Surrender or Die!

[Aberzanzorax]

Not enough information.


Who are they surrendering to? What are the consequences of surrender? Are they surrenduring to, e.g. a vampire necromancer or an order of paladins? How will they be treated if they surrender?


My players would have expectations such as these.

Knowing nothing, absolutely nothing, about the ramifications of surrender or death (e.g. nameless unknown uberpowerful force surrounds them in an antimagic field) I suppose they'd surrender. But that'd be metagaming as it'd be a clear "plot point" (and railroading) that they MUST lose to continue with the plot. If they brought this event on themseles, I suspect they'd know a great deal more.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Say the party of adventurers were surrounded by an overwhelming force. A force all the Players agree can probably kill them in a fight.

If the leader of the force calls for the party to surrender or die, would the Players/PCs choose to fight or surrender? (For this poll, there are no other alternatives.)

Based on your caveat, most of my players would surrender. Some are stubborn enough to die rather than surrender no matter the odds. But your question is hypothetical as far as I'm concerned. The biggest issue I have with your caveat is that I've rarely encountered a situation where all the players agree that the force can't be overcome. The motto of my players is "We can take 'em!"

 

[Dice4Hire]

My players usually end up fighting to the death, except when escape might be possible. They might run, but never surrender. Not totally sure why, but generally restarting a game or making a new one is not viewed with great antipathy at our table.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Had to go with no PCs/players would surrender. Because I have yet to see it happen once. I've seen PCs run the hell away plenty of times. I've seen them die needlessly several times. I've never seen a party even seriously consider surrendering. When I DM I've just grown to assume this will be the case, so when I have NPCs seeking to take them in alive, I'll just plan on them still hitting as hard and aggressive as before, except with nonlethal damage. Or more likely, beat them to a bloody stump with lethal and "finish them off" with nonlethal, so they don't get to metagame an expectation of surviving until the last possible moment.

 

[Stoat]

I voted some.

I've been DM'ing for more than 20 years, and I can only remember one time when my players surrendered. (and those guys surrendered to a force that was actually well within their ability to defeat -- D'oh!)

But PC's in my games rarely come across a situation like the one described in your hypothetical. Either the players feel like they can handle the situation, the enemy doesn't give anybody a chance to surrender, or the enemy is just the sort of thing one doesn't surrender to (a vampire, a demon lord, something like that).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Not enough information.


Who are they surrendering to? What are the consequences of surrender? Are they surrenduring to, e.g. a vampire necromancer or an order of paladins? How will they be treated if they surrender?


My players would have expectations such as these.

Knowing nothing, absolutely nothing, about the ramifications of surrender or death (e.g. nameless unknown uberpowerful force surrounds them in an antimagic field) I suppose they'd surrender. But that'd be metagaming as it'd be a clear "plot point" (and railroading) that they MUST lose to continue with the plot. If they brought this event on themseles, I suspect they'd know a great deal more.

Pretty much this. The nature of the overwhelming force is everything.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I said, "Most Players/PCs would surrender in this situation", but this is really dependent upon the skill of the GM, IMHO. If the GM has conveyed that surrendering is a viable option (for example, by having NPCs surrender/offer ransom to the PCs), the players are a lot more likely to do so.


RC

 

[Bullgrit]

You know, sometimes creating a poll for discussion is like playing D&D with rules lawyers. Everything has to be defined down to the most minute piece of information or else some people can't answer the poll. And even when stuff is defined down, someone will complain that the definition is too narrow for them to answer the question.

I mean, when asked a hypothetical "Surrender or die" question, some people can't just presume that surrender would be less bad than death. The specific situation of a surrender has to be defined exactly. I'm surprised that no one has brought up the question of, "Can the dead PCs be raised? Having that option changes any answer I might give!"

Bullgrit

 

[Raven Crowking]

I mean, when asked a hypothetical "Surrender or die" question, some people can't just presume that surrender would be less bad than death.

But, isn't that rather the point of the poll?

Some people can't just presume that surrender would be better than death, and that would very much depend upon their gaming experience.

That is, AFAICT, the factor at play in answering the poll: Do you believe that capture is usually preferable to death?


RC

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

[Sheldon Cooper]But, isn't that rather the point of the poll?

Some people can't just presume that surrender would be better than death, and that would very much depend upon their gaming experience.

That is, AFAICT, the factor at play in answering the poll: Do you believe that capture is usually preferable to death?[/Sheldon Cooper]


RC

Fixed that for you.