Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[prabe]

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.

We've talked (typed--whatever) about this before (or maybe Inspiration, which is adjacent and similarly weak and something else I don't bother with) and I absolutely agree. I tell players flat-out that as far as I'm concerned those are tools for the players, not the DM. I try to have an idea of a given NPC that's more detailed and more nuanced than that; I don't think I've ever used those words in my notes for an NPC.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

I don't disagree with your take here. However, I simultaneously find them on 5e D&D's top 3 list (along with Background Traits and Lair Actions). So (if that is on my top 3 while agreeing that its not particularly compelling conflict resolution archetecture), that should tell you why I don't run 5e D&D unless I'm forced to stand-in for a few weeks for a fatigued GM.

That being said, if I'm forced to choose between the somewhat player-facing/somewhat structured (both in terms of GM mental workspace and actual play) nature of the Social Interaction mechanics of 5e D&D + their Social Pantomime meets Wheel of Fortune nature (which isn't terrible) vs something entirely GM-facing and entirely lacking structure (and therefore potentially prone to all of the dynamics inherent to that model)...I'm going to choose the former.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Are you suggesting that the PC can do nothing but hurl insults at people? If so, that sounds a bit........more than a bit one dimensional as a character. If the PC isn't so incredibly one dimensional, then he will in fact be able to do something. Lots of somethings. Like, engage in the conversation in many different non-insulting ways.

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.

It can be, sure. However, if the only way a player can become engaged in a social situation is through insults, the problem is with the player and not the social interaction. That's a player that will cause the party and other players a lot of grief in social situations, which is a significant pillar of the game.

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?

I agree and said so above. I do just that. My NPCs talk to different members of the party. I don't care if the Paladin is the social character in the party, if the NPC is having an issue with arcane wizardry, he's talking to the book Wormish wizard and not the Paladin.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Having the party pursue multiple tasks is one way to address this, sure. I don't know if it's always possible, though. In a case where a local lord may have summoned them, or may have agreed to an audience with them at their request, the lord may expect them all to attend. There are also any number of additional reasons we can imagine on why they may all have to stick together.

 

[Numidius]

Why would someone who writes an adventure EVER create a unidimensional NPC that must be dealt with in a very particular way?

Actually, after giving a look at the pages describing the town, I find the whole encounter quite interesting and unusual. The baron might look monolithic, but is not, IMO, in his conduct of firm leadership thru forced happiness, festivals and prohibition of certain behaviours. Also, as I said, his close family is strange enough to create hooks and unforeseen triangles. And then guards, executioner and the rest of the town folks...

 

[prabe]

Having the party pursue multiple tasks is one way to address this, sure. I don't know if it's always possible, though. In a case where a local lord may have summoned them, or may have agreed to an audience with them at their request, the lord may expect them all to attend. There are also any number of additional reasons we can imagine on why they may all have to stick together.

Sure. In instances when the a party has all been dealing with someone like that, it's usually been because all the party wanted to be there--and I've let the PCs who wanted to speak, speak, and not beaten up on someone for having a low CHA. So far, no one has tried insulting their way to social success, so I haven't had to deal with this precise problem.

 

[Manbearcat]

Actually, after giving a look at the pages describing the town, I find the whole encounter quite interesting and unusual. The baron might look monolithic, but is not, IMO, in his conduct of firm leadership thru forced happiness, festivals and prohibition of certain behaviours. Also, as I said, his close family is strange enough to create hooks and unforeseen triangles. And then guards, executioner and the rest of the town folks...

Then this could be a case of a GM's "realistic consequences" take not incorporating all of the potential complexities of the situation even as the module attempts to convey them. I don't know.

What I do know is this. If I'm giving any GM who is in the position where they're looking for answers about how to make play work when it appears to have run afoul because of competing priorities in an instance of play (and presumably its not just an instance of talking to a player to resolve an issue with lack of sincerity/decorum...because, again, why are we bringing that to ENWorld if its just that simple), I'm not giving them the George Lakoff Strict Father model that seems to undergird so many classical viking-hat GM approaches to D&D.

