I love turning combats into hostage situations when a PC is downed. Rather than instantly kill him, it lets me wring some drama out of the situation, and it makes sense for the enemies too.
The problem I've noticed is that 99% of the time the players will just ignore however much danger there is for the hostage and try to bulldoze the other side and get their friend back.
Well, I guess my first question is: IS that a problem?
If they do that, should I just roll with it, or go ahead and kill the hostage?
In D&D 5e you have the additional problem that "attacking" someone who is at 0 hp still requires an attack roll, AND they need to fail saving throws, so you end up in the absurd situation where an orc has a knife to the unconscious character's throat and somehow misses the attempt to slit his neck open. Or he does it but the guy still has one more saving throw so it made no difference, really, that he was being held hostage, and the players can assume they have some time to free him.
That seems to undermine the tension of what the situation is supposed to be. In those cases, is it right to say the PC instantly dies? But I know people would get upset by that probably too since it's circumventing the traditional rule.
How do you handle these situations? Have you ever had a PC die because of a hostage situation? Do you let them get rescued? What do you do?
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908The problem I've noticed is that 99% of the time the players will just ignore however much danger there is for the hostage and try to bulldoze the other side and get their friend back.
They probably
bulldoze because that's always a successful course of action for them. There's never been a consequence from this strategy. If it works, because either the DM
"lets" the rescue happen or the rules limit a coup de grace, then why not do it every time?
QuoteWell, I guess my first question is: IS that a problem? If they do that, should I just roll with it, or go ahead and kill the hostage?
Depends on the GM. It seems to be a problem for you.
QuoteIn D&D 5e you have the additional problem that "attacking" someone who is at 0 hp still requires an attack roll, AND they need to fail saving throws, so you end up in the absurd situation where an orc has a knife to the unconscious character's throat and somehow misses the attempt to slit his neck open. Or he does it but the guy still has one more saving throw so it made no difference, really, that he was being held hostage, and the players can assume they have some time to free him.
I'm surprised that 5e doesn't have better coup de grace rules (if that is the case). Other editions, and Pathfinder, rule that attacking a
helpless target is an automatic critical hit, and requires a saving throw to avoid death - even if the damage isn't enough to normally kill the character.
If you're unconscious in 5e, the only benefit the attacker gets is Advantage.
It leads to hilarious situations like an enemy with 2 attacks making a combined 4 rolls against an unconscious target and missing all four of them.
Furthermore, even if you hit with a melee attack, it IS a critical hit - but that only means 2 out of the 3 death saving throws. They still have an extra save so it doesn't do anything in a hostage type situation unless the entire mob all use their turns to attack the guy before the party does anything.
This is not a problem. These are the circumstances of the game. Play the ball where it lands - and let consequences be the game, as it should be. If you're investing your own narrative into the situation on how the PC's actions SHOULD unfold... you're not GMing - you're storytiming. That is the Dark Side!!!! Beware!
As for the mechanics issue - that's you being chained to mechanics-as-the-game. You need to make the call as the GM, or use a different system that suits your inner-sensibilities. Or throw your hands up in the air and let the rules mock you relentlessly with their inconsistencies, heh.
If you're going to be the rules' bitch, this will happen.
Though before next session you probably want to tell everybody "I'm changing the rules. A coup de grace on a helpless opponent is an instant kill, period."
Rather than just springing it on them.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908I love turning combats into hostage situations when a PC is downed. Rather than instantly kill him, it lets me wring some drama out of the situation, and it makes sense for the enemies too.
The problem I've noticed is that 99% of the time the players will just ignore however much danger there is for the hostage and try to bulldoze the other side and get their friend back.
Well, I guess my first question is: IS that a problem?
If they do that, should I just roll with it, or go ahead and kill the hostage?
In D&D 5e you have the additional problem that "attacking" someone who is at 0 hp still requires an attack roll, AND they need to fail saving throws, so you end up in the absurd situation where an orc has a knife to the unconscious character's throat and somehow misses the attempt to slit his neck open. Or he does it but the guy still has one more saving throw so it made no difference, really, that he was being held hostage, and the players can assume they have some time to free him.
