Forums of the Megaverse®

Give them time to get attached to the character. Whipping up characters? I've never seen that except with RECON. They should have vested interest from the get go so I'm not sure why they're not.

If it's out of character behaviour then that's a conversation about what role playing means to you and to them.

I know what you mean. I had an old group that I GMed who was ambushed in North Carolina (Dinosaur Swamp by a Coalition Search and Destroy Squad. During the ambush the players/characters ended up with nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. They had the option to stay and fight (your "Death Before Dishonor" theory) or surrender.

Now I've been GMing Palladium since '88 and Rifts since '90, but I still make poor judgement decisions. They wanted to fight their way out and even after seeing the odds were stacked against them- it was still what they wanted. So- during one of my "poor judgement moments" I leaned back in my chair and tried to talk sense into the player (the players, not the characters). Eventually they (as players) decided to surrender, but later decided to accuse me of not having an alternative plan if they didn't surrender. The game ended well with them being taken to a cs prison camp where they later escaped and were seen as heroes for freeing about 80% of the prisoners at the camp as well.

In hindsight I should have let them make their own mistakes in the game and for the 1 or 2 characters that may have survived- hopefully learn from their mistake.

Let's just saw that I'm not going to make the same mistake again. Unfortunately the new group I GM won't be able to get away with that

Perhaps they don't want their characters tortured.
Perhaps they're playing a character who follows the actual code of Bushido, or have some other cultural view.
Maybe they don't want to lose everything they've got.
There are many reasons not to surrender, not all of them having to do with powergaming, being new, or being a munchkin.
Yes, no-win situations exist. People die in them, too.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with preferring death over being dis-honoured.

Unless it's out of character.

lather wrote:Unless it's out of character.

That's part of the problem; as a GM, you can't dictate what's "in character" for another person's character.
GMs who try that usually end up without a group 'ere long, and deservedly so.
And only a fool would surrender to the CS; they're just waiting for extermination and torture if they do. I've read the stats on CS camps and bases, and the idea of a bunch of unarmed, unarmoured d-bees or humans escaping is pretty preposterous.
In that case, it would be much better to try and fight your way out.
Now, you might "fudge" the camp, but if you do that, why bother capturing them in the first place? So you can relieve them of all arms and equipment?
I'm not that heavy-handed...

That's knowledge that can come right out of character generation or one that is developed over time.

I like for my players to know their characters in a lot of detail before starting to play because it makes NPC encounters better.

I also like to know when they would be inclined to fight to the death as I don't generally want such an encounter to come in Session #1.

lather wrote:That's knowledge that can come right out of character generation or one that is developed over time.

I like for my players to know their characters in a lot of detail before starting to play because it makes NPC encounters better.

I also like to know when they would be inclined to fight to the death as I don't generally want such an encounter to come in Session #1.

Good points.
One thing that helps is a character background after the character's made; they can think about what skills they have and why, what type of culture they're from, et cetera.
You can also look at the OCC/ RCC; if they're a Samurai, they won't surrender. Special Forces, highly unlikely. Rogue Scholar, quite possible. Headhunter, depends. Dragon? Good luck with that... and so on.

Fell in love with that hot psychic chick in the group and decided to take off after her?

I had to remind yourself you were still talking about the characters

Sanford, I've been playing the same character for about 4 years. Over the past 5 sessions he's gotten himself captured by the C.S. breaking into their embassy in El Paso (impersonating an officer), was rescued from an armed convoy on the way to Lone Star for his "trial", and is currently under the super hypnotic suggestion of a wild vampire who is going to eat him for breakfast. He's having a bad week. But (an this might just be because he is a BK headhunter and a sociopath) he has never given up. He just sees everything as a hiccup or a speedbump on completeing his mission. Eventually, I'm going to try to write his adventures up, but thats only if he survives the next few weeks.

macksting wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:You can also look at the OCC/ RCC; if they're a Samurai, they won't surrender. Special Forces, highly unlikely. Rogue Scholar, quite possible. Headhunter, depends. Dragon? Good luck with that... and so on.

However, these are special cases. (One could also make such an argument for Crazies or Juicers.) The majority of players aren't playing samurai or special forces.
Where it's not a special case, and where a code of conduct seldom calls shotgun to the character's pragmatism (representing, then, the majority of characters), why would most characters decide dying sounded like a good idea?
Devil's Advocate can be the wrong thing to argue sometimes. We're all willing to cater to exceptions, I think, and I have myself played the character most willing to give the order to retreat while herself standing ready with the axe. (She was a very poor runner anyway.) But I emphasize, they are exceptions and quite off topic.

