But those things aren't permanent. In fact the whole set-up is premised on the fact that they can change - ie that the assassins can move into a new headquarters!
Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay
- Thread starter Retreater
- Start date
The notion of "mistake" or "wrong choice" isn't inapposite at all.
Making a mistake/wrong choice in the context of trying to get into the castle by way of the heavily-guarded main gate (if you'll allow that to be a mistake) isn't all that dissimilar from--going back in the direction of the situation in the original post--insulting a hypersensitive minor noble. There is a presumption that the PCs come across information to the effect that the gate is well-defended in the one case and that the noble is hypersensitve in the case of the other, so there is reason for them to expect that a frontal assault is not a path to likely success at getting into the castle, or that insulting the minor noble is a path to likely success at negotiating with him.
Much of the response to the OP seemed to me to be along the lines of "there should have been a way toward success that included insulting the Baron." If the PCs have information that the Baron reacts badly to being insulted, it seems to me that intentionally insulting him in the process of negotiating with hiim is a mistake, and should have consequences. This might not be a given person's preferred playstyle, but it doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable position. I'm not trying to argue whether there should be a path to success at negotiating with the Baron that involves insulting him--there at least can be; should is a matter of preference on several axes. I'm also not trying to argue whether the consequences in the OP are the right ones--again, that's probably a matter of preference with no actual right or wrong, just what works at a given table.
Last edited:
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Fundamentally, there's a larger difference between a heavily guarded gate where the PCs can count the foes and judge their capabilities and compare it to their own and make a judgement on how the resolution mechanics (combat in this case) are likely to turn out. The information makes this a player-facing decision point -- can we beat up that many guards of that caliber with our extensively defined statistics?
The Burgomaster is not the same situation. This situation is not player facing. Even with information that the Burgomaster hates to be insulted, that's not something I can look at my abilities and determine what likelihood I might have in insulting the Burgomaster and still successfully completing my goal. I can't know because that's locked behind GM decides. If the GM refers to notes, and further such notes have hard coded outcomes for certain inputs, then this situation gets even worse, as I cannot know if this information about the Burgomaster's aversion to being insulted is something that is in play for a challenge or will absolutely result in a negative outcome no matter what. I think a large part of the supposed player's frustration (assuming this is correct for the purpose of argument) might stem from this lack of being able to determine what the stakes and odds are.
The suggestion has been that you don't have to approach it like that -- nothing at all breaks if you actually test the action to insult the Burgomaster. If you give the player a roll, it still works -- the Burgomaster can react poorly to being insulted, honoring that bit of the established fiction, but the player can still achieve their goal, honoring the success at the task. In 5e, there's nothing that prevents you from saying, "Bob, the Burgomaster is known to react poorly to insults, so this tack seems like one that's pretty hard. In fact, give me a hard DC check to see if you can get away with it." Again, so long as you adjudicate by being grounded in the fiction and being genre appropriate, there's little that will harm the game. That's all -- a suggestion that there's a way through that doesn't require hardcoding outcomes and that makes social encounters a bit more dynamic. I also recommend using a skill challenge framework for successes vs failures. Or a BitD clock. Make the challenge require more than one success and you give yourself a lot more room for this kind of approach to smooth out much more nicely.
Last edited:
A separate reply to this: absolutely.
I probaby have 20 to 30 years of RPGing left at max, which at my current rate is likely fewer than 500 sessions. I want to spend approximately zero of them on learning or narrating the catalogue of a curio shop.
I was replying to your remark about a murder mystery, not about deciding to sneak past the guards.
But in either case, isn't action resolution - applied systematically over the course of play - the way that we find out whether or not the PCs made a poor or mistaken decision?
I've called out a few bits of your posts that I wanted to respond to.
For this one, I'd often treat getting to the gate as framing rather than action declaration. Unless a player particularly wants to get some advantage out of treating it as an action - less of an issue in D&D, but in other systems this coud be establishing some sort of augment eg for having a Superior Vantage Point.
In a lot of these cases I don't even think of it as action resolution. The "genre filter" operates at a prior stage: we don't get to resolution because no permissible action has been declared.
Various versions of D&D have a Streetwise or Gather Information skill/ability (eg 4e, 3E, AD&D Oriental Adventures via the Yakuza class, even sages in AD&D and B/X). So even within the compass of D&D there can be action declarations that allow the players to try and expand the scope of future potential action declarations.
