Musings about PCs and Prisoners

[Pleh]

Just run it as a one-shot or as the opening for a longer campaign. The game starts with the characters in jail already. And then you can ask cool leading questions about why and how they ended up there.

This is what I came here to say. You tell the players that the jailbreak is the pretext that leads to their first combined adventure. It's the first time they met and it was their teamwork that got them free.

The main downside is, why do they stay together after they get free? That's a question to hash out in session zero.

[Kardwill]

Just run it as a one-shot or as the opening for a longer campaign. The game starts with the characters in jail already. And then you can ask cool leading questions about why and how they ended up there.

That's what I did the last time I ran a "prison break" style game. New characters, "Barbarian of Lemuria" (think "Conan") game, one-shot scenario, they simply started in an arena, with their cellmate asking them how they got there. So each player had the opportunity to tell a little story about how his character got thrown into jail : The rogue was caugnt in the bedchamber of the sultan's wife, the Conan-clone got into a drunken brawl where he killed several city guards before passing out, the sorcerer was set-up by his political enemies, etc... That way, their capture was an occasion to brag about their new characters' awesomeness, rather than an humiliation inflicted against established ones. And the characters were not "brought down" during play : Instead, they started at the bottom, and quickly made their way up (by causing a riot in the arena and killing the sultan in the next scene)

If I tried this kind of thing today, though I would also warn the players before the game and tell them what I have in mind and what it entails ("you will start as captive, but don't worry, it's only for the opening scene"), so that I can have player buy-in (and if most players are okay but one of them gives a hard "no" to the suggestion, then that player will simply skip that first scene and give me a reason why his character join the others after they escape.)

For scenarios like this one, player buy-in is important. And a player might accept when asked directly, when he would have fought to the bitter end if I tried to force a capture during the game.

[Quertus]

Huge topic - where to start?

The "prison break" scenario is among the worst offenders for denial of Agency.

Unless you get the players to agree to start the adventure in prison, you have to railroad them to force the capture to happen.

Then you have to set up some contrivance to allow them to escape prison (ideally without ruining suspension of disbelief on the notion of prison as anything other than a revolving door).

In between, you have *prison*.

From the PoV of someone who recognizes that tailoring encounters to the party is an abridgment of player agency, most "prison break" scenarios are a railroad horror show sandwich.

As with all such things, it's a different story of you get the players on board to begin with. "This adventure is about running a prison break. Bring characters who will start in prison, and whom you will enjoy playing through this scenario", for example, is an acceptable pitch.

-----

On top of its problems, as a rule, a prison break scenario doesn't really offer much.

Of the times that my characters have been imprisoned… once, it allowed me to demonstrate how my dwarven beggar was much more acclimated to having nothing than his elven companions. And… that's it, for "reasons to go through this" that I can remember.

Far better, IMO, to TPK and bring new characters than to deal with such things.

[kyoryu]

Oh, no, that's not what I meant either.

I meant most players, OOC, resent an NPC who tells their character what to do, and their character likely also resents that NPC IC.

Eh, I see two different scenarios:

1) Players have an idea of what they want to do, and then an NPC orders them to descend into Avernus. A LOT of players will react strongly to this.
2) Players agree that they're going to run Descent Into Avernus, and then an NPC orders them to descend into Avernus. Some people may bristle just at being ordered, but a lot more players will shrug and go "okay, I guess that's the plot hook."

[Telok]

- The enemy must have enough reason to want a capture to actually fight the PCs for it. Most kinds of conflicts don't give that.
...
- The enemy must be known to not want to do anything really nasty.
...
The enemy must have blocked all pathes of escape.
...
In character, PCs know that prisoners hardly ever escape. Surrendering will bring whatever the enemy wants to do to you. Execution, slavery, mutilation, sacrifice, rape, torture, being eaten, whatever else. Depending only on what the enemy wants. Choosing surrender is choosing that. And you can't renege on your decision afterwards.

This is why I think the more modern game settings and genera like sci-fi or supers are easier to do this with. The players expect a more realistic level of treatment and rational action.

In the fantasy genera you mostly see the drow/ghouls/trolls/demon worshippers doing any and all of the nasty. Plus you mostly have murder-hobos, these "adventurers" with no homes, families, jobs, etc., that don't care if they slaughter a bunch of mook town guards because there won't be any real repercussions.

