New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 374
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Virtual Austin

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    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.
    A product of their times, as much as anything else.

    Back in the early 1980's these were interesting scenarios that broke the standard "climb in dungeon and kill things" mould. The overarching plot and the interactions with the various NPCs was pretty novel.

    Just like early television vs. modern episodic storytelling - D&D adventure writing has come a long way in 40 years. "All in the Family" is still spoken about as a classic TV show. But I don't think many modern viewers would compare it favorably to a contemporary show like "Breaking Bad".

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Democratus View Post
    Just like early television vs. modern episodic storytelling - D&D adventure writing has come a long way in 40 years. "All in the Family" is still spoken about as a classic TV show. But I don't think many modern viewers would compare it favorably to a contemporary show like "Breaking Bad".
    I mean I was able to recognize it as terrible as a teen in the late 80s. But so we're pretty much all the 80s and 90s sit coms. There really wasn't anything like Breaking Bad, or GoT, or Rome, until The Sopranos.

    Conversely, roleplaying has long had outstanding modules that are Breaking Bad good. They're just few and far between. Keep on the Borderland and The Caverns of Thracia for example.

    There's no real progression to "modern" modules. More the opposite. The majority of modern modules are just as terrible if not more terrible than the typical below average older modules.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    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.
    Yeah the problem is it's completely by fiat as you say, and because it's the third time, and that's just super obnoxious for the most tolerant of players.

    I actually really enjoyed running the zero gear dungeon crawl in another, earlier campaign with a different group. Before the 4 modules were collected and given an overarching plot, it was the only planned PC capture. It was fun and different. But I couldn't bring myself to capture the party by DM fiat again - a couple of the players were getting antsy first time around - so I just didn't run it when they won the fight.

    I wouldn't call the zero gear thing "really great roleplaying" though, just something a bit different.
    Last edited by Mr Beer; 2020-10-06 at 03:25 AM.
    Re: 100 Things to Beware of that Every DM Should Know

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    93. No matter what the character sheet say, there are only 3 PC alignments: Lawful Snotty, Neutral Greedy, and Chaotic Backstabbing.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Mid-Rohan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Beer View Post
    I wouldn't call the zero gear thing "really great roleplaying" though, just something a bit different.
    I want to take this thought further.

    Many games make use of the trope of getting captured and losing your stuff, having to break free to get it back.

    This is a fine model for changing the pace of a game. It will force players to improvise now that you have changed their playbook temporarily.

    There's a reason video games, if they use the trope at all, usually do so around the halfway/two thirds mark. The player has gotten familiar with the core loop and primary tools and the only advancement of the game is adding additional layers to the core loop. This runs a risk of jumping the shark near the end game, so it can be worthwhile around the midpoint to make the player reflect on how they started and how much they appreciate their tools, so they aren't taking them for granted.

    It's heavy handed, but a good GM can make it feel less so (particularly by making sure this phase doesn't last very long).

    My point being there really isn't any need to do this more than once in a campaign.

    "It makes the players improvise." Sure, but once they establish a successful strategy for what to do with this scenario, you get diminishing returns fast. The more you put them in this scenario, the less time the get to play with their toys, and the more likely they are just grinding through the prison break with the same tactics trying to get back to what they actually wanted to play. This is where GMs need to resist the temptation to raise the stakes by countering their "unarmed" prison break strategies. You are prolonging a part of the game the players wanted to avoid to begin with. They'll have more fun if you let them get their stuff back sooner. You're in danger of power tripping and taking away their agency so you can put your players into a rat maze for your own amusement.

    So wield the prison encounter sparingly, unless your players actually wanted to play a scoundrel's campaign where running in and out of prisons is half the fun.
    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    Some play RPG's like chess, some like charades.

    Everyone has their own jam.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    There's no real progression to "modern" modules. More the opposite. The majority of modern modules are just as terrible if not more terrible than the typical below average older modules.
    That's part of the reason why OSR became a thing. In the larger world, it's part of the reason why there was something of a retro game boom in the field of videogames: people realized that games hadn't really improved as games and some old design schemas weren't actually obsolete, they'd just fallen out of use.

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2016

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    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.
    A good way to do it is the concession mechanic found in games like Fate : If they think they're losing the fight, players can offer a concession, i.e. "losing on their own terms", like "They'll capture Oswin and me, but Gunthar will be left for dead. Deal?" Since the player and GM have to agree with the concession, and concession is chosen by the losing party, it always has player buy-in. And if retreating/being captured/having one of them fall in the river so that the others have to rescue him is not something they want to do, then they can always fight to the bitter end. Their decision.

    There is also the "setting the stakes" in other games like Burning Wheel or Heroquest : At the start of the fight, both sides agree about what will happen to the losing party ("If you lose, the Princess and one of you will be captured, and the others will have to fall back and regroup. If you win, you kill most of the kidnappers, and manage to capture one alive for interrogation. Okay?")

    Even in D&D, it's pretty easy to put a house-rule saying "0 HP means you're out of the fight, but it can be a capture if you agree"

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Kardwill View Post
    A good way to do it is the concession mechanic found in games like Fate : If they think they're losing the fight, players can offer a concession, i.e. "losing on their own terms", like "They'll capture Oswin and me, but Gunthar will be left for dead. Deal?" Since the player and GM have to agree with the concession, and concession is chosen by the losing party, it always has player buy-in. And if retreating/being captured/having one of them fall in the river so that the others have to rescue him is not something they want to do, then they can always fight to the bitter end. Their decision.

