Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[hawkeyefan]

Last thing and I have to go.

If true, that tells me that this is either poor adventure writing (no way!) or the GM is expected to do more work (if this is actually an NPC that has the capacity to be engaged with). It basically confirms that this is a flat NPC with a (sad) binary tree of approaches and attendant outcomes:

1) Submit to his will/disposition and gain favor.

2) Destroy him.

That doesn’t make for a particularly dynamic obstacle for social conflict and the only sort of play that gets to express any thematic impetus that is in opposition to his will or disposition fundamentally funnels you to option (2).

Not great!

I think that the risk is there, for sure. I mean.....it seems pretty obvious given the OP and the conversation that has followed.

I don't think the adventure is poorly designed though. I think that the Baron's town of Vallaki is a pretty dynamic location, without any clear path to any kind of "victory" at all. So, a DM can take that situation and allow the PCs to really go a variety of ways with it.

Alternatively, if a DM decides for whatever reason to kind of present it as a case of options 1 or 2 as you've described....this is not in any way a disruption to the larger adventure. He's not important enough that a demotion to flat character you either kowtow to or kill is perfectly fine.

 

[Numidius]

I have not. What I've gathered about the setting doesn't appeal--for hard choices, I have a preference for heroic characters choosing among competing goods, not gray-against-the-black types selecting the lesser (or least) evil. If I'm wrong, it's out of ignorance not malice.

Sure. I will add an underlying dark humourous irreverent tone to the baroque and filthy setting, especially when depicting authority figures.

If you haven't, I suggest you to flip thru the (pdf?) pages of the memorable first edition (1986) and have a look at the beautiful and iconic splash page pictures.

 

[iserith]

Honestly, the burgomaster, his wife, and son probably don't really need them. There's about half a page on role playing them and that seems more than enough to work with without including ideals, bonds, and flaws as specific shorthand character descriptions.

I've played the module and read this section and I definitely would have written ideals, bonds, and flaws for these NPCs. Izek Strazni has them. I think it's better as a reference point when running the game, particularly with the social interaction rules, than whatever I would half-remember from information spread over a few pages.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You have no idea unless you've read it. So I'd suggest not engaging in baseless speculation.

His analysis doesn't rest on intimate knowledge of the material -- it's rooted in the fact that the 5e rules state that important NPCs or NPCs that need to be negotiated with should have BIFTs. The Burgomaster does not, hence, by the rules of the game, is not intended to be an important social encounter to be engaged by the PCs but a minor, trivial encounter or an obstacle to be removed outside of the social pillar.

Further, I've both read and played this encounter, so I am not engaging in baseless speculation when I say that the Burgomaster of Vallaki is a shallow NPC written in a way as to be either placated or removed, but not negotiated with.

Honestly, as good as CoS is overall, the Burgomaster plotline in Vallaki is terrible because it does set up an immovable NPC that reacts violently to any questions about their actions/leadership. That the rest of the family is interesting does not change this fact -- the write-up doesn't say that unless you help his wife he'll toss you out for questioning his leadership at all (note, not insult, but even question) or if you help repair his relationship with his son. No, it says he will, unchangingly, banish the PC for merely questioning his leadership and goals.

That's a bad NPC, especially one that the module creates as a nearly guaranteed interaction point, and the leader of the best base of operations in the game. The Burgomaster is a trap, not for the players, but for the GM. It takes deft skill and experience to realize when and how to toss or modify the Burgomaster.

 

[Ovinomancer]

PC declares (roughly) "I try to talk the Mad Tyrant out of arresting us."

GM says, "The Captain says ..."

So, having the PC's success on a check affect a character other than the one the player intended--and declared--is ... an awful lot like taking control of the character away from the player.

Also, from the description of the event, the Captain wasn't there to hear the insult, so all he knows is the Mad Tyrant is ordering the PCs taken away in irons.

Sorry, no sale.

On the other hand, I'll point (for the umpteenth time) that there were successes and the gameplay state was affected. There were PCs who were allowed to walk freely away from the encounter. The situation sounds more dynamic to me than I think you're giving it credit for.

Honestly, if that's what you took from what @Manbearcat said, you've badly misinterpreted him. His example doesn't do this at all, it has the Burgomaster call for the captain and tell the captain to banish the PCs for questioning his leadership. At which point, the captain backs up the PC's, putting the Burgomaster on the spot.

This takes the PC's action directly at the Burgomaster (the insult) but ends with a positive outcome (due to the successful roll) in that the Captain of the guard, the Burgomaster's Bond, is now on the PCs side. Why? Perhaps the Captain has long wanted to tell the Burgomaster that things are bad due to his leadership and hasn't, but now, since the PC has insulted the Burgomaster's leadership and they are powerful, sees an opportunity to advance the case. Having NPCs join a discussion to support/hinder the PCs based on their actions is a good tool to have in the pocket -- it creates dynamic social situations that follow the PC's declared actions and their successes. Otherwise, social interactions turn into the 'I hit you, you hit me' of the standstill combat model.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Honestly, if that's what you took from what @Manbearcat said, you've badly misinterpreted him. His example doesn't do this at all, it has the Burgomaster call for the captain and tell the captain to banish the PCs for questioning his leadership. At which point, the captain backs up the PC's, putting the Burgomaster on the spot.

