Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nathal" data-source="post: 667340" data-attributes="member: 1809">I agree that in a novel it is the author who decides the outcome and in the RPG it ought to be primarily the decisions of the players (assuming the fairness of the DM) that determine the outcome of dangerous situations.But fiction does in many ways inspire the average Dungeon Master, and the comparison was not intended to be between ideas of "plot" versus the open-ended nature of the typical adventure module.  All I'm claiming is that plot elements used in adventures are derived from plot devices used in fantasy fiction (or history, or mythology, etc.).  Attempts by the antagonists to ambush and/or capture the PCs are common happenings in role-playing games, as well as in history, whether those attempts are successful or not was not the core of the claim.  This observation was in context of the discussion that it is difficult to successfully capture PCs in a single round by way of intimidation when the players are prone to meta-gaming.  That is true, it was pointed out, insofar as the players ignore alignment or character concept, or "realistic" consequences (the word in quotes dependant on sub-genre as pointed out by Hong).  What do I mean by "intimidation"?  I obviously don't mean the skill.  I am referring back to the original examples of having a knife held at ones throat or a crossbow point-blank at ones chest when the would-be attacker has the initiative and/or surprise.  Hong pointed out that the expected outcome depends on the sub-genre, pointing out the Kung Fu "reality" is different than a low-magic, gritty campaign setting.Hmmm.  How can I word this any more succinctly?  I'll make an attempt:  It is difficult for a DM to employ the relatively common plot device of "capture (arrest, bust, detain, nab)" against a group of high level characters when their players possess a strong tendency toward meta-gaming, coupled with a reckless disregard for alignment or in-world moral consequence.  This fact tends to annoy DMs who hope for a "realistic" response on the part of player-characters when common sense would dictate surrender or defeat due to being surrounded, outnumbered, and cornered with ranged weapons aimed steadily at their heads.  However, as many have said, the hit-point system allows heroic characters with a level advantage to circumvent realism, hacking through a legion of guards, outnumbered or not.One way to get somebody to surrender in the first round in D&D is by threat of instant death (magic spell or or overwhelming difference in CR vs. character level). This reason can certainly be abused by the DM!  In cases of low level town guards attempting to arrest high-level characters...such surrender is very unlikely, UNLESS the players feel it is within their character concept to lay down their weapons.  Whether this poses a problem for the DM depends on the kind of game he wishes to run in terms of deadliness.  Is that better explained?  I don't think I'm saying anything that is new or a single thought that hasn't been expressed a hundred times before. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

Verification