    There is also the "setting the stakes" in other games like Burning Wheel or Heroquest : At the start of the fight, both sides agree about what will happen to the losing party ("If you lose, the Princess and one of you will be captured, and the others will have to fall back and regroup. If you win, you kill most of the kidnappers, and manage to capture one alive for interrogation. Okay?")

    Even in D&D, it's pretty easy to put a house-rule saying "0 HP means you're out of the fight, but it can be a capture if you agree"
    My character's last words in the last D&D game I played (4E) was "PARLEY!!"
    Sadly, the foe who was beating the snot out of us was deafened early in the fight...
    I love playing in a party with a couple of power-gamers, it frees me up to be Elan!


  8. - Top - End - #68
    Orc in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    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?

    Is there any right way to run a jailbreak / slave revolt scenario?
    Players control one thing in the game - their characters. And most of what they do doesn't have an assurance of even working. If they attack, they have to roll to hit and at lower levels will miss MOST of the time. If they parley and attempt diplomacy they must still roll checks against relevant skills or attributes and opportunities to take that kind of approach to solving challenges don't always come up or aren't always practical. The DM controls ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING ELSE. The DM has as many opponents for the PC's as he/she desires, regardless of whether the PC's defeat them or not. The opponents for the PC's don't always even need to be numerous - they can just be overpowered individually. The DM's monsters and NPC's are going to lose A LOT. Players can kill all they want, the DM has more. If the dice are going against the DM, meh. Just means the PC's have an easier game session. But if dice are going against the PC's, their ONE character apiece is ON THE LINE. On top of failing to succeed at the things they choose to try there is magic and circumstances to deny them even the choice to attempt it. There are holds, charms, and all manner of things which can inhibit what the players might have their characters ATTEMPT to do.

    And into this mix we have a DM whose ENTIRE SCENARIO is to deny the players the little bit of agency they have. It will matter not a whit what they attempt to do - the ultimate outcome of any events has been predestined by the DM and that outcome is that the player characters FAIL. THEY WILL NOT SUCCEED. Whatever they do THEY WILL BE IMPRISONED. For characters in a novel that's interesting and even exciting. In an RPG that's F'D UP as far as any player is concerned. Basically you've turned all the players into spectators while the DM forces them to watch their characters dance to the puppeteers tune without even the courtesy of expected levels of magic to make it so.

    Now for new DM's it's not at all surprising that they should not KNOW this is a bad thing to do to players. New DM's have a LOT to handle and if anything it seems especially attractive to them to ensure that the PC's are firmly under control and dancing the appropriate dance. They don't understand yet that their job as DM is they get to puppeteer everything EXCEPT the player characters. The PC's might choose to dance a DIFFERENT dance - because the entire game revolves around giving the players permission to choose their own dance (or even to choose not dancing at all). If the DM is going to CONTROL the player characters they have to be VERY careful about how and WHY they do that. Preventing the PC's from choosing their own actions or suspending normal outcomes of those actions is nothing less than saying, "You don't get to play." There are of course spells and abilities and such which accomplish those ends, but then you HAVE to give players the normal and expected chances of reducing or counteracting those effects. And the DM can simply ensure that there are SO MANY such spells and effects that even with all the saves and immunities and magical counteractions that a PC might have they will always be overwhelmed. That's the same thing as just saying, "I don't care what you do - IT FAILS. You don't get to play." The DM HAS to let the players still do what it was they are there to do - to play their characters rather than just watch helplessly as the DM does what he/she wants with them.

    This is something the DMG's of various editions haven't ever brought up. It's a lesson you have to learn from other sources. Even DM's who've been playing a while may not have heard this advice and will blunder into it and have to learn it the hard way - by being burned. They're VERY rarely TRYING to be jerks - they simply haven't learned this yet. They don't yet fully grasp what it means to FORCE an outcome onto players rendering their very participation moot.

    New players, on some level, tend to grasp this concept much sooner than new DM's. They feel the DIRECT effect of controls, charms, etc upon their characters - they lose the ability to participate through the ONLY means the game permits them to interact... which is their character. When faced then with a DM who is bound and determined that all the PC's will end up imprisoned come hell or high water, players will fight savagely and even IRRATIONALLY in an attempt to maintain even a MINIMAL degree of control of their characters - and thus at least a MINIMAL means of continued interactive participation. The DM in such cases lack the perspective of the player and doesn't understand that the player is only reacting naturally to having their participation completely shut down. The players in turn lack the perspective of the DM who rarely if ever thinks of this as a permanent state, but merely a temporary setback intended to create an unusual and supposedly fun/interesting adventure start. They don't TRUST the DM enough yet to simply GIVE UP all their agency even for a short while - but they can actually use what little agency the DM can't take away to simply bring the entire game to a screeching halt - even (as the OP indicates) sacrificing their PC's altogether in defiance of the DM's attempt to take away the last bit of control the players have over the fate of their characters. They'd sometimes rather the PC be DEAD than just a helpless puppet forced to dance for the DM.

