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

[prabe]

Someone else upthread mentioned the ongoing other thread about prisoners, and I don't think it can be a coincidence that tables that don't surrender don't take prisoners. I think some of it is the nature of the opposition--if you can't see yourself accepting their surrender, you probably can't see them accepting yours; there's probably a sort of feedback loop that includes players not wanting the moral quandary of taking prisoners (given the normal situation for the PCs where they don't have backup that can take the prisoners into custody) and players not expecting to be treated well if they're taken prisoner.

 

[Eltab]

I just read through a GAMMA WORLD vol2 module which described in the players-read-this section which encounters would usually kill you, imprison you, take your stuff and let you go, torture you, or (most animals) just eat you.
So the PCs can decide what to do when faced with an unwinnable fight.

 

[Istbor]

Definitely had my group surrender before. They made the mistake of raiding an outpost, but then camping for the night not too far off. Waking up, and finding themselves surrounded and outnumbered, they surrendered to the sell-swords they were fighting against.

Luckily for them, they had a black-scaled dragonborn who was able to breath enough acid on some of the cell bars to melt them and make their escape.
Before they left the compound though, they did have to search out for the bulk of their gear. All the liquid wealth, of money was gone.

And they ended up sneaking around even more to get the Wizard's spellbook back from a rival of his. It made for a pretty fun session, and led to some additional cool elements when they decided to escape further down into the unknown dungeons.

And I think yes. One of the big things is the loss of gear. D&D has definitely some mechanics that make certain classes less useful without the right equipment. A wizard without her spellbook is not going to be loving life, especially if she either hasn't made a backup, or there is considerable distance or danger between her and another one she has ready.

I think I was able to even get them into a mindset of surrender, due to their party's interaction with the world, and trying to reinforce that taking prisoners isn't something that is always coming with a negative experience.

Getting valuable intelligence from the captive.
Gaining leverage or material gain through exchanges or ransoms
Meeting that one peon that you caught down the road either trying his/her best to walk a different path in life, or even now in a position to help the party when in a tight spot.

 

[pemerton]

I just have a much higher standard than you when it comes to plausability and versimilitude of the setting and don't give the players everything on a silver platter to railroad them to victory.

(1) Have you read the account of my play that you are critiquing? Which bit(s)constitute the "silver platter"? Where is the railorad?

(2) Give us an example of how you adjudicated an escape from activity in your play.

as you can see by for example pemerton's posts, the expectations are either tpk or easy escape with full recovery.

This strongly implies that the answer to (1) is no.

In the example of play I posted, one of the PCs died in the course of the escape attempt. In mechanical terms, this unfolded from the fact that when the PC went to get the battle dress I called for a 2D check: 10+ and it all goes perfectly, 7+ and it's not too bad for the PC. The roll was in the middle range, and hence it did not all go smoothly. The resulting events led to the PC death.

That is not full recovery. And the post says nothing about "expectations". All I have posted in this thread about "expectations" is that the system mechancics will be used to resolve action declarations.

The fact that you do not actually read or engage with the accounts of play your are purporting to critique tends to undermine the credibility of your remarks.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Crossbow pointed at base of skull while I’m prone.

That's why you never conduct recon alone.

But if being captured just means a brief time in chains until the inevitable rescue, then I suppose it doesn't matter. Just another day at the office.

The last time a PC got caught scouting alone in my campaign, they found pieces of him nailed to trees.

Which created an interesting role-playing opportunity: do they let the enemy get away with bragging rights and a trophy hanging from their banner? What about the gear the scout had: is it worth the effort to recover? And so forth.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's why you never conduct recon alone.

But if being captured just means a brief time in chains until the inevitable rescue, then I suppose it doesn't matter. Just another day at the office.

The last time a PC got caught scouting alone in my campaign, they found pieces of him nailed to trees.

Which created an interesting role-playing opportunity: do they let the enemy get away with bragging rights and a trophy hanging from their banner? What about the gear the scout had: is it worth the effort to recover? And so forth.

It was either my PC conducting recon solo or having the party do a ”LEEROY JENKINS!”

Despite my capture, I was able to pass along some info via prearranged signals when they saw the convoy pass with my PC in chains. That info helped free me and the other captives.

Even so, it was a tight battle. With me in chains, I was virtually a non-factor save one kill. The battle would probably have been easier had I not scouted in the first place.

 

[Jd Smith1]

It was either my PC conducting recon solo or having the party do a ”LEEROY JENKINS!”

Only two options?

Well, to each their own.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Narrow pass, they’re coming out the way we’re going in. No way a party dressed largely in finest steel cookware is going to sneak past them.

 

[billd91]

Only two options?

Well, to each their own.

What the flapjack is wrong with you?

Language, please.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, well, GMs are often not nearly as good at communicating their world-building as they think. If people are assuming things, that is likely because they are filling in gaps in communicating what the game world is actually like.

True.

But also, some players don’t pay attention to the world-building guides they’ve been given.

In the 1990s, I ran a HERO Supers campaign set in the campaign world of Space:1889, but expanded. I told the players this, and made all of the info available for them to read at their leisure while we did ChaGen. I also created an organizational newsletter for the group they were part of that Recapped past events and dropped hints of news or the world. Everyone bought in. Best campaign I ever ran.

But when I tried the same thing with a completely different group in a completely different city a decade or so later, using Mutants & Masterminds, the campaign crashed and burned. There were multiple reasons it happened, but one I didn’t find out until doing a post-collapse “autopsy”- some players hadn’t paid attention to the campaign setting at all. The emails, the handouts, The multiple copies of Space:1889 on the table, etc. all went unread. One was surprised the campaign date was 1914. Another didn’t know there were dinos on Venus, Martians, or Atlanteans.