Historically imprisonment was bad, but it wasn't the totally inescapable horror-fest leading toinevitable execution that most fantasy goes with. Only in relatively modern times have most prisons become extremely hard to escape. For much of history prisons were mostly about the guards, prisoners inability to use money, and what the authorities did if you escaped. The actual unplesantness was generally directly inversely porportional to your social status and wealth. But most players don't know that stuff. The most famous stuff is the horror story ones, and that becomes the assumption for all fantasy imprisonment.

More modern settings have stuff like national, planetary, interstellar policing. There's an expectation of (usually) being taken alive and not too badly mistreated. Access to some resources and lawyers/advocates is assumed. Prisoner trasfers (always a good time to escape) are more common. Plus the modern systems tend to have "town guards" that are more than 2 hit die mooks with communications that aren't stopped by walking to the next town.

[Pex]

Wrote this in another thread when discussion briefly coincided with this topic.

It was a hard lesson for me to learn as DM not to autocapture the party. I had a particular adventure arc in my campaign where being arrested was necessary. It was to introduce an important to the plot NPC they needed to meet at the jail and have the party encounter the evil sect of a Church that has three - good, neutral, evil. Autocapture was done often in my 2E years as a player, so I thought it ok at the time. I ran this adventure in 2E and then 3E without much trouble from the players. The idea is when the players encounter 5 bad guys surrounding the party demanding surrender you're supposed to fight them. When it's 20 bad guys you surrender because it's only a plot device. However, the last time I ran it, in a Pathfinder game 10 years or so ago, a player got really upset. He was going to fight them all head on or just run away, far away from the city and the adventure.

This was a major pet peeve of his, refusing to accept the plot device. I let his character escape, and he reunited with the party when they were finally released from custody. At the time I thought he overreacted, but later I saw it - how bad it was for a player. It was the last vestige of 2E DMing I had that I thought was proper. I promised myself I would never run this adventure arc again. The party has to be arrested. I can't get it to work any other way to put the important pieces in place, so I scrapped it from my campaign.

[Kesnit]

I was in a game in which the DM told us we would all start in jail and that the campaign would begin with us escaping and going to work for (or returning to work for) an anti-slavery organization. She required that we build PCs that would fit in that setting.

I built a CG Saint Changling Cloistered Cleric/Warlock/Eldritch Disciple with VOP.

The first session turned us attempting to escape and her telling us none of our idea worked. (Magic doesn't work because there was an anti-magic field over the prison. The big strong melee types tried to beat up the guards and get keys. When that didn't work, they tried to punch through the walls. Now suddenly there was magic in the walls to keep them from doing it. So the casters tried to use touch spells (or my EB) on the walls, since there clearly was no anti-magic field there. The anti-magic field ended at the inner edge of the wall.) There was no second game.

If you want to start your party in prison, fine. But make sure you are aware of what the party can do and let them escape if they come up with a plan. Don't make them come up with YOUR plan...

[Darth Credence]

Wow, Kesnit, that's really, really bad. I've never experienced anything that bad, and I feel luckier all the time when I read these.

[Jay R]

Okay. fair enough. Let's stick to exactly what you said.



Whether or not the scenario would have been fun, the GM tried to accomplish it by forcing the party to become mind controlled and when the OP tried to find a way around it (and avoiding having your mind controlled seems very reasonable to me, both in and out of character) the GM couldn't handle it. Summarizing that situation with "He tried to create a game for you, and you stopped it" seems rather unfair to me.

The original poster's words were, "I had my character blind herself rather than be subject to his mind control, essentially ruining both his plot and my character, and thus the campaign came to quick end." [Emphasis added.] I am simply repeating that.

Not to put words into your mouth again ...

Then please stop doing so. Any judgment about that DM you come up with -- good, bad, or indifferent -- is entirely your own invention. Judging the DM was not germane to my points, and so I didn't do it.

... but by that logic any amount of railroading would be fine as long as it's with good intentions.

I was not discussing the DM. The DM didn't come here for advice.

And "He tried to create a game for you, and you stopped it" does not lead to "any amount of railroading would be fine". The first is a factual description of the action, and the second is a judgment about the DM. There is no logical connection between them.

I also wrote the following, discussing the same game:

If you didn't want to play that game of D&D, based on the knowledge you had at the time, then it would have been better to have simply said, "I don't want to play this scenario. I hope the rest of you have fun," and walked away from the game.