That seems to undermine the tension of what the situation is supposed to be. In those cases, is it right to say the PC instantly dies? But I know people would get upset by that probably too since it's circumventing the traditional rule.
How do you handle these situations? Have you ever had a PC die because of a hostage situation? Do you let them get rescued? What do you do?
Well it depends on how the Orc has him hostage. Is the PC conscious, awake and standing with the Orc behind him arm wrapped around his neck, the Orc holding head/hair, etc? If so, then the Orc has advantage. If the PC is on the ground hardly able to move, then it might be worse. Is the Orc willing to kill at the drop of a hat, or is he more likely to stall and try and negotiate or wait for reinforcements because he really doesn't want to fight the rest of the PCs. The mindset of the hostage-taker matters too.
If the hostage is unconscious, they're probably getting their throat slit, the PCs better win initiative.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908If they do that, should I just roll with it, or go ahead and kill the hostage?
Yes. Kill the hostage. Stupid decisions by PCs should have appropriate results.
Also, if someone if bound/tied and a hostage, killing the hostage shouldn't require any rolls or counting hit points or saving throws. At least I wouldn't bother with that as it makes no sense. If a PC with 100 hit points jumps off a 1,000-foot cliff, do you roll for damage to see if he dies?
Quote from: Dumarest;976940Yes. Kill the hostage. Stupid decisions by PCs should have appropriate results.
Also, if someone if bound/tied and a hostage, killing the hostage shouldn't require any rolls or counting hit points or saving throws. At least I wouldn't bother with that as it makes no sense. If a PC with 100 hit points jumps off a 1,000-foot cliff, do you roll for damage to see if he dies?
Exactly. We're not 14 any more.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;976946Exactly. We're not 14 any more.
That's right. We just argue like we are sometimes. :p
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976915If you're unconscious in 5e, the only benefit the attacker gets is Advantage.
It leads to hilarious situations like an enemy with 2 attacks making a combined 4 rolls against an unconscious target and missing all four of them.
Furthermore, even if you hit with a melee attack, it IS a critical hit - but that only means 2 out of the 3 death saving throws. They still have an extra save so it doesn't do anything in a hostage type situation unless the entire mob all use their turns to attack the guy before the party does anything.
Based on the first post, I was going to say to just play it by rules and let the players live with the results, but those are some terrible rules. Fix the rules, then let the players live with the rules in case like this. If you are going to cave and just let the players win every time they do something stupid, they are going to do something stupid every time.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908The problem I've noticed is that 99% of the time the players will just ignore however much danger there is for the hostage and try to bulldoze the other side and get their friend back.
How did players rescue princesses back in the '70s?
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;976953How did players rescue princesses back in the '70s?
We killed the Princess, and her hostage-takers, and anything else that wasn't specifically part of the party in the immediate room. Looted their bodies, fought over the choices pieces of gear, looted the bodies of whomever didn't win that squabble, rinse/repeat until no one wanted to fight over loot. Then we went to the next room to do it all over again!!!
Ahh the 70's!!! Things were so simple then.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908I love turning combats into hostage situations when a PC is downed. Rather than instantly kill him, it lets me wring some drama out of the situation, and it makes sense for the enemies too.
The problem I've noticed is that 99% of the time the players will just ignore however much danger there is for the hostage and try to bulldoze the other side and get their friend back.
Sounds like typical player behavior to me.
QuoteWell, I guess my first question is: IS that a problem?
If they do that, should I just roll with it, or go ahead and kill the hostage?
Nope. If you give the players the freedom to make decisions, they are, sooner or later, going to make decisions that don't work.
In this case, I'd be generous in interpreting their plans, but follow through on the threat to the hostage. In other words, if the PCs can bulrush the hostage takers, then I'll give them that chance. If they fail, then the hostage taker will attempt to kill the hostage.
Their decision.
QuoteIn D&D 5e you have the additional problem that "attacking" someone who is at 0 hp still requires an attack roll, AND they need to fail saving throws, so you end up in the absurd situation where an orc has a knife to the unconscious character's throat and somehow misses the attempt to slit his neck open. Or he does it but the guy still has one more saving throw so it made no difference, really, that he was being held hostage, and the players can assume they have some time to free him.