    IS there a right way to run a jailbreak or slave revolt scenario? Yes. Start by NOT forcing all the PC's into captivity. Such scenarios have a LOT more possibilities anyway if there are characters both on the inside and the outside. Next, ASSUME that the PC's are RAPIDLY going to succeed at breaking out. Understand also that some characters are going to have a VASTLY tougher time of it than others when stripped of their possessions. If the DM intends that this captivity actually last a while then don't just AMBUSH the players with it - get them on board with the idea ahead of time. And if they aren't willing to go along DON'T FORCE IT... find something else to do. COMMUNICATE with the players. Recognize that if the players have spent a bunch of levels working hard to get to a certain level of capability they're going to want to enjoy the fruits of that. They aren't likely to be excited to suddenly lose their gear and abilities because of captivity. They have every reason and right to not want to take giant steps backward at ANY point.
    Last edited by D+1; 2020-10-07 at 07:17 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by D+1 View Post
    Snip.
    I agree with what you are saying, but most of it, IMO, comes down to railroading rather than being specifically about capture.

    Also, the idea that a PC would rather die than being taken captive is, IMO, poor both poor RPing and poor sportsmanship, and comes across as childishly cutting off your nose to spite your face. The vast majority of people IRL surrender when they realize they are in over their head, and I don't see why it would be any different in a fantasy world, and out of character it basically boils down to taking your ball and going home because you don't like how the game is going.

    Now, these can come at cross purposes, for example I get rather into character, and in the story in my OP I mentioned blinding myself to avoid mind control and ruining the game. Now, in that case I was "only playing my character," and I felt that, given the situation, she would, almost literally, cut off her nose to spite her face, but it still wrecks the game OOC.


    Honestly, I think it is less an issue of railroading or control than one of pride. For example, if I were to start a session with the players having been given the quest to slay a dragon by the king, or finding an old treasure map to a lost dungeon, few players would have a problem with engaging with the premise of the adventure, on the other hand if you started with them having been captured and managing a jailbreak or leading a slave revolt, players would lose their minds because, I really think, it hurts their ego and makes their characters look week or subservient, and I don't think that is a reasonable response.

    On the other hand, I don't think it should be used constantly, or if it is inappropriate for the character. Starting a jailbreak scenario with an honorbound samurai who has taken an aoth to never suffer defeat having surrendered is roughly as jarring as telling the amoral assassin that he has decided to take part in a holy crusade to help the church liberate the land from an evil lich with no promise of reward.


    Quote Originally Posted by D+1 View Post
    They have every reason and right to not want to take giant steps backward at ANY point.
    I can't agree with this.

    Now, I honestly don't know how literally you meant this, but you used a lot of extreme and absolute language.

    Taken at face value, this means that you also can't run any low-key or undercover scenario, or one where you are trying to hold back for whatever reason. Taken further, it means no adventures in strange environments that impede the PCs abilities such as many planes, dead magic zones, or underwater, and even places where the players aren't allowed to walk around armed and armored. It also might mean you can't use enemies who have resistances or immunities to the players main forms of attacks, or those who inflict long lasting status conditions. It means you can't steal or destroy the PCs gear over the course of play, or allow them to take permanent injuries. And, worst of all, it means you can't have setbacks which stem from a soft loss condition, making the game a binary of victory or death.

    Again, I don't know how seriously you meant this versus using absolute statements for effect, but this really ties the DMs hands, and creates a game that is, imo, very safe, bland, and lacking in creativity and mechanical diversity. This is the same line of thought that lead to the 4E eras much maligned "player entitlement" philosophy where the game boils down to a bunch of same-y encounters that have no long term repercussions and are thus utterly meaningless in the long run.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    the idea that a PC would rather die than being taken captive is, IMO, poor both poor RPing and poor sportsmanship, and comes across as childishly cutting off your nose to spite your face.
    Not at all! This is the epitome of being a team player… at least, if you ask the Determinator. See, it is much easier for the rest of the party to resurrect them than to rescue them. Certainly it requires less precious game time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    The vast majority of people IRL surrender when they realize they are in over their head, and I don't see why it would be any different in a fantasy world, and out of character it basically boils down to taking your ball and going home because you don't like how the game is going.
    In CaS, with the assumption of balanced encounters, one should never surrender.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Now, these can come at cross purposes, for example I get rather into character, and in the story in my OP I mentioned blinding myself to avoid mind control and ruining the game. Now, in that case I was "only playing my character," and I felt that, given the situation, she would, almost literally, cut off her nose to spite her face, but it still wrecks the game OOC.
    The GM should not create a game so fragile as to be so easily wrecked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Honestly, I think it is less an issue of railroading or control than one of pride. For example, if I were to start a session with the players having been given the quest to slay a dragon by the king, or finding an old treasure map to a lost dungeon, few players would have a problem with engaging with the premise of the adventure, on the other hand if you started with them having been captured and managing a jailbreak or leading a slave revolt, players would lose their minds because, I really think, it hurts their ego and makes their characters look week or subservient, and I don't think that is a reasonable response.
    I have mixed feelings about this. But mostly really bad ones.

    If that's your players' motivation, find better players.

    If the king wants to entrust a "slay the Dragon" quest to Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, well, it's not unlike the GM who wanted to entrust the "slay the good and rightful king" quest to the Paladin. But it is technically within their power to make that claim (and it informs us just how silly the king/GM is, and how poorly things are going to work out for them). OTOH, the claim that a group of 0-level goblins captured Quertus is fairly laughable. When you look at that last statement, you might begin to think, "OK, what *would* it take" or "*why* would that be laughable". From there, it's not a huge leap to realizing that prescripted incarceration takes away from the players' Agency to have their characters' statistics and tactics and choices matter.

