Musings about PCs and Prisoners

[Telok]

I really don't see how "The police fine you a thousand dollars and sentence you to a hundred hours of community service" would fit in most games or be interesting in any of them.

It could be great in a supers game. A one session trip of community service at a supermutant juvenile correctional facility could be a nice break from routine. It's really jusy a set of adventure hooks that the PCs have set themselves up as being unable to refuse. You could even make them do guard duty at a prison and let them inevitably scew something up to enable an escape attempt.

[zinycor]

It could be great in a supers game. A one session trip of community service at a supermutant juvenile correctional facility could be a nice break from routine. It's really jusy a set of adventure hooks that the PCs have set themselves up as being unable to refuse. You could even make them do guard duty at a prison and let them inevitably scew something up to enable an escape attempt.

Whole that sounds like fun, it seems that Talakeal is dealing with uncooperative people that wouldn't participate on that.

[Talakeal]

I really don't see how "The police fine you a thousand dollars and sentence you to a hundred hours of community service" would fit in most games or be interesting in any of them.

Its not supposed to be interesting, its supposed to allow the players to lose a mission without completely derailing the game.

As for fitting, I suppose its the inverse of the "I was only playing my character," with the DM deliberately soft-balling the consequences as much as possible to keep from being disruptive.

See, that's where I think the disconnect is.

In character, I would more often think that my best chance of long-term survival and achieving my goals is to flee, or if that's not possible then fight.

In character, I can't assume that being imprisoned won't just lead to execution, dangerous mistreatment, or simply last for decades. I can't assume the foes imprisoning me would be any less competent than the PCs at doing so, or any more lenient. Assuming it will be a good thing overall because the GM wants it to be fun is an OOC factor.

Not that there's anything wrong with going along with something for the sake of the story. But if you told me to "keep in character", that's when I'm the most likely to strenuously avoid imprisonment.

Which is perfectly fine.

The problem is that a lot of players, both in person and in this thread, would rather suicide their characters than suffer any sort of setback, which is both very disruptive on the table level and also very poor RPing.

They are there to play the game you all agreed to. Did you get player buy in for a prison game? No? Well, then that was not part of the game you all agreed to.

So then you, the GM, unilaterally suggested changing the game from Game A to Game B. You did so by offering the players the choice: Fight to the death to continue Game A OR be captured and do Game B.

Which gives the characters the choice of: Fight to the death with a chance of doing something OR be imprisoned indefinitely, probably mistreated, and eventually executed with less chance to fight back.

The players, since you did not and do not have player buy in, prefer Game A (the current game) over Game B (the new prison game). So both OOC and IC they make the logical choice of fighting rather than being captured.

None of that is the players 'pulling a childish "I can do whatever I want!" and refusing to play'. That is the GM asking if the players want to switch to a new game (the prison) and them declining. If the GM gets upset that they can't force the players to switch to the new game (the prison), even with the threat of ending the old game, then that says more about the GM than it does about the players.

Get player buy in, and stop mischaracterizing the players, it only hurts your ability to communicate and cooperate with them.

You are two scenarios.

Scenario 1: I purchase a module such as out of the abyss or way of the wicked where a portion of it takes place in prison, and the players reject the game outright without giving it a try.

Scenario 2: The characters are captured organically as a result of the events of the game and I gloss over the captivity as quickly as possible to get back to the game.

You keep describing some sort of hybrid scenario where I am trying to railroad the players into prison against their will, which is not what I am talking about in either case.


When players sit down to play at my table, I assume they are going to play their character; acting within that characters knowledge and motivation (in short, not meta gaming); and that they will create a character who has a motivation to do whatever sort of activity the game is about; dungeon crawling, dragon slaying, investigating mysteries, exploring the wilderness, etc.

A lot of players choose to suicide rather than suffer setbacks; I have seen this both in person and in a few posts in this very thread. In my opinion, this is both disruptive behavior AND metagaming, and it is not playing the game that we agreed to, anymore than it would be acceptable behavior for Bob's paladin to murder Brian's rogue in cold blood because Brian never paid Bob back for his share of the pizza.


Now, sometimes you do get into the classic "I am only playing my character," where you have to choose between good RP and disrupting the game, for example if I am playing an escaped slave who would legitimately rather die than risk going back into slavery or a samurai who is honor bound to commit seppuku if captured, at which point the conversation becomes a little bit more complex and a little bit more interesting.

Likewise, we have situations where the player simply comes to a different tactical opinion than the GM and legitimately thinks that they are more likely survive if they refuse to the surrender; in which case its less about control or disruption and more about communication and trying to get on the same page.

[OldTrees1]

You are two scenarios.

Scenario 1: I purchase a module such as out of the abyss or way of the wicked where a portion of it takes place in prison, and the players reject the game outright without giving it a try.

Scenario 2: The characters are captured organically as a result of the events of the game and I gloss over the captivity as quickly as possible to get back to the game.

You keep describing some sort of hybrid scenario where I am trying to railroad the players into prison against their will, which is not what I am talking about in either case.

Scenario 1 is a reasonable response from the players. It is unfortunate you bought something your group does not want to play, but that purchase does not make their preferences unreasonable. If I bought Exalted it is perfectly reasonable for my group to voice their desire to play / not play Exalted.

The opening post included this

On the opposite side of the screen, anytime I have ever tried to run a "jailbreak" type scenario, the players protest most strongly and will rather go down in a blaze or glory and suffer a TPK rather than surrender or allow themselves to be taken prisoner, and I have long since given up even trying.

