Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Maxperson]

holding your tongue isn’t an action. It’s doing nothing. A wizard confronted by a magic immune critter will not do nothing. There’s lots of other things for him to try.

I disagree. Holding your tongue is not doing nothing. In this context, it's just not being your normal insulting self. I'm a natural smart ass and I act that way in the vast majority of my interactions with people. When things get serious, though, I can with some effort edit myself so that I'm not being a smart ass. That's all that @Fanaelialae is saying here. The PC should have edited himself, sort of like a golem edits the wizard PC through its natural ability, requiring the wizard to play a bit differently.

 

[Maxperson]

“Smart play” carries a bit of a connotation that everything is a puzzle or obstacle that can be overcome if you do just the right actions.

in such a game it would surely be“smart play” to hold your tongue. But that doesn’t mean it’s fun play.

I think "smart play" just says that there is a best way or a few best ways to play the situation out, not that everything can be overcome by it. Sometimes the best way(smart play) just minimizes the damage of a bad situation, while dumb play(opposite of smart play I guess) will make it worse.

 

[Numidius]

well said. I would go a step further and this is probably one reason I’m not super fond of prewritten modules...

I think the NPCs should be ran in such a way that interacting with them will be fun for players that are playing to their PCs personalities. That may mean certain mad tyrant style NPCs aren’t a good fit to introduce into that campaign and that’s something I am okay with.

There’s too much a notion of this is my world and my NPCs and this is just how things are when it should be - how can I modify my world and these NPCs so that players playing these pcs will have a fun time.

And let's not forget Gm's also want to have fun.
Me, at least.
An impulsive action, a failed roll, are opportunities to bring on the entourage of the main npc and develop from there.

 

[Manbearcat]

This thread has moved along quite a bit. I've read most of the intervening posts, but quoting everything that provoked thought would make for a mess. So some thoughts:

1) Scripted social conflict where the players' role (through their PCs) is tip-toe around and cater to/placate the unidimensionality of an NPC in order to access a "content/info dump" completely subverts any idea that the PCs are protoganists with thematic interests that should emerge through and propel play. The only party with thematic interests that will emerge through and propel play in that model is the NPC! They become the protagonist for the conflict! If that is true (and I'm quite confident in that arithmetic), does anyone actually think that is a good model to follow for TTRPGing? If you do and you agree with that assessment above, I'd love to hear why.

2) Why would someone who writes an adventure EVER create a unidimensional NPC that must be dealt with in a very particular way? Even the most "paranoid strongmen" have nuance to them. They have a person (perhaps a few) that they secretly respect beyond all others from which admonishment is actually meaningful. They have regrets and shame that are buried away but are capable of being unlocked and brought to the fore. They have deep fears that can be made manifest that can have them press the nuclear option (flee or suicide). They have egos that are profoundly fragile and lacking resiliency such that a serious challenge and then a following through makes them question their autobiographical depiction of themselves in their heads.

Broadly in TTRPGing, I can think of many, many systems that can handle a hardened "paranoid strongman", retain the arrangement of "PCs as protagonists (and obstacles as antagonists)", whereby perhaps any combination of strongman changes/setting changes/one or more PCs change as a result of the PCs advocating for their thematic interests and the social conflict mechanics playing out to their conclusion.

Why can't/doesn't a GM arrange this strongman's Ideal, Bond and Flaw with something like the below:

Ideal - The people recognize my efforts are for their own good and they love me for it.
Bond - I trust the Captain of my Guard more than anyone in the world; perhaps more than myself.
Flaw - Reactionary narcissist.

So (a) if you have a PC that does exactly what the PC does in this game (calls him out for being a tyrant unworthy of ruling this people) and (b) the player succeeds on his Charisma check, why can't literally all 3 of these IBFs manifest as a result?

* The NPC calls for his Captain to arrest this fool. The Captain (who suddenly becomes the intersection of the PCs successful check, the Baron's Flaw, and the setting at large) pauses and says "...he says nothing different than what the people are saying in the safety and privacy of their homes sir...arresting him will not sanitize that image...it will further sully it." After which, the Baron clearly shrinks and blanches while he gathers himself (after which the GM will either reframe the conflict with his next move from the Baron or another NPC present, or a player can make a follow-up move to reframe things).