    Armus, however, was introduced (at 1st level) to the then 7th level party as a prisoner that they "rescued" (really, Armus rescued them, but that's a long story). It worked well (sort of), although most of the party treated Armus like garbage for quite some time. Despite the huge cast of characters that kept being introduced - many as prisoners - I cannot answer to what extent to blame Armus' poor treatment on the PCs, the GM, the level difference, the prisoner status, the "7 levels of fellowship" the party had, or some other components.

    However, that's "starting a game". "Starting a session" in the middle of an existing campaign is a completely different beast. That's "the GM played our characters" territory - and there's a rhyme about just how terrible that is. Don't do that. No, not even to accept a job from the king. Feel free to *ask* the players if that makes sense for their characters, and if you can just time skip past that setup to the "this has happened", though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Taken at face value, this means that you also can't run any low-key or undercover scenario, or one where you are trying to hold back for whatever reason. Taken further, it means no adventures in strange environments that impede the PCs abilities such as many planes, dead magic zones, or underwater, and even places where the players aren't allowed to walk around armed and armored. It also might mean you can't use enemies who have resistances or immunities to the players main forms of attacks, or those who inflict long lasting status conditions. It means you can't steal or destroy the PCs gear over the course of play, or allow them to take permanent injuries. And, worst of all, it means you can't have setbacks which stem from a soft loss condition, making the game a binary of victory or death.

    Again, I don't know how seriously you meant this versus using absolute statements for effect, but this really ties the DMs hands, and creates a game that is, imo, very safe, bland, and lacking in creativity and mechanical diversity. This is the same line of thought that lead to the 4E eras much maligned "player entitlement" philosophy where the game boils down to a bunch of same-y encounters that have no long term repercussions and are thus utterly meaningless in the long run.
    I'm not sure how seriously you meant that, but… most of what you said "the GM can't do" is bad, and they shouldn't do those things anyway (at least, not without *way* more skill than the average poster), and not having those (bad) things does not in any way make games samey or boring. It's like you're saying that food is so bland without toxic waste. Really, that hasn't been my experience.
    Last edited by Quertus; 2020-10-12 at 05:59 PM.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Keep in mind that in some games, it's fairly easy to knock out Creatures.

    5e is a good example. All you have to do is have the last hit that's reduces a be a melee attack, and they get knocked unconscious. In other words, capturing them PCs is often a viable alternative to a TPK. Now this is 5e, so if you're tailoring encounters the PCs are extremely unlikely to face a TPK. But if you're running any kind of sandbox, it's definitely possible.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Not at all! This is the epitome of being a team player… at least, if you ask the Determinator. See, it is much easier for the rest of the party to resurrect them than to rescue them. Certainly it requires less precious game time.
    That assumes that you are in a high magic / high level adventure, can access the body, and that it is only one person being captured.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    In CaS, with the assumption of balanced encounters, one should never surrender.
    Why is that? Poor dice rolls or poor tactics can easily get PCs in over their heads in an otherwise balanced encounter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    If that's your players' motivation, find better players.

    If the king wants to entrust a "slay the Dragon" quest to Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, well, it's not unlike the GM who wanted to entrust the "slay the good and rightful king" quest to the Paladin. But it is technically within their power to make that claim (and it informs us just how silly the king/GM is, and how poorly things are going to work out for them). OTOH, the claim that a group of 0-level goblins captured Quertus is fairly laughable. When you look at that last statement, you might begin to think, "OK, what *would* it take" or "*why* would that be laughable". From there, it's not a huge leap to realizing that prescripted incarceration takes away from the players' Agency to have their characters' statistics and tactics and choices matter.

    Armus, however, was introduced (at 1st level) to the then 7th level party as a prisoner that they "rescued" (really, Armus rescued them, but that's a long story). It worked well (sort of), although most of the party treated Armus like garbage for quite some time. Despite the huge cast of characters that kept being introduced - many as prisoners - I cannot answer to what extent to blame Armus' poor treatment on the PCs, the GM, the level difference, the prisoner status, the "7 levels of fellowship" the party had, or some other components.

    However, that's "starting a game". "Starting a session" in the middle of an existing campaign is a completely different beast. That's "the GM played our characters" territory - and there's a rhyme about just how terrible that is. Don't do that. No, not even to accept a job from the king. Feel free to *ask* the players if that makes sense for their characters, and if you can just time skip past that setup to the "this has happened", though.
    Narrating downtime is a tricky beast. It is a tough line to walk between taking away player agency and boring them with tedium.

    I remember one time, as the players where traveling to a dungeon, I gave the following narrations "As you are making your way down into the ruins, you have to, at one point, climb the ruined wall of an ancient palace. As you do so, (party wizard's) loses his grip and falls, but then the mysterious ring he picked up in the last dungeon glows brightly and he finds himself floating gently to the ground."

    Now, I thought it was just a fluffy way to let the player know he had found a ring of feather fall without having to burn an identify spell, but the player was furious that I assumed he would fail a climb check without letting him roll a dice, and the resulting argument was one of the more heated ones in my gaming history.

    So yeah, delicate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    I'm not sure how seriously you meant that, but… most of what you said "the GM can't do" is bad, and they shouldn't do those things anyway (at least, not without *way* more skill than the average poster), and not having those (bad) things does not in any way make games samey or boring. It's like you're saying that food is so bland without toxic waste. Really, that hasn't been my experience.
    What part are you specifically referring to?

