Your money or your life?

[Dannyalcatraz]

I say "something else." DMs are within their rights as encounter designers and scripters to present beings who aren't juicy orbs of XP to be plucked by the party. It has precedents in the RW, in legend and in the fiction we all read.

I mean, what happened when the Fellowship of the Ring encountered the big bad balor in the Mines of Moria? They RAN! (Well, most of them.)

When a PC of mine was presented with the dilemma of having been caught by gnoll scouts while scouting himself (he rolled a 2), the DM asked me if I would surrender or "go for it" when the gnolls had the drop on him with a pair of Hvy Crossbows.

My PC surrendered and was stripped naked, chained to the end of the slave chain he had been observing and led off...

Until the rest of the party showed up to the rescue. Despite his nudity, he did manage to use the chain to hinder an attacking gnoll, which let another PC take it down.

After the session, the DM said that had I "gone for it" I probably would have died, because they would have pulled those triggers.

For another example, check out my post on my PC "Bear" in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/249719-heroic-death.html

There was NO WAY he could survive the encounter by fighting (OK, if he kept rolling 20s while his foes rolled 1's), yet fight he did.

Presented with a situation the PC couldn't win, he went down swinging anyway. It gave me a chance to do something HEROIC with my PC.

Simply put, DMs handcuffed by not being "allowed" to present unconquerable foes deprive themselves and their players of opportunities for good roleplay.

But such opponents and situations should be the exception rather than the rule.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

So what does this mean in play?

That a DM should never present fights that the PCs can't win?

That a DM should hide the fact that the PCs can't win?

That the DM should always have NPCs behave in a clearly stupid manner?

Something else?

You're not quite getting the problem.

You're asking the wrong question. Your question was "Why did the players act this way?" That's an easy answer. They weren't thinking rationally. Instead ask "Why were they not thinking rationally?"

You didn't have the dragon beat them. It's fine to be beaten and then have to run away. You had the dragon embarrass them. They didn't just beat the characters, it came down, told them to give it their toys, and go to their room. It treated the PCs like four year olds. You didn't say "You see some caves nearby you might use to escape," you said "You know what? Screw you. You lose. Give me your items, you're not getting them back."

Why did they act irrationally? Because there were two choices - fight back, no matter how futile, or sit there and get scolded like a child.

Your problem is in this sentence.

"As DM, I figure the PCs give up their stuff (for now), and lie about leaving, and the group learns a valuable lesson about splitting up when they know they're being stalked by a huge white dragon."

Trying to teach your PCs a lesson about something never works. At best, they just get the wrong lesson (Next time, we make the beguiler's death look like a suicide or put the blame on some other sorry dupes!). At worst, they feel patronized. And yeah, it DOES revolve around taking away their items - because they don't think of the items as something they lose, they think of them as things that they've earned. That's why rust monsters are such OH GOD NO monsters. Losing permanent items is a big deal - you're taking something away that not just the character, but the player, defines as theirs.

 

[Jack99]

I'm going to have to agree with what someone said on the first page. You essentially told your players: "My NPC comes down and wins no matter what you do. It demands you give up everything you own and walk away like a bunch of cowards. What do you do?"

In their minds, there's two choices: Go down fighting like the hero they feel they're supposed to represent, or run away like a pansy before the almighty DMNPC who can't lose.

You're not quite getting the problem.

You're asking the wrong question. Your question was "Why did the players act this way?" That's an easy answer. They weren't thinking rationally. Instead ask "Why were they not thinking rationally?"

You didn't have the dragon beat them. It's fine to be beaten and then have to run away. You had the dragon embarrass them. They didn't just beat the characters, it came down, told them to give it their toys, and go to their room. It treated the PCs like four year olds. You didn't say "You see some caves nearby you might use to escape," you said "You know what? Screw you. You lose. Give me your items, you're not getting them back."

Why did they act irrationally? Because there were two choices - fight back, no matter how futile, or sit there and get scolded like a child.

Your problem is in this sentence.

"As DM, I figure the PCs give up their stuff (for now), and lie about leaving, and the group learns a valuable lesson about splitting up when they know they're being stalked by a huge white dragon."

Trying to teach your PCs a lesson about something never works. At best, they just get the wrong lesson (Next time, we make the beguiler's death look like a suicide or put the blame on some other sorry dupes!). At worst, they feel patronized. And yeah, it DOES revolve around taking away their items - because they don't think of the items as something they lose, they think of them as things that they've earned. That's why rust monsters are such OH GOD NO monsters. Losing permanent items is a big deal - you're taking something away that not just the character, but the player, defines as theirs.

I think you are quite right.

For what it is worth, I have been in the same situation as the OP. Several times. In fact, it took me quite a few years to figure out AND to remember not doing it. My players would fight to the death every single time, terminating the campaign. As it was, the problem was exactly as outline in the quotes above.

Since then, I have been avoiding situations where the NPC's humiliates the players (well, mostly. When they were captured in this campaign, the elf cleric did get his finger cut off, before he was sold into slavery), and it has definitely helped. No more players who commit suicide.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

You're not quite getting the problem.

No, I think you're not understanding the situation.

What I did was have a dragon that had been stalking the characters show up when they were vulnerable. I did so in such a fashion that if they had run immediately, they probably could have escaped. They decided to fight, despite having fought the dragon before, with three other allies, and barely defeated it. The dragon of course defeated them this time with extreme ease. The dragon then offered the PCs a way to live that was consistent with its goals and personality. They declined, and the dragon killed them, then, again consistent with its goals and personality, the dragon made sure that they would not be likely to trouble it again.

I'll ask again, since you chose not to answer: in order to remain consistent with your view of how things "should" have gone ...

Is the DM ever permitted to present an encounter the PCs are (nearly) certain to lose?

