Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[pemerton]

the module says he runs them out of town if they anger him does suggest otherwise for the default way of handling it.

What level is the tyrant? What level are his guards? What level are the PCs?

Upthread @hawkeyefan implied that the answers to these questions don't favour the NPC - ie perhaps he can try and run the PCs out of town, but may lack the actual capacity to do so.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, the DM doesn't get to play with my character just because I'm not currently playing it. It's the only bit of the game a player actually has ownership of, and you can have mine when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Are you talking about a situation where you have multiple active PCs in a game? If so, I agree -- the PCs are active and I should retain control over them. If you're talking about an inactive PC -- retired or just swapped out for a different PC in a one-PC-at-a-time game, then... no? Inactive PCs are ones the player has decided to not play anymore, and, to me, if you're not playing the character, it's no longer a Player Character.

Exceptions exist for specific agreements, of course, like retiring a character because they conflict with another character but wanting to keep the PC around to return to if they other PC changes substantially or leaves the game (in a D&D style game).

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree with both of you, but I think I'm somewhere in the middle. I agree that the Burgomaster is underwritten (based on the summary that was posted), and that running him perhaps requires a bit too much from the DM, leaving the door wide open for dreadful mistakes. However, I also think that it is fine for a campaign to have unswayable pure blackhat npc's. Not every npc needs to be complex. But I wonder what the point of the Burgomaster encounter is (I haven't read or played this particular adventure). It sounds almost like he is purely there to force a conflict on the players.

Like Iserith, I use a slider for my npc's during social encounters, although the slider is not literally visible. However, I do communicate to my players whenever an npc is swayed by their arguments, or when they anger the npc. It is important for the players to know when they are making progress, or losing progress during a social encounter. I also point out nuances during social encounters, such as an npc being disinterested, highly negative or very passionate about a topic. It is important that the players get some clues regarding what an npc cares about, so they can make an informed choice regarding what they say to the npc.

Some npc's may already start out with a negative view of the players, making them much harder to sway. While others may already be friendly to the players, making them far easier to negotiate with. And there may be some topics that a particular npc is impossible to sway on, which I always point out to the players during the encounter so they can move on. I also keep track of so called loyalty quests for various factions (an idea I stole straight out of Mass Effect), to progress the attitude of a group of npc's further to the positive. The opposite is also possible, where certain quest outcomes will permanently make some factions hostile to them.

I’m not crazy about the Baron because I do see how it could be challenging for a newer DM to mishandle him. But I think that Vallaki can be a very interesting locale, and the Baron can be an interesting part of that. But to be so, a DM will need to add a bit of their own take to it.

Also, if he’s viewed as simply an obstacle, that’s fine too.

He’s a bit of a missed opportunity as presented, without some additional info to help DMs mold him as needed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Summary for most 5e NPCs in adventure books, nowadays.

Overly harsh, there's lots of good in most of the adventures. It's just littered with points like the Burgomaster where things can go badly even with good faith play.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Ovinomancer - I think you're pretty drastically misunderstanding what I meant by 'all the handles'. Sorry if that's my poor explanation. I don't mean all you need to successfully get what you want. I just meant you know the NPC, have some idea about his motivations and likely actions and responses to certain kinds of queries or proffers. It doesn't matter if they're friendly or not. The history the PC has with that NPC provides a wealth of information to help smooth out and rationalize SI with that NPC. The PCs have an idea how to interact before they begin.

In the case of the NPCs I am actually talking about the PCs have none of that info, and are thus working in a much shallower information environment. It's on the GM to somehow provide the PCs with some (any) information about that NPCs motivations, or objections, or whatever. The more handles the PCs have, the more directed and dynamic their actions can be.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer - I think you're pretty drastically misunderstanding what I meant by 'all the handles'. Sorry if that's my poor explanation. I don't mean all you need to successfully get what you want. I just meant you know the NPC, have some idea about his motivations and likely actions and responses to certain kinds of queries or proffers. It doesn't matter if they're friendly or not. The history the PC has with that NPC provides a wealth of information to help smooth out and rationalize SI with that NPC. The PCs have an idea how to interact before they begin.

In the case of the NPCs I am actually talking about the PCs have none of that info, and are thus working in a much shallower information environment. It's on the GM to somehow provide the PCs with some (any) information about that NPCs motivations, or objections, or whatever. The more handles the PCs have, the more directed and dynamic their actions can be.

Yeah, no, I totally didn't get 'you need to provide some handle for the PCs to interact with new NPCs' from your previous posts. That's an innocuously true statement. Failure to properly frame any encounter is always going to lead to trouble.

 

[Fenris-77]

Are you talking about a situation where you have multiple active PCs in a game? If so, I agree -- the PCs are active and I should retain control over them. If you're talking about an inactive PC -- retired or just swapped out for a different PC in a one-PC-at-a-time game, then... no? Inactive PCs are ones the player has decided to not play anymore, and, to me, if you're not playing the character, it's no longer a Player Character.

Exceptions exist for specific agreements, of course, like retiring a character because they conflict with another character but wanting to keep the PC around to return to if they other PC changes substantially or leaves the game (in a D&D style game).

No, I meant period. I do realize that not everyone agrees with that stance, but lots do. I'm not giving up my 'rights' to that PC just because it isn't currently being played, for whatever reason. In some cases, like I've moved away and will never play with those people again I'd be fine with it, but I'd still want to talk to the DM about it. I can't think of too many reason why I'd deny a DM the request to use my character as an NPC. but that really isn't the point.

It's not about it being a player character really, it's about it being my character, played or not. Different strokes though, for sure.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, no, I totally didn't get 'you need to provide some handle for the PCs to interact with new NPCs' from your previous posts. That's an innocuously true statement. Failure to properly frame any encounter is always going to lead to trouble.

I can smell your mockery. If it were so innocuous and easy, it would get done every time and we wouldn't have this thread. Sadly though, it doesn't get done all the time, even by professional writers, never mind by homebrewing GMs, who have a lot on their plate. Also, the quality of the handles makes a big difference. So I guess that is innocuously true if you wanted to ignore all the context, example and detail I've provided over the last few pages.

 

[pemerton]

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.

A trap is a static threat.

NPCs are not static. The are (in the fiction) human beings with all the complexity and dynamism that implies; and (in the play of the game) characters around whom the action will pivot.

And NPCs are opportunities, not threats. That's why one can encounter a warband leader (let's call him Eomer) who is carrying out his sworn duty to detain you, and have the encounter end up in him releasing you with a loan of horses. That's why alies can become enemies (eg Saruman) and enemies allies (eg Magneto).

So I think the comparison to traps is not that helpful. In saying this I take myself to be in agreement with some recent posts from FrogReaver, and with some posts further upthread by @hawkeyefan.

 

[Fanaelialae]

What level is the tyrant? What level are his guards? What level are the PCs?

Upthread @hawkeyefan implied that the answers to these questions don't favour the NPC - ie perhaps he can try and run the PCs out of town, but may lack the actual capacity to do so.

The baron is a noble. He has 2 mastiffs, a CR 5 henchman, 24 guards, and can raise a mob of 30 commoners. His wife is a commoner and his son is a mage. MM stats for everyone except the henchman.

Obviously not all of those are present at once. I think in the case of the meeting, he has the mastiffs, the henchman, and 12 guards. Depending on the levels of the PCs, particularly given that 2 PCs were abstaining from conflict (leaving only 2 PCs) that could certainly be an unwinnable encounter.