The Captain isn't necessarily going to turn on the baron just because the PCs ask.
<snip>
You're extremely unlikely to convince the ancient red dragon to give you it's hoard.
<snip>
I don't think that players necessarily should get what they want just because they want it. The fiction of the world matters too.
No one has said
they get it because they want it.. They've said
they can get what they want by succeeding on appropritae action declarations.
With the ancient red dragon, has an appropriate action been declared? If the PC is a demigod threatening the dragon, perhaps yes. If the PC is the only one who can lift the curse that will blah blah blah blah blah, also perhaps yes. There are many ways interests can intersect or leverage arise. If the PCs is an anonymous and irrelevant 1st level fighter then the real question to me is
why is the GM framing this scene?
But in any event: if the scene is well-framed, and nevertheless the GM has decided that something can't happen
regardless of player action declaration or even moreso that
nothing can happen to influence the NPC whatever action is delcared, to me that seems like a railorad. The fiction that is mattering in that case is the GM's predetermination of what happens next.
they aren't equivalent things. NPCs are killable, just like orcs. Their houses are passable, just like forests. However, orc =/= terrain =/= NPCs. Different things can be treated differently and that's okay.
If the GM decides that a particular orc cannot be killed by application of the resolution mechanics - eg no matter what the players roll to hit, the GM is resolved to declare it a miss - I would call that railroading.
If the GM decides that a particular forest is not passable - eg no matter what actions the PCs declare about drawing the machetes to cut through underbrush, reading the compasses, etc the GM will narrate that they have failed to make iany headway - I would be very curious as to what is going on. If the GM is trying to hard frame some other scene or context, why are the players declaring these forest-passing actions? At best something has gone badly wrong with the GM's attempt to frame the scene; at worst we have a railroad.
If the GM decides that a particular NPC will always do X or always do Y - s/he cannot be influenced by a PC regardless of what actions the players declare - to me that looks like a railroad through-and-through. Whatever the players do, they can't affect the fiction except to push it along some path or other already decided by the GM. To me the whole point of a RPG is it's
not a choose-your-own adventure.
Like traps, NPCs are more useful when you have telegraphing, or information of some kind to work with, either before hand or gained during interaction, that you can use to help guide a dynamic social encounter. Or they can be black box that has responses to things, but not for reasons that are made available, forcing PCs to play the 20 questions game to try and figure things out.
I don't think these are the only two options. Or maybe I don't know what you mean by
telegraphin information gained during interaction - because you contrast that with
playing the 20 questions game but I'm not sure what contrast you are drawing.
My own preference is to have the NPC presented by reference to a genre-appropriate role or achetype -
the bishop,
the leader of the sorcerous cabal,
the ship's captain who has brought his wife on board despite the objections of the crew, etc - and then to let the details emerge during play.
I posted a number of actual play examples upthread. that show what I mean here. Eg how does Sir Lionheart -
the proud and famous knight who is blocking the bridge to all comers - respond to a squire who tries to push past him? Turn him back? Squash him? Knight him so they can joust? It turns out that it's the lattermost. But we didn't know that until the scene was actually being resolved.
The character was trying to insult the Burgomaster to get the Burgomaster to reconsider his happiness campaign. The character did insult the Burgomaster. The Burgomaster is now reconsidering his happiness campaign. I don't understand why you say the PC didn't do something -- he enabled the Captain to reveal a truth to the Burgomaster that aligns with the PC's intent for their action. Indeed, without the PC's insult, this revelation is impossible because the Burgomaster doesn't broach it with the Captain. Your complaint seems to be that unless the PC intended this exact sequence of events, you're somehow usurping control of the PC by narrating what other NPCs do in reaction to the PC? Again, your restrictions mean that only the target of the PC's action can ever have any reaction to what the PC does.
Let's turn this around. If the PC fails, and the Burgomaster does the same thing -- calls for the Captain, relates the insult, and orders the PC incarcerated -- according to your restrictions above this would be baffling to the PC because the Captain wasn't present for the insult. So, when the Captain moves to seize the PC, this would be just as bad -- now the Captain is doing something when we wasn't even there when the PC insulted the Burgomaster!
Clearly, this is ridiculous, but you can't have it both ways.
Fully agreed. I made this exact point upthread. I don't think narration of success and narration of failure are identical in all respects, but in this case the structural parallel is obvious.
Arguing this is bad play is saying that normal conversations, where people try to make a point against a recalcitrant other only to find sudden support from a third party, turning the discussion, is not something that you want your RPGs to be able to emulate.
And this goes right back to my comment, upthread, that I don't see why social encounters in a RPG shouldn't resemble social interactions in the source fiction.