Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Maxperson]

Yeah I know. I thought I was clear, but I’ll be more specific. The Fighter class does not grant the option for proficiency with any Charisma based skills other than Intimidation.

Yes, Backgrounds and Multiclassintg might grant additional options, but based on the way character design works, I’d expect far fewer Fighters to have a skill like Persuasion or Deception.


My point simply being how some classes are far more geared for the social pillar than others in a much more significant way than any disparity in combat efficacy.

Definitely. The background system, though, is one of my favorite things about 5e. No more being limited in which skills you can have due to your class. I used to relax cross-class skills in 3e. If the player could demonstrate due to background that a skill should be considered a class skill, I'd allow it. If your fighter came from Halruaa and was the bodyguard for a wizard, I had no problem with that fighter being able to have spellcraft and arcana as class skills.

 

[Fenris-77]

Huh. I mean, I'm a strong proponent of maintaining player authorities, especially in D&D where they are so thin, but that's well past where I'd even be remotely concerned. I see it, though; it's like ownership of an idea, which we protect with laws in many cases it's such a strong motivation (talking copyright, trademark, and patents here). You made this piece of fiction, it's yours, and someone else using it is violating that in an almost personal (maybe not almost) way, right? I can see it. I suppose, though, that I look at my PCs as part of a shared fiction, so it's a shared ownership already for me. I think that I'm more performative -- I'm jealous of my prerogative when I'm performing, but when I'm not, I'm okay if someone wants to try on a different interpretation.

I think we're perhaps far more in agreement that it might seem. I don't really play with people any more where this particular hobnob of mine would make any difference. At a good table, playing with friends, or at least cordial acquaintances, it really wouldn't come up. I'm not suggesting I would regularly try to deny use of a character, not in a game I like. That's more likely to be cool than anything else. As a much younger man, playing as part of an extended group, especially with emotionally fragile younger men, as we all are, there can be some microaggressions and finger-giving involved. Ahh, young gamers. Anyway, moving on...

 

[Fenris-77]

No mockery intended. I literally meant that that was an inoffensive truth, in that we had just exchanged disagreements but that I didn't find anything objectionable about the statement that failure to properly frame a scene leads to trouble. Whether it's a social scene or a combat one.

I wasn't being serious. Sorry if it came across that way. We good.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And there were successful checks, or at least one, and the PCs that walked away walked away. That's how the OP described it. They just happened after the insult, which in the OP's telling didn't sound like any sort of attempt to alter the thinking of anyone. It didn't even sound as though it was an attempt to intimidate, to me.

Is part of this that you think the insult was an action, which should have succeeded? No, because you describe it as a failure.

It seemed to me as though that was narrating success by describing the actions of an NPC who hadn't seen the events in the OP's incident. Whom the PCs would not have been attempting to influence--could not have been attempting to influence. In spite of whatever the action declarations had been. If I say, "My character attempts to talk the Mad Tyrant out of executing Mr. Insulty," and you say, "The Captain, coming into the room, turns to the BurgerMaster and says (paraphrasing) 'I will not obey you, sir,' " I will at the least be confused as to why effect aimed at the BurgerMaster seems to have hit the Captain. You have (metaphorically) moved my hand from one target to another that was not there when I declared my action. That doesn't seem deft, it seems clumsy as hell.

It also looked to me as though there was some editing of the BurgerMaster--which is totally fine, even if those traits, et al. were maybe not entirely consistent with what I've gathered of the published adventure. I was, I'm afraid, engaged in a little light mockery when I invented similar tags for the invented NPC (the Captain) that made it easy to shift the events back in the direction of the OP's incident; the point, to the extent I had one, is that it is trivially easy to shift the story by rewriting NPCs, if you want to.

I think you're taking a strange tack, here, in insisting that only the target of an action can react to it and if anyone else does, it's redirecting the player's action.

