D&D 5E Drop your weapons situation

[5ekyu]

This type of scenario can work, but there's a certain amount of trust you have to earn with the players first.

Players sign up to play D&D because they want to play heroes. They want to win! Yet, we see story after story of adversarial DMs that refuse to let the players earn a victory or spend the game playing Mother May I. Players tend not to play nice with losing weapons or being taken hostage. All of the most exciting options a player has on their character sheet for interacting with the world depend on those weapons/component pouches/holy symbols. They're the defining attributes of each class.

Once it's pretty well established that the players control their own destiny, they'll be more likely to cooperate and drop their weapons in the short-term, with the understanding and expectation that they'll be able to get them back and win big in the long-term.

i pretty much agree with all this except the first sentence. While i do not disagree with it per se, I think scenarios such as the one described by the Op and the intent behind it - a setup scenario to force the crisis - is hard to imagine not strining or lessening the degree of existing trust and thus hurting the game.

The players who have always had the most fun in my games have been the ones who understood "you are not playing against me" anbd did not view it as a competition or me as a threat. The ones who bring in their old habits and never get comfortable always seem to be limiting themselves by spending a lot of effort and brainpower and focus on threats that exist only in their minds while the other players just go on with the fun they are creating.

As iirc i said earlier in the thread, this kind of scenario and intent really goes against my fundamanetal GM objectives and i do not see the particular moment of drama that *the GM* desires to see as enough payoff to risk the potential damage or loss of fun for the other players.

I can think of thousands of scenarios that are fun, challenging and all those other adjectives that don't invole so many potential slams to the table trust.

 

[Rossbert]

As far as the loss of player agency question, while the situation only has two options, I feel the player's can have lots of agency leading up to it. Did they choose to protect a target or chase another lead? Did they investigate the villain's goals or just kill minions? The situation is the consequence of previous choices and most likely skill checks and several scenes or encounters. If it is just a random grab it is probably either an adventure hook or just a cheap deus ex.

That said, it does require an understanding that there will be certain logical situations that end in certain death, like inflicting a logically leather wound on a helpless victim. I know in at least one game, I did not have to roll any attacks or damage to kill a sleeping Orc, but obviously your mileage will vary and it is not strictly RAW.

 

[5ekyu]

As far as the loss of player agency question, while the situation only has two options, I feel the player's can have lots of agency leading up to it. Did they choose to protect a target or chase another lead? Did they investigate the villain's goals or just kill minions? The situation is the consequence of previous choices and most likely skill checks and several scenes or encounters. If it is just a random grab it is probably either an adventure hook or just a cheap deus ex.

That said, it does require an understanding that there will be certain logical situations that end in certain death, like inflicting a logically leather wound on a helpless victim. I know in at least one game, I did not have to roll any attacks or damage to kill a sleeping Orc, but obviously your mileage will vary and it is not strictly RAW.

Yes in general the are posdibilities for pre setup agency but when the GM starts the planning with this statement, ant hint of player agency is dead on artival, imo.

"I'd like to have a "drop your weapons" situation in my next session and I'd really like to create some tension between the PJs with the bad guys pointing them with arrows and spells, forcing them to surrender".


Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Rossbert]

It is more along the lines of "you return to the kingdom to find NPCX has been murdered" style plot twist only in this case they get back in time to interrupt and get a choice, even if it is limited and unpleasant.

In either case I strongly recommend there be some hints that now might not be the best time to leave NPCX alone and go off adventuring elsewhere, but it should be an option.

 

[GMMichael]

That's why your argument is kinda missing the point of what MarkB, myself, and others have said. It's not that we necessarily think it's smart or a good idea. It's that we know most players will do it anyway.

MarkB, like the Youtube poster, said that PCs are supposed to defeat overwhelming odds because, well, they're heroes. The reason I brought up elementary-level players is because they're not capable of analyzing, evaluating, or planning. I'm pretty sure that players of D&D's suggested age range can do some of that. Now, it's fine if players want to "be heroes" in the face of overwhelming odds anyway, but you have to look back at your campaign theme and ask:

Since I know my players are going to try and win Darwin awards, do I narrate their utter defeat and continue with a story that makes sense, or do I effectively tell them, "hey, you're going to win no matter what you face?"

Wow, what an obscure and convoluted example. So, the only way the PCs are getting out of there is if one of them agrees to kill his own cousin? What if he lies and fails his Deception check, do they still die?

In that case, yeah, I'd rather play the character who refused to kill kin and went down fighting than the one who marched off to fight his own family. Either way, I'm not being given the option to play the character I want to play, and at least with the first option I get to bring in a new character.

Good questions. The type that arise when role-playing choices are black and white. Or according to Matt Colville, "Be a Hero" or "Be a Peasant." Or according to the OP, "Drop Your Weapons" or "Die."

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

MarkB, like the Youtube poster, said that PCs are supposed to defeat overwhelming odds because, well, they're heroes. The reason I brought up elementary-level players is because they're not capable of analyzing, evaluating, or planning. I'm pretty sure that players of D&D's suggested age range can do some of that. Now, it's fine if players want to "be heroes" in the face of overwhelming odds anyway, but you have to look back at your campaign theme and ask:

Since I know my players are going to try and win Darwin awards, do I narrate their utter defeat and continue with a story that makes sense, or do I effectively tell them, "hey, you're going to win no matter what you face?"

The players often approach the table with a different mindset than they do with real life, even if they do not realize it. This isn't Call of Cthulhu, where you can expect the DM may be actively trying to kill you with some of the options; it's not part of the game for that to be considered acceptable, as we've seen in several arguments on the subject over the years.