* The player has changed the gamestate functionally (the players can now use IBF machinery to leverage action resolution success for the rest of the social conflict) and interestingly while expressing a thematic interest (maintained protagonism), the NPC has changed as a result, the setting has emerged through actual play.

Why is what happened in the lead post preferrable to the above? For 5e D&D or any system?

 

[hawkeyefan]

well said. I would go a step further and this is probably one reason I’m not super fond of prewritten modules...

I think the NPCs should be ran in such a way that interacting with them will be fun for players that are playing to their PCs personalities. That may mean certain mad tyrant style NPCs aren’t a good fit to introduce into that campaign and that’s something I am okay with.

There’s too much a notion of this is my world and my NPCs and this is just how things are when it should be - how can I modify my world and these NPCs so that players playing these pcs will have a fun time.

I don't think I'd balk at introducing a NPC who may be hard to win over, or who may be easily provoked. But I think I'd do my best to
(a) make it clear that this NPC may be hard to win over or easily provoked
(b) not consider it unfavorable if he's not won over or is provoked

I wouldn't say it was entirely unjustified. The pc was not only rude, but also told him to his face that he was crazy AND unfit to rule. If the Baron really is crazy and kind of paranoid, then it makes sense that he would immediately have that player put in irons.

It is not how I would have ruled it though. Because it primes the situation for an escalation, which is exactly what happened. However, one of the players then chose to escalate the situation further by drawing a weapon. At that moment, their lives are forfeit.

I don't think it is wrong for a DM to present a social encounter where the players must walk on egg shells a bit, provided that it is foreshadowed and the players are aware they are walking on eggshells.

I think that there are two things that need to be considered here....the NPC's choice, and the GM's choice. The NPC may have a certain number of "acceptable" or "realistic" responses to any stimulus. The GM is the one responsible for choosing which of those to go with (or, alternatively, with following the process to determine the response per the game's resolution mechanics).

I think that the GM needs to always be considering the experience at the table and how it is going for everyone, and then should make his choice accordingly. So if you know you have a player who prefers combat and you know that the last couple of sessions have not had combat, the only way you should have the NPC call "Guards!" when insulted is if you are perfectly happy with a fight breaking out. If the GM thinks a fight is a bad idea....whether because the NPCs are too strong for the PCs, or because there are two other players who are engaged with the way things have been going....then you should probably consider a different "realistic" response.

I think you're right that it escalated things....and then they went even further. Which I think is fine in and of itself, but if other players are not happy, and hte GM is not happy, then I can't really stand by the decision to provoke that outcome.

I disagree. Holding your tongue is not doing nothing. In this context, it's just not being your normal insulting self. I'm a natural smart ass and I act that way in the vast majority of my interactions with people. When things get serious, though, I can with some effort edit myself so that I'm not being a smart ass. That's all that @Fanaelialae is saying here. The PC should have edited himself, sort of like a golem edits the wizard PC through its natural ability, requiring the wizard to play a bit differently.

For the player, it's doing nothing. Whereas in the situation where the mage is watching the melee people fighting a golem, the mage can cast buffs, or spells that can indirectly affect the golem, and so on. When the rogue steps up to a trap, it's resolved quickly enough that no one else is sitting for long stretches with nothing to do.

A social interaction can potentially be long. For those who are engaged with it, that's not a problem....it's fun and engaging. For someone not engaged....it can be boring.

What always amazes me too, is how easily everyone but the face is uninvolved in the situation. Why would the NPC not question them all? Why would he not say something like "You, warrior....you've been silent through all this...what do you think?" Put that character on the spot. The fact that characters choose to have low CHA scores and other choices should in fact be a party weakness. Why shouldn't it come up?

