D&D 5E "Just Kill Them": Balancing PC survival and Monster Intelligence

[JNC]

I agree with Umbran, the PCs are already dealt with. They are handed off to slavers/lessers b/c they have already been beaten and stripped, so not a major problem anymore. Pride and carelessness are what allow the escape to happen.

I doubt they intend for anybody to stick around for slave retirement.

Mind you, I don't own OotA...yet.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

As with others, I can usually find a way to captured PCs alive if that's what I want to do.

One reason to keep them alive is simple arrogance. They're sure that the PCs are not a threat, especially without their gear. Historically (kind of) drow have been high enough level that this might be true of them. This would also be true of dragons, aboleths, demons, and so on.

Another reason I've used is alignment. A PC was once captured and imprisoned for crimes committed in that kingdom. The kingdom was mostly good-aligned so they preferred imprisonment to execution. However once she escaped, killing a few guards in the process, the new orders for the soldiers were "wanted dead or alive" and "kill on sight."

Mind control magic devices and magic always work, and can make for an interesting RP challenge: how do you obey the orders you have to while still escaping?

Magic using PCs are a bit of an issue. IMC there is a rare but well-known drug that removes casting ability. It's permanent until a character takes an antidote. I've also played with the idea of a drug that removes casting ability but only from a certain level on up, but never tried it. Magic-restricting items also work for this. Again in IMC, there's a rare mundane metal that will prevent casting if made into manacles or a collar and placed in a character.

 

[Creamsteak]

IMO: what makes the game enjoyable for the group is more important than what is the statistically more likely outcome. I think there's plenty of room in the Drow lore to say that they want to play cat-and-mouse with you for a while before eating you.

I'm of a similar mindset. I have to evaluate the group, the game, and the circumstances today every single game on what's appropriate. I can totally enjoy an extremely grim and gritty game, or a tactical miniatures game, or something light hearted and silly. Of course, this gets really complicated when different people at the table are interested in different things and have different degrees of suspension of disbelief. What works for me is to be varied. An occasional extremely brutal intelligent villain works wonders, whereas making every single NPC smarter than you, more prepared than you, etc will wear thin on most groups.

I think that since this sounds like the starting premise for this game, it's probably helpful for some groups to communicate up-front to the players that they will be starting as slaves... and slaves of drow. For some groups it would be a fun surprise. That wouldn't be true for every group I've ever ran a game for.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

The question of "smart" versus "fun" enemies is a bit misdirected, IMO.

Agreed. Some players have more fun when they believe that their enemies are smart and might kill them if they are captured. A contrived escape would remove more fun from the game than having their characters killed. Usually when folks argue "my way is better than your way because it's more fun" they're failing to take into account differences in taste as to what's fun.

 

[Remathilis]

The question of "smart" versus "fun" enemies is a bit misdirected, IMO. It's really a matter of good design, planning, and being able to recognize when you've vastly overestimated the party's abilities versus the party heroically (albeit tragically) falling short.

When you create an encounter, you have to account for any possible fail states. If the party falls to enemies, traps, hostile environments, natural disasters, etc, the real question is whether or not you as a DM are willing to kill any or all of the PCs if that is a likely outcome or the only possible outcome.

Most DM's can (and should!) generate plausible outcomes as to why some or all of the party might escape death's clutches, but eventually you have to be willing to put the hammer down if the circumstances warrant a severe and swift conclusion. In the event of a permanent loss of one or more PCs, if the players were aware of the stakes, the encounter was fair, and no one felt like they were cheated, it shouldn't cause too much friction at the table.

Essesntially, the question shouldn't be "are these enemies smart enough to kill the PCs, and if they are, why don't they?" The question should be "if the PCs fail in this encounter, did the stakes warrant any or all of their deaths?"

Its interesting because it really asks "Do all fights have to be to the death?" In my experience, I find the DM answers that question "no" a lot more often than the players do. But there is a lot of reasons for that; enemies have more uses for living PCs (ransom, slaves, interrogation, entertainment) than PCs have with living enemies (goblins don't buy back their prisoners and there are usually few places the PCs frequent that can use orc slaves or pit fighters) which often leads to the "kill or capture for interrogation" being the default options for PCs. That gives PCs a few more chances to "live to fight another day" than the average monster gets. (Another way to look at it; PCs get death saves, monsters are killed at 0 unless DM fiat).

I don't mind running "lethal" combats; I've killed PCs before when the dice fall or bad decisions are made. My question hinged on whether a defeat by a "smart" foe should be a TPK (survivors killed) or does it make sense to have the PCs captured and live to escape later. The latter is more fun obviously, since it means the game continues. But the cost of this is having intelligent enemies decide to spare their foes, even ones that could be liabilities if left to live. Does it cheapen those foes to do that?

 

[Remathilis]

Agreed. Some players have more fun when they believe that their enemies are smart and might kill them if they are captured. A contrived escape would remove more fun from the game than having their characters killed. Usually when folks argue "my way is better than your way because it's more fun" they're failing to take into account differences in taste as to what's fun.

I guess taste has a lot to do with that. To some groups, the idea that losing to a drow raiding party is tantamount to a death sentence is exciting and waking up in a cell hours later is cheap. To others, the notion that one bad combat can end a campaign they are enjoying seems overtly harsh.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I try to play the monsters and bad guys as smart and viscous as they should be, if that means they kill PC then they kill PC. Players should have played smarter or rolled better. Thems the breaks. In the Drow thread I'd just say they were being saved for a special execution and get extra torture sessions in the meantime otherwise I'm just putting them in an impossible situation to start the game. I have two elves in that campaign that starts next week but they are both drow.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

The, "captured and placed into a silly death trap device" thing is a genre trope. If your players are not buying in to the genre tropes (i.e. if they are killing their enemies to the man without mercy), then you should not use them. This sort of goes along with the, "combat as sport" vs. "combat as war" discussions that occasionally go around.

 

[Sunseeker]

I guess taste has a lot to do with that. To some groups, the idea that losing to a drow raiding party is tantamount to a death sentence is exciting and waking up in a cell hours later is cheap. To others, the notion that one bad combat can end a campaign they are enjoying seems overtly harsh.

As Mishihari said, it's important to evaluate your audience. I think it would be fair to say though that most games will will contain some encounters where failure means death, where failure means capture and where failure has little bearing at all. Only in the most light-hearted, RP-heavy games or the most gritty tactical wargames will you find a table where ALL encounters have the same result.

And I think the system, especially with its "difficulty tables" promotes the idea that your average game should be a mix of such things.

I would probably get bored of an extremely gritty game where every encounter is always designed to be lethal as much as I'd get bored of a game where every encounter means capture or means nothing at all.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Another reason I've used is alignment. A PC was once captured and imprisoned for crimes committed in that kingdom. The kingdom was mostly good-aligned so they preferred imprisonment to execution. However once she escaped, killing a few guards in the process, the new orders for the soldiers were "wanted dead or alive" and "kill on sight."

Any soldier bringing the fugitive back alive is then executed for not following orders.