That is not saying that any amount of railroading would be fine. It's saying that any player can judge the DM's action as not acceptable at any time.

Also, in the same post, I wrote:

Players do not like encounters in which they are already going to lose, regardless of what they do. A scenario in which they are captured or imprisoned is an encounter in which the DM has already decided what will happen, regardless of their actions or the dice. For that reason, I tend to put the PCs in the position to start the campaign directly, instead of running a capture encounter to do it. DMs: Never use an encounter that could prevent your own scenario.

That's a straightforward argument against capture encounters, a statement that I don't use them, and explicit advice to DMs not to do it.

There is no fair or honest way to portray my words as supporting "Building an adventure that depend on railroading the PCs to get mind controlled and not being able to adapt to the reasonable reaction" or that I think it is "great GMing" or saying that "any amount of railroading would be fine as long as it's with good intentions".

I did not say those things. I did not imply those things. I did not think those things.

I did not judge the DM at all.

If you wish to discuss my post about DMs needing to work with players and players needing to work with DMs, I'd be happy to start that discussion with you.

But since I did not judge that DM, and since judging that DM is not necessary for my point about us working together, I will not continue (after this second attempt) in your sub-thread making up guesses about how I judged that DM. I didn't.

[icefractal]

Sure, there are groups where you would expect to be treated well as prisoner. But those groups would usually not take you prisoner for no good reason in the first place, especcially if the PCs are decent people. You could do that angle with "falsely accused of a crime" stories. But... i have seen a couple of those where the PCs surrendered and then refused to break out, trusting the justice system to do its job properly.

Yeah, I mean - if the reason you surrendered is not wanting to be a hunted outlaw, then breaking out kind of defeats the purpose.

I guess I could see it in a "you surrendered because you thought this was like a 1-2 year sentence, but then they toss you in for 30" scenario. Although you can really only do that once, because the next time the players are going to be justifiably skeptical about trusting the system.

Players btw, not characters. Like using backstory NPCs as mainly a source of suffering, this is something that tends to last beyond a character, often beyond a single GM! Why are your players all orphan murder-hobos who would rather die than consider surrendering? Because the GM before the GM before you ****ed it up. Don't be the one who ****s it up for some future GM.

[Pex]

Yeah, I mean - if the reason you surrendered is not wanting to be a hunted outlaw, then breaking out kind of defeats the purpose.

I guess I could see it in a "you surrendered because you thought this was like a 1-2 year sentence, but then they toss you in for 30" scenario. Although you can really only do that once, because the next time the players are going to be justifiably skeptical about trusting the system.

Players btw, not characters. Like using backstory NPCs as mainly a source of suffering, this is something that tends to last beyond a character, often beyond a single GM! Why are your players all orphan murder-hobos who would rather die than consider surrendering? Because the GM before the GM before you ****ed it up. Don't be the one who ****s it up for some future GM.

That is true. Players have to trust the DM. Once it's broken it's forever broken. PCs interrogate the captured orc then let him go. Orc comes back later with reinforcements attacking the party having informed them of the party's weaknesses. The players will forever more interrogate then kill every prisoner they acquire for every campaign everywhere. Attacking bandit runs away from battle but comes back with reinforcements who know the party's weaknesses. The players will always pursue every last bad guy they encounter. They will never let any escape. They will be hunted down in every campaign everywhere.

When the players play Good and show mercy, don't punish them for it. The freed prisoner or escaped bandit don't have to return as redeemed allies, unless you want to as DM. They can never be seen again. Just don't make the players regret their benevolence. There's a reason paladins have stopped arguing with rogues about killing the prisoner. Rogues won the argument by DM fiat.

[Tanarii]

In D&D? Because it sucks. It's a heavily equipment and personal magic dependent game. You take away one and you have to nerf the other with DM Fiat.

It only partially works if you start the game that way with full disclosure, and even then in most modern versions you need to heavily restrict class choice, artificially limit magic, or provide the standard equipment almost immediately.

Other games handle it better. Blades in the Dark actually makes it look occasionally not only necessary, but interesting.

[Pleh]

That is true. Players have to trust the DM. Once it's broken it's forever broken.

This actually depends on player disposition and exactly how flagrantly the trust was broken.

Trust can be rebuilt, too. Some cases may not, others may require OOC talk about it. But wasn't there a whole thread about how to get players to try risky actions? It's just another way of asking how to cultivate player trust.

