Dream House of the Nether Prince

[EOTB]

At my table the game is played as a game, not a story.

Okay but, wait... now I'm not sure what we're discussing anymore. So establish a baseline for me E, are you saying that at your table, D&D is almost purely a small-units tactical simulation? Like, it's mostly about the challenges for you and story is just a framework used to string everything together requiring a minimum of actual playing in character? Like your players are NOT making decisions based on 'what their character would do'?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with this style of play btw, I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from here.

No, I'm saying it's a game built off a wargame chassis, which is still at the heart of the game.

The difference between it and a war game is you have individuals with their own goals. Roleplaying is using that individual's goals and persona to make decisions.

But there is zero story, and if multiple sessions go by without character play-acting that's fine with me. I'm not against character play-acting - but IME 95% of what players who think character play-acting the purpose of the activity, do in a sessions trying to play-act, is incredibly tedious, trite, tortuous, and boring.

There are moments in the game where a dash of character play-acting elevates the experience for everyone. It's exactly what that moment needs and demands, and its happening heightens the experience for everyone. It just flows. And it makes a memory. I'm all for that.

But don't woodenly or awkwardly "well met" every fucking NPC in the game and make bullshit small talk because you think that's just what you're supposed to do. Session time is valuable, velocity and progress are desired, and burning 15 minutes bullshitting with a shopkeeper so that you've "earned" the right to restock your arrows is not my game. "Woodenly and awkwardly" is the key. We all know the stereotypes and acting them out again and again is not why we're gathered here today, dearly beloved.

Regarding story, again, I highly recommend reading the OSRIC afterward. Story is what happens later when players gather out of game and recount the experiences of their characters. I do setup, not story. I have a status quo timeline that covers what happens if the PCs do not engage. I do not, however, make any iota of effort to map out what PC engagement will look like as they go through the engagement process, or what the aftereffect of PC engagement is before it happens.

 

[Beoric]

At my table the game is played as a game, not a story.


No, I'm saying it's a game built off a wargame chassis, which is still at the heart of the game.

The difference between it and a war game is you have individuals with their own goals. Roleplaying is using that individual's goals and persona to make decisions.

But there is zero story, and if multiple sessions go by without character play-acting that's fine with me. I'm not against character play-acting - but IME 95% of what players who think character play-acting the purpose of the activity, do in a sessions trying to play-act, is incredibly tedious, trite, tortuous, and boring.

There are moments in the game where a dash of character play-acting elevates the experience for everyone. It's exactly what that moment needs and demands, and its happening heightens the experience for everyone. It just flows. And it makes a memory. I'm all for that.

But don't woodenly or awkwardly "well met" every fucking NPC in the game and make bullshit small talk because you think that's just what you're supposed to do. Session time is valuable, velocity and progress are desired, and burning 15 minutes bullshitting with a shopkeeper so that you've "earned" the right to restock your arrows is not my game. "Woodenly and awkwardly" is the key. We all know the stereotypes and acting them out again and again is not why we're gathered here today, dearly beloved.

Regarding story, again, I highly recommend reading the OSRIC afterward. Story is what happens later when players gather out of game and recount the experiences of their characters. I do setup, not story. I have a status quo timeline that covers what happens if the PCs do not engage. I do not, however, make any iota of effort to map out what PC engagement will look like as they go through the engagement process, or what the aftereffect of PC engagement is before it happens.

Uh, what exactly is it you think the rest of us are doing? Because the activities you have described here are exactly like my table, you have just chosen different terminology to describe it.

To use your terminology, the setup can include factors with a moral or thematic element. NPC responses can give rise to moral or thematic elements, even if you don't play act or make small talk (I generally do neither).

Like, if the PCs are going to murder some NPC, I don't act out the NPC pleading for his life, or his child crying, I just tell the players that the NPC is pleading for his life, and that his kid starts to cry. And if there are baby orcs that the PCs have to deal with, the dilemma comes from whether the PCs can be sure that orcs are sub-humans that are born evil in that setting, not from me pretending to coo like a baby orc.

