Surrender or Die!

[Thornir Alekeg]

I have yet to see anyone surrender in these situations - because someone always refuses, starts the fight, and at that point everyone else joins in.

This.

And then the players would get all over the DM for railroading them into a situation where they either have to surrender or die.

 

[Steel_Wind]

The answer is between "no" and "few".

This has always been a problem in RPGs. It is not that the rational and logical thing to do is to NOT surrender. In almost all cases, it is the rational and logical thing to do. But in this case, that's not the test.

This result is the same if, by slightly rephrasing the question, you substitute the word "flee" for the word "surrender". That action and that result also seems reasonable and fair when judged on a dispassionate basis. Indeed, usually more logical and rational than surrender ever would be, right?

Problem is, any encounter or scenario which posits as the "correct" response by the players (and make no mistake - we are talking about PLAYERS here, not "PCs") will be to surrender or to flee plays against the choices the overwhelming number of players will ACTUALLY make during a game.

The players are there to play and BE heroes. Not to run, not to surrender -- but to fight. Even if it is irrational, illogical or a foregone conclusion to the scenario - the overwhelming majority will not run, they will not surrender - they will choose to fight.

Accordingly, any adventures which posits that the characters "should" run or surrender is poor adventure design. GMs think this is acceptable because they see it in a book or a movie as a rational plot device. It makes "sense" to them that the honourable and "correct" choice in the circumstances it to flee or surrender.

Problem is, works of literature and film are works of literature and film. They are not RPGs. What works in one setting does not work in another.

This design is bad not because it is illogical or irrational -- nor because it sets up a scene which is not justified in the circumstances. It is poor adventure design because it is unheroic, is not fun to play, and is not what the players of the game are there to do. The players don't want to do this. You are making the game SUCK for your players when you "expect" them to make this choice. They will almost always resist it and will feel railroaded and pissed off.

The solution is simple: don't do it.

Don't do this in your games. Ever. It's a mistake - ALWAYS. If the players are going to be stupid and enter into a no-win scenario of their own accord, attack them, reduce them to unconsciousness and take them prisoner if that is what you want to have happen.

But don't offer up a fool's choice like "expecting" them to run or surrender as if that was ever a fair or reasonable expectation for you as GM to have. Games aren't real life and the overwhelming majority of players don't willingly choose that course of action. Don't delude yourself into thinking you are being a "good designer" when you offer this path as the way out. You aren't: you are running a crappy game.

I've done it too. I have done this in the past and allowed in-game reason and logic to dominate my design as to what a PC "should" do, and allowed this to prevail over my actual meta-game knowledge of what the players WILL do.

It's not the players' fault, it was mine. I SUCKED.

Pro designers sometimes make this mistake too. Don't make that same mistake just because they had an editor who didn't say "no" -- when he or she should have.

This is a difficult issue to discuss. But sometimes, logic and common sense and literary devices must give way to the operation of logic at a meta-game level.

Don't do this in your games. Just don't.

 

[the Jester]

Some pcs would surrender, but as soon as the rest started fighting, they'd prolly join in.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I went with some, based on my experience. My current group would probably surrender. We also like to run away. But I've seen PC parties fight to the death in this situation before.

The reasons why players don't like to surrender should be pretty obvious. Loss of control over the game, luck of trust in the GM, players don't know how long it will take for the game to become fun again (it could be many sessions of captivity), making up new PCs is a preferable option - the fun will probably begin again more quickly, PCs may be humiliated/tortured/raped/enslaved (I have one GM in particular who, while generally good, loves to subject characters to these).

 

[amerigoV]

In my experience, few surrender if things go bad (I am not talking about "impossible situation plot device", but the "everything that could go wrong did go wrong" scenario). If they can escape, they will. But surrender is a rare thing. It happened once that I recall. The Dragon made them "donate" to his treasure horde. Boy, were they pissed and came back after him instead of holding to an agreement which would have gotten their stuff back eventually.

In addition to the hero-thing others mention, most fantasy systems do not help make surrender a viable option. A key aspect of fantasy is cool magic items. Players tend to cherish them even more than their character (just send a Disenchanter/Rustmonster after a party and be prepared for the real life beatdown you will get). Other genres, you can at least get away with it. The PC breaks out and grabs the guard's gun/laser and they are off to the races. In fantasy, grabbing the guard's gear is a huge downgrade 99% of the time - "screw the plot, I gotta get my Hackmaster +12 back!"

For me as a player, surrender is not an option. I enjoy making different PCs so a TPK is no biggie to me. Its my PC's job to kick ass. Jail = Epic Fail. Death against impossible odds is much more memerable and enjoyable*.

* Although recently in a disfunctional PC group, my cleric (out of healing spells) fled and left the dead/dying n00bs to their fate. I am not sure why, but the other PCs kept running out of range of healing and refused to take cover from archers (this was 4e, so enemies do not provide cover vs. their own archers - they just stood there taking round after round of arrows when 5' step back would have given cover). It was rather satisfying to watch that batch die and start fresh.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You know, sometimes creating a poll for discussion is like playing D&D with rules lawyers. Everything has to be defined down to the most minute piece of information or else some people can't answer the poll. And even when stuff is defined down, someone will complain that the definition is too narrow for them to answer the question.

