There was a 1e module you should check out
Ug... "I want to capture and imprison my PCs through GM fiat and take all their stuff so they have to fight their way out naked! Won't that be so much fun?"
Ug. Maybe once in a gaming career. Maybe. But never now.
Uhhh, ok that was helpful. That isn't what I said. And I allow a lot in my campaign and give way more than I take. There is a purpose to it all and they will come out better afterwards. It has nothing to do with GM fiat.
Bolded what appears to me to be one of the very definitions of GM fiat.
But it's your game. It might even work. As I said, every player probably needs to go through this once in their career, just to say they did.
You asked if anyone thought this is over the top and going too far.
I think this is over the top and going too far.
There you go.
What is your party's make up? I say this because at that level things like fly are very real things and capturing your party maybe way more difficult to capture without fiat. If it is obvious to the party that they are overwhelmed they can always just leave.
If there is someone that needs a particular item to function (holy symbols, spellbooks, or alchemy labs) they may feel like you are taking away there characters away.
If this plot thread happens you can be sure that everyone will contingencies incase something like this every happens again.
Once bitten, shoot every animal with teeth on sight.
I am planning on shanghaing my own campaign and adventure. While I have a full expectation of the PCs eventually getting loose and completing the adventure currently asigned to them I am going to send them through the ringer to get there and have them come out better in the end. Next session I am plannig on attacking them with an overwhelming group in order to capture and enslave them. From there they are going to be taken to a place that has a large population of slaves. I will be taking everything from them that they have earn to this point.
Do you think this is over the top and taking things too far? The party is mainly 6th and 7th level.
I dont think it's a bad idea, personally. However, I think whether I or Adamantine Dragon (to pick a random example from upthread) think it's appropriate and/or likely to be fun isnt relevant. This seems to me to be entirely dependant on your group and the kinds of things they like. Whether they're 1st/6th/20th level isnt really relevant in my mind - do they like the idea that sometimes they will run into battles that are (by design) impossible for them to win? Or do they have an expectation of 'level appropriate' challenges? How do they view their magical items - part of their character or temporary adornments?
These are the things I'd be trying to judge in making the call and ultimately, I'd agree with Kimera757 - this is something worth discussing with your players in advance. It may ruin some of the surprise but protects against the risk of an awful session that nobody enjoys.
How would it work if someone was away when everyone lost their stuff and got captured?
Significant negative outcomes occuring to you while you're away might be another issue (although presumably that's something your group is used to dealing with).
The best that may come out of it is that your players will have an angry story to share on a message board years from now! I haven't been through this gauntlet since I was a teenager, although it did happen to another party when I wasn't at the session. Hmm...
If you are willing to consider a twist on your plan, one player could be hauled off and the others would have to track him down.
How about a caravan they are with it attacked by slavers, and the party has insufficient numbers to save them all.
How about some pretty girls buy them all drinks at the next tavern stop. The girls are actually prostitutes that have been hired to distract the PCs by slavers. The drinks are actually poison, and are laced with so much oil of taggit that the PCs need a natural 20 on their Fortitude save to not to pass out one minute later.
For insurance, have several slavers in the tavern armed with saps. Make them tough enough/numerous enough that the one PC that manages to roll a natural 20 is highly unlikely to win, but weak enough that the entire party could have taken them.
Either you get what you want (captured PCs who wake up in slavery) or it will make for an exciting fight of desperation as the (un)lucky PC tries valiantly to save his comrades (or escape the same fate). If he fights, he is sure to go down. If he flees, he can trail the slavers and get taken later (in an ambush perhaps) or work from the outside to try and help his companions.
Either way it is win win for the entire group as it makes for an exciting adventure.
I like the idea, and am confortable with the challenge.
Unfortunately most players will cry a river. Gear is sacred, apparently.
|
I am planning on shanghaing my own campaign and adventure. While I have a full expectation of the PCs eventually getting loose and completing the adventure currently asigned to them I am going to send them through the ringer to get there and have them come out better in the end. Next session I am plannig on attacking them with an overwhelming group in order to capture and enslave them. From there they are going to be taken to a place that has a large population of slaves. I will be taking everything from them that they have earn to this point.
