Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I think that NPC in question would be much more likely to engage in exile rather than execution. For one, it's just as deadly to the average person. For two, execution kinda goes against the 'everyone be happy or else' vibe he's pushing -- executions aren't happy, even if they are or else. Third, I think you missed a huge opportunity to engage with some of the other factions in town, but, that's just me. A well timed intercession by one of those factions might have been a great twist to the game and given loads of new room to explore. Finally, Strahd himself might have made an appearance on behalf of the PCs, which would have been both epic and firmly made a point that if Strahd likes it, the PCs are probably in the wrong.

That said, I don't think your game's in too bad a place for this module, even if having made enemies in Vallaki certainly makes things a bit harder on the PCs (mostly by denying Vallaki as a base of operations). And, you can always circle back to Vallaki later in the adventure and resolve some of these issues. CoS is remarkably tolerant of changes for things like this -- don't be afraid to make it your own as you play through.

As for your player that wants to engage in physical cheating during a dance party -- yes, you need to understand what he wants from the game because this doesn't seem like it aligns with what's being presented. GMs thinking that it's their game is a cancer on our hobby -- it's everyone's game, just differently apportioned. GMs need to make sure they're presenting a game the players want to play, and players have the duty to engage honestly. This player seems to be confused about either what it is you're offering or what it is he wants from it. And in the game is not where either of you are going to find that out.

 

[Retreater]

@Ovinomancer that's right. They shrugged off allying with Lady Fiona, even calling her to her face "the greater evil." The wereravens came to help to create a distraction and gave the rogue thieves tools to pick his locks - but they blew their chance with a sequence of terrible rolls and not working together. They blew off talking to the Vistani. The Lord of Vallaki was even going to let them go after the festival, but they kept making it worse, like killing guards, etc.
Ireena and Rictavio even worked together to try to get them out.
Having Strahd appear was the last Deus ex Machina in my pocket, but I was hesitant to give the party an immunity card as it seemed there was no consequences and they didn't realistically fear anything in the campaign.

 

[Mallus]

To my mind, the execution/s would be the logical result of actions taken.

Is it logical to decree the execution is a forgone conclusion? With no opportunity for escape and/or intervention? I think that's all most people here are asking for (and the way events played out in the OPs game).

 

[billd91]

@Ovinomancer that's right. They shrugged off allying with Lady Fiona, even calling her to her face "the greater evil." The wereravens came to help to create a distraction and gave the rogue thieves tools to pick his locks - but they blew their chance with a sequence of terrible rolls and not working together. They blew off talking to the Vistani. The Lord of Vallaki was even going to let them go after the festival, but they kept making it worse, like killing guards, etc.
Ireena and Rictavio even worked together to try to get them out.
Having Strahd appear was the last Deus ex Machina in my pocket, but I was hesitant to give the party an immunity card as it seemed there was no consequences and they didn't realistically fear anything in the campaign.

Your players don't happen to read Knights of the Dinner Table, do they? If so, do a couple of players view Bob, Dave, and Brian as positive role models?

 

[billd91]

Is it logical to decree the execution is a forgone conclusion? With no opportunity for escape and/or intervention? I think that's all most people here are asking for (and the way events played on in the OPs game).

I don't think anyone's precluding that, but as I posted above, that kind of initiative should come from the players, not a deus ex machina, to be in any way satisfying. And the players, aside from the returning 5th player who made the jam worse, seemed pretty divided on the subject and/or rejected every outside overture. So... whatcha gonna do? Sometimes the entirely reasonable outcome is death - create a new PC.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer that's right. They shrugged off allying with Lady Fiona, even calling her to her face "the greater evil." The wereravens came to help to create a distraction and gave the rogue thieves tools to pick his locks - but they blew their chance with a sequence of terrible rolls and not working together. They blew off talking to the Vistani. The Lord of Vallaki was even going to let them go after the festival, but they kept making it worse, like killing guards, etc.
Ireena and Rictavio even worked together to try to get them out.
Having Strahd appear was the last Deus ex Machina in my pocket, but I was hesitant to give the party an immunity card as it seemed there was no consequences and they didn't realistically fear anything in the campaign.

Well, that's a much fuller picture. Thanks.

Sadly, fearing the town of Vallaki is a bit of a paper tiger -- pretty quickly the party is quite capable of running roughshod over the entire town. It's the usual murder hobo power curve problem. Having players that are going to push that curve makes it very challenging, and it sounds like you have a few of those players.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Retreater

There could be a lot of different things happening here.

One thing that is very common to D&D is when players start to perceive the following game dynamics:

1) The combat mechanics are transparent, overwhelmingly player-facing, and yield a clear win condition.

2) Noncombat mechanics are the opposite; opaque and overwhelmingly GM-facing and don’t have a clear win:loss condition.

Due to this, players can feel like their decision-points become difficult or impossible to navigate if it’s not combat. Consequently, every obstacle becomes one to oppose by engaging the combat mechanics/turning things violent.

It’s sort of a “when all you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail” problem.

Have s conversation about that with your players and see if that is what is in play and what you can do collectively to reconcile it.

 

[prabe]

Is it logical to decree the execution is a forgone conclusion? With no opportunity for escape and/or intervention? I think that's all most people here are asking for (and the way events played out in the OPs game).

It's plausible that I would do exactly that. They knew the Mad Tyrant was, well, a mad tyrant, and they attacked him (first verbally, then physically). Action, meet consequence.

It's clear there's a disconnect between some of the players, however, so addressing that (maybe with new characters) would be a better solution.

 

[Lanefan]

What resolution mechanics were involved in:
a) deciding the reaction of the king
b) resolving that the ensuing reaction resulted in execution

I dont see any mechanics at all, just GM whim.

Of course it's GM whim!

The King is an NPC. NPCs are the GM's characters to play, just as PCs are those of the players, and thus the GM gets to - based on the King's personality and motivations - decide exactly what the King's reaction will be. (I can't believe I actually have to spell this out!)

Amnd if the King's word is the law, which here seems to be the case, then if he says "Off with their heads!" then those PCs are about to get a bit shorter.

 

[Lanefan]

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?"

Assume that in either case the answer is "as many as required to kill the PC beyond easy revivability", for comparison's sake, and proceed.