The other problem is, you're operating under a false idea of how human logic works and what marks adult-level decisions. Many people in real life who are adults and that have passed grade school make the decision to be heroes instead of surrendering. So this is not a case of elementary-level logic, but a case of deciding that death is better than surrendering.

Actual adventurers, who see combat regularly and see things much more horrible than exist in the real world, have no reason not to oppose surrendering. After all, how many evil races or evil magic users would use them as slaves, sacrifices, or experiment subjects if they surrendered? Surrendering doesn't make as much sense when you consider those additional risks. At least if you die in battle, the worst that can happen is they reanimate your corpses as undead minions that will be put down by the next set of heroes.

So, the question I have for you: Why would you put your players in a position like this, where they have to choose between dying or risking being subjected to some of the very horrors they've seen done to others over their careers, and then hold them as being childish or idiots simply because they decide death is preferable?

The point is, the logic I have seen from you since that video was brought up for why the players should surrender is the accusation that they are children or they are too stupid to live if they don't. The majority of your argument against the video comes down to insulting the people who hold that philosophy toward the game.

And your argument towards me comes under the assumption death or surrender is the only set of options when, from your earlier posts and your comment about narrating their deaths, I suspect you wouldn't even let them roll the dice and resolve it in a real battle instead of just deciding via GM fiat. I might be wrong on this. But if they roll the dice, fight the battle, and escape it (very possible) or somehow manage to actually win, what would you do then? Those are options you are not considering, and possible outcomes that are also very good reasons to refuse surrender.

This is a mantra I give to all newbie DMs to repeat to themselves: "Overcoming a challenge doesn't have to mean winning a battle." Getting out of overwhelming odds alive is still overcoming a challenge.

 

[MarkB]

MarkB, like the Youtube poster, said that PCs are supposed to defeat overwhelming odds because, well, they're heroes. The reason I brought up elementary-level players is because they're not capable of analyzing, evaluating, or planning. I'm pretty sure that players of D&D's suggested age range can do some of that. Now, it's fine if players want to "be heroes" in the face of overwhelming odds anyway, but you have to look back at your campaign theme and ask:

Since I know my players are going to try and win Darwin awards, do I narrate their utter defeat and continue with a story that makes sense, or do I effectively tell them, "hey, you're going to win no matter what you face?"

If you're narrating the outcome, it's stopped being a game. If you're continuing with the story after you've defeated the players, it's really stopped being a game.

Maybe choose the third option - don't place them in the position of having no options other than defeat or surrender in the first place.

Good questions. The type that arise when role-playing choices are black and white. Or according to Matt Colville, "Be a Hero" or "Be a Peasant." Or according to the OP, "Drop Your Weapons" or "Die."

So, you're agreeing that it is a bad idea to present your players with that sort of black-and-white choice? I'm not sure where else you're going with this statement.

 

[Enkhidu]

It occurs to me that the solution to the original question isn't mechanical at all, but is instead social - its really about trust.

If, as a DM, I want to see the players treat surrender as an option in that situation, I need to "go first." Have a group of hostile NPCs which could conceivably beat the PCs surrender simply due to circumstance. If the players handle the the situation in such a way as to leave the NPCs alive, the DM can be more certain of player cooperation when the tables are turned (and if, on the other hand, the players elect to eliminate their new prisoners, the DM can be certain that the "surrender or die" scenario is never going to cut it).

Massaging player expectations is the most effective way of gaining a DM a free hand in these situations.

 

[MarkB]

It occurs to me that the solution to the original question isn't mechanical at all, but is instead social - its really about trust.

If, as a DM, I want to see the players treat surrender as an option in that situation, I need to "go first." Have a group of hostile NPCs which could conceivably beat the PCs surrender simply due to circumstance. If the players handle the the situation in such a way as to leave the NPCs alive, the DM can be more certain of player cooperation when the tables are turned (and if, on the other hand, the players elect to eliminate their new prisoners, the DM can be certain that the "surrender or die" scenario is never going to cut it).

Massaging player expectations is the most effective way of gaining a DM a free hand in these situations.

You're right that it's about trust, but there's no real equivalence to that situation. The DM will never take the fates of a group of NPCs as seriously as the players will take their own characters, and they know that. They're not going to look at a bunch of prisoners under their care as personifications of the DM, and let that guide their thinking in regard to care or lack of care, nor will they see it as setting any precedent for their own care in a similar situation.

Where you establish trust is in showing the players that you place more importance upon their enjoyment of the game, and the journey that their characters experience, then you do upon being able to make your story go exactly the way you expect it to. And they will return that by trusting that, if you do have to limit their options at some point, it's done in service to providing further opportunities for them to be awesome, rather than for you to tell your story to them.

 

[5ekyu]

Since I know my players are going to try and win Darwin awards, do I narrate their utter defeat and continue with a story that makes sense, or do I effectively tell them, "hey, you're going to win no matter what you face?"

But its not that binary a choice. Death and winning are not intrinsically alternatives/opposite sides of the coin any more than surviving and losing are.

it is the GM's choices that set the stage for this to be the case, often more than the player's and their character's choices were.

In fact, in the case that starts this very thread, it is square completely on the Gm choice as it is their intent to set up just this binary death-v-surrender type of result as the outcome of the play - so basically regardless of the PC/player choices.

A party might well find itself in a situation where losing a fight can still be winning. or where winning a fight can be losing.

All that is required is for the Gm to get his campaign to be invested in more than survival.

"The fight is taking too long and we have to help the Macguffin family so lets fall back to them."

if a Gm knows his players are the types that will fight rather than surrender there are a gazillion ways to manage campaigns that do not amount to "always winning" or "they all die"

i have said from time to time "there are always extremes and outliers but the vast majority of the universe exists between those extremes and that is where most of the fun exists too."