Which is closer to what I have been addressing. You had a scenario you wished to include. The players rejected that shift by having their PCs fight to the death (which is in character for those PCs). You disliked being unable to control the players at this time. However you did not railroad the issue.

I did not notice anything about scenario 2 before. Is that what the quote from the OP evolved into? When they are captured, skip ahead because the players don't want to play the jailbreak?

When players sit down to play at my table, I assume they are going to play their character; acting within that characters knowledge and motivation (in short, not meta gaming); and that they will create a character who has a motivation to do whatever sort of activity the game is about; dungeon crawling, dragon slaying, investigating mysteries, exploring the wilderness, etc.

A lot of players choose to suicide rather than suffer setbacks; I have seen this both in person and in a few posts in this very thread. In my opinion, this is both disruptive behavior AND metagaming, and it is not playing the game that we agreed to, anymore than it would be acceptable behavior for Bob's paladin to murder Brian's rogue in cold blood because Brian never paid Bob back for his share of the pizza.

Now, sometimes you do get into the classic "I am only playing my character," where you have to choose between good RP and disrupting the game, for example if I am playing an escaped slave who would legitimately rather die than risk going back into slavery or a samurai who is honor bound to commit seppuku if captured, at which point the conversation becomes a little bit more complex and a little bit more interesting.

Likewise, we have situations where the player simply comes to a different tactical opinion than the GM and legitimately thinks that they are more likely survive if they refuse to the surrender; in which case its less about control or disruption and more about communication and trying to get on the same page.

As numerous people have pointed out, in character fighting to the death can easily make more sense than imprisonment. Because in character, imprisonment is death and worse than death. It is only out of character that the possibility of a jailbreak sequence becomes plausible.

So your expectation that players will play in character is reasonable, and contributes to the PCs fighting to the death.

So it all comes back to the "disrupting" the game. However it sounds like you did not get player buy in for a prison arc. So the players and GM are disagreeing about what kind of game to have. That is not a time to label all the players as disruptive. It is a time to accept that you did not achieve player buy in. Then take time to have even more communication. See how the group as a whole (the GM is a player too) wants to go forward.

Or get player buy in ahead of time. Maybe continue to cultivate player trust while you are at it. I will admit this is easier said than done, but you did remark you are worried that the players might not trust you.

and refuse to believe me.

However trust can be grown and it is part of the 2 part plan to reintroduce jailbreaks to your campaigns. The other part is player buy in.


Edit: Of course there is 1 more possibility. However it is unfortunately outside of your control and thus I can't give you proactive advice. So I am ignoring that possibility. If you were the Player instead of the GM, my advice would be different.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Keep in mind, the alternative here is death. IMO, you are going to do a lot more good in the long run surviving and forming a resistance against the new evil order than you will throwing your life away in a hopeless fight.

Again, "the end of the world" is almost never literal in fantasy, people normally just use it as shorthand for "the bad guy takes power," and fantasy is full of stories of bad guys being overthrown despite having all of the power.



This assumes very specific characters in a very specific game. Even in a gear heavy game like 3.5, you can easily make a character who performs nearly at full efficiency without their gear. Some people might even appreciate it, a monk or psionicist might really appreciate having their chance to shine in such a situation, in much the same way that a ranger would appreciate a wilderness adventure or a cleric would enjoy getting a chance to let loose on the undead.

The point I was making is that being taken prisoner by the BBEG and being killed is effectively synonymous, and it's always better to retreat rather than surrender.

You're like "lead a resistance against the new order" but like how are you going to do that very effectively from a cell or a prison camp? If you do lose the war and are subjugated, if you retreat and hide instead of surrendering, you know, do the things that are required to form and lead a resistance.



As for "there are characters that do fine without gear", that's like the lamest justification I've heard. Like, yeah, a monk does fine without weapons, but if you're at literally anywhere other than character generation, you don't really have an ability to make such a character for this premise. And even then, I probably wouldn't sign onto a campaign where I played a monk just so we could start with a prison escape arc.

[Talakeal]

As for "there are characters that do fine without gear", that's like the lamest justification I've heard. Like, yeah, a monk does fine without weapons, but if you're at literally anywhere other than character generation, you don't really have an ability to make such a character for this premise. And even then, I probably wouldn't sign onto a campaign where I played a monk just so we could start with a prison escape arc.

That's very odd to me.

Lots of powers are explicitly balanced around their ability to be taken away. In a game like Mutants and Masterminds, things which can be stolen / disarmed actually cost fewer points, and even D&D has feats like "Eschew materials" or magic item powers that allow you to summon your equipment. If those abilities having a benefit is "the lamest justification you have ever heard," do you think those things just exist in the game as trap options for stupid players or something?


EDIT: Just to clarify, I am not saying "jailbreaks are essential because they allow unarmed characters a chance to shine" or whatever your "lamest justification" barb is insinuating; I am saying that occasionally shaking up the usual status quo of the table power dynamic is a good thing, and hardly the deal breaker you make it out to be. Jailbreaks are just one of a plethora of nonstandard mission types which keep the game fresh and interesting; but they are hardly an essential staple of a good campaign or anything like that.

Scenario 1 is a reasonable response from the players. It is unfortunate you bought something your group does not want to play, but that purchase does not make their preferences unreasonable. If I bought Exalted it is perfectly reasonable for my group to voice their desire to play / not play Exalted.

I don't agree at all . Refusing something out of hand is the very definition of unreasonable, and asking for ideas on how to persuade someone to to give something a try is a perfectly normal function of advice forums like this.

Now, trying to force someone to do something that they have good reasons for not wanting to do isn't reasonable either, but my issue was not that my players don't like jailbreak scenarios, rather they reject them on principle sight unseen.