I'm giving them the broad and system-specific (in this case 5e D&D) advice and trouble-shooting that I've tried to convey in this thread. And that starts with "deliberate on system first, introspect second, consider "player as problem" last".

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't disagree with your take here. However, I simultaneously find them on 5e D&D's top 3 list (along with Background Traits and Lair Actions). So (if that is on my top 3 while agreeing that its not particularly compelling conflict resolution archetecture), that should tell you why I don't run 5e D&D unless I'm forced to stand-in for a few weeks for a fatigued GM.

That being said, if I'm forced to choose between the somewhat player-facing/somewhat structured (both in terms of GM mental workspace and actual play) nature of the Social Interaction mechanics of 5e D&D + their Social Pantomime meets Wheel of Fortune nature (which isn't terrible) vs something entirely GM-facing and entirely lacking structure (and therefore potentially prone to all of the dynamics inherent to that model)...I'm going to choose the former.

I think it's a move in the right direction for D&D, for sure. It could have been great but, sadly, it's not. It could also be tons worse, so there's that. When I'm hacking about looking to 'improve' 5E the I/B/F and Inspiration bit is usually where I start. It might no be great. but I think the basics are robust enough that they can be usefully embiggened. I still haven't hit on the right mix for myself, but it's been more fruitful than anything else I've monkeyed around with.

 

[iserith]

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.

I don't think they are intended for bit players. The DMG suggests they be used for NPCs who are likely to be involved in negotiations or for NPCs who play larger roles in the adventures including named monsters. Sentient magic items might also have them.

The absence of a specific ideal, bond, and flaw for the baron could either be a statement that this NPC isn't actually all that important compared to, say, his strongman, or it's an oversight by the writer.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Are you suggesting that the PC can do nothing but hurl insults at people? If so, that sounds a bit........more than a bit one dimensional as a character. If the PC isn't so incredibly one dimensional, then he will in fact be able to do something. Lots of somethings. Like, engage in the conversation in many different non-insulting ways.

No, not suggesting that he must only insult. But since social interaction tends to be seen as being the responsibility of the "party face" or "party spokesperson", and that in many cases, CHA is a weak spot. That weak spot should come into play just as someone's crappy AC should come into play in combat.

I don't think we're generally disagreeing.....my point was more about how those things tend to play out and how many are citing them playing out here in this thread. "Hey Mongo, you shut up while we talk to this guy."

Also, I personally don't have a problem if Mongo decides to speak up and insults the NPC. And I know plenty of players, even ones of more socially minded characters, who wouldn't mind either. So I don't know if I agree that this is even a problem in the first place, as far as insulting a NPC.

It can be, sure. However, if the only way a player can become engaged in a social situation is through insults, the problem is with the player and not the social interaction. That's a player that will cause the party and other players a lot of grief in social situations, which is a significant pillar of the game.

It may be the player's fault, sure. At least partly. There are other contributing factors, too, such as the GM attempting to involve that PC or not, or the rules not really having a lot of heft in this area, especially for certain classes and so on. Fighters can start with Proficiency in Intimidate, but not with Persuasion, for instance. I mean, guess how that person is going to try to handle social interactions.

And note, I don't think that's a problem in and of itself.

I agree and said so above. I do just that. My NPCs talk to different members of the party. I don't care if the Paladin is the social character in the party, if the NPC is having an issue with arcane wizardry, he's talking to the book Wormish wizard and not the Paladin.

Yes, that's the kind of thing I have in mind. I'd go even further and simply have the NPC ask other PCs about things because that's generally how conversations work. Even in a situation like this where there may be protocols and etiquette to follow. Why wouldn't the NPC ever think "hmmm they've no doubt asked the bard to state their case because he's a smooth talker.....let me see what this sneering brute over here has to say"? I mean, the OP makes an appeal to what's realistic, but expects certain party members to keep their mouths shut for purely gamist reasons.

And to be clear, I don't even mind the gamist reasons....let other players shine, niche protection, and so on....in and of themselves. Personally, I think the fiction can almost always be made to match what we want it to. But if a preference for "realism" is cited, I'd kind of expect that preference to apply throughout the encounter, and not just to the outcome.