Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Ovinomancer]

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.

It would be more like saying that you loosed a bolt at the Burgomaster, but he used magic to reflect it, but then it bounced off the Captain's shield and hit the Burgomaster anyway. This weird combination is only because the Burgomaster has a trait that reflects arrows, so you show that, but the Captain's shield has an similar enchantment, so they cancel out and the PC's intended action succeeds!

I mean, that's pretty much it here. The Burgomaster has a 'nuh-uh' ability that you bring in the Captain to negate so the PC lands their attempt.

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.

No, the Burgomaster is secretly afraid that the PC is correct, which is why he lashed out. When his friend supports the PC, it's still the PC's accusation that causes the Burgomaster to reconsider.

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 agree. The Captain coming in telling the Burgomaster that the townsfolk agree with the PC is also a simple narrative logic that seems impossible to unintentionally misunderstand, yet here we are.

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.

Only if Bob relates the argument you just made to Sam and then Sam reacts, because that's the example. I think, maybe, you might want to go back and re-read it, because you seem to keep arguing that it makes no sense for the Captain come in when the Burgomaster calls him and then relates the insult to him -- ie, Bob tells Sam what you just said. This example just continues to show that you're somehow missing the factual chain of events in the example and substituting some other chain that, well, is probably as bad as you think but it's not what was presented.

But, regardless, if you cannot agree that RPGs should be able to recreate common conversational occurrences, then there's not much we can really discuss -- we disagree too fundamentally to proceed. I would hope that's not the case.

 

[prabe]

It would be more like saying that you loosed a bolt at the Burgomaster, but he used magic to reflect it, but then it bounced off the Captain's shield and hit the Burgomaster anyway. This weird combination is only because the Burgomaster has a trait that reflects arrows, so you show that, but the Captain's shield has an similar enchantment, so they cancel out and the PC's intended action succeeds!

And that would be similarly clumsy in-play, or at least clumsy.

I agree. The Captain coming in telling the Burgomaster that the townsfolk agree with the PC is also a simple narrative logic that seems impossible to unintentionally misunderstand, yet here we are.

Except the Captain didn't hear the insult. He doesn't know what Mr. Insulty said. All he knows is that the BurgerMaster called him in. What the hell is he doing, talking about a conversation he hasn't heard?

Only if Bob relates the argument you just made to Sam and then Sam reacts, because that's the example. I think, maybe, you might want to go back and re-read it, because you seem to keep arguing that it makes no sense for the Captain come in when the Burgomaster calls him and then relates the insult to him -- ie, Bob tells Sam what you just said. This example just continues to show that you're somehow missing the factual chain of events in the example and substituting some other chain that, well, is probably as bad as you think but it's not what was presented.

So, we're moving the goalposts? Adding things to the story post-facto so we can say it should have worked out the way we think is "better play?" Because my understanding of the inident was that the audience was the BurgerMaster with a couple PCs who wanted to negotiate, Mr. Insulty, and Hostage-taker. After the insult the Burgermaster calls for guards, Hostage-taker tries to take the BurgerMaster hostage, and things go in a generally bad direction. How is it "deft GMing" to have character completely uninvolved in the conversation be the one to resolve it?

Bob and I are walking to the elevator, arguing. The doors open and Sam is standing there. Bob says, "I'm right, Sam, right?" Sam says, "No, prabe is right and everyone in the building knows it and also you're a nutjob."

I mean, that's pretty how you're describing the original incident with the modifications involved. PC's have audience with BurgerMaster; Mr. Insulty insults, as it says on the tin; BurgerMaster calls for the guards; Hostage-taker endeavors to fulfill his telos and fails; Captain comes in and says, "The PCs are right"; BurgerMaster curls up in a ball and cries. Meanwhile, around the table, the players are rolling their eyes as they realize they were supposed to try to suborn the Captain before talking to the BurgerMaster.

