Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Nagol]

Than continuing down the rails of the published adventure? Very probably.

There may be some people here who are taking a stance along the lines of "teach the buggers a lesson," but I don't think that's my position. To my mind, the execution/s would be the logical result of actions taken. If your PCs are negotiating with Lord Vetinari, knowing his reputation, and someone mouths off and someone else tries to kill Vetinari or take him hostage, a slow death in the lightless depths of the scorpion pits is a result; no need to play that out; extending the obvious and inevitable feels to me like the GM bullying the players, more than a couple sentences ending with "make new characters." The OP described the player of the character that instigated the fight in the chambers as "bored." Crapping on the game out of player boredom is close enough to asshattery for me to call it that, and it's something I don't have any patience for.

Yeah, the situation looks very similar to
DM: This dungeon door is trapped.
Player: I open it anyway.
<mechanical resolution>
DM: Make a new PC.

Compare:

DM: This man is powerful, controls the legal machinery, and is known to be unstable and severely punishing of dissent.
PC1: I mouth off at him.
PC2: I attack him to take him hostage!
<Mechanical resolution>
DM: Make new PCs.

The stakes were known, actions were declared, so consequences should be reaped. The DM can keep throwing softballs if he is intent on it, but isn't beholden to do so.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, the situation looks very similar to
DM: This dungeon door is trapped.
Player: I open it anyway.
<mechanical resolution>
DM: Make a new PC.

Compare:

DM: This man is powerful, controls the legal machinery, and is known to be unstable and severely punishing of dissent.
PC1: I mouth off at him.
PC2: I attack him to take him hostage!
<Mechanical resolution>
DM: Make new PCs.

The stakes were known, actions were declared, so consequences should be reaped. The DM can keep throwing softballs if he is intent on it, but isn't beholden to do so.

I disagree. There isn't a long roleplaying session dealing with the trapped door where you have to continuously show deference to the trap or it goes off, while there does appears to have been a long series of roleplaying sessions leading up to the confrontation with the [-]trapped door[/-] NPC.

There's also a structural difference between the physical challenge of the trapped door -- where, yes, a poor choice to ignore the trap may result in consequences -- and the social challenge of an untouchable but boorish and annoying NPC. The former I could disarm, or chop down, and avoid the trap. The latter I usually have to guess what the GM intends the result to be an submit to the NPC along the way. Fundamentally, these kinds of NPCs require the players to submit to the NPC in many ways that a trapped door does not -- they're not the same kind of challenge nor do they present the same onus to the players.

Again, if I'm correct that the NPC in the OP is the Burgomaster of Vallaki, he's meant to be confronted at some point -- there are multiple plot points to do just that in the adventure. The GM has a lot of leeway to make a decision as to how any such confrontation with the PCs pans out, and I think that the OP's problems are, in large part, due to choices the OP made in this confrontation to not have any flex in the adventure and not anticipate that the PCs, or at least some of the PCs, would be very displeased by how the Burgomaster has acted and try to thwart him, depending on what elements of the adventure the GM has already presented (or chosen to present, not everything in Vallaki is necessary).

 

[hawkeyefan]

Than continuing down the rails of the published adventure? Very probably.

It’s hard to say without knowing what adventure it is. If it’s Curse of Strahd as suggested, then I think confronting any of the different rulers among the various settlements of Barovia is well within the range of expected behaviors by the PCs. And none of these rulers hold sufficient power to make an attempt to kill/overthrow them a foregone conclusion one way or another.

There may be some people here who are taking a stance along the lines of "teach the buggers a lesson," but I don't think that's my position. To my mind, the execution/s would be the logical result of actions taken. If your PCs are negotiating with Lord Vetinari, knowing his reputation, and someone mouths off and someone else tries to kill Vetinari or take him hostage, a slow death in the lightless depths of the scorpion pits is a result; no need to play that out; extending the obvious and inevitable feels to me like the GM bullying the players, more than a couple sentences ending with "make new characters."

I suppose it’s possible. If I present a villain or other antagonist for the PCs to have to deal with, and they attempt to do so and fail, I usually see if there’s some other way for them to proceed.

I get your point about their execution being a logical outcome. But is it the only outcome? If so, why? If not, what else could happen?

The OP described the player of the character that instigated the fight in the chambers as "bored." Crapping on the game out of player boredom is close enough to asshattery for me to call it that, and it's something I don't have any patience for.