 

[squeen]

To use your terminology, the setup can include factors with a moral or thematic element. NPC responses can give rise to moral or thematic elements, even if you don't play act or make small talk (I generally do neither).

Like, if the PCs are going to murder some NPC, I don't act out the NPC pleading for his life, or his child crying, I just tell the players that the NPC is pleading for his life, and that his kid starts to cry. And if there are baby orcs that the PCs have to deal with, the dilemma comes from whether the PCs can be sure that orcs are sub-humans that are born evil in that setting, not from me pretending to coo like a baby orc.

This sounds like a huge guilt trip! Canadians do this to relax?

"Well met." indeed!

 

[EOTB]

Uh, what exactly is it you think the rest of us are doing? Because the activities you have described here are exactly like my table, you have just chosen different terminology to describe it.

To use your terminology, the setup can include factors with a moral or thematic element. NPC responses can give rise to moral or thematic elements, even if you don't play act or make small talk (I generally do neither).

Like, if the PCs are going to murder some NPC, I don't act out the NPC pleading for his life, or his child crying, I just tell the players that the NPC is pleading for his life, and that his kid starts to cry. And if there are baby orcs that the PCs have to deal with, the dilemma comes from whether the PCs can be sure that orcs are sub-humans that are born evil in that setting, not from me pretending to coo like a baby orc.

The reply to 1true isn't about the moral element, it was answering how my game is both more than a small squad tactics and still not what most people in RPG twitter consider essential to the RPG experience.

I'm really exhausted with morals in roleplaying games. It just isn't featured at my table. Dozens of people died in every Conan comic book I ever read, and nary a moral dilemma came up. At this point I'm indifferent to the entire thing. Players "get it", even if playing an evil character dedicated to evil things; it results in different cosmic team play and nobody cares about the fine detail. Curbstomp the village? OK. Help the village? OK. Milk the village dry? OK. Whatever. I really don't care. We're not getting into the fine detail of "bad" choices, just like we don't get into the fine detail of good ones. So its really about what flavor of cosmic shirts the players want as opposition.

For the most part, nobody cares to curb stomp the village anyway. So I can safely ignore the entire aspect and focus on what my table finds interesting.

 

[The1True]

No, I'm saying it's a game built off a wargame chassis, which is still at the heart of the game.

I find myself agreeing with all of this. I think this is how most of us play.

So going back to what I'm saying about my experience with Planescape. It didn't turn us into storygamers or raging thespians. It did add complexity to Alignment, adding a little depth to the old "well my guy is LG, so he would bla bla bla", which was fun and struck at a moment when we were realizing life was more than just black and white.

And yeah, it did indeed lead to drawn out interactions with shopkeepers, but that was because the shopkeepers were often themselves fleshed-out and fascinating characters worthy of a deep-dive down their dialogue tree. The result of that was player investment in the setting which made for an immersive urban crawl. I've been in a Ptolus campaign for more than three years now. It's been a blast, but similar to what your saying, our gamist playstyle has rendered this rich setting into a structure in which we adventure as opposed to actually being the adventure like Sigil was. Both are styles of play that I have greatly enjoyed.

Dozens of people died in every Conan comic book I ever read

I've had this thought once or twice as well. I think that's why I think a lot of oldschool D&D characters are some degree of neutral. Like the pulp action heroes they're based on, they're generally good intentioned, they are often noble and/or honourable whenever possible, but they're not going to spend a lot of time thinking about the widows and orphans of the Temple Guard or agonize long over solving the world's big problems until those problems affect them personally. Which matches your average player. Most of us want to be the good guy, but we're playing a game, we're going to do bad things to frustrating game elements that get in the way of our ambitions.

