Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Fenris-77]

My view is that if the GM can't handle the players declaring actions for their PCs, s/he's taken on the wrong job.

This seems a little disingenuous to me. Sure, it's broadly correct, but the idea that players, out of boredom, malice or sheer bloody-minded solipsism, can't take actions or exhibit behaviors that are damaging to the table and campaign isn't a flight of someone's imagination. Of course there are players like that, and of course they can derail a campaign.

 

[prabe]

I don't understand how something can be handled offscreeen and yet also be the result of the game's resolution mechanics.

The PCs antagonized the Mad Tyrant. That was handled via the game's resolution mechanics. As a result, the PCs are executed. Do you the players to roleplay being drawn and quartered? That doesn't sound much like fun to me.

My view is that if the GM can't handle the players declaring actions for their PCs, s/he's taken on the wrong job.

There seems at least to be a difference in expectations at the table. There are players taking seriously that they need to tiptoe around the Mad Tyrant, expecting a game (or at least a mini-game) of negotiation; there is at least one other who is expecting a game where violence is the universal solvent, and out of boredom is blowing up the negotiation mini-game. While I agree that this sort of thing is better handled out-of-game, I don't have a lot of patience for one player walking all over another's fun; I have stopped gaming with good friends over actions like this and not regretted it for a moment.

 

[chaochou]

The PCs antagonized the Mad Tyrant. That was handled via the game's resolution mechanics. As a result, the PCs are executed.

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.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think there's been a bit elided in the OP, as repeated references to published adventures and other clues by the OP lead me to believe that this situation is part of Curse of Strahd and the Mad Tyrant is the Burgomaster of Vallaki. Might offer some additional context as to why players may or may not engage in the actions presented.

 

[billd91]

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.

NPCs acting according to their known personality and reputation isn't exactly a whim. It's playing in character.

There are no surprises here in the suggested outcome of putting the PCs to death. You're not going to find too many better cases highlighting players having the ability to make meaningful decisions based on what they can reasonably expect than right here.

 

[prabe]

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.

Must have missed this:

With some good roleplay (and great dice rolls) they were able to convince the ruler and his guards that they had no part of the attack and were allowed to leave.

Even leaving aside the idea of roleplay-as-mechanic, "and great dice rolls" implies there were mechanics involved, as well as roleplay and DM decisions.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think there's been a bit elided in the OP, as repeated references to published adventures and other clues by the OP lead me to believe that this situation is part of Curse of Strahd and the Mad Tyrant is the Burgomaster of Vallaki. Might offer some additional context as to why players may or may not engage in the actions presented.

That is definitely helpful.

So let’s assume that is the case here. This is an Adventure Path with hard-coded NPCs and plot.

Not knowing exactly what resolution mechanics were deployed here (were the Social Interaction mechanics in 5e used? What happened afterward to resolve the physical conflict when things went south? What about the imprisonment? What about the setting’s response to all of this?), in your mind, what are the moving parts of this and how could it be done at the table?

One final aside. I’ve seen degenerate action declarations (cited here and live) in social conflict where someone’s intent is not to play in good faith. I just don’t see how a player directly challenging a king (who is apparently a bad ruler) through their PC is anywhere near “bad faith” or “unreasonable.” We talk about inclusive diversity in so many different ways (as we should). Yet simultaneously I see a rejection of neurological diversity (where we are likely MOST diverse) in cases like this far too often with some sort of expectation of fealty to some (mis)perceived collective thought orthodoxy. It is very clear when someone has intended malice at a game table. Overwhelmingly though (as it looks to me in this case), I see an instance of neurological diversity. Someone has perceived something or had an impulse that seemed appropriate in the moment and they acted upon it.

And honestly, the “sorry I hurt your campaign” remark after social pressure/admonishment (or whatever took place) doesn’t move units with me the way the units were intended to be moved (by my reckoning if it at least).

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think that the call for mechanics to be used is in relation to the situation of them being imprisoned/detained; what happens next should be the result of the game mechanics. Essentially, if there is any doubt about the outcome, then let the dice decide in some way.

The way I see this, killing these PCs out of hand doesn’t offer much benefit, does it? Teaching the players a lesson of some sort seems to be the case?

Seems far more interesting stuff might come from following these events and continuing along this new path.

 

[prabe]

Seems far more interesting stuff might come from following these events and continuing along this new path.

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.

 

[iserith]

were the Social Interaction mechanics in 5e used?

Pretty sure I'm the only one who uses those.