I don’t know if I’d agree with that. I mean, instead of blaming the player for being bored, we could just as easily blame the GM for running a boring game. Neither seems all that fair nor all that productive.

This ruler sounds as if he’s meant to be an antagonist. So PCs going after an antagonist seems pretty predictable to me. Now, maybe a direct confrontation is not what the GM had in mind. And maybe the fiction had clearly established that a direct confrontation was a bad idea. So it seems a conflict between player and GM expectations.

 

[prabe]

This ruler sounds as if he’s meant to be an antagonist. So PCs going after an antagonist seems pretty predictable to me. Now, maybe a direct confrontation is not what the GM had in mind. And maybe the fiction had clearly established that a direct confrontation was a bad idea. So it seems a conflict between player and GM expectations.

It seems to me to be a conflict between the players. The sense I get (and if I'm wrong I sincerely hope the OP corrects me) is that the players/characters made a decision as a party to try to solve whatever they were trying to solve by talking to the Mad Tyrant. There probably was some disagreement over whether this was the way they wanted to go about it, but one way or another the players/characters who wanted to talk won the right to decide--maybe the ones who wanted to fight gave up arguing. While (some of) the PCs were endeavoring to social-encounter their way toward their goal, the other PCs decided to sabotage that effort.

Now, published adventures can be ... completely unclear how to proceed if the PCs do something the writers didn't anticipate, especially the longer adventure-path-style. I've broken at least one by accident, and I may have had a hand in redirecting a party well off the track in another, and I'm pretty open about my dislike for the category both as a player and a GM. It sounds as though the OP has managed to keep things moving in the campaign, though I suspect getting them back to the published material (if that's the desire) will prove difficult.

 

[Imaculata]

I get your point about their execution being a logical outcome. But is it the only outcome? If so, why? If not, what else could happen?

This seems like the right approach to me. The goal ultimately is to continue the adventure and have fun. Is simply executing the pc's fun? Kinda yes, but only to me, not to the players. And it stops the adventure dead in its tracks.

I would always pursue an option that allows play to continue. This does not mean that the DM is required to throw the players a soft ball. Being on death row can be an exciting follow up, if you allow for a daring escape.

Luke Skywalker was sentenced to death by Jabba twice, and escaped heroically both times. That's what I think my players want out of an adventure.

 

[Nagol]

I disagree. There isn't a long roleplaying session dealing with the trapped door where you have to continuously show deference to the trap or it goes off, while there does appears to have been a long series of roleplaying sessions leading up to the confrontation with the [-]trapped door[/-] NPC.

There's also a structural difference between the physical challenge of the trapped door -- where, yes, a poor choice to ignore the trap may result in consequences -- and the social challenge of an untouchable but boorish and annoying NPC. The former I could disarm, or chop down, and avoid the trap. The latter I usually have to guess what the GM intends the result to be an submit to the NPC along the way. Fundamentally, these kinds of NPCs require the players to submit to the NPC in many ways that a trapped door does not -- they're not the same kind of challenge nor do they present the same onus to the players.

Again, if I'm correct that the NPC in the OP is the Burgomaster of Vallaki, he's meant to be confronted at some point -- there are multiple plot points to do just that in the adventure. The GM has a lot of leeway to make a decision as to how any such confrontation with the PCs pans out, and I think that the OP's problems are, in large part, due to choices the OP made in this confrontation to not have any flex in the adventure and not anticipate that the PCs, or at least some of the PCs, would be very displeased by how the Burgomaster has acted and try to thwart him, depending on what elements of the adventure the GM has already presented (or chosen to present, not everything in Vallaki is necessary).

It could take hours to get to that door. I've had groups take hours whilst in front of that door looking for alternative choices before someone decides to say 'Eff it! I open it anyway!"

No, you can chop down disarm, or avoid the NPC too -- using the correct tools. If you have an axe, you can chop down the door. If you have Dominate you can chop down the NPC. Tools exist; sometime groups have them and thus the options are greater. Other times the group doesn't have them and using them isn't an option.

The PCs must submit to not going through the door unless they risk setting off the declared trap. The PCs must submit to interacting with the PC politely or risk setting off the declared trap. I see no difference at all.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It seems to me to be a conflict between the players. The sense I get (and if I'm wrong I sincerely hope the OP corrects me) is that the players/characters made a decision as a party to try to solve whatever they were trying to solve by talking to the Mad Tyrant. There probably was some disagreement over whether this was the way they wanted to go about it, but one way or another the players/characters who wanted to talk won the right to decide--maybe the ones who wanted to fight gave up arguing. While (some of) the PCs were endeavoring to social-encounter their way toward their goal, the other PCs decided to sabotage that effort.