Here, in @Manbearcat's example of play, the player's action is to insult the Burgomaster. The stated goal this action is to force the Burgomaster to retreat from his campaign of forced happiness. The GM allows this to go to a check, which succeeds at the DC the GM sets. Therefore, the action must move the Burgomaster towards the goal of the player. However, the Burgomaster has traits that say he will react poorly to insults, so how to honor the success without abandoning the defining traits of the Burgomaster? This is the question @Manbearcat is trying to illuminate: that this can be done; you can have a character act according to his traits and yet still honor the success of the player.

In this example, the Burgomaster reacts by calling for his Captain and ordering the PC incarcerated for saying his rule is weak. This is the NPC acting according to his traits -- we need to find the path to both allow this and honor the success of the PC action. To do this, the Captain, who, in this example is the Burgomaster's Bond (the Burgomaster respects the Captain), tells the Burgomaster that many in town believe the same, which is a blow to the Burgomaster's ideal that the townsfolk love him AND leverages the bond with the Captain to explain why the Burgomaster would even listen to this. Why the Captain chooses to divulge this information is not because the player's action was redirected to the Captain, but because this is a truth of the game (and it is, in the game's write-up, that many (most?) townsfolk think the Burgomaster's happiness plan is bunk) and the GM has decided to honor the player's success against the Burgomaster by reinforcing it with the Captain. This exposes the Bond (if the Burgomaster is listening to the Captain, clearly he has the Burgomaster's ear in a special way), honors the player's success (the Burgomaster is now forced to consider his plan is a failure), AND still honors the Burgomaster's flaw (he reacted to be insulted very poorly).

@Manbearcat's example has little to do with the OP situation in that it's not meant as an example of how things should have gone. It's provided as an example of how you could have played it -- how you could have had a PC insult the Burgomaster and still reached a success for the PC. That's it, and it does a good job of showing that. It doesn't redirect the PC's action, it honors it to the hilt -- the Burgomaster is insulted and calls for the guard! But it also honors the successful roll at the core of the example, but finding a way in the fiction to both honor the Burgomaster's written reaction to insults but turning that into a success for the PC by introducing the Captain as an ally to the PC's point.

Arguing this is bad play is saying that normal conversations, where people try to make a point against a recalcitrant other only to find sudden support from a third party, turning the discussion, is not something that you want your RPGs to be able to emulate.

 

[prabe]

I think you're taking a strange tack, here, in insisting that only the target of an action can react to it and if anyone else does, it's redirecting the player's action.

I'm definitely kinda strange, in lots of ways ...

In this example, the Burgomaster reacts by calling for his Captain and ordering the PC incarcerated for saying his rule is weak. This is the NPC acting according to his traits -- we need to find the path to both allow this and honor the success of the PC action. To do this, the Captain, who, in this example is the Burgomaster's Bond (the Burgomaster respects the Captain), tells the Burgomaster that many in town believe the same, which is a blow to the Burgomaster's ideal that the townsfolk love him AND leverages the bond with the Captain to explain why the Burgomaster would even listen to this. Why the Captain chooses to divulge this information is not because the player's action was redirected to the Captain, but because this is a truth of the game (and it is, in the game's write-up, that many (most?) townsfolk think the Burgomaster's happiness plan is bunk) and the GM has decided to honor the player's success against the Burgomaster by reinforcing it with the Captain. This exposes the Bond (if the Burgomaster is listening to the Captain, clearly he has the Burgomaster's ear in a special way), honors the player's success (the Burgomaster is now forced to consider his plan is a failure), AND still honors the Burgomaster's flaw (he reacted to be insulted very poorly).

Except, it wasn't the BurgerMaster's bond to the Captain the PCs were trying to leverage, unless there was some way for them to have noticed it, so you're rewarding them for something they didn't do. As I said, it's my understanding that he's not even in the room when the PCs make the check. I think that if there is a success, it can maybe be narrated to stick to involving only the characters in the room.

Arguing this is bad play is saying that normal conversations, where people try to make a point against a recalcitrant other only to find sudden support from a third party, turning the discussion, is not something that you want your RPGs to be able to emulate.

