Taken Prisoner

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?

Agreed
I was trying to draw out why Shaman would walk out in the middle of a session. I'm not a perfect GM by any stretch of the imagination, but one thing I do is take narrative risks. Sometimes they work out great, sometimes they backfire. I wouldn't want a player walking out on a game I was running because I (the GM) took a chance and flubbed something. Especially if I had no idea that the narrative risk I was taking was a huge issue for that player.

As to the OP, I'll reiterate my original advice, but told slightly differently

1. Avoid the Bad Guys MUST win fight. I made this mistake before and I won't make it again.
2. Manage player expectations. This can be done in many ways: taking a player aside, a general warning, framing devices, etc. Managing player expectations is a huge and often undiscussed part of GMing.
3. Ultimately, the PCs are the masters of their own fate. Allow them to twart whatever clever plan you produce. You'll have plenty of time to capture them later :D
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Which is why I would probably stand up, and politely excuse you from my group!
No harm, no foul.
But then, different things appeal to different players, YMMV, horses for courses etc
Exactly.

No gaming is better than bad* gaming.



* As used here, 'bad' reflects my personal preferences and is not, and should not be taken as, a value-judgement on anyone's style of gaming. It pains me that I need to add this, but I'm sure someone will take umbrage if I don't.
 

I was trying to draw out why Shaman would walk out in the middle of a session. I'm not a perfect GM by any stretch of the imagination, but one thing I do is take narrative risks. Sometimes they work out great, sometimes they backfire. I wouldn't want a player walking out on a game I was running because I (the GM) took a chance and flubbed something. Especially if I had no idea that the narrative risk I was taking was a huge issue for that player.
As you note again later in this post, setting expectations between player and referee are very important. That said, the real issue is where the rubber meets the road.

Our group introduced a new player last weekend, and I'm not entirely sure if he's going to hang. Both of the existing players and I talked about how the campaign is played, so he (hopefully) had a clear idea of what he was getting into, but he didn't seem nearly as engaged as the current players - our game is more Alexandre Dumas and Rafael Sabatini and I think he was expecting more Stephen Herek and Peter Hyams. If he doesn't come back, I won't be offended - I don't assume that what I'm running is for everyone, just as what someone else runs isn't necessarily for me.
As to the OP, I'll reiterate my original advice, but told slightly differently

1. Avoid the Bad Guys MUST win fight. I made this mistake before and I won't make it again.
2. Manage player expectations. This can be done in many ways: taking a player aside, a general warning, framing devices, etc. Managing player expectations is a huge and often undiscussed part of GMing.
3. Ultimately, the PCs are the masters of their own fate. Allow them to twart whatever clever plan you produce. You'll have plenty of time to capture them later :D
On this we can agree. :)
 

No harm, no foul.Exactly.

No gaming is better than bad* gaming.



* As used here, 'bad' reflects my personal preferences and is not, and should not be taken as, a value-judgement on anyone's style of gaming. It pains me that I need to add this, but I'm sure someone will take umbrage if I don't.

Seeing your other explanation, I can agree with your methodology on "walking out"

Ultimately, pre-game the GM should attempt to explain their style. That alone should help players decide to enter the game, rather than to need to leave it.

Thusly, Shaman should never need to walk out on my game. He should know enough to determine if he wants to JOIN my game or pass on the opportunity.
 


3. Ultimately, the PCs are the masters of their own fate. Allow them to twart whatever clever plan you produce. You'll have plenty of time to capture them later :D

This is something that bears consideration.

Technically, there are situations where the PCs are not masters of their own fate.

If a PC breaks a law, and is ultimately caught, the PC has lost control. A case can be argued that the GM does not owe the player a turn by turn account of how they can't escape the gallows.

In a Media Res encounter(or any event that "Happens" to happen where the PCs are at the time) the player's can't avoid their fate. They will have to deal with the situation.

I suspect a more legalese way to phrase Alaxk's sentiment is "A player should have control a majority of the time, and the lack of it imposed as minimalistiacally as feasible until such time player choice restricts it."

Thus, in my Media Res example of starting in a village right when the orcs attack, I have subsumed where your PCs will start the campaign, which as GM it is often considered that I have that right anyway. I have not determined any other PC action (particularly any detrimental action). It is generally considered that I have the right to say "you start in the village" and that I have the right to say "orcs attack the village" and that therefore I have the right to intersect those two.

In the PC thief example, as the PC's notoriety increases, likely too will the force used to stop him. Thus, his own actions ultimately instigate his doom. When he is caught, his PRIOR choices are what removed his control of his fate.