That seems to undermine the tension of what the situation is supposed to be. In those cases, is it right to say the PC instantly dies? But I know people would get upset by that probably too since it's circumventing the traditional rule.
Hm. It's not like a predetermined story though. I would probably pass on the attack roll, maybe it fails on a fumble, due to the hostage taker being stressed out or surprised. But otherwise it should be an auto-hit if they don't fumble.
The save is OK. It's possible to survive getting your throat slit. Not very, but possible.
QuoteHow do you handle these situations? Have you ever had a PC die because of a hostage situation? Do you let them get rescued? What do you do?
You know, I tend to avoid these situations as a GM because I know players will usually charge ahead anyway. Your post convinced me to relax about it. Set up the situation, and the "rules", and let the player's decisions decide how it turns out.
Quote from: Dumarest;976947That's right. We just argue like we are sometimes. :p
Or were a gang hanging around at the pub bullshitting, not engaging in academic discourse, because at the end of the day we're talking about silly-ass games.
Which are different from silly ass-games. Punctuation matters.
Quote from: tenbones;976954We killed the Princess, and her hostage-takers, and anything else that wasn't specifically part of the party in the immediate room. Looted their bodies, fought over the choices pieces of gear, looted the bodies of whomever didn't win that squabble, rinse/repeat until no one wanted to fight over loot. Then we went to the next room to do it all over again!!!
Ahh the 70's!!! Things were so simple then.
Gary Gygax is the reason the Lake Geneva Tactical Studies Association had a "No killing the princess!" rule.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;976971Or were a gang hanging around at the pub bullshitting, not engaging in academic discourse, because at the end of the day we're talking about silly-ass games.
Which are different from silly ass-games. Punctuation matters.
I take ass-games very seriously and intend to indulge in academic discourse over them.
In many genres (especially medieval fantasy), PCs are engaged in lethal, take-no-prisoners combat - where they always kill their opponents, and they expect to be outright killed by their opponents if defeated. Under those circumstances, rushing the enemy with hostages is often a good idea - while giving in to enemy demands may put everyone in greater danger.
If the enemy are logically trying to maximize their own survival, then if rushed, they will fight against the PCs attacking them rather than spending actions to kill helpless hostages. On the other hand, some enemies may be irrationally vindictive or sadistic, and kill the hostages on principle even if it means that they themselves die. As a GM, though, I would be wary of my own bias to have the enemy behave in a way to teach the PCs a lesson - as opposed to acting in their own best interest.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;976953How did players rescue princesses back in the '70s?
We stabbed the bad guy
before he put a knife to her neck.
Or we cast
stoneskin on her.
Or gambled and
magic missile -ed the creep.
Or
dimension door-ed her away.
Or
charmed the creep.
Or negotiated with him, ransoms work too.
Or said "kill her! We'll just raise her!" (BTW, not a good plan.)
Ooh! My favorite was
polymorphing the princess into a troll! Then
they get to take out the bad guy, instead. They like that- good plan.
Quote from: jhkim;976978In many genres (especially medieval fantasy), PCs are engaged in lethal, take-no-prisoners combat - where they always kill their opponents, and they expect to be outright killed by their opponents if defeated. Under those circumstances, rushing the enemy with hostages is often a good idea - while giving in to enemy demands may put everyone in greater danger.
If the enemy are logically trying to maximize their own survival, then if rushed, they will fight against the PCs attacking them rather than spending actions to kill helpless hostages. On the other hand, some enemies may be irrationally vindictive or sadistic, and kill the hostages on principle even if it means that they themselves die. As a GM, though, I would be wary of my own bias to have the enemy behave in a way to teach the PCs a lesson - as opposed to acting in their own best interest.
This is true. What's really, really funny is that in a genre based on loot, capture and ransom is unknown. Dude's got plate armor, a warhorse, and a manor... he's money on the hoof if we take him alive, lads!
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908I love turning combats into hostage situations when a PC is downed. Rather than instantly kill him, it lets me wring some drama out of the situation, and it makes sense for the enemies too.