Otherwise, just Voltron the party into one gestalt PC with the best scores in every stat and call it a day.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This thread has moved along quite a bit. I've read most of the intervening posts, but quoting everything that provoked thought would make for a mess. So some thoughts:

1) Scripted social conflict where the players' role (through their PCs) is tip-toe around and cater to/placate the unidimensionality of an NPC in order to access a "content/info dump" completely subverts any idea that the PCs are protoganists with thematic interests that should emerge through and propel play. The only party with thematic interests that will emerge through and propel play in that model is the NPC! They become the protagonist for the conflict! If that is true (and I'm quite confident in that arithmetic), does anyone actually think that is a good model to follow for TTRPGing? If you do and you agree with that assessment above, I'd love to hear why.

2) Why would someone who writes an adventure EVER create a unidimensional NPC that must be dealt with in a very particular way? Even the most "paranoid strongmen" have nuance to them. They have a person (perhaps a few) that they secretly respect beyond all others from which admonishment is actually meaningful. They have regrets and shame that are buried away but are capable of being unlocked and brought to the fore. They have deep fears that can be made manifest that can have them press the nuclear option (flee or suicide). They have egos that are profoundly fragile and lacking resiliency such that a serious challenge and then a following through makes them question their autobiographical depiction of themselves in their heads.

Broadly in TTRPGing, I can think of many, many systems that can handle a hardened "paranoid strongman", retain the arrangement of "PCs as protagonists (and obstacles as antagonists)", whereby perhaps any combination of strongman changes/setting changes/one or more PCs change as a result of the PCs advocating for their thematic interests and the social conflict mechanics playing out to their conclusion.

Why can't/doesn't a GM arrange this strongman's Ideal, Bond and Flaw with something like the below:

Ideal - The people recognize my efforts are for their own good and they love me for it.
Bond - I trust the Captain of my Guard more than anyone in the world; perhaps more than myself.
Flaw - Reactionary narcissist.

So (a) if you have a PC that does exactly what the PC does in this game (calls him out for being a tyrant unworthy of ruling this people) and (b) the player succeeds on his Charisma check, why can't literally all 3 of these IBFs manifest as a result?

* The NPC calls for his Captain to arrest this fool. The Captain (who suddenly becomes the intersection of the PCs successful check, the Baron's Flaw, and the setting at large) pauses and says "...he says nothing different than what the people are saying in the safety and privacy of their homes sir...arresting him will not sanitize that image...it will further sully it." After which, the Baron clearly shrinks and blanches while he gathers himself (after which the GM will either reframe the conflict with his next move from the Baron or another NPC present, or a player can make a follow-up move to reframe things).

* The player has changed the gamestate functionally (the players can now use IBF machinery to leverage action resolution success for the rest of the social conflict) and interestingly while expressing a thematic interest (maintained protagonism), the NPC has changed as a result, the setting has emerged through actual play.

Why is what happened in the lead post preferrable to the above? For 5e D&D or any system?

I think both are perfectly reasonable approaches. It will depend significantly on the table's style, but I don't think that either is inherently superior to the other.

That said, you feel that unidimensional NPCs are bad (I disagree that the baron is unidimensional, but I'll grant that he doesn't have the greatest depth). I agree with that sentiment but think that unidimensional PCs are as bad or worse (an NPC frequently has minimal screen time in terms of the campaign, whereas the PCs are typically center stage). Are you equally against unidimensional PCs? (I am referring to character such as the one who is always rude to everyone, that has been discussed recently in this thread.)

 

[prabe]

1) Scripted social conflict where the players' role (through their PCs) is tip-toe around and cater to/placate the unidimensionality of an NPC in order to access a "content/info dump" completely subverts any idea that the PCs are protoganists with thematic interests that should emerge through and propel play. The only party with thematic interests that will emerge through and propel play in that model is the NPC! They become the protagonist for the conflict! If that is true (and I'm quite confident in that arithmetic), does anyone actually think that is a good model to follow for TTRPGing? If you do and you agree with that assessment above, I'd love to hear why.

