Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Fanaelialae]

No one has said they get it because they want it.. They've said they can get what they want by succeeding on appropritae action declarations.

With the ancient red dragon, has an appropriate action been declared? If the PC is a demigod threatening the dragon, perhaps yes. If the PC is the only one who can lift the curse that will blah blah blah blah blah, also perhaps yes. There are many ways interests can intersect or leverage arise. If the PCs is an anonymous and irrelevant 1st level fighter then the real question to me is why is the GM framing this scene?

But in any event: if the scene is well-framed, and nevertheless the GM has decided that something can't happen regardless of player action declaration or even moreso that nothing can happen to influence the NPC whatever action is delcared, to me that seems like a railorad. The fiction that is mattering in that case is the GM's predetermination of what happens next.

It's only railroading if the players have been railroaded.

Let's say the players notice a sleeping dragon while exploring a series of caves. They walk over to the dragon, waking it, and demand its hoard. Without a roll, the dragon declines the request. Have the players been railroaded? I think not. They could have ignored the dragon, or woken it up and tried to bribe it into revealing information about the nearby area. The fact that the DM predetermined that the request for its hoard is not an option does not suggest even a whiff of railroading to me. The DM is just roleplaying the dragon, one of whose traits is an avaricious love of treasure. In the case where the players bribe it for information, this can even work to their benefit and be automatically successful, no check required.

I think a lot of the negativity towards this aspect of NPCs is because we've focused pretty much exclusively on the auto-fail aspect of NPCs with unyielding character traits. Is there anyone who disapproves of character traits which, when properly leveraged by the players, result in them automatically succeeding?

If there are traits that result in automatic failure, then the converse is (or at least should be) true. There will be NPCs whose personality traits allow the players to automatically succeed when played to. Like the dragon who is willing to part with information in exchange for treasure.

I don't see how that has anything to do with railroading. It's railroading in the same sense that putting walls in your dungeon is railroading. I mean, yes, improperly applied (a dungeon consisting of one long corridor with no choices) it could result in railroading.

However, I don't think it remotely necessitates railroading. It's simply setting limits on what the NPC will or will not do (which is part of giving them a personality). Much like what the walls do for a dungeon.

 

[prabe]

I disagree that it's a problem when used with discretion.

This is where the comparison with PCs falls apart I think. Yes, you wouldn't want a PC in your game like that. But there's a big difference between an NPC who appears frequently in your game and one who is likely to be a one-off. The former is in some ways comparable to a PC, while the latter really isn't.

I think, like many things, it has a place in the game when used with consideration and moderation.

I'm willing to give a GM a little slack for the occasional one-note NPC, especially in a game where they have primary (if not sole) narrative authority for the world--that's a lot to keep track of, no shame in a shortcut here and there.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think you need to be nuanced when you're talking about second order causal relationships. The example of the Captain is on one end of that spectrum. The DM could have easily inserted a phrase like Sir, I could not help but overhear... and everything is shiny. Even easier if the Captain was actually in the room. Those make sense and I don't think anyone's immersion is being kicked in the face there at all. However, once we approach the other end of the spectrum, where we are now talking about divine aid and other things that are more in the deus ex machina camp, I think DMs need to be very careful. I also think that the notion that success can extend past what is circumscribed by the rules also needs to handled with the deftest of touches.

Part of this discussion centers on the idea of automatic failure. @Ovinomancer has correctly identified the sort of adjudication mechanic in question for D&D, that of GM decides, and I think he also makes an excellent point that the fiction should still be your core point of reference. There are really two examples in play here, and I think they are somewhat different. First, we have the impossible jump, and second we have the intractable NPC. The main difference there is that in the former case the rules themselves prescribe jumping distance, and not just a rule, but a very player facing rule, one tied to a core stat. The stakes of a PC action declaration that I am going to attempt to jump the 50' chasm thus has a built-in and pretty obvious failure state - i.e. that the rules say you can't. That is not to say that divine aid or somesuch couldn't be appropriate in some cases, but, simply put, the player is announcing that he is going to attempt a task that he knows to be impossible, essentially throwing that in the DMs lap and daring him to allow failure. Perhaps he prays to his god, or does some deep knee needs to warm up, but that's window dressing for most characters and most fictional frames. Except in some very specific dramatic situations I don't think it's appropriate or necessary for the DM to adjudicate success there. This is very much in the shooting an arrow at the moon set of examples. The number of cases where the fiction will override the basic impossibility of the action are very few.