The problem I've noticed is that 99% of the time the players will just ignore however much danger there is for the hostage and try to bulldoze the other side and get their friend back.
Well, I guess my first question is: IS that a problem?
If they do that, should I just roll with it, or go ahead and kill the hostage?
In D&D 5e you have the additional problem that "attacking" someone who is at 0 hp still requires an attack roll, AND they need to fail saving throws, so you end up in the absurd situation where an orc has a knife to the unconscious character's throat and somehow misses the attempt to slit his neck open. Or he does it but the guy still has one more saving throw so it made no difference, really, that he was being held hostage, and the players can assume they have some time to free him.
That seems to undermine the tension of what the situation is supposed to be. In those cases, is it right to say the PC instantly dies? But I know people would get upset by that probably too since it's circumventing the traditional rule.
How do you handle these situations? Have you ever had a PC die because of a hostage situation? Do you let them get rescued? What do you do?
I roleplay the NPCs, and have them do what makes sense and is in-character. I don't remember any players choosing to ignore a hostage threat on another player's character in my own games, though I have seen it happen in a friend's game (the PC hostage was killed) and I have had players decide to fight on when they clearly should not and are being given chances to surrender or flee - these have lead to PC death, maiming, and capture.
As for the rules, I play GURPS or TFT rather than D&D, and they tend to have logic/reality-based rules, including the ability to kill helpless foes unless there's a real reason it wouldn't work. In some cases though, the victim really might survive and/or some rolls would be involved, and/or it might even be difficult (e.g. the victim is in full armor and/or has an "iron flesh" spell still working, or the slayer is distracted, incompetent, and/or makes a mistake or has a reason not to kill the PC).
In general, PCs who ignore serious risks tend to hit consequences and learn or they don't last very long in my games, though they may luck out for a while.
A little slavish to rules, I see. For reference:
Unconscious
• An unconscious creature is incapacitated (see the condition), can't move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings.
• The creature drops whatever it's holding and falls prone.
• The creature automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.
• Any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the
attacker is within 5 feet of the creature.
You are reading an Unconscious and held (Grappled) creature must be Attacked by attack rolls only, Many attacks are Str or Dex saves, so you can just rule that an Unconscious Held Hostage being attacked is just a Str or Dex save -- which automatically fails and they are hit, critically, because the hostage taker is assumed to be within 5'. That's two Failed Death Saves because of the Critical.
Better?
Just kill the hostage. Otherwise your players think your threats are just part of their scripted heroics.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;976971Or were a gang hanging around at the pub bullshitting, not engaging in academic discourse, because at the end of the day we're talking about silly-ass games.
Which are different from silly ass-games. Punctuation matters.
Do you think the "King of Tits and Wine" class covers these silly ass-games, or does another class need to *cough* fill in this niche?
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;976984This is true. What's really, really funny is that in a genre based on loot, capture and ransom is unknown. Dude's got plate armor, a warhorse, and a manor... he's money on the hoof if we take him alive, lads!
If this were classic D&D then fuck yeah! Sadly, in the default 5E universe, gold isn't very valuable and players don't spend much time pursuing it. To the 5E murderhobo storygamer-if you can't use it to buy better shit to make you better at muderhoboing then what good is it?
Also, with regard to the whole hostage thing, 5E makes it joke to care enough to disadvantage yourself to save someone. Death is easily fixed in a number of ways using just a little of that useless gold and the poor bastard is none the worse for wear and doesn't suffer any long term consequences no matter how many times he takes a dirt nap and gets brought back. Because 5E makes the threat of DEATH so empty who the fuck cares if the bad guy kills someone. So regardless of how easy or hard it is to kill someone with a knife to the throat, logical thinking players aren't going to let that deter them. The hostage dies? So the hell what? One 3rd level spell and 300gp later they are back up and ready for action. Death is a joke in 5E. Without the ordinary consequences that make death actually suck it will not be particularly feared and rightly so,
From a player perspective, every bit of news and fiction tells us that hostage situations only end well for the hostages if the people holding them get taken out swiftly and decisively.