Not off-topic at all, really.
The OP asked for thoughts.
And again, most people know better than to try to surrender to CS forces; they'll just end up dead or worse anyway. The same goes for most bandits. Why surrender to someone who lives so far outside the law they'll likely slit your throat the minute you surrender, or rape you first if female? Such things occuring are mentioned in the books, and I also tend to run things "plausably". Do I take things to insane levels, describing stuff in graphic detail? Not usually, and certainly no more than my players can handle... but they know the stuff's out there, because that's how "villains" operate.
Often the only recourse for the PCs might be to fight so hard the enemy would lose more than they'd gain by pushing it, and withdraw. Remember, bandits don't have an easy resupply, and even CS patrols are unlikely to go very far if they think they won't make it home after the fight they've currently picked.
Like I said alongside the "exceptions": there are many reasons PCs might not surrender.
Yes, there are people who will surrender no matter what. There might even be very good reasons to surrender, with terms. It just depends on whom the PCs are faced with and the situation, I'd suppose.

macksting wrote:Now those points I find rather more fascinating. I think I'll bear the idea of Pyrrhic victory in mind when creating villains. Would this villain make a deal to save his skin? Is he pragmatic about enmity? Or would he go to the ends of the earth for a vendetta?
I suppose that boils down to how personal the rivalry gets.

Still, do you acknowledge there might be a problem of players being far too willing to throw away their character's lives like chess pieces?

Of course, that's a potential problem; but it depends on the situation.
I myself would be highly unlikely to surrender, unless there were reasonable terms for doing so, and if I knew for a fact they'd be up-held.
Player characters aren't two-dimensional, and nor should the villains be. But reasonable assmptions can be made about certain villains, such as bandits and CS soldiers.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:

lather wrote:Unless it's out of character.

That's part of the problem; as a GM, you can't dictate what's "in character" for another person's character.
GMs who try that usually end up without a group 'ere long, and deservedly so.
And only a fool would surrender to the CS; they're just waiting for extermination and torture if they do. I've read the stats on CS camps and bases, and the idea of a bunch of unarmed, unarmoured d-bees or humans escaping is pretty preposterous.
In that case, it would be much better to try and fight your way out.
Now, you might "fudge" the camp, but if you do that, why bother capturing them in the first place? So you can relieve them of all arms and equipment?
I'm not that heavy-handed...

I don't recall Sanford mentioning the CS here.

As an example, I'm perfectly within my rights to do so.
Thank you.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:

lather wrote:Unless it's out of character.

That's part of the problem; as a GM, you can't dictate what's "in character" for another person's character.
GMs who try that usually end up without a group 'ere long, and deservedly so.
And only a fool would surrender to the CS; they're just waiting for extermination and torture if they do. I've read the stats on CS camps and bases, and the idea of a bunch of unarmed, unarmoured d-bees or humans escaping is pretty preposterous.
In that case, it would be much better to try and fight your way out.
Now, you might "fudge" the camp, but if you do that, why bother capturing them in the first place? So you can relieve them of all arms and equipment?
I'm not that heavy-handed...

I don't recall Sanford mentioning the CS here.

As an example, I'm perfectly within my rights to do so.
Thank you.

Sure, your argument works in a specific case. but it does not hold up in general. A D-Bee surrendering to a CS patrol is foolish, a D-Bee surrendering to a Lazlo force is not. They can expect humane treatment and a fair shake. The CS would put them in a camp or execute them. See where your argument is good in specific cases only.

Which, if you read further down the page, you'll note where I said in some situations surrender might be the way to go...

macksting wrote:I was hoping to further the discussion without it being derailed by devil's advocate statements. Sadly, my last post didn't seem to crop up any new thoughts.
How does one avoid this problem, at least where it's clearly inappropriate?

Offer liveable terms, I suppose.
For instance, Lazlo soldiers would probably say something to the effect of, "Holster your weapons, and come peacefully." You keep your weapons, so there's no need to fight because you're not being forced into someone else's mercy.
If you have a group of bandits that try not to harm their victims, they could say, "Stand down, and give us your money and half of your weapons." Or something else that would make your PCs nae want to fight to the death.

Sanford wrote:So, you've got the players on the ropes; outnumbered, outgunned, and with no way to escape. "Surrender!" your NPC demands, giving the players a chance to live and fight another day.

"NEVER!" your players reply, and continue to fight to the death. Then once all of their characters are dead, they laugh it off and start rolling up new characters.

I've run into this problem a few times as a GM, especially when dealing with young players and munchkins. The players' stubborn pride
*snip*
So, how to deal with this phenomenon?

Stop being a bloody stubborn GM?

Your just as bloody mindedly trying to trap them as they are to avoid being trapped.

