Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[prabe]

{snip}
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 influenced.

Three things.

First, I don't think I said that the DM had to decide the NPC in this case couldn't be persuaded not to have the PCs executed. I think my position has been pretty consistent that the DM could decide that, and has rules support to do so. Whether it's good or bad DMing is probably a matter of taste.

Second, the rules you quoted strongly imply the possibility that the outcome might not be uncertain. The judgment on that is left to the DM. Do you think it doesn't make sense that a Mad Tyrant might not be in a mental place to listen to reason after being insulted then attacked in his chambers?

Third, I think it's possible the DM has allowed the Mad Tyrant to be placated somewhat--he didn't have the other PCs arrested, after all, after what the OP described as (probably paraphrasing) "excellent die rolls and good roleplay."

 

[Umbran]

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?

Mod Note:

If you want to make this personal, you can be removed from the discussion right now to save everyone a lot of time and annoyance.

 

[iserith]

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.

It's a D&D 5e adventure.

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.

DMG, p. 237 goes on to say that the DM decides if the proposed task falls somewhere between trivially easy and impossible and if there's a meaningful consequence for failure, then some kind of roll is appropriate. The DM decides whether those criteria were met. If the DM decides there either is not the case, then there's no roll and the DM proceeds to step 3 in the play loop which is the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Whether or not the DM analyzed this situation thoroughly before narrating, in this specific case, the DM effectively decided that achieving whatever goal the player had in mind via his stated approach was impossible. Thus, no roll. This is perfectly in line with the rules.

 

[billd91]

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?

The OP said the PC tried to grapple... and failed. That mechanical enough for you? I've been saying right along that the PCs could have tried something to escape their fate but that it should come from them not a deus ex machina. They didn't, expressly in at least one case. If the players aren't going to give the DM anything to go on, that seems pretty final to me.

What I do have a problem with is cooking up a mechanical resolution for determining the burgomaster's reaction to the PC-based effrontery when it's completely unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. He's already arresting malcontents and putting them in the stocks. Why would he do anything different? Why would it be better for that evidence to not be indicative of what the burgomaster would do if faced with the same opposition from the PCs?

 

[pemerton]

DMG, p. 237 goes on to say that the DM decides if the proposed task falls somewhere between trivially easy and impossible and if there's a meaningful consequence for failure, then some kind of roll is appropriate. The DM decides whether those criteria were met. If the DM decides there either is not the case, then there's no roll and the DM proceeds to step 3 in the play loop which is the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Whether or not the DM analyzed this situation thoroughly before narrating, in this specific case, the DM effectively decided that achieving whatever goal the player had in mind via his stated approach was impossible. Thus, no roll. This is perfectly in line with the rules.

My point is that the GM is not - as best I can tell - expected to make that decision arbitrarily, or without having regard to the rest of the rules which (among other things) tell us what ability scores represent and what ability checks are for.

I particularly don't see how the possibility of a meaningful consequence for failure - which there clearly was in this case - can be a basis for deciding that an action fails without calling for a check.

And I don't see that it is good GMing to decide that a task is impossible when there is no reason in genre or logic for it to be so, and when - as appeared to happen in this case - it will create a less-than-satsifactory experience to so decide.

First, I don't think I said that the DM had to decide the NPC in this case couldn't be persuaded not to have the PCs executed. I think my position has been pretty consistent that the DM could decide that, and has rules support to do so. Whether it's good or bad DMing is probably a matter of taste.

I thought the topic of this thread is - roughly, and perhaps among other things - what makes for good or bad GMing. As @hawkeyefan postred upthread, the OP has a hint at least that the GM wasn't fully satisfied with how things played out.

Nothing I've read in the Basic PDF suggests that the GM should make decisions in an unpricpled way. What are the principles? Well in the PDF p 2 says the following:

Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.​

For me, key words are together and everyone. The GM should be making decisions about when to allow a possibility of success having regard to the group nature of the roleplaying adventure. It doesn't seem consistent with those principles, to me at least, for a nefarious villain to end an adventurer's life because of a unilateral decision by a GM that a player's action declaration for his/her PC could not succeed. Not when the rules clearly provide a device for determining whether or not an attempt to influence a NPC succeeds - that is, by way of a CHA check.

the rules you quoted strongly imply the possibility that the outcome might not be uncertain. The judgment on that is left to the DM. Do you think it doesn't make sense that a Mad Tyrant might not be in a mental place to listen to reason after being insulted then attacked in his chambers?

Sure it might be possible. Equally it might not be so - maybe the tyrant can be influenced. That's what the dice roll is for. If the check fails, now we know that the tyrant is not in a mental place to listen to reason.

But the principles I just quotd don't say the GM should decide what is or isn't possible based on his/her sense of what is likely, let alone what is possible or what s/he wants to have happen. They talk about together creating an exciting and memorable story, and thereby having a good time.

