Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[hawkeyefan]

It seems a lot more likely than you suggest. Maxperson’s example involved the Csptain of the guard, who is more likely to be a major NPC than a minor NPC.

If the players want to burn an orphanage, there is probably an in-game reason for it (heck, if there is an orphanage in the adventure, there is probably an in-game reason for it). Stands to reason that the DM would have q pretty good idea about how most NPCs (both major and minor) feel about the orphanage.

Okay, I'm going to approach this from another angle.

Who has determined that there is an orphanage of some importance? The DM.

Who has determined there's a NPC who has very strong feelings about the orphanage? The DM.

Who has placed this NPC in the path of the PCs? The DM.

Now......if the DM is fine with how things play out as a result of whatever interaction the PCs have with this orphanage-loving NPC, then I suppose the above facts are not a problem. But if it leads to a dissatisfying encounter or interaction, then I think the DM has to be held at least partly accountable, right?

So to lend the example a little more weight....because the whole orphanage burning thing is pretty absurd and it's hard to even use it as an example......let's say that the PCs have reason to believe that the headmaster (?) at the orphanage is in fact a cultist, and he's replaced all the orphans with shapechanging imps from the lower planes. This is something the DM has in his notes. The PCs have become aware of this plot, and are devoted to stopping it. The captain of the guard will likely frown on the PCs trying to burn down the orphanage.....we don't even need to add details like "oh he was an orphan himself, so he's sympathetic" because almost no one wants to see an orphanage burn down.

The PCs are concerned they can't foil the cultist's plan.....so they decide to try and convince the captain of the truth and to ask for his help.

Now we have a situation that has come from the DM's notes and has played out largely as hoped/expected. But will the captain be convinced? This seems to be the dynamic point.....what will happen?

DM SAYS NO!

Not allowing the PCs to convince the captain no matter what would be a bad decision in this case. What if the PCs show him an orphan and they then dispel its shapechanging ability, revealing its true form as an imp. Still not believing? What if we show him the cultist's journal, swiped from his nightstand when the party rogue scouted the place out....the journal clearly details the cultist's plan. No? Still not convinced? Man you love orphanages even to a fault.

You're shooting down their plan before they even have a chance to see if it will work. There are several points where the DM could make a different choice that totally shifts how this may play out.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I disagree, in that a DM can (and IMO should) put all kinds of things 'in play' and leave it up to the players/PCs to sort out which might be relevant and which are either red herrings or window dressing.

Thus, if the PCs are seeking out an Assassins' guildhouse and their info-gathering puts it in Cheapside Way, on reaching Cheapside Way the DM is fully free to narrate something like:

"Cheapside Way is a fairly short street with only 5 or 6 things on each side, running east and downhill from the South Market toward the docks. On the north side starting from your position there's a Butcher, a Leatherworker's shop (maybe? the sign's hard to read), a Curio shop, a building that's probably an orphanage, and a small Temple to [deity]. On the south side nearest you there's a small shop selling meat pies and such, then a Clothier, a Glassblower, a Carpenter's workspace and shop, an unmarked building that could be a private residence, and a knockabout pub called the Wit and Wisdom."

So now there's an orphanage in play. Is it relevant? It it window dressing? Is it a red herring? The DM knows where the guildhouse is (the Curio shop is a front for it, and they use the Wit and Wisdom as a meeting and contact point) but the players/PCs have to figure it out - quite possibly at some risk if the Assassins realize there's some people poking around who shouldn't be....

I mean.....why in your example would the PCs want to burn down the orphanage?

The initial orphanage example was an extreme one to begin with....but if we accept it at all, then we have to accept that the orphanage is already relevant in some way because the PCs want to burn it down, and such a thing is usually frowned upon. This is what could potentially cause conflict.....the need to do something when that something is not acceptable.

So while I have no problem with a GM including details which may or may not be relevant, and leaving it up to the PCs to learn which are which......I don't think that's really at all what I was talking about.

 

[Lanefan]

I fundamentally disagree that their intent is to confuse. They are there to add a sense of depth to the world.

Additionally, there's no reason that they need to be red herrings at all.

Actually, in my off-the-cuff example above, a couple of those places are intentionally described as red herrings.

The one 'private residence' on the street, for example: that'd be where I'd look first for a hidden guild. But it ain't there...

The hard-to-read sign on the Leatherworker's place could be interpreted as a hint by some players/PCs, but it ain't there either...

And the pub's at the far end of the street, so if they want to start there (which, I agree with @Numidius , is always a good place to start!) they have to either walk down the street and maybe be 'made' by the Assassins, or think to go around and approach from a different direction.

The shops carry goods, offering an opportunity to resupply. The proprietors might also have need of, or information for, a group of adventurers. They're only red herrings if you choose not to put in the most minimal effort (which can include coming up with details only improvisationally, as needed, when the players choose to engage with a particular element).

Yeah, were this me I'd have the Curio shop and the pub done up in some detail as those are ultimately the key places, and maybe one-liners at most on each of the others e.g.

