On Behavioral Realism

[hawkeyefan]

I'm still stuck at the first thought - what's unreasonable/unrealistic about having adventures be penny pinchers who would rather camp outside than sleep in the Inn?

Seems like a perfectly legit story to me.

I think too often we let our views of what is typically normal sway our opinions on what we call realistic. There's plenty of realistic things some people do that aren't typical of the vast majority of the population.

I think that it may be a perfectly fine story. But I think it’s downplaying how enticing it would be....after weeks in the wild and sleeping in awful conditions and eating rations and being subject to the elements....to have a home cooked meal a hot bath and to sleep in an actual bed.

If the goal of the game is to somehow produce that desire.....to make the draw of it in the fiction to be as strong as it would be in real life....then yeah, it is probably something that should have some kind of mechanical incentive.

The particulars of that seem to be what is in question. Those will vary by preference, but I think that @Reynard needs to look at it and talk to the players and figure out something.

It could be as simple as abstracting that side of things in terms of money. Let all their GP and treasure found go toward funding new gear and so on. But just say that an abstracted portion goes toward lifestyle.

You could go a little further with that and say that different levels of lifestyle require a % of the treasure. You could also even then incentivize further by having levels of lifestyle grant increasing benefits of some sort. These can be temp HP after resting well or advantage on CHA checks after bathing or whatever.

I wouldn’t penalize them for the way they’re playing so far, though. Better to incentivize the desired behavior.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think that it may be a perfectly fine story. But I think it’s downplaying how enticing it would be....after weeks in the wild and sleeping in awful conditions and eating rations and being subject to the elements....to have a home cooked meal a hot bath and to sleep in an actual bed.

For a typical person it's very enticing. For a realistic person I don't think that's necessarily the case. Typical does not = realistic. That's the fallacy here.

 

[bloodtide]

So here's a question: is it the GM's duty to provide incentives (whether they are mechanical or narrative)? Or can a GM say "I want a grounded world with grounded characters, despite all the dragons and whatnot."?

Well, you can't say you want a ''type X" world and game play without giving the players a detailed description of what you want. Really, this should be a very specific written document of whatever you want the players to do in the game.

But that is if you really, really, really want to derail the game with some DM demand. Like ''ok, when your character is dirty I want you to stop the game and loudly declare how your character cleans themselves up." Some players will be fine with it, they will just say a ''whatever DM" and maybe remember to do it sometimes. Other players won't like being forced to do something just to make the DM happy.

And if it's a fluff thing like washing, you will just slow the game down. Some players will stop and say things to make you happy. Some will forget, and then they will back track and say they did it when you remind them. And some will only do it when you force them to: "fine whatever DM, my character takes a bath..ok. So can we go meet the baron now and go on the adventure?"

Really, the answer is to find players that think the same way you do.

 

[Fenris-77]

For a typical person it's very enticing. For a realistic person I don't think that's necessarily the case. Typical does not = realistic. That's the fallacy here.

Also, to be fair, in the original example the PCs weren't camping outside because the players were roleplaying penny-pinchers, the PCs were camped outside because the fictional results of doing otherwise failed, for that group, to outweigh specific considerations about the purchase of new gear. This is a part of the granular GP system that I don't like, but mostly it isn't this kind of problem for most groups either.

 

[hawkeyefan]

For a typical person it's very enticing. For a realistic person I don't think that's necessarily the case. Typical does not = realistic. That's the fallacy here.

I agree with you that we could consider adventurers to be far from typical, and as such perhaps common comforts may not be a primary concern.

Except that it’s the stated goal that the GM is going for.

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree with you that we could consider adventurers to be far from typical, and as such perhaps common comforts may not be a primary concern.

Except that it’s the stated goal that the GM is going for.

All I'm saying is he may want to reevaluate his criteria for realistic play.

 

[FrogReaver]

Also, to be fair, in the original example the PCs weren't camping outside because the players were roleplaying penny-pinchers, the PCs were camped outside because the fictional results of doing otherwise failed, for that group, to outweigh specific considerations about the purchase of new gear. This is a part of the granular GP system that I don't like, but mostly it isn't this kind of problem for most groups either.

IMO - if they are camped outside not spending any coin on the inn and/or other amenities then i'd say that constitutes roleplaying a penny-pincher whether you intended to be or not.

 

[Fenris-77]

IMO - if they are camped outside not spending any coin on the inn and/or other amenities then i'd say that constitutes roleplaying a penny-pincher whether you intended to be or not.

Interesting, I'd probably argue the opposite. The reason I'd argue the contra is because in the case at hand I would assume (I know, I know) that the players we're not going to roleplay anything else involved in sleeping rough to save some cash. They do it to preserve an in-game resource with no expectation that there might be other consequences, which, for me anyway, isn't really a roleplaying decision. I don't say that with malice or judgement, the decision is neither good or bad, just not, IMO, particularly one informed by roleplaying considerations.

 

[FrogReaver]

Interesting, I'd probably argue the opposite. The reason I'd argue the contra is because in the case at hand I would assume (I know, I know) that the players we're not going to roleplay anything else involved in sleeping rough to save some cash. They do it to preserve an in-game resource with no expectation that there might be other consequences, which, for me anyway, isn't really a roleplaying decision. I don't say that with malice or judgement, the decision is neither good or bad, just not, IMO, particularly one informed by roleplaying considerations.

That to me sounds more like a description of bad (aka inconsistent) roleplaying rather than not roleplaying at all.

IMO. The player is roleplaying no matter what's informing the players decisions for their character. Speaking of informing decisions for a character - if you change it to a mechanical incentive so the player starts doing what you want is that really a decision informed by roleplaying? I would say it is - but would you?

 

[hawkeyefan]

All I'm saying is he may want to reevaluate his criteria for realistic play.

Maybe. So could the players. I think that ultimately, getting everyone on the same page would probably solve most of the problem.

I don’t think they’re sleeping outside the town in order to play outdoorsmen. They’re doing it specifically to save money because that has mechanical weight in the game. It can buy them new gear and supplies and so on. Anything that is spent on something that is not mechanically meaningful in the game is seen as a waste. This is because it would be a luxury that the players don’t actually experience.

As I mentioned earlier, abstracting all this would likely solve the problem. Just determining that money spent on room and board doesn’t get deducted from actual treasure earned. Then see if the players continually have their characters sleep outside towns.

It’s not the players’ desire to roleplay that’s the issue. It’s the in game resource that they’re trying to preserve. That choice needs to have some consequence, I think, or cost. Even if it’s as simple as not receiving a benefit that you would receive for staying in town.