    A random assortment of monsters from the monster manual will produce several enemies that have resistances or immunities to common attacks, inflict long term status ailments, or have the ability to damage or destroy equipment.

    Likewise, I have had tons of adventures, both as a PC and an DM, that involved being undercover and not attracting attention to themselves, traveling to a region with unusual conditions, or where an adventure breaks out at a party or other affair where the PCs won't have all their gear with them, and I have never heard anyone complain about it. What exactly is the problem here?
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    zinycor's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2013

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    I am of the firm belief that on RPGs you can do absolutely anything.... as long as you have consent and buy in from the table.

    You can absolutely run a game where the PCs act under mind control of a villain, as long as you convince the players that this will be cool. Otherwise... yeah... It will be a hard that players just accept that.
    Last son of the Lu-Ching dynasty

    thog is the champion, thog's friends! and thog keeps on fighting to the end!

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    That assumes that you are in a high magic / high level adventure, can access the body, and that it is only one person being captured.
    While my response was largely predicated on 3e (darn Playgrounder fallacy), there are many considerations here.

    In 3e, this would be True Resurrection, which does not require a body. Clocking in at around 6k, it is theoretically individually within reach at 5th, let alone what you can do by pooling party funds. So not really a "high level" thing. High magic, yes.

    Access to the body is not required for True Resurrection. But if you wanted to go the cheapskate route and deal with different PCs being at different levels… most foes who would *take prisoners* would leave a body behind (unlike oozes, animals/dinosaurs, etc). Same thing regarding the disposition of the body probably holds true in most other systems, should their resurrection methods require a body.

    Lastly, the more people who would be captured, the more important it is to die instead, so as not to inconvenience your teammates. Imagine being the last man standing, tasked with rescuing the entire rest of the party! You'd best have some *incredible* stealth and a dozen handy barrels if you want *that* story to ring true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Why is that? Poor dice rolls or poor tactics can easily get PCs in over their heads in an otherwise balanced encounter.
    Touché. I meant more "shouldn't be prepared to" than "shouldn't" - you should have seen the looks on the CaS group's faces when, upon being introduced to the monster, my character ran away!

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Narrating downtime is a tricky beast. It is a tough line to walk between taking away player agency and boring them with tedium.

    I remember one time, as the players where traveling to a dungeon, I gave the following narrations "As you are making your way down into the ruins, you have to, at one point, climb the ruined wall of an ancient palace. As you do so, (party wizard's) loses his grip and falls, but then the mysterious ring he picked up in the last dungeon glows brightly and he finds himself floating gently to the ground."

    Now, I thought it was just a fluffy way to let the player know he had found a ring of feather fall without having to burn an identify spell, but the player was furious that I assumed he would fail a climb check without letting him roll a dice, and the resulting argument was one of the more heated ones in my gaming history.

    So yeah, delicate.
    well OK then.

    Much like the conversation below, I think that the *safe* place to start is "don't take any actions for the PCs". The Wizard might have been all about Spider Climb, or rope harnesses, or sleds, making this an unreasonable thing for their character to do. Then there's the principle of the thing, having the character fail a roll without even rolling.

    However, from the way you worded it, it sounds like they were probably most upset that you chose to railroad information to them by making him look incompetent. Just choosing to have them fail whenever you want, because that's the story you want to tell, seems a principle worth defending.

    Still not sure why it would be such a heated argument, unless the other players teased him about it or something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    What part are you specifically referring to?

    A random assortment of monsters from the monster manual will produce several enemies that have resistances or immunities to common attacks, inflict long term status ailments, or have the ability to damage or destroy equipment.

    Likewise, I have had tons of adventures, both as a PC and an DM, that involved being undercover and not attracting attention to themselves, traveling to a region with unusual conditions, or where an adventure breaks out at a party or other affair where the PCs won't have all their gear with them, and I have never heard anyone complain about it. What exactly is the problem here?
    Well, it's complicated. And it's like recursion: to understand recursion, first, you must understand recursion. More directly, it's much easier for you to see it than for me to explain it.

    So, don't think about doing things right. Think about all the internet horror stories you've read (and lived through!).

    If you try to categorize all the things that the GMs did wrong in those stories, I think you'll see that a lot of the things on your list are present on the list of "GM horror story errors".

    Can they be done right? Sure. But they're actions that should carry warning labels - probably the ilk, "do not attempt without player buy-in" and/or "until xyz statement/conversation makes sense to you, *don't do this*".

    Thus, I think that "best practices" is for most of those things to default to "off limits" for the GM, until they level up their skills and/or their group.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Tawmis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2004

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Know your players.

    Let me start by saying I homebrew DM 99% of the time - but when 5th Edition first came out, I picked up Horde of the Dragon Queen and had players that were pretty much, fairly new to D&D in general. When I read Horde of the Dragon Queen I actually really enjoyed the story - and thought, this would be a great module to run them through. Because I got blinded by how cool I thought the story was. It became apparent, very quickly - in worrying only about the potential story - I lost sight of my players typical tactics. Horde requires a lot of stealth, pretending to be cultists, etc., - that was not my group. They were the kick down the door and ask questions later. So when they got to the flying castle, through sheer luck, and me being easy on them - they'd roused several cultists suspicions because of how they were acting, questions they were asking, etc., and soon began killing cultists. I realized, if I were to play this true, they would have been caught - because there's nowhere to run on a flying castle. So it's a great story, but not a great adventure for the party I was DMing for.