Butcher - grumpy woman who really knows her trade, no time for any talk other than about meat. Knows nothing.
Leatherworker - old couple close to retirement and mostly happy, shop a mess. Suspicious of orphanage and of 'private residence' down street.
Curio shop - see 'Guildhouse', page [y].
Orphanage - run by temple nextdoor, adults know nothing but the kids know everything, excellent info source esp. if given food!
Temple - caters mostly to sailors thus lots of visitors, no useful info here but holy water, basic cures etc. available at a price. Highest Cleric is 4th level.
Pie shop - happy couple of newlyweds, get meat from butcher across street, new shop, kids from orphanage keep stealing their pies. Know nothing.
Clothier - in pay of Assassins, also makes their disguises, too many questions here will alert guild within d3 hours. Master tailor, no class skills.
Glassblower - gabby man who won't stop talking but has no useful info. Complains constantly about orphans breaking things in his shop.
Carpenter - tough no-nonsense woman, ex-sailor, Fighter-3, suspects more goes on at pub than meets the eye but doesn't want to rock the boat. Might aid or hide PCs if asked - and if paid.
Residence - abandoned last winter when owner died, Assassins quietly bought it and now leave it in current state as a decoy.
Wit and Wisdom pub - see 'Pub', page [x].

For myself only those notes would be in even briefer form; the above would be what I'd put were I writing it out for someone else to run.

And these write-ups add yet another potential layer of rainbow-hued herrings; but the general idea is that if all else fails eventually the PCs find their way to the orphanage and once there think to talk to the kids rather than the adults.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean.....why in your example would the PCs want to burn down the orphanage?

I've no idea. I just made sure I threw one in there because someone asked why an orphanage might be narrated without necessarily being relevant.

That said, knowing my lot there's a 50-50 chance they'd just end up burning down the whole damn street, and maybe not even on purpose!

 

[Manbearcat]

Sorry, old chap, but somethng here isn't making sense...maybe due to my poor parsing of your words?

Are you trying to suggest that games with more decision points are more railroady than those with less? If yes, please explain your logic. If no, please explain what you're trying to say otherwise.

Not number of decision-points.

Set of possible solutions to any given decision-point being winnowed by the GM toward 2 or, especially, 1.

The more a game features this paradigm, “the more railroady it will become.”

There are other things that make a game more or less railroady as well (such as negating/overturning a PC victory earned via the GM’s unlateral access to backstory, offscreen, setting, or unique role in action resolution mechanics mediation). However, those aren’t related to the question of a GM encoding predetermined solutions and therefore outcomes.

 

[pemerton]

But this particular encounter is from Curse of Strahd, correct? I haven't played Curse of Strahd, but as I understand it it is a setting with a very different tone compared to normal D&D. The setting is more dark and dangerous, or so I've heard.

I wonder if the players were properly made aware what sort of adventure they were playing.

The OP talks about this early in the the thread.

My understanding of Ravenloft is that it is Renaissance-meets-Gothic-horror. I don't see how capitulation to mad tyrants is an essential part of that genre. Nor that uncowable tyrants are an essential part of it. What happened to the bit where the guards and crowd turn on the tyrant and set fire to his mansion with him in it?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Okay, I'm going to approach this from another angle.

Who has determined that there is an orphanage of some importance? The DM.

Who has determined there's a NPC who has very strong feelings about the orphanage? The DM.

Who has placed this NPC in the path of the PCs? The DM.

Now......if the DM is fine with how things play out as a result of whatever interaction the PCs have with this orphanage-loving NPC, then I suppose the above facts are not a problem. But if it leads to a dissatisfying encounter or interaction, then I think the DM has to be held at least partly accountable, right?

So to lend the example a little more weight....because the whole orphanage burning thing is pretty absurd and it's hard to even use it as an example......let's say that the PCs have reason to believe that the headmaster (?) at the orphanage is in fact a cultist, and he's replaced all the orphans with shapechanging imps from the lower planes. This is something the DM has in his notes. The PCs have become aware of this plot, and are devoted to stopping it. The captain of the guard will likely frown on the PCs trying to burn down the orphanage.....we don't even need to add details like "oh he was an orphan himself, so he's sympathetic" because almost no one wants to see an orphanage burn down.

The PCs are concerned they can't foil the cultist's plan.....so they decide to try and convince the captain of the truth and to ask for his help.

Now we have a situation that has come from the DM's notes and has played out largely as hoped/expected. But will the captain be convinced? This seems to be the dynamic point.....what will happen?

DM SAYS NO!

Not allowing the PCs to convince the captain no matter what would be a bad decision in this case. What if the PCs show him an orphan and they then dispel its shapechanging ability, revealing its true form as an imp. Still not believing? What if we show him the cultist's journal, swiped from his nightstand when the party rogue scouted the place out....the journal clearly details the cultist's plan. No? Still not convinced? Man you love orphanages even to a fault.

You're shooting down their plan before they even have a chance to see if it will work. There are several points where the DM could make a different choice that totally shifts how this may play out.

The whole "will not burn down the orphanage" isn't a good trait. A better trait might be "the captain recently lost his child and refuses to allow any child come to harm".

