Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[hawkeyefan]

This to me conflates two separate and disconnected issues: mechanics use and end satisfaction.

Sure, what happened from the NPC side was completely within the DM's power to control. And in hindsight maybe the DM wasn't too pleased with what he-she did with it and how it all shook down - we've probably all had those moments more often that we'd care to admit - but that's much the same as a DM making any other call and later realizing it could have been done better: live with it and move on.

Had some systemized mechanics been used there's nothing saying they couldn't have led to the exact same outcome, and what then? Does the DM blame the mechanics for leading to an unsatisfactory result?

So there have been a lot of posts since I was last watching the thread. I'm catching up now, but I wanted to reply to you in regard to this last bit of your post.

To go back to the trap example; let's say a PC searches the door (or whatever) and triggers a trap, and the DM decides, "there's no reasonable way you can avoid what happens.....your PC is dead."

I think many would argue that, under some "DM has final word" type of caveat, that this is well within what can happen at the table. But I know many folks, even those who might say that yes the DM can decide such, would be very annoyed if this is how it was handled at the table.

So the question is whether this is as preferable as the PC being allowed a saving throw, and then consulting the results of what happens on a success or failure of that saving throw? Such a system is in place to create a clear process about what happens under these circumstances. So when it does happen, it's understandable why it's happened, and it doesn't boil down to "the DM decided this is what happens". It's much more consistent in that regard.

I don't think that social interactions need mechanics for every little thing or anything like that.....but if PC execution is being put forth as a possible result, then I think having rules that allow for a clear process of how we end with that result is preferable to relying almost purely on DM whim.

 

[iserith]

@iserith - Wrong? Maybe not, but better or worse? Sure, some of those DM calls will be better or worse, for a host of potential different reason. A lot depends on meeting the table expectations, maybe more than any particular opinion on example X or Y. If the DM makes a call that is in keeping with how play normally proceeds at the table he plays with, and is one that makes sense in terms of the pre-existing fictional context (i.e follows from the fiction) then it's probably a fine call, whether I personally agree with it or not. However, when the DM or the players depart from the table conventions things quickly start to unwind.

In pretty much every case the first litmus test I would use would be the question Does the ruling present interesting ways to move the fiction forward? If the answer is yes then the goals of play you list are probably being met. This does depend on the players buying in of course. One of things I don't really get about the situation in the OP is that several narrative lifelines were thrown to the PCs, with very little interest taken in them. That indexes a potential case of bad faith play, although without more specifics it is, as you say, hard to tell.

It appears you are more or less restating what I said after the word "wrong" in my last post. Whether something is fun, exciting, and memorable is table-dependent. The poster to which I was responding was using rules to justify a position, while failing to quote the entirety of the rules that explains the DM's role in adjudication. In that context, the DM is not "wrong," but as I go on to say, this is independent from whether the goals of play are achieved.

 

[Fenris-77]

It appears you are more or less restating what I said after the word "wrong" in my last post. Whether something is fun, exciting, and memorable is table-dependent. The poster to which I was responding was using rules to justify a position, while failing to quote the entirety of the rules that explains the DM's role in adjudication. In that context, the DM is not "wrong," but as I go on to say, this is independent from whether the goals of play are achieved.

You said the following:

Different DMs will make different calls here and none would be wrong.

I was expanding on this notion, and outlining a bunch of areas in which it could be bad, without being wrong. The tone of your posts seemed to suggest that whatever the DM decided would be right (i.e. not wrong) and isn't at all how I'd choose to descibe it. I think that value judgments, like good and bad, probably better describe the spectrum of possibilities than do right and wrong. Relative of course to the individual table and the goals of play for that table.

I think we agree, but a casual read of your first post might not suggest that. Hence my reply.

 

[Umbran]

I was expanding on this notion, and outlining a bunch of areas in which it could be bad, without being wrong.

I think everyone here can at least vaguely understand the concept of the difference between the Law-Chaos axis and the Good-Evil axis.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Actually, I kinda think presenting multiple bad options as decided by the GM without player choices leading into them as not really consequences that matter -- if your option is choose this consequence or that one and you didn't get a say in being in that spot to begin with, it's not much of a consequence so much as the GM fiat enforcing a situation.

