Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[iserith]

I'm not sure what you think the force of the bolded can is here. Maybe there's some GM somewhere who makes those decisions based on a coin-toss. I don't think anyone would advocate that as good GMing, thoiugh. In this thread I'm not asserting that any rule was broken. I'm asserting that the system has ways to resolve the sort of action described in the OP, and that gameplay is likely to be better - more fun, more dynamic, with more player satisfaction - if those resolution mechanics are used.

I assert that may be so or it may not be. It depends.

As far as this particular case, given that - per the OP - the upshot was one player apologising to the GM for "ruining the campaign." I'm going to conjecture that everyone did not have a good time creating an exciting and memorable story.

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps on the whole they did. Or maybe this one outcome ruined it. It's for the OP to say. You seem to be asserting that it is likely to have been better if they had just employed some Charisma checks. That is far from certain in my view even if I would have personally used the DMG's social interaction rules for this challenge. (And even if I did, there's no guarantee there'd be any ability checks either.)

And what you said didn't seem to add anything to what I had already posted in the thread. You quoted me saying "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 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." Which bit of that do you disagree with? Clearly not the stuff on the right of the ellipsis, given that you have simply gone on to repeat it. The stuff on the left side? You think the GM is not meant to have regard to the rest of the rules, including what ability scores represent, in making decisions about whether or not a check should be called for?

What I did was point out some rules you left out, likely because you don't play D&D 5e to my knowledge and as a result don't read the D&D 5e DMG. Those rules state that the DM decides if something has an uncertain outcome, full stop. Tasks don't have an uncertain outcomes or meaningful consequences for failure by default. And if you're going to say there should have been some Charisma checks here and quote rules to make your case, you can't leave out the rules that say it's up to the DM to decide that if the task qualifies for a check. Not without making an argument that is full of holes.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the following, on p 2 of the Basic PDF, is relevant.:

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.​

​

​

​

I've bolded a couple of words that I think are especially salient. It is everyone together who create a memorable and exciting story. It seems to me that that is highly relevant to a GM wondering what decision to make about what is and is not possible in relation to action resolution.

So creating the story together simply refers to the back and forth between the players and the DM. The player states his action, and the DM narrates the result. Whether that result involved a roll or was decided upon by the DM does not alter that together they created the story. Now, ideally everyone is having fun, but I know of no one that I play with who would enjoy allowing utterly ridiculous results like the one I described in my last response to you. Similarly, I've never met anyone who would be upset when I didn't allow the PC a roll to jump a 3 mile wide canyon.

I further think that a GM who never permits a CHA check at any moment of crisis or confrontation, because s/he has always already pre-decided how an NPC might react, is not playing the game in the spirit that the Basic PDF presents.

Holy Strawman Batman! How the hell did you get from, "I know when something like an absolutely ridiculous result would be an auto fail." to "never permitting a check."? I know that the merchant won't under any possible circumstances be persuaded by a CHA check to give away his entire store and warehouse inventory to a PC he has never met. I do not know whether or not he will give the PC a 2 copper candy for free. One gets a roll and the other doesn't.

 

[Fenris-77]

@pemerton - I might disagree about evidence for bad faith play. From the description, at least part of the player decision making stemmed form boredom. That doesn't always result in bad faith play, but it certainly can. So we're at least in the right ballpark. Also, the lack of interest in and interaction with the variety of lifelines subsequently thrown by the DM also could index bad faith play. I'm not suggesting that bad faith is the case, only that there is enough circumstantial evidence for the possibility that the idea is worth bringing into the discussion.

I don't think 'not breaking any rules' moves the inquiry forward either, which is why I though we might switch the conversation from right and wrong to good and bad, although I might now push that even further to useful and not useful. What we're really talking about the is use of the latitude provided the DM by the rules. Also at issue, and why I came back to my point above, is that adjudication is fine, but the conversation that moves the fiction forward has two sides, and the DM can only control his half. So we are also talking about good and bad, and useful and not useful, in terms of player engagement with the outcome of adjudication. The extent to which 'good GMing", whatever that exactly is, might have avoided this mess is also dependent on player response, which seems to have been an issue.