I would consider that a thief committing crime, and thus eventually getting caught (because he lost a "fair" encounter with the cops) to be a fair chain of cause and effect to justify removing the player's control of the PC (imprisonment). The PC was doing things which have a blatant expectation of the possible outcome (as the old adage, don't do the crime if you can't do the time).

I would not consider it fair to assume that acceptance of a job as a caravan guard to justify a planned capture (and removal of player control). The GM deciding to capture the party at this point is as an arbitrary plot point, rather than a logical outcome of the player's choice to take the job. Worse still if the GM assumes the PCs take the job, and skips the asking of even that question.

In my games, the group generally agres to bite the plot hook. That aids in how much material I have to write to get the game going. However, I am expected to respect the players, and make that plot hook enticing and rational to the players and PCs.

As such, I am adverse to just offering a hook of "opportunity to guard a caravan". Because the players could go either way on that. I try to setup a hook that I think they will probably bite. That means examining the PCs and looking for something they would be interested in.

When I use Media Res, I'm looking to prime the pump with some generic action, that exposes a problem and some opportunities. From that, the nature of the first problem is usually personal enough to get a few PCs interested and moving. Once they solve that, I'm looking at what the PCs are interested in achievingg next.

Where does a capture fit in there?

If I can prevent a TPK, I may be inclined to do so. That's my style. I'd probably stop the game at TKO, and plan the next session to be the jailbreak (making sure I have LOTS of ways to escape).

I might have a situation where the "answer" is in a prison or slave camp. Where to solve the goal of a PC, they need to get in there and get it. In which case, it is the player's idea to infiltrate as captives, or just sneak in, or brute force invade.

I like good parties generally (easier to predict their next quest, show them a helpless princess...), but if I had a naughty PC, I would ratchet up efforts to stop him (once per crime or session perhaps), until he was eventually caught/killed. At that point, I have not made up my mind on whether I "owe" him any chances at escape. I think that's a topic worthy of discussion.

Long ago, I had learned that players HATE waking up in some crazy wizard's dungeon, forced to make their way through it to freedom. Arbitrarily starting the PCs in a captured state always annoys them. Seems like a good idea to always make sure you avoid anything that smells like the Crazy Wizard's Dungeon.
 

Technically, there are situations where the PCs are not masters of their own fate.

If a PC breaks a law, and is ultimately caught, the PC has lost control. A case can be argued that the GM does not owe the player a turn by turn account of how they can't escape the gallows.

In a Media Res encounter(or any event that "Happens" to happen where the PCs are at the time) the player's can't avoid their fate. They will have to deal with the situation.

I suspect a more legalese way to phrase Alaxk's sentiment is "A player should have control a majority of the time, and the lack of it imposed as minimalistiacally as feasible until such time player choice restricts it."
Or as it's expressed in my campaign, . . . when it arises as a reasonable consequence of the adventurers' actions.

Last Saturday one of the adventurers, a King's Musketeer, challenged a romantic rival to a duel; what he didn't know is that the rival was the nephew of one of the Cardinal's Guards. In short order there were three adventurers plus three additional King's Musketeers and a lackey against the rival, eight Cardinal's Guards, and two lackeys at the deserted pest-house on the outskirts of Paris

The adventurers' party decided to ambush the two guards who were holding the rival party's horses; the plan was overly complex and immediately went to Hades on a muffed roll for an attack from behind to knock out one of the guardsmen. One of the adventurers was badly wounded and a guardsman killed - unfortunately, the guardsman was killed by wounds to his back, making it look as if he had no chance to defend himself. The adventurers' party took the guardsmen's horses, and that's where we left off.

Now the adventurers are deep in it. They killed a man from ambush and stole the guardsmen's horses in the process of an illegal duel, any of which could result in execution; moreover, it appears that the musketeer-adventurer ducked out on the duel, which stains his personal honor.

There can be many consequences arising from this, depending on what they do next: charges of murder and violating the edict against dueling, horse theft, and a bad reputation for the adventurer-musketeer, not to mention the fact that the object of his affections, who instigated the duel between the suitors, isn't likely to be too happy with him for not showing up, regardless of the circumstances. The players will have to do some quick thiking, or possibly some fast running, to salvage this situation.
Thus, in my Media Res example of starting in a village right when the orcs attack, I have subsumed where your PCs will start the campaign, which as GM it is often considered that I have that right anyway. I have not determined any other PC action (particularly any detrimental action). It is generally considered that I have the right to say "you start in the village" and that I have the right to say "orcs attack the village" and that therefore I have the right to intersect those two.
I agree with all of this; in particular the adventurers are free to fight the orcs, flee the village, or even offer to help the orcs if they wish.