And @squeen , the solution of course is to not force your players into moral quandaries ... which isn't always possible. If the adventure pits the characters against a tribe of anything really, there's going to be women and children. The tribe may delight in devouring the flesh of sentients and commit horrible atrocities in the name of good-fun, but still...women and children. The DM should remain impartial, but the gods/fates/dice should punish those who act callously/thoughtlessly against their stated character qualities. It's exhausting if it happens all the time, but the occasional moral debate between players at the table can be fun and immersive.
That said; I've been reading the Arthurian legends to my kids and you're average LG paladin filled with drive for justice and the need to protect the weak is capable of astonishing barbarity and complete thoughtlessness towards anyone considered 'the other'.

Which, I'm super sorry for this guys, comes back to this colonialism issue which I've also been thinking about a lot of lates. This may be an oversimplification and I'm open to correction, but mowing down green dudes is fun. Almost everybody enjoys it, not just 'cis white males'. If you want to dig into the ramifications of humanoid genocide with your gaming group and they're into it, go for it! But, trying to excise the medieval mentality out of D&D effectively guts the game. In my (possibly wildly ignorant) opinion, the best solution is not to try to bend the rule books to their breaking point to make everybody happy, but simply to create an alternate campaign world where pulp-fantasy realism gives way to anachronistic themes more reflective of and welcoming to some modern sensibilities. (I kind of think places like Eberon and Sigil offer that already?) Let people vote with their dollars. I suspect the majority of us seek the therapeutic simplicity of mowing down identifiably evil green dudes, taking their stuff and building a castle on their conquered lands. Like E has been saying; it's a fucking game. That doesn't mean we have to be that guy IRL.

well that led to some weird militant-centrist stomping around and posturing. Apologies once again all.

 

[squeen]

Thanks @The1True. Nice dissection of the topic.

I'm just not into the women and children of the bad guys thing --- so I just don't introduce any of that. Folks who want to bash colonialism, or just generally burn Western Civilization to the ground, have all sorts of other outlets for that kind of thing---although it's probably only fun for them when they are being "rebels" like their parents and ruining something established that their neighbors value.

I just want to play D&D. I like Swords & Sorcery. I love Tolkien. That's the game I'm going to play or nothing at all---and thankfully we have the tools in our hands (OSRIC!) not to give a flying-fig how market forces warp WotC's "mainstream" D&D. I can choose to play the game I love and show my kids how much fun it is without the need for external input or product. Bad guys are (thankfully!) bad.

That said, as a DM, I did attempt to circumvent all the moral pondering. I have goblins hatch from eggs that appear deep beneath the Earth, and then breed with the animals of the world to produce orcs, bugbears, hobgoblins, etc. which are all male and (nearly) all mules. No half-orcs PCs. No females. No babies. It all sprouts from fey-goblins that are little manifestations of foul universal chaos. Engines of destruction for destruction's sake. The Joker to the PCs Batmen. Case closed.

I also think it's equally valid to not to address unwieldy moral issues at all and just play. Immoral behavior in civilized quarters has it's own in-game consequences.

 

[Malrex]

But don't woodenly or awkwardly "well met" every fucking NPC in the game and make bullshit small talk because you think that's just what you're supposed to do. Session time is valuable, velocity and progress are desired, and burning 15 minutes bullshitting with a shopkeeper so that you've "earned" the right to restock your arrows is not my game. "Woodenly and awkwardly" is the key. We all know the stereotypes and acting them out again and again is not why we're gathered here today, dearly beloved.

Regarding story, again, I highly recommend reading the OSRIC afterward. Story is what happens later when players gather out of game and recount the experiences of their characters. I do setup, not story.

At my table, there is some NPC small talk--mainly with the main NPC who is giving the quest or the main bad guy or whatever. Once in awhile there may be small talk with a shopkeeper if the DM is in a mood, but usually it happens when it moves the game forward (like a bartender who has a bunch of rumors to share, faction enemy, etc.). I'm assuming you do this as well and I agree doing that with every NPC could quickly get boring. Sometimes I could see it somewhat necessary (in 2e) if someone is applying their 'gather information' ability, but things that keep everyone out of the action for too long, I generally frown upon.

