Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[chaochou]

I'm sorr,y but consequences for situations this dire are not supposed to "fun", at least not for the players...

Snipped for the sake of sanity, and repeating such appalling rubbish.

This advice Is beyond bad. Its like anti-roleplaying.

It’s what to do if you aspire to be the worst GM ever.

 

[Numidius]

Inconsiderate? Are you kidding me? Attempted regicide is "inconsiderate"? omfg

Ah ah! Not exactly a king, btw. Moreover when when a missing PC arrived put the guards on fire by magic Just like that

 

[billd91]

Ah ah! Not exactly a king, btw. Moreover when when a missing PC arrived put the guards on fire by magic Just like that

True, not exactly a king. But if Myth Master hadn't been following the thread religiously and learned it was a burgomaster, it's certainly not a stretch to assume "mad tyrant" meant someone of a kingly level. When the thread started, I assumed it was a king as well. But still, laying hands on one with a blade in order to take him hostage is not likely to lead to good results.

And in response to the idea of making the issue/consequences "fun" - it's incumbent on the players to also work to make situations fun. You give fun input, you should get fun output. Put with problematic input, maybe the outcome isn't going to be so much fun... now. But it might end up being a fun table tale in later years as long as it ends up being memorable. I'm guessing being held in the stocks and executed could have been one of those memorable moments.

 

[Fenris-77]

Probably, yeah. I am not criticizing the DMG for not having it. There's only so much you can put in one book.

But, that also means that one cannot expect that folks will just do the thing that seems obvious, but isn't really covered in any depth in the book, because maybe nobody taught them how.

Both fair points. The DMG could have had this, but I'm not really criticizing it for not having it. Not specifically in regards to handling published modules anyway. I do perhaps have some criticism for the DMG for not having a clearer statement of what it means to DM, and what range of actions and responsibilities that entails I suppose. When I look at similar sections from other games its a page or three at most, and considering how central it is to the game, I think room could have been found for it. You're right though, if no one tells a new DM they can, and should, do X in situation Y, then one cannot expect that DM to simply divine that option from reading the Aethric currents or the entrails of a goat. That's why it's good to have sites like this one, where a new DM can post questions and have them answered by a slew of grumpy and disreputable looking veterans.

 

[pemerton]

I just want the consequences of their actions to have ramifications and I don't want to coddle them if they make rash decisions.

I don't see how it would be "coddling" to use action resolution mechanics to see what happens when the PCs disagree with and then threaten the NPC.

in response to the idea of making the issue/consequences "fun" - it's incumbent on the players to also work to make situations fun. You give fun input, you should get fun output. Put with problematic input, maybe the outcome isn't going to be so much fun... now. But it might end up being a fun table tale in later years as long as it ends up being memorable. I'm guessing being held in the stocks and executed could have been one of those memorable moments.

I've never met an RPGer who plays the game so as to have memories years later of the time when their PC was executed because the GM decided that was what made sense.

 

[pemerton]

True, not exactly a king. But if Myth Master hadn't been following the thread religiously and learned it was a burgomaster, it's certainly not a stretch to assume "mad tyrant" meant someone of a kingly level. When the thread started, I assumed it was a king as well. But still, laying hands on one with a blade in order to take him hostage is not likely to lead to good results.

In real life, mediaeval kings were killed in battle and were taken hostage (I'm thinking of King Richard as an example of the latter).

In fantasy literature, kings are killed (eg Conan killed the king of Aquilonia and thereby became king himself). Or not always obeyed - Denethor (a steward who is functionally a king) is disobeyed by Pippin and Gandalf and they are not executed. And one of his guard - Beregond - joins them in that disobedience.

This is why I find the idea that it would be "unrealistic" or "incoherent" for the players to succeed in the OP's situation, or for the guards to do something other than just obey the commands given, quite unwarranted.

So, Tolkien was a scholar, and he put a lot of thought and work into his setting. He was neither a master of prose nor a particularly good storyteller. I don't remember LotR being particularly coherent--I remember lots of "singing," and I remember a sense that everything putatively important that happened, I learned about by one character telling another.

On the issue of LotR's coherence, I'll refer you to Shippey's The Road to Middle Earth and leave it at that.

The idea that something has gone wrong in a FRPG if it has moments that resemble LotR - to me that seems ridiculous!

 

[Umbran]

I don't see how it would be "coddling" to use action resolution mechanics to see what happens when the PCs disagree with and then threaten the NPC.