But, regardless, if you cannot agree that RPGs should be able to recreate common conversational occurrences, then there's not much we can really discuss -- we disagree too fundamentally to proceed. I would hope that's not the case.

I don't think we disagree about whether TRPGs should be able to recreate common conversations. I think the descriptions of events have mutated so substantially that there's no clear understanding of which facts are being discussed, when. It's probably one of those things where Internet fora do not aid communication.

 

[Manbearcat]

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?

I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying:

"I don't see a player building toward 'always rude' archetype for the reasons you put forth (are you meaning "for thematic potency and related arc"?)."

Two questions and thoughts here:

1) Are we now attributing "always rude" to the PC who called out the Burgermeister (this is what I'm going with now since its changed so much...this dude flips the hell out of some all-beef patties and his special sauce is killer) for lacking fitness to rule?

2) Why are we doing that? Again, if this is just a rude player who has created a rude character as a proxy to be douche...why are we even having this conversation? Why was it posted as a thread? Its clearly a social dynamic that is specific to this group of people and they need to resolve it if that is the case. However, we can have an interesting conversation (and I've been trying to have it) about the player being sincere in their action declaration (meaning "being rude" isn't the 1st order intent within the fiction...its to get the Burgermeister to come to terms with the folly of his fat to protein ratio of his all-beef patty and the insufficient cumin count of his special sauce).

3) "Always rude" is a weird archetype to build around. It doesn't describe ethos. It describes methodology. You can certainly build around someone who is coarse and blunt for sure. But those would be approaches to social conflict. In order for this character to have real thematic heft for the GM to put obstacles in between that character and their aims, we have to know what actually animates them.

 

[Manbearcat]

@prabe

I'm looking at the conversation between you and @Ovinomancer (who has said pretty much exactly what I would have said) and I'm staggered in one sense, yet, in another, I've had similar conversations with other people on this board over the years that have invoked what you're invoking; a form of "Schrodinger's Captain."

I've had enough of those conversations to know that there is something hardware-wise that differentiates us such that we're not able to communicate on this issue because I'm not sure I've ever had a successful conversation with anyone who invokes "Schrodinger's x" (there is a lens through which we view causal relationships and how they relate to gameplay that is fundamentally incongruent).

Let me just say (and reiterate again) the following things:

1) Forget the initiating play exerpt. It is ENTIRELY too nebulous and lacking in detail. I know and you know only the faintest of things about it. We can't be sure what happened there.

2) Instead, lets increase the resolution by adding or subtracting details sufficient to create a potential excerpt of play that we can actually discuss. The only thing that matters are (a) the fictional positioning of the framing, (b) the player's action declaration, (c) the attendant mechanical resolution of that action, and (d) the GM's responsibility in adjudication and evolving the fiction.

On (a):

You keep saying the Captain of the Guard wasn't present for the meeting with the Burgermeister (even though he loves to watch the man cook). That is a stipulation you are bringing in that doesn't need to be present for our hypothetical. Obviously, if the Captain isn't present, the GM isn't going to use the captain and his relationship with the Burgermeister as the conduit for honoring the player's success. That is self-evident!

However, we can trivially account for this and conceive an alternative. Neither the Captain, nor anyone else, is present. With that stipulation, on to (b):

(b) Same action declaration by the PC; some derivative of "you're unfit to rule."

(c) Player succeeds.

(d) This time, with the same responsibilities for the GM, the Burgermeister says. "I see. I have a mind to call the guard just to see you hauled off in chains. But ok, I'm unfit to rule. Let us go address the people. You and I. I'll have my men wrangle together the people for a meeting in the square that my balcony portico overlooks (as he points to it). I'll address them and tell them what you said. We'll see how the feel about that. I'll even let you address them! When they don't respond well, I'll see you in those chains..."

