Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Imaculata]

The players made their choice. It is up to the DM to follow up on their action, and not to block or negate their choices. A couple of heroes being sentenced to death by an evil king, sounds like a perfect movie plot. Roll with it. Go big or go home.

 

[Nagol]

I've read the OP and first page of responses. My first thought is that the way to work out consequences - "realistic" or otherwise - is via the action resolution mechanics. My second thought is that, if the PCs are in the stocks waiting to be executed for assaulting an evil ruler, that there might be rebels who will rescue them.

Umm, stocks are guarded. I suppose rebels might storm the guards to rescue two unknowns who apparently attacked the king so poorly they are merely in the stocks. It's probably more likely they would be tormented/injured by loyalists and/or children.

 

[nevin]

A game without consequences for actions eventually breaks.
1. Either execute them or let them escape and run away to another kingdom or become outlaws.
2. Depending on the political situation. some noble might want the kings attackers to escape and make the king look bad.
3. Or they may just be screwed and get beheaded.
4. Or you can get creative and the High cleric casts GEAS on them and sends them on quest that no sane person would take.
5. If it's a game where King rules by divine right a God steps in and curses them (with a really nasty curse that won't stop them from being able to play) and declares they will live as examples to the citizenry.
6. or an enemy Power Divine or infernal helps them escape. Great time for a powerful Devil to offer a wish to drive his or her agenda.

All kinds of options can give proper consequences.

 

[MGibster]

And - closely related to the idea of consequences - if the players do something that differs from what the GM would do, or from what the GM thinks is a good or sensible idea, what consequences should flow for their PCs?

I'm of the mind that consequences in game should logically follow whatever action the PCs took. It doesn't really matter if the action is something the DM doesn't think is a good idea. I find that PCs frequently make decisions I never considered, and a lot of time those actions lead to delightful or interesting results. I'm fine with unexpected actions provided they make sense within the context of the game itself even if the results are negative.

Example: I was running Hell on Earth (post-apocalyptic nuclear wasteland), and the PCs were working for a city called Junk Town. JT sent the PCs to recover the nuclear football of the former president as their city was soon to be at war with a mutant army from the west and a robot army to the east. They succeeded in recovering the football but one of the PCs decided JT was just as bad as the mutants and robots and decided to destroy it. There was a struggle that involved several grenades being thrown at the PCs but finally the saboteur was killed but in the process the football was damaged. I decided right then and there that JT was going to lose the war because they really needed that nuclear device to win.

The PC's actions were completely unexpected but made sense within the context of the game. And the ramifications of his actions weren't realized until the very last session after the PCs broke off from the main battle to pursue their own mission, which they succeeded at, so the campaign really wasn't disrupted at all. It just led to a bitter sweet ending.

 

[Manbearcat]

My thoughts after reading only the lead Post:

1) In certain games, it’s very explicit when you’re “punching above your weight.” Tier/Level transparency (and the affect on actions declared and the attendant severity of fallout on failure) is baked in. If you’re not playing in that type of game, unless there is clear conversation on the Tier relationship of PCs to obstacle or its extremely well-telegraphed, that can lead to play that is fraught with action:fallout issues.

2) Was there an explicit consensus on what the players were trying to accomplish in parley with the king?

3) Is there any reason to not go to the dice here to decide the King’s response in the moment? Humans are complex. Hard men don’t respond uniformly to challenge and have been dealt with in odd ways aplenty in both real life and in works of fiction authored by a single person. This is neither real life nor a fiction authored by a single person. It’s a game where 2/5 participants clearly didn’t feel like their actions were hostile to fun/interesting play. Perhaps they didn’t think it was hostile to thematcally coherent/compelling play in the moment as well. When it happened, they appear to have thought either it’s reasonable (in a “we’re playing a fantasy RPG with bold heroes who confront tyrannical dragons in their lairs”) to “confront the bully obstacle” or “back your buddy’s play.”

Is there any reason to not go to the dice to see how the setting responds (maybe word gets out of the confrontation and it’s the spark to ignite the overgrown kindling of an uprising against tyrant?) or the king’s council responds (maybe there are usurpers in his midst that are sympathetic)?

4) If anyone at the table felt like there was clear malice involved, would this even be posted here (vs just dealing with it).

 

[Lanefan]

Umm, stocks are guarded. I suppose rebels might storm the guards to rescue two unknowns who apparently attacked the king so poorly they are merely in the stocks. It's probably more likely they would be tormented/injured by loyalists and/or children.

More likely the rebels use the distraction of the PCs' public trial and-or execution to launch a plot somewhere else e.g. while the King and most of his guards are at the town square the rebels bust into the now-lightly-guarded palace and cause some mayhem...

 

[Deathmaster Banak]

Execute them = Game of Thrones series 1
Let them get away with it = Game of Thrones series 8

I know which series I prefer

 

[Imaculata]

More likely the rebels use the distraction of the PCs' public trial and-or execution to launch a plot somewhere else e.g. while the King and most of his guards are at the town square the rebels bust into the now-lightly-guarded palace and cause some mayhem...

I like this angle. The king is distracted, and a bigger plot unfolds, possibly allowing the players to escape due to plot convenience. As a DM I would always use an opportunity like this to move the plot in unexpected ways and surprise my players.

 

[pemerton]

I'm of the mind that consequences in game should logically follow whatever action the PCs took.

But D&D has never been free kriegspiel in the strictest sense. Combat is resolved via dice rolls, which means that unexpected and "illogical" things can happen.

The effect of this is also that combat in D&D often has a degree of uncertainty associated with it.

Is it important or necessary that other fields of endeavour by the characters have less uncertainty and/or more "logic"?

 

[pemerton]

I like this angle. The king is distracted, and a bigger plot unfolds, possibly allowing the players to escape due to plot convenience. As a DM I would always use an opportunity like this to move the plot in unexpected ways and surprise my players.

Although I think there's something to be said, in RPGIng, for the PCs rather than NPCs being the centre of the action.