If so, must the DM conceal from the players that they're in a "nearly certain to lose" situation?

Is the DM ever permitted to have enemies behave with intelligence and efficiency matching that used by the PCs?

To judge from your responses, it certainly seems like you'd answer the first and third questions in the negative, and if so we'll have to agree to disagree.

(And FWIW, there is a difference between stating that I expected my group to learn a lesson and stating that I was trying to teach my group a lesson. Unsurprisingly, I said the former, and you somehow read the latter.)

 

[Kraydak]

You're not quite getting the problem.

You're asking the wrong question. Your question was "Why did the players act this way?" That's an easy answer. They weren't thinking rationally. Instead ask "Why were they not thinking rationally?"

Generally, assuming that players aren't thinking rationally is a bad idea. Working from the assumption that players are thinking rationally, giving the information they have available is a much better idea. Note that, for example, estimating fight difficulty is *very hard* in DnD. Unless the DM is very clear (and extremely consistent), players will have no idea how hurt the opposition is. Misreading situations is *easy*, especially when appearance is at best a weak indicator of power.

Another problem a lot of DMs overlook is that flight (w/o Teleport) is generally impossible for PCs if their foes are agressive. PCs (almost invariably) are slower and less mobile than their enemies. The DM might know that the enemy will break pursuit for some reason, but the players, not knowing that, but knowing that they escape if their enemy doesn't let them (and will be at a major disadvantage if they try and fail) will turn and fight even foes that the DM thought he made clear were impossible.

And that choice makes sense. When in Death Ground, fight.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

If my PC loses his gear, it becomes temporarily ineffectual, but I have the opportunity to find other new and exciting gear...possibly better than what I had before.

I find that an interesting definition of temporarily. Unless the DM flat out tells me I'm getting that equipment back, it sounds like a permanent nerf.

I'm so happy 4e reduced the reliance of gear, so this kind of lameness happens less often there.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I'm so happy 4e reduced the reliance of gear, so this kind of lameness happens less often there.

While I really (really) dislike 3.5's reliance on gear, I'd guess that the fix could be that the players roleplay their characters.


Jeff

 

[billd91]

I find that an interesting definition of temporarily. Unless the DM flat out tells me I'm getting that equipment back, it sounds like a permanent nerf.

I'm so happy 4e reduced the reliance of gear, so this kind of lameness happens less often there.

How is it a permanent nerf? I can still get equipment and the other PCs can help me out. It may take time but now you've got me wondering about your interesting definition of permanent.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I disagree that it's a direct result. I've heard a lot of complaints (including in the PF playtest boards and run-up to 4e) about loss of fun issues that sound very similar and not all of them focus on losing gear. In fact, more of them focus on being taken out by some un-fun save-or-sit effect that keeps them from participating in the session. So, while players may covet and depend on gear, there's something much broader at work that isn't just an issue of magic equipment.
( And remainder of excellent post)

I think you are right on the money here. The situation goes way beyond gear or its loss.
The problem is a result of player expectations. Because of the balanced encounter syndrome that has affected play for a long time, there have been more and more tales of unfair DMs who had the nerve to include unwinnable encounters in the campaign. A popular belief seems to be that if a party is rested, and at full strength and topped off on resources that there shouldn't be any potential combat situations that cannot be overcome if the PC's choose to nova through it.

That's complete crap.

Part of being a skilled player used to include knowing when to fight, and when to back off, do your homework, and perhaps return when conditions were more favorable. These days, having to make decisions like this are labeled as unfun. Players have come to expect all encounters to be tailored just for them to win, and why shouldn't they when this philosophy is interwoven into the game design.

This doesn't mean that the DM can do no wrong and there are no cheesy situations that are simply bad decisions.

Lets look at the situation the OP had set up:
1) The dragon was a foe the party had faced before. The PC's knew that this dragon was a tough, close encounter for a full prepared party.

2) There were 2 PC's alone. The dragon was encountered in a way that would have permitted them to withdraw, possibly find thier companions, and engage on more favorable terms.

3) Despite points 1 and 2, the PC's decided to engage in combat.

4) Once realizing that the fight could only end one way, the PC's were given a choice that could save thier lives. Was it humiliating? Yes. Were they in this humiliating situation by choice? Yes.

Now comes the real question. Should the dragon have been encountered by 2 PC's as it was? If not, should the dragon's stats have been altered to allow 2PC's to defeat it, if they chose to fight?

My answer is yes to the first question. It was an encounter that was consistent with campaign events. There were valid choices to be made and consequences of those choices.

Anyone else feel differently? Why?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The situation goes way beyond gear or its loss. The problem is a result of player expectations. Because of the balanced encounter syndrome that has affected play for a long time, there have been more and more tales of unfair DMs who had the nerve to include unwinnable encounters in the campaign. A popular belief seems to be that if a party is rested, and at full strength and topped off on resources that there shouldn't be any potential combat situations that cannot be overcome if the PC's choose to nova through it.

While I think that there's some truth to the idea that this attitude has been inculcated in players by 3E*, I don't think it's the whole story.

Would my players have been more likely to surrender, promise to leave the city, and retreat if the dragon had let them keep all or most of their gear? I can't say for certain, of course, but I think they would have. (They would have been lying, of course. I can't remember the dragon's Sense Motive score right now ... )

(As I think on it, I can't quite explain how or why I arrived at the conclusion -- reflected in my first post -- that it was losing their stuff that led to the behavior, but I'm still fairly confident it was. Maybe just a strong "read" of them at the table, while I was RPing the dragon? I dunno.)

* I have caught myself thinking, "Nah, the DM wouldn't throw that at us." The most memorable time was when I meta-gamily had my PC disbelieve the appearance of a red dragon in a certain early Adventure Path installment. I've since amended my ways.