I mean, when asked a hypothetical "Surrender or die" question, some people can't just presume that surrender would be less bad than death. The specific situation of a surrender has to be defined exactly. I'm surprised that no one has brought up the question of, "Can the dead PCs be raised? Having that option changes any answer I might give!"

Bullgrit

To be fair, context is important. "Being outmatched" is not the entire situation.

Example 1: The PC's are cornered by the town guard in a lawful community. Surrender means arrest, jail, and a trial.

Example 2: The PC's are cornered by a gang of bloodthirsty gnolls. Surrender means a short brutal captivity followed by the spit.

Would either of these circumstances influence your decision?

The answer is between "no" and "few".

This has always been a problem in RPGs. It is not that the rational and logical thing to do is to NOT surrender. In almost all cases, it is the rational and logical thing to do. But in this case, that's not the test.

This result is the same if, by slightly rephrasing the question, you substitute the word "flee" for the word "surrender". That action and that result also seems reasonable and fair when judged on a dispassionate basis. Indeed, usually more logical and rational than surrender ever would be, right?

Problem is, any encounter or scenario which posits as the "correct" response by the players (and make no mistake - we are talking about PLAYERS here, not "PCs") will be to surrender or to flee plays against the choices the overwhelming number of players will ACTUALLY make during a game.

The players are there to play and BE heroes. Not to run, not to surrender -- but to fight. Even if it is irrational, illogical or a foregone conclusion to the scenario - the overwhelming majority will not run, they will not surrender - they will choose to fight.

Accordingly, any adventures which posits that the characters "should" run or surrender is poor adventure design. GMs think this is acceptable because they see it in a book or a movie as a rational plot device. It makes "sense" to them that the honourable and "correct" choice in the circumstances it to flee or surrender.

Problem is, works of literature and film are works of literature and film. They are not RPGs. What works in one setting does not work in another.

This design is bad not because it is illogical or irrational -- nor because it sets up a scene which is not justified in the circumstances. It is poor adventure design because it is unheroic, is not fun to play, and is not what the players of the game are there to do. The players don't want to do this. You are making the game SUCK for your players when you "expect" them to make this choice. They will almost always resist it and will feel railroaded and pissed off.

The solution is simple: don't do it.

Don't do this in your games. Ever. It's a mistake - ALWAYS. If the players are going to be stupid and enter into a no-win scenario of their own accord, attack them, reduce them to unconsciousness and take them prisoner if that is what you want to have happen.

But don't offer up a fool's choice like "expecting" them to run or surrender as if that was ever a fair or reasonable expectation for you as GM to have. Games aren't real life and the overwhelming majority of players don't willingly choose that course of action. Don't delude yourself into thinking you are being a "good designer" when you offer this path as the way out. You aren't: you are running a crappy game.

I've done it too. I have done this in the past and allowed in-game reason and logic to dominate my design as to what a PC "should" do, and allowed this to prevail over my actual meta-game knowledge of what the players WILL do.

It's not the players' fault, it was mine. I SUCKED.

Pro designers sometimes make this mistake too. Don't make that same mistake just because they had an editor who didn't say "no" -- when he or she should have.

This is a difficult issue to discuss. But sometimes, logic and common sense and literary devices must give way to the operation of logic at a meta-game level.

Don't do this in your games. Just don't.

I would expand on this to add that ANY expectations of what the players should do is bad design.

 

[amysrevenge]

Few.

Upgrade "probably" (which evokes probabilities in the 51% to 75% range to me) to "almost certainly" (to me means 76% to 95%) and I'll change my choice to most.

Upgrade "almost certainly" to "definitely" (96% plus) and I'll change to all.

 

[Abraxas]

And then the players would get all over the DM for railroading them into a situation where they either have to surrender or die.

Usually what I see is the players get all over the one who started the fight because he chose the wrong opening tactic/target...

 

[The Ghost]

I mean, when asked a hypothetical "Surrender or die" question, some people can't just presume that surrender would be less bad than death.

Whether surrender would be less bad than death is highly dependent on the situation the PCs find themselves in.

Assume the following PCs: LG Paladin, CG Bard, NG Cleric, NG Wizard.

Assume this group is surrounded by the local militia - what would the party do? My players would probably surrender. The players can reasonably assume that they will be dealt with in accordance to the town laws with the opportunity to defend themselves with a judge and jury.

Assume this group was surrounded by a tribe of orcs - what would the party do? My players would probably fight to the death. The players can reasonably assume that the orcs are not going to treat them very kindly and, in all probability, will torture and kill the party if given the chance. Better death now than death later.

Assume this party was surrounded by a bandit lord and his orc and human minions - what would the party do? Some of my players would probably want to fight their way through while others may be more interested in negotiation.

I cannot answer the poll as my answer changes depending on the specific situation.

 

[Mark]

Some players simply will never allow their PC to surrender and it can spell doom for the entire party unless the GM is ready to cull the obstinate PC(s) or quell them. If this is something the GM wishes to happen, then some reasonable means of putting a quick stop to the outlier must be at the ready. If that attittude spreads, and it usually spreads quickly, it can result in a TPK instead of a capture.