I'm not sure what thematic interest is served by interrupting a negotiation, but sure, you can remain the protagonist and insult the Mad Tyrant. Just don't complain when the consequence for doing so is unpleasant. Nothing about what happens needs to change that the PCs are the protagonists. The problem seemed as much as anything to be that it took the campaign far enough outside the published adventure that the OP didn't feel comfortable ad-libbing (mostly because of how that table games on VTT, as I understand it--I think maybe there weren't maps ready). Well, that and the players seemed to have different ideas of what their goals were at that point.

Why would someone who writes an adventure EVER create a unidimensional NPC that must be dealt with in a very particular way? Even the most "paranoid strongmen" have nuance to them. They have a person (perhaps a few) that they secretly respect beyond all others from which admonishment is actually meaningful. They have regrets and shame that are buried away but are capable of being unlocked and brought to the fore. They have deep fears that can be made manifest that can have them press the nuclear option (flee or suicide). They have egos that are profoundly fragile and lacking resiliency such that a serious challenge and then a following through makes them question their autobiographical depiction of themselves in their heads.

"Don't insult the Mad Tyrant" isn't so much "Deal with the Mad Tyrant in one particular way" as "When dealing with the Mad Tyrant, don't do this." There seems to be some conflation of these two things, and there's nothing in your description of his potential personality that invalidates his reaction in the OP's specific case--weak leaders lash out, not strong ones, and IIRC he's specifically called out as weak.

Why can't/doesn't a GM arrange this strongman's Ideal, Bond and Flaw with something like the below:

Ideal - The people recognize my efforts are for their own good and they love me for it.
Bond - I trust the Captain of my Guard more than anyone in the world; perhaps more than myself.
Flaw - Reactionary narcissist.

So (a) if you have a PC that does exactly what the PC does in this game (calls him out for being a tyrant unworthy of ruling this people) and (b) the player succeeds on his Charisma check, why can't literally all 3 of these IBFs manifest as a result?

* The NPC calls for his Captain to arrest this fool. The Captain (who suddenly becomes the intersection of the PCs successful check, the Baron's Flaw, and the setting at large) pauses and says "...he says nothing different than what the people are saying in the safety and privacy of their homes sir...arresting him will not sanitize that image...it will further sully it." After which, the Baron clearly shrinks and blanches while he gathers himself (after which the GM will either reframe the conflict with his next move from the Baron or another NPC present, or a player can make a follow-up move to reframe things).

* The player has changed the gamestate functionally (the players can now use IBF machinery to leverage action resolution success for the rest of the social conflict) and interestingly while expressing a thematic interest (maintained protagonism), the NPC has changed as a result, the setting has emerged through actual play.

Why is what happened in the lead post preferrable to the above? For 5e D&D or any system?

Huh. So, I suppose a DM could arrange those traits for the NPC. Maybe those fit the descriptions of the realm in the published material; if not, the environment would need re-writing to suit those (and I'll let that slide for the purposed of discussion).

The impression I got from the OP was that the CHA checks were related/directed to the Mad Tyrant, so we're getting even more counterfactual here by having it aimed at the Captain; but I'll play this game for the nonce. If the Captain is so much the focus of the Mad Tyrant's Bond, he seems as though he might need fleshing out the same way as the Mad Tyrant, and he needs to be the sort who'd earn the Mad Tyrant's trust, keep it, and not act out before now. It's at least as easy to write those so his Bond is, e.g., "An insult to my Lord is an insult to me" as anything else; maybe his Ideal is "I will do what I must to keep the peace between my Lord and the citizens" and his Flaw is "I keep my Lord's trust by keeping my silence." Now we have an NPC who'd be the sort of quiet sideman who'd be the focus of the Mad Tyrant's Bond, and keep his position and other wise fit into the setting as described. And by insulting the Mad Tyrant, the PCs have triggers the Captain's Bond, and made it much harder for them to persuade him not to arrest them.

See? Anyone can re-write the scenario to be anything.

In reality, what you've proposed isn't a bad way for things to go. I wonder how many NPCs a given player would have to insult into submission before someone started feeling the verisimilitude slip away, but that's a matter of taste. I kinda feel, though, that focusing so much on Ideals, Bonds, Flaws, and Traits kinda seems more like NPC as Puzzle than something more ... freeform, but it doesn't need to be that way in practice, I suspect.

