Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Fenris-77]

@Manbearcat, I'm enjoying the Dungeon World crypto-cheerleading in your post above. I also agree completely. The flimsy nature of the non-combat action mechanics in D&D are certainly a barrier to realizing certain styles of gameplay, at least in my experience. I'm always striking a balance between hacking 5E to suit my desires, and not just turning it into another game (like DW, or Blades, or, or, or).

 

[MGibster]

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.”

Both times I ran Curse of Strahd I told the players beforehand they should make an effort to speak to NPCs and creatures they wouldn't normally be inclined to speak to in other campaigns. I also made it clear they could run into encounters they were not leveled to deal with so they should tread lightly.

 

[Umbran]

You shouldn't treat the module like a straight jacket.

You shouldn't. But... where are you supposed to learn how not to?

 

[Fenris-77]

You shouldn't. But... where are you supposed to learn how not to?

That is a fair point. Some of the material in the core books kind of suggests that the game should be run like that, but it's not terribly specific. The module certainly could have contained a broader range of options.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Which is why in D&D (non-4E) games, I almost always play a spellcaster; that's the only way to ensure I have access to a formalized power structure that isn't contingent on negotiation.

 

[Maxperson]

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).

The text box in these modules is just the default state of things. It can still be changed by the players/PCs. If the players don't bother to do anything and just attack, yes the town will support the ruler. Same if the DM literally cant think outside of the text box. If you have players who come up with ways to change the minds of the townsfolk and work at it, and a halfway competent DM, you aren't going to be limited to just the narrow path the module lays out.

It looks like you only have a hammer if the players choose to look at it that way. If they bother to check their mental backpacks, they will find other tools waiting there to be used.

 

[Maxperson]

You shouldn't. But... where are you supposed to learn how not to?

The DMG. It's full of advice on how the rules serve the DM, not other way around, how to change things, altering NPC reactions, etc.

 

[Maxperson]

That is a fair point. Some of the material in the core books kind of suggests that the game should be run like that, but it's not terribly specific. The module certainly could have contained a broader range of options.

Or just a paragraph in the front telling the DM that it's okay to change things to fit the situation and not feel bound to follow the text to the letter.

 

[iserith]

The DMG. It's full of advice on how the rules serve the DM, not other way around, how to change things, altering NPC reactions, etc.

Nobody reads the DMG, especially DMs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Actually, I kinda think presenting multiple bad options as decided by the GM without player choices leading into them as not really consequences that matter -- if your option is choose this consequence or that one and you didn't get a say in being in that spot to begin with, it's not much of a consequence so much as the GM fiat enforcing a situation.

Now, I get what you're aiming at, I think, which is that hard choices are okay, and I agree. I don't think the presentation of Vallaki is a reasonable hard choice, though, as there's no way through the written material that achieves any good outcome and most result in the town turning against you. And, as you say, the fact that it's written this way in the module is not a requirement for a GM to run it that way, but that expects not the usual level of customization necessary but that you will wholly rewrite something that a professional presented. That's a high hurdle. Granted, I pretty much read anything pre-written by someone else and gut it, taking only the bits I like, but I've got that experience. The point of a module is that these things are supposedly written by a professional and present a reasonable situation.