D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Campbell]

I think both approaches would be valid. I mean the GM knows enough about Giles Corey to know he wouldn't plead, a player making a character like this might know enough. How much control characters actually have over their will when under duress is as common debate so I can see both sides. But I don't see anything inherently railroady or wrong about just saying 'this guy can't be bribed' or ' this guy will never admit to being a witch'. Some people are that stubborn. And that is what we see with Corey. His death is about as horrific as way to die as one can imagine, and it was slow, and they tortured him, and demanded he plead. But he didn't. People in history martyr themselves, refuse to plead guilty under torture, etc. It is not common. But you care making a character and in control of their personality

And the guy's last words were supposedly "More weight"

I do not think it's inherently railroady. I do think this sort of thing should be meaningfully knowable before it likes trips people in the face and these sorts of landmines can be a bit of a bad smell - in terms of it may indicate but is not definitely a case of GM manipulation of play through setting and scenario design. Details matter here. Execution matters.

But we also need to create gameable space in prepped environments and these sorts of things can be part of. I just think caution around stuff that is not revealed and not really easy to find out that impacts success is warranted. That we should think critically about the information environment we are setting up in more conventional play environments.

 

[Lanefan]

If you are making the character you can account for all these things. If he is Giles Corey levels of stubborn, ...

Reference failure: who is Giles Corey?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Protagonism is just a word. Forget about the narrative cooties and instead look at what's being said.

Is every NPC meant to be played as robustly by the GM as the players play their characters? Is every NPC equally important to play as other NPCs or as the PCs?

Is it important that the GM's conception of an NPC's trait be sacrosanct? The priest that never drinks... is that trait as important as a PC who never drinks?

Should a GM be considering these factors when they create and portray NPCs? I mean... it's feasible to have a priest who does drink, or who has sworn it off, but still falls off the wagon from time to time.

So the issue isn't about realism or what have you... so what's it about? The GM's conception remaining paramount. Why?



Sounds like the kind of thing that a series of dice rolls going a specific way would yield.

Much like in life, we cannot say that someone is willing to die for a thing until they have done so.



Can we please stop with the talk of trust and jerk GMs?

Look at this thread. Look at others. Clearly, people have different ideas about play. If I was to GM for you, or you for me, I expect that each of us would be trying to run a good game. Neither of us is going to be a jerk.

But we clearly have different ideas of how play should work. The things I do may not be to your liking. It doesn't make me a jerk, it doesn't mean you can't trust me... it means we have different preferences.

But your preference that a GM be mechanically constrained in their actions is not "better" than my preference that the constraints should be social instead. And I don't see a lot of potential for the changing of minds either.

And there is no "meant to be" regarding character traits or how fully-realuzed and portrayed a PC or NPC is. Both players and GMs decide that for themselves for each character, and neither is inherently more important than the other, even if in practice the PCs usually get more screen time. I'd much rather think of both PCs and NPCs as people in a fictional world than simply as game pieces whose sole purpose is the varying degree of importance they have to the players.

 

[Lanefan]

EXACTLY!!!

The big problem with "place all your trust in the almighty GM" approaches isn't jerk GMs.

It's mediocre GMs. Merely-adequate GMs. GMs who might do certain things amazingly well and other things really poorly.

People like that are extremely common, but they're just as much a problem as jerk GMs for styles dependent on an inexhaustible well of "well just trust the GM".

A large part of trusting the DM involves allowing said DM some (or even a lot of) latitude to screw up now and then, because it's inevitable that screw-ups are gonna happen.

And if "merely-adequate" DMs are the most common then maybe one's expectations should keep that in mind: the DM is most likely going to be merely adequate, so be it.

Demanding and-or insisting on the DM being significantly better than adequate is why some players have a hard time finding anywhere to play, and for that I have extremely limited sympathy as it's a self-inflicted problem.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Reference failure: who is Giles Corey?

A man who was accused of witchcraft during the Salem Witch Trials and who was tortured then pressed to death. If I remember he wouldn't plead guilty or not guilty: he just refused to plead (which could have been to ensure his children received inheritance, but it looks like this may not be true). Here is one overview of who he island here is the wikipedia entry.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I do not think it's inherently railroady. I do think this sort of thing should be meaningfully knowable before it likes trips people in the face and these sorts of landmines can be a bit of a bad smell - in terms of it may indicate but is not definitely a case of GM manipulation of play through setting and scenario design. Details matter here. Execution matters.

But we also need to create gameable space in prepped environments and these sorts of things can be part of. I just think caution around stuff that is not revealed and not really easy to find out that impacts success is warranted. That we should think critically about the information environment we are setting up in more conventional play environments.

Why do I need to know before hand that someone might have Giles Corey level obstinacy? Sometimes people surprise you. Part of the fun of a sandbox, for me at least, is not just making informed choices (which are important) but also the gamble of a stand-off, not knowing what to expect from someone. Part of what makes trying to bribe a guard risky, and in a game exciting, is you don't know if it will succeed. There is a real chance he turns you in.

 

[Lanefan]

I think it is sufficiently common that a given NPC feeling that way would not make me say the game was a railroad.

Agreed, as long as it only happens once (or, in a long campaign, very rarely). A single NPC with an outlandishly extreme take on something is fine. The questions marks start floating around when it happens more often.

The exception, of course, is when the outlandish extreme takes are clearly being done for sheer humour value. I'm fine with that.

 

[zakael19]

Why do I need to know before hand that someone might have Giles Corey level obstinacy? Sometimes people surprise you. Part of the fun of a sandbox, for me at least, is not just making informed choices (which are important) but also the gamble of a stand-off, not knowing what to expect from someone. Part of what makes trying to bribe a guard risky, and in a game exciting, is you don't know if it will succeed. There is a real chance he turns you in.

Ok, sure, but how do you make this decision? If it's "in the moment" is it whim? Feels right? What are you bringing to bear to figure this out if it's not part of like, prep or tags or something? Random rolls on a table? Do the players have a way to figure out that this person is going to shut down all their ideas that poke against this suddenly upright guard that didn't exist 5 seconds ago? Do they have a way to determine the guards here are incorruptible, is it a reaction table they know is part of play? Random dice and you're narrating the outcome based on pass/fail?

 

[AlViking]

A large part of trusting the DM involves allowing said DM some (or even a lot of) latitude to screw up now and then, because it's inevitable that screw-ups are gonna happen.

And if "merely-adequate" DMs are the most common then maybe one's expectations should keep that in mind: the DM is most likely going to be merely adequate, so be it.

Demanding and-or insisting on the DM being significantly better than adequate is why some players have a hard time finding anywhere to play, and for that I have extremely limited sympathy as it's a self-inflicted problem.

I think most players are also "merely adequate" so I don't understand the double standard.

 

[AlViking]

Ok, sure, but how do you make this decision? If it's "in the moment" is it whim? Feels right? What are you bringing to bear to figure this out if it's not part of like, prep or tags or something? Random rolls on a table? Do the players have a way to figure out that this person is going to shut down all their ideas that poke against this suddenly upright guard that didn't exist 5 seconds ago? Do they have a way to determine the guards here are incorruptible, is it a reaction table they know is part of play? Random dice and you're narrating the outcome based on pass/fail?

Why does it matter?