Your money or your life?

[Baron Opal]

I have noticed that too. Given the choice between death or loss of items, the PCs will risk death almost every time. I've had PCs sacrifice one-use items on occasion, particularly when they see some long term benefit. But, the loss of permanent items is worse than death.

However, those self same items that they would bleed and die over they will sacrifice to the cleric to raise their friend who died because they wouldn't give up their items. Funny, isn't it?

 

[radja]

adventurers are heavily armed. in most real robberies, the victims are usually less well armed than the robbers. in the DnD case there is less obvious power difference between the robbers and victims, so it's more likely that the victims will fight for their possessions. adventurers are crocodile dundee. (That's not a knife...)

 

[Cor Azer]

It might depend on whether they thought they'd get new characters out of it, instead of resurrections.

One of the problems with losing all your stuff and not dying, is that you need to re-equip. And unless your party is well stocked, your probably not going to be as well equipped as you were before, which could possibly lead to your death anyways - you're not as powerful as you were. So, if you're likely going to die anyways, why not get it over with.

Can't say that's the case here, or even much of the time, but the thought has crossed my mind from time to time when faced with such situations in game.

 

[roguerouge]

Possibilities: they wanted to try out a new character, they were stubborn ("Nobody beats me!"), they resisted the railroad (and, be honest, smart dragon tactics look like a railroad from the other side of the screen), they got greedy, they needed to be hit with a bigger clue hammer, or they had a bad day. It happens.

What'd the players say afterwards?

 

[CharlesRyan]

"You puny fools [. . .] dared attack me, so you will pay as tribute to me everything you own, then you will leave Sharn forever."

I'm not a big fan of the Christmas tree effect, and all my games are low-magic. But I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. The fact that you were taking their stuff is incidental; players react the same way to similar situations that result in capture or other unacceptable outcomes.

When your dragon uttered the above words, your players heard something very different. What they heard was "You have lost the game of D&D. Thanks for playing; better luck next time!"

Of course if the characters were real people, they'd much rather keep their lives than their stuff. But at this point the players' reaction outweighs the characters'. And the players' reaction is, "I'm not going to pack up and go home as long as I can roll another d20--no matter how miniscule my chances."

It's great that your players know you hate killing characters--and that you'll do it anyway. But they need to know one more thing: That you'll put big, unexpected roadblocks in their path, but that doesn't mean the end of the game. It's much easier for players to face an apparent end-of-game scenario if they're confident there's a comeback to follow.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

It's great that your players know you hate killing characters--and that you'll do it anyway. But they need to know one more thing: That you'll put big, unexpected roadblocks in their path, but that doesn't mean the end of the game. It's much easier for players to face an apparent end-of-game scenario if they're confident there's a comeback to follow.

That's a very interesting point. While I hope my players know this -- why would I, as DM, let them live if I didn't mean for there to be a reckoning? -- the two players in question are newest to the game.

So ... assume they don't know this. If this reaction is as visceral as you seem to imply, will it really be enough to simply tell the players that stumbles and set-backs should be expected and can be overcome? Is there another way to teach this lesson?

A related question: Why in the world would anybody play in a D&D game if they believe that they can "lose" the game to the DM?

 

[Kraydak]

How about: players are being entirely rational, and understand that there is no reason for NPCs to not take both their PC's money and their lives once they disarm (and every reason to take both). PCs live in a hyper-violent world where people DON'T think twice about killing someone, and leaving your foes alive just comes back to haunt you later on. Under those circumstances, disarming just makes life easier for your foe.

It takes meta-gaming for surrender to make sense (at the PC level) in most DnD worlds. If you want your players to have their PCs surrender, make the meta-gaming clear. If you want your players to have their PCs accept surrender, make it clear that defeated NPCs will not try to return and extract revenge.

 

[CharlesRyan]

A related question: Why in the world would anybody play in a D&D game if they believe that they can "lose" the game to the DM?

They don't. Which makes the shock of the situation that much more visceral, and drives them further out of their character space and into their player space.

They're shifted from facing the unthinkable in-game ("Holy crap! This dragon is going to kill us!") to facing the unthinkable out-of-game ("Holy crap! The game is over and we lost!"). So instead of assessing the solution from an in-game perspective ("We get to live if we just give the dragon our stuff."), they assess it as players ("If it's game over, I'm going down fighting!").

As for how to teach the lesson--I don't know. . . . It seems obvious from the GM's chair that you have no interest in ending the game for them, but in my experience players tend to kick into knee-jerk reaction mode at these sorts of points. Maybe it is best to tell them straight-out that they'll get their comeback. Sure, that breaks the plane a bit, but then they've already smashed through it themselves by that point.

I would definitely discuss this incident with your group, even if it's too late for these characters. That way, at least, the lesson going forward is "unexpected setbacks happen; react appropriately," instead of "the GM might kill you arbitrarily; always fight to the death."

 

[Jeff Wilder]

How about: players are being entirely rational, and understand that there is no reason for NPCs to not take both their PC's money and their lives once they disarm (and every reason to take both).

You are assuming some incredibly depressingly one-dimensional characters, both PCs and NPCs. Man, would I hate to play in the game you're describing.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have seen similar situations where one or more PC's would rather fight an impossible battle rather than surrender or lose equipment. One player actually tore up his character sheet at the table because his character lost a level to an undead attack. These situations happen for a number of reasons but the number one reason for this attitude is that the player has no real investment in the character. If the character dies, so what? Roll up another one and keep going.

The reasons for having no investment or care for the character can be the fault of the player, the DM, and/or the game system. The player needs incentive to keep the character alive at all costs even if it means suffering temporary setbacks. One way to encourage this care is to reward successful play with more than just impersonal "stuff" such as magic items, XP, and gold. If a character develops meaningful social connections and gains influence with persons in power then they will have earned rewards that a new character cannot begin with.

In order for these rewards to be meaningful they have to be of some actual benefit to the character that the player perceives as valuable. If a player is faced with a no-win situation where it comes down to giving up gear to stay alive, he or she may be more willing to consider it if there are known NPC allies that will provide gear, with no questions asked because the PC saved thier life on a past adventure. In this case, the replacement gear along with an opportunity for sweet revenge would be much better than just committing suicide and starting over, especially if the character had many other personal,non-transferrable social assets.

The DM and the players have to work together in order for these social assets to function. The DM has to ensure that they have actual value and the players need to recognize that value.