Both save-or-die and straight-up die have a place in a game where the world really is out to kill you; where it's a game of war rather than sport in more realms than just combat.
I actually think we agree on this much. However, you then go on to say this:
That you're worrying about a) whether it's compelling and b) whether there's ways to continue playing both tell me you are very much concerned with consequence for the player.
That's a fair point. I suppose I should be clearer.
My primary goal of play is for everyone to have as much fun as possible. So anything that happens in play is always happening with that goal in mind. Beyond that, though, I'm not as concerned about consequences for the players as I am for the characters. So in this situation, the characters have attempted something very dangerous and with potentially serious consequences. I don't look at it as a way of teaching the players a lesson and so on. Things happen to the characters, not the players.
Yes, players will have feelings about what happens, but even if something negative like PC death were to happen, and that made the player sad, that's a response to the fiction, not the goal of the fiction. Hopefully, the player is engaged and is sad the same way a reader or viewer might get sad reading or watching a story where a character dies.
There's always a way to continue playing provided at least one PC survives and-or remains free, and that's that those players whose PCs didn't survive either roll up new ones for the survivo(s) to recruit or hope the survivor(s) find a way of reviving the dead or otherwise getting the others back in play.
Yeah, I agree....or I agree that there should be. Sometimes a game dos fall apart....but as the blogpost that
@Campbell shared, the fiction itself can't be ruined. I agree with that. There is always a way forward in the fiction, but the actual game can fall apart if participants are not engaged, or have otherwise lost interest, or if their goals of play are so radically different that there's no finding common ground. But none of that is specifically a problem with the fiction.
From what I can glean about the actual module being played it seems both the tyrant and his guards are relatively weak, thus yes there's significant doubt as to whether they'd successfully be able to arrest or detain or kill the PCs: it might have to be played out as an actual combat.
But in a situation where the PCs have just attacked a reigning mad-tyrant monarch in his throne room and thus can reasonably expect to be horribly outgunned by those present (which is a situation more worthy of discussion, I think) then jumping straight to imprisonment and-or execution is completely in play. For a well-known fictional example, consider attacking King Joffree in his throne room at King's Landing when his guards and court are present. The only question will be how long Joffree drags out the deaths of the PCs.
I think it really depends on the comparative level of the PCs and the NPCs. We don't know what level the PCs in the OP were, so it's hard to say for sure. If they were 3rd or lower, maybe this would be something beyond them. At about 4th level, I think that stops being the case, and at 5th or above it's pretty much a moot point.
When there's a reasonable opportunity to establish stakes, do it. I don't, however, give players/PCs info they wouldn't otherwise be able to learn - particularly if they make no effort to investigate or gather info - even if it means the PCs are standing in to their deaths.
I try to give them such cues in whatever way it makes sense in the fiction, but I lean more toward generous sharing. I tend to think PCs should be competent folks, and I think that my ability to fully portray the fictional world is limited when compared to a person's actual ability to perceive their world.....so I'll give them pretty clear cues so that they can make meaningful choices. I do agree that the less they try to learn or look into things, the less I'll give, but I am guessing I'm more generous on average than you would be in the same situation.
Actually it is about short or long term.
A glaring inconsistency in a short game isn't going to have long-lasting effect, because by the time it otherwise might the game has ended. In this case you-as-DM can bend consistency all over the place and nobody's likely to notice.
But in a long game, whatever I do in the here-and-now in the name of a good story is something I'm then going to be stuck with as a precedent for maybe the next ten years or more, which means I seriously have to mind my p's and q's in order to avoid potentially sacrificing lots of future enjoyment just for the sake of a here-and-now moment.
Not really. A "glaring inconsistency" is only as much of an issue as you make it. You can literally hand wave the inconsistency away. You don't like to do that, and that's fine....it's your preference, and that's fine. Others won't care as much, even if their campaign is longer.
My 5e campaign is actually a continuation of the campaign my players and I had as kids, along with some other unfinished campaigns we've had over the years. So it's pretty long term in that regard. However, if I have a player who wants to do something cool that they're interested in, and it might conflict with some detail from back in the day, I'm not going to worry about it. The fiction can be changed, the conflict can be explained, and so on.
Ideally the DM is every bit as neutral as the dice are. Ideally.
Reality may vary.
Regarding actions during the run of play: usually for resolving things that cannot be resolved through in-character role-play at the table - the physical stuff, as I mentioned in prior posts.
So a DM should be as neutral as dice.....but you don't think that dice would actually help him achieve that?
