Surrender or Die!

[haakon1]

If I suspected it was a surrender merely to submit to torture, to entertain my captors, and later painful execution further on, I definitely wouldn't. I'd kill every man of em I could lay hands on before they killed me.

. . .

So it'd be situationally dependent on what I suspected about that possibility.

Good point. It depends on who you are surrendering to.

If it's Al-Qaeda or Nazis, fight til you die, since it all the ends the same way, but goes down better if you died with your boots on.

If it's the NYPD, fine, I'm coming out with my hands up -- somebody call my lawyer!

 

[MarkB]

I voted "some", because it really does depend upon the situation - mainly, who's asking you to surrender, and what you can expect of them if you do.

But generally speaking, in my experience, players tend to adopt the Galaxy Quest motto.

"Never retreat! Never surrender!"

 

[blargney the second]

Death first!

 

[CharlesRyan]

In my general experience over 30 years of gaming, the vast majority of players will go down fighting without even giving surrender a significant amount of thought.

I don't know exactly why this is. I think it's some combination of A) an assumption that bad guys are always there to be defeated; B) an unwillingness to give up control of their characters; and C) a sense that surrender means "losing" the game while death is simply an occupational hazard. (Maybe B is the most important.)

Being captured plays a role in many movies and books. The hero spends a little time in a cage or even being tortured, then finds a way to escape or is freed by friends or whatever, often gaining important information or new avenues of attack in the process. Strange that, in the heat of the moment, this is all lost on most players.

All that said, in my current campaign I'd bet most of the players would surrender. They're very story oriented, have experienced and bounced back from other setbacks, and I think trust me as a GM not to make capture a game-ender.

 

[Psychotic Jim]

A lot of insightful posts on this thread. It's really variable given the situation, but all things being equal, I went with few players would accept those terms. Many issues (genre expectations, possible loss of magical items, having ideas for new pcs, dislike of railroading, lack of trust on the dm, etc) contribute to why this is the case. I also think that for many players there is an implicit shaming or loss of face for both the player and the character. It’s like the fantasy warrior code "don't give in, don't submit". To die fighting impossible odds may be seen as an honorable way to go, but submission most likely means that the PC is seen as a weakling at the best, a traitor to the cause at the worst. Also, submission may lead to further humiliation down the line. Because this possible disgrace can really mar a player's idea of who he is playing, fighting to the death may be seen as the only reasonable decision.

There’s only a few mitigating factors I can see helping the odds of surrender.
1) Strong trust between the player and the gm.

2) Players knowing (and having confidence in their knowledge) of how to exploit their enemies to enact escapes

3) Players not wanting to take the time to struggle through a fruitless battle

4) The pcs having something more valuable to lose by dying than their own lives, something that outweighs the loss of face and the loss of resources implicit in surrendering

5) As mentioned by previous posters, the trustworthiness of the force they would surrender to and the terms of the surrender

6) Also mentioned previously by other posters, a desire of the players to be part of interesting game/story developments/opportunities and to just see where the game goes

 

[Negflar2099]

Absolutely agree. This is how it always turns out for me.

 

[fba827]

I think it depends on the DM and how much trust (though that is not the -exact- word I'm looking for) the players have.

If there was the notion that the surrender could lead to an equally interesting story branch, then, sure, there would likely be more players willing to surrender.

If, on the other hand, the players feel that the DM is "just out to get them" or doesn't have much sense as to how much is too much, then there would be less chance of an interesting story/plot development/encounter to be had by surrender. Hence, go down fighting...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I voted "Some" because it really depends upon the particular players, PCs, and situations.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I'm asking about the norm/average Players in your experience, not necessarily about your particular group right now.

Say the party of adventurers were surrounded by an overwhelming force. A force all the Players agree can probably kill them in a fight.

If the leader of the force calls for the party to surrender or die, would the Players/PCs choose to fight or surrender? (For this poll, there are no other alternatives.)

This is not a trick question. There is no illusion or trickery on the part of the overwhelming force, and the Players/PCs know this. The only reason I'm saying the force can "probably" kill them is because it is that possibility of survival, however slight, that makes the difference.

Bullgrit

In my case strike 'would' and replace with 'should'. As GM, if I have the bad guys calling for the team to surrender, rather than just mowing them down, then odds are good that there are alternatives to just delaying PC death.

Though in Big Rubble (RQ 2), 'would' is closer - since having a ransom is one of the things expected in the setting. (And it is not unknown for a troll to call out what his/her ransom is rather than facing death.)

The Auld Grump

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I've gone for a middle of the road answer because over the years the gamers I've played with (and myself) have changed in outlook. In the early days surrender was rarely an option, capture was just as much "losing" as dead.

But nowadays I think most of the players I play with would see it as a plot point and go along.

Ding! Ding!

The Auld Grump