Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Lanefan]

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.

Agreed, flat absolutes like "Cannot be influenced" aren't good; but notes saying something like "Can be infuenced but only to [point X] beyond which he will not go" or "The first attempt to intimidate will inform all further attempts, as the BurgerMaster will react by either stiffening (all further attempts fail) or cracking (all further attempts succeed)", stuff like that. And I know my examples aren't great.

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.

Again agreed.

However, complicating things in this case is that the tyrant isn't entirely sane, thus his reactions might not predictably match those of a more normal human and making him 'feel human' might be more of a challenge for the DM. Given that, pretty much anything's in play when it comes to his reactions to anything, depending how whacked-out the DM wants him to come across as. (were I DMing I'd make him completely balls-nuts crazy just so I could ham it up for humour - probably a welcome break in any Ravenloft adventure)

 

[Fenris-77]

"The first attempt to intimidate will inform all further attempts, as the BurgerMaster will react by either stiffening..."

We've gone to a whole different kind of game I think...

 

[Imaculata]

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.

I disagree with that position as well. I have fond memories of my barbarian having to socialize at a dinner party of a noble woman, and trying to understand the concept of etiquette. That DM knew exactly what he was doing, and the result was hilarious. Imagine a barbarian trying to figure out how to eat with a knife and fork, and which spoon to pick for each course, while trying to stay polite. The rest of the party was holding their breath as a disaster could unfold any moment. I played up the barbarian's mistakes on purpose for comedy gold. My barbarian would occasionally use a complicated word to look sophisticated, only to make it painfully obvious that he didn't know what the word meant.

Of course this situation and the one we are discussing have quite different consequences. The worst that could happen at the dinner party, was the entire party being embarassed and having to apologize for their friends bad manners.

 

[Scott Christian]

Iin real life, if I'm attacked by orcs they win. And I've never inherited a magic heirloom either.

Why is my model for FRPG dialogue me? That's not my model for anything else in a RPG.

Why isn't it King Richard meeting and swapping gifts with Saladin's brother (to point to some real-world example of charismatic individuals). Or why isn't it Robert Downey Jr or Julian Moore or even Jack Black in a film? Just like my models for combat are Jet Li, the knights in Excalibur, and Wolverine.

In the example from Curse of Strahd, this is not a meeting between a boss and a downtrodden underling, or between a police officer and a hapless driver. The PCs are personalities in their own right, protagonists in a fantasy adventure, with prowess in arms or magic or both. The Mad Tyrant is among peers.

You are correct. It shouldn't be you. I provided examples outside of you. But you are correct, it shouldn't be you or me or any other common person.

Why can the barbarian not speak and contribute to the endeavour, if that's what that player wants to do?

Conversely, if the player of the diplomat doesn't want the barbarian to kill a particular NPC, isn't it his/her prerogative to have his/her PC do something about that?

I specifically said, actually it's my first sentence: "The barbarian can speak." I just stated that there are times, especially when it's an important interaction, he should let the diplomat shine. That is what the player created (and spent character creation resources) his character for. And again, the diplomat can try to thwart the barbarian from killing. But, if they are fighting a pivotal bad guy - he probably shouldn't.

Please understand, I never said they couldn't. But, there should be a context. As I stated in a prior post, it can't be because "I'm bored and want to fight something." There is a give an take to an RPG table.

Why is ths social encounter scripted? Is that how combats are meant to be run too?

Some social encounters are scripted. If you don't run any that way, good for you. But many are - specifically pivotal NPC's. A scene where players meet the Captain of the guards, and notice she has a commanding presence and all her actions indicate a no-nonsense NPC that doesn't take well to intimidation. She is surrounded by guards asking the PC's to check on some missing guards. It is made clear she is reaching into her own coin purse to pay the players. If the players decide they want their barbarian to use intimidation, the roll needed would be much higher (or near impossible) than if they showed her respect. This NPC is pivotal. She will be in and out of the adventurer's lives for three or four sessions. Her demeanor is made clear. If the players don't pick up on it, or if the barbarian is "bored" and wants to thwart the diplomat's chance to shine, so be it. But, in the end it's not being considerate.

As I stated earlier. This is not a random NPC. It's not the tailor or blacksmith or barkeep the barbarian is using intimidation on to stay open an extra hour. It is a pivotal NPC. And pivotal NPC's are where the main storyline take place. Maybe we should name them NPC and npc to denote the type.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

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.

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?

Great point. The NPC should try to draw the character in to the conversation sometimes. Although, it's not always reasonable, both because of the world's context or time. And speaking of time, what is "a long stretch?" Combat at level 6 can take an hour with each encounter. At level 12 it's almost stupid how long it can take if the sides are equal. Watching characters mill about town and buy equipment can take an hour, especially with large groups. So when does a social encounter become too long? (Serious question. I assume it is individual, but for you as GM & player.)

