How to "capture" players using 4E rules?

[Dausuul]

Wow...I'm feeling like the odd man out. Even as a player, a campaign where it is assumed that all encounters are beatable is something I'd fine BORING. If the playres are assumed to win all of the time I don't see the glory in victory or the value of decision making (especially when deciding if the group should fight or try to find a different way).

It's not about all encounters being "beatable," in the sense of victory in combat. It's about having choices as players.

If I put an ancient red dragon in an adventure with a 1st-level party, there's no expectation that the dragon is beatable in combat; but the PCs can choose to avoid it, talk to it, try to bribe it, et cetera. That's perfectly fine.

If I send an ancient red dragon at my PCs to attack them, beat them down, and take them prisoner, without giving them any chance to do anything about it, that's the sort of thing most players don't much cotton to.

Now, the way the OP has laid it out - with the party having a choice to negotiate or be captured - is tolerable, though I would still be a little miffed as a player, since it's a rather heavily weighted choice. I think most of us assumed, from the original post, that we were talking about a situation in which the party is attacked by a superior force, beaten down, and taken prisoner, with no chance to avoid it.

 

[Hjorimir]

It's not about all encounters being "beatable," in the sense of victory in combat. It's about having choices as players.

If I put an ancient red dragon in an adventure with a 1st-level party, there's no expectation that the dragon is beatable in combat; but the PCs can choose to avoid it, talk to it, try to bribe it, et cetera. That's perfectly fine.

If I send an ancient red dragon at my PCs to attack them, beat them down, and take them prisoner, without giving them any chance to do anything about it, that's the sort of thing most players don't much cotton to.

Now, the way the OP has laid it out - with the party having a choice to negotiate or be captured - is tolerable, though I would still be a little miffed as a player, since it's a rather heavily weighted choice. I think most of us assumed, from the original post, that we were talking about a situation in which the party is attacked by a superior force, beaten down, and taken prisoner, with no chance to avoid it.

Sometimes, in stories, the protagonists are simply overwhelmed...cornered like rats. All, I'm saying is that it is okay to have that happen in game once in a blue moon.

Edit: I guess I just look at it as another role-playing situation for the characters to make the most of.

 

[Dausuul]

Sometimes, in stories, the protagonists are simply overwhelmed...cornered like rats.

Running an RPG is not the same as telling a story. Generally speaking, players do not like to feel that their PCs are merely characters in a story the DM is telling, the events of their lives dictated by the DM. They want to take part in shaping the outcome, and they don't like having their characters crippled/imprisoned/otherwise "punished" by DM fiat.

If the PCs get cornered like rats as a result of making some bad decisions or wrong guesses or failing to come up with something clever, that's something most players will accept; consequences are consequences. But if the DM decides their characters are going to be cornered like rats and captured, no matter what they do, that's when the whiff of the railroad creeps in. The same is true if it's left purely up to the dice, with no room for player strategy or tactics.

(I will add that imprisonment in particular seems to trigger a severe allergic reaction in a lot of players. I think it's something about being forcibly stripped of one's power and ability to act. That's why I try to avoid using imprisonment as a plot device.)

 

[Hjorimir]

Running an RPG is not the same as telling a story. Generally speaking, players do not like to feel that their PCs are merely characters in a story the DM is telling, the events of their lives dictated by the DM. They want to take part in shaping the outcome, and they don't like having their characters crippled/imprisoned/otherwise "punished" by DM fiat.

If the PCs get cornered like rats as a result of making some bad decisions or wrong guesses or failing to come up with something clever, that's something most players will accept; consequences are consequences. But if the DM decides their characters are going to be cornered like rats and captured, no matter what they do, that's when the whiff of the railroad creeps in. The same is true if it's left purely up to the dice, with no room for player strategy or tactics.

(I will add that imprisonment in particular seems to trigger a severe allergic reaction in a lot of players. I think it's something about being forcibly stripped of one's power and ability to act. That's why I try to avoid using imprisonment as a plot device.)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Together (DM and players) we are definately telling a story. The way our group looks at it is that the DM produces plot, but the players write the story. Or, if you prefer, it is collaborative storytelling.

Just so we're clear, I never said "no matter what they do" (please see post 20where I say I'd let it play out to see what happens).

It's worked my playerbase for 27 years now really and over those years I developed a strong relationship of trust with the gang that I'm not abusing them in any way.

 

[S'mon]

1. Start the session with the PCs captured.

2. Give them each a bonus Action Point.