Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[prabe]

I think there’s more to it though. It’s not just about having an insult help in interactions with all or even some NPCs. It really has to do with the predetermined nature of such an insult I think. That’s why this notion of NPC as puzzle comes up so much - it’s such a key point to understand the criticism.

Are you saying that "don't insult the Mad Tyrant" is "NPC as puzzle?" Leaving out whether and how much foreshadowing and all-a-that; some GMs will do better at conveying those things than others, and some games have specific mechanics for the PCs to find out things about the NPCs while interacting with them (IIRC there's something in 5E, but I'm AFB at the moment).

 

[Fenris-77]

this actually gives me hope that D&D can simulate the types of interactions you would find in its sources if inspiration. Why? Because you’ve just stated the reason is simply that DMs don’t run a world conforming to the same warrior boasting notions that LOTR is based upon. that’s an easy fix if that’s all there is to it.

I think there’s more to it though. It’s not just about having an insult help in interactions with all or even some NPCs. It really has to do with the predetermined nature of such an insult I think. That’s why this notion of NPC as puzzle comes up so much - it’s such a key point to understand the criticism.

No, it's not about having insults help, you're right. The insults in the LotR example are incidental to the actual point of the speech act/action declaration. A lot of games, most games maybe, take a modern set of values and indexes to speech acts and intent and then try use them to model more archaic modes of interaction, with predictably mediocre results in a lot of cases. Some games have specific instances where they escape this, for example there are lots of rule sets that give some weight to social status in social interaction, which you would imagine would be pretty key to a medieval or dark age era fantasy setting, but a lot of games give it no weight to it at all. You have a medieval culture in the fiction, with ostensibly medieval social interaction, but this isn't reflected in the mechanics for the game in the slightest.

This is where the mechanics come into play. Places where the rules try to model something that is different than the current cultural norms need either a mechanic or some guidelines for adjudication, or both. Insults are a great example. The response to an insult by someone with social standing in most eras really shouldn't be 2020 normal. You insult a knight, he's going to do something about it. Not only does that reflect actions and consequences, but it actually makes mechanics pretty easy to envision. It's the same with things of the sway, persuade, intimidate nature - some idea of what common reactions to those might be, how they might differ, and what sorts of things might constitute 'leverage' in a given society all provide handholds for play and adjudication, even with only minor mechanical support.

 

[FrogReaver]

Are you saying that "don't insult the Mad Tyrant" is "NPC as puzzle?" Leaving out whether and how much foreshadowing and all-a-that; some GMs will do better at conveying those things than others, and some games have specific mechanics for the PCs to find out things about the NPCs while interacting with them (IIRC there's something in 5E, but I'm AFB at the moment).

Yes. Puzzles have foreshadowing and hints. Even when the hints are recognized and acted upon that doesn’t stop it from being a puzzle.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yes. Puzzles have foreshadowing and hints. Even when the hints are recognized and acted upon that doesn’t stop it from being a puzzle.

NPCs are a little like traps. They really should involve some telegraphing and foreshadowing, and they kinda suck when they're essentially a black box. Motivations and objections are key to social interaction, and I personally don't see the value in making the players constantly play 20 questions to figure them out.

 

[prabe]

Yes. Puzzles have foreshadowing and hints. Even when the hints are recognized and acted upon that doesn’t stop it from being a puzzle.

All right. I think that's at least part of the disconnect. I at least think of a puzzle as having at least one prepared solution, and I think human interactions are more nuanced than that (though I'll make notes about "if [NPC] is asked about [subject} ..." because I want the PCs to think to ask about that, at that point--maybe later on they can get that information without asking).

Looking back at the play example I posted, do you think the Dilyarli was a puzzle? (I realize you don't have all the information the PCs had.)

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I'm going to go with, "Taman's family were killed by one." as the reason.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yes. Puzzles have foreshadowing and hints. Even when the hints are recognized and acted upon that doesn’t stop it from being a puzzle.

Plenty of things in the game can be viewed as a puzzle.

A 30' gorge with your goal on the other side is a potential puzzle (how do we get to the other side of the gorge with the least risk). A puzzle isn't inherently bad, particularly in a game like D&D.

Even in the real world, one can look at social interaction as a puzzle to be solved. One guy might go up to a girl with the intent of figuring out how to get her to go on a date with him (puzzle). Another guy might just want to talk to her, and then asks her on a date when it turns out they have a lot in common. Those interactions might be indistinguishable to an outside observer. Whether puzzle or 'just talking', is really a matter of intent.

How do you think social encounters (where the goal is to get something out of the target) should be handled so as to not be a puzzle?

 

[prabe]

NPCs are a little like traps. They really should involve some telegraphing and foreshadowing, and they kinda suck when they're essentially a black box. Motivations and objections are key to social interaction, and I personally don't see the value in making the players constantly play 20 questions to figure them out.

Twenty Questions is almost certainly the wrong way. Something like Fate's mechanic to determine an NPC's Aspects isn't a horrible approach; I think allowing WIS (Insight) to understand an NPC might be valid in 5E (even if you're not bothering much with Bonds, Ideals, et al.). Foreknowledge in the form of allowing research or some form of foreshadowing is probably better, if the players remember it.

 

[FrogReaver]

NPCs are a little like traps. They really should involve some telegraphing and foreshadowing, and they kinda suck when they're essentially a black box. Motivations and objections are key to social interaction, and I personally don't see the value in making the players constantly play 20 questions to figure them out.

well said. I would go a step further and this is probably one reason I’m not super fond of prewritten modules...

I think the NPCs should be ran in such a way that interacting with them will be fun for players that are playing to their PCs personalities. That may mean certain mad tyrant style NPCs aren’t a good fit to introduce into that campaign and that’s something I am okay with.

There’s too much a notion of this is my world and my NPCs and this is just how things are when it should be - how can I modify my world and these NPCs so that players playing these pcs will have a fun time.

 

[Fanaelialae]

well said. I would go a step further and this is probably one reason I’m not super fond of prewritten modules...

I think the NPCs should be ran in such a way that interacting with them will be fun for players that are playing to their PCs personalities. That may mean certain mad tyrant style NPCs aren’t a good fit to introduce into that campaign and that’s something I am okay with.

There’s too much a notion of this is my world and my NPCs and this is just how things are when it should be - how can I modify my world and these NPCs so that players playing these pcs will have a fun time.

Obviously, run the way you like, but I think that challenging the players is a good thing. If you've got a character who speaks his mind, don't constantly throw egotistical barons in his path, but there's nothing wrong with once in a while. Just like there's nothing wrong with putting a golem in the path of a caster heavy party to challenge them, though you wouldn't want to inundate them with magic immune enemies.

Give them opportunities to shine, but also find ways to challenge them, IMO.