Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[prabe]

As an aside, I wish we could get away from the idea that the GM kills the PCs. That’s not fair to put that responsibilty on one person. The GM presents interesting situations/problems/obstacles and describes how the world reacts to what the PCs do. If you do stuff that’s likely to get you killed you are likely going to get killed sooner or later.

I agree with @the Jester that in this case the characters seem to be committing elaborate suicide. While I think it's possible for a GM to go past any semblance of fairness in the direction of killing the characters, I don't think that's happening here.

 

[Numidius]

I can understand that, but if the player decided his character was going to act that way because the player was bored or because the player just was expecting a different kind of game, it's kinda an OOC problem, so solving it OOC is likely to be easier and more likely to work than solving it IC. My takeaway from the OP was that this was a player decision, not something inherent in the character.

That's reasonable, but since the OP said it is a campaign going on, even if the players acted out of boredom, that seems to me a general declaration of intent and a sort of specific plot twist.
Not exactly something wrong per se.

"To ruin the campaign", I don't think so, actually maybe revitalize it, if the two of them were already bored and the others might just wait to see what happens, without engaging that much.

Consequences, yes, of course. Not as a punishment, tho, but as an opportunity for everyone, starting from the Gm showing concern and interest in those unfortunate exploits and will to build from there.

I admit I have been there, done that, as a player in the past, but I had a PLAN! A glorious plan... The Gm thought otherwise.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Snarf Zagyg now I want to do Blades in the Dark hack of The Wire. Omar comin’!

A man gotta have a code.

As an aside, I wish we could get away from the idea that the GM kills the PCs. That’s not fair to put that responsibilty on one person. The GM presents interesting situations/problems/obstacles and describes how the world reacts to what the PCs do. If you do stuff that’s likely to get you killed you are likely going to get killed sooner or later.

Every game is different, but this is certainly true as far as I'm concerned. There is no real player empowerment if the DM is constantly intervening to save you from your own dumb mistakes; I get no joy from triumphing if I know that the DM is going to bail me out of my defeats.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not fond of OOC discussions. I prefer to resolve things IC.

I'm a, "mature adults talk to each other," kind of guy. Resolving things IC is often a passive-aggressive route to misunderstanding and bad feelings all around at the table. You don't resolve questions like, "What are you expecting in the game?" by in-game action.

In this case, I don't see a reasonable expectation that laying hands on the person of the King was not going to end badly for the PCs, so I'm okay with holding them to their choices. A bit of discussion as to why they made those choices is perhaps warranted, though.

 

[jasper]

Talk to them off board. Hang them on board. New pcs for the players.

 

[Mallus]

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?

Sounds like the perfect time to introduce a group of rebels talented enough to pull off a daring daytime rescue but with several key leadership positions unfilled!

Not the end of a campaign, just an unforeseen plot-twist. Remember, it's not realism so much as verisimilitude to pulp adventure stories we're aiming for (usually).

I mean, if a hot-headed hero can't pull a shiv on a terrible king, why are we even playing?

 

[iserith]

I agree with others that this is largely an out-of-game issue that should be handled and decided upon by the group in order to get back on track.

How long did this scene go on for before the one dude started shouting at the ruler?

 

[Numidius]

I'm a, "mature adults talk to each other," kind of guy. Resolving things IC is often a passive-aggressive route to misunderstanding and bad feelings all around at the table. You don't resolve questions like, "What are you expecting in the game?" by in-game action.

In this case, I don't see a reasonable expectation that laying hands on the person of the King was not going to end badly for the PCs, so I'm okay with holding them to their choices. A bit of discussion as to why they made those choices is perhaps warranted, though.

Sure. They infact already had a chat about it after the session, as @Retreater informed us in the opening post.

I'd like to offer a point of view that goes beyond the initial aut-aut: killing them vs deus ex machina, involving everyone at the table to consider & engage the present in-game situation, in particular from the Gm, who has authority to refrain from instruct them OOC and also to be creative in the following fiction.

I see a convenient correspondence between the temper of the player and the hypothetical feelings among a part of the subjects of the kingdom about the lunatic tyrant.
So if a lesson is to be taught, let it be by the king to the masses via the Pcs and not the Gm to the players.

Show, don't tell.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Have the King recognize their desire for violence, and send them on a mission where they can use their skills to his benefit. Use the Gaes spell or other magical means to compel their cooperation.

It seems to me the issue isn’t really with the characters, as others have pointed out. Killing the PCs and replacing them may result in the same problems.

So I’d say channel it.

 

[Jaeger]

... "It's time for a new character"!

... Hang them on board. New pcs for the players.

This!

Because:

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-...

...Your job is not to keep the PCs alive. It’s to present a realistic and consistent world. Do what you think would happen if this was real life.
...

Take it to them. Off with their heads!

Then take out new character sheets.

And if necessary emphasize that: the campaign is not ruined.

If anything, they just gave you more plot hooks. And things could get really interesting if one of the new PC is related to one of the excecuted ones.