Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[hawkeyefan]

Of course it's GM whim!

The King is an NPC. NPCs are the GM's characters to play, just as PCs are those of the players, and thus the GM gets to - based on the King's personality and motivations - decide exactly what the King's reaction will be. (I can't believe I actually have to spell this out!)

Amnd if the King's word is the law, which here seems to be the case, then if he says "Off with their heads!" then those PCs are about to get a bit shorter.

The king's reaction is decided by the GM, sure....but the results of that action are typically left to dice, no? We don't know exactly what dice or mechanics were used to handle this situation. Nor do we know what opportunities may present themselves before the PCs are killed off by GM fiat, and how such opportunities would be handled mechanically.

All this to say that having my PC die due to HP loss and failed death saves (or whatever relevant mechanic determines such) is one thing. It's observable, it's clear what the risks are, you know how you arrive at that end. And it doesn't come just because the GM says so.....there are rules that the GM is meant to follow that lead to this.

Having an NPC put PCs in stocks and then execute them out of hand is significantly less specific.

Assume that in either case the answer is "as many as required to kill the PC beyond easy revivability", for comparison's sake, and proceed.

Why would we assume that?

Based on your previous descriptions of play, I can't imagine that you or your players would simply accept such a fate for their PC if that's what happened in your game. I feel like you'd try to escape, or bargain, or whatever would make sense. And why not?

 

[BookBarbarian]

Sounds like things worked out ok. The Baron and his family are not long for the world anyway. You can only be a mad tyrant for so long before one or mroe powerful nobles or the people themselves successfully do something about it.

The PCs could probably come back to town after the revolution if they wanted.

 

[aramis erak]

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

Most extreme case:
Pendragon: characters roll for children annually. The sex isn't portrayed in a scene, nor the childbirth. It's subsumed into the Winter Phase, which, in KAP, isn't actually written for scene gen., but to reduce the hundreds of hours of practice, the probably dozens of hours of sex, hundreds of hours of sewing, and such to a 5 to 15 minute non-scene.

Other examples, less extreme, include taxing your peasants in BECMI and Cyclopedia D&D, many people's social interaction in-game, especially pawn-stance as opposed to actor-stance. Yes, the character spent an hour yammering, but the resolution is one line by the player, and a die-roll.

 

[Manbearcat]

Sounds like things worked out ok. The Baron and his family are not long for the world anyway. You can only be a mad tyrant for so long before one or mroe powerful nobles or the people themselves successfully do something about it.

The PCs could probably come back to town after the revolution if they wanted.

Why shouldn't the PCs ignite it? Or lead it?

Why should a revolution like this be handled offscreen, particularly when one of the PCs expressed interest in inciting or imposing a revolution! If they're perceived (and I don't know if this is correct or not) as "bored", yet they expressed a dramatic need ("Lets Revolution!"), why not see where it goes rather than decrying it (for all of the reasons expressed here).

Shutting it down (I don't have remotely enough information on precisely how the action resolution mechanics were deployed here...or if one or two of the players felt there was a block deployed by the GM to maintain the AP's plot trajectory) and handling it offscreen when its an area of interest is tantamount to a GM prioritizing their own version of "Setting Solitaire" over engaging with an expressed thematic interest during play! That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Now, if its what I wrote earlier ("when all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail"), that is another area that needs to be addressed outside of play (however, it could very well be related if the players felt like the action resolution mechanics deployed to resolve the social conflict > physical conflict > escape conflict were opaque or deployed unintuitively).

 

[BookBarbarian]

Why shouldn't the PCs ignite it? Or lead it?

Why should a revolution like this be handled offscreen, particularly when one of the PCs expressed interest in inciting or imposing a revolution! If they're perceived (and I don't know if this is correct or not) as "bored", yet they expressed a dramatic need ("Lets Revolution!"), why not see where it goes rather than decrying it (for all of the reasons expressed here).

Shutting it down (I don't have remotely enough information on precisely how the action resolution mechanics were deployed here...or if one or two of the players felt there was a block deployed by the GM to maintain the AP's plot trajectory) and handling it offscreen when its an area of interest is tantamount to a GM prioritizing their own version of "Setting Solitaire" over engaging with an expressed thematic interest during play! That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Now, if its what I wrote earlier ("when all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail"), that is another area that needs to be addressed outside of play (however, it could very well be related if the players felt like the action resolution mechanics deployed to resolve the social conflict > physical conflict > escape conflict were opaque or deployed unintuitively).

I've said nothing about what should happen. I'm saying the module is clear about what does happens if the PCs choose not to start the revolution. It happens anyway.

It's the OP that has said that the PCs did not ally with the noble that wanted to oust the baron, or really try to enlist any aid to do so. They still could if they wanted too at least until the next festival when the people finally get too tired of the baron's crap. Of course this is all subject to change according to the DM.

 

[Manbearcat]

I've said nothing about what should happen. I'm saying the module is clear about what does happens if the PCs choose not to start the revolution. It happens anyway.

It's the OP that has said that the PCs did not ally with the noble that wanted to oust the baron, or really try to enlist any aid to do so. They still could if they wanted too at least until the next festival when the people finally get too tired of the baron's crap. Of course this is all subject to change according to the DM.