    I am in two separate sessions of Out of the Abyss as a player, and both DM's informed me, I'd be starting off as a prisoner, and the first part would be breaking out. Yes, it was slow, though both DMs were VERY different in their approach - but eventually the jail break happened. So knowing up front, it was a "You're a prisoner" scenario helped set my expectations.
    Need a character origin written? Enjoyed what I wrote? How can you help me? Not required, but appreciated! <3

    Check out my 5e The Secret of Havenfall Manor or my character back stories over at DMsGuild.com! (If you check it out - please rate, comment, and tell others!)

    Subscribe to my D&D Channel on Youtube! (Come by and Sub)

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    zinycor's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2013

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    So, one thing to keep in mind. Being mind controlled or taken prisoner are usually long term fail-states. Meaning that once you are under these conditions you have play that, maybe for multiple sessions. That can be a lot to ask for some players.


    When we compare that to death... well, if your character dies you get to play anothr character, that might be a better solution.
    Last son of the Lu-Ching dynasty

    thog is the champion, thog's friends! and thog keeps on fighting to the end!

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Orc in the Playground
     
    ElfWarriorGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2013

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    D&D is absolutely the wrong system to be playing the 'you get captured, and have to breakout of capitivity' game with, with the possible exception of using this as a starting point of a campaign. As others have pointed out, imprisoning martial classes means taking all their stuff off them, and they need that stuff to (at least try to) keep up with the magic-using classes in the party. Meanwhile, the clerics and sorcerors just need to get in a good night's sleep and then they can nova their way out, unless doing so is prevented in some way (which completely removes any agency they have). To be honest, anyone capturing a magic-using individual in a standard D&D setting would be foolish not to kill them out of hand, or at least render them incapable of casting in some drastic way- and no one wants that for their character.
    The start of campaign exception at least has the rationale that the evil Sheriff's men mistook you for commoners rather than nascent level 1 adventurers, you didn't have any stuff to lose, and presumably when you overpower the guards and escape you'll end up with an expected level of starting equipment (ooh look, a choice of leather armour, chain shirts and breastplate, and an assortment of basic and martial weapons! And a chest containing 5d4*10 gold per PC, too!

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Virtual Austin

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    I think it depends heavily on the version of D&D and the kind of campaign you are playing.

    A strongly narrative campaign will do just fine with PCs in captivity. You explore the conditions of your imprisonment, discover others in the same situation with you, begin to try and put together a plan for escape - it's all very fun for a group that is fine with several sessions of RP without smashing something.

    Even so, he last long-term capture D&D game I was in had the party getting in brawls with other prisoners who were bullies.This let the martial characters shine.

    The few spells that could be cast with no material components compelled the spellcasters to be creative - and to hide what they were doing from others lest some guard or snitch get them in serious trouble.

    We spent maybe 4 months (real time) in captivity putting together a coalition of fellow prisoners and a plan for escape. The payoff was fantastic, one of those sessions you talk about for years.
    Last edited by Democratus; 2020-10-16 at 01:37 PM.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Democratus View Post
    The few spells that could be cast with no material components compelled the spellcasters to be creative - We spent maybe 4 months (real time) in captivity
    Which casters? Wizards still need their spellbook to memorize new spells; Clerics need holy symbols. Have either of those in the party, and they'll be unable to participate.

    For four months.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    zinycor's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2013

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Which casters? Clerics need holy symbols.
    Unless the spell doesn't require material component or you have the specific material component at hand.
    Last son of the Lu-Ching dynasty

    thog is the champion, thog's friends! and thog keeps on fighting to the end!

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightcanon View Post
    To be honest, anyone capturing a magic-using individual in a standard D&D setting would be foolish not to kill them out of hand, or at least render them incapable of casting in some drastic way- and no one wants that for their character.
    This one's not actually that hard - to achieve the equivalent of taking away weapons, at least.

    Mittens. Rigid mittens where the four fingers have to bend simultaneously (as you usually would in mittens, but enforced) and don't have freedom to wiggle sideways. Not that uncomfortable, and while it makes the prisoners clumsy it's not as bad as being manacled.

    Now yes, there are spells without somatic components, but there are also people with improved unarmed strike and Stone Dragon maneuvers who can smash their way through the cell bars bare-handed. A "normal" prison is set up to hold prisoners who are mostly low-level and normal-ish people.

    If you do want to hold high-threat people, the best way is for them to be asleep or in stasis. Maybe a custom version of Sepia Snake Sigil where they still dream, and some kind of dream-magic if you want to talk to them while they're there. Or if you just want them out of commission, Sequester has you covered.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2020-10-16 at 06:09 PM.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Which casters? Wizards still need their spellbook to memorize new spells; Clerics need holy symbols. Have either of those in the party, and they'll be unable to participate.
    Not in 5e. Lots of cantrips, spells that can be cast all day long and do damage on par with weapons, do not require a focus or Material components.