When the guy hauls the girl up with a gun to her head and tells you to drop your gun, you shoot the guy in the head or drop it to put his guard down long enough for you pull the hidden piece you taped to your back and THEN shoot him in the head or... worst case scenario... shoot the victim through a non-vital area into the vital area of the hostage taker.
In real life, hostage situations never to my knowledge end with the hostage-takers getting away; either the hostage takers back down and release the hostages or SWAT does its thing to end the threat. Any time hostages are involved the hostage-taker is already losing the situation and the only leverage they have (the hostages) are the things they're going to HAVE to give up before the opposing side will let them leave, but if they give them up their leverage is gone and the side that was already pretty much guaranteed to win is free to finish the job.
And real life has shown that just about any time someone is kidnapped (i.e. taken hostage, just without cops around to negotiate), giving in to their demands almost always gets the kidnap victim killed (if they weren't already dead).
In short, there is nothing in real life or fictional experience that would encourage the PC's to surrender in the situation you set up instead of just going for broke, focus-fire the guy physically holding their friend and hope you drop him before he can follow through on the threat.
This would be true regardless of how easy you made it to kill the hostage; the only difference is how difficult the task is in saving them.
Frankly, if the PC's gave in every time a villain put a knife to someone's throat; they'd be faced with it again and again as word got out. That's why the official police policy on hostage/kidnappings is not to give in to demands. They don't want crooks thinking they can get away with their scheme if they just take innocents hostage. Instead they want them to know that threatening innocents will not get them anything except more likely to die.
So further, from a long term survival aspect, the PC party is much better off being known as the guys who'll shoot through their own ally to kill someone cowardly enough take a hostage (but who let enemies who surrender to them go minus their weapons and coin purses). Hell, if I were a PC, I'd hire some minstrels to spread stories and songs of how my party did exactly that throughout the surrounding countryside. The more opponents know that sort of behavior is a sure death sentence instead of a ticket to survival and that throwing down arms when they face us IS their surest ticket to survival, the better it is for all concerned.
TL;DR... The PC's are behaving entirely rationally, its the OP hostage situation concept that's askew from reality.
Actual Medieval hostage taking was done AFTER the battle with those who surrendered. They were held under generally humane conditions (under guard, but with food and water) and then released when paid; which like the example above acted to reduce causalities on both sides (because there was an option other than fighting to the death).
If you wanna pull the hostage gambit, I suggest not doing it until more than half the party is down and then instead of "stop or we kill them" make it "if you surrender now we'll let you leave with your friends and your lives; though a bit lighter in the purse." That's a situation where the odds favor ceasing the fight, not the situation the OP has been using.
If you want to give them pause, but still leave options open, house rule death saves that every failed death save is a level of exhaustion. They may still go ahead, but at least there will be some short-term consequences. It's enough to get players to at least consider talking. And unlike automatic kill house rules, the players won't be able to abuse it going the other way, either. Plus, it will possibly mitigate a little the "go down, pop up" behavior with the way hit points work. A series of fights using that rule can kill, by picking up that 6th level of exhaustion.
Or if you don't want the hassle of tracking exhaustion, use the house rule we used during the Next playtest: Your failed death save counter resets only after a long rest, not when you make a successful one. Walking around with 2 failed death saves from a critical is a little scarier if the party has any chance of being involved in another fight today.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908In D&D 5e you have the additional problem that "attacking" someone who is at 0 hp still requires an attack roll, AND they need to fail saving throws, so you end up in the absurd situation where an orc has a knife to the unconscious character's throat and somehow misses the attempt to slit his neck open. Or he does it but the guy still has one more saving throw so it made no difference, really, that he was being held hostage, and the players can assume they have some time to free him.
With an action you can inflict two deaths in a round. If they are not at zero hit points you inflict a critical hit. Because if you look under the unconscious condition you find.
QuoteUnconscious
* An unconscious creature is incapacitated (see the condition), can't move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings.
* The creature drops whatever it's holding and falls prone.
* The creature automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
* Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.
* Any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature.
