Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Retreater]

I was running a game last week in which half of the party handled a tense diplomatic situation very poorly. Going into the meeting, they knew the ruler was unstable and severely punished any dissent in his land - having heard from various NPCs and seeing it firsthand.
The party got a private audience with the ruler and things were moving friendly enough, when a player (probably bored with the negotiations and playing the "but I have a low Charisma card") decided to trump the party's hand and yell out something to the effect of "you're crazy and don't deserve leadership here." For this affront, the ruler yelled for his guards to come and arrest that character. In response, another party member tried (and failed) to grapple the ruler and put a knife to his throat to take him as a hostage.
The other two characters left the room and proclaimed their innocence. 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.
The two other characters (the would-be assassin and the instigator) were taken to the public stocks to await trial that could end in execution (or at the very least, expulsion from the land).
That night they were given several opportunities to escape the stocks, but the would-be assassin failed and the instigator said he would rather die than let this corrupt man stay in power.
What's a DM to do? Let it play out how it would in reality (execution) or break verisimilitude and reward murder-hoboism and let them escape with a deus ex machina? Meanwhile the players not involved in the coup attempt are being punished as the spotlight focuses on the two scoundrels - since their characters aren't wanting to be involved with the escape attempts.
I did speak to the players after the game. The instigator apologized for "ruining the campaign." (Even though I tried to tell him that the campaign hadn't been ruined, merely that he has made the characters' situation more difficult and there would be consequences.)

 

[prabe]

So just thinking, here:

You have two players who chose ... poorly, and their characters are in a bad spot, and you have two other players who made arguably better decisions and aren't in that bad spot--and the latter players aren't interested in helping the former out of that bad spot. This isn't unreasonable, since those characters's lives have been complicated up enough, and those players at least understood the situation of the Mad Ruler well enough not to push his buttons.

If the players whose characters aren't in the stocks are serious about not helping the character that are in the stocks, and the outcome for the characters that are in the stocks seems likely to be an execution, I'd maybe see if I couldn't schedule a session with just those players to see if they could get their characters out of that--no point in forcing the other players to sit through that. It doesn't sound really plausible, but maybe they'll think of something; and if they don't they can have shiny new characters for the next session with the other players.

I wouldn't necessarily just give them a pass, but I might see if I could find a couple slim options they could maybe grasp at. Depending on level, PCs can have a lot of resources. And if they die, they die--bring on the shiny-new.

 

[atanakar]

They didn't kill the king or spill his blood. I wouldn't kill them. But I would send them at a forced labor work camp for x number of months. Give the players temporary NPCs (not new characters) to play with. Let them recover their PCs after the period has passed. It's up to you if you want to make solo sessions while they are in the work camp. But I wouldn't.

 

[TwoSix]

The instigator's motivations seem a little opaque to me. He apologized for "ruining the campaign", but at the same time, his character doesn't seem to have a real desire to escape. He needs to back out of character, figure out what he wants to happen "as a player", and then get his character there.

 

[prabe]

The instigator's motivations seem a little opaque to me. He apologized for "ruining the campaign", but at the same time, his character doesn't seem to have a real desire to escape. He needs to back out of character, figure out what he wants to happen "as a player", and then get his character there.

Allowing for the possibility that he wants a new character, of course.

I figure the "motivations" here are that he's used to playing in campaigns where violence or the threat thereof was the solution to everything, and he found himself in a position where the character he'd built for that sort of campaign was in a situation where he was useless, and the player was bored.

 

[TwoSix]

Allowing for the possibility that he wants a new character, of course.

I figure the "motivations" here are that he's used to playing in campaigns where violence or the threat thereof was the solution to everything, and he found himself in a position where the character he'd built for that sort of campaign was in a situation where he was useless, and the player was bored.

Of course. He does sound like a classic "Butt Kicker" player (to use Robin Laws' categories), but he must have some interest in deciding what happens next. That might certainly be "It's time for a new character"!

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is an out of game problem. There's an issue with these two players being willing to engage in the game presented and this needs to be discussed out of context of the game rather than finding ways in game to address the situation. Why did these two players think their actions were appropriate/necessary? What was their play goal, here? What did the other players think about this, and why did they not have a similar problem? I think you need to have a table discussion before trying to figure out what happens in game.

 

[the Jester]

Actions have consequences. You established what those consequences would be, and two of the pcs spat in the eye of those potential consequences. If they don't suffer those consequences, you will have undermined yourself thoroughly- they won't have any reason to believe that consequences are ever real. Execute them, or be prepared for them to manhandle any ruler they meet, break any law they are told about, and pee on the altar of any temple they enter while expecting to get away with it.

 

[Umbran]

They didn't kill the king or spill his blood. I wouldn't kill them.

"they knew the ruler was unstable and severely punished any dissent in his land"

Leniency does not sound like the way this king would go without really good reason. Grab the king and put a knife to his throat? No, you're not getting off easy.

If you don't want to kill them outright - is the world such that there's a Cleric in service to the King that can cast Geas? Don't make it a death sentence, make it a, "you will directly serve my interests, publicly and dangerously, or die".

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I've encountered players that sound a whole lot like this. For whatever reason, there's a certain type of player, that when presented with a figure of authority, cannot help but insult and abuse them. It's related to the Instigator player type - they like to do stuff just to make stuff happen, good or bad. But I think it's also a way at pushing at the boundaries of the game, like trying to find the limit to the map in a videogame. They want to see just how much they can push at the world without it breaking.

What I try to do with these sorts of disruptive behaviors is ask the rest of the table "do you let your comrade do this" or "does your fellow adventure speak for you." Yes, that's stomping on the disruptive player's freedom of choice. But D&D is a group game, and some decisions have to be made as a group, not held hostage by one or two disruptive players.

My way forward when I can't head it off with the aforementioned techniques has generally with these folks is generally to ask myself three questions: What are the consequences of their actions? What is the way forward from this development? How do I make it still be fun for everyone (including myself)?

What's a DM to do? Let it play out how it would in reality (execution) or break verisimilitude and reward murder-hoboism and let them escape with a deus ex machina? Meanwhile the players not involved in the coup attempt are being punished as the spotlight focuses on the two scoundrels - since their characters aren't wanting to be involved with the escape attempts.