Do you think this is over the top and taking things too far? The party is mainly 6th and 7th level.
Enough people have said this is a bad idea. I think you might want to look for ways to flip this on its head. Give the players a reason to let their characters get captured.
Will dosing a drink with more than one dose of poison make the DC go up on it?
Yes. For every dose after the first the DC goes up by 2.
Oil of taggit is cheap and easy to make. 10 doses only costs 300gp to make and has a DC of 33. A slave sells for 75gp, but particularly healthy, firm, and capable slaves can sell for several times that.
It's an easy way for a slaver to make a quick buck.
Gear is sacred because teh game assumes a certain amount per level. Classes like fighter, wizard (becomes a commoner) become nerfed without it.
The game (in general) expects a certain amount, yet as the GM you have the magical ability to alter the game to fit your new and challenging environment.
The real problem is the players expectation/demand that they have X amount by Y level. Adventuring sans gear came up a few times back in the day, and people just rolled with it.
The Slavelords, for example.
Now gear is a sacred cow.
That said, being stripped nekkid does feature in a Pathfinder module, though you eventually do get your stuff back.
|
First, the advice:
Don't play out the combat. Put out a map if you like, and as many minis for the overwhelming army as you like, but storyboard it from there. They can either choose to try and talk, or fight, but if they choose "fight", then it just "happens" and they lose and get knocked out. Proceed from there.
Playing out an impossible combat is a waste of time and isn't fun. Being kidnapped as part of the plot is perfectly OK, even if stretching the realism of it is a necessary step ("I'd die first!" etc - you can still get knocked out unexpectedly rather than accidentally killed).
Second - a funny story:
Once my party and I came up against a very similar encounter, and our GM expected us to fight - but I, being the only character who could speak their language, surrendered our whole party to them as slaves so that we could infiltrate them. It took weeks, but the plan eventually worked with a bit of GM leeway to keep the plot moving.
|
|
Also, losing equipment temporarily can be an absolutely magical part of the game if they have an opportunity to get it back. There's a popular campaign where you start with no equipment, and it works amazingly well.
Just remember to scale encounters for characters who have lost significant portions of their abilities.
It's a classic trope in literature to portray the hero in "their darkest hour" and rising from the ashes to save the day. It's been done in just about every James Bond movie, hasn't it? It kind of speaks to the idea that it's difficult to make our rpgs more like movies and novels if our heroes are constantly well-armed, well-equipped, and traveling together with no real personal problems to focus a story-on.
I'm really in the "prove to the gods you're heroes without your precious gear" camp, but as others have written, gear is somewhat of a sacred cow in this Age of Entitlement.
Here's an alternative. Make it an undercover mission. The players are PUT IN THE POSITION of being captured by some wealthy conglomerate of noble houses to infiltrate, investigate, rescue and bust-out-of the slavers hideout. This whole thing could be a massive story arc, with the players having to become VERY resourceful, and use skills like Bluff and Disguise in order to gain power and influence within the slave community
(remember that slave communities were often whole towns unto themselves, held under the sway of some slavelord ruler. Think of Tatooine in SW if you will.) The worst-off slaves would be the ones in chain gangs rowing the galleys or working the mines.
And there can be intangible rewards too...like that Otyugh Pit where one who survives it gains +1 to all Willpower rolls. Or becoming conditioned to resist poisons, or develop Bluff skills, or unarmed combat skills. They could become heroes of the realm, and be owed some pretty big favors by noble houses after they're done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most players are big cry babies who expect their GM to bow to their every whim.
You. Can't. Let. THEM. Win.
|
|
I have a problem with encounters where a player's equipment is taken from them because it tends to not really prejudice some classes while completely hosing other classes.
Barbarian: Only somewhat disadvantaged. You can still rage and beat people to death with your fists.
Bard: Practically no deteriments, especially if you don't use an instrument.
Cleric: Somewhat hosed. You can still cast, but you've lost your holy symbol and your focus and your armor
Druid: very little disadvantage. Can still cast and wildshape.