 

[Lanefan]

I think the following, on p 2 of the Basic PDF, is relevant.:

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.​

I've bolded a couple of words that I think are especially salient. It is everyone together who create a memorable and exciting story. It seems to me that that is highly relevant to a GM wondering what decision to make about what is and is not possible in relation to action resolution.

Nice in theory.

In practice, unless a DM happens to have a group of players who all think the same (or only has one player) and-or who consistently enjoy an extremely similar style of play, it's inevitable that from time to time situations are going to arise where no matter what happens next someone's not going to have fun. The original example around the mad tyrant may be one of these: talking to him isn't fun for some, attacking him isn't fun for others, and walking out of the encounter completely isn't fun for the DM.

Players (and DMs) don't necessarily always want the same things from the game, either in general (overall style) or on specific nights (temporary mood).

And while on hearing this some here will immediately jump to saying those who want something different should find - or start - their own game, that's not always possible, feasible, or desirable. My take on it is if you're having fun keep at it; and if you're not having fun either a) assume that lack of fun will be a temporary state* and suck it up or b) find a way to make it fun. Personally, I strongly recommend b).

* - particularly true if the campaign up to now has been fun and you've simply sailed into a hole.

 

[prabe]

@pemerton - I might disagree about evidence for bad faith play. From the description, at least part of the player decision making stemmed form boredom. That doesn't always result in bad faith play, but it certainly can. So we're at least in the right ballpark. Also, the lack of interest in and interaction with the variety of lifelines subsequently thrown by the DM also could index bad faith play. I'm not suggesting that bad faith is the case, only that there is enough circumstantial evidence for the possibility that the idea is worth bringing into the discussion.

The OP has, I think, described the player as "probably bored" and "a long-time friend." I get the feeling the play was more impulsive/thoughtless, followed by a species of stubborn, than it was malicious. Whether that qualifies it as bad-faith play may depend on who's deciding.

I don't think 'not breaking any rules' moves the inquiry forward either, which is why I though we might switch the conversation from right and wrong to good and bad, although I might now push that even further to useful and not useful. What we're really talking about the is use of the latitude provided the DM by the rules. Also at issue, and why I came back to my point above, is that adjudication is fine, but the conversation that moves the fiction forward has two sides, and the DM can only control his half. So we are also talking about good and bad, and useful and not useful, in terms of player engagement with the outcome of adjudication. The extent to which 'good GMing", whatever that exactly is, might have avoided this mess is also dependent on player response, which seems to have been an issue.

Yeah. If you've telegraphed something about an NPC, you have less latitude as a GM, I think, when the players push that NPC's buttons. I also think there's a limit to how hard a GM should work to protect the characters from the consequences of the players' choices--and attacking someone with the authority and disposition to have you executed is a choice.

 

[Fenris-77]

I would probably characterize thoughtless play at a key moment as bad faith play, yeah. It doesn't need to be malicious, any actions taken without thought for the table, and/or for reasons other than the fiction and the rest of the players is headed in that direction. Maybe something different that 'bad faith' would characterize that better, I just couldn't think of a different term that worked for me.

 

[prabe]

My take on this is that players have to change their conceptions of their PCs all the time - eg I might conceive of my bold warrior as indomitable, but if I fail my save against a dragon's frightful presence, it turns out I'm not as inomitable as I thought!

Given how much more peripheral to the GM any given NPC is, compared to the PC as the core of the players' engagement with the fiction and experience of the game, I would expect a GM to be able to handle similar sorts of things.

Sure, characters grow. Players come to an understanding of their characters that changes as a result of in-game experiences. IMO this is usually a good thing (one of the characters I'm playing continues to surprise me).

That's not the same thing (or it doesn't seem to me to be the same thing) as having the world react to the PCs in a way that breaks my suspension of disbelief. If it's not believable to me that the Mad Tyrant would do anything other than make a serious effort to execute the PCs who insulted and attacked him, he's going to make that effort to do that. If he has the resources to do it (this place isn't all that well-off, as I understand it, so he might not) the PCs are going to find it very difficult to escape without outside help, which might also not be believable if it has to come from outside the party.

