Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[pemerton]

The OP has, I think, described the player as "probably bored" and "a long-time friend." I get the feeling the play was more impulsive/thoughtless, followed by a species of stubborn, than it was malicious. Whether that qualifies it as bad-faith play may depend on who's deciding.

From the description, at least part of the player decision making stemmed form boredom. That doesn't always result in bad faith play, but it certainly can.

Bad faith in this sense seems to mean "disruptive". And although I do think that this player's choice disrupted where the game was going, I don't know if that's bad. It certainly could be. Is boredom a reason to do that kind of thing? Is it justified? I don't know, that's hard to answer.

What's the point at which we accept that boredom should no longer be tolerated by a player?

<snip>

I've seen bored players ruin things. I've also seen bored players shake things up and get them going again. I've also been in games that bored me, and I've tolerated it often, but on a few occasions, I've done something about it.

To what extent is a player expected to play a boring game? "Boring" is a word that covers a wide range of possibilities.

For instance, if I sit down to play a game of five hundred or bridge, I have to expect to sit and observe whle others play their cards. But (in my view) someone who takes 5 minutes to decided on their play in a casual game of cards is being pretty discourteous! I've plenty of times been in situations where other players - in a card game, a board game, or similar - urge a very slow player to speed things up because it's not fair on everyone else.

In the context of a RPG, what power does a player have to speed things up or make things not boring? There are a few things that seem relevant First, at many tables and across the play culture of RPGs there can be a tendency to favour in game or even in fiction approaches as opposed to overtly meta-conversations. Second, the disinctive feature of RPGs - that they invovle cooperatively (in some sense of that word) establising a shared fiction - means that players have a responsibility to use their authority over their PCs to make things interesting rather than boring. Third, a player may therefore look for opportunities to use that authority and hence declare actions for their PCs that - from their perspective - will spice things up or move things along.

It's a long time since I played (as opposed to GMed) a D&D campaign. In that campaign much of the action involved the GM dealing with one particular player (whose PC was the prophesied one, naturally). The rest of us entertained ourselves by establishing a pretty fun intraparty dynamic, set of subsests, our own theories about the meaning of the various prophetic texts, etc. The GM largely ignored all this stuff and - in the end - ended up "blowing up" the campaign world and thus invalidating all the fiction the rest of the players had created by teleporting the PCs 100 years into the future. As a result the campaign ended shortly after when I and others quit.

As I said, boring covers a wide range of experiences and in the context of a RPG can reflect a wide range of ways that the game is ending up. But I don't really see that a player is olbiged to sit through a tedious scene where nothing is progressing and the fiction is not moving forward. Was the OP describing such a scene? I dont know; I wasn't there. Some of the posts others have made about this module make me think that's a possibility.

Sure, characters grow. Players come to an understanding of their characters that changes as a result of in-game experiences. IMO this is usually a good thing (one of the characters I'm playing continues to surprise me).

That's not the same thing (or it doesn't seem to me to be the same thing) as having the world react to the PCs in a way that breaks my suspension of disbelief. If it's not believable to me that the Mad Tyrant would do anything other than make a serious effort to execute the PCs who insulted and attacked him, he's going to make that effort to do that. If he has the resources to do it (this place isn't all that well-off, as I understand it, so he might not) the PCs are going to find it very difficult to escape without outside help, which might also not be believable if it has to come from outside the party.

Yeah. If you've telegraphed something about an NPC, you have less latitude as a GM, I think, when the players push that NPC's buttons. I also think there's a limit to how hard a GM should work to protect the characters from the consequences of the players' choices--and attacking someone with the authority and disposition to have you executed is a choice.

I think the problem was that the mad tyrant was being played as if:
1. The pcs were peasants
2. He gave the PC’s an audience with no goal in mind for his part.

thus, you end up with tyrant who calls for guards at the slightest insult with no other meaningful personality traits for the DM to highlight. It’s impossible for the pcs to interact with such a character meaningfully. About the only meaningful reaction they can get is guards or off with their heads because they will nearly undoubtedly offend me the NPC - Especially if they play their pc as heroic in the slightest.

I think FrogReaver's post here is pretty insightful.

What has been "telegraphed" about this NPC? That he's mad and angry? That he wants to see the PCs (or perhaps that the PCs "have" to meet with him because that's what the module says)? What expectations are the players meant to have? What are they supposed to be doing in the scene? Listening to the GM? Going along with the mad NPC? Is any back-and-forth expected, and if so about what?

Which also relates to the suspension of disbelief. Where is it established that the Mad Tyrant would execute anyone who insults him? In the GM's mind? As a result of reading the module? This looks like what @Manbearcat has called "GM setting solitaire play".

I think that a GM who sticks to an image formed in his/her mind - whether via his/her own invention or from reading the module - and then uses that to inflict "realistic" consequences - wher the realism is only in his/her mind - is likely to run into trouble as soon as the players try and play their own preferences or conceptions of the fiction.

