Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Fenris-77]

Oh, definitely, but it's easier to talk about the ends first, so we know the scope of the scale. I also don't think it's uniform -- this scale is lumpy as heck.

Yup, it's a lumpy gym sock for sure. We're on the same page.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Apologies, but it does seem that you're at least kinda missing my point: If the PCs know that the gate is well-defended or that the BurgerMaster reacts badly to being insulted--to the same degree--then attacking that gate or insulting the BurgerMaster is a mistake in the same degree. I'm not talking about springing a "gotcha" on the PCs--I've specifically said that being more flexibility about things they cannot have known is important. There are clearly specific problems with this specific incident in this specific published adventure, but they don't really change my core position (that I can tell).

We may be talking past each other, because I also feel like you're missing my point -- the information about the guarded gate is much more player-facing than the information about the Burgomaster. Unless social encounters function similarly to combat encounters, these things cannot be analogous.

If, instead, you're discussing a guarded gate that the GM has determined to be impossible no matter what and a Burgomaster that responds to insults in a fixed way no matter what, then, yes, I can agree those situations are analogous. And that they should be avoided.

That does sound like an instance of good GMing. It sounds as though there's not a lot of support for running the BurgerMaster as an NPC in the published material, even though the adventure seems to point the PCs at interacting with him. Good on your GM for spotting that and getting table permission to come back to it later.

He's my best friend and I've told this to him directly, but he's not actually allowed to GM anymore by group acclaim. This one example was an example of him doing it well, but, overall, he's not very good at it. That may be why this example stands out for me -- I was darned proud of him for this one. We got through the whole module, but it wasn't always pretty.

The impression I got was that there wasn't a goal to insulting the BurgerMaster--it was just a barb from the peanut gallery that blew up the negotiation. I suppose I can someone playing a skilled negotiator (probably a skilled player) roleplaying the negotiation out, and having some insults there as part of it--as someone who's been known to have people roll Diplomacy (in a different system) to make an insult really stick, I'm clear on the idea of not giving unintentional offense--but that's different from a PC who's kinda uninvolved just throwing an apparently-random insult into the mix. Trying to insult him as part of getting into his good graces, though--that's probably an error.

There's always a goal. Always.

As for unintentional offense -- happens quite often in my games, as a result of a failed check. I don't tend to write NPCs with "if/then" statements.

None of that sounds unreasonable, from any direction. I persist in thinking that none of us still bothering with this are bad GMs, and that we're really just arguing around the edges, and that the nature of talking about this stuff on the Internet makes us sound more divergent approach than we really are.

Yup, but those edges can be very interesting!

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yup, it's a lumpy gym sock for sure. We're on the same page.

Not to be contrary, but I don't want to be one the same page as gym socks!

 

[Fenris-77]

Not to be contrary, but I don't want to be one the same page as gym socks!

Facing pages or obverse at worst, I put in a section break right after the socks.

 

[prabe]

We may be talking past each other, because I also feel like you're missing my point -- the information about the guarded gate is much more player-facing than the information about the Burgomaster. Unless social encounters function similarly to combat encounters, these things cannot be analogous.

If, instead, you're discussing a guarded gate that the GM has determined to be impossible no matter what and a Burgomaster that responds to insults in a fixed way no matter what, then, yes, I can agree those situations are analogous. And that they should be avoided.

The information about the guarded gate isn't necessarily all that player-facing, just looking at the gate. It might (in 5E) be difficult at best to tell more than numbers, and numbers alone wouldn't make the gate impassible. I feel as though I've been explicit that the PCs should be able to determine how well the gate is guarded, and how sensitive the BurgerMaster is--otherwise it's a complete "gotcha," and I don't do those. I'll grant that the mechanics of combat are more player-facing than the mechanics of social interactions, but that's not the same thing.

I'm not a huge fan of absolute descriptors, but I don't think that having a gate guarded by a force the PCs cannot defeat or having an NPC with a hard-coded reaction will inevitably be bad; it comes to being sure the PCs have information to make well-thought-out decisions. I think you and I have different positions on this.

There's always a goal. Always.

As for unintentional offense -- happens quite often in my games, as a result of a failed check. I don't tend to write NPCs with "if/then" statements.

In the OP's example, there seemed to be competing contradictory player goals, or the player whose character did the insulting had the goal of disrupting the negotiation attempt. When player goals diverge, especially from character goals, it seems to me as though there's an out-of-game problem among the players.

As to unintentional offense--that doesn't seem likely here, and my comment was a light-hearted spin on the line about diplomacy being the art of not giving unintentional offense (which line is my reason for using a Diplomacy skill to nail an insult).

 

[Campbell]

Side Note : I find it immensely helpful when folks take the effort to specify when they are referring to the player and when they are referring to the character instead of using PC for either.