The captain might not immediately believe the PCs. A group of outsiders claiming that the orphanage is full of imps is kind of a hard sell. However, maybe they've got a preexisting relationship with the captain, or they are convincing enough to persuade him of the possibility.

However, he still wants proof. After all, can they really be certain that all of the children are imps?

He wants to deal with the cult and the imps, but he NEEDS to be certain that no children will be harmed. If the PCs can convincingly prove that there are no children in the orphanage, then he might sanction burning it down (if that's really warranted). Otherwise, he'll want to come up with a plan of action that protects any children who might be present (which might involve a riskier action).

Technically, the PCs don't even have to actually prove that no children are present in order to burn down the orphanage. They just need to convince the captain that they've proven it beyond a doubt. Maybe the wizard performs some mumbo jumbo and tells the captain (persuasively) that he's divined that everyone inside the building is a demon.

He won't harm children, but if the PCs have a way to take down the orphanage without harming children, then he can certainly be convinced to help. Given that the demons likely present a threat to the children in town, a check might not even be required, since this is directly in line with his beliefs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I fundamentally disagree that their intent is to confuse. They are there to add a sense of depth to the world.

"Red herrings" was explicitly called out as an intended result. Did we read the same post?

Additionally, there's no reason that they need to be red herrings at all. The shops carry goods, offering an opportunity to resupply. The proprietors might also have need of, or information for, a group of adventurers. They're only red herrings if you choose not to put in the most minimal effort (which can include coming up with details only improvisationally, as needed, when the players choose to engage with a particular element).

Well, yes, if they're not red herrings then we're okay. The point of that post wasn't to provide a new place to shop for interesting things or quest-giving proprietors. If you're changing the example we're both working from so that your conclusion fits and mine doesn't, that's moving the goalposts. The example given was explicitly about confusing the situation with red herrings and extra information so as to force the players to weed through it to find their goal. It was even explicitly said that if they do this weeding in a noticeable way the assassins would be prepared. There's no way for the players to make meaningful action resolutions at the start of the presented scenario because there's no information provided to leverage -- anything they try will be a guess first, at which point the GM will (especially given the later post of possible details) increase the level of chaff with fully details NPCs that have no reason to be present other than to be a red herring and drive the fiction towards a point the GM can use to justify having the assassins alerted. This is an example of using scene setting as GM Force -- Force being using GM authority to drive to a pre-determined or desired outcome regardless of player inputs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The whole "will not burn down the orphanage" isn't a good trait. A better trait might be "the captain recently lost his child and refuses to allow any child come to harm".

The captain might not immediately believe the PCs. A group of outsiders claiming that the orphanage is full of imps is kind of a hard sell. However, maybe they've got a preexisting relationship with the captain, or they are convincing enough to persuade him of the possibility.

However, he still wants proof. After all, can they really be certain that all of the children are imps?

He wants to deal with the cult and the imps, but he NEEDS to be certain that no children will be harmed. If the PCs can convincingly prove that there are no children in the orphanage, then he might sanction burning it down (if that's really warranted). Otherwise, he'll want to come up with a plan of action that protects any children who might be present (which might involve a riskier action).

Technically, the PCs don't even have to actually prove that no children are present in order to burn down the orphanage. They just need to convince the captain that they've proven it beyond a doubt. Maybe the wizard performs some mumbo jumbo and tells the captain (persuasively) that he's divined that everyone inside the building is a demon.

He won't harm children, but if the PCs have a way to take down the orphanage without harming children, then he can certainly be convinced to help. Given that the demons likely present a threat to the children in town, a check might not even be required, since this is directly in line with his beliefs.

Yes, in a different example, things would be different. What would THIS example result in?

That said, your example is definitely a much more reasonable example of play and a better example of a strong NPC motivation that can be overcome or circumvented through play.

 

[Maxperson]

So to lend the example a little more weight....because the whole orphanage burning thing is pretty absurd and it's hard to even use it as an example......let's say that the PCs have reason to believe that the headmaster (?) at the orphanage is in fact a cultist, and he's replaced all the orphans with shapechanging imps from the lower planes. This is something the DM has in his notes. The PCs have become aware of this plot, and are devoted to stopping it. The captain of the guard will likely frown on the PCs trying to burn down the orphanage.....we don't even need to add details like "oh he was an orphan himself, so he's sympathetic" because almost no one wants to see an orphanage burn down.

I did need to add that detail. @Ovinomancer suggested that a successful roll would be retroactively justified, so without that detail, a success to try and get him to burn down the orphanage would result in the Captain wanting the kids to die for some reason which he would come up with. With it, the "success" won't be successful.

The PCs are concerned they can't foil the cultist's plan.....so they decide to try and convince the captain of the truth and to ask for his help.

Now we have a situation that has come from the DM's notes and has played out largely as hoped/expected. But will the captain be convinced? This seems to be the dynamic point.....what will happen?

DM SAYS NO!

Under this new scenario, if the PCs have evidence, I would give them a roll to convince the Captain, or if the evidence is really strong, not even require a roll. Altering the scenario alters the point that I was trying to make.