Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Ovinomancer]

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



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?



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.



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.

I've been discussing @Manbearcat's example of play. You, however, seem to be discussing some odd mishmash of that and the OP that doesn't resemble either. This appears to be a large part of our disagreement -- I'm consistently discussing the play example from MBC but you've shifted to something else. This can be a feature of internet discussions, as you note, but a strength of such is that you can go back and reread and see that I have not moved my goalposts.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

I was the one that brought the always insulting PC up. I contrasted this with an impossible to insult NPC. The point I was making was simply that if a player is playing such a character then it's actually the DM that is the douche for pitting him up against an impossible to insult NPC.

That example for that purpose has grew some legs it seems.

I think more on point though is that a DM can always put an impossible NPC in place for any PC that is being played toward anything other than survival and accumulation of wealth. If the DM wants he can place an NPC in front of any such PC that will be impossible for them to handle. Or stepping back a bit from the absoluteness of impossibility we could talk about a high degree of unlikeness to be able to handle that NPC - which doesn't actually change where this is going - that changing up an NPC to not be impossible or nearly impossible or very very difficult for your PCs to succeed in social interaction with is easy, whereas demanding the PCs accommodate any such NPC you come up with or "lose" ultimately forcers the players to play characters that could plausibly be played such that they could potentially accommodate any PC.

Thus, this notion of needing PCs primarily concerned with survival and accumulation of wealth to actually be flexible enough to deal with whatever the DM decides to throw at you is actually a weak point in most D&D games and really pushes the game into the murder hobo direction IMO.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

I think perhaps I'm going to switch to Burger King. Flame broil those PCs!

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

This isn't quite true. The fictional success does have a causal relationship, it's more that the causal relationship may have been heretofore unknown. It still needs to follow the established fiction and be genre appropriate. The example with the Captain, for instance, still directly hinges on the insult, so it's rooted in play, even if it introduces a previously unknown causal relationship that the Captain chooses now to talk to the Burgomaster about the town's agreement with the insult.

Narrating that a tiny meteor fragment suddenly impacts the Burgomaster right after the PC's insult that causes miniscule brain damage that leaves the Burgomaster amenable to the PC's message would not be acceptable because it isn't grounded in the fictional state as established and isn't genre appropriate.

It is more fluid, but it's not wide open. And, I say this as someone that went through a similar evolution to what you describe, almost exactly. I, maybe, have had a bit more time to chew on the concepts, which might explain any difference? Have you tried PbtA games? They really thrive on this adjudication style.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Maybe? It very much depends on the current framing of the scene and what's been established. I mean, if it's been established that the Captain is "loyal to a fault", then a simple ask is always a failure. Maybe, though, if you also discovered a secret shame, you might leverage that into a successful ask. It really deoends on the exact situation.

However, that said, if nothing has been established then I'm open to the possibility. Not any ask is feasible, though, it still must be grounded in established fiction and genre expectations. Asking for his house isn't going to work -- it violates the genre expectations that people are basically like normal people unless otherwise noted -- and normal people can't be convinced to give away their home outside of extraordinary circumstances. But, in the example given by @Manbearcat, there's nothing to indicate that the Captain wouldn't take an opportunity to tell his boss an unwelcome truth in a situation where he might listen to it, say in a room of powerful outsiders saying the sane thing?

But, to return to your question, I cannot provide tighter guidelines because they're very much grounded in what's happening in play. Without play, it's kinda vague, high-level sounding, which may be part of the disconnect.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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?

Me, either! Yuck, that sounds terrible!

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.

And I love that your argument against ne saying "always prepped NPCs" is to say that NPCs should have some prepared, if simple, motivations that at least broadly define the possible yeses and noes for a given NPC.

No one claimed such notes are bad. I argue against the idea their often or even commonly needed to have "realistic" social encounters.

 

[Imaculata]

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 influencable?

I think a better comparison here would be to say that not every npc can be swayed to take any position or reveal any kind of information. There are limits, just as combat has limits regarding what you can do. Some monsters are immune to fire, just as some npc's are reluctant to give up certain bits of information, or to betray certain allies. In the case of the Burgomaster, he had one line that they could not cross, and they crossed it.

But this particular encounter is from Curse of Strahd, correct? I haven't played Curse of Strahd, but as I understand it it is a setting with a very different tone compared to normal D&D. The setting is more dark and dangerous, or so I've heard.

I wonder if the players were properly made aware what sort of adventure they were playing. Whenever I run a campaign with a specific setting, I make sure to inform my players during our session 0 what to expect. For example, if they'll be playing Call of Cthulhu, I tell them that fights with monsters often result in death, and that fleeing is often the better option. I also tell them that CoC campaigns often have a bad ending, resulting in death or madness of the characters. It is important that your players know what they're up for, so they can make smarter choices.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

I was responding to someone who was asking me about it. That's why.

I don't agree that just because the players rolled a good check, that the world suddenly changes to make the loyal Captain flip on his boss. Now, if the Captain is disloyal or I haven't determined his loyalty, that's one thing. But my game world doesn't necessarily change just because the players rolled well.

It doesn't matter whether the players are aware of the information or not, if it is something I've established then it's unlikely to change just because they rolled well. If I haven't established it, then it's absolutely open to a good roll like you've described.

What does this buy me? Verisimilitude - an increased sense that the world exists outside of and isn't simply being generated for the PCs. Sometimes they try an approach that won't work and bounce hard off it. I don't generally call for rolls that are impossible, so the players are aware when they fail at something that couldn't be accomplished.

I have not suggested that everything with all possible NPCs must be prepared. What I have said is that for prepared NPCs this is how I handle it. I don't change the fiction just because the players roll well. In the case where the NPC is improvised, I do handle it much as you suggest, where the uncertain fiction is open to being determined by a roll. Even then, certain thing may be impossible, like convincing the ancient red dragon to give you its hoard. It doesn't matter how well you roll, the fiction is not going to reconfigure itself to that extent.

 

[Lanefan]

Are you talking about a situation where you have multiple active PCs in a game? If so, I agree -- the PCs are active and I should retain control over them. If you're talking about an inactive PC -- retired or just swapped out for a different PC in a one-PC-at-a-time game, then... no? Inactive PCs are ones the player has decided to not play anymore, and, to me, if you're not playing the character, it's no longer a Player Character.

Yes it is. It's just not being played at the moment, and even if the player never plays it again the character still belongs to that player in perpetuity.

Unless, of course, the owning player proactively hands control of it over to another player or to the DM. But the owning player has to initiate this, it can't just be the DM saying "That one's mine now, thank you very much."

I've also seen the reverse happen (and been on both ends of it, at different times), where the DM hands ownership of an NPC over to a player.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

You understood correctly. @FrogReaver has explained why they came up with the example of the always rude character, so I won't delve into it.

To reiterate, the example was of an always rude PC, and how placing an easily insulted NPC in the world is unfair towards that player. I disagree with that position, as I don't think there's anything wrong with throwing in the occasional challenge that targets a character's weak point. As I see it, that's simply an opportunity to grow the character and get creative.

That's not to suggest that all NPCs should be thin skinned. You should absolutely let the character have their fun with their rude PC. But not every NPC should conform to that. I think it's perfectly fine to have NPCs who present a special challenge to one or more PCs.