You offer high risk with high reward and let them succeed. You make the risks worth doing, then reward them generously for taking the risks. Then you never "cash in" on their trust by using this system to blindside them later.

[Ignimortis]

So, my question is, why do so many DMs, especially new DMs, need to strong arm players into going along with their adventures?

Likewise, why are players so utterly afraid of allowing themselves to be captured and taken prisoner?

1) Plots that don't mesh with characters created by the players. Players that don't want to do the plot and instead want to do something else. Basically, a failure to communicate coupled with typical new GM mistakes.

2) Captured and taken prisoner? Let's just say that I have a hard time even running from a fight I have at least a 5% chance of winning. I am incredibly stubborn and averse to losing, and if running away counts as losing, then surrendering or being taken prisoner is double-losing, and that really grinds my gears. Mind control is a particular pet peeve - using it on my characters is a surefire way of ensuring the user won't live till the end of the game.

Loss of control is a terrible thing, and I have always striven to maintain control of my character as hard as I can - usually that manifests in high capabilities at resisting all kinds of coercion (and violent responses to said coercion). So my preferred way of getting out of a capture/prisoner situation would be "kill everyone trying to take me captive, with my bare hands if need be", and generally the systems allow me to do that, unless the GM breaks the rules to just force that situation to happen. I just might leave the game in that case, though.

This post is unusually aggressive by my standards, but that's how I feel about those things.

[Quertus]

The original poster's words were, "I had my character blind herself rather than be subject to his mind control, essentially ruining both his plot and my character, and thus the campaign came to quick end." [Emphasis added.] I am simply repeating that.

That is not saying that any amount of railroading would be fine. It's saying that any player can judge the DM's action as not acceptable at any time.

So, I know this is going to sound dumb (because blinding your character is such an extreme action), but... if someone trusts their GM, shouldn't they trust that their GM has created the scenario such that the game won't break if they do what it is in character for them to do?

Put another way, why should the player have to metagame what the GM intended to happen in a scene?

I did not judge the DM at all.

Maybe we should.

Or, more importantly, maybe the OP should sit down with the GM, and discuss gaming theory, with an emphasis on Railroading and Player Agency, and see if there is a style of game that they will both enjoy.

This actually depends on player disposition and exactly how flagrantly the trust was broken.

Trust can be rebuilt, too. Some cases may not, others may require OOC talk about it. But wasn't there a whole thread about how to get players to try risky actions? It's just another way of asking how to cultivate player trust.

You offer high risk with high reward and let them succeed. You make the risks worth doing, then reward them generously for taking the risks. Then you never "cash in" on their trust by using this system to blindside them later.

Eh, gotta quibble slightly here with the bolded bit. Getting players to take risky actions involves more than just building trust, *and* its trust-building exercise is just one type of trust building (rather than them being inherently identical statements). So, trust-building is ice cream; getting players to take risky actions is hot-fudge-topped-cookie-dough-ice-cream-over-brownies (no nuts).

[Pleh]

Eh, gotta quibble slightly here with the bolded bit. Getting players to take risky actions involves more than just building trust, *and* its trust-building exercise is just one type of trust building (rather than them being inherently identical statements). So, trust-building is ice cream; getting players to take risky actions is hot-fudge-topped-cookie-dough-ice-cream-over-brownies (no nuts).

I don't really follow what you're saying here beyond, "it's more than that."

More in what way?

[Quertus]

I don't really follow what you're saying here beyond, "it's more than that."

More in what way?

Sure. Dumb example: maybe I just don't like taking risky actions. All the trust in the world won't change that.

Maybe the safe answer is better. The Determinator won't take the risky action, no matter how much they trust the GM.

Maybe the side effects of the safe vs risky action make the safe action work better with the Chess Master's secret master plan. So they'll keep doing what actually works for what they want, regardless of how incentivized in the moment the risky plan is, regardless of how much they trust the GM.

Etc etc etc.

Trying to just sell ice cream as the solution to this "hot-fudge-topped-cookie-dough-ice-cream-over-brownies (no nuts)" problem works for those for whom ice cream is the only missing ingredient. But it's a bigger topic than the ice-cream-pushers would have you believe.

That's what I was trying to say.

[Tanarii]

So, I know this is going to sound dumb (because blinding your character is such an extreme action), but... if someone trusts their GM, shouldn't they trust that their GM has created the scenario such that the game won't break if they do what it is in character for them to do?