Players are supposed to make informed choices of the chances and consequences, right? Then the argument of using action resolution is only solid if the players knew about the resolution mechanics before they chose their actions. Since they were not in play at the time their actions were declared, instituting them afterwards would be just another DM whim.

So, at best your point becomes "you should only play games where the reaction of NPCs is based on action resolution." Which.. is kind of One True Wayist.

 

[jasper]

Nobody reads the DMG, especially DMs.

Liar lair lair pants on fire. I read it cover to cover during the second week of the lockdown. Yes I was bored.

 

[chaochou]

But still, laying hands on one with a blade in order to take him hostage is not likely to lead to good results.

And yet where the likelihood of things is in doubt you seem incapable of accepting the use of mecanical resolution, rather than GM railroading, to determine outcomes. Why am I not surprised?

 

[pemerton]

I would run this with the DMG's social interaction rules which would lend it some structure. If the players are just talking to NPCs, that to me is exposition or possibly color and no mechanics are necessary. If either party wants something from the other that it might not get, then the social interaction rules come into play.

This sounds pretty sensible to me. Although in some contexts (and some systems - I know you've got 5e D&D in mind but our thinking about RPGing can be helped by a range of comparisons) I think it can make sense to see if a NPC is spontaneously hostile or generous. A related idea is @Hriston upthread referring to setting the baseline attitude via random roll.

a player could choose to play a PC who throws the tyrant's offer back in his face scornfully - but should he not expect to suffer the predictable consequences? Or should those consequences be unrelated to the established nature of the tyrant or not based on the scornful rejection? If they are, then what's the point of knowing anything or even trying to make rational choices?

<snip>

I don't assume it's a question of inferring what the DM is thinking. A meaningful choice is one that is taken with a reasonable understanding of the expected consequences - consequences that will be distinct from the ones you'd face if you made a significantly different choice. If the outcome isn't related to the choice being made, like the thin-skinned tyrant just laughing it off when insulted or the guards were too drunk to make an arrest, what kind of meaning would it have?

I've highlighted two noun phrases. Where is it it established that the tyrant will respond to scornful rejection by calling for the guards? As far as I can tell, in the mind of the GM. Nowhere else. This is what the players are expected to infer.

What makes a choice meaningful, in my view, is not the consequence that follows from it but the fact that it engages the fiction and tries to push it forward in a distinctive way. That's why choosing to confront the tyrant rather than go along with him is meaningful; just as the other choice would be also.

As for the idea that the GM has to insist that the tyrant has obedient guards ready to hand because otherwise s/he could not impose the "meaningful consequence" of being arrested by them after the tyrant callis for them when confronted: how is that anything but circular reasoning to justify a railroad? If the module writer hadn't included them, then the GM would have to write them in or else who know what the players might get away with!

Because in 5E the DM gets to decide. Maybe he's decided the Mad Tyrant is too Mad (MAD I TELL YOU) to be cowed. In combat I believe the DM has a good deal less freedom to opt-out of die-rolling.

If the DM cannot decide, or chooses not to decide, randomizing options is a valid way of deciding. If the DM can decide and does, so is that.

<snip>

While in 5E, the DM can decide whether an ability check needs to be rolled (can determine auto-success or auto-failure) they cannot do so with attack rolls--and a nat 20 is a success regardless of the target's AC. Deciding the orc captain is unhittable is against the rules of the game; deciding he cannot be placated is not.

So I had a quick look at the Basic PDF for 5e.

On pp 57-58, 62 I found this:

Each of a creature’s abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature’s training and competence in activities related to that ability. . . . An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. . . .​

​

Each ability covers a broad range of capabilities, including skills that a character or a monster can be proficient in. A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual’s proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect. . . .​

​

Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality. . . . A Charisma check might arise when you try to influence or entertain others, when you try to make an impression or tell a convincing lie, or when you are navigating a tricky social situation. . . .​

​

When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. . . . When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check.​

Now it's true that p 58 also says that "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." But I would take it as obvious that the GM is meant to make that decision havng regard to the text I already quoted, as well as to what will make for satisfying play.

So the GM might decide (say) that it is impossible to influence a zombie or skeleton via threats, because they are mindless undead which have no heed to their own physical integrity. Or the GM might decide that an otyugh is not amenable to influence via tact or social graces, because it's an otyugh. But nothing there suggests to me that the GM should decide that an ordinary human being can't be influenced because the GM thinks it would make for a better story if that doesn't happen. Or because the GM thinks it would make more sense for the NPC not to be influenced.