Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[prabe]

Maybe PC A thinks the whole talky idea is idiocy in the first place, guesses (rightly or wrongly) it's doomed to failure, and starts what he sees as the inevitable brawl before someone else starts it for him...

And sure, if it's in PC B's nature to remember this and take it up with PC A later, that's fine too. Maybe they argue over it. Maybe they even fight over it. So what? Let 'em.

I really detest PvP and this sort of thing seems likely to lead to it.

Assuming they were ever available on that path to begin with; but you-as-player likely have no way of knowing that.
{/QUOTE]

And because of one player's impatience it's now unknowable. I'd rather find out whether the goal was there myself than have a fellow-PC prevent me from getting there.

Not sure what the different expectations around the fiction would be - I think there's general consensus here that we all want the fiction to be more or less consistent with itself and have at least some amount of internal logic such that outcomes that do occur usually fall with the predictable range of outcomes that could occur.

That sounds good to me, but I think there have been others here who were less interested in internal consistency than you or I are.

As for player behavior around the table: as long as it stays in character, follow your character wherever it leads you.

I'm less sure about this: There is a difference between player and character, but the stories about players using "in character" to excuse asshattery are not all apocryphal. When in doubt, don't be an asshat.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, that's a reasonable way to prep an NPC, but it's not the only way to prep an NPC. And I think it's cute that you think the player would have stopped with just the one insult. I'm probably more than a little twitchy, here (I've played with someone like this, I think) but a player willing to insult the NPC I'm negotiating with is willing to insult that NPC again; how many insults is it realistic for a tyrant to tolerate? I blame the player who was "probably bored" and decided to spit on someone else's fun. Yes, there were probably GM-side alternatives, but once a player decides to be disruptive it tends to turn into an out-of-game problem with in-game implications.

It would depend on the insult, but if it's not to terrible, I'd have the NPC issue a very direct threat in response. A second would be foolish and result in what happened in the OP. The key is to let the player know that another one won't be tolerated.

 

[prabe]

1. Did the player himself say it was boredom or is that just speculation?
2. What does it matter if the player was bored and also had their PC do something that was realistic for their PC to do? It seems to me that could just as easily be categorized as good play.

I think what often gets pushed as disruptive player behavior isn't actually disruptive behavior at all.

I reckon we have different definitions of "good play." If the Face is doing Face Things, don't interrupt, any more than you'd want someone to interrupt the Stealth Dude while he was doing Stealth Dude Things, or the I Know That Guy while he's Knowing Things (and probably drinking wine ...). I don't see how stepping on someone else's fun is "good play," especially not if while stepping on someone else's fun you prevent the party from doing what the party was trying to do.

There was a conversation between the OP and the player who insulted the tyrant, where he apologized and might have explained why he did it. I'll admit I haven't gone looking for that, and have been working from the OP's description--he knows the player, after all.

It is if you want the group as a whole to have fun. 1 dimensional NPC's that have to be solved as a puzzle are always going to lead to situations like what we had here.

"Reacts badly to being insulted" is one dimension, yes, and while there could be others this is the button that particular player pushed. It's plausible that the PC/s negotiation with him were finding other dimensions--OP sez that was progressing toward something, at least.

1. You never gave him a chance with clear stakes to see where that path led.

I think the best answer there is he would tolerate as many as the other players talk him into tolerating.

You have played or run the adventure; I have not. Is there really no evidence on which the PCs can base any guesses about the Burgermaster's personality? OP sez the PCs had some idea of whom they were going to be dealing with.

OP also sez there was some roleplay and good rolls that led to the PCs not involved in the insulting or the hostage-taking being able to leave freely-ish. Sounds to me as though they talked him into at least some forbearance.

The DM chose the NPC reaction. That's at the DMs feet. You keep calling the player disruptive with nothing to support that notion - nor whether it was justifiable for him to be bored in the first place.

The player chose the PC's reaction; why are you not laying anything at his feet?

 

[FrogReaver]

The player chose the PC's reaction; why are you not laying anything at his feet?

Rest later, this first.

I think that perhaps I and others aren't doing a good part of linking our points together because the answer to your question IMO should have been self evident.

The answer in detail is:
The insulting PCs action could have resulted in any number of equally realistic reactions from the NPC. The DM chose a reaction which then caused another PC to choose an action to attempt to take him hostage. So then we work backwards and see whose actions were justified.

The player that attempted to take the NPC hostage - were his actions justified? From a fictional perspective, I think so. From a game perspective - any escalating action that is in direct response to a direct threat toward a party members survival seems justified in the game to me.