Put another way, why should the player have to metagame what the GM intended to happen in a scene?

What's that got to do with the price of milk?

According to the OP, in this specific case, the PC taking the action of blinding themself to avoid mind control explicitly ended the game. It did so in two ways:
- it ruined the DMs plot.
- it ruined the character.

Trusting the DM to not have the game break when taking in character actions either didn't enter into it, because things done while mind controlled aren't in character actions. Or that trust was broken, because blinding was in character, and the game then ended. (If the latter is your point, then I missed it all the way until I got the end of typing this. )

[Yora]

Other games handle it better. Blades in the Dark actually makes it look occasionally not only necessary, but interesting.

Modern D&D wants to eat its cake and have it too. It wants to keep all the elements from being a resource-focused dungeon crawling system while also being a story-centric game.
It's forcing a square peg into a round hole for over 30 years (though it got much worse since 3rd edition) and it's a miracle of brand recognition that it's still around.
Having the name of D&D on the cover, which makes it many people's first and only RPG, is probably the only reason why so many GMs and players never notice the huge pile of legacy baggage they are struggling with as being a nuisance that holds back fun.

[Tanarii]

Modern D&D wants to eat its cake and have it too. It wants to keep all the elements from being a resource-focused dungeon crawling system while also being a story-centric game.
It's forcing a square peg into a round hole for over 30 years (though it got much worse since 3rd edition) and it's a miracle of brand recognition that it's still around.

I blame 2e. As much as I absolutely adored them, the plethora or campaign settings and historical novels trying to 'showcase' D&D for everything. And that was definitely the time when roleplaying elitism approached its zenith (or nadir for everyone not an RP elitist). It's hardly surprising that the infamous GNS followed shortly thereafter.

[Jorren]

I blame 2e. As much as I absolutely adored them, the plethora or campaign settings and historical novels trying to 'showcase' D&D for everything. And that was definitely the time when roleplaying elitism approached its zenith (or nadir for everyone not an RP elitist). It's hardly surprising that the infamous GNS followed shortly thereafter.

Yet I still see players way too young to have ever played 2e still trying to use D&D for every type of game imaginable whether or not it is a good fit or not. I really think it goes far beyond that. I think it is a matter of the game simply being so ubiquitous that it doesn't even occur to many people to think about a different system. In other words, D&D is synonymous with rpg. It's like Kleenex.

[kingcheesepants]

If the DM couldn't figure out any method of advancing their plot without mind controlling the player, that sounds like a problem with the plot and or DM. Having someone else control your very thoughts and force you to take actions against your will is an invasion and destruction of self more insidious than just about anything else and I would not expect anyone to do anything less than their best to avoid it. Blinding yourself is extreme sure but if that's the only way at hand to avoid mind control it is absolutely justified. D&D has various ways of regenerating eyes or using other senses to fight and work effectively even when blind. Being blind is a challenge to be sure but not an insurmountable one.

As a DM I do use mind controlling enemies, but the players always have warning of what they're getting into beforehand (they meet mind controlled NPCs or have other hints that they're dealing with someone with mind control) and they can work to get things that might protect them from such effects and they always get at least a chance to make a saving throw. Even if they don't make their saves I still have the player control the characters actions. I tell the player you've been mind controlled and you're being ordered to kill the wizard (or what have you) and then they tell me what they do. I find that players can be very creative in interpreting their "master's" orders and following the letter of the order while walking all over the spirit of it, this allows for the use of mind control while still being a fun roleplaying opportunity for the player instead of just the DM telling the players what they do while they sit by helplessly.

I would also second the general consensus here, being taken prisoner is effectively giving up all player agency and giving yourself to an uncertain but presumably bad fate. Sure the DM probably isn't bothering to take you prisoner if he doesn't have some prison escape planned soon (and those can be fun) but why would anyone willingly put themselves under such subjugation? Unless there's something that I knew I needed to find/do in the prison I would do my best to avoid capture.

In actual games I've played, every being taken prisoner type event led to long boring periods of inactivity and powerlessness as I waited around for non captured players (or friendly NPCs) to come rescue me or frustrating periods of trial and error as I try to find the "right" way to escape (the way the DM thought of earlier). I don't take my one afternoon off in order to sit around waiting as my character sits chained up in a cell, I came to play as a powerful warrior or wizard or whatever who overcomes great challenges and saves the world. Waiting around in a cell as the DM tells me, the guards don't come when you yell for them, there are no weakpoints in the wall or bars, you cannot cast any spells, etc etc etc, well it's incredibly humiliating, frustrating and boring. And that is the reason why I as a player go to great lengths to avoid imprisonment.