Sit down outside of a game (not in the middle of a game) and discuss if there are circumstances where PC's would or might surrender. If they don't wish to/wont say any, gracefully accept their choice, like a gentleman would. Otherwise your just being stubborn like a young player/a munchkin.

No doubt the rough tone of my post will defeat the purpose of having written it, but I feel better than if I spent paragraphs gently coaxing.

1) Rewrite the experience reward system to encourage even more RPing. More RPing means more connections
2) Get into character if they build up social relationships that they either want to settle a score or make amends et, then they won't want to die
3) Do not fear killing stupid PCs. If they fear not their PC's death, fear not giving it to them

Presumably playing in character is fun.

macksting wrote:An interesting point. If there's a large number of bandits, and they've all got big guns, they may want to still make a show of just having you surrender and walk away from your stuff; MDC armor isn't necessarily worth chewing through to get to the creamy center when you can just advise the person to walk away.

Of course, this is assuming the PCs can't avoid the situation entirely in the first place.
Skills are quite handy for such things... Prowl, Detect Ambush, Detect Concealment, et al.

so movies like the Great Escape or the Chronicles of Riddick video game, or Escape from New York?

How about Prison Break?

Count of Monte Cristo?

How many video games start with the main character in prison? enslaved?

Castle Wolfenstein

Yeeeeeeees!

And how many great movies, books and video games start out other-wise?
I never saw the need in Morrowind or Oblivion to start out as a prisoner, as a for instance.
I guess you could ask the players before-hand if they're willing to start out that way, and if they/ their characters are willing to go through all of that later.
I've been at the mercy of sadistic GMs who like to take everything away; it isn't fun. Once in a great while, perhaps, so long as you can recover the important stuff, but more than that, or if your "character-specific" stuff's gone forever, it gets really old really fast.

The GM can not be a sadistic (mule) and be an over bearing control freak. But the players have to trust the GM as well if they start out in a prison. However if the fools or heroes, or villains get themselves locked up legit then in it's on them

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:And how many great movies, books and video games start out other-wise?
I never saw the need in Morrowind or Oblivion to start out as a prisoner, as a for instance.
I guess you could ask the players before-hand if they're willing to start out that way, and if they/ their characters are willing to go through all of that later.
I've been at the mercy of sadistic GMs who like to take everything away; it isn't fun. Once in a great while, perhaps, so long as you can recover the important stuff, but more than that, or if your "character-specific" stuff's gone forever, it gets really old really fast.

Yeah, but that's a gripe completely separate from what this thread was discussing. This is about players getting their PCs killed far too frequently and the GM not enjoying running it.

Not really, it's linked.
That may be one of the reasons they'd rather chance getting killed than being captured.
I don't entirely believe in no-win scenarios.

Think about the items though. If someone ends up with a rune weapon, of course when word gets out that the character has one, everyone is going to want to get there hands on it if they get a chance. It's great to have in battle and will keep a lot of trouble makers away. But anyone with half a chance or whose ego or desire is great enough will want to rest it from the current wielder, making them a constant target

KillWatch wrote:Think about the items though. If someone ends up with a rune weapon, of course when word gets out that the character has one, everyone is going to want to get there hands on it if they get a chance. It's great to have in battle and will keep a lot of trouble makers away. But anyone with half a chance or whose ego or desire is great enough will want to rest it from the current wielder, making them a constant target

Assuming, of course, anyone even knows what it is.
They're extremely rare, and several weapons from Stormspire (for instance) also have mystical symbols on them. The odds of anyone recognizing a rune weapon FOR a rune weapon are remote.

except that anyone who even catcdhes a whif of a rune weapon might be so inclined, real or not. A fake rune weapon in the hands of a skilled warrior could provide enough fear and legend that it might be he real thing.
Let's ignore that they are covered in runes, and that those who would love to use it in battle would hunt it down.
Let's examine instead that they are artifacts. How many unscrupulous collectors wouldn't mind paying a million gold, or to convince you otherwise, take your head, or even torture you for giving them sucha hassle in the first place? How many mercenaries who might have NO idea why this rich muckety muck is after a fancy sword and is willing to pay his company a million gold would gladly a) love the challenge or b) simply love splitting a million gold or c) like seeing his rep among the rich folk sky rocket, or d) all of the above

even if it is a rumor, or soemthing that looks like a rune weapon, crossing the wrong set of unseen eyes, or brandishing about to intimidate the locals is a good way to get hunted

"Always offer your enemy a way out; he is less likely to fight to the death."
Wise words.
Not everyone is a coward who will surrender, many will fight to the death and make your victory as costly as possible. There should always be a chance to escape, or inflict enough damage to "win through".

