Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Umbran]

I think that many in this thread are too focused on "what's realistic" (read: what's likely) as opposed to "what's interesting".

Well, a great many people will say that, eventually, there's a point at which the PCs die, even if that is uninteresting. It isn't like the OP had the PCs killed instantly. How many boats do you send them before the flood overtakes them?

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".

Is having PCs die inherently uninteresting?

There's been a lot of talk here about relying on mechanical resolution. Sometimes mechanical systems make it so a character dies. Proponents of strictly holding to system will argue that result is not inherently more or less interesting than any other result.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Sure, I think you're very much right that there will be different tipping points for different people.

But I think part of it is weighing what options are possible, and then comparing them to kind of determine what's most probable. So we may have a range of possibilities.....some maybe more likely within the fiction than others.

I think many are treating "most probable" as "certain", and viewing anything less possible as "unrealistic", and I don't think that's the best way to proceed. I think the threshold has to be flexible enough to allow reasonable results that will also be fun or engaging to play. Obviously, in the OP, things kind of fell apart to at least some extent.....and I think that's because there was a little too much focus on fidelity to the fiction rather than to the experience of playing.

Also, in talking about this in terms of probability and so on.....doesn't that seem to lend itself to a dice roll? Maybe on a 4-6, the mayor calls for their arrest, but on a 3 he only warns them they will be arrested if they continue, and so on. So many elements of the game (and many other games) that it seems odd to just toss that kind of thing out the window. Again, I don't think mechanical resolution is necessary in order to acheive a favorable play experience.....but I think that it certainly could help in some cases, and why some folks are advocating for it.

 

[Umbran]

I think many are treating "most probable" as "certain", and viewing anything less possible as "unrealistic", and I don't think that's the best way to proceed. I think the threshold has to be flexible enough to allow reasonable results that will also be fun or engaging to play.

So, similar to the question I asked above, but approached differently.

If you were playing D&D, and the players took on a fight - the strength of which was well-telegraphed and in which they made some real tactical blunders and come close to losing some PCs... do you regularly consider deus ex machina solutions so no PCs die? Or do you let soe PCs die, and and let the remaining PCs work how they want to deal with that in-story?

If you don't generaly work to save PCs, why is a combat encounter any different from a high-stakes socio-political encounter?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, a great many people will say that, eventually, there's a point at which the PCs die, even if that is uninteresting. It isn't like the OP had the PCs killed instantly. How many boats do you send them before the flood overtakes them?

I don't know....it's a bit unclear exactly how it went down. I do think he gave them options, yes, and some were flat out declined....so I don't blame him in that regard. But we don't know exactly all the steps that were taken, and what rolls were successful and what ones failed to end with things as they were.

But, I'm taking the OP at his word that there was something unsatisfying about how this all played out.

Is having PCs die inherently uninteresting?

There's been a lot of talk here about relying on mechanical resolution. Sometimes mechanical systems make it so a character dies. Proponents of strictly holding to system will argue that result is not inherently more or less interesting than any other result.

My point with the comment you quoted was that if I have to choose between fidelity to the fiction, and service to the social act of playing a game....I have to go with the game since the players and their enjoyment are real. I am not going to choose something that seems a "realistic" outcome in the fiction, if it paints me into a corner that will create an unfun experience for the player(s).

And I don't think that the call for mechanics is about preventing unwanted consequences. It's more about creating a process for how things occur in the fiction where there is doubt about the outcome. I'm not someone who wants to eradicate GM judgment in the game....but I more prefer where a GM's judgment is about establishing a DC and then calling for a roll rather than just deciding the outcome by fiat.

This way, if we find that the game has come to a state where we're all going "wow how did it come to this", the answer isn't going to be "it was all Bob's fault."

 

[hawkeyefan]

So, similar to the question I asked above, but approached differently.