Was the NPC's actions justified? From a fictional perspective, I think so. From a game perspective, a single insult in a peaceful negotiation should really not be leading directly toward something that can be perceived as a threat on the PC survival. That's where the NPC's actions fail to be justified.

Was the PC's actions that insulted the NPC justified? From a fictional perspective, I think yes. From a game perspective, I believe they were justified because there is no indication that a single insult will directly lead to a threat to PC survival. In fact, given our analysis above it actually shouldn't have led to that at all.

Thus, I don't see any reason that we can fault either player for what happened.

 

[FrogReaver]

I reckon we have different definitions of "good play." If the Face is doing Face Things, don't interrupt, any more than you'd want someone to interrupt the Stealth Dude while he was doing Stealth Dude Things, or the I Know That Guy while he's Knowing Things (and probably drinking wine ...). I don't see how stepping on someone else's fun is "good play," especially not if while stepping on someone else's fun you prevent the party from doing what the party was trying to do.

I find the game runs smoother when everyone is involved in every pillar of the game. IMO, every character should be contributing in combat, every character should be contributing in exploration, every character should be contributing in social interaction. You may be the best at one particular pillar but that doesn't mean others sit back and do nothing.

The player that did the insult didn't step on anyones fun. The DM having his NPC respond to that insult in the way he did was the cause of the fun ending.

Will you do me a favor, and before you respond, will you ask yourself whether I could make the point above about it. It just seems pointless to say something you should already know the counterpoint to.

There was a conversation between the OP and the player who insulted the tyrant, where he apologized and might have explained why he did it. I'll admit I haven't gone looking for that, and have been working from the OP's description--he knows the player, after all.

I've apologized many times for actions I felt were perfectly legitimate because someone else took them wrong - especially among friends.

"Reacts badly to being insulted" is one dimension, yes, and while there could be others this is the button that particular player pushed. It's plausible that the PC/s negotiation with him were finding other dimensions--OP sez that was progressing toward something, at least.

Sure. Reacts badly to being insulted doesn't mean will never take an insult from anyone in any situation whatsoever. It also doesn't justify immediately threatening the PC's life by calling "guards".

You have played or run the adventure; I have not. Is there really no evidence on which the PCs can base any guesses about the Burgermaster's personality? OP sez the PCs had some idea of whom they were going to be dealing with.

I've played it a long time ago. So exact details I can't tell you. I've just got general impressions at this point.

OP also sez there was some roleplay and good rolls that led to the PCs not involved in the insulting or the hostage-taking being able to leave freely-ish. Sounds to me as though they talked him into at least some forbearance.

Sure. No one said that part didn't run smoothly. Just the part leading up to it. Anyways, speaking of that part, it bothers me that 2 PC's would disavow their companions and want to leave them to die.

 

[prabe]

Rest later, this first.

Yeah. I have a session to run in a couple of hours, and I don't need to be as cranky I'm clearly getting about this. The PCs have enough problems ...

I think that perhaps I and others aren't doing a good part of linking our points together because the answer to your question IMO should have been self evident.

The answer in detail is:
The insulting PCs action could have resulted in any number of equally realistic reactions from the NPC. The DM chose a reaction which then caused another PC to choose an action to attempt to take him hostage. So then we work backwards and see whose actions were justified.

If you've read the adventure, how realistic are any of those other options. The best one I've seen is a response that makes it clear further insult will not be tolerated (which I predict the player would then test, which would then lead to ... what happened).

The player that attempted to take the NPC hostage - were his actions justified? From a fictional perspective, I think so. From a game perspective - any escalating action that is in direct response to a direct threat toward a party members survival seems justified in the game to me.

I'm ... willing to go along with this, if the information was really so limited that he thought the call for the guards was (for example) to have the PCs arrested and not escorted from the NPC's chambers. There were, however, two other party members who didn't try to take the Burgermaster hostage, so maybe the call for guards was understood differently by the different players/characters? Differently understood does not mean unjustified, to be sure, but it seems to indicate the situation was not as clear as all-a-that.

Was the NPC's actions justified? From a fictional perspective, I think so. From a game perspective, a single insult in a peaceful negotiation should really not be leading directly toward something that can be perceived as a threat on the PC survival. That's where the NPC's actions fail to be justified.

See, I'm seeing it more from a fictional perspective than a game-ish one. The fact there's an in-fiction justification makes the actions justified for me. I don't think that makes those the only justifiable actions, of course, and there is something to be said for making sure the PCs know what the score is before they start doing stuff.