The example of the intractable NPC is very different I think, for a number of reasons. Let's set aside for the moment the conversational equivalent of the moon arrow, which includes things like asking the dragon to give you his horde for no reason, or asking an implacable and evil foe to start putting flowers in the barrels of guns. Before we set those examples aside, it's worth noting that they are already different from the chasm jump in one important respect - the rules do not say the action is impossible, and there is thus no rules-mandated failure state. We have moved into the realm of ultimate power - DM fiat. For the most part, those extremely unlikely examples we are setting aside are not impossible due to the rules, but rather for reasons that might be branded common sense - Dragons do not generally give away their hordes. I would submit that this is still broadly similar to the chasm jump though, as most players should realize that its not going to happen on a simple ask, no matter how charming you are, and I don't think that's really an example of an intractable NPC either. That leaves us with cases of intractable character traits, the discussion of which requires a few more tools.

I think the notion of intractable character traits is really striking to the heart of social interaction in general, and how different styles of play, and different methods of NPC and encounter building start to become of paramount importance. First, we need to look at what an intractable character trait actually is, and what that should mean for adjudication social interaction. Lets say we have an NPC who has been given the trait Devoted - will not betray his lord for any reason. That seems pretty intractable, right? It really isn't though. In order to frame actions and responses we need to talk about motivation and objections. Could a character like that be lied to, be convinced that action A is protecting his lord when it really isn't? Of course. Could he possibly be persuaded that allowing the PCs past his station is the right thing to do because his lord's life is actually in danger? Of course. Could he be convinced to fatally poison his lord's wine, for any reason? No, he couldn't. So intractable only really applies up to the point where the NPC's motivation to accede to a request overcomes their natural reluctance to follow the rules, or to put it another way, it applies until the fictional frame is shifted enough that their intractable trait is no longer the primary objection. In addition to reframing to overcome objections, there is also the idea of leverage, which comes into play much more strongly in the case of neutral or hostile NPCs. The easy example there is that fear for one's life is leverage that can overcome a lot of seemingly intractable character traits, but also in the mix are fear of embarrassment, greed, threats to cherished possessions/people, the prospect of advancement, appeals to authority, and a bunch of other things.

Given the rather long list of methods the PCs might use to circumvent, modify, or otherwise overcome even the most intractable NPC, I don't think it makes a lot of sense for the DM to rule by fiat that the action is impossible. You could certainly start with a response that indexes a complete refusal by the NPC to comply, but that doesn't mean that a clever party might not be able to find away around that refusal. In most cases I think it's appropriate to leave at least some room in the fiction for success.

 

[Maxperson]

What about this? What if your PC is a Cleric or a Paladin? Would divine intercession there feel thematically fulfilling to the player and thematically appropriate for this action resolution outcome you've devised above?

I think a PC Cleric using his Divine Intervention ability to cross the 50 foot chasm would be fulfilling and appropriate. I think athletics is not divine intervention, though, so just adding in wings and divine intervention to allow an impossible jump to succeed would not be fulfilling to me.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think you need to be nuanced when you're talking about second order causal relationships. The example of the Captain is on one end of that spectrum. The DM could have easily inserted a phrase like Sir, I could not help but overhear... and everything is shiny. Even easier if the Captain was actually in the room. Those make sense and I don't think anyone's immersion is being kicked in the face there at all. However, once we approach the other end of the spectrum, where we are now talking about divine aid and other things that are more in the deus ex machina camp, I think DMs need to be very careful. I also think that the notion that success can extend past what is circumscribed by the rules also needs to handled with the deftest of touches.

Part of this discussion centers on the idea of automatic failure. @Ovinomancer has correctly identified the sort of adjudication mechanic in question for D&D, that of GM decides, and I think he also makes an excellent point that the fiction should still be your core point of reference. There are really two examples in play here, and I think they are somewhat different. First, we have the impossible jump, and second we have the intractable NPC. The main difference there is that in the former case the rules themselves prescribe jumping distance, and not just a rule, but a very player facing rule, one tied to a core stat. The stakes of a PC action declaration that I am going to attempt to jump the 50' chasm thus has a built-in and pretty obvious failure state - i.e. that the rules say you can't. That is not to say that divine aid or somesuch couldn't be appropriate in some cases, but, simply put, the player is announcing that he is going to attempt a task that he knows to be impossible, essentially throwing that in the DMs lap and daring him to allow failure. Perhaps he prays to his god, or does some deep knee needs to warm up, but that's window dressing for most characters and most fictional frames. Except in some very specific dramatic situations I don't think it's appropriate or necessary for the DM to adjudicate success there. This is very much in the shooting an arrow at the moon set of examples. The number of cases where the fiction will override the basic impossibility of the action are very few.

The example of the intractable NPC is very different I think, for a number of reasons. Let's set aside for the moment the conversational equivalent of the moon arrow, which includes things like asking the dragon to give you his horde for no reason, or asking an implacable and evil foe to start putting flowers in the barrels of guns. Before we set those examples aside, it's worth noting that they are already different from the chasm jump in one important respect - the rules do not say the action is impossible, and there is thus no rules-mandated failure state. We have moved into the realm of ultimate power - DM fiat. For the most part, those extremely unlikely examples we are setting aside are not impossible due to the rules, but rather for reasons that might be branded common sense - Dragons do not generally give away their hordes. I would submit that this is still broadly similar to the chasm jump though, as most players should realize that its not going to happen on a simple ask, no matter how charming you are, and I don't think that's really an example of an intractable NPC either. That leaves us with cases of intractable character traits, the discussion of which requires a few more tools.