At the table I play at, most of our roleplaying is between the players as their player's individual goals, alignments, and agenda's clash--so mostly everyone is involved, except the DM sometimes. For example, finding a lost religious artifact can cause a rift between the cleric (who wants to take it back to a temple) and a thief (who wants to loot it), and then the others join in, choosing sides, until a decision is made. Or what to do with a prisoner...the situations are endless. It can also bring out the weaknesses of some characters--like paladins or barbarians--as they know their character would want it one way (paladins can have it rough especially here), but the player is grumbling to themself because they would rather do something else. The roleplay process slows down on moving the game forward, but I don't think it's a waste of time as everyone is involved, having a good time, and the people I play with believe its all part of the game...plus the DM can take a little break (unless a NPC is involved in the debate/argument/situation) and be happy to sit back and watch what he created, or start rolling for wandering encounters.

I bolded "I do setup, not story." I love that. Setup can involve some story bits to make it a good set-up, but I'm very much on the side of setting up situations, set-ups, and problems for the PCs to figure out, rather than dialoguing a story. You prepare an outline...the PCs write the story through their actions. I was surprised on twitter recently where a bunch of people were completely bashing the sandbox playstyle. How they wanted to be told what to do.....I don't get it.

 

[EOTB]

At the table I play at, most of our roleplaying is between the players as their player's individual goals, alignments, and agenda's clash--so mostly everyone is involved, except the DM sometimes. For example, finding a lost religious artifact can cause a rift between the cleric (who wants to take it back to a temple) and a thief (who wants to loot it), and then the others join in, choosing sides, until a decision is made. Or what to do with a prisoner...the situations are endless. It can also bring out the weaknesses of some characters--like paladins or barbarians--as they know their character would want it one way (paladins can have it rough especially here), but the player is grumbling to themself because they would rather do something else. The roleplay process slows down on moving the game forward, but I don't think it's a waste of time as everyone is involved, having a good time, and the people I play with believe its all part of the game...plus the DM can take a little break (unless a NPC is involved in the debate/argument/situation) and be happy to sit back and watch what he created, or start rolling for wandering encounters.

There's a lot of people who want to play this way, and I recognize it even if it's similar to someone telling me their favorite food is something I can't stomach . I.e., not a big deal as long as we're both OK with my declining to eat it.

I'm glad there's a restaurant in town for them though.

What's great is that good modules can serve both types, and MM's mods are an example of that.

 

[Beoric]

This sounds like a huge guilt trip! Canadians do this to relax?

"Well met." indeed!

No need to make things personal. Those specific scenarios don't come up all that much, because my players don't generally make decisions that have them slaughtering innocents. But yeah, I'm into realistic portrayals of NPCs, and realistic consequences of character actions. In my game, character actions matter.

Thanks @The1True. I just want to play D&D. I like Swords & Sorcery. I love Tolkien. That's the game I'm going to play or nothing at all---and thankfully we have the tools in our hands (OSRIC!) not to give a flying-fig how market forces warp WotC's "mainstream" D&D. I can choose to play the game I love and show my kids how much fun it is without the need for external input or product. Bad guys are (thankfully!) bad.

Yes, the famously amoral world of Tolkein:

'Gollum!' cried Frodo. 'Gollum? Do you mean that this is the very Gollum-creature that Bilbo met? How loathsome!'

'I think it is a sad story,' said the wizard, 'and it might have happened to others, even to some hobbits that I have
known.'

'I can't believe that Gollum was connected with hobbits, however distantly,' said Frodo with some heat. 'What an abominable notion!'

'It is true all the same,' replied Gandalf. 'About their origins, at any rate, I know more than hobbits do themselves. And even Bilbo's story suggests the kinship. ...'

'... What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!'

'Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.'

'I am sorry,' said Frodo. 'But I am frightened; and I not feel any pity for Gollum.'

'You have not seen him,' Gandalf broke in.

