Taken Prisoner

[Zhaleskra]

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."

There's an adventure I could use that for. And then hand them the Template hand out at the beginning of the next session.

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?

Depends on how it's done. Basically if I see the GM have an "oops" or "oh no" look come across his or her face as I reveal that I'm unconscious (or dead), fudging is blatantly obvious.

At the same time, I use systems that have rules for a character who doesn't want to actually kill you to reduce the severity of a critical as much as the character wants to. I guess my tastes are changing again, mostly becoming more comfortable with the level of mechanics transparency.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

How much trust do your players have in you? I have strong trust in my GMs that they're not out to screw me, so I'd give them the opportunity to play through his sort of scenario. I would however need some cues to know that they're not trying to kill me. As someone upthread suggested have the leader yell, "Take them alive!" and continue to note how they're not making deadly blows. Or even an out of character, "Trust me." would work.

Someone else mentioned jumping straight to having the characters already incarcerated, which is a good suggestion so the players don't have to play through a doomed encounter. If you do want play through it, I'd consider increasing the damage of the foes to speed up the encounter. And I would make allow the players to score partial victories that affect later encounters. (Ex: If they kill the leader the bandits break into factions that are in a power struggle. Or kill the medic and the bandits stay wounded for longer.) That sort of partial victory can give the players a sense of accomplishment and give the encounter more purpose to them than just their capture.

Once they are captured, I would run things so the rogue is not the only viable party member. Let the strong fighter bend the bar so the halfling can get out and let the mage cast a cantrip to distract the guards. Since the PCs will have no equipment, shift the focus of combat to be based on skills. Let the barbarian roll an athletics check to get a guard in the sleeper hold. Use your players' creativity to run the session--don't hamstring them for not being properly equipped or prepared.

A jailbreak is an awesome scene that I would love to play in. If I was your player, I would jump at the opportunity to play a different type of scenario. But you know your players and what they like. Talk to them about this and if it's something they are interested in, don't shy away from it just because it can be a delicate encounter to run.

 

[Heathen72]

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

Which is why I would probably stand up, and politely excuse you from my group! But then, different things appeal to different players, YMMV, horses for courses etc

I think it's a real blessing if you find people who enjoy playing the same style of game that you do, but the corollary of that is that it can be a pain finding people to play with who play in the same style you enjoy. I try to be flexible as a player, and have played in a lot of different types of games, but I agree that after you have played for a while, you know what you like.

I think it's important though to acknowledge that no one else's style of play of play is inherently better or worse than yours. I for one am very happy for narrative devices to be used from other realms of creative expression, whether they be literary, cinematic, improvisational etc. I also don't mind at all a meta aspect to the game especially when framing a session or a linear narrative flow.

I don't think an absolute prohibition on the idea is helpful. Played right, I would be very happy for my GM to run a 'captured' game for me, and FWIIW, I think Alaxk Knight of Galt 's advice is sound for the sort of game I would enjoy. SelcSilverhand would do well to read through the advice in this thread, evaluate his player group, and make a call from there.

 

[Herobizkit]

There is a long, roundabout way to run a capture scenario, but it requires a lot of finesse and the ability to multi-task.

a) Arrange for someone/something important to get captured.
b) Sic the PC's on it.
c) Arrange for the PC's to get separated.
d) Take each PC aside for no more than 10 minutes real time, run one type of encounter with them that is not suited to their class. Make certain they have a poor chance to succeed, but not impossible.
e) If they fail, they get sucked up by the Tube of Capturing and are captured.
f) Those that don't fail their challenge, live to rescue the others.

Optionally, you might look at the Wizard's Day Challenges from older editons of Dungeon magazine and play out scenarios as if they were captured... and then reveal that they were, in fact, participating in a fantasy "reality" game show.

Edit: I don't think the adventures were called "Wizard's Day", so someone with a better memory should correct me or direct the OP.

 

[Janx]

Would Shaman REALLY get up and walk away just because a scene started in Media Res?

Or would he consider the context, the assumptions it made about his character, and other signs before he made his decision.

When I have started campaigns in Media Res, I try to set the scene in a way that is both plausible and minimally restrictive. Orcs attack the village, or you see a mugging going on.