Was the PC's actions that insulted the NPC justified? From a fictional perspective, I think yes. From a game perspective, I believe they were justified because there is no indication that a single insult will directly lead to a threat to PC survival. In fact, given our analysis above it actually shouldn't have led to that at all.

I'm less sure about this. If the PC's plan all along was to use the negotiation as a ruse to get into the chambers and attack the Burgermaster, why not just ... attack the Burgermaster? What does the PC think he's going to accomplish by insulting him? It doesn't sound as though expecting it to make the negotiations go better is reasonable, and if he wanted to draw the Burgermaster into the fight why wasn't he the one to attack the Burgermaster? You can maybe make an argument that the player didn't have a clear picture of the stakes before he declared the character's actions, which is why I see the suggestion @Maxperson made as reasonable, but it doesn't seem to me (based on what the OP said and my experience being at the table with that sort of player) as though that's likely to accomplish anything more than more insults.

Thus, I don't see any reason that we can fault either player for what happened.

And I do. I suspect this is where differences in viewpoint and experiences come into play. Among other things, I'm looking at this from more of a "makes sense as fiction" perspective and you seem to be looking at it from more of a "makes sense as (or makes good) gameplay" perspective. There's something to be said about gameplay, given that it's an actual game, and I genuinely appreciate that perspective, in spite of being cranky about this.

 

[prabe]

I find the game runs smoother when everyone is involved in every pillar of the game. IMO, every character should be contributing in combat, every character should be contributing in exploration, every character should be contributing in social interaction. You may be the best at one particular pillar but that doesn't mean others sit back and do nothing.

The player that did the insult didn't step on anyones fun. The DM having his NPC respond to that insult in the way he did was the cause of the fun ending.

Will you do me a favor, and before you respond, will you ask yourself whether I could make the point above about it. It just seems pointless to say something you should already know the counterpoint to.

{snip}

Sure. No one said that part didn't run smoothly. Just the part leading up to it. Anyways, speaking of that part, it bothers me that 2 PC's would disavow their companions and want to leave them to die.

I think the root of my reaction to this is being stuck (to the extent one can really be stuck--all I can say is I was younger and I didn't have many friends into TRPGs) in a group with a player who was persistently disruptive in a way similar to how this player (arguably) was. He persisted in making dumb-ass smart-ass comments and insulting every NPC we came across, especially the ones we were trying not to get into fights with, daring the GM to have the NPCs stand up for themselves when it would clearly keep the party from attaining whatever goals we were trying to move toward; as the player with characters built for social interaction in several games with this player, it felt as though he was determined not to let my characters do what they were built to do. It's obvious to me that has shaped my thinking on this.

As far as everyone participating, I agree that's a fine ideal, but not every PC is going to be able to be helpful in every situation. Having a character not do anything in a given scene isn't really any different from splitting the party, which at least one of my parties does often (and which I encourage, because in-fiction it means everyone is doing something, even if at-the-table that's not exactly the case).

As to the PCs leaving their fellows to die, that's most of why I think there's more of a problem among the players than between any players and the DM. It is, frankly, something I can see myself doing as a player if another player behaved that way persistently.

I have tried not to be obtuse in my responses--especially not here, since you were finding my responses frustrating, for which I apologize.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah. I have a session to run in a couple of hours, and I don't need to be as cranky I'm clearly getting about this. The PCs have enough problems ...

LOL. I will gladly be the cause of their demise! Hope you have a good session.

If you've read the adventure, how realistic are any of those other options. The best one I've seen is a response that makes it clear further insult will not be tolerated (which I predict the player would then test, which would then lead to ... what happened).

Possibly. Possibly not. I'll say this, if that happened I would be blaming the player for the same reasons I am now blaming the DM. Doing something after the stakes are clear is on the player and especially if that impacts other players fun when he would have had other legitimate reactions to such a statement of clear stakes then I would soundly list that as the players fault.

I'm ... willing to go along with this, if the information was really so limited that he thought the call for the guards was (for example) to have the PCs arrested and not escorted from the NPC's chambers. There were, however, two other party members who didn't try to take the Burgermaster hostage, so maybe the call for guards was understood differently by the different players/characters? Differently understood does not mean unjustified, to be sure, but it seems to indicate the situation was not as clear as all-a-that.

I would say that illustrates why it's a justification. Half the PC's took the calling of guards 1 way and the other half the other. That means the action of calling the guards was ambiguous at best. Which is exactly my point. It's not that the NPC's intent needs to be to kill the player's its that the players can legitimately see that as a plausible motive and thus they are justified in reacting as if their lives are on the line.