'No, and I don't want to,' said Frodo. 'I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.'

'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many - yours not least. In any case we did not kill him: he is very old and very wretched. The Wood-elves have him in prison, but they treat him with such kindness as they can find in their wise hearts.'

Its fine if you want to treat killing like fragging mobs in a video game, just don't trash on my game because I don't. Since I'm assuming you don't want me to start drawing conclusions about your country or character from your gaming preferences.

Dozens of people died in every Conan comic book I ever read, and nary a moral dilemma came up.

I read the books more than the comics, but I'm pretty sure in both that Conan generally killed bandits, soldiers and people who were trying to kill him. He actually had a very entrenched code about many things. Like my players, Conan avoided moral dilemmas by not doing things that went against his morality.

 

[squeen]

Please...don't paint us as monsters. There is no wanton slaughter. We just don't want to deal with every bad guy leaving behind a dozen orphans because you killed their poppa. Big difference. In an ideal world there would be no mortal combat---but that game is called Diplomacy.

You play how you like. An occasional morale dilemma is fine to me, but it's a fine line. Good and bad being more black and white in D&D is my preference. Tolkien drew some pretty clear lines too. Gollum and Boromir were "people" who get to choose their moral fate through their actions. Balrogs, dragons, orcs, and Sauron do not.

 

[EOTB]

I'm pretty sure in both that Conan generally killed bandits, soldiers and people who were trying to kill him.

Right, this is the key. The only difference in theory is that in my game the characters' actions don't matter. They likely have consequences, but they don't matter, with all the implicit meaning that makes that a semi-loaded phrase. If they go team evil then I have different dynamic in their opposition, and it will be short-term "easier" and long-term more difficult, but that's about it. If they want to be the bad guys, be the bad guys. I have no particular expectations or preference for them to choose one path or another.

 

[The1True]

Or what to do with a prisoner

This is the worst. For players and DM alike. Like you said, it bogs the game down. Formalities of alignment must be observed, interrogation must be slogged through with or without a pile of opposing skill rolls depending on the system, and then there's the deep inconvenience of figuring out what the hell to do with the captive (drag him along? tie him to a post? send him back to the authorities with a henchman? battlefield execution?).
Both myself and the other DM in our group have taken to very obviously letting non-essential NPC's die before they can get captured. Like the strike to subdue does so much damage that it kills the NPC anyway. Basically the message being "let's keep playing". It's a definite act of DM fiat and no one likes it, but the alternative can be a real drag on the game night.

they wanted to be told what to do

Some people need a quest to give them the kick in the ass to get going. Sometimes it's the sandbox designer's fault: If all you give them is 'You start here in the middle of a vast cloud of possibilities. What do you do?" you're likely to cause paralysis in the majority of players. It's good to have some kind of recognizable central narrative as a lifeline for the lost to cling onto until they figure out what their own priorities are. Once again, Witcher 3 absolutely nailed this. The Fallout games weren't half bad either.
That said, I'm afraid more and more people really are at the opposite extreme; looking to roll dice and play-act their way through someone else's failed fantasy novel. For them, a sandbox probably seems unbelievably lazy and 'immature'.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

Right, this is the key. The only difference in theory is that in my game the characters' actions don't matter. They likely have consequences, but they don't matter, with all the implicit meaning that makes that a semi-loaded phrase. If they go team evil then I have different dynamic in their opposition, and it will be short-term "easier" and long-term more difficult, but that's about it. If they want to be the bad guys, be the bad guys. I have no particular expectations or preference for them to choose one path or another.

That's a sensible way of looking at it. Do I take the shortcut for the short-term gain, hoping it will allow me enough maneuvering room to face the long-term consequences is a problem that is interesting from a gameplay perspective.

 

[squeen]

This is the worst. For players and DM alike. Like you said, it bogs the game down. Formalities of alignment must be observed, interrogation must be slogged through with or without a pile of opposing skill rolls depending on the system, and then there's the deep inconvenience of figuring out what the hell to do with the captive (drag him along? tie him to a post? send him back to the authorities with a henchman? battlefield execution?).