Which is closer to what I have been addressing. You had a scenario you wished to include. The players rejected that shift by having their PCs fight to the death (which is in character for those PCs). You disliked being unable to control the players at this time. However you did not railroad the issue.

I did not notice anything about scenario 2 before. Is that what the quote from the OP evolved into? When they are captured, skip ahead because the players don't want to play the jailbreak?

Do note that in my initial post I said that I have long since given up even trying to run a jailbreak scenario. It has probably been a good fifteen years since I have actually had any desire to do something like that, and it isn't in any way an ongoing problem for me.

What IS an ongoing problem for me is situations where the group organically gets in over their head and chooses to end the campaign fighting to the death rather than just back down; for example playing in a modern game and getting the cops called on them for instigating a barfight and choosing to have a lethal shootout with the SWAT team rather than just going to the station and getting brought up on misdemeanor charges.

[OldTrees1]

I don't agree at all . Refusing something out of hand is the very definition of unreasonable, and asking for ideas on how to persuade someone to to give something a try is a perfectly normal function of advice forums like this.

Now, trying to force someone to do something that they have good reasons for not wanting to do isn't reasonable either, but my issue was not that my players don't like jailbreak scenarios, rather they reject them on principle sight unseen.

"Out of hand" means without taking the time to think.
"Sight unseen" means without looking.
I do not think these describe the players rejecting jailbreak scenarios. They have seen them before. They have thought about it before. They are rejecting this new jailbreak scenario sight unseen, by referencing prior examples they have seen, and out of hand, by using a conclusion they reached previously after prior thought.

If you offer me icecream I would reject it instantly, because I already know about icecream, and have already thought about how it would kill me. So I can reject this new icecream out of hand sight unseen, because I have enough information already. This is a reasonable response. Yes, the player's response is less reasonable than instantly rejecting a lethal allergen, but it is still reasonable.

So if their response is reasonable, how can one proceed? Communication, cultivating player trust, and getting player buy in. Learn why prior examples of jailbreaks make them reject new ones. Grow their trust in you. And then ask if they would be willing to give it another chance now that they trust you more and you have addressed their concerns with the genre. Eventually you will have enough player trust and buy in that you can just have the scenario. (Or you will learn that the player has a insurmountable aversion and learn to live with that limitation, but you will have more options in other areas due to the increased player trust.)

Do note that in my initial post I said that I have long since given up even trying to run a jailbreak scenario. It has probably been a good fifteen years since I have actually had any desire to do something like that, and it isn't in any way an ongoing problem for me.

I did notice that was your response (and I applauded your listening IIRC). However this thread makes it sound like advice that lets you run jailbreak scenarios again would be a positive. That is why there are comments about:
1) What concerns players might have with prison arcs
2) Player Buy In
3) Player Trust

What IS an ongoing problem for me is situations where the group organically gets in over their head and chooses to end the campaign fighting to the death rather than just back down; for example playing in a modern game and getting the cops called on them for instigating a barfight and choosing to have a lethal shootout with the SWAT team rather than just going to the station and getting brought up on misdemeanor charges.

Normally when a group gets in over their heads against a foe they are willing to use lethal force, fighting to the death is more in character than surrendering to death in prison. You are getting a lot of comments about the normal situation.

Cops called over a barfight resulting in misdemeanor charges is an unexpected alternative situation. Why do the players think they do it? Do they do it because in character and out of character they don't trust these NPC cops to let them go unharmed? Do the players want to play a different style of game than you do?

[Spiderswims]

I really don't see how "The police fine you a thousand dollars and sentence you to a hundred hours of community service" would fit in most games or be interesting in any of them.

Well, it is the basic Dirty Dozen plot, and things like Suicide Squad and the Thunderbolts. There are endless stories with the start of 'a character must work off a sentence'.

This has inspired me. If I ever DM a TPK, I am going to have the people that killed them bring them all back to life and throw them in prison. The warden will great them, say, "You're not getting off that easily!", and then laugh maniacally.

Well, if done in a light way sure...but don't make it too dark. But if your in a RPG of a high enough power level and there is a story reason for it: then do it.

Scenario 1 is a reasonable response from the players. It is unfortunate you bought something your group does not want to play, but that purchase does not make their preferences unreasonable. If I bought Exalted it is perfectly reasonable for my group to voice their desire to play / not play Exalted.

This is what my post was about. The GM has a module with part that has the PCs in prison. So if the players don't like that part they will refuse to do the whole module? And you think it's a good thing? Again my question is where does it end? Are the players approving each page of a module? And if they find even a single page they don't like the GM must set it aside?

I don't agree at all

I guess this comes back to being open minded?

For example, I don't like ninjas. Boring. So if some players asked me to run an all ninja RPG for them, I'd first just pass saying I don't like that idea. But if they really wanted to have me GM, I can put aside my dislike and run a perfectly fine RPG. The same way if I was a player and I was asked by the other places to play a set class (though only asked, I hate when players try and force this) that I did not like; I might be willing to do so. And so on.

[icefractal]

This has inspired me. If I ever DM a TPK, I am going to have the people that killed them bring them all back to life and throw them in prison. The warden will great them, say, "You're not getting off that easily!", and then laugh maniacally.

Pretty sure that's why that "must be willing to be resurrected" clause is there. 😛

Honestly it would be a rather darker setting without that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't agree at all . Refusing something out of hand is the very definition of unreasonable, and asking for ideas on how to persuade someone to to give something a try is a perfectly normal function of advice forums like this.

