Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Fanaelialae]

Sadly, I think that Han (an NPC) coming back to save Luke would break verisimilitude for most playing a TTRPG.

I don't see why it would. Han's characterization belies someone who is outwardly selfish but deep down cares. He charges a dozen or so storm troopers on the Death Star to cover Luke and Leia's escape. That could have easily gotten him killed. He could have just shoved Leia at the troopers and run. There are clues throughout the movie that, at his core, Han isn't as uncaring as he likes to pretend he is. I don't see Han's rescue of Luke during his attack run on the Death Star as remotely verisimilitude breaking, and I find it strange that anyone would see it that way.

(As an aside, I'd say that Han would more likely be a PC. If anyone is an NPC it's Obi-wan, who incites the action of getting the party together, leaves to disable the tractor beam, and then dies.)

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yea, I think we are on the same page there.



I apologize if guess had the wrong connotation. I didn't mean to imply it was necessarily a completely information-less guess. But, what I'm saying is this is the playstyle of treating NPC social interactions as puzzles. Which is fine if your group enjoys that. But for many of us such a style is lacking. We dislike it because we feel it forces our PC's to do something they may not do in order to help with a social situation. Which potentially leaves us basically 3 options, voluntarily sit out the encounter, do what our PC wouldn't do for the good of the group, or do what our PC would do and lose the social encounter for the team. I get why option 3 in your playstyle would come across as bad faith. I'm just coming at this from the position that if we are doing social encounters then they shouldn't put me as a player in that kind of unfun position to begin with.



See to me that reads: NPC social interactions are puzzles and you can typically solve them this way. But the ultimate implication to me is clear: you can't play your character socially any way I don't agree with, because there is going to be hell to pay if you do.

I wanted to respond to that last paragraph. Otherwise, I agree that we're largely on the same page.

Let's say that you are out with a friend and you bump into that friend's boss, who is a massive egotistical jerk. You know that your friend has been gunning for a promotion because his wife is pregnant and they could really use the money. So your friend starts kissing up to the guy.

You can:
A) Stay out of the conversation and politely wait for your friend to finish.
B) Join the conversation and try to help your friend.
C) Tell the boss exactly what you think of him.

You might be bored if you pick A.

You might feel dirty if you choose B.

And, yeah, there might be hell to pay if you pick C. At the very least your friend is less likely to get that promotion and will probably be angry with you as a result.

That's how it goes. What else would you expect?

Assuming you choose A or B, would you say that this means your friend isn't allowing you to be yourself? I think that's a real stretch. It's more that you are restraining yourself for the good of your friend, which is in your interest (presumably you are invested in your friend's welfare).

Now you might say that this is a game and that C should therefore have a chance of getting your friend the promotion. That's not unreasonable,
and some tables probably do play that way. You can have your cake and eat it too. Not all tables though. Not my table. We prefer a certain degree of verisimilitude.

Don't get me wrong, if there was something
to suggest that approach could work then it would have a chance, but otherwise it's a bad idea (for obvious reasons). To expect otherwise would be like lighting a bonfire and expecting to pull a masterwork longbow from the ashes. You can't craft a bow by burning all your wood to ash, and you're not likely to see a positive social reaction from an NPC if you blatantly insult them. I mean, at some tables both of those might be permitted. Just not at my table. That's going a little too far for my group.

 

[prabe]

Just so we are clear... Your answer is that you have no preference about whether the TTRPGs you play can support fiction and/or fictional elements from that fiction that you like? Because that's an extraordinary answer if it's the case.

That certainly seems to be the case. I would definitely say the kinds of stories that come out of TRPG play are radically different that authors write, but that's not exactly answering the question you're asking, is it? I guess that the table is more a determining factor of whether I'll be happy with the fiction that emerges than the genre of fiction the game is setting out to emulate. Now that I have that thought, I realize there's probably a connection with how I feel about at-the-table behavior, though the direction of causality isn't clear from inside my head.

 

[prabe]

So I'm curious why the 1 person actually charged the creature after his allies had just negotiated a peaceful solution?

BTW, great play example.