I presuming the reason still having even an attack roll with advantage because Armor Class represent damage resistance AND avoidance. So it not certain that with everything going on in a six second combat round that the right chink through the armor will be found to deal the needed damage.
But while not spelled out there is no dex bonus to AC, there is no shield bonus to AC, only the character base AC of his armor is the target number for the to hit roll that at an advantage.
Plus there is the massive damage rule that could come into play.
What I would allow in a hostage situation is if the attacker had initiative is to make a hit roll with advantage and if successful I will allow the attacker to HOLD the damage. The damage can then be inflicted as a reaction before any other player can get a move off.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;976972Gary Gygax is the reason the Lake Geneva Tactical Studies Association had a "No killing the princess!" rule.
I was in the West Coast LA Hoobanger Chapter. We clearly missed that memo.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;976984This is true. What's really, really funny is that in a genre based on loot, capture and ransom is unknown. Dude's got plate armor, a warhorse, and a manor... he's money on the hoof if we take him alive, lads!
In my Majestic Wilderlands campaign, I only had the ransom thing happen once in recent years (https://gamingballistic.com/2015/02/17/majestic-wilderlands-journey-and-recon/). But my players have long learn to strip their opponent of their gear (including horses) and sell it. I use medieval pricing for equipment (started with using Harn as a sourcebook in the 80s) so chain and plate are very valuable.
Quote from: Chris24601;977100...
In real life, hostage situations never to my knowledge end with the hostage-takers getting away; either the hostage takers back down and release the hostages or SWAT does its thing to end the threat. ...
Your knowledge is incomplete. It depends on the situation and the what the other side does. It's also currently a politically-charged topic, and US government policy to not pay ransoms etc since about the Nixon era, as well as the usual situation when you have criminals surrounded and they're making demands to go free etc, skew what we generally hear about in modern US media etc.
For example, in the typical recent situations with hostages taken by "terrorists" in the Middle East, the USA doesn't pay ransoms but European nations often due, and guess which hostages are liable to survive, and which are not? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2731097/America-start-negotiating-terrorists-hostages-Reporter-held-prisoner-Taliban-says-US-policy-needs-change-save-lives.html
It's true that many players are exposed to US media which tends to encourage attacking hostage-takers. And that may often be the right move, especially if the GM is also thinking that way, or the situation really makes that the best choice, or if your game system/world has trivial resurrection.
QuoteSo further, from a long term survival aspect, the PC party is much better off being known as the guys who'll shoot through their own ally to kill someone cowardly enough take a hostage (but who let enemies who surrender to them go minus their weapons and coin purses). Hell, if I were a PC, I'd hire some minstrels to spread stories and songs of how my party did exactly that throughout the surrounding countryside. The more opponents know that sort of behavior is a sure death sentence instead of a ticket to survival and that throwing down arms when they face us IS their surest ticket to survival, the better it is for all concerned.
That could also mean that people would decide not to try to negotiate with them or to think ill of them.
QuoteIf you wanna pull the hostage gambit, I suggest not doing it until more than half the party is down and then instead of "stop or we kill them" make it "if you surrender now we'll let you leave with your friends and your lives; though a bit lighter in the purse." That's a situation where the odds favor ceasing the fight, not the situation the OP has been using.
That's reasonable. The situation surrounding the knife-to-throat really does make a big difference, as does what each side stands to lose or gain, and what the odds are. And, what the customs and reputations are. A losing force might also try to negotiate for their own safe escape, for instance.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;976932If you're going to be the rules' bitch, this will happen.
Though before next session you probably want to tell everybody "I'm changing the rules. A coup de grace on a helpless opponent is an instant kill, period."
Rather than just springing it on them.
Agreed on the not changing the rules mid course.
In reality, if they do hit, it almost always is a kill. the hit is a crit, which is 2 of 3 failed death saves required to kill, but that's in addition to the save they make this round, plus the one they have to make every round before and after (likely before anyone has initiative to do anything about it).
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908In D&D 5e you have the additional problem that "attacking" someone who is at 0 hp still requires an attack roll, AND they need to fail saving throws, so you end up in the absurd situation where an orc has a knife to the unconscious character's throat and somehow misses the attempt to slit his neck open. Or he does it but the guy still has one more saving throw so it made no difference, really, that he was being held hostage, and the players can assume they have some time to free him.