I'm saying it's bad play, because it's not what the characters were trying to do. In the event of a success on a check, if the PCs had any knowledge of the Bond, and worked on the Captain first, and maybe made some effort to have him in the room, that'd be different. In the event of a success on a check, if the PCs don't know about the Captain and he's not in the room, I don't see how he could have any relevance in narrating the success, and using him to do so would be baffling, confusing, and probably feel as though the GM had a certain success path in mind. Is that clearer?

 

[Maxperson]

Why not?

Every orc is killable. (By application of the combat rules.)

Every forest is passable. (By application of the exploration and movement rules.)

Why is every NPC not influlencable?

Because they aren't equivalent things. NPCs are killable, just like orcs. Their houses are passable, just like forests. However, orc =/= terrain =/= NPCs. Different things can be treated differently and that's okay.

 

[Fanaelialae]

What does desirable mean here?

What is undesirable about the players declaring actions for their PCs to try and change the fiction?

Whether the fiction permits what you describe is a further question. Eg if the PCs and relevant NPCs aren't in the same room then they will need telepathy or the post if they are going to communicate. But that's about fictional positioning, not about desirability.

Depending on the system, and hence how situations are framed and how the lesser NPCs figure as part of the situation, there may also be finality rules that apply. But D&D isn't a system that uses very form framing of situations, and nor does it have terribly strict rules about finality. So if the PCs can contrive to talk to the servants ,and instigate their revolt, I don't see what the problem is.

(The closest thing I can think of in my recent play was when the PCs in my Prince Valiant game conquered a castle in Burgundy leading their small warband at the head of a spontaneous peasant uprising. It was quite exciting.)

There's nothing undesirable about the players declaring actions.

What's potentially undesirable is, as you say, a lack of finality. They offend the baron, so they try to turn the Captain. The Captain won't turn so now they appeal to the guards. The guards won't budge so they try to inspire the servants in the room to revolt. If that's the style of the game, fine, but some people prefer a degree of finality.

The Captain isn't necessarily going to turn on the baron just because the PCs ask. Maybe he has a good thing going, with the baron turning a blind eye to his misdeeds and offering him wide latitude. He's not going to flip on his boss just because the PCs ask. Maybe if they give him something even better than the deal he currently has, but even then it's a possible better deal (assuming the PCs hold up their end) vs the sure thing he has now. That's a hard sell.

If the Captain is unsatisfied with his job, on the other hand, then it becomes far more likely that the PCs can turn him. Were that the case, I'd likely have some indication thereof.

If you want the PCs to have a chance at succeeding on anything they try, then go ahead. I prefer to have certain things be beyond the scope of likelihood. You're extremely unlikely to convince the ancient red dragon to give you it's hoard. If you have a good reason for it to help you and you are very convincing, it might lend you a few things from its hoard. Because, IMO, it's an ancient chromatic dragon and it doesn't just suddenly turn into Santa just because the players rolled a good persuasion check.

I don't think that players necessarily should get what they want just because they want it. The fiction of the world matters too. That not to suggest that the DM should contrive to stifle them. Just that I think it's okay for certain things to not be possible.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm definitely kinda strange, in lots of ways ...



Except, it wasn't the BurgerMaster's bond to the Captain the PCs were trying to leverage, unless there was some way for them to have noticed it, so you're rewarding them for something they didn't do. As I said, it's my understanding that he's not even in the room when the PCs make the check. I think that if there is a success, it can maybe be narrated to stick to involving only the characters in the room.

I don't follow this. Are you claiming that it should be impossible to discover a BIFT unless you specifically declare an action to do so? That revealing a Bond to honor a success in a social encounter should never occur unless the players specifically act to do so? That's a pretty interesting position to take, and specifically reinforces the game idea that social encounters are take specific actions to get the NPC to reveal things. As mentioned earlier, this puts the NPC in the position of the primary mover of the game to which the PC react. This example doesn't follow that concept, so that might explain why you're disagreeing -- incompatible concepts of play.