I think the notion of intractable character traits is really striking to the heart of social interaction in general, and how different styles of play, and different methods of NPC and encounter building start to become of paramount importance. First, we need to look at what an intractable character trait actually is, and what that should mean for adjudication social interaction. Lets say we have an NPC who has been given the trait Devoted - will not betray his lord for any reason. That seems pretty intractable, right? It really isn't though. In order to frame actions and responses we need to talk about motivation and objections. Could a character like that be lied to, be convinced that action A is protecting his lord when it really isn't? Of course. Could he possibly be persuaded that allowing the PCs past his station is the right thing to do because his lord's life is actually in danger? Of course. Could he be convinced to fatally poison his lord's wine, for any reason? No, he couldn't. So intractable only really applies up to the point where the NPC's motivation to accede to a request overcomes their natural reluctance to follow the rules, or to put it another way, it applies until the fictional frame is shifted enough that their intractable trait is no longer the primary objection. In addition to reframing to overcome objections, there is also the idea of leverage, which comes into play much more strongly in the case of neutral or hostile NPCs. The easy example there is that fear for one's life is leverage that can overcome a lot of seemingly intractable character traits, but also in the mix are fear of embarrassment, greed, threats to cherished possessions/people, the prospect of advancement, appeals to authority, and a bunch of other things.

Given the rather long list of methods the PCs might use to circumvent, modify, or otherwise overcome even the most intractable NPC, I don't think it makes a lot of sense for the DM to rule by fiat that the action is impossible. You could certainly start with a response that indexes a complete refusal by the NPC to comply, but that doesn't mean that a clever party might not be able to find away around that refusal. In most cases I think it's appropriate to leave at least some room in the fiction for success.

Absolutely. That isn't the NPC behaving contrary to the trait, but rather the players working around it. You can go around the wall, but you can't simply walk through it.

The trait remains unchanged. You can't directly convince the guard whose trait is loyalty to betray his lord. You can trick him into doing it, but the NPC is still acting in accordance with their trait, despite the the outcome is in opposition to it.

Similarly, in the case of the mad tyrant who brooks no insult, you can throw a clever insult at him that sounds like a compliment, and if you pull it off he may even thank you for it. That doesn't mean that he suddenly accepts being insulted, but rather that you slid an insult past him. If you follow up the subtle insult with a more overt one, he will be angered by it.

 

[Fenris-77]

Absolutely. That isn't the NPC behaving contrary to the trait, but rather the players working around it. You can go around the wall, but you can't simply walk through it.

Very apt. I don't think what I describe is common to all games though, which is part of where this discussion lies. Some DMs seems to treat 'intractable' traits like an auto-fail button, which is, in most cases IMO, probably uninspired DMing (to put it nicely). One of the places I tend to agree with @pemerton is in the pretty endless set of opportunities provided in the fiction to at least attempt to change most things, and in the importance of using the mechanics to adjudicate success more than simply enforcing an failure state by fiat.

Not that you necessarily do any of things of course, I'm using general examples.

 

[Scott Christian]

To me, any scene that involves all characters in some way can be as long as it needs to be. For anything where a limited number of players are engaged, consideration must be given for those waiting to participate. Now, I would expect a reasonable level of patience on the part of anyone not presently involved, but I do think it's better to get back to them sooner rather than later. Even if it's just a simple check in like "Okay, Mike...while all this is going on, what is Mongo doing?" Such a prompt gives the player the chance to engage if they'd like, or to refrain if they're okay continuing to wait.

Long combats tend to be different from long social scenes....or at least the potential for significant difference is there. With combat, everyone is likely involved. There is of course the chance that they get removed from the action, but those are typically understood and accepted as part of the game. When someone drops to 0 HP, they're not out of the action simply because it's someone else's time to shine.

Great points. I agree with everything, especially getting back to players with a prompt. And the part about combat, another excellent point. I agree wholeheartedly.

In any scene where one player has the focus....their PC is the one doing the talking or decision making for whatever reason....I always allow the other players to offer input and suggestions. If they're engaged enough to be following things and have ideas, I don't see the point in shutting that down. So that's my first step to trying to alleviate any potential boredom.

Additionally, if their characters are actually present in the scene, I do what I can to draw them into the scene. Whether it's a side conversation with another NPC, or the main NPC asks them direct questions. If their character isn't present in the scene, I may have something come up wherever they may be. Then I'll try and rotate focus a bit, alternating between scenes as needed.