My players dread it when the bad guys surrender or want to negotiate, because they feel obligated to let them and often miss out on the loot. Still, sometimes that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Recently, they fought a group of bands I'd loosely based off of characters in The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly. When they'd captured Clint Eastwood's character and started interrogating him, it was fun (for me) rationalizing (to them) his 1960's anti-hero motives. They eventually let him go since he was clearly a hired gun just looking to make a buck. It threw them I think, dealing out in the wild with humanity and (as EOTB reminded me) it's large neutrally-aligned lens of self-interest. In a dog-eat-dog world, men can treat eachother burtally. Get the other guy before he gets you. It was a nice counterpoint to the more clearly black-hardheartedness of the monsters, but would (IMO) get old if it were single-note or the main theme. I beleive it's a mistake to humanized the creatures lurking in the dark who hate the light.

Early on I made it clear that befriending a goblin wasn't ever going to work---they have no notion of friends. It's strictly peeking order: Obey the strong and dominate the weak. Zero morale code. Cruelty is fun if you can get away with it. Humanity is a blight that should be erradicated because it disgusts them by it's very nature. etc.

Some people need a quest to give them the kick in the ass to get going. Sometimes it's the sandbox designer's fault: If all you give them is 'You start here in the middle of a vast cloud of possibilities. What do you do?" you're likely to cause paralysis in the majority of players. It's good to have some kind of recognizable central narrative as a lifeline for the lost to cling onto until they figure out what their own priorities are. Once again, Witcher 3 absolutely nailed this. The Fallout games weren't half bad either.
That said, I'm afraid more and more people really are at the opposite extreme; looking to roll dice and play-act their way through someone else's failed fantasy novel. For them, a sandbox probably seems unbelievably lazy and 'immature'.

I think the key is interesting detail in almost everything so that the environment is constantly tugging at the PCs, soliciting help or wanting to steamroller over them. The world should never stop casting hooks at them---even when they are following one. The trick is to not have one central plots, but multiple central plots and countless subplots. Again, that's more work for the DM---and much of it potentially wasted work. It is my firm belief that the difference between excellence and mediocrity in a campaign is how many layers of the onion the DM is willing to prepare and how willing is he to let you to never uncover them. That's one of the take-aways I gleaned from my old DM.

A single, central "story" is the lowest-effort result and hardly a stone's throw from "I bought this story, so that's what we have to play." That doesn't mean it can't be fun, but the alternative is much richer. Bashing sandboxes is like complaining about having to go to work.

 

[Beoric]

Right, this is the key. The only difference in theory is that in my game the characters' actions don't matter. They likely have consequences, but they don't matter, with all the implicit meaning that makes that a semi-loaded phrase. If they go team evil then I have different dynamic in their opposition, and it will be short-term "easier" and long-term more difficult, but that's about it. If they want to be the bad guys, be the bad guys. I have no particular expectations or preference for them to choose one path or another.

See, this is the thing. This is how I run my campaign as well, and I don't see how it is incompatible with players facing moral quandaries that arise from their own consciences. As for it mattering, the gods won't punish them, but the local constabulary might.

This is the worst. For players and DM alike. Like you said, it bogs the game down. Formalities of alignment must be observed, interrogation must be slogged through with or without a pile of opposing skill rolls depending on the system, and then there's the deep inconvenience of figuring out what the hell to do with the captive (drag him along? tie him to a post? send him back to the authorities with a henchman? battlefield execution?).
Both myself and the other DM in our group have taken to very obviously letting non-essential NPC's die before they can get captured. Like the strike to subdue does so much damage that it kills the NPC anyway. Basically the message being "let's keep playing". It's a definite act of DM fiat and no one likes it, but the alternative can be a real drag on the game night.

Interesting to contrast this with what @PrinceofNothing is always saying about taking captives to figure out where the treasure is hidden.