I'm saying it's bad play, because it's not what the characters were trying to do. In the event of a success on a check, if the PCs had any knowledge of the Bond, and worked on the Captain first, and maybe made some effort to have him in the room, that'd be different. In the event of a success on a check, if the PCs don't know about the Captain and he's not in the room, I don't see how he could have any relevance in narrating the success, and using him to do so would be baffling, confusing, and probably feel as though the GM had a certain success path in mind. Is that clearer?

The character was trying to insult the Burgomaster to get the Burgomaster to reconsider his happiness campaign. The character did insult the Burgomaster. The Burgomaster is now reconsidering his happiness campaign. I don't understand why you say the PC didn't do something -- he enabled the Captain to reveal a truth to the Burgomaster that aligns with the PC's intent for their action. Indeed, without the PC's insult, this revelation is impossible because the Burgomaster doesn't broach it with the Captain. Your complaint seems to be that unless the PC intended this exact sequence of events, you're somehow usurping control of the PC by narrating what other NPCs do in reaction to the PC? Again, your restrictions mean that only the target of the PC's action can ever have any reaction to what the PC does.

Let's turn this around. If the PC fails, and the Burgomaster does the same thing -- calls for the Captain, relates the insult, and orders the PC incarcerated -- according to your restrictions above this would be baffling to the PC because the Captain wasn't present for the insult. So, when the Captain moves to seize the PC, this would be just as bad -- now the Captain is doing something when we wasn't even there when the PC insulted the Burgomaster!

Clearly, this is ridiculous, but you can't have it both ways.

I mean, this is pretty much the equivalent of being in an argument with a Bob, a friend, and Bob turns to Sam, another friend, and say, "you agree with me, right, Sam?" But Sam says, actually, no, I agree with @prabe." You weren't talking to Sam, you were arguing with Bob, how could Sam become involved supporting you if you didn't ask Sam to intervene? Because, well, that's how a lot of normal conversations happen. If we rule that our RPGs can't even generate the fiction that matches a common argument occurrence like this, what are we doing?

 

[Ovinomancer]

There's nothing undesirable about the players declaring actions.

What's potentially undesirable is, as you say, a lack of finality. They offend the baron, so they try to turn the Captain. The Captain won't turn so now they appeal to the guards. The guards won't budge so they try to inspire the servants in the room to revolt. If that's the style of the game, fine, but some people prefer a degree of finality.

The Captain isn't necessarily going to turn on the baron just because the PCs ask. Maybe he has a good thing going, with the baron turning a blind eye to his misdeeds and offering him wide latitude. He's not going to flip on his boss just because the PCs ask. Maybe if they give him something even better than the deal he currently has, but even then it's a possible better deal (assuming the PCs hold up their end) vs the sure thing he has now. That's a hard sell.

If the Captain is unsatisfied with his job, on the other hand, then it becomes far more likely that the PCs can turn him. Were that the case, I'd likely have some indication thereof.

If you want the PCs to have a chance at succeeding on anything they try, then go ahead. I prefer to have certain things be beyond the scope of likelihood. You're extremely unlikely to convince the ancient red dragon to give you it's hoard. If you have a good reason for it to help you and you are very convincing, it might lend you a few things from its hoard. Because, IMO, it's an ancient chromatic dragon and it doesn't just suddenly turn into Santa just because the players rolled a good persuasion check.

I don't think that players necessarily should get what they want just because they want it. The fiction of the world matters too. That not to suggest that the DM should contrive to stifle them. Just that I think it's okay for certain things to not be possible.

You again trot out the turtles all the way down despite no one advocating for this at all. Why?

Of course the Captain isn't going to flip just because the players ask (although, there's no example of play given in this thread except yours where this is an ask, so you've invented the problem you're solving). The Captain flips because a player succeeded at a check and that fiction makes sense to the GM in the moment. Why does the Captain flip? PC success. I don't need to have determined beforehand all the possibly ways the Captain might be susceptible to flipping. Why? Because he just flipped (it's in the fiction), so there must be a reason, which I can plausibly invent if necessary. It could be anything your conjecture above, or something else entirely. What it isn't is important when deciding if the Captain flips to begin with.