I don't drink for moral and personal-choice reasons. If someone says "hey, here's beer, have some", they're going to get refused out of hand. No compromise. And that's not unreasonable. And someone asking on a forum "how do I get this non-drinker to drink alcohol?" is absolutely doing it wrong.

Now I'm not saying that the situations are identical, but this quoted statement is just wrong in so many contexts. For a lot of people, "being captured" and "prison break scenario" are obviously (based on their observed behaviors) strongly unpleasant. No amount of cajoling or trickery will make them enjoy it--it'll just ruin friendships.

It doesn't matter if it's what you want to do as the DM. It doesn't matter if it's "what makes sense". If it's something the players reject strongly, you shouldn't do it. Does that entail compromises with the world? Yes. But the fun of the party is the most important thing. Nothing else, in the end, really matters. Everything else is a means to that end. Rules? Not important in themselves. Setting? Not important in itself. Roleplaying? Not important in itself. Having fun? Important in itself..

[Talakeal]

Do I really need to address how trying something that is known to be dangerous / immoral is not even close to a fair comparison to giving an RPG module a try?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Do I really need to address how trying something that is known to be dangerous / immoral is not even close to a fair comparison to giving an RPG module a try?

For most people, drinking alcohol is not known to be dangerous or immoral.

But if you want a different example, there are a whole bunch of things I will outright refuse to try and will consider any persisted attempt to persuade me to be an unfriendly act that are neither dangerous nor immoral. I just plain don't like them. I know I don't like them. I've tried them in the past, and won't do so again.

For example, offer me a chance to program in FORTRAN and I'll turn you down flat. Been there, done that, hated it.

[Talakeal]

For most people, drinking alcohol is not known to be dangerous or immoral.

But if you want a different example, there are a whole bunch of things I will outright refuse to try and will consider any persisted attempt to persuade me to be an unfriendly act that are neither dangerous nor immoral. I just plain don't like them. I know I don't like them. I've tried them in the past, and won't do so again.

For example, offer me a chance to program in FORTRAN and I'll turn you down flat. Been there, done that, hated it.

Ok... and?

I am talking about people convincing people it is ok to give new things a chance, not shoving things they know they don't like down their throats.


I have dealt with many players who shoot down PC captivity as a matter of course, I have never encountered a player who had actually gone through such a scenario and not enjoyed it.

[Telok]

Normally when a group gets in over their heads against a foe they are willing to use lethal force, fighting to the death is more in character than surrendering to death in prison.

This is where I keep getting lost. That's this constant dissonance between a subset of people who see capture/prison as sort of a next part of an adventure, and a subset of people who see it as character death or worse.

It feels like... well it feels like there's no actual discussion, just half the room gets triggered and starts chanting "death or glory!" while the rest try to talk about how to make it work.

Edit: Just for clarity, this isn't directed at anyone. Oldtrees quote was just the most recent iteration of it.

[Talakeal]

This is where I keep getting lost. That's this constant dissonance between a subset of people who see capture/prison as sort of a next part of an adventure, and a subset of people who see it as character death or worse.

It feels like... well it feels like there's no actual discussion, just half the room gets triggered and starts chanting "death or glory!" while the rest try to talk about how to make it work.

That is exactly the disconnect that I am having with my players which prompted me to create the thread in the first place.

[Pex]

There is a difference between:

1) A party engaging in a battle as a matter of adventuring but lose the encounter by unfortunate luck and/or poor choices that ends up with the party captured instead of or replacement for a TPK.

and

2) The DM wants the party captured so by golly they will be captured. He manipulates events and/or the combat so that the party is captured. They will be captured. Case closed.

It's the second scenario that I have been arguing against. It's that scenario I learned the hard way not to do as DM. That is the DM taking control of the PCs.

The first scenario I have no problem. If you have players who do have a problem with it then as DM you need to accept you have players who prefer a TPK rather than being captured. I hope they are at least willing to retreat from a losing battle, and I don't object a DM teaching players it's ok to retreat provided that wasn't the purpose of the scenario. That means the players Honestly lost, not the DM purposely creating an unwinnable battle of overwhelming force to put the players in their place how dare they think they're invincible fear my power as DM!

If you have players in the first scenario preferring a TPK and retreat is not an option I'm ok with the DM going meta for the moment speaking directly DM to players that being captured is an option, they won't be screwed over, and they'll get their stuff back or better stuff soon. If the players still rather not that's all you can do, and you have to learn to accept the TPK.

[OldTrees1]

This is what my post was about. The GM has a module with part that has the PCs in prison. So if the players don't like that part they will refuse to do the whole module? And you think it's a good thing? Again my question is where does it end? Are the players approving each page of a module? And if they find even a single page they don't like the GM must set it aside?

I feel I adequately addressed that in my reply to you.

As for this particular part, if a player does not want to play OotA, that is fine. It is okay for players to choose which games they will or will not play. Just like it is okay for GMs to choose which games they will or will not run. If someone objects to the prison section of OotA strongly enough to not want to play OotA, that is fine. If they object less strongly they might ask if the section could be skipped. Or even less strongly and they might tolerate the section.

It is not okay for a GM to feel the players are obligated to play any campaign the GM happens to want to run. The players are allowed to choose what they do and do not wish to play. That is okay. It is a good thing that everyone involved has the freedom to not play. Obviously you are not trying to advocate the players be conscripted into participating, so I suggest reviewing my previous reply to you.

This is where I keep getting lost. That's this constant dissonance between a subset of people who see capture/prison as sort of a next part of an adventure, and a subset of people who see it as character death or worse.