Also as a player I talked to the DMs that I've had who did being taken prisoner type events and afterwards I explained my frustrations with those types of events and it led to a better experience overall where they have worked to be more flexible in giving options or saying yes to player ideas and trying to get players into the plot without removing agency. It's a lot more fun for everyone that way. Just talk to your DM and explain that you don't want to lose agency or sit around powerless for extended periods.

tl:dr player agency good, talk to your DM

[Pex]

In the past an unfortunate legitimate TPK could turn into the party prisoner scenario. When the players wanted to keep their characters, and the TPK was a result of absolutely bad luck or maybe the DM Honest True goofed on the difficulty, the campaign continues with the PCs captured instead of killed. The TPK is still its usual sore point, but the players buy in to keep the campaign going. I could accept this, though I know some people here would rather the TPK remain.

[Quertus]

What's that got to do with the price of milk?

According to the OP, in this specific case, the PC taking the action of blinding themself to avoid mind control explicitly ended the game. It did so in two ways:
- it ruined the DMs plot.
- it ruined the character.

Trusting the DM to not have the game break when taking in character actions either didn't enter into it, because things done while mind controlled aren't in character actions. Or that trust was broken, because blinding was in character, and the game then ended. (If the latter is your point, then I missed it all the way until I got the end of typing this. )

I think you got it at the end.

If we're going to talk about trust, why not trust that the GM has made a good game that can be played in character? Why not trust that, if the GM needs something to happen, that they will talk to the players like adults instead of requiring metagaming + spontaneous unsolicited Participationism (or Railroading)?

IME, most GMs are not worthy of such trust. Which is (part of) why I traditionally laugh when "trust" and "GM" are placed in the same sentence.

If we're talking of trust, then the GM broke that trust by creating a fragile game that could not be played in character (however extreme that "in character" might be in this case). Honestly, I'm one part really impressed that the OP thought to blind themselves to escape the sight-based mind control, and one part confused why they didn't just, like, close their eyes or something.

-----

Highly related to the main topic of the thread, "going along with the plot" (of being captured) requires knowing that (being captured) is "the plot". I, personally, very intentionally try not to metagame "the plot", so as not to, like, murder NPC #17 the moment we meet him, because, from a metagame perspective, it's obvious that they're the mole / the BBEG in disguise / have the plague / going to steal from us / insert whatever "intended problem" the GM wants to throw at us. Also, because the game is more fun for me the less I metagame.

Point is, the players can't "go along with" a prison break if they don't know that they're "supposed to" get captured in the first place. Them avoiding capture - even scoring a TPK in the process - just makes sense, both in character and/or from the metagame "this is what is fun for me", "everything is supposed to be CR-appropriate" / "the GM should custom tailor encounters to the party" / or even "this is an adventure for level X characters" perspective.

(Setting up) a "prison break" scene is a complete violation of all of those principles. It requires you to break all of those expectations. So, what can I say beyond of course it's one of the things most likely to encounter some resistance. It violates pretty much everything, from player agency, to trust, to CaS level-appropriate encounters.

[kyoryu]

I blame 2e. As much as I absolutely adored them, the plethora or campaign settings and historical novels trying to 'showcase' D&D for everything. And that was definitely the time when roleplaying elitism approached its zenith (or nadir for everyone not an RP elitist). It's hardly surprising that the infamous GNS followed shortly thereafter.

GNS really seems like a reaction to the railroads of the 90s more than anything else. If anything, it's probably focused more squarely at the White Wolf metaplots than anything else.

[Satinavian]

IME, most GMs are not worthy of such trust. Which is (part of) why I traditionally laugh when "trust" and "GM" are placed in the same sentence.

If we're talking of trust, then the GM broke that trust by creating a fragile game that could not be played in character (however extreme that "in character" might be in this case). Honestly, I'm one part really impressed that the OP thought to blind themselves to escape the sight-based mind control, and one part confused why they didn't just, like, close their eyes or something.

I don't know but i do trust all of my GMs. At the moment i am in 5 active groups, all with rotating GMs. And that works well, that trust is never broken.

GMs here do ask "I want to GM this module, but it is a bit railroady. I am trying to town it down, but there will be 2 scenes that basically just happen. Are you OK with that ?"

