Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8004975" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>This sounds pretty sensible to me. Although in some contexts (and some systems - I know you've got 5e D&D in mind but our thinking about RPGing can be helped by a range of comparisons) I think it can make sense to see if a NPC is spontaneously hostile or generous. A related idea is [USER=6787503]@Hriston[/USER] upthread referring to setting the baseline attitude via random roll.</p><p></p><p>I've highlighted two noun phrases. <em>Where is it it established that the tyrant will respond to scornful rejection by calling for the guards?</em> As far as I can tell, <em>in the mind of the GM</em>. Nowhere else. This is what the players are expected to infer.</p><p></p><p>What makes a choice meaningful, in my view, is not <em>the consequence that follows from it </em>but the fact that <em>it engages the fiction and tries to push it forward in a distinctive way</em>. That's why choosing to confront the tyrant rather than go along with him is meaningful; just as the other choice would be also.</p><p></p><p>As for the idea that the GM <em>has to </em>insist that the tyrant has obedient guards ready to hand because <em>otherwise</em> s/he could not impose the "meaningful consequence" of being arrested by them after the tyrant callis for them when confronted: how is that anything but circular reasoning to justify a railroad? If the module writer hadn't included them, then the GM would have to write them in or else who know what the players might get away with!</p><p></p><p></p><p>So I had a quick look at the Basic PDF for 5e.</p><p></p><p>On pp 57-58, 62 I found this:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Each of a creature’s abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature’s training and competence in activities related to that ability. . . . An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Each ability covers a broad range of capabilities, including skills that a character or a monster can be proficient in. A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual’s proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality. . . . A Charisma check might arise when you try to influence or entertain others, when you try to make an impression or tell a convincing lie, or when you are navigating a tricky social situation. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. . . . When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check.</p><p></p><p>Now it's true that p 58 also says that "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." But I would take it as obvious that the GM is meant to make that decision havng regard to the text I already quoted, as well as to what will make for satisfying play.</p><p></p><p>So the GM might decide (say) that it is impossible to influence a zombie or skeleton via threats, because they are mindless undead which have no heed to their own physical integrity. Or the GM might decide that an otyugh is not amenable to influence via tact or social graces, because it's an otyugh. But nothing there suggests to me that the GM should decide that an ordinary human being can't be influenced because <em>the GM thinks it would make for a better story if that doesn't happen</em>. Or because <em>the GM thinks it would make more sense for the NPC not to be influenced</em>.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8004975, member: 42582"] This sounds pretty sensible to me. Although in some contexts (and some systems - I know you've got 5e D&D in mind but our thinking about RPGing can be helped by a range of comparisons) I think it can make sense to see if a NPC is spontaneously hostile or generous. A related idea is [USER=6787503]@Hriston[/USER] upthread referring to setting the baseline attitude via random roll. I've highlighted two noun phrases. [I]Where is it it established that the tyrant will respond to scornful rejection by calling for the guards?[/I] As far as I can tell, [I]in the mind of the GM[/I]. Nowhere else. This is what the players are expected to infer. What makes a choice meaningful, in my view, is not [I]the consequence that follows from it [/I]but the fact that [I]it engages the fiction and tries to push it forward in a distinctive way[/I]. That's why choosing to confront the tyrant rather than go along with him is meaningful; just as the other choice would be also. As for the idea that the GM [I]has to [/I]insist that the tyrant has obedient guards ready to hand because [I]otherwise[/I] s/he could not impose the "meaningful consequence" of being arrested by them after the tyrant callis for them when confronted: how is that anything but circular reasoning to justify a railroad? If the module writer hadn't included them, then the GM would have to write them in or else who know what the players might get away with! So I had a quick look at the Basic PDF for 5e. On pp 57-58, 62 I found this: [INDENT]Each of a creature’s abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature’s training and competence in activities related to that ability. . . . An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. . . .[/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] [INDENT]Each ability covers a broad range of capabilities, including skills that a character or a monster can be proficient in. A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual’s proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect. . . .[/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] [INDENT]Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality. . . . A Charisma check might arise when you try to influence or entertain others, when you try to make an impression or tell a convincing lie, or when you are navigating a tricky social situation. . . .[/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] [INDENT]When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. . . . When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check.[/INDENT] Now it's true that p 58 also says that "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." But I would take it as obvious that the GM is meant to make that decision havng regard to the text I already quoted, as well as to what will make for satisfying play. So the GM might decide (say) that it is impossible to influence a zombie or skeleton via threats, because they are mindless undead which have no heed to their own physical integrity. Or the GM might decide that an otyugh is not amenable to influence via tact or social graces, because it's an otyugh. But nothing there suggests to me that the GM should decide that an ordinary human being can't be influenced because [I]the GM thinks it would make for a better story if that doesn't happen[/I]. Or because [I]the GM thinks it would make more sense for the NPC not to be influenced[/I]. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay
Top