I have played with D&D GMs whose response to that sort of thing is to shut it down - ie the inquiries produce no new information or options, all the potential informants remain silent, etc. I personally regard that as terrible GMing.
I have also played with D&D GMs who don't shut this sort of thing down but string it out endlessly - leads lead to leads lead to leads lead to session after session of trying to "find the plot". I also regard that as awful.
Although D&D doesn't have the same sort of crisp framework as (say) Fate or Burning Wheel for handling this sort of stuff, I still think there are better and worse ways for a D&D GM to handle it, which relate to some of what we've been talking about in this thread like (i) does the GM treat his/her notes as "total" or as a springboard? and (ii) to what extent does the GM follow the fiction and the impetus of play?
To relate the above to the example at hand: if the GM narrates the guards, and hints at or foreshadows the sewer, what happens if the PCs start searching for a hidden postern they can enter through? I don't think there's a single best answer, because it's so contextual. If it looks like the players are themselves trying to string things out, or squib in some fashion, because they're having trouble screwing up their courage to try and enter the castle, then as a GM I think it can make sense to force them to confront the choice: Come on, people, what's it going to be? The gate, or the sewer? But if there is something genuinely going on - eg one of the PCs is an engineer or architect and so has some special interest in finding and exploiting the postern - then I think the GM would do better to take it seriously and see where it goes.
(The engineer/architect PC is like my bakers and vintners from upthread.)
I think this is why it makes sense to talk about principle and approaches that can make for a better or worse play experience. 4e D&D made the GM's job easier, because at a certai point responsibility for following the fiction and working out what happens gets passed off to the skill challenge framework. Whereas in the 5e context there is a risk that everything all the way up to the point of ultimate success or failure is GM decides. But I reckon there must be methods even in 5e for avoiding this - eg whether the postern is discovered or not can be put onto some sort of check or spell use or triggering of a background ability; there are guidelines for establishing encounters on the other side of the postern; etc.
If the idea that the player has is genre and gameplay appropriate, then cannot be made to work seems to mean doesn't fit with what the GM had in mind. This is what I am focusing on; and I am saying that, in general, I think it can make for a bad play experience. Because it pushes play towards working out what the GM has in mind rather than engaging and following the fiction.
(To be clear: if we're playing OSR-ish/"skilled play" and we're talking about puzzling out the riddling statue, or the room of trapped demi-gods, or similar than it's a different kettle of fish. But most of this thread doesn't seem to be about that sort of play.)
Given the scorn that @Lanefan has heaped on "Schroedinger's fictional element" in past posts, I am hesitant to attribute that to him.
Last edited:
I agree with @Ovinomancer's reply and so won't repeat. I'll just add one thing:
If the GM frames the guarded gate in a context where (i) the players (as their PCs) want to get inside the castle and (ii) the PCs are reasonably adept at combat, then if the fight breaks out I would regard it as fairly poor narrating just to cut to the PCs having lost the fight.
There are mechanics to work that out. And Ovinomancer explains how roughly parallel mechanics (DCs rather than AC; skill challenge or clock rather than hp-attrition) can be used in the social case.
The schroedinger bit was more of a joke that anything else. Permanent until interacted with wasn't. I think that actually describes what he's doing pretty well. The assassins are where he puts them, at least until the players start poking around, at which point all bets are off. Not everyone sets things up like this, but it's pretty common.
So, you blithely blew right past the bit about there being information so the PCs would know the BurgerMaster was so sensitive and likely to respond so negatively to being insulted. In that case it would be player-facing, and the players would know that.
My position is that giving the PCs information that the BurgerMaster reacts badly to being insulted, then letting the PCs succeed by insulting him (at a task other than making an enemy out of him) seems to me to violate the established fiction and to negate the consequences of the PCs' making a poor choice. Heck, I'd say the same thing if the PCs had the opportunity to learn about the BurgerMaster before negotiating with him, and didn't--that's a choice (arguably more than one choice) and there should be consequences for it. Sure, there's room for flexibility, but I think it's more warranted (in the case of insulting the BurgerMaster) if there's no way for the PCs to know before encountering him how he reacts to being insulted.