I have one player who doesn't really like to talk scenes out. He's pretty much of the opinion that all such social scenes can be boiled down to a few points and a few rolls, and then you move on. I have other players who will happily speak in character for an entire session. So when I GM for these players, I have to balance that. I don't want to skip past parts that are fun for some players, but I don't want to let them indulge to the point that the other player is constantly listen to them talk.

As such, we don't tend to roleplay out mundane scenes like buying gear and the like.....we just narrate that quickly, deduct the necessary GP, and add the items to the sheet. The in character discussions that are roleplayed are limited to meaningful scenes, as you mention.

It seems we play the same way, especially with a specific group like that. As a player, (and I may be in the minority here), but I am actually entertained by scenes I am not in or scenes I am a secondary character. This of course is a shout out to those DM's. But I've found DM's that don't do a good job to be poor whether the scene revolves around me or anyone else. Just my two copper.

 

[Scott Christian]

Unsurprisingly, I'm going to disagree with you. Not that you get what you want out of your method -- I believe you do and that's great. But that verisimilitude is capably of being defined as you have or that my method doesn't generate it in equal abundance.

First, about your definition. The world doesn't really exist without the PCs -- if there are no PCs, there's no game, and you've just been writing a story. So, if you have a world, it exists because of the PCs. Now, I get what you're driving at, and that's that there's fiction in the world that exists no matter what the PCs do, but, at that point, you're still writing fiction you're just telling it to your players and they have no opportunity to change it. If they do have an opportunity to change it in play, then we're back to it having been created as a challenge to the PCs, which would be because of the PCs. I don't think that you can have a coherent definition that is 'exists outside of the PCs.'

Semantics aside, though, I don't see how you writing down secret notes that you then tell the PC generates a feeling of realness or complexity that cannot be created in play by following PC actions. For instance, the example @Manbearcat presents has the Captain telling the Burgomaster a hard truth. If this was written in the GM's notes beforehand, it would be indistinguishable to the players form a situation where the GM invented it on the spot. And it involves things that aren't the PCs. There's nothing special about notes that increases a feeling of realness or depth in a game.

All of that said, though, I do fully understand there's a different feel to these two methods, at least to a GM who sees behind the curtain. There is certainly a different GM feel to an adventure that has good notes and plays out well compared to a game more discovered in play and completely unscripted. These feel very different to GM, so I understand your point that the notes method feels better to you (arguably, given how most enter the hobby, it's more comfortable and familiar than better, but that's a different discussion). However, and this is my point, the fiction created is hard to impossible to distinguish from each other. Verisimilitude is equally obtainable in each.

I think the writer's mantra: "show, don't tell" applies to this point. If you tell it, it is history. If you show it, it has the implication of being changed. At least that's the rule I try to follow while GM'ing.

 

[Scott Christian]

My own approach is to prep no more than I need about, say, an NPC (the relevant example). I need to know enough to inform my decisions about the NPC's actions; I don't need more than that. Once the NPC has started behaving in ways the PCs can observe/learn about, I try to keep that behavior consistent.

I have done this too with a sandbox and hexcrawl approach. But as a player and GM, I find that having a thought out and well crafted story with a variety of milestone points that can change the ending to be more fluid for storytelling. Having things always open seems to create a disconnect for some players. Not saying they don't have fun, but it's like talking a class and then finding out the curriculum is different for everyone. The cohesiveness of the class seems to not be a strong.

Do you do both ways? Or rather, did you used to do it one way then switch? Always curious as a GM so I can learn.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Very apt. I don't think what I describe is common to all games though, which is part of where this discussion lies. Some DMs seems to treat 'intractable' traits like an auto-fail button, which is, in most cases IMO, probably uninspired DMing (to put it nicely). One of the places I tend to agree with @Permerton is in the pretty endless set of opportunities provided in the fiction to at least attempt to change most things, and in the importance of using the mechanics to adjudicate success more than simply enforcing an failure state by fiat.

Not that you necessarily do any of things of course, I'm using general examples.

That actually clarifies some of the arguments in this thread. I had actually been starting from the opposite footing (that most DMs recognize that intractable traits can be circumvented). Perhaps you're correct, I just haven't known that to be the case in my own experience.

I certainly agree that if you can come up with a clever way to circumvent an intractable trait, then success becomes a possibility. Given the nature of the game, there may even be spells and other effects that allow you to overcome the trait. If the baron is dominated, then he'll certainly brook insults from you (at least until the spell wears off).

When I was speaking of auto-failure, I wasn't including all possibilities. Just the ones that try to overcome the trait directly. If you try to convince the baron to do what you want by insulting him, you'll fail. Of course, insulting someone is rarely a good way to get someone to do what you want. This NPC just happens to respond particularly poorly to that kind of 'motivation'.