D&D 5E (2014) "Just Kill Them": Balancing PC survival and Monster Intelligence

[aramis erak]

I haven't read the adventure yet, but a couple ideas off the top of my head are:
4. They will be sacrificed on the holy day which is sometime down the road.
5. There is an order for some unique slaves from one of the houses and they can make a good sum by fulfilling it with these guys.

These both tie into the module...

The camp is a slave holding facility for new prisoners, soon to be slaves. Basically, it's where to break them before they get sent to the big city to be auctioned off as slaves. Put the guards on a profit share, and voila, instant reason to subdue the prisoners. Except Saerith.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Has anyone mentioned that maybe the truth of the matter is that this just isn't a well organized adventure, unless you don't mind handwaving things into things being inconsistent?

My group doesn't work this way so the party would need to be all drow or possibly duergar in order for it to make sense. My player's and I need consistency in order to enjoy the game.

 

[Sunseeker]

Has anyone mentioned that maybe the truth of the matter is that this just isn't a well organized adventure, unless you don't mind handwaving things into things being inconsistent?

My group doesn't work this way so the party would need to be all drow or possibly duergar in order for it to make sense. My player's and I need consistency in order to enjoy the game.

As people have mentioned before, every adventure needs to start somewhere. Anyone can find themselves in prison just as much as anyone can find themselves in a bar.

I don't think it's inconsistent to say that sometimes the Drow kill you, and sometimes they don't, because Drow are evil elves and elves are fickle creatures.

 

[Uchawi]

It is probably more exciting going through the scenario of being captured or escaping, versus just deciding to start the adventure with the party being captured or escaping. It is a pivotal point in any plot. You can still stack the deck to favor either outcome, but the party has some influence.

It could also provide a backdrop on what may occur based on either outcome.

 

[Umbran]

Agreed. Some players have more fun when they believe that their enemies are smart and might kill them if they are captured.

Well, there it is right there - if they were going to kill you, they'd have killed you. Why bother to capture if they're just going to kill you anyway? Waste of time and effort, unless they're instead going to kill you in a ritual or something.

That they captured you once does *not* say that, in the heat of later battle, they won't kill you. The fun of risk is only really removed if you *always* capture, rather than kill.

 

[Remathilis]

The, "captured and placed into a silly death trap device" thing is a genre trope. If your players are not buying in to the genre tropes (i.e. if they are killing their enemies to the man without mercy), then you should not use them. This sort of goes along with the, "combat as sport" vs. "combat as war" discussions that occasionally go around.

True. I guess the question was twofold; should the PC get quarter when they aren't prone to give it, and is the whole "they capture you rather than kill you" trope a cop out?

 

[steeldragons]

Haven't read the thread, but based on the title, "Just kill 'em" wins, obviously.

It's not my job to dumb down villains or, really, "balance" the PC's survival in any way. Ensuring the PC's survival is what the players are for!

Keep your character alive, succeed at the challenges that arise (which your own actions -or inactions- may bring about), hopefully become rich and famous in the process of repeatedly saving ever-growing sections of the world...and possibly, eventually, ever-growing sections of the cosmos. That's the game I play.

Monsters that would normally be out to kill you (for whatever reason)...will kill you given the opportunity. Creatures that are looking to capture you (for whatever reason), will capture you given the opportunity. Give 'em too much trouble, they're likely to kill you instead (unless some extraneous detail prohibits them, like fear/respect of a commander's orders, an attractive enough bounty/pay out, etc...).

The villainous monologue is fun and dramatic, and of course building drama and tension is essential to a successful game and story, but...I can't think of a single time I ever pulled a James Bond-esque "left to die/slow death trap." Thrown in chains/the dungeon and left to rot? Sure.

If it is in the interests of the NPC for the PCs to die/be dead, and their alignment isn't going to prohibit them, then that's what they're going to try to do. If the PC's don't survive?...Start rollin' those d6s.

 

[Remathilis]

Has anyone mentioned that maybe the truth of the matter is that this just isn't a well organized adventure, unless you don't mind handwaving things into things being inconsistent?

My group doesn't work this way so the party would need to be all drow or possibly duergar in order for it to make sense. My player's and I need consistency in order to enjoy the game.

Ignoring OotA or a moment, the same scenario can really apply to any monster with intelligence enough to gauge its foe's abilities. Does it make sense that a foe would risk taking prisoners (for whatever reason) with the abilities most PCs have, especially if they've seen the PCs abilities in action (which combat surely would show)? Would a dragon? Would a lich? Would a mind flayer?

On the surface, it makes a lot of sense for evil monsters to outright slaughter good-aligned adventurers. They tend to be pains in the neck and their abilities make them hard to control or contain. I'm sure any monster with a double digit Int score can determine that. The logical thing is to kill such foes before they escape and come back with reinforcements. The question is, should that logical answer trump the genre trope of "capture and escape" in order to keep the game running. Put another way, is the need for internal consistency worth the cost of rolling up all new characters?

 

[Remathilis]

Monsters that would normally be out to kill you (for whatever reason)...will kill you given the opportunity. Creatures that are looking to capture you (for whatever reason), will capture you given the opportunity. Give 'em too much trouble, they're likely to kill you instead (unless some extraneous detail prohibits them, like fear/respect of a commander's orders, an attractive enough bounty/pay out, etc...).

If it is in the interests of the NPC for the PCs to die/be dead, and their alignment isn't going to prohibit them, then that's what they're going to try to do. If the PC's don't survive?...Start rollin' those d6s.

I've run games (and played in games) that ended in a TPK before. Usually, it happens due to some bad dice rolls. And yeah, there are some monsters that aren't going to capture you (an owlbear don't care, he just wants food). But I've seen more than a few TPKs also retconned with "You wake up in a dungeon stripped of all your gear" as a way of continuing the game. Is it fair? Does it lessen the foes involved to do this?

 

[steeldragons]

To this I say/wonder, quite sincerely, "Why and how [and by whom] is rolling up new characters viewed as a cost?"

...and, bonus thought/question, WHEN did that happen?!

Rolling up characters is one of the primary joys (and base activity!) of the entire game. Sure, working a character up through the levels to whatever point the campaign ends/falls apart is fun. A definite goal of play is to gain XP to increase your power [levels] as you create/continue a story. But the idea that I can/should only do that with one particular character and making another would be some kind of penalty? InconCEIVable!