Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Maxperson]

So, do you think that a minor NPC is typically going to have:
a) such a detailed background

It's not very detailed. A little blurb about his childhood.

b) that also relates to potential actions in the present game

Backgrounds often will and often will not relate to potential actions in the present game. That's the nature of them.

c) that will effectively shut down a very possible action?

Not a chance. Why on Earth would I want to shut down every possible action when I've been posting that it won't shut down every possible action.

I mean, I've never been in a game where any NPC had such strong feelings about orphanages that influenced their view about an actual orphanage that the PCs wanted to burn down. This seems like an absurd example that isn't really likely to come up. You even quoted me saying this...

"The DM will know some things that will auto fail, some that will auto succeed, but the vast majority are going to be unknown and many of those will push things down paths other than what the DM has planned."

...and yet you still asked me about shutting everything down. Weird.

This seems far more reasonable, and lends itself much more to what I've just described above. All those middle examples that aren't auto succeed or auto fail, typically rolls are what's involved. So those rolls can do double duty.....let us know if the PCs succeed or fail, and also possibly the reasons why.

LOL I answer as I go down, so I hadn't seen this when I wrote the above. Still not sure why you left C in there, though.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's not very detailed. A little blurb about his childhood.



Backgrounds often will and often will not relate to potential actions in the present game. That's the nature of them.



Not a chance. Why on Earth would I want to shut down every possible action when I've been posting that it won't shut down every possible action.

I mean, I've never been in a game where any NPC had such strong feelings about orphanages that influenced their view about an actual orphanage that the PCs wanted to burn down. This seems like an absurd example that isn't really likely to come up. You even quoted me saying this...

"The DM will know some things that will auto fail, some that will auto succeed, but the vast majority are going to be unknown and many of those will push things down paths other than what the DM has planned."

...and yet you still asked me about shutting everything down. Weird.


LOL I answer as I go down, so I hadn't seen this when I wrote the above. Still not sure why you left C in there, though.

I didn't say all actions, I said one that may be declared. Again, I don't think PCs are going to request the burning of an orphanage....but whatever it may be, having some detail of the NPCs background crafted to be a block on a certain action that may come up seems like a bad idea.

Like a merchant whose parents were killed by haggling, and when the PCs try to haggle with him, he kicks them out of his shop so he can weep for a while.

 

[prabe]

This is a great observation and I don't disagree at all. One note PCs are involved in far more of the game than a one note NPC may be....so they can certainly be much more of a burden.

This is true, in principle, but if all of a campaign's NPCs are beyond one-note to at least the border of monomania, it's ... tiring.

Yes, I've been in a campaign like that. Recently, even.

It's one thing if an NPC has quirks, or hard boundaries, or even is annoying (I had an information broker sell the PCs information they already knew), but having each and every NPC be implacably monomaniacal is an entirely other thing.

 

[prabe]

I didn't say all actions, I said one that may be declared. Again, I don't think PCs are going to request the burning of an orphanage....but whatever it may be, having some detail of the NPCs background crafted to be a block on a certain action that may come up seems like a bad idea.

I think it depends on the action/s and the context. It isn't necessarily a horrible thing if a GM decides during prep that a given NPC won't do [thing], even if the PCs ask, no matter how the PCs ask; it just needs to be ... thought about and thought through.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think it depends on the action/s and the context. It isn't necessarily a horrible thing if a GM decides during prep that a given NPC won't do [thing], even if the PCs ask, no matter how the PCs ask; it just needs to be ... thought about and thought through.

Yeah, I agree. My example was a joke but I think it displays what I mean. The GM has to consider such factors (NPC background details) and how they’re likely to interact with potential actions in play.

There may be a reason to have such a detail in place that may be relevant, but any time that is the case, you’re effectively limiting the available actions for the PCs. Which may or may not be good.....as you say, it deserves some thought.

 

[Manbearcat]

Thinking more about the discussion of causality. Say you try to jump across a 50 ft canyon. The DM allows a check and you roll a 20. You fail to jump far enough, but a friendly angel grabs you from certain death and flys you on to the other side. This is a 2nd order causal relationship as I defined above because your jump action directly led to the actions of the angel.

But this doesn't feel right does it? It's a bit too spectacular I think. Which means to me that a success state framed in even a 2nd order causal way is not enough to properly constrain the "fictional success" model to lead to good success states.

I've looked through the thread and most of what I would have said in replies to others has been covered (and covered well), so I'm going to jump on this very interesting tangent (which is conversation I'm a big fan of and its related to the greater conversation here).

What about this? What if your PC is a Cleric or a Paladin? Would divine intercession there feel thematically fulfilling to the player and thematically appropriate for this action resolution outcome you've devised above?

What if you're a Druid or a Barbarian and either an Air Elemental manifests or the Primal Beast manifests as a massive tiger (like Battlecat) and you land upon it in your leap to stride the extra distance?

With Fighters and Rogues (that aren't Epic tier) you're likely still reliant upon 1st order causal relationships (you're endowed by an athletic prowess that is at the extreme tail of the distribution of even the most potent athletes).

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't say all actions, I said one that may be declared. Again, I don't think PCs are going to request the burning of an orphanage....but whatever it may be, having some detail of the NPCs background crafted to be a block on a certain action that may come up seems like a bad idea.

Like a merchant whose parents were killed by haggling, and when the PCs try to haggle with him, he kicks them out of his shop so he can weep for a while.

I think that's a rather cool idea and would see what I could do for the merchant. It's a great roleplaying opportunity.

