Why don’t players surrender... would we want them too?

[FrogReaver]

Surrender to a beholder? Surrender to a troll? A Dragon? A Mimic? A phase spider? A flame elemental? A demon?

Not many of any of those really scream surrender...

 

[Jd Smith1]

Surrender to a beholder? Surrender to a troll? A Dragon? A Mimic? A phase spider? A flame elemental? A demon?

Not many of any of those really scream surrender...

But if you did, screaming would certainly follow...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not in all of your examples.

But you've ignored the core of my point, which is the geographic isolation.

Dude, I looked those up before listing them, because I know not all cultures engaging in slavery enslaved warriors. For example, not ALL mesoamerican or Native American people’s enslaved warriors...but several did. Same thing within the confines of Africa. Etc.

But back to what you claim is your central point: geographic isolation. Again, while that was a major defining character of Atlantic slave trade, it didn’t occur in the New World’s versions of slavery. And it wasn’t all that prevalent in Africa, either. Slaves acquired by capture were most likely to be members of neighboring communities.

And since one of the uses for slaves was as bargaining chips in prisoner exchanges, moving them a distance away would have been counterproductive to their role in those societies.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Dude, I looked those up before listing them, because I know not all cultures engaging in slavery enslaved warriors. For example, not ALL mesoamerican or Native American people’s enslaved warriors...but several did. Same thing within the confines of Africa. Etc.

But back to what you claim is your central point: geographic isolation. Again, while that was a major defining character of Atlantic slave trade, it didn’t occur in the New World’s versions of slavery. And it wasn’t all that prevalent in Africa, either. Slaves acquired by capture were most likely to be members of neighboring communities.

And since one of the uses for slaves was as bargaining chips in prisoner exchanges, moving them a distance away would have been counterproductive to their role in those societies.

Well, 'dude', that was a defining point of Roman, Carthaginian, Barbary states, Hunnish, Mongol, early Turkish, and countless other slave-owning cultures, as well as in today's slave market (we live in the Golden Era of slave trade, after all. Of course, now it is 'human trafficking'.).

Let's face it: your GM nerfed your situation to prevent bad things from happening to a PC. That's OK, there's no wrong way to play the same when you're not at my table, but what it means is that surrender was a safe option for your PC. As you said: you knew you would be rescued, and nothing bad would happen to your PC.

But that 'safe place' type of gaming is not universal, and if a GM is playing a level field, your confidence would be badly misplaced.

 

[FrogReaver]

Let's face it: your GM nerfed your situation to prevent bad things from happening to a PC. That's OK, there's no wrong way to play the same when you're not at my table, but what it means is that surrender was a safe option for your PC. As you said: you knew you would be rescued, and nothing bad would happen to your PC.

That a GM decides his fictional world runs different than you would have your fictional world run doesn't mean he nerfed things to prevent bad things from happening to a PC.

 

[Jd Smith1]

That a GM decides his fictional world runs different than you would have your fictional world run doesn't mean he nerfed things to prevent bad things from happening to a PC.

Actually, it means precisely that.

It's the same as allowing the ability to raise dead, or allowing PCs to make three saving throws before death occurs: it is a buffer against PC death.

The degree of PC death risk completely defines the point of this thread.

 

[FrogReaver]

Actually, it means precisely that.

It's the same as allowing the ability to raise dead, or allowing PCs to make three saving throws before death occurs: it is a buffer against PC death.

The degree of PC death risk completely defines the point of this thread.

Again, you can have any of those things without meaning that someone is nerfing things to prevent bad things from happening to a PC.

 

[TheSword]

I’m not really interested in a DM who kills PCs who surrender to hammer home how tough their campaign is @Jd Smith1. That’s your call but it is kinda the opposite of the intention of the thread. Which is if it makes for interesting story how do we encourage it.

It seems there are lots of reasons you wouldn't be killed out of hand by an enemy that I can see in the posts above.

• You could be sold into slavery. @Dannyalcatraz
• You could be ransomed
• You could be taken as a hostage (Game of Thrones)
• You might have valuable information and the enemy doesn’t have the convenience of easy money to pry it out of you. (Torture in the fiction, generally isn’t quick or easy) (Star Wars)
• You might make a bargain for information/a task to benefit the enemy.
• You night be killed eventually but are awaiting a lawful trial and execution. The example @dragoner gave
• You night be killed out of hand but are waiting for a time when it can have the maximum impact for the enemy (Braveheart, Robin Hood POT)
• It’s just plain wrong to do that in that game world @MGibster

There’s probably more reasons out there. It looks like if the game world supports and rewards not killing people and it’s made clear from earlier encounters “oh it’s a shame you killed X, he would have fetched a fair ransom”, it’s more likely the party will see that as a viable option.

To be honest I can see how most of these could apply to intelligent foes that are monstrous, particularly monsters with charm abilities that keep slaves like beholders.

 

[TheSword]

Well, 'dude', that was a defining point of Roman, Carthaginian, Barbary states, Hunnish, Mongol, early Turkish, and countless other slave-owning cultures, as well as in today's slave market (we live in the Golden Era of slave trade, after all. Of course, now it is 'human trafficking'.).

Let's face it: your GM nerfed your situation to prevent bad things from happening to a PC. That's OK, there's no wrong way to play the same when you're not at my table, but what it means is that surrender was a safe option for your PC. As you said: you knew you would be rescued, and nothing bad would happen to your PC.

But that 'safe place' type of gaming is not universal, and if a GM is playing a level field, your confidence would be badly misplaced.

I think at this point, you’re just thread crapping and getting a bit hostile in the process. This isn’t about ‘safe space’ gaming - I don’t even know what that is, but it’s sounds dismissive.

Telling us that if you don’t kill your PCs when they surrender you’re doing it wrong, is kinda against the whole premise of the thread. Which is to say in fiction this happens ALL the time and looks pretty fun, so how can it happen in game.

Incidentally the reason for death saves and raise the dead. Is that when the PCs are dead the story ends. We want to see what happens to our characters so we try and keep the story going for as long as it makes sense.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, 'dude', that was a defining point of Roman, Carthaginian, Barbary states, Hunnish, Mongol, early Turkish, and countless other slave-owning cultures, as well as in today's slave market (we live in the Golden Era of slave trade, after all. Of course, now it is 'human trafficking'.).

Which- crucially- is not every slave owning culture in the history of the world. The fact that the slavery of this DM’s game world were run differently is neither ahistorical nor nerfing, just different.