Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Lanefan]

He's the equivalent of a mayor of a town. He's virtually a zero level human, to put it in a context you'll immediately get. And he has a cadre of guards at his disposal that are probably pretty rank and file "human guard/bandit" types.

That's quite bit different than a King and his retinue, which is the context I first read this in (and which IMO would make for better discussion: attacking a King whose word really is the law is somewhat more all-or-nothing than attacking some minor local noble-wannabe).

Which now has me wondering: if he and his guards are so pathetic how did the PCs ever manage to blow their shot at taking him out?

Yes, I get that the end result is the same. Do you see how the means to that end is different for each example as I explained? How one will play out per the rules regardless of who is in the DM chair, and the other will vary wildly depending on who is in the DM chair? Would you agree with that? If not, why not?

System differences aside, I would agree with that; and go on to say it's not that much of a problem.

Physical stuff like dealing with a trap plays out by the mechanics we use to replace doing it for real. But social stuff not so much, and as the mad tyrant is a character his reaction to being threatened is going to come under 'social'.

Each DM who runs that module is going to, from the information given, develop his-her own idea of what makes that mad-tyrant guy tick and play him accordingly. One DM might play up the 'mad' aspect and have the guy start giggling uncontrollably at the sight of a drawn weapon. Another DM might play up the 'tyrant' part and have him sic his guards on the PCs at the very first sign of disrespect. A third DM might see him as a typical bully - all bluster and no real bravery - who at first sight of a weapon drawn against him breaks down into a cowering mess.

All are valid; though I suspect the 'average' of all might end up trending a bit toward the 'tyrant' version.

Hell, some editions said we didn't "need" skills.

To the extent that 3e-4e-5e took them, I'd agree.

I think that people have mentioned that mechanics can help in these cases because so much of what happened was well within the power of the DM to determine.....and yet, the DM is at least partially dissatisfied with the end result. But there were many points where he had influence on how things would play out. Plenty of them. So being dissatisfied with the end result, to me, indicates that something should have been done differently.

This to me conflates two separate and disconnected issues: mechanics use and end satisfaction.

Sure, what happened from the NPC side was completely within the DM's power to control. And in hindsight maybe the DM wasn't too pleased with what he-she did with it and how it all shook down - we've probably all had those moments more often that we'd care to admit - but that's much the same as a DM making any other call and later realizing it could have been done better: live with it and move on.

Had some systemized mechanics been used there's nothing saying they couldn't have led to the exact same outcome, and what then? Does the DM blame the mechanics for leading to an unsatisfactory result?

 

[Retreater]

Isn’t there a former Baroness working against the baron in Vallaki? She can hire/protect the party. Heck she even wants the mayor dead for his madness.

Now... the things she wants... “gulp”

Yep. And earlier in the same session they went to talk to the Burgomaster, the same hot-headed player scoffed at her idea to work together and said he didn't want to put "the greater evil" in power, effectively ending negotiations with her too. The party tried to talk down the affront but basically told her, "we're going to go talk to the Burgomaster and see if he's really that bad." And then the exchange I described in the first post happened immediately afterwards.

 

[Retreater]

That's quite bit different than a King and his retinue, which is the context I first read this in (and which IMO would make for better discussion: attacking a King whose word really is the law is somewhat more all-or-nothing than attacking some minor local noble-wannabe).

Which now has me wondering: if he and his guards are so pathetic how did the PCs ever manage to blow their shot at taking him out?

They absolutely could have, had they been working together and not with different goals in the encounter. Had they discussed it before going there, saying they were going to attack him and be done with it, they certainly could've pulled it off and been justified in doing so. My issue wasn't "was the action right or possible to do" it was "how do I (as the DM) maintain some believability after a brazen insult to an unhinged ruler and failed assassination attempt?"
The crazed mayor was even behaving cordial and polite to his guests until things went to pot. The hot-headed player just completely snapped out of the blue when the mayor was describing how his festival was going to bring happiness to the people of his village and drive away evil (a crazy idea, but one the party knew he had been advertising throughout the town.)
At this stage, I'd say the party has severely mucked up their chances of finding allies in Vallaki (if you know the adventure). The one group in the village who could possibly side with them (the wereravens) probably won't want to side with such an unstable group who blurt out the first thing that pops into their heads, thus completely outing them to the nefarious agents of Strahd.
But basically we have two loose cannons (my longtime friend - the hot-headed player, the sorcerer who blasted everyone as soon as he came back after missing a session), two players who want to proceed with caution and get invested in their characters and try to behave realistically, and a third player who's just there for fun and wants to keep the party together (the would-be assassin).

 

[Umbran]

I'm an actions have consequences type of DM and even I endorse your message above.

Yeah. These are not at all exclusive things. Talk to your players, work with them so that everyone's on board with the expectations and genre conventions. Then, you are well set for "actions have consequences", because the players are making informed decisions.