Both assume the PCs are in this specific village (where I may have said the game was starting). I haven't specifically negated anything else about your character (whereas starting captured may have).

To me, at the start of the game, time may have passed. I'd have to know my players to know how much time. It may have been that a PC wanted to do something urgent from the last game. If nobody had anything pending (no remaining plot hooks/business to pursue), then time passes.

From there, to get the game going again, I may project where the PCs would be (shopping in the village perhaps), and then initiate whatever event I'd like to intersect with the PCs to see what happens next.

A capture takes that to an extreme. It would have taken no die rolls or significant decisions for the party to have gotten to the village market. It's not even something they would have likely resisted (oh no! we're being rounded up to visit the market).

A capture is exactly what the PCs don't want to happen. For some characters, it's not even in their make-up to BE captured. They stay out of legal trouble. And here you are saying they broke the law on a drunken bender. Or they are nigh-uncapturable. And here you are saying they failed. Without playing it out (which is what Shaman seems to object to), it's your word versus theirs. And if you play that card, you are now just as much the enemy as the NPC who did the capture on the GM's behalf.

Maybe Shaman really would walk out on my game because I started with "The orcs seem to stream into the village from nowhere, disrupting the festivities. One charges you with his axe held high..."

I should think his real deciding factor should be based on what happens AFTER the encounter. Is he forced to go on the "why did the orcs attack" adventure that I planned? Or can he help clean up the village, and maybe do some politicking to set himself up as some kind of leader?

Planning a capture has always signalled to me, a railroad. It tends to encourage that kind of behavior. And while I like me some story in my games, I don't like railroading.

 

[The Shaman]

Would Shaman REALLY get up and walk away just because a scene started in Media Res?

Ooo, ooo, I know, pick me, pick me!

Or would he consider the context, the assumptions it made about his character, and other signs before he made his decision.

Let's find out, shall we?

When I have started campaigns in Media Res, I try to set the scene in a way that is both plausible and minimally restrictive. Orcs attack the village, or you see a mugging going on.

Both assume the PCs are in this specific village (where I may have said the game was starting). I haven't specifically negated anything else about your character (whereas starting captured may have).

I'd have no problem with this as an opening, because as you said, player agency is preserved in ways in which starting the game captured does not. This is a situation over which I can make meaningful choices; starting in a cell with no equipment does not.

For some characters, it's not even in their make-up to BE captured. They stay out of legal trouble. And here you are saying they broke the law on a drunken bender. Or they are nigh-uncapturable. And here you are saying they failed. Without playing it out (which is what Shaman seems to object to) . . .

*DING! WInnah!

. . . it's your word versus theirs.

It's not even a question of "versus" - it's, "This is what your character does," which automatically raises my hackles.

I run my character, not the referee. You ask me what my character does - you don't tell me.

Maybe Shaman really would walk out on my game because I started with "The orcs seem to stream into the village from nowhere, disrupting the festivities. One charges you with his axe held high..."

. . . wait for it . . .

I should think his real deciding factor should be based on what happens AFTER the encounter. Is he forced to go on the "why did the orcs attack" adventure that I planned? Or can he help clean up the village, and maybe do some politicking to set himself up as some kind of leader?

*DING! Another winnah!

A couple of weeks ago I played in an OD&D one-shot, an old school dungeon crawl. We learned there were bandits in the area, and we assumed they would be out to get us on the way out of the dungeon, when we were low on spells and hit points and (possibly) carrying loot. Fortunately we managed to avoid the bandits and make it back to town with our filthy lucre. Now if we were actually playing in a campaign, I would've proposed hiring a bunch of mercenaries and taking out the bandits before returning to the dungeon again; we could take whatever treasure they took from other adventurers and remove the threat to us on future explorations, and maybe earn a little credit with the locals, assuming they weren't in on the banditry in the first place - and if they were, well, meet the new boss, kiddos.

I am not one to sit around on my heels waiting for the 'adventure' to announce itself.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

It's too bad I can't XP you for this, because it's really a great example of constructive metagaming at its finest.

I more-and-more think that too many DMs have too strong an adversion to raising potential future plot points with their players.

