Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

So we had the session last night. We started with a brief recap to get everyone back on the right page where we left off. One of the players had missed the previous session and rejoined the two stand-offish characters who were watching the instigator and assassin in the stocks. The rejoining character was told that the party was going to take the lieutenant's offer and flee the town.
This was unacceptable to him, so he started throwing his most powerful magic at the two town guards while the villagers watched on in horror. The two stand-offish characters tried to talk him out of it while also trying to keep the guards from dying with healing magic and trying to thwart the escape attempts at their friends in the stocks.
As the guards are being attacked, they blow their whistles, summoning reinforcements. Withing a few rounds, a dozen additional guards and the formerly friendly lieutenant arrive, and the lieutenant said that the party attacked his men, shed their blood, and his offer was off the table. The attacking sorcerer would be added to the stocks, and the two who tried to calm down the situation and healed his men should "just leave town."
The three men in the stocks would face the immediate judgment of the lord, likely to be executed. He left to get the lord, along with a small contingency of the guards.
I then paused the session. I told everyone to stop what was going on. I told them about the consequences. I asked them how they wanted to proceed. I wanted them to come to sort of agreement about what the party was going to do.
The two stand-offish characters decided to create a distraction to disperse a few more of the remaining guards and cast Fog Cloud to cover the escapes of those in the stocks - after a little lock-picking (with disadvantage). The party fled into the night, jumped the town wall. They are fugitives, likely never able to return to civilization and being hunted by the lord's men. They have lost many allies, they are hated by the townsfolk who saw them killing the town militia.
After the session I sent out an email telling them to expect consequences for their actions, that their characters can't just say whatever they want without any response from NPCs. If they don't like this style of game (and with the level of roleplay and mystery), then we can just play a dungeoncrawl.

A nice surprise: the fifth element of the party coming back to change the tide of events.
A band of renegades. Cool.

Retreater said:

30s-40s.

Click to expand...

Oh. Okay. So I'm guessing they have played before? Been in a campaign? So they are more than mature enough to handle any action/consequence thrown their way.

I am glad it worked out for your group. Your consequence seems harsher than the death of two characters.

I would offer one piece of wisdom. If your party is going to just start killing innocent guards and threatening a king, and you as DM, are going to take issue with that (and there is nothing wrong with that depending on the initial campaign), then I would steer them clear of those situations.

In my experience, it is best to clear these things before the campaign even starts. One great DM I played with would just flat out ask it in the beginning of a year long campaign: "Do you wanna be the good guys or bad guys?" I have always asked a litany of questions, such as: how to handle skill challenges, how to handle character death, voiced actions vs talking *$&!, alignments, motives, and how you are going to deal with each other if the alignments and motives are at odds.

Just my two copper.

Scott Christian said:

I am glad it worked out for your group. Your consequence seems harsher than the death of two characters.

I would offer one piece of wisdom. If your party is going to just start killing innocent guards and threatening a king, and you as DM, are going to take issue with that (and there is nothing wrong with that depending on the initial campaign), then I would steer them clear of those situations.

In my experience, it is best to clear these things before the campaign even starts. One great DM I played with would just flat out ask it in the beginning of a year long campaign: "Do you wanna be the good guys or bad guys?" I have always asked a litany of questions, such as: how to handle skill challenges, how to handle character death, voiced actions vs talking *$&!, alignments, motives, and how you are going to deal with each other if the alignments and motives are at odds.

Just my two copper.

Click to expand...

That would normally be great advice, and I'd be much better about improvising, but we're playing online with Roll20 and a published adventure. If they go too far off the rails, there's simply nothing there. I could create my own stuff, but it takes a lot of extra time online. And I can't do it at the drop of a hat.

So the returning 5th character made things worse?!? You basically gave them an out and he pretty much threw it in your face in a fit of violence. Seriously, you should have just executed the idiots.

Retreater said:

After the session I sent out an email telling them to expect consequences for their actions, that their characters can't just say whatever they want without any response from NPCs. If they don't like this style of game (and with the level of roleplay and mystery), then we can just play a dungeoncrawl.

Click to expand...

So, after this experience...

I suggest next time, if you get a major play expectation issue, you start with the stuff in that e-mail, rather than let it go on for yet another session and then end with it.

Umbran said:

And so this is one of the things you'd expect a group to talk about out of game - do we expect the team to hold together, even if you do something that other party members feel is rash, stupid, or whatever? Do we expect a player to at least ask before trying something rash? What is the group's tolerance for, shall we say, Leroy Jenkins solutions? What's the group's expectation for the GM to be forgiving of such?

Click to expand...

Unless you're gaming with a bunch of complete strangers, this is far too formalized.

Just let it happen, for cryin' out loud, and let the chips fall where they may.

Having to ask before trying something rash rather defeats the point of doing something rash at all....

Blue said:

I don't see a "problematic duo". I see one problem who started this, and then - one player who attempted to move forward with the situation and solve it for the party through escalation (note that with the history of this ruler the first player had already escalated this to his own death), and two other players who disavowed the party.

Basically, one player acting like it's a group, so they all stand together, and two players splitting the party (willing to let the original one die for his outburst and the second for trying to not let the first die).

Click to expand...

Meh - I don't see a problem at all.

In my experience this is pretty much just another night in the trenches, only this crew took on a bigger fish than usual.

hawkeyefan said:

Likewise, if I as a player decide my character is going to try to kill the king, I should expect that there will be consequences for my character. I do agree that if you choose to have your character do something reckless, then be willing to have them face whatever the consequences may be.

Click to expand...

Absolutely this! (says he the reckless who has played many a character straight into its grave)

I think some suggestions in this thread are advocating for punishing the character as a way of correcting the player, which I don't think is a great idea.

Click to expand...

Depends how seriously the player takes it all, I suppose.

Which is another variable to consider: some people (both as DMs and players) take the game way more seriously - in some cases too much so, IMO - than others.