So what now? How to fulfill your responsibility as GM? Simple

The PC has earned the right to continue their ability to plea their case, but this time in a completely public forum...to a crowd that may be intimidated by the proceedings and the Burgermeister looking at them from on high with the legacy of brooking no dissent...or perhaps they'll be emboldened by the PC's bold, inspiring words, the folklore of the PCs' deeds to date, and their sheer numbers (the player's action declaration and the resolution mechanics will tell us how the public responds to the impromptu event).

 

[Maxperson]

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.

A lot of us don't want a game where all we have to do is walk into a magic shop and make a roll to walk out with everything for free. Then walk to the bank and just make a roll to get all the money in it given to us with just a successful persuasion check. What's the point of even playing if a few rolls can get you almost everything?

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.

I love how you accuse @Fanaelialae of "You again trot out the turtles all the way down despite no one advocating for this at all." and then trot out a turtle that no one is advocating for. Nobody is sayin gthat everything with all possible NPCs must be prepared ahead of time. Some simple motivations are sufficient to give the DM an idea of what is a for sure yes, is uncertain or a for sure no.

 

[FrogReaver]

A lot of us don't want a game where all we have to do is walk into a magic shop and make a roll to walk out with everything for free. Then walk to the bank and just make a roll to get all the money in it given to us with just a successful persuasion check. What's the point of even playing if a few rolls can get you almost everything?

But no one is suggesting that should ever be the case and if they were we could dismiss their views entirely. So maybe you could actually try to explain the logic you are using to get from what we are saying to that? Make a good solid case because it's obviously going to be something hotly contested given the stakes.

 

[FrogReaver]

@prabe

I'm looking at the conversation between you and @Ovinomancer (who has said pretty much exactly what I would have said) and I'm staggered in one sense, yet, in another, I've had similar conversations with other people on this board over the years that have invoked what you're invoking; a form of "Schrodinger's Captain."

I've had enough of those conversations to know that there is something hardware-wise that differentiates us such that we're not able to communicate on this issue because I'm not sure I've ever had a successful conversation with anyone who invokes "Schrodinger's x" (there is a lens through which we view causal relationships and how they relate to gameplay that is fundamentally incongruent).

I wanted to touch on this notion because it is something I've argued with you and @pemerton about in the past.

You treat mechanical success solely as fictional success - which means you are presumptively okay with virtually any success state even if it's one in which there isn't a direct in-fiction casual relationship between the action taken and the in-fiction success state.

I'm one of the people who find that causal relationship between action and in-fiction success state to be important. That said I've evolved a bit in my opinion. I think quite often some of the "best" success states are the ones that preserve that causal relationship. It's just I recognize that there can exist situations where preserving that causal relationship may actually make for a worse game. So while I would tend to use such non causal success states rarely, they are no longer anathema to my DM toolbox or general verisimilitude because I recognize the value they can add.

 

[Campbell]

I am absolutely fine with what is in the GM Notes' having some weight. However 'cannot be influenced' or 'cannot be intimidated' are terrible notes to have. There are some things that given NPC will probably not be able to be convinced to do. There are certainly some things they can be convinced to do for the right price.

At the end of the day we should make sure NPCs feel human. We should focus on what they want and what is important to them. Obviously if he is granting them an audience he probably wants something from the PCs. We do not need to know all his desires, but the ones pertinent to the scene would sure help.

 

[FrogReaver]

Of course the Captain isn't going to flip just because the players ask

Why not? Could they not ask him to and get a roll and if successful he flips? You see, I agree that he won't flip just because he's asked. It's just I'm not sure how to square that with your methodology.

 

[FrogReaver]

Getting back on topic about the insult - I've seen multiple plausible motivations for how one could be using an insult to leverage an NPC but I've not seen any mention of what was the most likely motivation.

I think the most likely motivation for the player having the PC insult the burgomaster was simply to change the current game state to something more interesting. If such was the motivation was the insult justifiable? Should it at that point have resulted into auto-failure resulting in having the parties lives threatened by an ambiguous call for "guards" with no statement of NPC intent?