Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Maxperson]

No, dice don’t have caprice either. And yes, the difference matters, and is profound, not semantic.

Examples of capricious in a Sentence"

… every balloon voyage is a race between capricious winds and the amount of fuel on board.— Tom Morganthau, Newsweek, 29 Mar. 1999S

he is capricious, however, and is said to take bribes and wantonly peddle her influence from time to time.— Hunter S. Thompson, Rolling Stone, 15 Dec. 1994"

That was from Merriam Webster. The following is Cambridge dictionary.

"capricious
adjective

US

/kəˈprɪʃ·əs, -ˈpri·ʃəs/

likely to change, or reacting to a sudden desire or new idea:
We have had very capricious weather lately."

If wind and weather can be capricious, so can dice.

 

[Fenris-77]

Dice? Only in the short term, even if that sometimes feels like the long term. Wind and dice are actually a great example of capricious and not capricious respectively.

 

[pemerton]

Or presumably, an ability check to influence any one of those NPCs.

I tend to think of a reaction roll table and a CHA check as reasonably equivalent, because in my Classic Traveller game we treat the reaction roll table as a player-side mechanic where the player makes the roll and adds Liaison or Leadership or whatever as appropriate.

But I can see that there might be approaches to play where the contrast between them is greater than I tend to think of it as being.

 

[Retreater]

Well if I hadn't already set up the expectations of how he'd respond based on what all the party's intel had told them, I could've had him show more mercy or laugh it off. But I feel like I was painted into a corner and a portion of the players unwilling to take it seriously were testing me. And yes, he was even planning on letting them go after the attack on him. Then they unprovoked attacked guards with lethal force in front of the townsfolk. So what's a leader (crazy or not) to do in that situation? If they hadn't escaped, I'd have had no hesitance in executing them at that point.

 

[Fenris-77]

Players that test like that are asking for trouble. They're a lot like hitmen in movies actually, it doesn't really matter what happens to them, no one feels bad about it.

 

[Numidius]

Turns out the mad tyrant is a deluded mayor of a decadent village?

 

[Numidius]

If so, the in-game "consequences" look like the whole setting should consider the party of PC's a main actor to deal with, that isn't afraid to use force and magic aggressively.

 

[MGibster]

Yes, I am familiar with him. But I don't think that means that he absolutely must behave in the way described in the OP every time anyone challenges him.

I don't know if anyone's arguing that he must behave in the way described only that it's reasonable.

Especially since he's used to arresting villagers. Not outsiders. Outsiders who may have obvious skill and power, and may prove to be either quite a problem for him, or quite a resource.

The baron is specifically described as having a brittle ego and lashing out against anyone who treats him with disrespect. If the PCs had just questioned his festival I probably wouldn't have had the baron call the guards to arrest them though later the guard's would come to kick them out of town. But since one of the PC's questioned the baron's right to rule, I would also have had him call for his guards immediately, and even then there would have been a chance for them to talk their way out of the situation. However, if the PCs had resorted to violence, by like, I don't know, trying to take him hostage, there would have been no way of placating the baron short of arresting the two PCs. I would have given the others the chance to get off the hook by speaking with the baron.

Of course, the baron is not all that tough in the grand scheme of things and it might have been interesting for the PCs to just kill him right then and there. It'd be interesting to see how the political side of things plays out in the village and it'd give Strahd a reason to pop by and look after the PC's actions.

 

[MGibster]

I'm a, "mature adults talk to each other," kind of guy. Resolving things IC is often a passive-aggressive route to misunderstanding and bad feelings all around at the table. You don't resolve questions like, "What are you expecting in the game?" by in-game action.

I'm an actions have consequences type of DM and even I endorse your message above. It's always best to talk to your players in order to avoid having them feel as though they're being retaliated against.

 

[cmad1977]

Isn’t there a former Baroness working against the baron in Vallaki? She can hire/protect the party. Heck she even wants the mayor dead for his madness.

Now... the things she wants... “gulp”