And if one of them wanted to run a prison break scenario he or she would likely ask as well.


Twenty years ago, there were way more ****ty GMs around. But imho the roleplaying community got older and learned from mistakes. Advice and best practices changed and bad GMs are likely to meet some veteran players giving them a hint rather sooner than later.



I can't even remember when "trust the GM" was last talked about in a real group. Even the last discussion about "PCs should take more risks" was all about risk preferrences of the player and eventually some houseruled metacurrency to mitigate risks.

[Mr Beer]

I have had several imprisonment games, they all went well IIRC.

I ran Scourge of the Slave Lords once, I think the PCs are supposed to be captured by DM fiat a total of 3 times during that one. I did it once, skipped the second and the third one I had the numbers to capture them but the PCs performed better than expected and I let the dice fall. I think 3 unavoidable captures is too many in one campaign unless it's a running gag.

[Tanarii]

GNS really seems like a reaction to the railroads of the 90s more than anything else. If anything, it's probably focused more squarely at the White Wolf metaplots than anything else.

Edwards classified those as "Simulationism" rather than "Narratavism", which tells you pretty much all you need to know about his theory. But yeah, you could be right on that.

One thing I've never been clear on is if the theory was what spawned (or solidified) the idea of narrative mechanics, which have even crept into (in a minor way) D&D at this point. It seems likely given Luke Crane's Burning Wheel.

Edit: which circles back around again to: some games can handle (or survive past) the PCs get taken prisoner much better than others. Or the PCs retreat. Or even the PCs die / mutilate themselves rather than be mind controlled.

[Duff]

If the players starts as prisoners, you don't have the issue of having to capture the PCs in game. It makes the module less suited for slotting into an ongoing campaign however.

To some extent any plot a GM runs requires cooperation from the players. The GM says "There's a dungeon over there". The players know that the game won't work if their characters go "Lets buy a bakery and make bread". The more your plot is scripted/planned and the more it's linear - requiring the characters to go from one scene to the next, the more you need the players to go along with you on this.

You can get player cooperation in a few ways:
Before you start the campaign, it's a good idea to give the players some idea of what to expect. "I want to run a D&D campaign which will start at 5th level with characters in the dreaded prison that Castle Ravenblack was turned into by the evil empire. The PCs have realised they're more skilled than most of the prisoners and have decided it's time to escape". And you're off to the races if you get players.
Or
"Hi guys, you've just made 5th level. The next adventure I want to run needs you all to be captured so you can escape and meet people you'll need later. I'm going to just narrate this bit, OK?" Maybe that's fine. Maybe the players object. Have the conversation, but if the players aren't willing to let you narrate their capture, it's better not to make that a needed point in your plot.
Or
Have an encounter which is at the high end of what the party can manage with enemies who have means and motive to take prisoners. Maybe slavers, maybe bounty hunters who need to bring them in for trial. Have your prison scene ready so that if it goes against them, instead of a TPK you have the prison break. Feel free as a few of them go down to reasure the players loosing isn't the end of the campaign.

Similar rules apply to mind control - If you want to take away the player's control of their character, keep it short or expect both player and character resistance unless you've gotten player agreement first

[icefractal]

I ran Scourge of the Slave Lords once, I think the PCs are supposed to be captured by DM fiat a total of 3 times during that one. I did it once, skipped the second and the third one I had the numbers to capture them but the PCs performed better than expected and I let the dice fall. I think 3 unavoidable captures is too many in one campaign unless it's a running gag.

I remember reading that. The last one seemed especially obnoxious to me because:
* It's completely by fiat, and also happens instead of the long awaited final confrontation that it looks like is going to happen.
* The module has a whole pep talk to the GM about how "players might not like being captured again by fiat, but if you don't do it then they're missing some really great roleplaying that will make the entire thing 200% better"
* That "really great roleplaying" was, AFAICT, the chance to stumble through a dungeon without any gear, again, something that the author apparently couldn't get enough of. Yeah, the titular Slavelords all come by to taunt/interrogate/question you, but IIRC there's little detail and the only thing of importance mentioned is that you were all part of this one guy's plot the whole time, which there were plenty of other ways to reveal.

It's always kind of weird when I see those modules listed as among the best of the best. Yes, they do have a lot of detail and some good descriptions, but no group I've been in would have found them enjoyable.