Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[prabe]

Thing is, often the choice between the smart move and the right move is more fraught than any other choice in the situation. Happens a lot in real life too.

Forcing the smart option and the right option to be the same e.g. setting it up such that making friends with the NPC doesn't violate the PC's principles, denies the opportunity to roleplay that smart-v-right decision.

I don't deny any of this, but there are tables that won't like this kind of smart-versus-right choice--or at least won't like too much of it--because they play TRPGs for the chance to (pretend to) be heroes. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, doesn't mean anyone's table is wrong for liking it, just means the GM should know their audience (and one can consider the GM part of the audience, here--I do).

 

[Lanefan]

I’m not disagreeing with you. However, my point was that even if Lanefan as the DM may include a detail as a “red herring”, that doesn’t make it one in practice, as any of his players could take a previously established red herring and make it relevant to the adventure.

Or, as has happened to me a few times in the past, made the red herring itself the adventure or focus while abandoning the original one.

In my example of ye olde Cheapside Way, one of the buildings on the street is an abandoned private residence, put there as a diversionary red herring (i.e. it's the perfect set-up for a guildhouse but it isn't in fact the guildhouse at all). If the PCs somehow learn it's abandoned it wouldn't surprise me at all were they to, for example, abandon (or greatly delay) their work against the Assassins and focus instead on turning that old residence into their party's home base.

So now, a red herring has suddenly become not so red after all.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Or, as has happened to me a few times in the past, made the red herring itself the adventure or focus while abandoning the original one.

In my example of ye olde Cheapside Way, one of the buildings on the street is an abandoned private residence, put there as a diversionary red herring (i.e. it's the perfect set-up for a guildhouse but it isn't in fact the guildhouse at all). If the PCs somehow learn it's abandoned it wouldn't surprise me at all were they to, for example, abandon (or greatly delay) their work against the Assassins and focus instead on turning that old residence into their party's home base.

So now, a red herring has suddenly become not so red after all.

No, that's stll a red herring. It just was more entertaining than their goal. Red herrings are supposed to be attractive false leads, after all.

I also am not terribly sure that having players abandon dealing with assassins to squat an abondoned house is super common.

 

[hawkeyefan]

OK, but what about "We can try to storm the gate, but that's Sir Ancelyn's shield I see on that guard captain; and if that's really Sir Ancelyn carrying it all we're gonna do is die real fast - he could beat us all with both hands tied behind his back; and rumour has it he never sleeps or eats."

In other words, while the gate's an option it's flagged as being extremely dangerous and-or suicidal to try. Railroad?

Well, the DM’s the one who decided to put that NPC at the gate. To what purpose?

Where I'm quite happy to let 'em deliberate multiple options and maybe try a few even if I-as-DM know all but one of those options are doomed to failure, as that's what would most likely happen were the situation real.

That’s fine. It sounds like a waste of precious game time to me, but preferences vary of course.

 

[Imaculata]

The difference between the unswayable NPC and the monster that is immune to fire is captured by FrogReaver. Having to find a way of defeating a monster without using fire is an optimisation problem. But having to make friends with a NPC whose goals you oppose is about compromising your principles. Hence this sort of rigidity in establishing and narrating NPCs pushes the game towards expedient play.

That seems like a very selective example though. Does every NPC who has opposing goals require compromising your principles? I don't think so. I think a better comparison might be a Rust Monster. You're (probably) not going to have a ton of Rust Monsters in your campaign, but when the players encounter one there is just this one thing they need to be weary of. The Baron is quite similar. Despite him being evil, mad and paranoid, you could probably talk to him just fine. But there is this one thing you need to be weary of, and that is that you should not question the legitimacy of his rule.

But like the Rust Monster, such encounters are only fair if the threat is foreshadowed. Having your precious equipment suddenly be reduced to a pile of dust is no fun, just as suddenly being placed in irons for saying the wrong thing isn't much fun. It can be an unfair trap if handled incorrectly, or an interesting challenge if properly foreshadowed.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, the DM’s the one who decided to put that NPC at the gate. To what purpose?

Lots of purposes. Maybe that gate is going to be busy and the prince will be riding through, so Sir Ancelyn is there just in case the heir needs him. Maybe the King has 7 knights and tonight is Sir Ancelyn's turn in the rotation. Tomorrow night will be Sir Solid butwecantakem. There are a great many reasons that knight might be there.

That’s fine. It sounds like a waste of precious game time to me, but preferences vary of course.

A few weeks ago my group encountered a town where a vengeful ghost was coming back once every 7 days and going after townsfolk that she felt slighted her. The players debated about 10 different possible solutions. 3 of which would have worked outright. They chose poorly. It's not my job to stop them and let them know which ideas will work. I'm there to adjudicate their actions.

 

[Campbell]

@Maxperson

I am not personally looking for the fictional causes. Why design the scenario that way? Why choose that particular fiction out of a plethora of possible fictions?

 

[Scott Christian]

This whole approach seems to start from a different assumption about play from my normal one. You seem to be envisaging a main storyline that the GM is presenting/narrating, and that as part of that main storyline certain events “have” to take place, and have to resolve within a certain range of parameters. Hence these ideas like pivotal bad guys and pivotal NPCs. As you present those notions, the status of being “pivotal” seems to be the result of a choice made by the GM in advance of play.

Not exactly. They are pivotal because of the players' choices. They are the ones that made them important. Outside of the first session to introduce the conflict, it's the players that determine the course. But, eventually they need to meet important people or face important bad guys. In my example, maybe it's not the Captain of the guards that hires them, but the thieves' guild leader or someone in a royal court or one of the missing guards' spouses.

I mean, adventures have literal "hooks" written in them so players follow a storyline (D&D). If you want to discuss other games, then all is great. If you want to play a game where your tenth level fighter wants to grow tomatoes, peppers, onion and garlic to be a salsa king, great. But in my experience most D&D games are not like that. They try to tell a heroic/tragic story that revolves around evil/good, monsters/magic, alliances/enemies.

So you are partially right, pivotal people, places, etc. do have to take place. But not all of them. And not in any order. That is why it takes a boatload of prep-work to create a cohesive and fluid story - because you have characters that don't follow the script. But that same thing also makes it fun!

 

[Scott Christian]

Nitpick: I think we're using the term "campaign" to mean different things.

You seem to be using the term to mean simply a series of adventures strung together.

To me, the campaign is the entire game: all the adventures, APs, side quests, and everything else that involves one DM, a continuing-if-evoloving group of characters, and a single base setting, all bundled together. Thus my current campaign has had four (or five now?) embedded quasi-APs, many standalone adventures, several different sometimes-interweaving story arcs (some more intentional than others!), about 20 different adventuring parties as PCs reshuffle their lineups and swap in and out (and players come and go), and still has years left in it yet.

You are correct. I look at a campaign not as stories in a world, but a story in a world. That story could definitely include side-quests, evolving characters, and even new characters (new players join the table or someone wants to remake a character or a character dies). But 20 different adventuring parties and five adventure paths of different storylines doesn't fit my definition. But your table sounds like a lot of fun! Sorry for any confusion.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I don't deny any of this, but there are tables that won't like this kind of smart-versus-right choice--or at least won't like too much of it--because they play TRPGs for the chance to (pretend to) be heroes. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, doesn't mean anyone's table is wrong for liking it, just means the GM should know their audience (and one can consider the GM part of the audience, here--I do).

That is a legitimate criticism, of Curse of Strahd in particular, where often the ethos is that Dark Powers will conspire to screw you out of your few victories.