If you were playing D&D, and the players took on a fight - the strength of which was well-telegraphed and in which they made some real tactical blunders and come close to losing some PCs... do you regularly consider deus ex machina solutions so no PCs die? Or do you let soe PCs die, and and let the remaining PCs work how they want to deal with that in-story?

If you don't generaly work to save PCs, why is a combat encounter any different from a high-stakes socio-political encounter?

I love consequences for PCs. You seem to think that I've somehow advocated for PCs never dying. Or never facing negative consequences. I haven't.

What I'm addressing is the fact that the play described in the OP got to a point where it was not enjoyable to the group. I'm not saying it was bad or awful or anything like that....I wasn't there, and so my opinion is limited to what has been shared with me. I'm just going off the dissatisfaction of different kinds expressed in the OP and in his follow up comments.

If players make decisions that get them into bad situations, and incur bad consequences....that's absolutely fine with me. I tend to not want to simply decide those things myself. I want them to be clear outcomes from player choices and game mechanics, with my judgment usually limited to application of the mechanics more than the outcome.

So your example of how combat comes to the end results it comes to by use of dice is kind of making my point. I think social encounters would be better served where equivalent mechanics are applied. Or at the very least, are available to consider.

I think there are times where I would flat out decide something by fiat and stick to it.....but I'd like those times to be few and far between. And I'll add that this is all my preference, not a call for this to always be the case for everyone.

 

[Retreater]

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.

Yes. I have it on Roll20. And I have all the maps and characters associated with the adventure. But I don't have "extra stuff," so if they want to befriend other groups that aren't in the adventure I'll have to create them and their maps (which is a little more work because of online play and I can't do it at the drop of a hat). Online play on a VTT (especially with the group needing tokens and maps for every location) isn't conducive to improv.

 

[iserith]

Yes. I have it on Roll20. And I have all the maps and characters associated with the adventure. But I don't have "extra stuff," so if they want to befriend other groups that aren't in the adventure I'll have to create them and their maps (which is a little more work because of online play and I can't do it at the drop of a hat). Online play on a VTT (especially with the group needing tokens and maps for every location) isn't conducive to improv.

What I do is have generic maps for the terrains that may be encountered on a separate page as well as "splash pages" which contain evocative art appropriate to the adventure. If there's no combat, then I use the splash pages. Handouts are also good for this - throw an image in the handout then some flavor text in the text box.

 

[aramis erak]

Liar lair lair pants on fire. I read it cover to cover during the second week of the lockdown. Yes I was bored.

I read it cover to cover the day after I bought it. Mostly to see what had changed, and what was and was not allowed in DDAL within it, because I was, at the time, paid to GM.

 

[Campbell]

When we choose how the the rest of the world responds to a character's actions as GMs we are making a judgement call and should own that judgement call. What principles inform that judgement is going to depend on the GM and the game. I have a certain amount of sympathy for that judgement to only be decided in relation to the fiction. I have less sympathy towards the idea that it should be guided by a GM's idea for what makes the best story or to pull things in a certain direction. That's like just my damage man.

Personally if the game is focused on the characters I tend to add should be interesting to the players (not the characters). That can mean possibly death if it fits, that they are in a spot, or that they need to seek other avenues. I do not know how I personally would have treated this. Fifth Edition does not have real strong guidance on what the GM's principles should be.

What I cannot get behind at all is that the players need to be punished so they start playing in a different more agreeable way. I am all for consequences for the character, but play should continue to be fun for all the players. If there is a difference in play styles that cannot be dealt with than conversations need to be had. That does not make the play wrong or bad, just ill suited to that particular game.

 

[MGibster]

What I cannot get behind at all is that the players need to be punished so they start playing in a different more agreeable way. I am all for consequences for the character, but play should continue to be fun for all the players. If there is a difference in play styles that cannot be dealt with than conversations need to be had. That does not make the play wrong or bad, just ill suited to that particular game.

I agree, players shouldn't be punished in the hopes that they'll modify their play style. The best course of action is to hold a conversation and figure out where to proceed from there.