 

[FrogReaver]

I've looked through the thread and most of what I would have said in replies to others has been covered (and covered well), so I'm going to jump on this very interesting tangent (which is conversation I'm a big fan of and its related to the greater conversation here).

What about this? What if your PC is a Cleric or a Paladin? Would divine intercession there feel thematically fulfilling to the player and thematically appropriate for this action resolution outcome you've devised above?

What if you're a Druid or a Barbarian and either an Air Elemental manifests or the Primal Beast manifests as a massive tiger (like Battlecat) and you land upon it in your leap to stride the extra distance?

With Fighters and Rogues (that aren't Epic tier) you're likely still reliant upon 1st order causal relationships (you're endowed by an athletic prowess that is at the extreme tail of the distribution of even the most potent athletes).

I think those are good questions and especially the cleric one gave me pause.

To answer I think I have to talk about when it's good to introduce highly fantastical success states. It seems to me that the more fantastical success states should primarily only be considered when stakes are high, when they will be fun and when the it's more believable that you needed the fantastical to overcome this particular obstacle in the way you attempted than that you were capable of overcoming it via a 1st order causal success.

So when I say it doesn't feel right for a PC to jump across a canyon and have angels carry him the rest of the way due to his athletics success - what I mean is that such a success state should be used rarely and shouldn't be typical because I do ultimately believe that very particular circumstances could merit using such a fantastical success state.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think those are good questions and especially the cleric one gave me pause.

To answer I think I have to talk about when it's good to introduce highly fantastical success states. It seems to me that the more fantastical success states should primarily only be considered when stakes are high, when they will be fun and when the it's more believable that you needed the fantastical to overcome this particular obstacle in the way you attempted than that you were capable of overcoming it via a 1st order causal success.

So when I say it doesn't feel right for a PC to jump across a canyon and have angels carry him the rest of the way due to his athletics success - what I mean is that such a success state should be used rarely and shouldn't be typical because I do ultimately believe that very particular circumstances could merit using such a fantastical success state.

I'm going to reiterate that a declared action must be rooted in the fiction and genre appropriate. The 50 foot jump attempt seems genre inappropriate for a standard D&D game, especially if a maximum check is insufficient on it's own. So, starting rocky. But, it may be genre appropriate to receive supernatural aid. That's a question for you. Then we look to the fiction. Aid needs to be rooted here in that such aid must be something that aligns with existing fiction. If you're evil, it's not well rooted an angel will help you.

Finally, we need to talk about this approach in terms of system. I did the above for D&D, a system with a strong GM decides core mechanic. Actions must pass the GM's fiction and genre filters. This is because the resolution mechanics are based on what the GM decides, both DC and what ability check is used. If the GM allows a roll, it already passed his filters. If it does not, then the GM is right to narrate autofailure.

In other systems, the GM does not decide. Here, though, there are tge sane fiction and genre filters, but their everyone's responsibility. If the action to jump 50' is acceptable to the table, then success on the mechanic is success, and it's now the responsibility of whoever has narration authority to narrate a result the both succeeds and aligns to the fuction and genre.

I do think your suggestion to be as straightfirward in action resolution as possible is a good bit of guidance, but offer a quicker formulation: KISS. I think, though, that you should be aware of opportunities to both keep it simple but also spice it up. I view the Captain example as such.

 

[Fanaelialae]

So, this I agree with on the surface but want to urge caution because IMO DM's are often too simplistic and even biased in their treatment of what NPC personalities in relation to what they definitely will and will not do. I think there needs to be certain limitations on the ranges of NPC reactions (such as you can't convince this merchant to give you all his goods) - but I think anything that is going to cause auto success or failure in relation to NPC's needs to be very carefully considered as it usually isn't serving an actual purpose and likely is going to be too limiting on the range and tone of social interaction the players may want to have. That's part of the issue many of us have with the impossible to insult burgomaster that this thread was started about.

I think that in most games if a player ever played his PC as strictly to predetermined personality as the DM does his NPC's that such a player would be quickly booted for disruptive behavior / bad faith play. Does anyone disagree?

I disagree that it's a problem when used with discretion.

Let's use the baron as an example. This is a character who isn't central to the campaign. The players could hypothetically play through the module successfully without ever even meeting the baron (to the best of my knowledge). Within that context, I don't think there's anything wrong with him having an auto-failure trigger, particularly as long as it is telegraphed (as it is likely to be in this scenario). Despite ruling a town, he's a minor and relatively unimportant NPC.

This is where the comparison with PCs falls apart I think. Yes, you wouldn't want a PC in your game like that. But there's a big difference between an NPC who appears frequently in your game and one who is likely to be a one-off. The former is in some ways comparable to a PC, while the latter really isn't.

Don't get me wrong, you wouldn't want to do this with a majority of characters. Nor should it typically be a trait of important or recurring NPCs. You certainly wouldn't want a game like @prabe mentioned playing in, where all the NPCs behaved this way (I'm sorry, that sounds like it was an awful experience).

I don't see it as being much different from having an ancient red dragon who will attack if she catches the PCs trying to steal anything from her hoard. Is there anyone who considers that unfair? Does it become unfair if the PCs have a klepto rogue in the party? To me, it would seem strange and un-dragon-like for an evil and greedy dragon to be merciful towards thieves. Now certainly, I'm open to the possibility that the dragon doesn't attack but rather uses other measures to punish the thieves. However, I don't see attacking as being out of line either. Forgive-and-forget is not really an option though.

I think, like many things, it has a place in the game when used with consideration and moderation.