It feels like... well it feels like there's no actual discussion, just half the room gets triggered and starts chanting "death or glory!" while the rest try to talk about how to make it work.

Edit: Just for clarity, this isn't directed at anyone. Oldtrees quote was just the most recent iteration of it.

1) There is the IC layer and the OOC layer.
At the IC layer, yes indefinite detention in a prison is a death sentence. It might be a death by old age, but it is a death sentence.
At the OOC layer, but that would have the adventure end so the GM won't have it be a death sentence. Instead it will be a prison arc.
2) Some have been struggling to understand why the IC layer is so bleak in the normal case. The replies have enumerated the numerous advantages that the prison has over the prisoner to keep them powerless. For some reason this explanation is being ignored and repetition is being requested.
3) On the OOC layer some have been struggling to understand why some players don't like prison arcs. The replies have enumerated the numerous reasons different players have for strongly disliking / objecting to prison arcs. Some of those replies were by people (like myself) that are personally fine with prison arcs, but can understand the reasons other players might object. Rather than accept that different player preferences exist, the replies are ignored and repetition is being requested.

4) Then you get to the advice layer. Once you accept the barriers and obstacles, then you can provide advice for how to deal with them. This has many rather boring claims like "Communication, Player Trust, Player Buy In" as suggestions. This dates back to the 2nd post. The replies are ignored and repetition is being requested. (sorry, I had to do the rule of 3)

So both "sides" are trying to talk about how to make it work. However, one "side" is trying to explain the obstacle to deaf ears. If there is no obstacle then the solution is simple. If there is an obstacle, it helps to recognize it exists so you can deal with it.

TLDR:
Empathy is a useful skill. One "side" is trying to empathize with Talakeal's players in order to understand the problem well enough to address it. That does not require being like Talakeal's players, but you do need to attempt to see it from their perspective.

That is exactly the disconnect that I am having with my players which prompted me to create the thread in the first place.

[Talakeal]

I kind of think the conversation has become more fundamental than the specific topic at hand. Honestly; at this point I think I could rewrite the OP as "Is there an appropriate way to try and talk people into trying new things," and "How do I deal with players trying to appeal to RP to disrupt the game" and the conversation would be equally productive.

As for the latter, (virtually) every player knows that a PC being captured doesn't ever actually mean execution / rotting in a cell for life; it is almost always going to be resolved with a: a short jailbreak scenario, b: cutting a deal with the captors or a third party, or c: paying a small financial penalty and being cut loose.

Didn't The Giant used to have an article in the sidebar about just that issue; that it is ultimately the responsibility of a good player to come up with a rationale for character actions that supported rather than disrupted the game?

There is a difference between:

1) A party engaging in a battle as a matter of adventuring but lose the encounter by unfortunate luck and/or poor choices that ends up with the party captured instead of or replacement for a TPK.

and

2) The DM wants the party captured so by golly they will be captured. He manipulates events and/or the combat so that the party is captured. They will be captured. Case closed.

It's the second scenario that I have been arguing against. It's that scenario I learned the hard way not to do as DM. That is the DM taking control of the PCs.

The first scenario I have no problem. If you have players who do have a problem with it then as DM you need to accept you have players who prefer a TPK rather than being captured. I hope they are at least willing to retreat from a losing battle, and I don't object a DM teaching players it's ok to retreat provided that wasn't the purpose of the scenario. That means the players Honestly lost, not the DM purposely creating an unwinnable battle of overwhelming force to put the players in their place how dare they think they're invincible fear my power as DM!

If you have players in the first scenario preferring a TPK and retreat is not an option I'm ok with the DM going meta for the moment speaking directly DM to players that being captured is an option, they won't be screwed over, and they'll get their stuff back or better stuff soon. If the players still rather not that's all you can do, and you have to learn to accept the TPK.

I am talking about scenario 1.

Scenario 2 is pretty much just text-book railroading and has little to actually do with capturing PCs.

Now, there is a conversation to be had here, particularly about where to draw the line between a railroad and refusing to engage with the premise of the game, as well as precisely how much autonomy you should give players during downtime / setup, but it is much broader than the topic of jailbreaks and captivity.

[Mechalich]

2) The DM wants the party captured so by golly they will be captured. He manipulates events and/or the combat so that the party is captured. They will be captured. Case closed.

It's the second scenario that I have been arguing against. It's that scenario I learned the hard way not to do as DM. That is the DM taking control of the PCs.

If you're going to do the second scenario, at the very least you, as the GM, you to just come out and fiat what happens openly. 'You're going to be captured now, because that's what the story demands,' is lousy and railroad-y to the max, but at least it's honest with the players. It also avoids wasting anyone's time playing out an unwinnable battle.

This is actually a lesson that video games have (mostly) learned. Unwinnable battles, where the plot only advanced once everyone in the party has been KO'd actually used to be a pretty common feature of certain types of RPGs, and people hated it (especially because if your party happened to be overleveled or otherwise OP it might take a very long time for you to figure that out and you might expend non-renewable items during such a battle). These days, most games that need an unwinnable battle just do a cutscene rather than play the battle out.

[Satinavian]

This is where I keep getting lost. That's this constant dissonance between a subset of people who see capture/prison as sort of a next part of an adventure, and a subset of people who see it as character death or worse.

It feels like... well it feels like there's no actual discussion, just half the room gets triggered and starts chanting "death or glory!" while the rest try to talk about how to make it work.

Edit: Just for clarity, this isn't directed at anyone. Oldtrees quote was just the most recent iteration of it.

The first couple of responses in this thread were about how both can be true and how that really depends on circumstances. Many people have explained how they would have their PCs surrender in some situations but not in others.

