Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Fenris-77]

I don't think they are intended for bit players. The DMG suggests they be used for NPCs who are likely to be involved in negotiations or for NPCs who play larger roles in the adventures including named monsters. Sentient magic items might also have them.

I'm sure that works out ok for those that use them if they keep them to the big wigs. I'd still prefer something a little more tangible for negotiations. Something that more directly indexes the matter that's likely to be at hand. Exactly what that looks like is obviously very different from NCP to NPC of course. Something, in the case of the Baron, like the baron will likely do X or Y if faced with a serious challenge to his authority, and is likely to be patronizing and dismissive otherwise. He is paranoid, and tends to see challenge and conspiracy where none exists. He responds positively to flattery, especially of his leadership. That could be communicated in the module a bunch of different ways and role playing that as the DM is pretty straight forward. The more potential ways the PCs might interact with an NPC the more detail might be needed or useful. What I'm looking for isn't all that different from I/B/F, just more specifc and useful.

The absence of a specific ideal, bond, and flaw for the baron could either be a statement that this NPC isn't actually all that important compared to, say, his strongman, or it's an oversight by the writer.

That I'll agree with wholeheartedly. Probably the latter rather than the former.

 

[Manbearcat]

The impression I got from the OP was that the CHA checks were related/directed to the Mad Tyrant, so we're getting even more counterfactual here by having it aimed at the Captain; but I'll play this game for the nonce. If the Captain is so much the focus of the Mad Tyrant's Bond, he seems as though he might need fleshing out the same way as the Mad Tyrant, and he needs to be the sort who'd earn the Mad Tyrant's trust, keep it, and not act out before now. It's at least as easy to write those so his Bond is, e.g., "An insult to my Lord is an insult to me" as anything else; maybe his Ideal is "I will do what I must to keep the peace between my Lord and the citizens" and his Flaw is "I keep my Lord's trust by keeping my silence." Now we have an NPC who'd be the sort of quiet sideman who'd be the focus of the Mad Tyrant's Bond, and keep his position and other wise fit into the setting as described. And by insulting the Mad Tyrant, the PCs have triggers the Captain's Bond, and made it much harder for them to persuade him not to arrest them.

I don't have time to get into all of your post, but there are a few key areas that I have significant disagreement with (to the point that I think you either don't understand conceptually what I'm talking about or I've communicated poorly).

What I do have time for and want to say (because I can do so quickly and it actually hooks into the concepts issue cited above) is:

1) We're talking about first principles here. We don't have to map the exact situation of the lead post to do so. Neither I, nor you, nor anyone in this thread has enough information about all of the extremely important details of that conflict, so I'll in-fill some details and bring the resolution up in order to do a post-mortem (which is what I typically do in these scenarios...its basically what I've done since I began posting here...either introduce my own excerpt or increase the resolution of a present excerpt to sufficiently analyze it).

2) The fact that you've invoked "aimed at the Captain" is a not-so-subtle indicator that you're not quite understanding how the dynamics of this work. Neither the player in their action declaration nor the PC within the fiction are "aiming their words at the Captain." What is happening is deft GMing. You need an emergent consequence which honors the players success while simultaneously honoring the nature of the situation and the component parts of the fiction. The gamestate and the fiction need to change positively. How are those two changed positively? The GM evolves the post-resolution fiction to put the Baron and the Captain at odds, thus stealing some of the Baron's boldness and, in the case of 5e D&D, revealing the nature of their relationship, thus providing an asset (the Bond) for the players to deploy in subsequent action declarations.

 

[Campbell]

A Few Notes

1. There are obviously games where some characters are not effective combatants and shine in other areas of the game. Fifth Edition is definitely not one of those games.
2. Regardless of system vagaries we must (as players - including the GM) achieve unity of purpose. Is our chief priority playing out a cooperative game to achieve victory over the GM's adventure? Is it creating a compelling fiction together? Characters might not have unity of purpose, but the players absolutely should. Some games provide this in the text, but for some games (including 5e) we must actively work to build unity of purpose.

 

[billd91]

The absence of a specific ideal, bond, and flaw for the baron could either be a statement that this NPC isn't actually all that important compared to, say, his strongman, or it's an oversight by the writer.

Honestly, the burgomaster, his wife, and son probably don't really need them. There's about half a page on role playing them and that seems more than enough to work with without including ideals, bonds, and flaws as specific shorthand character descriptions.