What happened in the OP is preferable to your counterfactual if--and only if--the table wants "realistic" play and if--and only if--that's what they consider "realistic." Note that it doesn't seem as though the players felt the Burgermaster behaved unreasonably or unrealistically.

 

[prabe]

What always amazes me too, is how easily everyone but the face is uninvolved in the situation. Why would the NPC not question them all? Why would he not say something like "You, warrior....you've been silent through all this...what do you think?" Put that character on the spot. The fact that characters choose to have low CHA scores and other choices should in fact be a party weakness. Why shouldn't it come up?

Otherwise, just Voltron the party into one gestalt PC with the best scores in every stat and call it a day.

This is a large part of the reason I don't penalize parties when they split to do different things, when they have reason to believe it's safe to do so. If there's a low-CHA character they can explicitly be off doing something else while this is happening (and I'll either get to them next, or I will have already at least started their thread).

Also, for verbifying Voltron, a round of applause.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think both are perfectly reasonable approaches. It will depend significantly on the table's style, but I don't think that either is inherently superior to the other.

That said, you feel that unidimensional NPCs are bad (I disagree that the baron is unidimensional, but I'll grant that he doesn't have the greatest depth). I agree with that sentiment but think that unidimensional PCs are as bad or worse (an NPC frequently has minimal screen time in terms of the campaign, whereas the PCs are typically center stage). Are you equally against unidimensional PCs? (I am referring to character such as the one who is always rude to everyone, that has been discussed recently in this thread.)

The only game I run where PCs are thematically neutral and unidimensional is Moldvay Basic D&D. But that game makes no bones about its challenge-based, pawn stance orientation toward play where the exclusive play priority is getting as much stuff as you can out of a dungeon before your loadout falters. Here PC unidimensionality is a feature, not a bug.

Outside of that, It’s basically impossible to create unidimensional PCs (and/or play them as such) in the other games I run so it’s not a concern that I have had to bear out.

Here is where I often see unidimensional PCs emerge:

* D&D games where multiple dominant play priorities/paradigms converge and simultaneously threaten the integrity of each other:

1) Challenge-based.

2) “Realism” (often this is GM Simulation)-based.

3) PCs are advertised as protagonists (the thing whose dramatic need is advocated for, expressed through play, and ultimately changes; amplifies, degrades, or morphs).

4) When actually the setting is already encoded as the protagonist before play has even begun and it becomes abundantly clear as play progresses.


What happens?

Players go into the game wanting to overcome obstacles with their built PCs.

Players may also want to express and propagate some dramatic need and attendant arc.

That need and arc become second fiddle (background color to the settings prptagonism) if they manifest at all. This can happen through moments of GM Force subverting a player trying to project their will onto the fiction. This can come from players trying to change the gamestate posotively in a noncombat situation but perceiving that they’ve been fouled (and will yet be foiled in the future) by a GM misappropriating the trajectory of play due to inconsistent or uninferrable mediation of mostly/wholly GM-facing resolution procedures.

Invariably, the player falls back entirely on (a) challenge-based priorities centered around combat (b) which are consistent and inferrable because they’re player-facing and easily actionable by just escalating to violence.

All that has to be done to prevent this degeneration (insofar as someone doesn’t intend for this to occur as a product of play) is change the orientation of play (priorities, relationships, resolution procedures/mechanics).

 

[Fenris-77]

Hmm. I'm just going to toss this out there - Ideal, Bonds and Flaws are a weak spot in the 5e rules IMO. I find the basic system toothless and inconsequential, and I think that their only tangential relationship to NPC motivations in the moment make them less that ideal tools for social interaction. Every time I have to abstract from an ideal to what to do in this case for an NPC that's a step I don't want to have to make. It's probably not terrible for big screen time NPCs that are fully fleshed out, but for bit players it's way more abstract than I find useful. YMMV of course. I don't use it at all in my campaigns.