See, I'm seeing it more from a fictional perspective than a game-ish one. The fact there's an in-fiction justification makes the actions justified for me. I don't think that makes those the only justifiable actions, of course, and there is something to be said for making sure the PCs know what the score is before they start doing stuff.

I think both the fictional elements and the game elements need to align for actions to be justified.

More importantly though, it seems you are condemning the player for insulting the NPC solely for game-ish concenrs - namely ruining other players fun - which is not a fictional concern at all. It's almost like you hold a different standard for the DM and his NPC's than you do for theplayers and their PC's.

I'm less sure about this. If the PC's plan all along was to use the negotiation as a ruse to get into the chambers and attack the Burgermaster, why not just ... attack the Burgermaster? What does the PC think he's going to accomplish by insulting him? It doesn't sound as though expecting it to make the negotiations go better is reasonable, and if he wanted to draw the Burgermaster into the fight why wasn't he the one to attack the Burgermaster? You can maybe make an argument that the player didn't have a clear picture of the stakes before he declared the character's actions, which is why I see the suggestion @Maxperson made as reasonable, but it doesn't seem to me (based on what the OP said and my experience being at the table with that sort of player) as though that's likely to accomplish anything more than more insults.

Maybe. I still think it's worth testing. Maybe even asking the player why his character is insulting him on the 2nd insult.

And I do. I suspect this is where differences in viewpoint and experiences come into play. Among other things, I'm looking at this from more of a "makes sense as fiction" perspective and you seem to be looking at it from more of a "makes sense as (or makes good) gameplay" perspective. There's something to be said about gameplay, given that it's an actual game, and I genuinely appreciate that perspective, in spite of being cranky about this.

Discussion boards tend to amplify differences. We are probably much closer in reality that it sounds right now.

 

[Manbearcat]

Just finished a Blades session and it reminded me of this thread. Not because there was any symmetry in play, but because it reminded me of how boldness of action and PCs not being on the same page can lead to absolute memorable calamity but in the best of ways (unlike this play anecdote where apparently everyone was unhappy).

The PCs are at War with their primary rival Gang who is one Tier above the PCs' Crew. War carries several negative mechanical effects and implications on play. The way to get out of War status is to (a) eliminate the enemy Faction or (b) negotiate a "cease fire" and a new Status (Status of -3 means War).

In the course of the last Information Gathering/Free Play, the PC Lurk (Infiltrator/Thief archetype) found the location of the rival Gang's financier/bank where their Stash is kept. Fortunately, its a flat in a tenement building adjacent to the Ironworks (which is a facility where they have a contact so that gives them access to rappel down to the hideout's bay window as point of entrance). Unfortunately, this financier/banker also possesses the holdings of other low Tier Gangs...so the prospect of negative Status with several Gangs and a lot of Heat is high and security will invariably be high.

The hope for the mission was the following:

1) Reduce the Hold of the rival Gang so they "Tier-down" to the same Tier as the PC's Crew.

2) Gain a lot of Stash.

3) Not incur too much collateral damage (best of luck with that) because the odds were high for that here.

The other PC is a Whisper (basically a Warlock archetype who Attunes to the Ghost Field for all kinds of supernatural affects/spiritual summonings). The Lurk and the Whisper have all kinds of issues because of the fallout that has occured because of failed attunements (demonic possessions and bargains that are haunting them, poltergeist "hanger ons", and other similar things).

Well, things were going well early and they absolutely snowballed because of a sequence of poor Action Rolls that yielded some Minor and Major consequences (and one poor decision) by the Whisper which involved dealing with a giant Python that was constricting him in the dark (the vault was accessed via a "zoo" room with all sorts of caged animals and a free-roaming python). A member of the security team came in to feed rats to the python (after hearing the noise), the Lurk knocked him out (pommel to the back of the ear) as he entered the room with a 5 (success with complication) on a Prowl that was Pushed for an extra die. Complication is the candelabra he was holding comes crashing to the floor. The "being constricted" Whisper Attuned to the Ghost Field for another Success with a Complication so ghost hands manifested to catch the candelabra and guide it safely to the floor. However, supernatural complications + further complications (and a poor decision to roll Resistance - Prowess rather than spend 1 Armor to reduce Harm 1 from the Python) = the Whisper incurred 12 total stress. That is the threshold for Trauma (in this case Haunted) and knock him out of the scene.

Complete clustereff ensued and a narrow escape.

