Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Ovinomancer]

Clearly we have a difference of opinion. Not every NPC needs to be swayable or manipulable by the PCs or have layers of texture. Some are simply obstacles and annoyances. And that's fine, not a trap.

Ah, so you do actually agree with @Manbearcat that the Burgomaster is meant to be placated or removed as an obstacle. You had an odd way of agreeing.

 

[Fenris-77]

Clearly we have a difference of opinion. Not every NPC needs to be swayable or manipulable by the PCs or have layers of texture. Some are simply obstacles and annoyances. And that's fine, not a trap.

I'm trying to think of an example where the NPC might not need to be at least potentially manipulable. Players are tricksie and sometimes zig when you might reasonably expect them to zag. Not that every NPC needs to be deep or anything, quite the opposite, but if the players unexpectedly decide to interact in a more meaningful with one of your cardboard cutouts, having at least a couple of short tags to work with is a good idea. I'm not advocating for ridiculous over-design or anything though.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Conversely, overuse can lead to scenarios where there is no fail state or real consequences. Work with the Baron and you get what you need. Anger him and you still get what you need.

It's not that it's a bad approach per se, but it is something to be cautious of. You don't want to render the PCs choices moot.

Huh? The player succeeded at their check, and that was the result @Manbearcat narrated for the success. Nothing about what happens on a failure was discussed -- MBC was talking about how you could take an insult from a PC, apply mechanics, and what a successful insult might look like.

I will say without checking with MBC that if a failure was rolled, a consequence would be levied that wasn't 'fail and get what you want.'

 

[Lanefan]

I think the word helpful is pretty fundamental here.

I talk with groups of people all the time - groups of students; groups of colleagues; groups of friends; etc. In those groups, normally some are more articulate than others. But they are not the only ones who speak. I have things I want to know from others (eg What is it that you're finding hard about this example? or What movie do you want to see?). I have things I want to say to others, which prompt them to respond. They have ideas and knowledge and emotions that they want to express, so they speak.

It's striking to me that, in a thread about "realistic" consequences, a defender of those is putting forward such an unrealistic picture of human interactions.

Just like posting in this forum.

There's posters on this site who, were I to meet them in real life, I would probably quickly realize I had neither liking nor time for, and walk away. There's others who I'd probably become good friends with (even though we might not always agree on gaming topics ) and fortunately those seem to greatly outnumber the [insert suitable putdown here]s.

But even the [xxxx]s sooner or later have something useful to say (which is why I've taken the stance that I will never block or 'ignore' anyone, no matter what), which makes it all worthwhile; though in between those times yes, I often find their posts unhelpful or worse.

The same is true of in-fiction social interactions. If players are playing their characters true, there's bound to be times when a character says or does the wrong thing in the wrong time or place just because it's how they rock. And it won't be helpful.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Huh? The player succeeded at their check, and that was the result @Manbearcat narrated for the success. Nothing about what happens on a failure was discussed -- MBC was talking about how you could take an insult from a PC, apply mechanics, and what a successful insult might look like.

I will say without checking with MBC that if a failure was rolled, a consequence would be levied that wasn't 'fail and get what you want.'

Fair enough, I read it while taking a short break from work a few hours ago, so the details weren't fresh in my mind.

Nonetheless, I think you do have to be cautious about using this. If the check against the Captain fails, should the characters now be given a chance to convince the guards to turn against their Captain? If they fail against the guards, should they have a chance to convince the servants to rise up against the guards? None of that is entirely unreasonable, but it's also not something that necessarily desirable.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm trying to think of an example where the NPC might not need to be at least potentially manipulable. Players are tricksie and sometimes zig when you might reasonably expect them to zag. Not that every NPC needs to be deep or anything, quite the opposite, but if the players unexpectedly decide to interact in a more meaningful with one of your cardboard cutouts, having at least a couple of short tags to work with is a good idea. I'm not advocating for ridiculous over-design or anything though.

I disagree. For example, in my Sigil game, one of my players has a contact as part of his background that provides side-quests. This NPC is always helpful, never duplicitous, and always is on the side of the PCs. This is true because it's a background investment by the player, so it doesn't bite in at all, much like taking a feat shouldn't bite you. This NPC is a vehicle for the player to engage his PC's goals, and I keep him free of manipulation. I have a few notes on appearance and mannerisms so it's consistent, but nothing else -- Saul the Fixer will always align to the PC's goals and be a good ally. I think it's important to have elements of the game that are always PC allied, else the game turns into Suspicion and Paranoia.

Now, another player's PC has earned a relationship with an Illithid through play, both successes and failures, that is a tenuous ally that clearly has it's own goals. That relationship is fraught and always a challenge to interact to see if you come away better or worse for the deal. As an ally, he will usually get a deal that's somewhat beneficial to him (so success is, in some way, baked in), but what he has to pay to get the deal and/or what plots the Illithid advances as part of the deal are open to negotiation.