 

[Thasmodious]

I'm not a fan of the "I'd walk away" or "I'd never play in YOUR game" statements. They just seem disrespectful. You'd really stand up in the middle of the game and just walk out? Not talk to the DM after the game and tell him that a certain action or method is just not your cup of tea and see if he's willing to consider your point of view? Or better yet, talk to him before the game and lay out your expectations, especially the "deal-breakers"? I just don't buy the - you have offended me so to my core that I do not care to ever look upon your face as long as we both shall live - approach. It's just a roundabout, and disrespectful way of saying "you're doing it wrong".

That out of the way, there are really two issues at work here. I don't think people are objecting to the capture scenario as an outcome out of hand. It's specifically the "doomed encounter" (as termed by Wednesday boy) that tends to irk players. It's certainly not an unreasonable development that a foe would wish to capture the PCs alive. The issue is in the GM plotting the capture as a foregone conclusion and setting up a scene to accomplish that. The bad guys can spring their trap, but the success or failure of that trap should be determined by the actions (and success or failure) of the players.

Shaman, would you object to a DM beginning a campaign with the PCs in prison if the how and why of your PCs capture or arrest were left to you to decide? In much the same way that a DM might begin the game with "you all find yourselves in the village of Munchkin Holler. How did you come to be here and what is your purpose?"

 

[Janx]

I'm glad to see I've gotten some sense of Shaman's thinking. I think we both would like to avoid certain common traits in a game. Though there are some aspects we have diverging preferences.

As Thasmodius commented, Shaman's blunt point of "I'd walk out" seems a bit harsh. To us, there should be a few stages of discussion and attempt to compromise.

Some of that may be a matter of who you game with. I generally game with friends, people I already know. I can't just walk out, not without other social impact. If it's a group of strangers, I suppose you're not out anything.

One thing I tried to differ from Shaman's more lengthier explanation of why he would walk out (or what he looks for in a game), is that his explanation covered a specific style. What I tried to do in my explanation is cover what I would consider a wider angle of styles. We both have a set of "XYZ is bad GMing." My intent is to get to the core of why a planned capture is just risky/bad, regardless of style.

This has been an interesting discussion. Has the OP re-considered any of explanations here and changed his mind about doing the capture?

 

[The Shaman]

I'm not a fan of the "I'd walk away" or "I'd never play in YOUR game" statements. They just seem disrespectful. You'd really stand up in the middle of the game and just walk out?

No, I'd politely say, "Thanks very much for the invitation to play, but this really isn't my cup of tea. I apprecaite the opportunity to hang out, and I wish you the best of luck with your game."

Not talk to the DM after the game and tell him that a certain action or method is just not your cup of tea and see if he's willing to consider your point of view?

If the referee is planning a "grand story," complete with metagaming and flashback sequences, I think my suggestion to not do that is probably less respectful than politely bowing out.

There is a point at which gamers are better off not playing together, Geek Social Fallacies notwithstanding.

Or better yet, talk to him before the game and lay out your expectations, especially the "deal-breakers"?

I can't say how other referees do this, but I do exactly that when I'm behind the screen; I lay out how I run things, and make sure the players have the opportunity to make an informed choice to play, before we start creating characters.

I just don't buy the - you have offended me so to my core that I do not care to ever look upon your face as long as we both shall live - approach.

Thanks for twisting my words from, "I'll politely excuse myself," to "I'll storm off in an outraged huff."

It's just a roundabout, and disrespectful way of saying "you're doing it wrong".

No, it's direct, honest, and respectful way of saying, "We have different tastes in our recreational interests."

A friend of mine and I are both enjoy being outdoors. He likes water skiiing and his motor home; I like kayaking and backpacking. The ways in which we enjoy spending time outdoors are very different; when he invited me to go water skiing, I politely passed, and though he says he'd like to go backpacking sometime, he's never actually followed through on any of the trips I've taken to which he's been invited.

It doesn't make us not friends; it makes us friends with interests we don't share. This is how grown-ups handle differences of opinion.

Shaman, would you object to a DM beginning a campaign with the PCs in prison if the how and why of your PCs capture or arrest were left to you to decide?

It would have to be a dungeon master with whom I'm familiar and whose playstyle is otherwise compatible with mine, a referee and not a 'storyteller' - it wouldn't be anything like what AKoG outlines above.

Mostly it would be for the novelty of starting with literally nothing and seeing what my character can do from there, not the first "plot point" in some "grand story."