Now, I get what you're aiming at, I think, which is that hard choices are okay, and I agree. I don't think the presentation of Vallaki is a reasonable hard choice, though, as there's no way through the written material that achieves any good outcome and most result in the town turning against you. And, as you say, the fact that it's written this way in the module is not a requirement for a GM to run it that way, but that expects not the usual level of customization necessary but that you will wholly rewrite something that a professional presented. That's a high hurdle. Granted, I pretty much read anything pre-written by someone else and gut it, taking only the bits I like, but I've got that experience. The point of a module is that these things are supposedly written by a professional and present a reasonable situation.

I think I generally agree with you in this regard, and I think this is a really relevant point. The only way I disagree is that this situation largely worked for my group because the way I kind of framed things was that there was no clear favorable outcome available to the PCs, and that this speaks largely to the overall situation in Barovia. The land is corrupted, and things can't really be fixed until you deal with the actual cause of that corruption.....Strahd himself. So in that sense, it worked for my group. I think that it helped that they're all familiar with Ravenloft and the general themes and concepts at play. I agree that under normal circumstances, this kind of no win situation can be an obstacle to satisfying play.

My PCs behaved very largely in a way as described in the OP, although I hope and suspect it was not out of boredom. At one of the festivals of the sun, I played out the burgomaster punishing a villager for some minor infraction. A total injustice. The PCs saw this and reacted. At this point, they were known about town as outsiders (which is kind of a big deal in Barovia, I think) and as capable outsiders.

They tried to reason with him....it was like bashing their heads into a brick wall, and they quickly realized this. Things escalated. The fighter said that if anyone of the burgomaster's men made a move, he'd respond in kind. The other PCs agreed and got ready. It wound up being a showdown between the fighter and Izek Strazni, the burgomaster's champion. The fighter PC won.

Once that happened, the burgomaster retreated to his manor behind some of his guards. The PCs didn't even both pursuing him at that point. I figured that Izek (clearly the most physically powerful person in the town prior to the PCs' arrival) being killed would pretty much be a major blow to the burgomaster's grip on the town. The PCs left soon thereafter, realizing that if they didn't get rid of Strahd, nothing good would ever really happen in these lands.

When they eventually made their way back to Vallaki, they saw the burgomaster's body hanging in the town square and signs that there had been fighting around town. They didn't linger long enough to really even investigate what had happened, but I had figured that the Strahd-sympathetic lady (her name escapes me) had taken the loss of Izek as her cue to make her move, and she took over.

I expect that my experience with this whole scenario is why I'm questioning so much how it played out in the OP's game. I do think that the players not all being on the same page is a big part of why things went south, and I do understand that a player having his character do something solely out of boredom can be problematic.....but I can't look at it as a case of that player being solely to blame.

 

[iserith]

You said the following:

I was expanding on this notion, and outlining a bunch of areas in which it could be bad, without being wrong. The tone of your posts seemed to suggest that whatever the DM decided would be right (i.e. not wrong) and isn't at all how I'd choose to descibe it. I think that value judgments, like good and bad, probably better describe the spectrum of possibilities than do right and wrong. Relative of course to the individual table and the goals of play for that table.

I think we agree, but a casual read of your first post might not suggest that. Hence my reply.

We do appear to agree overall. I stand by the notion that whatever the DM decides to do with regard to calling for a roll or not is correct because that is firmly defined as the DM's role and it solely at his or her discretion. What follows in narration of the results of the adventurers' actions (roll or no roll), however, may not achieve the goals of play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't mind if they're going off the rails of the adventure path per se, but it's that I'm trying to run it using the module on a VTT, and not on a home F2F game I can easily adapt. So if the group wants to go to a new area not detailed in the adventure, to deal with different NPCs, face alternative challenges, etc, I can't easily change it in this format. Now given enough advance notice, I can make new maps, add new NPC stat blocks, etc, but we're all stressing out in our daily lives, I'm running a weekly session for them (instead of the normal biweekly or monthly) and I think going along with a general storyline the party agreed to play at the outset for the sake of DM sanity isn't too much to ask.

So with the pandemic I've recently discovered the challenges of playing D&D without relying on the published materials. My 5E campaign is largely homebrew, and although I use existing concepts and elements, I'm not running straight through any of the published books. So I know how challenging it can be to not have the proper materials to play in the way to which you've grown accustomed.

