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

[Jd Smith1]

Sure, but were they willing to die without their car?

"Come on, this is our chance, we need to get out of here, or we'll die in here!"

"Not without my iPhone!!"

"..."

Well, in fairness, we're talking about gear you can't purchase.

But people and property are a complex issue. Every year about 3500 burglars die trying to steal very ordinary belongings that were covered under homeowner's insurance.

So I don't see it as unrealistic. I'm not 100% sure it is sensible, either, but given my history I'm in no position to judge.

 

[Umbran]

One problem and source of disconnect, is that many people apply modern morality to a setting which, at least on the outside, is based on medieval/renaissance times.

I don't expect most of us are trying to product historical fiction - the fireballs and dragons kind of but a kibosh on that idea. In general, the stories we produce as the result of play reflect our current morality. We just use pseudo-history as a framework.

Even if we are trying to produce historical fictions, our choices of emphasis will still reflect ourselves as much as the history.

 

[Jd Smith1]

How high do your parties get? Like, an 11th level party has a 1st level guy with them?

Sure. My campaigns run fro 50-70 weekly sessions.

What if no one in the party can use what's left in the "party fund?" New guy still can't use it?

Keep in mind that that is up to the group as a whole (excluding me, as the GM has no say in the matter), but yeah, often they'll withhold gear just to prove a point, particularly after a series of PC losses. The traditional 'new guy is the goat' thing. We've been together for years (18 years, for most of us).

 

[Derren]

Do you encourage GMs to railroad things to a TPK rather than resolve the situation using the rules the system provides?

Also, what is the limit you are finding here?

The limit is that it creates the expectation that imprisonment is just a small detour for the ongoing adventure and that after a few sessions they are back on track with all their gear + loot from their captors. And while you can say that this makes the PCs more likely to surrender I find it very limiting that the players expect that it plays out like this as it makes for a silly setting were this is always possible. Why were the PCs beaten in a traveller setting? Why was the guard who "interrogated" them armed with an SMG, the room unlocked and unguarded, the battle dress not stored securely in the armory? All this makes no sense and is just there to railroad the PCs to escape.

 

[TheSword]

Well, in fairness, we're talking about gear you can't purchase.

But people and property are a complex issue. Every year about 3500 burglars die trying to steal very ordinary belongings that were covered under homeowner's insurance.

So I don't see it as unrealistic. I'm not 100% sure it is sensible, either, but given my history I'm in no position to judge.

...And while you can say that this makes the PCs more likely to surrender I find it very limiting that the players expect that it plays out like this as it makes for a silly setting were this is always possible.

They don’t need to lose their property forever. Just have it out of their sight for a short while. Neither does it have to be trivial to get it back. However it doesn’t have to be excruciating either.

Losing - regaining - exceeding is a fairly typical and powerful story arc used in extremes from easy escape in Star Wars to the grueling experiences of the Count of Monte Cristo! (Incidentally the most boss of all surrender and escape stories)

 

[pemerton]

In the Traveller campaign I mentioned just upthread, the PC who was able to disarm the guard and then capture the battle dress also made friends with one of the NPCs. This unfolded over a handful of scenes - first, she developed a liking for him during her interrogation of him; second, he encountered her while looking for the battle dress and interacted with her quite politely; third, he let her come along with the PCs when they fled the enemy base rather than being left behind with the other defeated NPCs.

Eighteen months later I don't remember all the mechanical details, but at the core of it will have been the reaction roll system.

This is an example of what I mean when I talk about mechanics that let players take actions even if their PCs are prisoners. To go back to one of the points in @TheSword's OP, the fiction of the PCs have surrendered and are prisoners doesn't have to mean the gameplay of the players have no agency. If, in some systems, it does have that consequence that is just revealing a limit of those systems.

 

[Umbran]

I find it very limiting that the players expect that it plays out like this as it makes for a silly setting ...

If you look with any decent level of scrutiny, pretty much every setting is silly. This is just a silliness you like less than others. Which is fine, but is particular to you, not to the setting being particularly nonsensical.

It is fair to say that the real world is silly, if you look with any decent level of scrutiny...

 

[cmad1977]

You never met people who liked nice things a lot? Cars, houses, etc?

In years past I've worked more than one RL murder that occured because a car was dinged.

If your heroes care more about their STUFF then their LIVES they aren’t heroes. A living hero with no clothes can do more than a dead one with a Vorpal Sword.

 

[cmad1977]

How can the heroes lead a slave revolt if they don’t get captured?
Prison break?


Have people not run these scenarios?

 

[cmad1977]

I mean... NO ONES group has pulled the Wookie prisoner trick to save the princess from the clutches of the evil slavers??