 

[prabe]

The fact that you've invoked "aimed at the Captain" is a not-so-subtle indicator that you're not quite understanding how the dynamics of this work. Neither the player in their action declaration nor the PC within the fiction are "aiming their words at the Captain." What is happening is deft GMing. You need an emergent consequence which honors the players success while simultaneously honoring the nature of the situation and the component parts of the fiction. The gamestate and the fiction need to change positively. How are those two changed positively? The GM evolves the post-resolution fiction to put the Baron and the Captain at odds, thus stealing some of the Baron's boldness and, in the case of 5e D&D, revealing the nature of their relationship, thus providing an asset (the Bond) for the players to deploy in subsequent action declarations.

PC declares (roughly) "I try to talk the Mad Tyrant out of arresting us."

GM says, "The Captain says ..."

So, having the PC's success on a check affect a character other than the one the player intended--and declared--is ... an awful lot like taking control of the character away from the player.

Also, from the description of the event, the Captain wasn't there to hear the insult, so all he knows is the Mad Tyrant is ordering the PCs taken away in irons.

Sorry, no sale.

On the other hand, I'll point (for the umpteenth time) that there were successes and the gameplay state was affected. There were PCs who were allowed to walk freely away from the encounter. The situation sounds more dynamic to me than I think you're giving it credit for.

 

[Manbearcat]

Honestly, the burgomaster, his wife, and son probably don't really need them. There's about half a page on role playing them and that seems more than enough to work with without including ideals, bonds, and flaws as specific shorthand character descriptions.

Last thing and I have to go.

If true, that tells me that this is either poor adventure writing (no way!) or the GM is expected to do more work (if this is actually an NPC that has the capacity to be engaged with). It basically confirms that this is a flat NPC with a (sad) binary tree of approaches and attendant outcomes:

1) Submit to his will/disposition and gain favor.

2) Destroy him.

That doesn’t make for a particularly dynamic obstacle for social conflict and the only sort of play that gets to express any thematic impetus that is in opposition to his will or disposition fundamentally funnels you to option (2).

Not great!

 

[billd91]

Last thing and I have to go.

If true, that tells me that this is either poor adventure writing (no way!) or the GM is expected to do more work (if this is actually an NPC that has the capacity to be engaged with). It basically confirms that this is a flat NPC with a (sad) binary tree of approaches and attendant outcomes:

1) Submit to his will/disposition and gain favor.

2) Destroy him.

That doesn’t make for a particularly dynamic obstacle for social conflict and the only sort of play that gets to express any thematic impetus that is in opposition to his will or disposition fundamentally funnels you to option (2).

Not great!

You have no idea unless you've read it. So I'd suggest not engaging in baseless speculation.

 

[Numidius]

Then this could be a case of a GM's "realistic consequences" take not incorporating all of the potential complexities of the situation even as the module attempts to convey them. I don't know.

So it seems, at least from my keyboard I think I'd like to run the weird co-starring NPC's to exploit the situation as a consequence to the PC's actions.

What I do know is this. If I'm giving any GM who is in the position where they're looking for answers about how to make play work when it appears to have run afoul because of competing priorities in an instance of play (and presumably its not just an instance of talking to a player to resolve an issue with lack of sincerity/decorum...because, again, why are we bringing that to ENWorld if its just that simple), I'm not giving them the George Lakoff Strict Father model that seems to undergird so many classical viking-hat GM approaches to D&D.

Me neither. I prefer to foster interest in Players with involvement, not neglect.

I'm giving them the broad and system-specific (in this case 5e D&D) advice and trouble-shooting that I've tried to convey in this thread. And that starts with "deliberate on system first, introspect second, consider "player as problem" last".

I'd extend the "introspection" phase also to the Players to make known to the whole table their feelings, before proceeding.

 

[Numidius]

Sure. In instances when the a party has all been dealing with someone like that, it's usually been because all the party wanted to be there--and I've let the PCs who wanted to speak, speak, and not beaten up on someone for having a low CHA. So far, no one has tried insulting their way to social success, so I haven't had to deal with this precise problem.

Have you ever played Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay by the greenish not-so-pale moonlight?

 

[prabe]

Have you ever played Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay by the greenish not-so-pale moonlight?

I have not. What I've gathered about the setting doesn't appeal--for hard choices, I have a preference for heroic characters choosing among competing goods, not gray-against-the-black types selecting the lesser (or least) evil. If I'm wrong, it's out of ignorance not malice.