from treasure through costs for things, like baths and inns. So, again, you're disincentivizing this behavior. This reinforces and you end up with PCs that camp in the woods outside of town because they want to minimize their interaction with the treasure suck of the town outside of the gear merchants and possibly the occasional quest giver.

If you modify your incentive structure such that the cost of gearing after a certain tier is social approval of the town, then you make being clean and engaging socially with the townsfolk (and patronizing their businesses) a step in the path to getting more gear. You might also need to slightly bump up treasure accumulation or reduce costs for inns and baths and clothing.

I'm running a Sigil game right now, and I built in downtime activities to increase favor with the various factions. And I have lifestyle expenses. These two things both gate what gear levels you can buy in Sigil -- a city where everything is for sale at some price. If you want more than uncommon goods, you need a patron (a faction or other organization) and must maintain a minimum lifestyle. No purveyor of rare goods in Sigil will deal with a nobody or a street rat -- no matter how connected they appear. For that matter, you can't progress in your patron favor if you're a filthy street rat -- they have standards (although, for some, those standards are... odd). So, I've created an incentive structure where players are heavily incentivized to engage in the social aspects of the city -- to see and be seen -- because this directly affect their ability to acquire gear they want to go do the things they want to do on adventures.

What are you doing in your game to make taking a bath something the players care about? If you don't get the players interested, the PCs will continue to avoid baths (using baths generically, as it was a topic).