This takes the PC's action directly at the Burgomaster (the insult) but ends with a positive outcome (due to the successful roll) in that the Captain of the guard, the Burgomaster's Bond, is now on the PCs side. Why? Perhaps the Captain has long wanted to tell the Burgomaster that things are bad due to his leadership and hasn't, but now, since the PC has insulted the Burgomaster's leadership and they are powerful, sees an opportunity to advance the case. Having NPCs join a discussion to support/hinder the PCs based on their actions is a good tool to have in the pocket -- it creates dynamic social situations that follow the PC's declared actions and their successes. Otherwise, social interactions turn into the 'I hit you, you hit me' of the standstill combat model.

Conversely, overuse can lead to scenarios where there is no fail state or real consequences. Work with the Baron and you get what you need. Anger him and you still get what you need.

It's not that it's a bad approach per se, but it is something to be cautious of. You don't want to render the PCs choices moot.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yeah. I think we're generally on the same page here.

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.

Every class can start at 1st level with any proficiency the player wants. Backgrounds give 2 proficiencies and if you don't like what the pre-made backgrounds give, you can just create a background with whichever 2 you want.

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.

Sure. I wasn't saying that they only ask the person with the best skill set. It was just an example I was putting forward. I try and have my NPCs behave like someone in a conversation would act.

 

[billd91]

That's a bad NPC, especially one that the module creates as a nearly guaranteed interaction point, and the leader of the best base of operations in the game. The Burgomaster is a trap, not for the players, but for the GM. It takes deft skill and experience to realize when and how to toss or modify the Burgomaster.

Clearly we have a difference of opinion. Not every NPC needs to be swayable or manipulable by the PCs or have layers of texture. Some are simply obstacles and annoyances. And that's fine, not a trap.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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).

I don't really see a player building an always rude character for the reasons you put forth. Care to expound on how it relates?

 

[Ovinomancer]

While I recognize that @iserith has the right of how the 5e DMG does social interactions, and that it's a functional framework, I find it to be lacking in creating the kind of memorable social encounters that I want. The 5e framework, on it's own, feels like it's still functionally one dimensional -- you're moving towards your ask and you get it or you don't. I don't find that to be rewarding.

Instead, I expand almost all of my important social encounters to use a skill challenge framework (usually 4-5 successes before 3 failures). I borrow from the 5e in that taking an action to uncover a BIFT is useful, but the structure of the encounter isn't 'Improve Attitude, Make Ask' but a more incremental step through. Players declare actions to move towards their goals, with successes changing the situation in a positive way and failures altering the situation in a negative way. This combination means that a situation can resolve with the players getting what they want, but also having negative complications following them (success in the social challenge may not remove failure consequences, depending on what actions the PCs take).

This removes the 'one bad step into the GM's scripted NPCs reactions' problem, in that no single insult, even if the GM was inclined to rule it an autofailure, would derail the social encounter. Instead, I'd add a complication that would indicate a failure had occurred. In fullness, I'd ask the PC what they wanted to accomplish with their insult (the goal of the action declaration) and then probably ask for a check to see if they got what they wanted. A failure, in this case, might result in me narrating the Burgomaster taking a depth breath, ringing a small bell on his desk that causes the door to open and two guards to step in and stand beside the door, and then saying something like, "No man has dared insult me for half a decade. It is only with great effort I'm willing to afford you leniency, but once more and I shall not promise I will withhold my wrath." This doesn't end the scene, but it does raise the stakes and let's the PC's know that something involving guards is now on the table and that insults are not the way to influence the Burgomaster successfully. If the PCs try the insult route again, I might very likely rule that an autofailure, given the situation as it stands. However, if the PC decides to press their case that the Burgomaster is in the wrong, but refrains from outright insults, they'd get a chance, although a failure might then be taken as an insult and that PC would be taken away to serve a term in the stocks/jail for their belligerence, and the party would now be very close to failing to get anything positive from this scene (3 failures).

Regardless of how the scene ends up, the PC that insulted the Burgomaster would now have a very frosty relationship with the Burgomaster and anyone allied with him, which might lead to later interesting social encounters.

To wrap up, I find 5e's DMG version of social encounters to still be very one-dimensional, although I like it better than free-form GM sim social encounters (which always end up as 'guess what the GM's thinking'). I embellish it with some 4e tech, and that works for me. I also always look at failures in the social pillar (and, honestly, in the exploration pillar) as 'fail forward' opportunities where I can introduce a complication or consequence without closing off overall success outright. Repeated failure will result in overall failure, but, again, usually in a fail-forward way that means this approach is invalid (and has a steep cost), but other methods are still available. Failing to convince the Burgomaster, for instance, would have repercussions (which may include being run out of town), but you can still engage with the Lady or overthrow the Burgomaster outright or something entirely different -- all of which will have their own sets of outcomes.