As for speaking. I think a response to this is it depends what table you play at. Many players don't want to be the one talking, but they like to listen. I play with several people like that. It's like watching your friend try to talk to a girl and ask her out on a date. It can be entertaining. It is not always boring. If a player is always bored with it they can:

• comment themselves (and probably should try to help the face of their group unless they have ulterior motives, which is rare
• ask questions or whisper advice to the party's face
• comment out of character with jokes or observations
• go to the bathroom, get a drink, etc.
• try to ruin the obvious objective of your party's face

Again these are pivotal social scenes, not commonplace ones.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

So first, Strawmanning my response doesn't absolve you of trotting out a turtle that none one is talking about while at the same time coming down on someone for trotting out turtles that no one is talking about.

Second, I didn't say "should." I said that simple motivations are sufficient to know some things and be unsure about others, which allows the DM to say yes or no about some things and roll for others.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yep. The DM only controls the DM side of things. The players control the player side of things, which includes the characters that they play. Over the years I've had a couple DMs come to me, expecting me to turn over character sheets for PCs that I've played in their games. I've always told those DMs no. A few times a DM has come and politely asked me if he could use one of my inactive PCs as an NPC in a game with some of his other players. I usually say yes. If they ask nicely, they are acknowledging my ownership of the PC.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Great point. The NPC should try to draw the character in to the conversation sometimes. Although, it's not always reasonable, both because of the world's context or time. And speaking of time, what is "a long stretch?" Combat at level 6 can take an hour with each encounter. At level 12 it's almost stupid how long it can take if the sides are equal. Watching characters mill about town and buy equipment can take an hour, especially with large groups. So when does a social encounter become too long? (Serious question. I assume it is individual, but for you as GM & player.)

To me, any scene that involves all characters in some way can be as long as it needs to be. For anything where a limited number of players are engaged, consideration must be given for those waiting to participate. Now, I would expect a reasonable level of patience on the part of anyone not presently involved, but I do think it's better to get back to them sooner rather than later. Even if it's just a simple check in like "Okay, Mike...while all this is going on, what is Mongo doing?" Such a prompt gives the player the chance to engage if they'd like, or to refrain if they're okay continuing to wait.

Long combats tend to be different from long social scenes....or at least the potential for significant difference is there. With combat, everyone is likely involved. There is of course the chance that they get removed from the action, but those are typically understood and accepted as part of the game. When someone drops to 0 HP, they're not out of the action simply because it's someone else's time to shine.

As for speaking. I think a response to this is it depends what table you play at. Many players don't want to be the one talking, but they like to listen. I play with several people like that. It's like watching your friend try to talk to a girl and ask her out on a date. It can be entertaining. It is not always boring. If a player is always bored with it they can:

• comment themselves (and probably should try to help the face of their group unless they have ulterior motives, which is rare
• ask questions or whisper advice to the party's face
• comment out of character with jokes or observations
• go to the bathroom, get a drink, etc.
• try to ruin the obvious objective of your party's face

Again these are pivotal social scenes, not commonplace ones.

In any scene where one player has the focus....their PC is the one doing the talking or decision making for whatever reason....I always allow the other players to offer input and suggestions. If they're engaged enough to be following things and have ideas, I don't see the point in shutting that down. So that's my first step to trying to alleviate any potential boredom.

Additionally, if their characters are actually present in the scene, I do what I can to draw them into the scene. Whether it's a side conversation with another NPC, or the main NPC asks them direct questions. If their character isn't present in the scene, I may have something come up wherever they may be. Then I'll try and rotate focus a bit, alternating between scenes as needed.

I have one player who doesn't really like to talk scenes out. He's pretty much of the opinion that all such social scenes can be boiled down to a few points and a few rolls, and then you move on. I have other players who will happily speak in character for an entire session. So when I GM for these players, I have to balance that. I don't want to skip past parts that are fun for some players, but I don't want to let them indulge to the point that the other player is constantly listen to them talk.

As such, we don't tend to roleplay out mundane scenes like buying gear and the like.....we just narrate that quickly, deduct the necessary GP, and add the items to the sheet. The in character discussions that are roleplayed are limited to meaningful scenes, as you mention.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Wow. There's a lot going on in this thread. Not sure if everyone's talking about the same thing, but NPCs aren't immovable. They're not like NPCs in video games, where the longsword always costs x gold pieces, and nothing else. Sure, it's very unreasonable to give away all your weapons and armor for free, but a small discount when a character roleplays well is not the end of the world.

NPCs don't have to be unyielding, but they also don't have to be unnecessarily stupid when it comes to finances or another topic important to their personality.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So first, Strawmanning my response doesn't absolve you of trotting out a turtle that none one is talking about while at the same time coming down on someone for trotting out turtles that no one is talking about.

Claims of strawmanning are deflated by selective quoting, and also by doing it yourself.

Second, I didn't say "should." I said that simple motivations are sufficient to know some things and be unsure about others, which allows the DM to say yes or no about some things and roll for others.

Which is still saying that some notes are needed/desirable/wanted for all NPCs so as to provide this. As I said in the part of my previous post you snipped, notes aren't bad. They also aten't necessary or maybe even desireable (to everyone).