On Prep
On these boards we often speak to prep as if it were monolithic. There are all kinds and degrees to which we hold to it. I am a firm believer in what Apocalypse World calls "Always say what your prep demands" with the caveat that some sorts of prep are less demanding. When I run B/X, other OSR games, and Pathfinder Second Edition I utilize keyed maps for adventure locations including notes on traps, other features, wandering monster tables, and general creature locations (that is more fluid). I play, but will not run Fifth Edition anymore. Generally I am a lot more fluid with down time. Time and space are tracked far less rigorously.

I do not generally focus too much mysteries that have to be solved. In general I prefer play where the characters are awash in information rather than one in which they are fumbling around in the dark. Instead I prefer games where there is a variety of information that is meaningfully knowable that can be leveraged by players so their characters receive certain advantages.

I hold to my prep, but I try to be extremely disciplined about how I prep. I aim to only prepare the challenge and never the solution. I aim to prepare situation and never story. I will not weigh in on if it is railroading or not, but I dislike it when GMs attempt to establish fiction with the aim of trying to exert control over the actions player declare for their characters. I also am not overly interested in setting tourism.

 

[Campbell]

So there are a couple of approaches to action resolution that I feel are getting mixed up.

1. In this model the action resolution mechanics tell us how well a character performed a particular action. A high roll means you swung true. A low roll means you whiffed. The GM determines the impact in the fiction based on their internal knowledge of the fiction / game state.
2. In this model the action resolution mechanics tell us what happens. We assume your character did an awesome job because they know what their doing. If they did not achieve their objective something got in the way. Maybe that orc warrior raised his shield at the last minute. Maybe the lock jammed because rust has grown on it. Certain details of the fiction are left open and defined on the basis of the roll. Maybe your attempts to sway the corrupt noble do not work because he knows your reputation, You are too devoted to your god to really sink that low.

You might prefer one model to the other, but we should not assume action resolution mechanics always work one way under all circumstance.

 

[Campbell]

If you wanted to elaborate on those differences I'd be happy for you to do so.

My first thoughts are that (i) I rate passion/conviction very highly as a factor in resolution, and (ii) I'm very sentimental. These are probably not unrelated.

Upthread I posted the example of the PC who challenged Sir Lionheart tried to a joust, was turnd down on the basis that he was just a squire and Sir Lionheart does not joust with squires, and then tried to brush past Sir Lionheart. At that point we rolled Presence vs Presence, the player (for his PC) won, and hence he got what he wanted: Sir Lionheart knighted him so he could joust him.

I wouldn't characterise that as skilled play of the fiction. I would say it's engaged play of the tropes and the passions/convictions of the characters (both PC - his desire to be knighted - and NPC - his sense of honour and glory).

I'm guessing that that sort of thing wouldn't necessarily be a big part of your (@Campbell's) play.

When eventually (!) I get to GM Apocalypse World, which forces the GM to be unsentimentally hard, I'm going to be interested to seee how it goes.

I find that I am at times phenomenally sentimental and at other times profoundly cynical. My own sentimentality is why I find it so important to be disciplined in my prep and while actively running the game.

You are right in that I do not rate generally rate conviction high as a factor in resolution, but I think it probably comes down to a difference in the type of fiction we prefer. In general I prefer fiction with characters who are driven by their passions, convictions, and other impulses. However those impulses are not meant to be viewed uncritically and can often lead to poor decisions. Most of the games I look to for more character driven play have an element of tragedy to them : Vampire 5th Edition, Sorcerer, Blades in the Dark, Apocalypse World, Monster Hearts, Bite Marks, Exalted Third Edition. We are fans of these characters in the sense that we cannot wait to see how their journey goes. We often hope for the best for them, but we do not root for them in the same way that we root for Superman or Captain America.

For character driven play I do like to see experience rewards for playing driven characters and basically acting like a protagonist. I also like when character effort matters to resolution like it does in Blades or Exalted.

In a number of places a character's convictions have a significant impact in Exalted. It is often a double edged sword in that those passions can be used against you and going against your passions can trigger your Great Curse which might lead to Greek Tragedy level events. Also they might be negative as well as positive. Hatred counts as much as love.

 

[Lanefan]

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!

At considerable inconvenience to themselves, I suppose they could - but that'd likely be the desperation option were they to find themselves facing a known threat beyond their means to handle.

The set-up kind of assumes the guild are at least for the time being established in their guildhouse and that it suits their needs (otherwise, why are they there); and thus would be highly unlikely to move* within the few days or weeks it'll likely take the PCs to do their investigations. And even then the description of the street itself wouldn't change (small chance the Curio Shop closes for good, I suppose); and the orphans would know the guild had left and maybe even where they went, because city kids always know everything.

* - about the only thing that'd trigger a full-scale move might be if the Assassins got wind of the PCs as a threat and mistakenly overestimated the danger by a huge amount. Very unlikely.

 

[Lanefan]

I probaby have 20 to 30 years of RPGing left at max, which at my current rate is likely fewer than 500 sessions.

Need to pick up the pace there, old fellow! Getting it to 50 sessions a year would give you 1000 or more still coming...