Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5201714" data-attributes="member: 80487">Well, the D&D game started out as something to challenge players. That was the DM's purpose -- like the designer of a video game, for instance. The chance to lose (fail to score points, give up a life, etc.) was what made the chance to win interesting.Theoretically, one could set it up so that there is some such challenge also being presented to the DM, something one can win or lose. WotC's designs have occupied themselves a bit with trying to quantify resources so that DMs can in a sense build scenarios as a sub-game parallel to players' building of characters.From what I have seen, that seems to work pretty well in 4e. Not only can a DM feel pretty free to take off the gloves, but it can take an earnest attempt to win a fight for the monsters to offer the players the expected challenge.I am sure it is a rule in 4e that players can make their attacks non-lethal, and I see no reason it should not likewise be possible to defeat PCs without killing them.That so many players are unwilling to surrender is, I think, a factor that often precedes any experience at all with RPGs. I have seen it for a fact in novices, and I cannot help but notice similarity to the "No, you missed me!" argument in childish play. I speculate that to surrender is in a sense voluntarily to concede loss, whereas getting a character killed can be seen as "luck of the dice" or otherwise beyond the player's control -- so that the player does not see himself as a "quitter".In that case, having capture in fact not depend on surrender can be a relief. The telling blow descends, and with it blackness ... that is not the final "big sleep", after all. There is a new challenge, one the player can win by escaping captivity!This was rather less a problem in my experience 20-30 years ago. In FRP generally, including AD&D, "parley" with enemies was part of the game. They might surrender, even be taken into a player's service, and there was no reason to think that as a rule these options were barred to players. The RuneQuest rules-book was notable for explicitly raising the subject of ransom, which may be one reason RQ players tended to make clear arrangements for just that. Then again, players with some acquaintance with ancient or medieval history (fairly common when FRP was a spinoff of wargaming) would probably already know of the practice.If you demonstrate the viability of less deadly alternatives, then players will have the chance to observe and choose.Of course, if their choice -- and reputation -- is for merciless "no quarter" massacres, then it is hardly unreasonable that they should reap what they sow.</blockquote>

Verification