Personally, I like the idea of items on my character's resume like
I survived/escaped Gargosal Prison, I survived the torture dungeons of the Mad Marquis.

I guess I am so hard on my players because they trust me and I trust them. If they think of something that the NPCs wouldn't have prepared for I will let them walk all over it, I let them one hit my villains if they do so legitimately. So if they are in a no win situation, they know they earned it, or if they think of an ingenious or blatantly obvious yet ignored path to success they can seize it. I don't alter my game to trap or doom them. Just as the players shouldn't use Player Info, I shouldn't use DM information for my NPCs

Of course, it might also depend on the lengths you go to to capture them... if they've recced out a CS squad and they get into a firefight/ anbush the squad and then suddenly there's a full mechanized battalion or something, I can see people getting irritated with that.
If one or two of them fall into a pit-trap they weren't bright enough (or lucky enough with the skill) to find, that might be a different deal... although they still might decide to fight to save their friends.
I guess I just don't go too monty with what I throw at my players, and they know basically what is reasonable for me to use for and against them.

Zylo wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:Of course, it might also depend on the lengths you go to to capture them... if they've recced out a CS squad and they get into a firefight/ anbush the squad and then suddenly there's a full mechanized battalion or something, I can see people getting irritated with that.

Yeah, if they think a squad is coming, find out it is a division, and have no way out, that is lame. If they find out they are horribly outnumbered, have almost zero chance to succeed, and still attack when they could just leave, then who is at fault? Depends on the situation, like most things.

I guess I just don't go too monty with what I throw at my players, and they know basically what is reasonable for me to use for and against them.

I'm not sure how you define "monty" but I thought that was Monty Haul where the characters aren't challenged, they are just given far more (xp, money, items, etc.) than they deserve.

It is the job of the GM to know what is reasonable and what is not for the characters in their campaign. I certainly try not to throw too much at the players, but if they are not occasionally being challenged to a point where they can fail, then what is the point?

Things can be monty in the GMs favour as well, if he/ she is attempting to railroad.
Yes, I do challenge my players, but they pretty much always have a way out, absolutely always if they think fast and ask the right questions. Occasionally someone dies; so far, I've never had anyone actually captured.

The answer is simple. And it's true in *real* life, too.

IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FIGHT FOR, THEN WHY GO ON?

For players to truly want their characters to continue, a GM has to make sure that they FEEL that their characters aren't just complicated Monopoly pieces.

What makes life worth living? It's all the stuff OUTSIDE of their adventure. Family. True love. Friends. Reputation. Children. FREEEEDOM!

Indy had Marion in Raiders. Indy had Shortround and Willy in Temple of Doom. He had his dad in Last Crusade. --And he's going to have his SON, Marion AND his dad in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Conan had nothing but his desire for Valeria (in the movies). In Dr@gonlance, they were all fighting for their homelands and FREEDOM. In BRAVEHEART, it was FREEEEEDOM!!!!

You get the idea. To have the game ELEVATE to the next level, it's important to have the PCs have something other than the next treasure horde to fight for.

Yeah, players might not care if their PC dies... unless that particular PC holds the hopes and dreams of friends, family and a kingdom in his success (or failure).

If none of the above works... I recommend waiting several years for your players to mature, or find another group.

I play it simple . If I see PC's playing a certain character outta context ( not in the alignment or as the class was *ment* to be played ) Depending upon how they played it I would either say good job or sorry that is not right an then I would punish them by docking Exp points ( obviously within reason) The way I see it they can *earn* exp points the same way they can *lose* exp points . the one thing I absolutly hate bar none are the rules lawyers ( with a passion ) or the people who utilize book info by thier characters ( again with a passion ) the minute that happens I warn them do not do that again . If they persist I have them roll on my random health degenerator instant heart attack , stroke , brain tumer ect ..ect .. when they ask me why I did that I simply reply your use of book info in a world that has no idea of what is REALLY happening is outside the realm of reality , therefore I took your character outside the realm of reality for you .

When I get asked for the can we roll up new characters after that I usually do one of several things .. *A* I limit thier credits thier gear an put them in the neg zone for beginging Exp . Or I *B* give them the option of getting rezzed with the handicapp of knowing that should they do that again in my game I will simply take the character into a whole new realm of Reality . After all it is the GM's game the PC's are playing in . An as such it is up to the GM what punishments are *considered* when PC's invariably break the reality rules if you will .

So far to date I've had only two problems with any players as I GM'ed . ( only been GM'ing for about two years tho I attempted to do so many times prior an failed miserably) Those two times were all it took for my PC's to understand that When they play in my world that is as it is written MY world. IF they dont like it I would be ever so delighted to let them GM whilst I play a char for once .

-Lenwen.