For myself, I can say as a player I have no issue dealing with this on a case by case basis. For example, the inconvenience to me as a player in dragging the captives back to town for trial is the effort is saying the words, "We escort the captives back to town and deliver them to the constable for trial." If there is some sort of timer that precludes that, well then I have to evaluate my priorities.

EDIT: I have also hired retainers to guard prisoners (not a big inconvenience, since I am already hiring retainers to guard the horses - and sometimes wagons, I tend to pick dungeons clean). And I have taken captives into my service, or let them go on conditions, or after providing information, or owing me a favour. Really there are a lot of opportunities here.

For those of you playing faux-medieval style games, you might want to consider the premodern concept of "parole", particularly with respect to prisoners of war (modern, too, in some places outside of the U.S.). Possibly with some tweaking for your game. If you incorporate it into your setting it can make taking prisoners less problematic.

 

[squeen]

For example, the inconvenience to me as a player in dragging the captives back to town for trial is the effort is saying the words, "We escort the captives back to town and deliver them to the constable for trial." If there is some sort of timer that precludes that, well then I have to evaluate my priorities.

I don't hand waive traveling. I think it's one of the most fun parts of the game---having a destination. If my players are several days or weeks out of town, it will likely take at least a few session (or more!) to get there...especially with all the potential distractions. So taking a prisoner in the deep outback or a dungeon is problematic. They often extract a promise and let them go...leave them tied up and walk away (if they haven't run out of rope)...or else kill them (after much hand-wringing) if they are too dangerous.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

EDIT: I have also hired retainers to guard prisoners (not a big inconvenience, since I am already hiring retainers to guard the horses - and sometimes wagons, I tend to pick dungeons clean). And I have taken captives into my service, or let them go on conditions, or after providing information, or owing me a favour. Really there are a lot of opportunities here.

For those of you playing faux-medieval style games, you might want to consider the premodern concept of "parole", particularly with respect to prisoners of war (modern, too, in some places outside of the U.S.). Possibly with some tweaking for your game. If you incorporate it into your setting it can make taking prisoners less problematic.

Taking prisoners so you can learn information about where they keep their shit or use them for tricks is part of DnD I think, or at least it should be. One might even consider the use of and exchange for hostages and whatnot. I imagine it makes less sense when one fights orcs or other creatures that are blood enemies but with humans it should be an option.

 

[EOTB]

See, this is the thing. This is how I run my campaign as well, and I don't see how it is incompatible with players facing moral quandaries that arise from their own consciences. As for it mattering, the gods won't punish them, but the local constabulary might.

I agree, it is possible to combine them. I've not said it was impossible; instead combination is undesired.

For those of you playing faux-medieval style games, you might want to consider the premodern concept of "parole", particularly with respect to prisoners of war (modern, too, in some places outside of the U.S.). Possibly with some tweaking for your game. If you incorporate it into your setting it can make taking prisoners less problematic.

This I do use. It is typical to parole prisoners on the oath to leave a defined area and never return. If they're later found in that area it is honorable to deny them further quarter. And the overwhelming majority abide, so it is in the players interests to offer and use it. Those who break oath are killed - good way to sniff out CE.

 

[TerribleSorcery]

For those of you playing faux-medieval style games, you might want to consider the premodern concept of "parole", particularly with respect to prisoners of war (modern, too, in some places outside of the U.S.). Possibly with some tweaking for your game. If you incorporate it into your setting it can make taking prisoners less problematic.

Well I never! Do you mean to suggest that learning will improve my D&D game? I swore 20 years ago never to do that again.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

Like the strike to subdue does so much damage that it kills the NPC anyway. Basically the message being "let's keep playing". It's a definite act of DM fiat and no one likes it, but the alternative can be a real drag on the game night.

Two words bucko. Sleep. Spell. And then begins the intricate dance of Charm Person, threats, offers to defect, and questions of Where Is the Gold?