Literally nothing they wanted to accomplished happened and they gained all sorts of bad things (Heat, Stress, Haunted Trauma, a loss of a lantern, another supernatural complication, a complication of "a member of the security team 'made' me during the escape" for the Lurk, and a Clock incurred by the Lurk to pay back a boatman driver that gave them egress via a canal that occurred as a result of the Lurk player using a Flashback - and incurring 1 Stress from it).

Again, complete clustereff.

PCs thematically in positions that place them against each other in their portfolio (the Lurk HATES the supernatural baggage and fallout caused by the Whisper) and the Whisper player made a poor decision (chose Resistance roll to reduce Harm 1 rather than spending 1 Armor).

However, this may have been our most fun Blades game to date. It was at least the most hysterical and likely the most memorable with the highest of stakes for sure (this may start a downward spiral for this Crew such that their story will end badly).

Why was this a great time and the game cited in the lead post was regaled as such a bad time?

 

[FrogReaver]

Just finished a Blades session and it reminded me of this thread. Not because there was any symmetry in play, but because it reminded me of how boldness of action and PCs not being on the same page can lead to absolute memorable calamity but in the best of ways (unlike this play anecdote where apparently everyone was unhappy).

The PCs are at War with their primary rival Gang who is one Tier above the PCs' Crew. War carries several negative mechanical effects and implications on play. The way to get out of War status is to (a) eliminate the enemy Faction or (b) negotiate a "cease fire" and a new Status (Status of -3 means War).

In the course of the last Information Gathering/Free Play, the PC Lurk (Infiltrator/Thief archetype) found the location of the rival Gang's financier/bank where their Stash is kept. Fortunately, its a flat in a tenement building adjacent to the Ironworks (which is a facility where they have a contact so that gives them access to rappel down to the hideout's bay window as point of entrance). Unfortunately, this financier/banker also possesses the holdings of other low Tier Gangs...so the prospect of negative Status with several Gangs and a lot of Heat is high and security will invariably be high.

The hope for the mission was the following:

1) Reduce the Hold of the rival Gang so they "Tier-down" to the same Tier as the PC's Crew.

2) Gain a lot of Stash.

3) Not incur too much collateral damage (best of luck with that) because the odds were high for that here.

The other PC is a Whisper (basically a Warlock archetype who Attunes to the Ghost Field for all kinds of supernatural affects/spiritual summonings). The Lurk and the Whisper have all kinds of issues because of the fallout that has occured because of failed attunements (demonic possessions and bargains that are haunting them, poltergeist "hanger ons", and other similar things).

Well, things were going well early and they absolutely snowballed because of a sequence of poor Action Rolls that yielded some Minor and Major consequences (and one poor decision) by the Whisper which involved dealing with a giant Python that was constricting him in the dark (the vault was accessed via a "zoo" room with all sorts of caged animals and a free-roaming python). A member of the security team came in to feed rats to the python (after hearing the noise), the Lurk knocked him out (pommel to the back of the ear) as he entered the room with a 5 (success with complication) on a Prowl that was Pushed for an extra die. Complication is the candelabra he was holding comes crashing to the floor. The "being constricted" Whisper Attuned to the Ghost Field for another Success with a Complication so ghost hands manifested to catch the candelabra and guide it safely to the floor. However, supernatural complications + further complications (and a poor decision to roll Resistance - Prowess rather than spend 1 Armor to reduce Harm 1 from the Python) = the Whisper incurred 12 total stress. That is the threshold for Trauma (in this case Haunted) and knock him out of the scene.

Complete clustereff ensued and a narrow escape.

Literally nothing they wanted to accomplished happened and they gained all sorts of bad things (Heat, Stress, Haunted Trauma, a loss of a lantern, another supernatural complication, a complication of "a member of the security team 'made' me during the escape" for the Lurk, and a Clock incurred by the Lurk to pay back a boatman driver that gave them egress via a canal that occurred as a result of the Lurk player using a Flashback - and incurring 1 Stress from it).

Again, complete clustereff.

PCs thematically in positions that place them against each other in their portfolio (the Lurk HATES the supernatural baggage and fallout caused by the Whisper) and the Whisper player made a poor decision (chose Resistance roll to reduce Harm 1 rather than spending 1 Armor).

However, this may have been our most fun Blades game to date. It was at least the most hysterical and likely the most memorable with the highest of stakes for sure (this may start a downward spiral for this Crew such that their story will end badly).

Why was this a great time and the game cited in the lead post was regaled as such a bad time?

Probably because 1 PC action didn't immediately take you from step 3 to step 10 where all the bad consequences occurred.