 

[prabe]

I would probably characterize thoughtless play at a key moment as bad faith play, yeah. It doesn't need to be malicious, any actions taken without thought for the table, and/or for reasons other than the fiction and the rest of the players is headed in that direction. Maybe something different that 'bad faith' would characterize that better, I just couldn't think of a different term that worked for me.

I get it. I don't have a better descriptor close-to-hand than "bad-faith," either. I guess there's an extent thing: there' a difference between play that might end a campaign and play that might end a friendship, but they both might reasonably be described as "bad faith."

 

[hawkeyefan]

And if the DM is running a module in which it clearly states that triggering the trap results in a no-save death (e.g. a 10'-cube chunk of roof falls on the PC who is in a 10x10' room), then what?

Well, they generally don't make traps that work that way anymore that I'm aware of, and in my opinion that's a good thing. If I was running such a module, perhaps an older one converted to 5E, then I'd alter that to give some kind of save or check, or otherwise make it very clear that there is a very certain outcome at risk.

And I think that stance probably also explains why I don't like the idea of PCs being executed without significant chance for the players to affect the outcome through actions and rolls.

True. I'm merely trying to find a basis for comparison here, to put the trap and the kill-the-king on the same footing.

If I put it as each event results in save-or-die rather than just die, are we closer?

I'm not a fan of save or die, generally speaking. Especially when there's a range of possibilities available.

So I think my stance on consequences was called into question....and I think that maybe it's a matter of punishment versus consequence? Or maybe consequence for character versus player, as you and I touched on earlier. I'm not as concerned with consequence for the player.

I am all for meaningful consequence for the characters. But there are any number of consequences....degrees of potential consequences....that we could assign to the situation. I think going to imprisonment followed by execution is a bit of a case of jumping the gun, and I'd only do so if I thought it would be compelling to do so, and if I knew there were ways to continue playing.

I disagree (with a caveat, see below); in that the DM has to be allowed to play her NPCs in a manner consistent with who and what they are - just like players have to be similarly allowed to play their PCs.

Here, the guy already has a reputation of being "the mad tyrant" and - one hopes - has already shown signs of living up to that reputation while the PCs have been in town. They know what they're up against; and if they choose to attack him anyway and fail, their fate is no longer their own.

The caveat: if the PCs had never heard of this guy before first meeting him and thus didn't know his reputation etc. one of two things would happen: if the PCs talked with him at all I'd make sure it was obvious he was both competely unstable and prone to fits of violence; if they attacked him on first sight only then would I resort to dice.

Well, sure, a GM should play the NPCs as he thinks is appropriate, similar to PCs. But the outcomes of their actions are what we're talking about. If there's risk of failure, then rolls are needed.

I think establishing stakes is a big part of players making meaningful choices, so I agree with you there. They need to know the situation, and if they don't already, then the GM should try to display that for them in some way, barring some kind of attack on sight situation.

Good question, and probably to no surprise I'd lean - often fairly strongly - toward "faith to the fiction".

In a long sprawling campaign like what I run, internal consistency becomes far more important than in a one-shot or even a hard-line AP; which means sacrificing that long-term internal consistency for the sake of a here-and-now moment in the story isn't something I'm going to want to do very often.

It's not about short or long term. It's about favoring the internal consistency of the fiction over people enjoying themselves. That's not something I want to do. Ideally, there's no need to choose, but if it comes up, then I have to prioritize the play experience.

This all just sounds like the role of the mechanics is simply to cover the DM's butt if things go wrong.....

I suppose that could be the case. I mean, if things go wrong in my game, I'm sure that I'm at least partially to blame, and I don't think that I would try and avoid blame in such a case. But I think a lot of times, it's easier for a player to accept something happening as a result of the dice than as a result of DM choice.

I suppose it depends on what you think the mechanics are for, I guess.

 

[Hoffmand]

I would have just had combat on the spot and let the combat play out. If they were subdued and placed in prison for some form of trial I would ask myself based on the description of the mad king, what would Stalin, Mao, ghengis khan, or hitler do. And treat the players accordingly. But in any campaign have ever run (few exceptions) the guards would have killed them on the spot. And the Kings guards and attending nobleman are normally badass in combat. That’s how they become Kings and knights.