As we've discussed before, many of the random encounters which form the backbone of the game begin in media res, but the adventurers have a range of options in how they deal with them, including ignoring them all together if they wish.
In the PC thief example, as the PC's notoriety increases, likely too will the force used to stop him. Thus, his own actions ultimately instigate his doom. When he is caught, his PRIOR choices are what removed his control of his fate.

I would consider that a thief committing crime, and thus eventually getting caught (because he lost a "fair" encounter with the cops) to be a fair chain of cause and effect to justify removing the player's control of the PC (imprisonment). The PC was doing things which have a blatant expectation of the possible outcome (as the old adage, don't do the crime if you can't do the time).

I would not consider it fair to assume that acceptance of a job as a caravan guard to justify a planned capture (and removal of player control). The GM deciding to capture the party at this point is as an arbitrary plot point, rather than a logical outcome of the player's choice to take the job. Worse still if the GM assumes the PCs take the job, and skips the asking of even that question.
Sounds right to me.

Would someone please XP this post for me? I just XP'd Janx on the last page, but this post really deserves it, too.
 

Thank you all for all the insight regarding a capture scenario. You've given me a lot to consider and I'm still not sure if I'll run it. Here are some more details for those that wanted them.

1) The game would be for a PbP game, one of the living worlds, for 3rd level characters.
2) The area they would be passing through has groups of cannibals living nearby who want prisoners. Right from the get-go it'd be all nonlethal damage.
3) I don't mind if a character escapes, if they do and are interested in pursuing the attackers to aid the PC's, so much the better. If he isn't into risking his life for his fellows, well then I guess he can head back to town and join the recruiting queue again.
4) Once they wake up in the cages I would give them all some way of escaping. Strength checks to bend bars for the warriors, bribing the other slaves to help them, picking locks for the rogues, and magical distractions or familiars for the mages. I want them all to have a chance to do something to free themselves without having to rely on one character.
5) Once free of their cages they can then sneak off to raid the village for their gear, sneak away into the swamps, join up with PC's who escaped, etc. The downside here is that if they decide to leave without their gear I'll have to make sure that they manage to find stuff along the way to make up for what they've lost. Hopefully though I'll manage to describe the village in such a way as to encourage them to take the risk.

After that they can either try to kill all the cannibals during the night or flee and try to make it back to civilization.

From what was mentioned a few times, I think what might be the best thing to do is to make the capture a possible outcome of the battle. I can leave it open enough so that if the players manage to overcome the large attacking force they might end up with a captive of their own and a chance to seek revenge on the tribe. Or possibly some of the other npc's got carried off during the fighting to entice them to follow.
 

2) The area they would be passing through has groups of cannibals living nearby who want prisoners. Right from the get-go it'd be all nonlethal damage.

Some good answers overall...

Do the players know the area has groups of cannibals in it? If I were running a PC and traveling through an area of cannibals, I would do everything in my power to not be taken alive, even if it meant a suicidal leap off a 1000 foot high cliff. The last thing I'd want to do if I were a PC would be to be slowly barbecued over an open fire like a pig at a luau.

Sure, I may have in the back of my mind that "Hey, the DM wouldn't have us eaten alive as the end of a TPK..." But, that would be topped by my thinking that my PC would have no way of knowing that.
 

It's not precisely a jailbreak scenario, but my husband caught our characters with an underhanded scheme that we totally fell for. We hired on as guards for a small trade caravan as a means of getting through a highly regulated country. This would provide us with legitimate traveling papers as well as a spot of cash. Things were fine until we were a couple days out and camped for the night.

Our group was all on day duty while the other guards slept in the wagons and watched during the night. So we trusted them, and all went to sleep; with the elves in the group doing their meditation thing we felt pretty safe. Various skill checks later, most of us awoke to find our employers and the other guards with swords at our throats. The couple that managed to avoid being ambushed were forced to surrender their weapons or else the remainder of the group would be slain on the spot.

They wanted our gear. All of it. After all, in the crazy economy of most fantasy games, what is the bigget source of portable wealth? A well-geared adventuring party! The whole thing was a setup from the start. We were stripped of gear and left tied. They didn't want to kill anyone. Of course nothing riles up characters as much as losing their hard-earned magic items. We worked on escaping our bonds and plotting our revenge....
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top