What you're doing is presenting a case where everything with all possible NPCs must be prepared ahead of time so that the GM can read his notes and decide if a thing is possible according to them. The Captain's motivations are not written -- I think he's an invented character for the purpose of an illustration of how play can occur -- so we can invent them as necessary to play. Further, even if the Captain has notes, they're only known to the GM. Surely we aren't saying that a GM cannot change their mind and alter his notes before they're presented into play? Once in play, yes, they should remain consistent, but before that, it really doesn't matter what's in my notebook -- if a better option comes along I should take it. Slavish devotion to notes is weird.

So, you've managed to argue that people should do something no one is suggesting they do, and because you should write down all the possible NPC motivations before play and stick to them. I don't subscribe, at all.

 

[prabe]

I don't follow this. Are you claiming that it should be impossible to discover a BIFT unless you specifically declare an action to do so? That revealing a Bond to honor a success in a social encounter should never occur unless the players specifically act to do so? That's a pretty interesting position to take, and specifically reinforces the game idea that social encounters are take specific actions to get the NPC to reveal things. As mentioned earlier, this puts the NPC in the position of the primary mover of the game to which the PC react. This example doesn't follow that concept, so that might explain why you're disagreeing -- incompatible concepts of play.

I'm saying, yet again, that if I declare an action at the BurgerMaster that succeeds, and it effects the Captain, my reaction would be a WTF moment. It feels an awful lot like aiming a crossbow at the BurgerMaster, rolling well enough to hit, and having the GM tell me I've hit the Captain, because he was the one I should have been aiming at in the first place. As described the Captain feels as though he's emerging from out of nowhere with no previous mention or even existence and solving the PCs' problems for them. Even as the result of success, it doesn't seem to follow, even in-fiction, let along as the result of an in-game declaration.

The character was trying to insult the Burgomaster to get the Burgomaster to reconsider his happiness campaign. The character did insult the Burgomaster. The Burgomaster is now reconsidering his happiness campaign. I don't understand why you say the PC didn't do something -- he enabled the Captain to reveal a truth to the Burgomaster that aligns with the PC's intent for their action. Indeed, without the PC's insult, this revelation is impossible because the Burgomaster doesn't broach it with the Captain. Your complaint seems to be that unless the PC intended this exact sequence of events, you're somehow usurping control of the PC by narrating what other NPCs do in reaction to the PC? Again, your restrictions mean that only the target of the PC's action can ever have any reaction to what the PC does.

The BurgerMaster isn't reconsidering anything because of anything the characters did. The BurgerMaster is reconsidering his plans because the Captain came in and said some magic words and the BurgerMaster collapsed. Why didn't the PC's words have that effect on the BurgerMaster, if that was the success? I mean, you can butterfly-effect roughly anything, b it seems to me that if there's a success determined then it should actually look like the character's success; this doesn't to me.

Let's turn this around. If the PC fails, and the Burgomaster does the same thing -- calls for the Captain, relates the insult, and orders the PC incarcerated -- according to your restrictions above this would be baffling to the PC because the Captain wasn't present for the insult. So, when the Captain moves to seize the PC, this would be just as bad -- now the Captain is doing something when we wasn't even there when the PC insulted the Burgomaster!

Oh, please. The BurgerMaster calls for the guards; the Captain comes in with the guards, as the leader thereof, and seizes the PCs per the BurgerMaster's orders. There's a simple narrative logic that seems impossible to unintentionally misunderstand.

I mean, this is pretty much the equivalent of being in an argument with a Bob, a friend, and Bob turns to Sam, another friend, and say, "you agree with me, right, Sam?" But Sam says, actually, no, I agree with @prabe." You weren't talking to Sam, you were arguing with Bob, how could Sam become involved supporting you if you didn't ask Sam to intervene? Because, well, that's how a lot of normal conversations happen. If we rule that our RPGs can't even generate the fiction that matches a common argument occurrence like this, what are we doing?

Except, in a better comparison to the scene in question, Sam wasn't there for the argument. Bob and I walked into and elevator during a pause in the argument and Sam was there. My reaction to Sam would be bafflement and probably a sense that I was being mocked.