Taken Prisoner

[The Shaman]

If they pulled what? The In Medias Res story outline? A ground-hog day massacre? Capturing a single PC as a plot point?

Yes.

Why would you excuse yourself from the game?

Because I'm not interested in games which are saddled with story structure, in media res openings, flashbacks, plot points, or metagame agreements on the fate of the characters.

I play roleplaying games because of the ways in which they are different from storytelling.

 

[Janx]

Plus, only the slightest assumptions made. Namely that the PCs will accept the plot hook (and a skilled GM could work around that one) and, at some point, some subset of the PCs will be captured. Surely it would take more then that to cause you to walk out of a game.

Now, for those two assumptions, you can set up a pretty grand story. The PCs who have been captured get to see a lot of things while in captivety. The players get a snap-shot of information, not enough to complete the full picture but enough to be intrigued. They get to guess at what each clue means long before the entire picture becomes clear.

I can't speak for Shaman. But I do know my own reasons for being highly adverse to using capture as a plot point.

What I see wrong with planning a capture is this:

• It leads to railroading behavior
• It tends to remove player agency (the player is stuck until the GM offers an opportunity for release).
• it really pisses off players
• it tends to render certain classes useless

When subsequent event hinge on the party being captured, the GM may subconciously start to thwart valid means to avoid capture. Just so his adventure can move to the next stage.

Once the capture has succeeded, now what? The players are stuck until you reveal an opportunity for them to exploit. The wizard has no spells until they get them back, whereas the rogue still has full complement of abilities that are still useful.


While I liken my adventures to a TV show, the capture episodes are always low budget "bottle" episodes that crawl because the majority of it is things happening TO the players, rather than the players DOING things.

The only time I advocate using a capture, is to prevent a TPK. Primarily, the party's already pretty much lost, so wrap it up with a capture, and come back next week with the escape opportunities prepared and ready for the party to take advantage of. And then, take a page from Alias's book, and get the escape over in the first quarter, so you can get back to the rest of the adventure.

 

[Aeolius]

I could possibly see a story-arc where the PCs are not abducted and taken prisoner, but perhaps where they awaken as prisoners instead. Something along the line of The Prisoner .

I did something similar for a Halloween one-shot, where the story began with PCs awakening as bone creatures (sentient skeletons), after a night of drinking at the local tavern.

 

[Thasmodious]

This is one case where I think system has a lot to do with how these situations play out. Players adapt their expectations, even somewhat unconsciously, to the rules system. I've seen the same group of players drop their weapons and surrender when faced with 10 crossbowmen in Runequest, or by a few gunslingers with The Drop in Savage Worlds, and attack an overwhelming force of bandits springing an ambush in D&D. The players are well aware of the difference of 1d6 bolt damage against 50 hit points, versus a hit location/crit system like BRP or the increased probability of lethal damage from multiple, readied enemies in Savage Worlds.

Now, I'm not making an argument that those systems are better, just that certain conceits in different systems lead to different expectations.



If the OP is opening a campaign with this capture, my advice to skip playing the capture scenario, tell the caravan bit as background exposition and start the game with the PCs already caught and looking for a way out. If this is the case, I'd add that one thing I find very frustrating as a player in D&D games is to have to build a character at a medium or high level, do all the work it takes to properly equip such a character and then have that gear gone when the game starts, its just a big waste of time. Gearing is the single longest part of mid-high level character creation. Tell the players to not bother, start the game, then let them build up their gear during play. It's fun to salvage what you can, start with rocks, pieces of wooden benches, then captured daggers and swords, on to better gear. It's a bit of a stretch for me to imagine the bad guys always keep all of our gear, neatly sorted, in boxes and chests located conveniently just before we are about to really have to fight.

 

[The Shaman]

Surely you exaggerate in saying that you'd walk out on any game where the GM presented an unorthodox adventure structure.

Not an exaggeration at all.

I want to experience the game-world through the eyes of my character in the same way that I experience my own life, which means events in the game are encountered in the order in which they occur.