Fighter: Depends on your build, but you can still probably beat your foes to death like a barbarian.
Monk: Lolwhat? No gear? Whatever will I do without my weapons and armor...
Rogue: Well, at least I have a high Dex
Ranger: See Barb and Fighter
Sorcerer: They took my gear. That's cute
Wizard: They took my gear. FML
Alchemist: They took my gear. FML
Cavalier: I miss my horse
Inquisitor: Life could be better
Oracle: Really depends on the Mystery. Some can summon armor and weapons. Still a full caster.
Summoner: Not only do you still have your Eidolon, but it has all it's gear because the gear poofs with the eidolon.
Witch: Depends on if you have your familiar or not. If not, you still have all your hexes.
Magus: No spellbook and no sword. Unhappy
Gunslinger: Your life is s***
Does it matter if you get hosed worse than some of the other party members? Isn't the fact that they can still operate reasonably an advantage in your grand scheme to overthrow your captors?
Isn't it all about the party anyhow?
Why can't you contribute? That's what I don't get at all.
Because a wizard with no spells + no spell components is basically a Commoner with a lot of Knowledge ranks.
Even were that the case (and I don't actually believe it is) what would be wrong with that challenge once in a while?
It's a shame that all you feel you bring to the table is a stat-block though.
I'd agree with that for sure, this stuff only works at the lower end.
|
|
Because a wizard with no spells + no spell components is basically a Commoner with a lot of Knowledge ranks.Even were that the case (and I don't actually believe it is) what would be wrong with that challenge once in a while?
It's a shame that all you feel you bring to the table is a stat-block though.
Are you being serious? You do understand how wizards work right?
Wizards and classes similar to them require their gear, especially their spellbooks and components.
Without them, they can't cast spells.
Without the spells, you pretty much have no meaningful way to contribute to the game. You're just there.
You are frail, abysmal at combat, and likely have no useful skills.
Meanwhile, the Sorcerer is flying around lobbing fireballs and making Diplomacy checks, and all that jazz because his powers aren't based on a spellbook.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was in this situation as a ranger in 4e. With the powers and magic items I had it was literally impossible for the "army" that "captured us" to capture ME. Literally. The GM tried to tell me "it just happens" and I said more or less the following:
"Look, I built this PC explicitly to make this sort of thing not work. If you want to capture me without a fight legitimately by the rules it's going to take more than you brought here. Sure I can't beat this crowd, but I can damn sure get away from them.
But, this is clearly your story goal and instead of blowing your story I'll have to break character and have my neutral character with tracking skills agree to surrender so the game can continue. But let's both be aware that at this point this is pure metagaming for the purposes of keeping your story going because if this was really happening and these characters were real, my character would be long gone."
So he was captured and we went through the entire trope of being helpless and gloated over by the evil bad guy all the while knowing that the evil bad guy was going to do something insanely stupid so that we could get away.
OK, fine. We did it. It was challenging. It was "interesting". It was all in line with the GM's story and were were "well rewarded" when we escaped and defeated our captors.
But the whole entire thing was all about the GM and I was more or less forced to either deliberately misplay my character or else blow the GM's story plans.
Ah. Good times.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was in this situation as a ranger in 4e. With the powers and magic items I had it was literally impossible for the "army" that "captured us" to capture ME. Literally. The GM tried to tell me "it just happens" and I said more or less the following:
"Look, I built this PC explicitly to make this sort of thing not work. If you want to capture me without a fight legitimately by the rules it's going to take more than you brought here. Sure I can't beat this crowd, but I can damn sure get away from them.
But, this is clearly your story goal and instead of blowing your story I'll have to break character and have my neutral character with tracking skills agree to surrender so the game can continue. But let's both be aware that at this point this is pure metagaming for the purposes of keeping your story going because if this was really happening and these characters were real, my character would be long gone."
So he was captured and we went through the entire trope of being helpless and gloated over by the evil bad guy all the while knowing that the evil bad guy was going to do something insanely stupid so that we could get away.
OK, fine. We did it. It was challenging. It was "interesting". It was all in line with the GM's story and were were "well rewarded" when we escaped and defeated our captors.
