Why don’t players surrender... would we want them too?

[TheSword]

So I’ve noticed a disconnect between what happens in tabletop and fiction...

The players are down to single digit hp, any successful attack will likely drop them, one fireball would mean a TPK. The cleric is on 0 hp and there are no more healing words left. More monsters are behind so it’s risky to retreat.

In this situation most players that I see would either fight to the bitter end and TPK, or attempt some extremely risky/unlikely escape with their comrades bodies or attempt to flee leaving a player behind. What I never see is the players say...“we surrender, take us to your leader.”

In fiction this happens all the time, getting captured, and then escaping inside the stronghold, getting captured and negotiating with your enemies, getting captured and discovering something useful from within your cell. Yet in my experience players would rather die than have this happen.

The only time I actually see this happen is when the DM either makes an explicit overture or demand “drop your weapons or I kill the princess.”(They’d still probably try and free the princess with a quickened spell or some other risky strategy). Or if the DM TPKs the party but decides by fiat they were captured instead and didn’t die. That seems a shame. Particularly as in general it is very difficult to capture an entire party without reducing them all to 0 hp.

Ironically as GM I would see this as an absolute gift for RP or a creative break out scene. It seems most dungeons have a set of cells or a secure area for keeping prisoners. Fiction is full of situation where this happens and the disadvantage is reversed so why does it never happen? It isnt as if resourceful PCs would’t have a good chance of breaking out of most cells.

• Do DMs give the impression that surrender would result in death anyway?
• Do players resent the loss of agency?
• Do DMs make cells too strong to the point that escape would seem impossible?
• Do players despise the idea of not having their stuff, even for a short time?

Can anything be done about this and would we want to?

 

[Derren]

Loss of agency and being at someones mercy is certainly a factor. In older editions the loss of equipment certainly also plays part in it.
Also the PCs are often fighting very evil beings or downright mosters where surrender is either no option at all or a death sentence.

If you want the PCs to surrender they should know that they have a chance of survival beyond the James Bond trope of escaping and recovering everything they had which, while a trope, is a pretty silly thing to expect when you decide to surrender.

So make it clear that ransoming is actually a thing in your world and pretty common (and the PCs being eligible) or that otherwise that at least the enemy they are fighting the most does not kill or torture their captives but does something else with them. Then you might see more surrenders, but it will still be rare as, thanks to "never surrender" tropes in modern media, it is seen as a worse defeat than death (of a fictional character).

 

[Doug McCrae]

Do players resent the loss of agency?

Yes, I think so. They may fear a period of extended GM narration of their characters' suffering, perhaps involving humiliation, enslavement or torture, with little or no opportunity to do anything about it.

Also many players seem to have a conception of their characters as proud and honourable. "Death before dishonour." A noble death is perceived as preferable to the dishonour of surrender.

In the first session of a 3.5e pirates game our PCs surrendered and were enslaved for the next several hours of game time, which I didn't enjoy very much. The GM always takes a lot of glee in any scene of PC humiliation. I know that part of it is that he wants the players to really hate the NPCs responsible, to motivate them to seek revenge, but that kind of thing doesn't work for me as a player.

 

[TheSword]

Loss of agency and being at someones mercy is certainly a factor. In older editions the loss of equipment certainly also plays part in it.
Also the PCs are often fighting very evil beings or downright mosters where surrender is either no option at all or a death sentence.

If you want the PCs to surrender they should know that they have a chance of survival beyond the James Bond trope of escaping and recovering everything they had which, while a trope, is a pretty silly thing to expect when you decide to surrender.

So make it clear that ransoming is actually a thing in your world and pretty common (and the PCs being eligible) or that otherwise that at least the enemy they are fighting the most does not kill or torture their captives but does something else with them. Then you might see more surrenders, but it will still be rare as, thanks to "never surrender" tropes in modern media, it is seen as a worse defeat than death (of a fictional character).

Do you think it is silly to expect PCs to get their equipment back? If the enemies aren’t attacked why would consumable items be lost and why would permanent items leave the site... unless there is a good reason.

I like the idea of ransom. That could easily be established as a function in the world. A task to guard ransom money and ensure it reached its destination etc.

Not sure how a DM would get a player to realize that their won’t be lost without capturing them and not doing it. Unless the tradition of ransom is with all belonging.

If ransom is a tradition it makes those that break it more wicked. Kind of like Walder Frey.