 

[prabe]

But basically we have two loose cannons (my longtime friend - the hot-headed player, the sorcerer who blasted everyone as soon as he came back after missing a session), two players who want to proceed with caution and get invested in their characters and try to behave realistically, and a third player who's just there for fun and wants to keep the party together (the would-be assassin).

Maybe they need to split the party when they try to engage in ways the loose cannon/s can foul up? The groups I GM for do that, though that's more about dealing with two things at once than keeping Team Getting Into Trouble away from Serious Interactions.

 

[Retreater]

Yeah. These are not at all exclusive things. Talk to your players, work with them so that everyone's on board with the expectations and genre conventions. Then, you are well set for "actions have consequences", because the players are making informed decisions.

Yeah, we had a discussion of that before we started the campaign, but perhaps it wasn't stated emphatically enough. Hopefully the email after the last session got the point home (I'll find out at tomorrow night's session, I guess). If not, I'll suggest transitioning to either a different adventure to fit their play style or encourage one of them to DM. I know that two of the players emailed me separately to complain about the actions of another two players, and that's not a formula for a happy group.

 

[Retreater]

Maybe they need to split the party when they try to engage in ways the loose cannon/s can foul up? The groups I GM for do that, though that's more about dealing with two things at once than keeping Team Getting Into Trouble away from Serious Interactions.

Right. I suggested the two more cautious players to sign in for a solo (duo?) gaming session, full of roleplay, to try to smooth out what happened in the town and to try to create relationships with the NPCs that their characters already know. And if not that, maybe just a simple "tell me what you want to do" email and I'll handwave it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This has the hallmarks of a common problem, both in printed adventures and in homebrew: the personalities involved are meant to be an interesting encounter but are written in a fixed state, leaving no real out from the initial situation. Here, Vallaki is meant to be in flux -- there are factions vying for control and looking for the PCs to be the fulcrum. The problem is that none of them are appealing and any attempt to strike a different option leads to a fixed outcome of alienation from the town. Overthrow the Burgomaster? Can only be done by violence, and if you don't have the Lady's support, the town turns on you. Even standing up to the Burgomaster has a scripted event where the townsfolk support the Burgomaster. The same townsfolk that are oppressed by him.

I understand that Barovia is meant to be dark and dismal and twisted, but this is a no-win situation for the PCs, especially if approached via the social pillar. It either forces you to accept a bad status quo, work with worse people to start a new, worse status quo, or do what PCs do -- fight, which is a very bad option.

I so wish adventure designers would stop thinking they're so clever by putting in these 'compromise' situations. So many don't play to compromise, but to triumph over evil, and these things always cause problems.

 

[Fenris-77]

Forcing players to choose between two unpalatable options is fine, especially at the outset. It often results in pretty good roleplaying and some deep thought. Consequences that matter, right? If they decide they want to fight, that's awesome, I'd probably pick that option, but you need a plan in place. If you just rush in tromping about in your big boots, you're decidedly less likely to get what you want.

The scripted responses in the module are a tool, not an inevitability. Actions on the part of the PCs can and should change the fiction state, and it's on the DM to work that out. It would be nice if the writing supported what that might look like, but it's not exactly rocket science. You shouldn't treat the module like a straight jacket.

 

[Manbearcat]

This has the hallmarks of a common problem, both in printed adventures and in homebrew: the personalities involved are meant to be an interesting encounter but are written in a fixed state, leaving no real out from the initial situation. Here, Vallaki is meant to be in flux -- there are factions vying for control and looking for the PCs to be the fulcrum. The problem is that none of them are appealing and any attempt to strike a different option leads to a fixed outcome of alienation from the town. Overthrow the Burgomaster? Can only be done by violence, and if you don't have the Lady's support, the town turns on you. Even standing up to the Burgomaster has a scripted event where the townsfolk support the Burgomaster. The same townsfolk that are oppressed by him.

I understand that Barovia is meant to be dark and dismal and twisted, but this is a no-win situation for the PCs, especially if approached via the social pillar. It either forces you to accept a bad status quo, work with worse people to start a new, worse status quo, or do what PCs do -- fight, which is a very bad option.

I so wish adventure designers would stop thinking they're so clever by putting in these 'compromise' situations. So many don't play to compromise, but to triumph over evil, and these things always cause problems.

Good post and thanks for the context.

Again, this goes back to “if all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.”

If D&D had robust, player-facing mechanics that allowed players to make informed decision-points, engage noncombat action resolution mechanics with teeth, and feel the weight of those decisions/actions and their mechanical output (including quantitative gain and fallout) within a complex faction game inside a sandbox setting, “resort to violence and engage the combat mechanics” wouldn’t be as commonplace.

Or we can just keep blaming players (when the reality is, this “always degenerate to violence” paradigm doesn’t happen in games that feature the above tech/ethos).