So my question for you is do you have Curse of Strahd on Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds? If so, don't you have all the sites in Barovia to run the game? Barovia is a finite area.

I'm just curious in what way you were worried about them going off on their own.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The OP said the PC tried to grapple... and failed. That mechanical enough for you? I've been saying right along that the PCs could have tried something to escape their fate but that it should come from them not a deus ex machina. They didn't, expressly in at least one case. If the players aren't going to give the DM anything to go on, that seems pretty final to me.

What I do have a problem with is cooking up a mechanical resolution for determining the burgomaster's reaction to the PC-based effrontery when it's completely unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. He's already arresting malcontents and putting them in the stocks. Why would he do anything different? Why would it be better for that evidence to not be indicative of what the burgomaster would do if faced with the same opposition from the PCs?

Um...because the PCs are likely decked out in armor and capable of tossing fireballs around?

The PCs aren't NPC villagers, used to living under the shadow of Strahd and the oppression of the Burgomaster. The Burgomaster agreed to grant them some kind of audience, per the OP, so it seems that he was played as recognizing their status or power. He already seems to be treating them differently than the villagers, no?

 

[hawkeyefan]

@iserith - Wrong? Maybe not, but better or worse? Sure, some of those DM calls will be better or worse, for a host of potential different reason. A lot depends on meeting the table expectations, maybe more than any particular opinion on example X or Y. If the DM makes a call that is in keeping with how play normally proceeds at the table he plays with, and is one that makes sense in terms of the pre-existing fictional context (i.e follows from the fiction) then it's probably a fine call, whether I personally agree with it or not. However, when the DM or the players depart from the table conventions things quickly start to unwind.

In pretty much every case the first litmus test I would use would be the question Does the ruling present interesting ways to move the fiction forward? If the answer is yes then the goals of play you list are probably being met. This does depend on the players buying in of course. One of things I don't really get about the situation in the OP is that several narrative lifelines were thrown to the PCs, with very little interest taken in them. That indexes a potential case of bad faith play, although without more specifics it is, as you say, hard to tell.

"Does the ruling present interesting ways to move the fiction forward?" is a great question to keep in mind anytime a GM has to narrate a consequence or judgment of this type.

This is why in my posts, I've been looking at the actions of all those involved, rather than just the player who decided to have his character start the whole confrontation. I think that many in this thread are too focused on "what's realistic" (read: what's likely) as opposed to "what's interesting". Ideally, there'd be a venn diagram overlap where these two things are both true. If so, great.

But if not....which do you choose? I think that's part of the actual question here....faith to the fiction versus faith to the fact that people are playing a game. I don't think there's one answer....or maybe the answer can vary depending on circumstances.

But generally speaking, I have to go with what's real....the people playing the game. My decision has to take that into more consideration than the fiction. Especially since with fiction, you can come up with any number of outcomes that could be considered "realistic".

 

[prabe]

"Does the ruling present interesting ways to move the fiction forward?" is a great question to keep in mind anytime a GM has to narrate a consequence or judgment of this type.

This is why in my posts, I've been looking at the actions of all those involved, rather than just the player who decided to have his character start the whole confrontation. I think that many in this thread are too focused on "what's realistic" (read: what's likely) as opposed to "what's interesting". Ideally, there'd be a venn diagram overlap where these two things are both true. If so, great.

But if not....which do you choose? I think that's part of the actual question here....faith to the fiction versus faith to the fact that people are playing a game. I don't think there's one answer....or maybe the answer can vary depending on circumstances.

But generally speaking, I have to go with what's real....the people playing the game. My decision has to take that into more consideration than the fiction. Especially since with fiction, you can come up with any number of outcomes that could be considered "realistic".

That's a thoughtful post, and not at all an unreasonable end-position. In the abstract, I'm even inclined to endorse it ... right up until doing so as a GM would break my suspension of disbelief--once that breaks, I can't GM in the campaign. Others may draw that line differently, or not need to draw it at all, but it's a line that exists for me, and it's clear to me inside my head when I'm near it. I think something like that may be at the heart of why people are reacting at such variance, here: some people have an easier time with willing suspension of disbelief than others, and it's more important to some people than others.