Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Maxperson]

The OP talks about this early in the the thread.

My understanding of Ravenloft is that it is Renaissance-meets-Gothic-horror. I don't see how capitulation to mad tyrants is an essential part of that genre. Nor that uncowable tyrants are an essential part of it. What happened to the bit where the guards and crowd turn on the tyrant and set fire to his mansion with him in it?

The Domain Lords are given a lot of power by the plane and many rule with an iron fist. Going against one of the Lord's cronies is a good way to end up dead or worse. Fear and horror are prevalent. If you plan on playing a group that doesn't capitulate to the oppressive rulers, you are planning on a very short campaign.

 

[Campbell]

As far I can tell @Ovinomancer is not suggesting that the successful roll would override established fiction. He was suggesting that a GM might establish additional fictional details that correspond with the successful roll.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I did need to add that detail. @Ovinomancer suggested that a successful roll would be retroactively justified, so without that detail, a success to try and get him to burn down the orphanage would result in the Captain wanting the kids to die for some reason which he would come up with. With it, the "success" won't be successful.



Under this new scenario, if the PCs have evidence, I would give them a roll to convince the Captain, or if the evidence is really strong, not even require a roll. Altering the scenario alters the point that I was trying to make.

Please stop attributing things to me I have not said. At no point did I ever opine that things are retroactively justified, nor did I ever even comment on people wanting kids to die in any context. Stop putting words in my mouth, especially vile ones.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As far I can tell @Ovinomancer is not suggesting that the successful roll would override established fiction. He was suggesting that a GM might establish additional fictional details that correspond with the successful roll.

I appreciate the defense, and you're absolutely correct, but I'd prefer to not have others engage in this slander on my behalf, I'd just prefer it stop. Discussing it further will just create more statements about what I think by people that are not me.

 

[Maxperson]

As far I can tell @Ovinomancer is not suggesting that the successful roll would override established fiction. He was suggesting that a GM might establish additional fictional details that correspond with the successful roll.

I wasn't talking about established fiction. I'm talking about the prep that goes into an NPC. If I know he was an orphan and has a soft spot for that orphanage and its children, which is something the PCs can find out, then they are not going to be able to convince him to burn it down just by a roll. They would need something like hard proof that the kids were really imps or dopplegangers or something.

 

[Maxperson]

Please stop attributing things to me I have not said. At no point did I ever opine that things are retroactively justified, nor did I ever even comment on people wanting kids to die in any context. Stop putting words in my mouth, especially vile ones.

It's right here dude.

"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. "

That's you flat out saying that if the roll is successful(he flipped), you can plausibly invent the reason he flipped. You are retroactively justifying the roll.

You are correct that it wasn't about the non-existent, pretend kids dying, though. I misremembered that part of it.

 

[Fanaelialae]

"Red herrings" was explicitly called out as an intended result. Did we read the same post?

Well, yes, if they're not red herrings then we're okay. The point of that post wasn't to provide a new place to shop for interesting things or quest-giving proprietors. If you're changing the example we're both working from so that your conclusion fits and mine doesn't, that's moving the goalposts. The example given was explicitly about confusing the situation with red herrings and extra information so as to force the players to weed through it to find their goal. It was even explicitly said that if they do this weeding in a noticeable way the assassins would be prepared. There's no way for the players to make meaningful action resolutions at the start of the presented scenario because there's no information provided to leverage -- anything they try will be a guess first, at which point the GM will (especially given the later post of possible details) increase the level of chaff with fully details NPCs that have no reason to be present other than to be a red herring and drive the fiction towards a point the GM can use to justify having the assassins alerted. This is an example of using scene setting as GM Force -- Force being using GM authority to drive to a pre-determined or desired outcome regardless of player inputs.

I wasn't moving goalposts, I simply didn't read carefully enough.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's right here dude.

"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. "

That's you flat out saying that if the roll is successful(he flipped), you can plausibly invent the reason he flipped. You are retroactively justifying the roll.

You are correct that it wasn't about the non-existent, pretend kids dying, though. I misremembered that part of it.

Sorry, but you don't get to blatantly misrepresent my words and then demand I defend against your accusations. You completely squandered any chance I'll be amenable to discuss this with you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I wasn't moving goalposts, I simply didn't read carefully enough.

Fair enough.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, but you don't get to blatantly misrepresent my words and then demand I defend against your accusations. You completely squandered any chance I'll be amenable to discuss this with you.

Way to dodge the proof that you said you can retroactively justify rolls. At least @Campbell and others get to see I was correct about that portion. That's what is important.