Two reasons. One, his family had been killed by one (though not that one). Two, I think the player felt that he'd committed to the charge--that was why we dropped into inits--and that his character was motivated-enough by revenge that he'd behave that way.

I agree that's a neat play example. What's probably not clear from it, though, is that the first player to go--the one who initiated the negotiation--said a couple of things and then said he thought that was as much as he could say on his turn and passed it to the next character in the initiative. It was a spontaneous thing that resulted in multiple characters getting the opportunity to speak.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think the word helpful is pretty fundamental here.

I talk with groups of people all the time - groups of students; groups of colleagues; groups of friends; etc. In those groups, normally some are more articulate than others. But they are not the only ones who speak. I have things I want to know from others (eg What is it that you're finding hard about this example? or What movie do you want to see?). I have things I want to say to others, which prompt them to respond. They have ideas and knowledge and emotions that they want to express, so they speak.

It's striking to me that, in a thread about "realistic" consequences, a defender of those is putting forward such an unrealistic picture of human interactions.

I think sometimes we imagine things differently than they really are. Sit in any group conversation: work, friends, large families. Record them. The closer they are, the more everyone talks. The less they all know each other, fewer people talk. Even in work conversations at lunch where people know each other well, you'll see three-four out of ten dominate the conversation. The others generally sit and listen or add a word here and there.

And in the scene the OP was discussing: speaking to authority. In a real life situation where your friend whose driving gets pulled over, how often do his three passenger friends start piping in on the conversation. Generally only when he starts failing his persuasion checks. And even then, it's generally only one person. "Officer, what he's trying to say is that he has insurance, but he left the card at home." This same format often goes for speaking to bosses at a meeting (mostly because people just want to get out of the meeting ), and a group speaking to people they don't know. Ever see a group of 18 year-olds try to speak to a group of girls, 90% of the time they have a front man doing a lot of the talking.

So I don't think it's fair to declare an RPG dialogue to be any different. The OP didn't have the tyrant king address the barbarian because his shoes are muddy, or his hair isn't combed, or whatever. The barbarian can still speak, but he should allow the person who used his resources to use diplomacy to shine. The barbarian used his character resources to run fast, or take damage, or deal damage, etc. The diplomat doesn't always try to block his way every time he wants to run fast, or be on the front line, or deliver the killing blow. In fact, he helps him accomplish his goal. And that is what the barbarian should be doing; not just as a character, but as a player too.

NOTE: I am talking about the OP's response. Not some simple conversation with a barkeep or random encounter. The OP's roleplay encounter was obviously important to the story. In other circumstances, let the barbarian thwart the diplomat all he wants. It will get old (maybe?). It is rude (to some?). But who cares? It can be the running gaga of the campaign. But for a pivotal moment, it's unfair for him to be bored.

In short: We often replay conversations in our head as if they were one-on-one, even if they are in a large group. It's the way our mind works.

 

[Scott Christian]

In the passage from The Two Towers that I referred to, Gimili does insult Eomer: "You speak evil of that which is fair beyond the reach of your though, and only little wit can excuse you." When Eomer gets angry and threatens GImli, Legolas draws his bow and nocks an arrow "with hands that moved quicker than sight" and replies "You would die before your stroke fell."

Yet at the end of the scene Eomer lets the three go, contrary to a direct order he is under to detain them, and he lends them horses.

If a GM follows the approach to adjudication that you advocate, I don't see how such a sequence would ever be possible. Likewise if players follows your prescriptions.

This is not the scene the OP described. This is a random encounter that can help them or hurt them. The two loud-mouths had their say (literally one sentence), then the front man, with tons of charisma (and a name of influence, along with Gimili's name) spoke and explained what they were doing. Then, and only then, did the random encounter swing their way.

Meeting a tyrant is not a random encounter. Remember what happened to Pippin when he spoke out of turn to the mad Denethor? He stated his fealty, and in return, was forced (yes forced) to serve the steward. Since that is a book, we can do that. If it was D&D, the wizard would be casting spells to break him free. The two are different. But if we insist they are the same, that's okay too. Because he spoke out of turn at a pivotal moment, and voila - suffered a consequence.