These are very different allies, but still examples of two ways I approach allies. The first is, as noted, part of the PC's backstory, and, as such, is reliable. The second was earned through play and, as such, can be adversarial even as an ally. It might be possible to get an ally such as the former through play in my game, but unlikely. Just as unlikely would be to get an unreliable and fully adverse ally. Usually, you'll get something like the latter with multiple failures -- in this specific case, the PC is an ex-Illithid thrall trying to reconstruct their past and had made some big failures at crucial points in this quest so has 1) learned that he volunteered to be a thrall (this was consensual, or, at least, the players agreed to the threshold at which I'm able to screw with their backstories prior to play and this player crossed that threshold) and 2) while looking for allies against the Illithids, both failed and succeeded, so he found an ally, but it was a rogue Illithid with an uncertain agenda that has resources and knowledge that aid the PC. Yup, I'm beating on this PC pretty hard. He likes it.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm wondering how I would have handled this social interaction with the Baron if it had come up in any of my campaigns. I've had lots of social encounters in my sessions as a DM. I always establish clear motivations and goals for an npc. The npc basically has wants, and do-not-wants. They have things they want to achieve, and things they are trying to avoid. And they have information that they may be willing or unwilling to share with the party.

It gets even more fun and interesting if the interaction isn't just a one-time thing but the important NPC is in fact someone the party wants to (or needs to) interact with repeatedly over time.

Why? Because the NPC's goals, motivations, moods, wants, etc. can change from one meeting to the next, expecially if there's any great amount of time between said meetings.

In my current campaign there's actually several of these, of whom only one is mostly an open book.

If my players had insulted the Baron, the face of the party would have to succeed on a high check to undo that damage. But drawing a weapon and making an attempt on the Baron's life? There's only so much a social check can reasonably do. At that point the Baron would order his men to kill the attacker, or to have him seized.

Of course, this does not have to be the end of that adventure. The players can resist arrest on the spot (either by trying to escape, or starting combat). They can try to free their companions from jail, either covertly (a prison break, or a bribe), or by striking a deal with the Baron (quest hook).

This is all excellent.

This is provided that the player who attacked the Baron intends to continue play from this point. If he regrets his actions, I see no issue with rewinding and pretending it didn't happen.

This isn't. Retcons are an absolute non-starter.

What happened, happened, because otherwise everything that happened afterwards - that was at the time influenced by the now-retconned event - is invalidated.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Fair enough, I read it while taking a short break from work a few hours ago, so the details weren't fresh in my mind.

Nonetheless, I think you do have to be cautious about using this. If the check against the Captain fails, should the characters now be given a chance to convince the guards to turn against their Captain? If they fail against the guards, should they have a chance to convince the servants to rise up against the guards? None of that is entirely unreasonable, but it's also not something that necessarily desirable.

Turtles all the way down isn't a compelling argument, no. Of course, no one has suggested that it's turtles all the way down, so....

 

[iserith]

While I recognize that @iserith has the right of how the 5e DMG does social interactions, and that it's a functional framework, I find it to be lacking in creating the kind of memorable social encounters that I want. The 5e framework, on it's own, feels like it's still functionally one dimensional -- you're moving towards your ask and you get it or you don't. I don't find that to be rewarding.

Instead, I expand almost all of my important social encounters to use a skill challenge framework (usually 4-5 successes before 3 failures). I borrow from the 5e in that taking an action to uncover a BIFT is useful, but the structure of the encounter isn't 'Improve Attitude, Make Ask' but a more incremental step through. Players declare actions to move towards their goals, with successes changing the situation in a positive way and failures altering the situation in a negative way. This combination means that a situation can resolve with the players getting what they want, but also having negative complications following them (success in the social challenge may not remove failure consequences, depending on what actions the PCs take).

One thing to bear in mind is that if you use the social interaction rules as written, the ask at the end is still an ability check (if there's an ability check at all) which means a botched roll can be resolved into failure or progress combined with a setback. So it doesn't have to be "you get it or you don't." Progress combined with a setback is generally how I do it.

It sounds like we may do something similar with multiple steps during the conversation piece. What I often do is have a slider on the screen or at the table that is labeled 1 to 6. If the NPC is at 6, they are hostile. If they are at 1, they are friendly. Anywhere in between is indifferent. They start at a predetermined attitude (possibly random), say, 4. At this point I raise various objections or tough questions by the NPC during the conversation that the PCs can try to overcome or answer. If they do, then the slider moves toward friendly. If they don't, it moves toward hostile. Once I'm out of objections or questions, that's the final attitude of the NPC and now we can get to the PCs' ask.

 

[Lanefan]

That's true. As I said, there's no TRPG system that leads to PCs bantering as though they're in Eddings.

Yeah, I don't know how Eddings-like banter could possibly ever be system-driven.

That said, it (or something similar) arises spontaneously at the table often enough I think the system in this case is doing just fine by staying out of the way.