And don't call me Shirley.

Non-linear story telling is a common technique used in literature and In Medias Res is older then dirt (see the Illiad).

Roleplaying games are not literature.

Plus, only the slightest assumptions made. Namely that the PCs will accept the plot hook (and a skilled GM could work around that one) . . .

How would you do it?

. . . and, at some point, some subset of the PCs will be captured. Surely it would take more then that to cause you to walk out of a game.

A character being captured is no problem if it arises as a natural consequence of play. Telling a player out of game to swallow a plot hook so the dungeon master can get on with his story isn't.

And seriously, don't call me Shirley.

The players have been warned in advance that a capture will be coming as part of the plot and an air of mystery is about the PCs not present in the cell in the first encounter.

Now, for those two assumptions, you can set up a pretty grand story.

I'm not interested in your plot or your "pretty grand story." I'm interested in creating my character's story and I can write that myself through my character's actions. My character is a genuine protagonist, not a literary one.

This is why I like roleplaying games, and how I believe they are distinct from stories.

The PCs who have been captured get to see a lot of things while in captivety. The players get a snap-shot of information, not enough to complete the full picture but enough to be intrigued. They get to guess at what each clue means long before the entire picture becomes clear.

All of which are good reasons for me to thank you and wish you luck while excusing myself from the table.

What you're describing is an anathema to me. It's pretty much everything I strongly dislike about some roleplaying games.

 

[Hussar]

I think Alaxx is starting down the right path.

Look, you want to run a scenario which requires a particular event to occur - ie. getting captured. That right there requires railroading (or at the very least some seriously agressive scene framing which some people might say is the same thing). Why not get past the railroad part at the beginning?

Start the adventure as the PC's wake up in some sort of prison. How they got there isn't all that important. You can always reveal that later, if you need to. But, the point is, now the players have full agency again - they can do what they want to do.

Definitely not for every group. But, I would honestly no longer bother with the "capture scene". That's going to be a total railroad anyway, so, reduce it to boxed text and move on.

 

[jmucchiello]

I'm working on an adventure using a plot hook I've never tried before: Imprisoning the players.

Short and sweet: If you are going to ignore the primary advice: "Don't do it"....

The only real way to do this is to talk to them out of game. "What would you think of a prisoner scenario?" Or "I want to try something different guys..." If they don't seem to think it would be fun, drop the idea completely.

 

[GSHamster]

Consider saving the basic skeleton of the adventure. Then the next time you TPK the party (not contrived, but a real battle), just segue into the adventure.

This way, you avoid intentionally railroading the PCs. You soften the blow of the TPK. And you turn what could have been a campaign-ender into a new twist.

 

[Zhaleskra]

You soften the blow of the TPK. And you turn what could have been a campaign-ender into a new twist.

For me, fudging the result after I know what it should be (unless a mechanic says the character doing something can adjust it), would lead to me leaving the table. If my enemy wants to capture me alive, that should be his motivation from the beginning.

I do own a published adventure where the PCs start in a prison of sorts. The hook is that something is seriously wrong: the people imprisoned here are here for very minor crimes in a prison in "the middle of nowhere".

Granted, the campaign setting in question is dark fantasy, so you should expect a flamingpaperbag world. And the PCs should have certain (true) assumptions about two of the races.

 

[jonesy]

Consider saving the basic skeleton of the adventure. Then the next time you TPK the party (not contrived, but a real battle), just segue into the adventure.

This way, you avoid intentionally railroading the PCs. You soften the blow of the TPK. And you turn what could have been a campaign-ender into a new twist.

I would rather do this as well.

Just make sure they know it's not the end. Assume a crooked smile and say: "We'll continue from this moment next time. Same characters."

For me, fudging the result after I know what it should be (unless a mechanic says the character doing something can adjust it), would lead to me leaving the table. If my enemy wants to capture me alive, that should be his motivation from the beginning...

If he has this prepared from the beginning, then it is from the beginning. And anyway, how would you know whether he did or didn't?