Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Maxperson]

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.

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

For me it depends. To me a puzzle is something to be figured out and the words "Mad Tyrant" alone are more than enough to tell you that you probably shouldn't be insulting this person. There's nothing to figure out. It's told to you by the name alone. I just can't remember in this thread if it came up that the PCs were informed of this or not.

Now, if instead of being known as the Mad Tyrant he's just the Burgermeister and you have to pick up on his insanity and tyrannical methods via clues in his behavior and the behaviors of those around him, then sure, that would be a puzzle.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yep! I agree.

DM: The Burgermeister enters the room.
Players out of character: We have to figure out what drives this guy in order to get to our goals.
Garick the Bard: "Sir, are your motivations bigger than a breadbox?"

 

[prabe]

Yep! I agree.

DM: The Burgermeister enters the room.
Players out of character: We have to figure out what drives this guy in order to get to our goals.
Garick the Bard: "Sir, are your motivations bigger than a breadbox?"

Shouldn't they have started with "Is your motivation an animal, a mineral, or a vegetable?"

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

maybe don’t accuse others of not wanting to challenge their PCs?

Overcoming challenge is fun. Placing an ancient dragon in the way of a level 1 pc isn’t a challenge, it’s an auto lose - a death sentence. Placing an insults everyone PC in front of a will never tolerate insults NPC is pretty much the same thing, it’s not a challenge, it’s an auto lose.

 

[iserith]

Since DMs don't read the DMG and, even if they do, they probably don't read or employ the social interaction rules (p. 244-245), it might be good to comment on what these rules tell us to do.

First, you set the NPC's starting attitude - friendly, indifferent, hostile. The NPC's attitude at the end of the conversation sets the limits as to what the NPC is going to be willing to do. DCs are provided in case what the PCs want has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure.

The PCs converse with the NPC. During this conversation, some PCs might be trying to influence the NPC's attitude to temporarily improve it. The DM meanwhile is portraying the NPC's agenda, ideal, bond, and flaw throughout the scene and presenting objections and other obstacles for the PCs to overcome as the conversation progresses. While some PCs do the talking, others might be trying to figure out the NPC's agenda, ideal, bond, or flaw so that it can be used to frame arguments in a way that is likely to get at the desired response. When the conversation has run its course, the PC's request, demand, or suggestion is judged by the DM and perhaps the dice.

So really, the best strategy here is to pay attention to how the DM is portraying the NPC and put your higher Charisma characters up to talk to the NPCs while higher Wisdom characters (or those trained in Insight) try to suss out agenda, ideal, bond, and flaw. Then use what you suss out to frame arguments so that you automatically succeed or have advantage on Charisma checks. Get the NPC's attitude to friendly or as close as you can, then make your request, demand, or suggestion. Spend Inspiration if you need advantage on the resulting check, if there is one.

As I noted upthread, the Baron - unlike a lot of other NPCs in the module - has no ideal, bond, or flaw listed. But it can be derived from the information in the book. I would write those up accordingly and run this social interaction challenge with this structure in place. Maybe the players have to roll some dice and maybe they don't, depending on what they do, as with all other actions they may take in the game.

 

[prabe]

Placing an ancient dragon in the way of a level 1 pc isn’t a challenge, it’s an auto lose - a death sentence. Placing an insults everyone PC in front of a will never tolerate insults NPC is pretty much the same thing, it’s not a challenge, it’s an auto lose.

At some point I think it comes to player choices: If you're going to be playing in a setting where some nobles won't abide insults, maybe don't play an "insults everyone" character.

Also, it's a common position (and a reasonable one, if not exactly mine) that the setting exists outside the PCs, and they should expect to run into things they (at least) aren't optimized for. In that style of play, I wouldn't expect a GM to specifically not put something the PCs could not beat where the PCs could find it (though dropping it directly into their path would seem like dirty pool to me; I'll let anyone who plays that way correct me if I'm wrong).

Obviously, both of those things involve table expectations, Session Zero stuff, etc.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.)

I don’t feel I have enough information to Really tell. Preliminary thoughts are yes but not particularly an overly rigid puzzle. Of course maybe the word please would have triggered it into attacking the party in which case I’d have to change my opinion

 

[Fanaelialae]

maybe don’t accuse others of not wanting to challenge their PCs?

Overcoming challenge is fun. Placing an ancient dragon in the way of a level 1 pc isn’t a challenge, it’s an auto lose - a death sentence. Placing an insults everyone PC in front of a will never tolerate insults NPC is pretty much the same thing, it’s not a challenge, it’s an auto lose.

I wasn't accusing you of not wanting to challenge your PCs. I was saying that challenging a character's weak points can be a good thing as long as it's not overdone.

I disagree that it is auto failure. It's a challenge for the character to hold his tongue THIS ONE TIME. Not unlike a caster being confronted by a golem needs to figure out a different way of dealing with the threat than their go-to methods. It's not an auto-failure, but an opportunity to go outside their comfort zone. Admittedly, these sorts of challenges are more likely to result in failure because they target something that the character/party isn't adept at handling. So, yes, be prepared for the possibility of failure/complications (although I feel that goes for less difficult challenges as well, since it's always a possibility).

 

[FrogReaver]

At some point I think it comes to player choices: If you're going to be playing in a setting where some nobles won't abide insults, maybe don't play an "insults everyone" character.

cant imagine this being knowable before the campaign starts.

Also, it's a common position (and a reasonable one, if not exactly mine) that the setting exists outside the PCs, and they should expect to run into things they (at least) aren't optimized for. In that style of play, I wouldn't expect a GM to specifically not put something the PCs could not beat where the PCs could find it (though dropping it directly into their path would seem like dirty pool to me; I'll let anyone who plays that way correct me if I'm wrong).

Why do y’all insinuate others only want to place things in front of their PCs that they are optimized to handle. Do you realize how unreasonable that sounds?

Obviously, both of those things involve table expectations, Session Zero stuff, etc.

IMO. The DM can more easily change the unseen elements of the world around the players than they can change their character.

 

[iserith]

Yes, it's smart play to assess the challenge and put forward the strengths of the party while minimizing its weaknesses. I am for sure not going to save the party from themselves.