 

[Scott Christian]

In Str Wars Luke scoffs at Han's offer - "We could buy our own ship for that price" and then subsequently insults it when he sees it. And they argue over whether or not the Force is a genuine phenomenon. And when he leaves just before the attack on the Death Star Han is criticised. Yet he comes back to save Luke.

I don't see how this sort of dynamic - whether between PCs, or between PCs and NPCs - is meant to emerge in the NPC-as-puzzle and party-as-hydra approach.

These are also players talking to one another. Not a scripted or close to scripted encounter with a pivotal NPC, who is run by the DM. Heck, at almost all tables I run or play on, characters talk this way to each other all the time.

 

[jasper]

The town is on pg 95, and the description of the baron is on pg 105.

Ok Mayor V is a cheerleader thinking his circuses will make the town happy go lucky. And since will be a joy joy joy town, this will drive the evil away. But it not happening. He also a ruthless heel, blue blood or class snob, brittle ego who lashes out anyone who disrespects him. (Okay I am mocking the write up.)
After reading the write up I don't need to make a social roll when someone tries to kill him. It is guards to the jail with the criminal low lives. Those low lives will be getting slob with out the roaches. The trail may be fair depending on the players/pc response to the trial. BUT if found guilty off with their heads. Off board I would see if the players want to keep their low life criminals pc alive, or roll up new ones. If alive jail break um as OP mention break them out the town square. Allies in town will depend on the Nice gentle people who know how to treat their betters (the free pcs) and how much fun I am having.

 

[pemerton]

I tell you three times I tell you three times I tell you three times: Tolkien was not writing a TRPG campaign. Tolkien was not writing a TRPG campaign. Tolkien was not writing a TRPG campaign.

So to be clear: you're saying that D&D 5e can't produce fiction that resembles the works the game is ostensibly inspired by, and that's a good thing?

For example as @pemerton has noted, LOTR-esque emergent social situations are not possible with the social encounter style that you are following. Which is probably fine if you don't like LOTR, but what I'm trying to discover is whether your social encounter style actually allows for emerging social situations that resemble social situations in your favorite fictional works.

Another example would be Conan's befriending of Belit in REH's story Queen of the Black Coast.

I don't know the Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories, but would be surprised if they don't have emergent social situations in which more is at work than the contrast of insult and helpful.

If my players had insulted the Baron, the face of the party would have to succeed on a high check to undo that damage. But drawing a weapon and making an attempt on the Baron's life? There's only so much a social check can reasonably do. At that point the Baron would order his men to kill the attacker, or to have him seized.

And yet Conan and Belit become not only friends but lovers.

Or if one doesn't want the pulp tropes, I'll go back to LotR: between them Gimli and Legolas insult and threaten Eomer, and yet he lends them horses and they all go on to be friends and comrades-in-arms.

If 5e D&D can't produce fiction that resembles LotR, and can't produce fiction that resembles REH's Conan, what sort of fiction can it produce? What's an example of adventure fiction in which social interaction is all about "the face" doing his/her thing to press the right button to get the antagonist to do the desired thing, while no one else participates or ever has anything at stake? A certain sort of con/heist story? Anything else?

 

[prabe]

So to be clear: you're saying that D&D 5e can't produce fiction that resembles the works the game is ostensibly inspired by, and that's a good thing?

I am saying the stories that emerge from TRPG play are different than those that emerge from the minds of novelists. As @FrogReaver and I seem to have figured out, I don't appear to care at all if the fiction that emerges from TRPG play resembles what any author puts on any page (extending to other media/entertainment forms). There are enough things I don't like about much of the foundational literature that to the extent TRPG play doesn't produce them, that's a good thing.

More narrowly: The sorts of social interactions that authors write are different enough, at a level close to if not at the core, from the sorts of social interactions that play out around a TRPG table that I do not think any TRPG ruleset can replicate the social interactions from any source material. It is plausible that the players around a table can intentionally ape the interactions in LotR or Star Wars, but it's not necessary that they do so--and even if they did, the end results of four or five people ad-libbing dialogue around the table would be different from those of one author writing and rewriting and rewriting.