    Of course, once you point out that most of them can't target objects at least "I acid splash the lock until it breaks" isn't a thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    Mittens. Rigid mittens where the four fingers have to bend simultaneously (as you usually would in mittens, but enforced) and don't have freedom to wiggle sideways. Not that uncomfortable, and while it makes the prisoners clumsy it's not as bad as being manacled.
    You'd need a DM ruling that this means it doesn't constitute a "free hand" in 5e.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    You'd need a DM ruling that this means it doesn't constitute a "free hand" in 5e.
    True, I'm talking 3E; it's always going to vary by edition though. In 4E, for example, hardness isn't a thing, so any normal wall can be broken through in a few minutes of work.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2020-10-16 at 11:59 PM.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    True, I'm talking 3E; it's always going to vary by edition though. In 4E, for example, hardness isn't a thing, so any normal wall can be broken through in a few minutes of work.
    Definitely. My first quote was in response to a response to Democratus, who had started off his point with it varying by edition, only to have it countered with a edition specific assumption.

    It's a lot simpler in a game where having manacles on (or some superior equivalent) is sufficient to stop spellcasting as well as fighting. Or at least severely impede it.

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Definitely. My first quote was in response to a response to Democratus, who had started off his point with it varying by edition, only to have it countered with a edition specific assumption.

    It's a lot simpler in a game where having manacles on (or some superior equivalent) is sufficient to stop spellcasting as well as fighting. Or at least severely impede it.
    Psionics

    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Democratus View Post
    I think it depends heavily on the version of D&D
    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Which casters? Wizards still need their spellbook to memorize new spells; Clerics need holy symbols. Have either of those in the party, and they'll be unable to participate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Not in 5e. Lots of cantrips, spells that can be cast all day long and do damage on par with weapons, do not require a focus or Material components.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Definitely. My first quote was in response to a response to Democratus, who had started off his point with it varying by edition, only to have it countered with a edition specific assumption.
    Well. I guess they changed more in 5e than I was aware of.

    (technically not an "edition-specific assumption", as *every* edition my senile mind is still familiar with works that way, but point taken)

    Also, I misread, and thought that those comments were connected to the "play style" condition, not the "edition" part of the statement.

    On the plus side, I learned something today.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    So I had a talk about this with one of my players, and he thinks it isn't about control or about ego, but about paranoia.

    Players seem legitimately convinced that killer DMs lurk around every corner, and he said that he always views an offer to surrender as a "trick", and that he expects the enemy to simply disarm and then execute his PC without a fight, so he will never surrender.

    To me, this blows my mind.

    OOC, the DM doesn't want to end the game or kill your characters, and they are going to provide you with an out, likely some form of adventure hook.

    In character, someone who executes captures foes will quickly earn a reputation which puts them in danger, their own men won't be shown mercy when captured, and enemies will fight to the death, potentially taking you or your men out with them in a blaze of glory.

    Second, taking captives is practical.

    I looked it, and historically it appears that in the ancient world most prisoners were made slaves, in the middle ages they were sold for ransom, and in the modern world they were exchanged for prisoners on the other side once the war was over. All of which are practical reasons not to kill a prisoner.


    The exceptions are rare, but some cultures don't take prisoners (and are well known for it), or the process of taking prisoners breaks down in the face of a genocide or a really long war.

    AFAICT, there are generally only three reasons to execute a prisoner:

    1: You need bodies for a sacrifice or other religious purpose.
    2: You are torturing someone for information.
    3: They have really angered you or their people and wanting to make suffer to send a message.


    Now, if you are surrendering to lawful authorities, they aren't going to execute you unless you are found guilty of a capital crime; and even if you are arrested for such, you still get a trial, which, imo, you are much likely to get an innocent verdict from than you are to survive a losing battle with the police and then manage to actually escape with your freedom, and even if you do, you will have a price on your head for as long as you continue to run. Rare circumstances where violence is actually the logical in character choice imho.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightcanon View Post
    D&D is absolutely the wrong system to be playing the 'you get captured, and have to breakout of capitivity' game with, with the possible exception of using this as a starting point of a campaign. As others have pointed out, imprisoning martial classes means taking all their stuff off them, and they need that stuff to (at least try to) keep up with the magic-using classes in the party. Meanwhile, the clerics and sorcerors just need to get in a good night's sleep and then they can nova their way out, unless doing so is prevented in some way (which completely removes any agency they have). To be honest, anyone capturing a magic-using individual in a standard D&D setting would be foolish not to kill them out of hand, or at least render them incapable of casting in some drastic way- and no one wants that for their character.
    It depends on the edition, the system, and the characters involved.

    For the record, I rarely play D&D, and haven't played 3E in years.

    But I don't think you can make a blanket statement about power / equipment dependency. I wizard without their spell book or a cleric without their holy symbol is hurt a lot, a monk, not so much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    In 3e, this would be True Resurrection, which does not require a body. Clocking in at around 6k, it is theoretically individually within reach at 5th, let alone what you can do by pooling party funds. So not really a "high level" thing. High magic, yes.
    You are off by about 5k, the component is 10k worth of diamonds.

    But that still requires tracking down a 17+ level cleric willing to cast the spell for you, which in most campaign worlds isn't exactly common. In Eberron and Dragonlance, for example, there is explicitly nobody in the world who can do that. And then once you find him, you still have to talk him into casting the spell.

    And while it is possible to scrape together that sort of money at low-mid levels, I can't imagine it actually being the optimal choice.


    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Access to the body is not required for True Resurrection. But if you wanted to go the cheapskate route and deal with different PCs being at different levels… most foes who would *take prisoners* would leave a body behind (unlike oozes, animals/dinosaurs, etc). Same thing regarding the disposition of the body probably holds true in most other systems, should their resurrection methods require a body.
    That assumes they just leave the bodies lying around. There is a good chance that humanoid enemies will either return them to their base and / or cremate them, at which point corpse recovery is no easier than rescuing a prisoner.


