Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Sadras]

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.

A DM may do as you suggest, but just watched season 2 of The Last Kingdom actually threatening the king = execution in most cases.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

This.

Then, I would add, have things play out as they would. A gory execution (because the leader is harsh). Have them make new characters. This solves two things: One, you had a table discussion on how to adhere to a character's motives/themes/goals. Two, the players learn that the storyline doesn't always go their way. I'm never for random killing and harsh consequences, but I am for actions determining an outcome or consequence.

This is a pretty common problem. Some DM's handle it better than others. I'm not blaming you, but if it happens again, then you need to know that that's what your players are going to do. Therefore, you need to make sure the situation doesn't arise. I didn't read the entire thread, but how old are the players in your group?

 

[Scott Christian]

As an aside and if the game permits, the players being executed could come back as a ghost that the original players control. Maybe as banshees or something more sinister. Maybe their bodies were thrown in the sewer and now they haunt as ghouls or something more creepy. Have them do a quick hour session where they are killing the king's patrol guards. This might show the players that sometimes the death of a character can be fun.

 

[Scott Christian]

Sorry for the three in a row. But situations like this are what 5e's personality, ideal, bond and flaw are all about. I've seen good DM's use them as guides in situations like the OP was experiencing. Asking the player, what is your flaw? Does it support these actions? What is your bond? Are you risking these bonds to complete this action?

Not saying it should be used often, or as a litmus test for every action. But once or twice a campaign when things start to really run awry has shown me it can be useful. In fact, while playing I find them extremely useful. I refer to them all the time. I find it helps keep my character's compass more aligned with who they are than an alignment.

 

[Helldritch]

1) Talk to the players. Ask them why they did this. Pray that this has nothing to do with your normal DMing. If it is...
2) There must be a consequence. Beheading them is the only way to go. Justice with a king is swift and final.
3) Talk to the players. If you can't reach an understanding that benefits everyone, then you might have to find new players or you and the other two players will have to adjust your gaming to them.

 

[Scott Christian]

1) Talk to the players. Ask them why they did this. Pray that this has nothing to do with your normal DMing. If it is...
2) There must be a consequence. Beheading them is the only way to go. Justice with a king is swift and final.
3) Talk to the players. If you can't reach an understanding that benefits everyone, then you might have to find new players or you and the other two players will have to adjust your gaming to them.

or have one of them DM for awhile.

 

[Helldritch]

or have one of them DM for awhile.

I often forget this one. I've been DMing for 37 years now...

 

[iserith]

To address some of the earlier questions....
The encounter with the crazed despot hadn't been going on for long (only a few minutes). There had been a string of roleplay heavy sessions leading up to it, however, with most of them having only a combat or two - so the boredom may have been setting in over a few weeks and this had been the tipping point. Still, I try to communicate to the players at the start of the campaign and check in after each session to make sure they're having fun.
The hot-headed player who seemed to get bored with the encounter also happens to be a good friend I've gamed with for more than 20 years. It's not out of character for him to do something irrational like this, but this isn't a dungeon hack without consequences, something I've tried to instill in the group. The other player (would-be assassin) just went along with it to try to salvage a bad situation in the heat of the moment.
I had put them in contact with revolutionaries in the town over the past couple sessions. The more extreme faction (who called for the removal of the ruler) had been blown off [strangely, by the hot-headed player] and the party had been unwilling to take sides.
A lieutenant of the mad ruler even offered to return the weapons to the party and free them from the stockades under the promise that they leave town and never return. He said he would just tell the ruler he had killed them during an escape attempt, because even the lieutenant was tired of all the bloodshed. [And I feel like this was giving in too much as a DM.] Even this compromise was unacceptable to the hot-headed player.

While I don't care for the player's actions as you described them, I can at least understand the potential frustration that may have underpinned his decision. It's quite fashionable to have these "roleplay heavy sessions," but my experience with this sort of play is that too much is a bad thing, even if there is some kind of dramatic conflict as a payoff several sessions later. I think DMs and their groups greatly benefit from a variety of scenes across the various pillars in each session. This greatly diminishes the chances of one or more players getting bored and taking steps to insert some drama in a scene where that's not a good tactic. You can have just as much "heavy roleplaying" (whatever that means), but you spread it out a bit over the course of the campaign, interspersing these moments with higher stakes and conflict as appropriate.

 

[Blue]

Fiction. Yes. From the additional info @Retreater has now added as backstory to this point, looks like the players are pretty engaged with the fiction/story, especially the "problematic duo".

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).

 

[Umbran]

Basically, one player acting like it's a group, so they all stand together...

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?