Maybe there is conflict between players....hard to say for sure. Certainly there is conflict in the actions/goals of the PCs. I don't know if the players mind that or not, though. I personally have no problem in a game when someone's character has a different idea than mine or otherwise disagree with them about something.

I mean, when the fifth player returned in the next session, he seemed to side with the two who had attacked. Or at least, he wanted to free them and attacked the guards and ultimately the party escaped.

I think that if the players are that torn about what to do....if it's not just a disagreement between characters, but also players.....then they need to talk it out and decide how they want to proceed. Nothing about this situation seems beyond repair.

Now, published adventures can be ... completely unclear how to proceed if the PCs do something the writers didn't anticipate, especially the longer adventure-path-style. I've broken at least one by accident, and I may have had a hand in redirecting a party well off the track in another, and I'm pretty open about my dislike for the category both as a player and a GM. It sounds as though the OP has managed to keep things moving in the campaign, though I suspect getting them back to the published material (if that's the desire) will prove difficult.

I don't know....it depends. We don't have details.....we don't know if this is a king or a mayor or something in between, we don't know how many guards the town has at its disposal, we don't know what the townspeople think of this situation, we don't know what additional factions may have a stake in things and whether they would be sympathetic to the PCs or just additional antagonists. We don't know what published adventure it is or what NPC it is, so knowing how far from what's expected this may be is hard to gauge.

If it's Vallaki in Curse of Strahd as has been suggested....then I don't think this is beyond what would be expected in the adventure, and I think there is plenty of information provided to support this approach, as well as many others.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It could take hours to get to that door. I've had groups take hours whilst in front of that door looking for alternative choices before someone decides to say 'Eff it! I open it anyway!"

No, you can chop down disarm, or avoid the NPC too -- using the correct tools. If you have an axe, you can chop down the door. If you have Dominate you can chop down the NPC. Tools exist; sometime groups have them and thus the options are greater. Other times the group doesn't have them and using them isn't an option.

The PCs must submit to not going through the door unless they risk setting off the declared trap. The PCs must submit to interacting with the PC politely or risk setting off the declared trap. I see no difference at all.

Well, there's more, but let's start with "how many HP does the trap do when triggered?" compared to "how many HP does the NPC do when triggered?"

 

[Retreater]

Some of you are speculating about the specific published adventure, and your insights are correct. I didn't want to get too much into spoilers for that module, and I thought the situation could be explained without naming names.
I'm aware the adventure assumes a possible overthrow of the ruler. The group did not act in unison or decisively, did not make allies in the town, surrendered to the leader. So I was wondering what the leader's realistic actions should be.
As it turns out, the group has all run away, being fugitives from justice.
Last night's session (in another campaign), hot-headed friend was playing in a social encounter where he was in a dance competition with teenage girls. Because he was losing, he asked if it would be possible to grapple them and hit them to give himself an advantage in the otherwise friendly dance-off with a tribal people the party was trying to befriend as allies.
I might have to do a talkin' to the guy.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It could take hours to get to that door. I've had groups take hours whilst in front of that door looking for alternative choices before someone decides to say 'Eff it! I open it anyway!"

No, you can chop down disarm, or avoid the NPC too -- using the correct tools. If you have an axe, you can chop down the door. If you have Dominate you can chop down the NPC. Tools exist; sometime groups have them and thus the options are greater. Other times the group doesn't have them and using them isn't an option.

The PCs must submit to not going through the door unless they risk setting off the declared trap. The PCs must submit to interacting with the PC politely or risk setting off the declared trap. I see no difference at all.

Aside from looking askance at taking hours to deal with a trapped door (and where you just kill the character of the player that becomes frustrated with the hours long ordeal), it seems that you're making the case that the way to deal with a social encounter is the same as dealing with a trapped door. That there is no difference, and they should be adjudicated in the same manner, yes?

Normally, I'd be sympathetic to this argument, but I think you've taken the position that the GM-notes and fiat driven social adjudication is what should be shared rather than what would be my preference of letting action declarations have impacts in solving both problems rather than sticking to the GM's prepared idea of how things should work out.