No I know you didn't say what should happen.

I was using your statement as a springboard because its the first I saw regarding what the module says about revolution while I've simultaneously seen a lot of conversation in the thread about the GM handling things offscreen (which, again, it seems odd to disparage a player's specifically expressed interest and declared action...even if its just a compulsive one...in inciting revolution if you're just going to handle it offscreen); playing "Setting Solitaire" if you're ignoring player's input and expressed interest.

Threads like this just reinforce how much I tend to disagree with the way the significant bulk of posters in this forum when it comes to casting/perceiving table behavior, authority over and responsibility to the shared fiction, various participant roles during play, and system.

 

[BookBarbarian]

No I know you didn't say what should happen.

I was using your statement as a springboard because its the first I saw regarding what the module says about revolution while I've simultaneously seen a lot of conversation in the thread about the GM handling things offscreen (which, again, it seems odd to disparage a player's specifically expressed interest and declared action...even if its just a compulsive one...in inciting revolution if you're just going to handle it offscreen); playing "Setting Solitaire" if you're ignoring player's input and expressed interest.

Threads like this just reinforce how much I tend to disagree with the way the significant bulk of posters in this forum when it comes to casting/perceiving table behavior, authority over and responsibility to the shared fiction, various participant roles during play, and system.

One the one hand, having the characters in the world pursue their own goals (IE freeing themselves form a mad tyrant) seems quite fine with me but I do agree that that it seems like a perfect way to unite those NPC desires with what aligns to, as far as I can tell, at least one players desire to topple the tyrant.

But yeah I think you are right. If it were me in the DM chair I probably would have had the Baron move up the next festival to the very next morning and have the player characters execution scheduled for that very event. There's going to be a riot there anyway. Might has well have the PCs in the middle of it.

 

[Lanefan]

The king's reaction is decided by the GM, sure....but the results of that action are typically left to dice, no? We don't know exactly what dice or mechanics were used to handle this situation. Nor do we know what opportunities may present themselves before the PCs are killed off by GM fiat, and how such opportunities would be handled mechanically.

All this to say that having my PC die due to HP loss and failed death saves (or whatever relevant mechanic determines such) is one thing. It's observable, it's clear what the risks are, you know how you arrive at that end. And it doesn't come just because the GM says so.....there are rules that the GM is meant to follow that lead to this.

Having an NPC put PCs in stocks and then execute them out of hand is significantly less specific.

Less specific; and yet more specific at the same time. By the sound of things the PCs in this case had all kinds of in-fiction reasons to believe that the King wasn't exactly either nice or forgiving, and that pissing him off (and trying to kill him certainly qualifies under that!) would very likely have dire and fatal consequences.

Which means there's a strong case to be made here than trying to kill him is in effect a glorified version of an educated save-or-die: you either succeed or you die trying or shortly thereafter. All the other mechanics have already been either expended or bypassed.

I applaud those players who took this gamble. It sucks that they lost.

Why would we assume that?

Someone was comparing a save-or-die trap vs the save-or-die variant situation I note just above. You asked how much h.p. damage it'd do, and my point is that "die" doesn't care about hit points.

Based on your previous descriptions of play, I can't imagine that you or your players would simply accept such a fate for their PC if that's what happened in your game. I feel like you'd try to escape, or bargain, or whatever would make sense. And why not?

Were I a player here and the King threw my PC in jail (as opposed to having my head lopped off there and then, which sounds like it's in play for this guy) then sure I'd try to escape - though unless I was playing a Thief-like character I'd assume my odds of success to be approaching zero; it would largely be an exercise in going through the motions.

More realistically, any escape attempt would have to be externally driven; my PC's fate would largely be in the hands of those PCs who were still at large. So, I'd proactively get started on rolling up something new while they sort that out (or decide not to ) and if my existing PC does get freed then whatever I roll up can be stowed away for later.

 

[bloodtide]

Keep in mind that realistic consequences are only what you as the DM say they are. I have seen so many DMs get trapped in this box that they "must" only do ONE thing. If a PC commits a crime they MUST be arrested and they MUST be put to death, and the DM will sit back like there is "nothing" they can do and the game is on AutoPlay or something.

The truth is that a DM can have Anything happen. For the jail one two kinda obvious ones are: a judge comes and lets them go to do some dirty work(maybe with a geas or whatever) or the sneaky jail "lets them escape" as part of some fiendish plot.

THAT being said, the best way to handle a disruptive player is to simply alter the game reality so they cannot effect the game. Like the lord would just say "oh thank you for the complement, they do call me the Crazy Lord after all".

Once Upon a Time: At the start of an adventure the group had dinner with the king. Player Clyde of Thief Zim got boarded so he tried to loot the fine silverware at the kings table....only to find out it was all animated So while the other players role played talking to the king, Zim was fighting for his life vs animated silverware. All the while Clyde was trying to hide his thievery and the attacking silverware from everyone. In the end Zim lost all but one hit point, and used up all his healing potions and did not even get a single peice of silverware. But the other Pcs talked to the king, and Clyde was kept busy.

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, no, realistic consequences are not whatever the DM says they are. Unless what the DM says also happens to be realistic. 'Realistic' there means that the consequences flow naturally from the fiction in some way. You're right that it is never just one answer though.