The OP makes it clear that that episode of play did not lead unequivocally to everyone having a good time. Hence this thread. Hence my posts.

 

[Umbran]

Why would it be better for that evidence to not be indicative of what the burgomaster would do if faced with the same opposition from the PCs?

In fact, very specifically, if you are using mechanical resolution, you are supposed to inform the players of the stakes. That indication is doing exactly that - the players are informed that their life and liberty may be at stake. So, they already know what can happen if they choose poorly.

They chose poorly. In effect, they tried an intimidate check that the GM determined was not possible for them to succeed at - well within the GM's rights in mechanical resolution systems.

So, by the basics of mechanical resolution, we know something bad is going to happen to the PCs. This whole discussion is over exactly which bad thing the GM will choose to apply - it isn't like mechanical resolution would say, in detail, "He throws them in the stocks," or, "He has them flogged," or, "He has them executed at dawn." A mechanical resolution would typically say, "They failed badly. Figure out what that reasonably means in your fiction."

This entire discussion seems really to be about that last step, while several of you are arguing several steps prior.

Edit to add: I can totally see this scene happenign just as described in a Fate game that had a social stress track - in which this is certainly a mechanical determination. The PCs enter a conflict, start to lose. Two of them concede (and negotiate a retreat, failing to get what htey want, but get away with their lives), the other two get Taken Out. This specifically and explicitly gives their opposition the choice of what ultimately happens to them - they can die, or not. GM's choice.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

It's easy enough to tell someone on the internet to go kill the characters for their crimes. It's another for the DM to do so with players that are likely friends in varying degrees. Sure, character death can be fun in the hands of a good DM and player, but most of the time, it's a bummer. If people aren't having fun (and granted, this should also include the DM), why are they going to play in that DM's game? Gone are the days when a person is stuck in a game because they're the only DM available.

Sure, throw them in jail, awaiting execution. Then give them the opportunity for an exciting jailbreak. If you really want to chop off their hand, you could do so, but then have them hear about a magical prosthetic to quest for. As long as you have the trust of your players, you can have these sorts of highs and lows. But just killing off the characters, that's hard to come back from, even with that player trust.

I'm sorry, but consequences for situations this dire are not supposed to "fun", at least not for the players who jumped feet-first into this insane act.

 

[Maxperson]

My point is that the GM is not - as best I can tell - expected to make that decision arbitrarily, or without having regard to the rest of the rules which (among other things) tell us what ability scores represent and what ability checks are for.

I particularly don't see how the possibility of a meaningful consequence for failure - which there clearly was in this case - can be a basis for deciding that an action fails without calling for a check.

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.

Simply being human does not mean that there is always some small chance success. If the DM thinks that it makes more sense that there is no chance, then there is no chance. Other rules in the game are not relevant to that decision as such a decision is based on the DM's knowledge of the NPC.

For example, I don't care how good a talker your PC is, you are not going to have a roll to persuade the merchant you just met to give you the contents of his store and warehouse for free. There is no other rule that has any bearing on that. It simply makes more sense that you have no chance to achieve such a nonsensical result, so you get no roll.

 

[iserith]

My point is that the GM is not - as best I can tell - expected to make that decision arbitrarily, or without having regard to the rest of the rules which (among other things) tell us what ability scores represent and what ability checks are for.

I particularly don't see how the possibility of a meaningful consequence for failure - which there clearly was in this case - can be a basis for deciding that an action fails without calling for a check.

And I don't see that it is good GMing to decide that a task is impossible when there is no reason in genre or logic for it to be so, and when - as appeared to happen in this case - it will create a less-than-satsifactory experience to so decide.

It may not be what you want to hear, but the DM can make the decision as to the uncertainty of the outcome or the existence of a meaningful consequence for failure by whatever means he or she wants. There is no roll except by the DM's leave. Different DMs will make different calls here and none would be wrong. Some calls may result in the group failing to achieve the goals of play - that is, everyone having a good time and creating an exciting, memorable story by playing - but we don't know that this is the case here.

 

[Fenris-77]

@iserith - Wrong? Maybe not, but better or worse? Sure, some of those DM calls will be better or worse, for a host of potential different reason. A lot depends on meeting the table expectations, maybe more than any particular opinion on example X or Y. If the DM makes a call that is in keeping with how play normally proceeds at the table he plays with, and is one that makes sense in terms of the pre-existing fictional context (i.e follows from the fiction) then it's probably a fine call, whether I personally agree with it or not. However, when the DM or the players depart from the table conventions things quickly start to unwind.

In pretty much every case the first litmus test I would use would be the question Does the ruling present interesting ways to move the fiction forward? If the answer is yes then the goals of play you list are probably being met. This does depend on the players buying in of course. One of things I don't really get about the situation in the OP is that several narrative lifelines were thrown to the PCs, with very little interest taken in them. That indexes a potential case of bad faith play, although without more specifics it is, as you say, hard to tell.