There were even (many!) answers about how to run a prison escape scenario.



But Talakeal never cared about that kind of nuance and always came back to universal truths about surrender. Which lead all the "in some case this, in some case that" players only argue the part where they disagree with him.

[Mechalich]

But Talakeal never cared about that kind of nuance and always came back to universal truths about surrender. Which lead all the "in some case this, in some case that" players only argue the part where they disagree with him.

And of course there aren't universal truths about surrender. Across human history the viability of surrender - to both opposing militaries and to civil authorities - has varied greatly across varied cultures, legal regimes, international agreements, and other circumstances (including the simple ability to even determine that an antagonist is trying to surrender, which some theaters of conflict, like submarine warfare, basically do not permit).

[Xervous]

Didn't The Giant used to have an article in the sidebar about just that issue; that it is ultimately the responsibility of a good player to come up with a rationale for character actions that supported rather than disrupted the game?

Which, in the case of most captivity scenarios, is shutting up and waiting to be fed the plot.

[OldTrees1]

I kind of think the conversation has become more fundamental than the specific topic at hand. Honestly; at this point I think I could rewrite the OP as "Is there an appropriate way to try and talk people into trying new things," and "How do I deal with players trying to appeal to RP to disrupt the game" and the conversation would be equally productive.

-snip-

Didn't The Giant used to have an article in the sidebar about just that issue; that it is ultimately the responsibility of a good player to come up with a rationale for character actions that supported rather than disrupted the game?

Yeah if the conversation has moved that much a new OP or a new thread would help. A lot of this thread is tied to actual prison arcs rather than "misdemeanor = time in drunk tank + a fine".


If the players made the thread instead of the GM, this article by the Giant would be my first piece of advice. It is not perfectly applicable in this case but it is a great start. Now I will elaborate on the qualifier.

It is the responsibility of the player to come up with a characterization that fits with the game that the group has decided to play. But that is the sticking point in your case, it sounds like the players as a group have decided that they are playing "fight to the death over misdemeanor" rather than "misdemeanors mean capture ending with a slap on the wrist". There is some disconnect that can only be bridged by talking to those players and finding out why they are playing a different game than you are providing.


As for talking people into trying new things (the former part). Build up trust and player buy in. I am sorry if that sounds like a broken record but it is the foundation of the solution. If a GM I trust to make a bad module fun asks me to play a bad module, I am likely to buy in because I trust they will make in fun in spite of it being a bad module. In the misdemeanor case it sounds like the best way to build trust is to investigate the disconnect with a goal of learning what the players want to play. Demonstrating listening to their concerns and reasons is a good way to build trust.

As for the latter, (virtually) every player knows that a PC being captured doesn't ever actually mean execution / rotting in a cell for life; it is almost always going to be resolved with a: a short jailbreak scenario, b: cutting a deal with the captors or a third party, or c: paying a small financial penalty and being cut loose.

I agree (although I would not say "ever/always"). Those subthreads were
1) Education about how disadvantaged prisoners are by default (someone claimed they could not see the severe impact).
2) Addressing why fighting instead of surrendering is in character (someone claimed they could not see how it was in character).

[zinycor]

Ok... and?

I am talking about people convincing people it is ok to give new things a chance, not shoving things they know they don't like down their throats.


I have dealt with many players who shoot down PC captivity as a matter of course, I have never encountered a player who had actually gone through such a scenario and not enjoyed it.

And that's their desires, I believe you should respect that instead of questioning it.

[LordCdrMilitant]

As another musing on the PC's and prisoners...

PC's basically never take prisoners. At least in my games, the only time my players take prisoners is when they intend to subject them to "enhanced interrogation techniques", which typically ends with them disposing of the prisoner afterwards. This isn't really an unexpected result, as a small group of irregular combatants, they don't have the resources or ability to take charge of and handle prisoners of war. But, your willingness to and treatment of prisoners highly affects how likely and how well enemies will treat you when you are captured. Irregular forces already generally aren't expecting great treatment once captured anyway, but if you engage in a persistent pattern of behavior like PC's usually do... well, even if the enemy doesn't shoot them and leave them in a ditch, they're still likely facing repercussions or retaliation for their behavior, which could include trial and execution.

There's also no real expectation of repatriation following the conflict for the party, so even after the conflict ends, they might still be sitting in a prison for a long time.



Also, the knowledge that you'll get any of your gear back and be able to escape at all is essentially out of character knowledge that the game would be over and it would be the same effect as a TPK if the GM didn't plan such an arc. Realistically, POWs' wargear doesn't make the trip with them to the internment facility, so there won't be a convenient box with the cleric's and wizard's foci right in the guard house.

Any way, I think it's pretty reasonable in-character to avoid capture at all costs, particularly given that retreating is also usually an optioin

[Darth Credence]