But the whole entire thing was all about the GM and I was more or less forced to either deliberately misplay my character or else blow the GM's story plans.
Ah. Good times.
Basically, capturing the party like this removes player agency. In a game all about player agency.
Don't Fiat them into submission.
Set up a plausible scenario where it would be in their best interests to surrender, or where the numbers are so large (or 2-3 slavers of the band are sufficiently high level in PC classes) that they might lose.
Let the scenario play out.
If they lose, good. You've got your Enslaved PC Scenario. Chuck their gear in the slavers' loot wagon along with all the other stuff they've taken from other prisoners and such. If the PCs escape, they come out better for it.
If they win, no skin off your nose. They defeated your dastardly plot and gained a bit of EXP, and will now return to their regularly scheduled quest.
It's extremely relevant. It's a lot easier to convince low level characters that they're in a no win situation because they rely on slowly attriting hit points from their enemies to win an encounter. Whereas at 20th level they're playing rocket tag, the fighters expect to demolish their enemies and they'll soak up the big hits to do so. In other words unless you hit them with Divine God Fiat, the high level groups will generally force you to kill them rather than be taken prisoner.
Whether they're 1st/6th/20th level isnt really relevant in my mind
That's why I dont think it's relevant. The whole premise is "I'm making an encounter that's practically impossible for you to win and where the enemy arent going to kill you." Sure you need to do different things to make that true for 1st level or 20th level characters, but you can still do it.
I didnt mean PC level is irrelevant to how you craft the story. What I meant is that it's irrelevant to whether the scenario of being captured will be fun - that is going to turn predominantly on the players and what sorts of things they'll accept.
Don't Fiat them into submission.
Set up a plausible scenario where it would be in their best interests to surrender, or where the numbers are so large (or 2-3 slavers of the band are sufficiently high level in PC classes) that they might lose.
Let the scenario play out.
If they lose, good. You've got your Enslaved PC Scenario. Chuck their gear in the slavers' loot wagon along with all the other stuff they've taken from other prisoners and such. If the PCs escape, they come out better for it.
If they win, no skin off your nose. They defeated your dastardly plot and gained a bit of EXP, and will now return to their regularly scheduled quest.
Except that there are more potential outcomes than "everyone gets away" or "everyone gets captured." In fact in most cases with the abilities that PCs have available to them, it is far more likely that SOME of the party will be captured and some will get away. Which is what would have happened in our case. And that creates new issues and problems, among which are "Ah, those lame bozos deserved to get captured, let's go back to town and find some new and more capable teammates." (Which is what my ranger and the other character who would have escaped would truly have done based on their alignment, allegiances and history.)
One thing people tend to forget is in Ancient Medieval societies Slaves did more then hard labor and other such jobs.The Mamelukes and Janisaries where by Law slaves but at times legally slave but in fact the Mamelukes where the Rulers of their countries.. Same with the Eunuchs who where the advisers to Kings from Persia to China.
In fact it was common practice in the Middle East for captured Soldiers to be made to serve in the countries of that Country that captured them.For example Crassus Army when captured by the Persians was sent to fight the Horse Nomads of Central Asian.
Most players are big cry babies who expect their GM to bow to their every whim.
You. Can't. Let. THEM. Win.
Most GM's are big cry babies who expect their players to bow to their every whim.
You. Should. Push. Them. Down. The. Stairs.
It's fun both ways really, nothing bad could ever come of it.
Comedy gold, this. (I was joking. You know that, right?)
Laveral, I don't intend this to be critical. There is the very real possibility that you are running a fantastic game and that your players are in awe of your story telling and GM abilities. (No sarcasm, I'm serious, some people tell really great stories. That's why I allowed my ranger to be captured instead of saying 'screw this, I'm heading back to town.')
However, much of what you are saying in your posts presents the impression that you are making choices for your player characters and that one way or another, they are going to end up where you want them.
That is simply not my style as a GM, and it is a style I find chafing and constraining as a player. For a good enough story I'll put up with it.
But it better be a damn good story.