    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Much like the conversation below, I think that the *safe* place to start is "don't take any actions for the PCs". The Wizard might have been all about Spider Climb, or rope harnesses, or sleds, making this an unreasonable thing for their character to do. Then there's the principle of the thing, having the character fail a roll without even rolling.

    However, from the way you worded it, it sounds like they were probably most upset that you chose to railroad information to them by making him look incompetent. Just choosing to have them fail whenever you want, because that's the story you want to tell, seems a principle worth defending.

    Still not sure why it would be such a heated argument, unless the other players teased him about it or something.
    As usual, I think this is mostly just about pride / control.

    DMs handwave trivial things all the time, and the players don't actually want to roll for every little thing.

    BUT, if you tell them they fail without a roll, they get mad.

    Which is weird to me. As you said, it feels like railroading by declaring they can fail whenever they want, but I see it as inserting narrative where it fits the fiction. For example, if the DC to climb a wall is 15, and the mage had a +9 modifier, he will fail to climb a wall 1/5 times. It is tedious to just say "Over the course of the trip, you climb 17 walls, give me 17 rolls," Instead I will simply say "You climb successfully about 80% of the time, on one of the times when you do X interesting thing happens."

    Do you really think assuming statistically probable results during "down time" or glossed over travel sequences is railroading? Or that the game would somehow be improved by making people roll for common occurrences without a real cost for failure?

    Honestly, I think it stems from the same place that a lot of criticism of fumble rules come from, players come to RPGs for an ego boost, and really don't like the embarrassment and perceived vulnerability that comes from their character failing at something, even if it is perfectly reasonable and realistic within the rules / fiction.

    Oh, and as a side note, yes, I agree it would be bad form if the player had made alternative arrangements to avoid climbing entirely, but that isn't what happened. I place that into the same category as giving a paladin a quest to assassinate the kind or a blackguard a quest to protect the orphanage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Well, it's complicated. And it's like recursion: to understand recursion, first, you must understand recursion. More directly, it's much easier for you to see it than for me to explain it.

    So, don't think about doing things right. Think about all the internet horror stories you've read (and lived through!).

    If you try to categorize all the things that the GMs did wrong in those stories, I think you'll see that a lot of the things on your list are present on the list of "GM horror story errors".

    Can they be done right? Sure. But they're actions that should carry warning labels - probably the ilk, "do not attempt without player buy-in" and/or "until xyz statement/conversation makes sense to you, *don't do this*".

    Thus, I think that "best practices" is for most of those things to default to "off limits" for the GM, until they level up their skills and/or their group.
    Maybe when dealing with brand new players, but that isn't the case. I have played a lot of games with a lot of years, and with a lot of people. I have also had a lot of bad experiences. But I don't think I have ever seen a situation where some sort of scenario condition that added difficulty actually caused one of them. In my experience things like that are almost always enjoyable breaks from monotony.

    Sure, people grumble whenever they struggle or if they feel that a scenario is specifically unfair to them, but no more so than when they have a bad roll or any of the other minor difficulties of the session, and I have certainly never seen it ruin a session for anyone.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    zinycor's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2013

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Good to know I took the time to answer the post only to get ignored.
    Last edited by zinycor; 2020-10-17 at 10:51 AM.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Well. I guess they changed more in 5e than I was aware of.

    (technically not an "edition-specific assumption", as *every* edition my senile mind is still familiar with works that way, but point taken)

    Also, I misread, and thought that those comments were connected to the "play style" condition, not the "edition" part of the statement.

    On the plus side, I learned something today.
    Pretty sure 4e too, but I'd have to go look it up.

    3e of course had the infamous so many spells, so few that can be cast while grappled. Different beast.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Male

    d6 Re: Musings about PCs and Prisoners

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    I just had a conversation with my brother about starting a family RPG group since my regular group is on definite hiatus due to quarantine. His response was that he doesn't want to game with me again because of an incident that happened nearly 20 years ago.

    Essentially, it was his first time DMing, and his adventure hook involved an NPC with a hypnotic gaze mind controlling the players into going on a quest for him, and 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.

    But, thinking back, its not an isolated incident. I have had numerous games where the DM railroaded the PCs into being captured as an adventure hook, and I took extreme measures to resist or escape and derailed / got kicked out of the campaign.

    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.

    Likewise, I remember a common complaint on the old White Wolf forums being about the "Iron Will" merit (which makes you more or less immune to mind control) because without the ability to mind control the PCs, how could the Game Master ever ensure that they would go along with the plot?

    Likewise, I have seen some people complaining that the Descent into Avernus module starts with the PCs being drafted by the Flaming Fist under the threat of death, and I can't imagine that actually going over well with anybody.

    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?

    Is there any right way to run a jailbreak / slave revolt scenario?

    Yes 1st level they start there.

    If higher level kill them overwhelming force. Then have them brought back to life full everything other than equipment.


    When I say overwhelming force I mean 9th level meteor swarm on a 2nd level party. Or let them have tpk then bring back to life. Tell them in advance maybe they go along with it. Do you want the battle or just restart where I want to place you.

    There is a major misconception that all battles are winnable in D&D. Tell them up front some are not.

    Otherwise do not bother.
    9 wisdom true neutral cleric you know you want me in your adventuring party


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •