Musings about PCs and Prisoners

[Quertus]

It's only a problem when you're trying to halt world-ending threats right now that imprisonment becomes such a huge problem.

Oh man, I hadn't even considered that! Yeah, "we're on a short timer to the end of the world" is definitely a reason to prefer to fight to the death over being captured - who wants to await the end of the world in prison?

[Talakeal]

People who surrender in war don't expect to escape. They expect that they'll either be imprisoned for the duration of the war and then released or amnestied when it concludes, or that they'll be exchanged for prisoners taken by their side. The mostly likely outcome of someone being taken prisoner in battle, really, is that you cut to 'six months later' immediately thereafter. And there are campaign narratives where that's a perfectly acceptable outcome. If your party is just a freelance mercenary band fighting small scale conflicts in not-Europe with a side of occasional monster slaying, being out of the game for a little while isn't a big deal. It's only a problem when you're trying to halt world-ending threats right now that imprisonment becomes such a huge problem.

I would tend to agree.

But again, if you are facing a world ending problem right now, maybe its a good idea to take the route that is most likely to save the world rather than simply jumping into the jaws of death because your pride demands the rest of the world be sacrificed to keep you free and undefeated?

Oh man, I hadn't even considered that! Yeah, "we're on a short timer to the end of the world" is definitely a reason to prefer to fight to the death over being captured - who wants to await the end of the world in prison?

I have a really hard time imagining a scenario where this is actually true and isn't, effectively, just a player acting childish and saying they would rather not play that risk the possibility of loss.

Also the idea of the "end of the world," is, even in fiction, hyperbole 99 out of 100 times; it is almost always just shorthand for "a significant setback" rather than actually being "the end".

Being taken prisoner is a sharp loss of agency. That's what imprisonment definitionally is - a drastic limitation on one's freedom.

Player freedom =/= character freedom.

Having a character sit in jail for a month while their random is arranged is no more of a loss in agency for the players than, say, travelling to the adventure location by taking a ship or marching with an army.

Likewise, being told "You got captured last week, so tonight's session is about breaking out of the slave mines," has fundamentally no less player agency than "Last week you find the map to the lost gold mine, and so this week's session will be about breaking into the lost mine."

Player agency is about being able to make meaningful and informed choices about how the scenario plays out, not about being able to do whatever you want with no regard to in universe limitations or real world logistics.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I have a really hard time imagining a scenario where this is actually true and isn't, effectively, just a player acting childish and saying they would rather not play that risk the possibility of loss.

Also the idea of the "end of the world," is, even in fiction, hyperbole 99 out of 100 times; it is almost always just shorthand for "a significant setback" rather than actually being "the end".

I don't have a hard time imagining this. If figurative end of the world [or end of the free world, or the world of men and elves, or the whatever] is on the line, and you're captured as PoW's by the forces of the enemy who are presumably the forces causing the end of the world, you're effectively done and the world ends/humanity gets conquered and enslaved/whatever while you watch from the PoW camp.


Being taken prisoners is pretty catastrophic. Basically all casters who depend on their spells cease to function immediately and most can't resume function until they return to base to buy their foci and spellbooks anew. Martials need weapons, and to even defeat armed and armored guards at all is a tall order with your unarmed attacks, though they're better off because if they defeat the guards then they can theoretically fight at reduced efficiency compared to before. And assuming you want your casters to participate in the final fight, you need to return to your jumping off point anyway [escorting your dead-weight casters] to re-acquire their stuff, and then re-launch the mission.



It's essentially always better to decide that discretion is the better part of valor and retreat from a losing encounter, go to ground to hide, rest and find another way around than it is to surrender. And after level 5, breaking contact becomes an almost trivial problem for an average party, so it's just about not getting found by search parties. The worst case is you're forced to retreat back to your jumping-off point, which is the same place you'd be if you had surrendered, except you don't have to re-buy all your gear and you had it with you on the long march back.



I have had players surrender in my games. However, it's never been the whole party, and there's always been an expectation that the remainder of the party will counterattack to free them and recover their equipment essentially immediately.

[zinycor]

So, in the end there is only a question that matters.
Is your particular group willing to go through this?

If yes, then go ahead. If not, then you either let it be and move on to an alternative OR you begin trying to convince your players that it will be an experience that will enhance the game.

[OldTrees1]

So, in the end there is only a question that matters.
Is your particular group willing to go through this?

If yes, then go ahead. If not, then you either let it be and move on to an alternative OR you begin trying to convince your players that it will be an experience that will enhance the game.

Relevant quote from many pages ago.

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.

It sounds like you and your group object to this type of scenario. It is good you listened to and heeded that feedback.

If you have player buy-in, then it can work. Your group does not buy-in, so it didn't work, so you stopped.

zynicor does a great job of summarizing the 2nd post of the thread and the thread in general.

[Telok]

I recall now that Champions published a book on a prison in the setting that had some discussion of this stuff plus a half-dozen or more adventure seeds and I think a short adventure.

Of course Champions is a supers game with non-D&D tropes, and it's really unusual to build supers characters that are helpless if you take away their favorite sword and spell component pouch. Even if you did manage to make a crippled character it's a modern setting with the possibility of care packages & conjugal visits sneaking stuff in. Plus with it being in a justice system that isn't given to summary executions and a distinct lack of torture & mutilation there's no reason to assume captives are stapled to a wall until tbeir heads are chpooed off.

Most of the basis for the supers prison was that each section was designed to hold different types of villans. The magic users got a section with digital locks, the techs got a section with magic locks, the super strengths got superheavy doors, the speedsters got motion detector traps, etc., etc. Naturally if you could slip a magic invisibility pill to the tech prisoners, or an electronic lockpick the the magic users, all heck broke loose. There were safeguards and the guards watched for that stuff of course. But like any system that depends on pitting human vigilance against human ingenuity it can't catch everything.

[icefractal]

Don't have anything concrete to add, but I was thinking that maybe some of the divergent opinions might have something to do with the "old school / new school" divide that alleges that old school players look to themselves for agency while new school players look to their character sheets. I don't really buy it, but the idea of having a character taken prisoner or suffer a set back might feel like a sharp loss of agency to some people because it curtails the number of options on their sheet. Just a thought.

Is this like the RPG way of calling people millennials?

If we're throwing out theories, I'm going to say it depends on Game as World/Story/Challenge. If the game is a story, this is just a chapter of it. Some people will still dislike the story going in that direction, but in general you know this is not just a perma-loss because that's not how the story would go. If the game is a challenge, then this is just another part of that challenge, and you know that - like an adventure game - you'll have the tools you need to escape if you combine them the right way.

On the other hand, if the game is a world, then there's no guarantee escape is convenient or even possible. If the people who captured you are diligent in their security there might not be any guards sleeping conveniently close to the bars, or breaches of security where you're left unattended in the corridor. And as for getting your stuff back, you have to ask what the PCs would do if the situation was reversed (in 99% of games, they would keep or sell anything valuable).

Of course like most RPG theories, this is an oversimplification at best.

[Xervous]

Is this like the RPG way of calling people millennials?

I dunno. The engineer me says the rules wouldn’t be there if we weren’t intended to use them most of the time (assuming it’s not a shoddy system). Anyone can pull out creative ideas given context and setting, just look at all the various fan theories and what ifs. Free form RP and other superlite systems being a thing that I jump for when I don’t want the burden of numbers, I think it’s a safe assumption that an informed group is choosing the right system with the amount of minutiae they’re comfortable with.

Finding an informed group however, that’s apparently the challenge. See: people for whom tabletop and D&D are synonymous.

[Talakeal]

Thinking more about player versus character agency, and the more I think about it the more I think they have very little overlap.

For example; a character with super high agency is probably going to choose to be a member of the idle rich and spend most of their days drinking and shopping and playing games and attending orgies and performances and the like. But, as a player character, this would probably bore most players to tears. They would much rather be having adventures and exploring dungeons, although I seriously doubt the character would choose to be facing death, disease, and dismemberment fighting horrifying monsters in a dark and slimy hole.

Likewise, character power kind of negates choices. For example, in the adventure I am currently working on, the players need to get an artifact from a dragon, and the dragon is too powerful to defeat in a straight fight. So, the players are going to have to make plans and choices; they might decide to sneak in, or distract the dragon, or lure it into a trap, or talk to it, or sacrifice someone, or bribe it; to me this is a lot more agency than normal as they they now actually have to think and make choices; if I simply levelled them up to the dragons level or gave them some powerful magic sword of dragon slaying, all of these choices disappear in favor of the direct approach. You know what they say about problems when all you have is a hammer...

Is this like the RPG way of calling people millennials?

Pretty much, yeah. As I said, I don't really subscribe to the theory, especially not in terms of generations, but there does seem to be a sort of, difference in priorities among different gamers. For example; if you ask someone to tell you about their character, some people will discuss history, some personality, some appearance, and some a long list of powers and feats; and I think it is probably this latter who sees being imprisoned as losing agency.

For me, I see tons of agency in a prison scenario. For example, I can choose to get in good with the corrupt warden or not, I can choose to protest conditions or keep my mouth shut, I can choose to stand up to prison yard bullies or mind my own business, I can choose to secretly dig an escape tunnel or wait for my time to be up, I can choose to share food with fellow inmates or keep it for myself, I can choose to try and hide contraband or build my own weapons in secret, I can choose to keep my head down and avoid the guards attentions or I can defiantly stand up to them, etc. etc. To me, these are all very fun and interesting choices that say a lot about my character, and give me options for RP that I wouldn't have in a more traditional dungeon crawl.

But, on the other hand, I do have fewer "weapons" in my arsenal, less equipment and the like, and so for other people this might be seen as a drastic loss in agency.

I don't have a hard time imagining this. If figurative end of the world [or end of the free world, or the world of men and elves, or the whatever] is on the line, and you're captured as PoW's by the forces of the enemy who are presumably the forces causing the end of the world, you're effectively done and the world ends/humanity gets conquered and enslaved/whatever while you watch from the PoW camp.

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

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

Being taken prisoners is pretty catastrophic. Basically all casters who depend on their spells cease to function immediately and most can't resume function until they return to base to buy their foci and spellbooks anew. Martials need weapons, and to even defeat armed and armored guards at all is a tall order with your unarmed attacks, though they're better off because if they defeat the guards then they can theoretically fight at reduced efficiency compared to before. And assuming you want your casters to participate in the final fight, you need to return to your jumping off point anyway [escorting your dead-weight casters] to re-acquire their stuff, and then re-launch the mission.

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

So, in the end there is only a question that matters.
Is your particular group willing to go through this?

If yes, then go ahead. If not, then you either let it be and move on to an alternative OR you begin trying to convince your players that it will be an experience that will enhance the game.

Relevant quote from many pages ago.

It sounds like you and your group object to this type of scenario. It is good you listened to and heeded that feedback.

If you have player buy-in, then it can work. Your group does not buy-in, so it didn't work, so you stopped.

Zynicor does a great job of summarizing the 2nd post of the thread and the thread in general.

It would be nice to have another tool in my chest so that I can shake the things up with a jailbreak scenario if the urge strikes me or a buy such a module; blanket bans don't really help the game. But, on the other hand, its not exactly a big deal, it just means I go back to the drawing board for one scenario every five years or so.

What is a big deal is the players refuse to surrender when they get in over their head, which means that I have to either end the campaign or resort to some sort of deus ex machina. It would be REALLY nice if I could just say "The police fine you a thousand dollars and sentence you to a hundred hours of community service" and then get back to the game rather than "You die in a bloody shooutout with the cops, again. Time to spend next session making new characters and then we will start the campaign that we have all invested the past six months in over from scratch."

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think there's also something other than just agency here. Different people play TTRPGs for different reasons. For some, being powerful is part of the draw. They're less there for "being in a story" and more for "getting to do things I can't do in real life, including being a powerful person." So putting them in prison is, to them, a bad thing because they're no longer powerful people. They're less interested in being the underdog or cleverly wriggling their way out of things and more interested in a "power fantasy"[1] experience. And that's as valid a way to play as anything else...as long as everyone's on the same page.

I don't feel the same way, but I understand the feeling (especially having played with teenagers a lot).

[1] while that's often used pejoratively for people who don't ever want to lose, there's a valid use for people wanting to get to "play with their (character's) toys". Which include abilities, equipment, etc. So putting them in jail makes them feel like they're being told that they can't play the game they want to play.

[NigelWalmsley]

I dunno. The engineer me says the rules wouldn’t be there if we weren’t intended to use them most of the time (assuming it’s not a shoddy system).

Pretty much. It's true that you don't need rules in any absolute sense, but it's also true that people do in fact buy books full of rules for real money. So presumably there is something in there that is more interesting than another game of Munchausen.

For example; a character with super high agency is probably going to choose to be a member of the idle rich and spend most of their days drinking and shopping and playing games and attending orgies and performances and the like. But, as a player character, this would probably bore most players to tears. They would much rather be having adventures and exploring dungeons, although I seriously doubt the character would choose to be facing death, disease, and dismemberment fighting horrifying monsters in a dark and slimy hole.

I think that's a false dichotomy. Consider, for example, Iron Man. From his perspective, he probably does spend most of his time being idly rich and going to parties or tinkering with suits or whatever. It's just that we timeskip past those things to the less-frequent occasions where he is called upon to fight super-terrorists or alien invaders or rogue AIs. There doesn't have to be a tradeoff between doing things the character wants to do and doing things the player wants to do, because you can just fast forward past the unimportant bits. In fact, I would argue that it's desirable for the character to have concrete in-world goals beyond just "go on adventures" because that gives you things to hook the plot off of. If the PCs are murderhobos who wander from dungeon to dungeon, pretty much the only plot hook is "there's a dungeon over there, go explore it". But if the players have in-world goals, you can have plot hooks that are about those goals. If you can't see how to turn wealth into plot hooks, you're not trying.

Likewise, character power kind of negates choices. For example, in the adventure I am currently working on, the players need to get an artifact from a dragon, and the dragon is too powerful to defeat in a straight fight. So, the players are going to have to make plans and choices; they might decide to sneak in, or distract the dragon, or lure it into a trap, or talk to it, or sacrifice someone, or bribe it; to me this is a lot more agency than normal as they they now actually have to think and make choices; if I simply levelled them up to the dragons level or gave them some powerful magic sword of dragon slaying, all of these choices disappear in favor of the direct approach. You know what they say about problems when all you have is a hammer...

That's just the result of locking yourself to a particular perspective. It's true that if they could solve this problem easily, they wouldn't spend much time on it. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't have problems, they'd just have different problems. Higher level characters tend to have a wider range of tools, and therefore a wider range of choices. It's true that if you present them with a problem designed for low level characters, the obvious choice will be "blast through it", but that's a DMing problem, not a fundamental principle.

[Pex]

It would be nice to have another tool in my chest so that I can shake the things up with a jailbreak scenario if the urge strikes me or a buy such a module; blanket bans don't really help the game. But, on the other hand, its not exactly a big deal, it just means I go back to the drawing board for one scenario every five years or so.

What is a big deal is the players refuse to surrender when they get in over their head, which means that I have to either end the campaign or resort to some sort of deus ex machina. It would be REALLY nice if I could just say "The police fine you a thousand dollars and sentence you to a hundred hours of community service" and then get back to the game rather than "You die in a bloody shooutout with the cops, again. Time to spend next session making new characters and then we will start the campaign that we have all invested the past six months in over from scratch."

It's the players' characters, not yours. If they don't want to surrender that's their business. If it ends in a TPK and the campaign, that's their business. It's not your job as DM to make them surrender. You don't have to like it as much as the players don't like a TPK, but as DM you don't have the power to make the players surrender against their will. You control the gods, the NPCs, the monsters, the trees. You don't control the PCs.

I sort of take that back in that as DM you do have to like it, because I'm not sure I can trust a DM who hates it he can't control my character. It becomes an adversarial relationship by default. As I wrote in another thread I don't mind being on the trolley tracks of playing the plot the DM presents, but I have to want to be on those tracks. The DM can't make me get on the trolley.

[Talakeal]

It's the players' characters, not yours. If they don't want to surrender that's their business. If it ends in a TPK and the campaign, that's their business. It's not your job as DM to make them surrender. You don't have to like it as much as the players don't like a TPK, but as DM you don't have the power to make the players surrender against their will. You control the gods, the NPCs, the monsters, the trees. You don't control the PCs.

I sort of take that back in that as DM you do have to like it, because I'm not sure I can trust a DM who hates it he can't control my character. It becomes an adversarial relationship by default. As I wrote in another thread I don't mind being on the trolley tracks of playing the plot the DM presents, but I have to want to be on those tracks. The DM can't make me get on the trolley.

The thing is, I absolutely do have total control over the PC's actions, and if they aren't going to behave like reasonable adults, I am going to exercise it.

At the point where players are ending the game out of spite because they can't stand losing, they are violating the social contract and being rude as hell to both the DM and their fellow players.

To me, this is the equivalent of preparing a nice dinner party, and then having someone show up drunk and digging through the meal with their fingers instead of eating it; true you can't physically force them to eat, but you can sure as heck thrown them out of your house and never invite them over again.

I think that's a false dichotomy. Consider, for example, Iron Man. From his perspective, he probably does spend most of his time being idly rich and going to parties or tinkering with suits or whatever. It's just that we timeskip past those things to the less-frequent occasions where he is called upon to fight super-terrorists or alien invaders or rogue AIs. There doesn't have to be a tradeoff between doing things the character wants to do and doing things the player wants to do, because you can just fast forward past the unimportant bits. In fact, I would argue that it's desirable for the character to have concrete in-world goals beyond just "go on adventures" because that gives you things to hook the plot off of. If the PCs are murderhobos who wander from dungeon to dungeon, pretty much the only plot hook is "there's a dungeon over there, go explore it". But if the players have in-world goals, you can have plot hooks that are about those goals. If you can't see how to turn wealth into plot hooks, you're not trying.

I would agree with you.

What I don't agree with is that a character suffering means the player will suffer, or that the game as a whole is worse in the long run.

That's just the result of locking yourself to a particular perspective. It's true that if they could solve this problem easily, they wouldn't spend much time on it. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't have problems, they'd just have different problems. Higher level characters tend to have a wider range of tools, and therefore a wider range of choices. It's true that if you present them with a problem designed for low level characters, the obvious choice will be "blast through it", but that's a DMing problem, not a fundamental principle.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Regardless of the specific power dynamic or power level; having one clearly optimal solution to a problem is the antithesis of player agency.

[Duff]

It would be nice to have another tool in my chest so that I can shake the things up with a jailbreak scenario if the urge strikes me or a buy such a module; blanket bans don't really help the game. But, on the other hand, its not exactly a big deal, it just means I go back to the drawing board for one scenario every five years or so.

What is a big deal is the players refuse to surrender when they get in over their head, which means that I have to either end the campaign or resort to some sort of deus ex machina. It would be REALLY nice if I could just say "The police fine you a thousand dollars and sentence you to a hundred hours of community service" and then get back to the game rather than "You die in a bloody shooutout with the cops, again. Time to spend next session making new characters and then we will start the campaign that we have all invested the past six months in over from scratch."

You could try saying "Guys, you really should consider surrender is an option here. Your characters would know the likely consequences are just fines and community service" Even combine that with "Your characters know they'd be unlikely to shoot their way out of this before overwhelming reinforcements arrive"

[Talakeal]

You could try saying "Guys, you really should consider surrender is an option here. Your characters would know the likely consequences are just fines and community service" Even combine that with "Your characters know they'd be unlikely to shoot their way out of this before overwhelming reinforcements arrive"

That's what I have been trying for years.

The problem is that, in my experience (both in person and in this thread) there is a large percentage of players that either:

1: Would rather suicides their character as a matter of course (as I said above, I have trouble seeing this as anything but a childish tantrum as a response to losing and / or being told what to do)

or 2: Think the DM is out to get them and refuse to believe me.

[Duff]

Those are 2 very different motives. It could be really useful in your group to try and discuss why they act like that.
And try really hard not to judge. If they'd rather have characters die than surrender, you can think it childish (and I'm not at all saying you're wrong if that's the case) but calling it out as that is unhelpful. You might have to put up with that.

But if they don't trust you, try talking through what they think your motive for doing that would be. Maybe by talking about why you each all act as you do you can work on building up some trust. As has been said, trust is really important in getting the best from an RPG
Actually, it
s important in communication, and Communication is needed for an RPG to go well

[Pex]

The thing is, I absolutely do have total control over the PC's actions, and if they aren't going to behave like reasonable adults, I am going to exercise it.

At the point where players are ending the game out of spite because they can't stand losing, they are violating the social contract and being rude as hell to both the DM and their fellow players.

To me, this is the equivalent of preparing a nice dinner party, and then having someone show up drunk and digging through the meal with their fingers instead of eating it; true you can't physically force them to eat, but you can sure as heck thrown them out of your house and never invite them over again.

If you reached this point in your relationship with your players they've already quit your campaign before you got to kick them out by forcing the TPK on purpose themselves. A DM is welcome not to play with particular players, but the players are also welcome not to play with a particular DM.

[Talakeal]

If you reached this point in your relationship with your players they've already quit your campaign before you got to kick them out by forcing the TPK on purpose themselves. A DM is welcome not to play with particular players, but the players are also welcome not to play with a particular DM.

Suiciding a character because they lost a fight =/= equal quitting the gaming group. Making a habit of it would, however, result in being thrown out of my group.

Let’s just say that we (the hypothetical player, who suicides their character rather than suffer defeat, not Pex) have completely incompatible gaming styles, and hopefully we figure this out long before it actually comes up at the table.

I put a tremendous amount of time and emotional energy into the game, and I don’t think its unreasonable or unusually controlling to ask someone not to bother showing up and wasting everyone’s time if they are the type to sabotage the campaign in a fit of pique.

[icefractal]

The thing is, I absolutely do have total control over the PC's actions, and if they aren't going to behave like reasonable adults, I am going to exercise it.

I think at the point you have "total control" - why are the players even there? To observe your story?


So to the larger point - it's true that there's still gameplay to be had in a prison. It's a different style/genre of gameplay than they'd have outside the prison though, and it's usually being switched to unilaterally by the GM. Now while there's an acceptance of the GM doing genre-bending arcs in most groups, I think this one is more strongly "enforced" than most. If the game suddenly switches to looney-toons adventures in the dream realm, say, you have a choice how much to lean into that or not. You can jump on board and get ridiculous, or you can be the "straight man" and shake your head at it. With prison, you're 100% in prison. Add that it also could easily last a number of sessions, and I don't think it's so odd that players are more likely to object to that genre-change than they are to most others.

But in fact, what you're complaining about is even less surprising - you're giving players a choice of genres and complaining when they pick the one you didn't want. They face overwhelming opposition. If they surrender, they go to the prison genre. If they fight back (or run) successfully, they remain in the roving adventurer genre. If they fight back and die, they return as new characters in the roving adventurer genre. And unless you're running the game very atypically for D&D, they're obviously ok with the risk of death. If having their characters die was an unacceptable result, they wouldn't go into dungeons, nor seek to battle anyone, nor do anything as risky as the vast majority of D&D adventures.

So this is kind of like having a road sign: "Risky Mountain Trail Left, Mosquito-Filled Swamp Right" and getting annoyed when they decide to go left.

[Talakeal]

I think at the point you have "total control" - why are the players even there? To observe your story?

They are there to play the game, same as all of us.

Once they are pulling a childish "I can do whatever I want!" and refusing to play, at that point then they aren't there anymore, they are asked to leave and not come back until they can behave like adults, and their characters become NPCs under my control.

I have been on the opposite side of the screen and walked out on a jerkass DM to, but I was never under any illusion that the game wouldn't go on in my absence or that I have even a modicum of creative input over the fate of my character after I have left the group.

So to the larger point - it's true that there's still gameplay to be had in a prison. It's a different style/genre of gameplay than they'd have outside the prison though, and it's usually being switched to unilaterally by the GM. Now while there's an acceptance of the GM doing genre-bending arcs in most groups, I think this one is more strongly "enforced" than most. If the game suddenly switches to looney-toons adventures in the dream realm, say, you have a choice how much to lean into that or not. You can jump on board and get ridiculous, or you can be the "straight man" and shake your head at it. With prison, you're 100% in prison. Add that it also could easily last a number of sessions, and I don't think it's so odd that players are more likely to object to that genre-change than they are to most others.

I don't agree. Generally, your character is there for the scenario the GM wants to run, or they aren't.

For example; in the long running Mage: The Ascension game I was part of, we spent the better part of a year in the spirit world on a time traveling journey. I, personally, would have much rather stayed in the real world as my character had a lot of ties to mundane civilization, but I was never given that choice. The Game Master wanted to run a game in the mythic past, the other players were down with it, so my choices were to make the best of it, or simply stay home and hope there was still a seat for me at the table in the next arc. I chose to continue playing, because even though it wasn't my preferred setting, it was still a good game and the choice was that or don't play at all.

IMO, it would have been the height of entitled rudeness to tell the GM that he needed to torch the story arc that he obviously put a ton of time and effort into because it wasn't my favorite.

If the Game Master had wanted to run a jail break scenario instead of a spirit quest scenario, I don't think things would have changed at all from a social dynamic.

But in fact, what you're complaining about is even less surprising - you're giving players a choice of genres and complaining when they pick the one you didn't want. They face overwhelming opposition. If they surrender, they go to the prison genre. If they fight back (or run) successfully, they remain in the roving adventurer genre. If they fight back and die, they return as new characters in the roving adventurer genre. And unless you're running the game very atypically for D&D, they're obviously ok with the risk of death. If having their characters die was an unacceptable result, they wouldn't go into dungeons, nor seek to battle anyone, nor do anything as risky as the vast majority of D&D adventures.

So this is kind of like having a road sign: "Risky Mountain Trail Left, Mosquito-Filled Swamp Right" and getting annoyed when they decide to go left.

So, out of curiosity, you don't expect your players to keep in character or try and succeed at their goals?

Because the idea that a character shouldn't care about survival is just so alien to me...

Like, you wouldn't bat an eyelid if half way through the dungeon one of your players got bored and instead of playing a Conan type guy started acting like Bugs Bunny and throwing pies at dragons and tying his companions shoe laces together during a tense standoff with the dark lord?

[Mechalich]

If they surrender, they go to the prison genre.

Surrendering is more complex than that though. Imprisonment following surrender is a common outcome of surrender but not the only outcome. Summary execution is also a potential outcome of surrender. So is the classic 'join us or die' proposition by the captor. Some kind of non-death punishment followed by release is an option, like branding or maiming. Prisoners might also be sold into slavery (which is kind of like prison, but tends to make it hard to justify keeping the party together). Immediate release is even an option, in certain kinds of conflicts with certain types of enemies.

And of course magic adds additional options. For example, in D&D if you surrender to a wizard with a Wand of Charm Person in their gear pile, well, unless you can escape in a matter of minutes, you are now their good friend (this is the low-level case, at high levels it gets much, worse). This is actually particularly relevant in the case of D&D because from roughly the mid-levels onward (basically whenever Raise Dead comes online, slight variations from one edition to the other) it may actually be easier to bring a character or even a whole party back from death than to free them from captivity, often significantly so - OOTS has played with this issue more than once.

[icefractal]

So, out of curiosity, you don't expect your players to keep in character or try and succeed at their goals?

Because the idea that a character shouldn't care about survival is just so alien to me...

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

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

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

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

[Satinavian]

For example; in the long running Mage: The Ascension game I was part of, we spent the better part of a year in the spirit world on a time traveling journey. I, personally, would have much rather stayed in the real world as my character had a lot of ties to mundane civilization, but I was never given that choice. The Game Master wanted to run a game in the mythic past, the other players were down with it, so my choices were to make the best of it, or simply stay home and hope there was still a seat for me at the table in the next arc. I chose to continue playing, because even though it wasn't my preferred setting, it was still a good game and the choice was that or don't play at all.

IMO, it would have been the height of entitled rudeness to tell the GM that he needed to torch the story arc that he obviously put a ton of time and effort into because it wasn't my favorite.

If the Game Master had wanted to run a jail break scenario instead of a spirit quest scenario, I don't think things would have changed at all from a social dynamic.

I highlighted the important difference for you.

So, out of curiosity, you don't expect your players to keep in character or try and succeed at their goals?

Because the idea that a character shouldn't care about survival is just so alien to me...

Like, you wouldn't bat an eyelid if half way through the dungeon one of your players got bored and instead of playing a Conan type guy started acting like Bugs Bunny and throwing pies at dragons and tying his companions shoe laces together during a tense standoff with the dark lord?

As always it depends.

If i play someone willing to risk their life for a cause, they most likely will be actually willing to give their life for the cause.

Otherwise it depends on what to expect from imprisonment. And nearly all of my characters are not in a habit of getting into deadly fights with nice, reasonable people.


I have never fought to the death instead of surrendering when it was not in character the most plausible thing to do. I also have never surprised a GM with doing so which measn they shared my reasoning.

[OldTrees1]

They are there to play the game, same as all of us.

Once they are pulling a childish "I can do whatever I want!" and refusing to play, at that point then they aren't there anymore, they are asked to leave and not come back until they can behave like adults, and their characters become NPCs under my control.

I have been on the opposite side of the screen and walked out on a jerkass DM to, but I was never under any illusion that the game wouldn't go on in my absence or that I have even a modicum of creative input over the fate of my character after I have left the group.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vahnavoi]

Even better, stop getting player buy-in to weirdly specific games and instead get player good faith so that they'll entertain playing through whatever silly thing you throw at them.

[Spiderswims]

It's the players' characters, not yours. If they don't want to surrender that's their business. If it ends in a TPK and the campaign, that's their business. It's not your job as DM to make them surrender. You don't have to like it as much as the players don't like a TPK, but as DM you don't have the power to make the players surrender against their will. You control the gods, the NPCs, the monsters, the trees. You don't control the PCs.

True here.

The thing is, I absolutely do have total control over the PC's actions, and if they aren't going to behave like reasonable adults, I am going to exercise it.

At the point where players are ending the game out of spite because they can't stand losing, they are violating the social contract and being rude as hell to both the DM and their fellow players.

I would just point out here that the GM can roll with this. Death is not final in most games. In D&D it is easy enough to bring a dead character back to life....or even unlife. So the players can't escape by just character death alone. I've done this plot a lot, and it can be great fun. There are hundreds of plots here too. And you can make any plot fit your players.

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

This is a slippery slope though. The GM asks the players if they want to do a prison game, the players say no, and the game rolls on. Everything is alright. Except...well, does that mean the PCs can never be arrested? Never be sent to jail or prison? Never be captured at all? Does it give the PCs a mandate to never surrender?

Being captured and put in a prison can happen in any game; it's a perfectly normal event. And if a normal event will be forbidden, where does it end? If the players say they don't want to get attacked by any monsters does the DM do that? I think it is obvious that most players won't like every single event that happens in a game. Really, no matter what a GM does at least one player won't like it. And I do get it, and I have lived many horror stories.

Too many times I have joined a game and in the first half hour my wizard gets zapped with an anti magic curse. The GM and other players are happy as clams, while I sit there and don't even play. So, sure, today if that happens I will just leave the game. There is no point in being in a game you can't play in.

At the same time, as a GM I'm a big fan of things happening to players they don't like. BUT! There needs to be the level of trust and faith. I love a good story where a PC gets knocked down and then has to rise back up, and I know many people like this story line too. But it just needs to be done right. Even if the player does not like what is going on, they still just keep rolling as they trust the GM to make the game fun. That is Big.

[OldTrees1]

This is a slippery slope though. The GM asks the players if they want to do a prison game, the players say no, and the game rolls on. Everything is alright. Except...well, does that mean the PCs can never be arrested? Never be sent to jail or prison? Never be captured at all? Does it give the PCs a mandate to never surrender?

Being captured and put in a prison can happen in any game; it's a perfectly normal event. And if a normal event will be forbidden, where does it end? If the players say they don't want to get attacked by any monsters does the DM do that? I think it is obvious that most players won't like every single event that happens in a game. Really, no matter what a GM does at least one player won't like it. And I do get it, and I have lived many horror stories.

I see no slope there, that is a flat plain if anything. I apply the same standard across the board.

The group (all players including the GM) are there to have a good time and should value the others also having a good time. So the group goes with what they will all enjoy rather than one person's favorite that is strongly disliked by everyone else. Also note I said "strongly dislike" because you can get player buy in for things they do not enjoy but don't strongly dislike. Some groups even have more wiggle room there than others due to the mutual trust they have built up.

I have not seen a group of players with your hypothetical preference, but it sounds like that group is either willing to buy in to monster attacks, OR should be playing a game that does not include monster attacks. Maybe a social intrigue campaign? Communication is key of course.

At the same time, as a GM I'm a big fan of things happening to players they don't like. BUT! There needs to be the level of trust and faith. I love a good story where a PC gets knocked down and then has to rise back up, and I know many people like this story line too. But it just needs to be done right. Even if the player does not like what is going on, they still just keep rolling as they trust the GM to make the game fun. That is Big.

Sounds like the difference between "player buy in" and "player likes". For the kinds of game you want, you need a sizable chunk of player trust. The GM being trustworthy and trusted is a major component to cultivating the amount of player trust needed for those kinds of campaigns.

But once you have that trust, the players are already going to buy in to a lot more than they would if you were running out of trust. It is one of the reasons I harp on player buy in, trust, communication, etc so much. Once a person (GM or other player) starts to improve in those areas, they open up better opportunities. Opportunities I enjoy and want others to enjoy.

[zinycor]

It would be nice to have another tool in my chest so that I can shake the things up with a jailbreak scenario if the urge strikes me or a buy such a module; blanket bans don't really help the game. But, on the other hand, its not exactly a big deal, it just means I go back to the drawing board for one scenario every five years or so.

What is a big deal is the players refuse to surrender when they get in over their head, which means that I have to either end the campaign or resort to some sort of deus ex machina. It would be REALLY nice if I could just say "The police fine you a thousand dollars and sentence you to a hundred hours of community service" and then get back to the game rather than "You die in a bloody shooutout with the cops, again. Time to spend next session making new characters and then we will start the campaign that we have all invested the past six months in over from scratch."

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

And more importantly, to solve these problems you could just talk to your players and tell them they are derailing the story in problematic ways instead of in game solutions.

[Darth Credence]

I would just point out here that the GM can roll with this. Death is not final in most games. In D&D it is easy enough to bring a dead character back to life....or even unlife. So the players can't escape by just character death alone. I've done this plot a lot, and it can be great fun. There are hundreds of plots here too. And you can make any plot fit your players.

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

[OldTrees1]

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

Depend on the players, they might enjoy that. Just in case they would enjoy it (you know your players better than I do), here are some thoughts:

1) Some systems (like D&D) have raise dead require a willing soul. That does not sound ideal for this case. However animating a souled undead (Ex: Ghoul but not Zombie) usually ignores the soul's preferences.
2) If the warden uses raise dead (or create undead) offensively to capture souls, they might also use it in other ways. This warden probably has contingent resurrection plans. Maybe even sends messengers out that suicide for untraceable recall to base.