I can't speak for the OP but I imagine that when the DM had the Tyrant call for guards it wasn't to arrest and execute the PC. Instead I imagine it would have been to escort them away. But the problem is that the players don't know what 'guards!" means. To them it could just as easily be execution, imprisonment, all their gear taken, etc. It's easy for me to see why such uncertain stakes could provoke a player to believe that the chance of death via their actions was justified because they also had a chance of death if they failed to act.

<snip>

In this case i believe the player who tried to take the Mad Tyrant hostage was acting in good faith and that he was doing it to try and save his friends lives by relying on known grappling mechanics to put team PC in a position to bypass the guards.

I fully agree with this too. That's why I've said that it was the GM, not the players, who resorted to violence. And why I think the idea that the players should have just had their PCs surrender is unrealistic. In practice, surrendering is thorwing themselvs on the mercy of the GM. Where do they get the information about what the result of that will be? How are they meant to know what the GM thinks is a "realistic" consequence of surrendering as opposed to fighting?

 

[Lanefan]

Yep, but if the change isn't unanimous, they allow the players who are still engaged with the scene to play it out to it's conclusion.

So - self-censor?

At the least, those who self-censor wil end up frustrated and-or bored.

At the worst, if the change in scene represents a threat to the PCs that those players/PCs have realized while the talkers haven't, their declining to act could leave the PCs - all of 'em - in a world o' hurt.

In neither case is this good.

 

[Lanefan]

I find the idea that a person could be that consistently neutral to be a bit unrealistic. Even if they thought they were being so, there is still a good chance for bias at a subconscious level.

Hence my emphasis on 'ideally' when I first brought this up.

But I also don't think a GM needs to be neutral. I think a GM should be a fan of the PCs, but should also be hard on them.

After the fact I'll celebrate the PCs' achievements along with the players.

During the fact I'm cheerin' for the monsters - they're my team, dammit!

 

[pemerton]

Those rules state that the DM decides if something has an uncertain outcome, full stop. Tasks don't have an uncertain outcomes or meaningful consequences for failure by default.

Who do you think is denying this? The discussion is about the principles according to which a GM should make that decision.

if you're going to say there should have been some Charisma checks here and quote rules to make your case, you can't leave out the rules that say it's up to the DM to decide that if the task qualifies for a check.

I am asserting that the existence of the rules for ability checks - including the description of what those are for, and what CHA chekcs are for as a special case of those general rules - is one of the things that is relevant to the GM's decision.

For instance, given that the rules for ability and CHA checks tell us that CHA "measures your ability to interact effectively with others" and that "an ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training", it follows that a GM who decides the tyrant's reaction without calling for a check has decided that no amount of innate talent or training in respect of interacting with others can influence this outcome. When should a GM make such a decision? According to what principles? With what goals and hopes in mind?

Those are the questions to which I am offering some answers.

 

[pemerton]

I've never met anyone who would be upset when I didn't allow the PC a roll to jump a 3 mile wide canyon.

Even if they're playing The Hulk?

Have you ever had a player who is playing an ordinary person sincerely declare the action I jump the 3 mile wide canyon?

I'm assuming not, which is why I think it's more interesting to focus on actual instances of sincere action declaration - which to my mind is what we have in the OP.

In practice, unless a DM happens to have a group of players who all think the same (or only has one player) and-or who consistently enjoy an extremely similar style of play, it's inevitable that from time to time situations are going to arise where no matter what happens next someone's not going to have fun. The original example around the mad tyrant may be one of these: talking to him isn't fun for some, attacking him isn't fun for others, and walking out of the encounter completely isn't fun for the DM.

<snip>

My take on it is if you're having fun keep at it; and if you're not having fun either a) assume that lack of fun will be a temporary state* and suck it up or b) find a way to make it fun. Personally, I strongly recommend b).

Which perhaps is what the bored player in the OP's game did.

 

[prabe]

So - self-censor?

At the least, those who self-censor wil end up frustrated and-or bored.

And if they don't, the people who are doing the negotiation will--legitimately--be irritated at least, and probably frustrated. If they felt they were making any headway in the negotiation, they might legitimately be angry. This is probably something the players/party members should sort out, ideally before starting the negotiation. If you (the player) agree to have your character there, you are implicitly agreeing to let that scene play out. If there's something else you want to do, split the party. You'll have to sit through the other PCs negotiating, but you'll have your opportunity to do whatever it is you'd prefer.

If the boredom is going on for whole sessions, then maybe you need to bring it up out-of-game with the GM, rather than crapping on a fellow-player's fun--though I suppose it's possible to have a table that handles things more in-game than that.

 

[Maxperson]

Even if they're playing The Hulk?

Having to search for an exception only proves my point.

Have you ever had a player who is playing an ordinary person sincerely declare the action I jump the 3 mile wide canyon?

Not yet, but I have had players sincerely declare any number of impossible actions.

 

[pemerton]

I posted earlier how my players handled the Vallaki situation, and it was so similar to how things started off in the OP that I've been very surprised at how many people seem to frown on a PC refusing to negotiate or cooperate with a villain. The burgomaster is a villain.

I share your surprise.

The players get on the same page and stay on the same page whenever they are faced with a challenge. A culture exists in our group of accepting other people's ideas and adding to them rather than negating or undermining them.

The players would agree beforehand as to what the approach would be. If they agreed to negotiate, they wouldn't torpedo the negotiations if the other players were still negotiating. If they wanted to raise objections, they would do so either before negotiations commenced or after they concluded (while the group discussed whether to agree to the deal).

if the change isn't unanimous, they allow the players who are still engaged with the scene to play it out to it's conclusion.

I think what is being frowned on isn't that he refused to negotiate. It's that he refused to let others continue to negotiate, once they'd started to do so. It doesn't seem as though he objected strongly to talking to the Burgomaster beforehand, so I can see why everyone was caught badly off-guard (which probably didn't make DMing what happened next any easier).

If you (the player) agree to have your character there, you are implicitly agreeing to let that scene play out.

I think the posts I've described are broaldy overlapping in the approach they set out. It's one approach. It's not the only one.

Suppose negotiations commence on the understanding (eg) that the PCs might buy a widget from a NPC. Then in the course of the negotiations it comes to light that the NPC acquired the widget by steatling it from one of the PC's uncles. Is the player of that PC obliged to keep up the negotiation?

As I said, approaches might differ. The approach that suggested in the passages I've quoted seems to make more sense if we assume that negotiations are something like puzzle or traps to be overcome. To me it makes less sense if we imagine that negotiations might contain moments of revelation or development.

And I personally would find it very strange that at such a moment of revelation or development - ie just when things are becoming most intense for the characters - we would suddenly shift to an out-of-character, meta-level conversation rather than continue playing our PCs. To me that seems more appropriate either to something like a cooperative boardgame, or to a shared storytelling game where we want to all get back onto the same page. But to me it seems to be at odds with the idea that I see as central to RPGIng, which is inhabiting, and declaring actions for, your character.

Of course when declaring actions for one's PC one shouldn't be disruptive or discourteous. But that goes all ways. If the revelation has taken place, the players who want their PCs to keep negotiating are making a call that has implications for another player's PC just as much as that player is making a call that has implications for their PCs.

What class/alignment/beliefs does the PC hold that may flavor how he behaves toward a person such as the Burgomaster? And so on.

These are the sorts of things that can produce different reactions, especially when a moment of revelation occurs.

Let's look at this more generally.....if a situation comes up in your game, and two party members want to talk to a villain, and a third refuses and instead verbally confronts the villain.....how do you handle it?

Do you allow play to proceed?

Do you pause and let the players discuss as a group, and then proceed once they've come to some kind of consensus?

Do you shut down the one player in favor of the majority?

Something else?

I think I've answered your questions above, though more from the player point-of-view.

From the GM's point of view I need to follow the fiction, but also to keep the game going for all the players. What that second thing requires depends a bit on system, but in D&D - with its strong premise of party play - keeping the game going for all the players means keeping aspects of a scene alive that are relevant to everyone. That's one of the major challenges in being a GM. Experience helps.

 

[pemerton]

Not yet, but I have had players sincerely declare any number of impossible actions.

So why did the player declare them, if they knew they were impossible?

If they didn't know, then how did you the GM know they were impossible?

 

[iserith]

Who do you think is denying this? The discussion is about the principles according to which a GM should make that decision.

It was rather more about what to do in the aftermath of the OP's decision. Some have piled on to criticize the DM's decisions, but I wasn't there, so I really can't say how I would have ruled. The only thing I can say is that I wouldn't have had several sessions of mostly talking with little action preceding it and I would likely have used the DMG's social interaction rules as a framework for the scene with the baron.

I am asserting that the existence of the rules for ability checks - including the description of what those are for, and what CHA chekcs are for as a special case of those general rules - is one of the things that is relevant to the GM's decision.

For instance, given that the rules for ability and CHA checks tell us that CHA "measures your ability to interact effectively with others" and that "an ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training", it follows that a GM who decides the tyrant's reaction without calling for a check has decided that no amount of innate talent or training in respect of interacting with others can influence this outcome. When should a GM make such a decision? According to what principles? With what goals and hopes in mind?

Those are the questions to which I am offering some answers.

Whatever the DM decides is correct within the scope of the rules, but may or may not contribute to the group achieving the goals of play. If a DM has determined that a specific approach to a PC's goal is impossible, then that's how it is and there's no roll. What is fun to a given group and what the group thinks is an exciting, memorable story, however, will vary.