 

[Derren]

Do you think it is silly to expect PCs to get their equipment back? If the enemies aren’t attacked why would consumable items be lost and why would permanent items leave the site... unless there is a good reason.

I like the idea of ransom. That could easily be established as a function in the world. A task to guard ransom money and ensure it reached its destination etc.

Not sure how a DM would get a player to realize that their won’t be lost without capturing them and not doing it. Unless the tradition of ransom is with all belonging.

If ransom is a tradition it makes those that break it more wicked. Kind of like Walder Frey.

Why would the captors give back the equipment instead of them using it themselves? The PCs are not the only one who would loot stuff. So either the PCs were for some reason given back their very powerful and expensive magical items (they probably don't care about mundane stuff) or they would need to search out and defeat the new owners while they are escaping.
But yes, the trope is that all their gear will be stored together right next to where they are held prisoner without any guards. Still I don't think the PCs should expect tropes to be followed...

Ransoming was rather common in the real world, at least when it comes to nobles so there was an expectation that surrendering nobles would be ransomed and treated well during their imprisonment. Lower ranks/common soldiers were not that lucky unless the enemy knew that someone would pay for them (like a guild or mercenary company). Although different people handled it differently. Slaver cultures usually enslaved the common prisoner instead of ransoming them back. And sometimes someone wanted to send a message which happened for examples when the enemy had a different religion, and had all captives killed.

So if you want PCs to surrender the players must at least have a good idea what the enemy will do to them.

Also many players seem to have a conception of their characters as proud and honourable. "Death before dishonour." A noble death is perceived as preferable to the dishonour of surrender.

Mostly in the modern/hollywood media type of honour though. In history, especially on ships surrendering when you are beaten was considered the honourable thing to do to spare your crew for example.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The superhero rpg Mutants & Masterminds gives the GM explicit permission to declare the PCs defeated/captured. They receive a hero point, which can be used for later benefits, as compensation. Getting captured is very in genre for comic book superheroes.

 

[TheSword]

Why would the captors give back the equipment instead of them using it themselves? The PCs are not the only one who would loot stuff. So either the PCs were for some reason given back their very powerful and expensive magical items (they probably don't care about mundane stuff) or they would need to search out and defeat the new owners while they are escaping.

But yes, the trope is that all their gear will be stored together right next to where they are held prisoner without any guards. Still I don't think the PCs should expect tropes to be followed...

Ahhh, I wasn’t suggesting they give it back willingly

I think having to get their precious magic sword back from the commander of the garrison probably makes the lair more interesting.

I think a lot of things would be kept for study or to sell, which wouldn’t be an immediate thing.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

If I see a TPK happening, I use the 'render unconscious' rule to capture the PCs - only if it makes sense. Bandits will capture and ransom while Ghouls will feast.

Most cases, PCs see defeat as death or humiliation and since there are rarely pre-established societal rules as to what happens to prisoners, they probably assume it'll be a death sentence anyways.

Usually, if they get captured, I give them a chance to try to escape and get their stuff back. It's fun to sneak around gathering your gear.

 

[Mark Sabalauskas]

You certainly see player surrender in games that mechanically support it. With Fate's concession rule (where you explicitly avoid the worst of your fate, and get bonus Fate points to be awesome later) you can have PCs who act like their fictional counterparts--getting captured, imprisoned in their foes fortress and breaking out and wrecking things.

You also see player surrender in games that explicitly call it out as a normal thing that is done in the setting--Runequest combat is deadly, but this is mitigated by the fact in many contexts, you can expect to be ransomed. Also it can be more rewarding and less risky to accept your foe's surrender, so you see how this works when people surrender to you. This isn't theorycrafting, its something that's been happening in RQ games for decades.

It's really D&D style murder processing games, with their endless stream of "carefully balanced eccounters" where you end up with space invader "kill or be killed" dynamics. Of course D&D is so popular that its default mindset warps the rest of the hobby.

 

[Umbran]

So, there's another thread around here which discusses prisoners... and in many cases folks are saying that prisoners or folks who surrender are summarily executed, or forcibly questioned for relevant information, and then executed.

So, if the PCs aren't treating prisoners well, we wouldn't expect them to surrender themselves...

It thus follows - if as a GM you are making taking prisoners into a major ethical dilemma, or if prisoners regularly break parole, and so on, then you shouldn't expect taking prisoners to be a thing.

If you want surrender to be a normal option, you probably have to set is as a cultural norm within the lands the PCs inhabit.