My PCs take prisoners all the time. They just took a number of cultists prisoner, and next up is interrogation. Their method of interrogation is being nice to the prisoners, building rapport, and then judicious use of some spells to get information out of them - such as using suggestion to ask the prisoners to tell them their troubles and how they ended up in this situation. At the end of that, they will bring the prisoners to the nearest town with a justice system, which is well defined as effectively the church of the god of justice. One of the characters would probably be a murder hobo by inclination, but he has a deep bond with the bard in the group, and they are pretty honorable. None of them has in any way indicated that they would ever execute a prisoner - maybe it would be different if they were truly out in the wilds, but it hasn't happened yet.
As far as equipment being near where they are imprisoned, it has been firmly established that until the trial is complete, any equipment would indeed be nearby, as it would be returned if the person is acquitted. So if they were to escape first, or succeed at trial, they would absolutely be able to get equipment back. If they are convicted, if they need to pay fines, some of it may be sold to pay those fines, but otherwise, it would be returned to the person's next of kin or stored on site. I don't see this as very unrealistic, since that is what is done at most jails and prisons I know of. There is certainly an opportunity to get them back.
Now, if they were taken prisoner by bandits or the like, the bandits would keep their gear until they could sell it, which would not be anywhere close to immediate. Some might be taken by particular bandits to use. But bandits are not going to be great at holding prisoners - if they were disciplined enough to hold highly skilled people, they almost certainly wouldn't be bandits. So my players would certainly expect that they could escape, and that they could get their stuff back if they took down the bandits.
They certainly would not see capture as a death sentence. Heck, they have floated plans of allowing themselves to be captured in order to infiltrate somewhere, although in the end they went a different route. They don't do things that would get them executed by a town or city, so that isn't a concern. They may be in line for execution from a power they are at war with, but the people at war trade prisoners.

[LordCdrMilitant]

My PCs take prisoners all the time. They just took a number of cultists prisoner, and next up is interrogation. Their method of interrogation is being nice to the prisoners, building rapport, and then judicious use of some spells to get information out of them - such as using suggestion to ask the prisoners to tell them their troubles and how they ended up in this situation. At the end of that, they will bring the prisoners to the nearest town with a justice system, which is well defined as effectively the church of the god of justice. One of the characters would probably be a murder hobo by inclination, but he has a deep bond with the bard in the group, and they are pretty honorable. None of them has in any way indicated that they would ever execute a prisoner - maybe it would be different if they were truly out in the wilds, but it hasn't happened yet.
As far as equipment being near where they are imprisoned, it has been firmly established that until the trial is complete, any equipment would indeed be nearby, as it would be returned if the person is acquitted. So if they were to escape first, or succeed at trial, they would absolutely be able to get equipment back. If they are convicted, if they need to pay fines, some of it may be sold to pay those fines, but otherwise, it would be returned to the person's next of kin or stored on site. I don't see this as very unrealistic, since that is what is done at most jails and prisons I know of. There is certainly an opportunity to get them back.
Now, if they were taken prisoner by bandits or the like, the bandits would keep their gear until they could sell it, which would not be anywhere close to immediate. Some might be taken by particular bandits to use. But bandits are not going to be great at holding prisoners - if they were disciplined enough to hold highly skilled people, they almost certainly wouldn't be bandits. So my players would certainly expect that they could escape, and that they could get their stuff back if they took down the bandits.
They certainly would not see capture as a death sentence. Heck, they have floated plans of allowing themselves to be captured in order to infiltrate somewhere, although in the end they went a different route. They don't do things that would get them executed by a town or city, so that isn't a concern. They may be in line for execution from a power they are at war with, but the people at war trade prisoners.

I suspect your party might be the exception; I rarely see parties take enemy combatants prisoner. There's a fundamental factor here that they just don't have the ability to manage PoW's. With 4-8 PC's usually operating in enemy territory, even if they do have the backing of a national military who can take control of PoW's, some of the party would have to detach to escort captured prisoners all the way back to friendly lines, thus removing themselves from the game and from the arc. And the party is usually unwilling to just release captured enemy combatants, because they will A: report on the party's consist and disposition, and B: resume armed activity against them. So the PC's usually don't take prisoners except for interrogation, and usually execute them after interrogation so they don't have to deal with handling them.

As for equipment processing, when a combatant surrenders, most field manuals specify that they are to be searched and relieved of all arms and military documents as soon as possible by the forces taking them prisoner and turned over the military intelligence and/or quartermasters. Personal effects can also be seized if they are either a security risk or of intelligence value, but if not a security risk should be returned after analysis. The weapons and stuff goes to MI and then is usually destroyed, recycled and reissued, or placed into reserve storage, and the prisoners go to successively higher order staging areas before transportation to a prisoner of war camp.




As far as what jails and prisons do, as far as I understand it [since I've never been arrested, aren't an employee of the correctional system, and don't have any official manuals on hand]:
After arrest and before the trial, the accused goes to jail, evidence [like weapons and armor and lockpicks] goes to the evidence room, and the jail holds onto the accused's other personal belongings [like ID and clothes].
Prisons, however, aren't usually in the business of storing inmates belongings, so unless someone comes to pick it up, it's usually destroyed, donated, or otherwise disposed of. Evidence will be kept as long as required, but isn't usually kept at a prison.

That said, most of my PC's aren't really in a situation where they'd be going through a civil prison system as opposed through a PoW handling system. Even as irregulars, they're usually combatants under arms opposing either a semi-regular opposition force which would treat them as PoWs, or an insurgent force [like cultists]. I think this situation is broadly applicable to most parties. Either way, they're not going to end up in a federal court and correctional system. If they are being tried, it would usually be for war crimes, which your average D&D party commit in spades.



As far as bandits go, most bandits aren't in the business of murder, and also aren't in the business of dying for their cause. Highwaymen taking prisoners would be doing so to ransom them, otherwise they'd let them go after relieving them of their valuables, usually.

[PhoenixPhyre]

On the topic of PCs taking prisoners--

My current party has taken prisoners now twice. They performed...percussive[1]...interrogation on the spot, then hauled them (having a high-str warforged makes that practical) to the nearest town.

The first set has thrown themselves on the mercy of the town council, which deadlocked[2] on kill vs keep and put to work (not slavery--they've credibly promised to not re-offend). So they're still in prison awaiting a final decision. Their stuff? Gone. But they were also crippled as part of being taken prisoner (the first one unintentionally due to hitting 0 HP with a crit crossbow bolt to the back leaving him paralyzed, the second one very intentionally by a PC[3] breaking his kneecap once he was subdued).

The second one died before trial due to a mole on the council.

[1] And were fully willing to kill. Physical abuse, including breaking a kneecap. Not the best morality on display here. And only hauled them in for trial because one PC is a very law-and-order cleric of a very law-and-order god.
[2] They were supposed to deadlock (due to moles). And the party was supposed to break the deadlock. But the party deadlocked...
[3] the local paladin, at that.

[Darth Credence]

I absolutely agree with the first statement that my party may be an exception. The nature of the campaign and where they have traveled is fairly unusual, I believe.

I suspect your party might be the exception; I rarely see parties take enemy combatants prisoner. There's a fundamental factor here that they just don't have the ability to manage PoW's. With 4-8 PC's usually operating in enemy territory, even if they do have the backing of a national military who can take control of PoW's, some of the party would have to detach to escort captured prisoners all the way back to friendly lines, thus removing themselves from the game and from the arc. And the party is usually unwilling to just release captured enemy combatants, because they will A: report on the party's consist and disposition, and B: resume armed activity against them. So the PC's usually don't take prisoners except for interrogation, and usually execute them after interrogation so they don't have to deal with handling them.

As for equipment processing, when a combatant surrenders, most field manuals specify that they are to be searched and relieved of all arms and military documents as soon as possible by the forces taking them prisoner and turned over the military intelligence and/or quartermasters. Personal effects can also be seized if they are either a security risk or of intelligence value, but if not a security risk should be returned after analysis. The weapons and stuff goes to MI and then is usually destroyed, recycled and reissued, or placed into reserve storage, and the prisoners go to successively higher order staging areas before transportation to a prisoner of war camp.

I was talking primarily about being captured by guards. There is a war going on, but they haven't really been part of it yet. I'm really not sure if they will ever end up in an actual war situation, since the campaign has not been moving in that direction. But they do spend a lot of time in large cities with guard forces who will be serious about keeping the peace. The most likely situation where they would be taken prisoner, I think, is if they got involved in a large bar fight.

As far as what jails and prisons do, as far as I understand it [since I've never been arrested, aren't an employee of the correctional system, and don't have any official manuals on hand]:
After arrest and before the trial, the accused goes to jail, evidence [like weapons and armor and lockpicks] goes to the evidence room, and the jail holds onto the accused's other personal belongings [like ID and clothes].
Prisons, however, aren't usually in the business of storing inmates belongings, so unless someone comes to pick it up, it's usually destroyed, donated, or otherwise disposed of. Evidence will be kept as long as required, but isn't usually kept at a prison.

That said, most of my PC's aren't really in a situation where they'd be going through a civil prison system as opposed through a PoW handling system. Even as irregulars, they're usually combatants under arms opposing either a semi-regular opposition force which would treat them as PoWs, or an insurgent force [like cultists]. I think this situation is broadly applicable to most parties. Either way, they're not going to end up in a federal court and correctional system. If they are being tried, it would usually be for war crimes, which your average D&D party commit in spades.

AIUI, when people go to jail, the personal possessions they have on hand are generally put in an envelope, and the envelope is stored at the prison until they are released. The clothes they have are stored in garment bags, and are sometimes stored there until the prisoner is released, or sometimes allowed to be picked up by a designated agent of the prisoner. In my campaign world, their stuff would all be stored in the equivalent of the envelope, waiting for them to be released. I know you can't trust media representations to be accurate, but there are a whole lot of movies that have a prisoner being released and getting the clothes they came in with back to wear out, as well as the envelope being opened and the stuff inside given back. I think Ocean's 11 started out with such a scene, among many others.

So far this campaign, my group has had three interactions with the legal system of the land. In one, a sketchy group was holding a thief prisoner, and they wanted to interrogate the prisoner. The sketchy group roughed up the prisoner first, which led to the players telling the judge about it, and the prisoner was let go. The players then investigated the sketchy group and brought them down. They then spoke with the judge again, who admonished them for taking matters into their own hands, but thanked them for getting the job done. He sent them on their way, telling them to let the authorities handle such issues. The second time, the Bard entered into a recording contract and lawyers had to hash out the details. The last time, they chased a serial killer down a river, eventually catching him and taking him prisoner. They turned him in at the next town, collecting a reward.

As far as bandits go, most bandits aren't in the business of murder, and also aren't in the business of dying for their cause. Highwaymen taking prisoners would be doing so to ransom them, otherwise they'd let them go after relieving them of their valuables, usually.

I agree - they would absolutely be held for ransom if they were captured, but they'd definitely lose their goodies in that case. But if they could escape (and I wouldn't find it to be that hard, because these are bandits probably living in the woods or maybe caves) they would have a decent shot at finding their stuff in the camp.

[icefractal]

Wait, when did the subject become getting arrested by a legal agents of a nation-state that you want to be a part of, for a crime with relatively low stakes? Sure, a number of characters I've played would surrender in that circumstance. Although they wouldn't then try to break out of jail, because that ruins the whole 'not becoming a wanted outlaw' thing.

What I saw mentioned earlier is surrender to enemies that you were (like a few seconds ago) fighting with lethal force. Which is the one I usually wouldn't consider a good idea IC.

Or attempted arrest (by non-enemies) for something where "life in prison" is a plausible outcome, in which case it depends on what you think your odds are at trial are and how feasible escape is if that goes badly. That one does push things more toward "flee" rather than "fight" though.