The attack roll (with advantage, which is as good a perk as the edition allows) is probably the only realistic part. The hit should be an instant kill (or at least take you down to -2 death saves, regardless of current hp) if they throat-slice you when paralyzed. But people in high-stress, Mexican standoff or hostage situations, absolutely do fumble when pushed. Missing is possible.
Quote from: Baulderstone;976951Based on the first post, I was going to say to just play it by rules and let the players live with the results, but those are some terrible rules. Fix the rules, then let the players live with the rules in case like this. If you are going to cave and just let the players win every time they do something stupid, they are going to do something stupid every time.
No, it just wasn't explained well. The death saves thing is a little strange if you are used to some other method (like simple death saving throw or dead at -10), but it is pretty much conceptually the same. They really needed to specify no dex to AC if unconscious or held, but otherwise the still needing to hit makes sense, especially given a 6-second round. As Estar said, you aren't guaranteed to get a blade to the neck of a guy in armor when being rushed by their friends in a 6 second round.
Sounds like a group that should experience a couple of TPK's as a reminder that they are playing a game, not listening to a DM's podcast called '1001 reasons why your characters are awesome and invincible!'
Raise Dead is now only a third level spell? Fuck.
PC's made their choice, let them see the consequences of their actions. Kill the hostage. Normally as a DM you shouldn't be a rules bitch but if you want rules here's one for the rules lawyers.
IN 5th edition even a low level NPC has multi attack. 2x advantage attack + 2 critical hits (4 PC failed saves) = PC dead in 1 turn.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;976953How did players rescue princesses back in the '70s?
Rescuing princesses never came up in our games back in the '70s.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;976984This is true. What's really, really funny is that in a genre based on loot, capture and ransom is unknown. Dude's got plate armor, a warhorse, and a manor... he's money on the hoof if we take him alive, lads!
I noticed that seemed less of an issue in Runequest (where PCs and most opponents* had already known ransoms) and far, far less of an issue in Pendragon.
* Broos and some Chaos things wouldn't have ransoms nor would the worst of the worst of outlaws, but everyone else would.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;977148Raise Dead is now only a third level spell? Fuck.
He was referring to
revivify, which can save you from death if cast within a minute of death.
Quote from: Larsdangly;977145Sounds like a group that should experience a couple of TPK's as a reminder that they are playing a game, not listening to a DM's podcast called '1001 reasons why your characters are awesome and invincible!'
What is with the assumption that these (as far as I can tell hypothetical) players are playing in the snowflake realm, rather than behaving reasonably given the paradigms they think they are working under? Has the DM previously enforced reward for cagy, intelligent behavior and not for being reckless? Do the players know they are supposed to be operating under these expectations?
I just saw a thread here about the Princess Bride. That's a perfect example of a film where being hyper-realistic isn't encouraged and taking ridiculous risks is rewarded. What information do the players have that this is not the kind of game they are playing in? Or a Schwarzenegger movie, where he doesn't even dodge/dive for cover when being shot at in open fields or at point blank (now that snowflake, he's alive because the DM let's him).
Quote from: Willie the Duck;977155He was referring to revivify, which can save you from death if cast within a minute of death.
Revivify (http://engl393-dnd5th.wikia.com/wiki/Revivify) I am with Gronan on this. This spell is overpowered especially considering 1 minutes means TEN combat rounds. And the effect is way better than the classic Raise Dead which has a period of being incapacitated.
Quote from: estar;977156Revivify (http://engl393-dnd5th.wikia.com/wiki/Revivify) I am with Gronan on this. This spell is overpowered especially considering 1 minutes means TEN combat rounds. And the effect is way better than the classic Raise Dead which has a period of being incapacitated.
It is pretty overpowered. But I don't think it's really the same as having raise dead as a 3rd level spell. They're pretty different animals, even if they both address 'ally who has hit the death state'. It is a 'have prepared and get to them in time' way of saving characters. It changes the way people play the game, but so did the change for od&d to ad&d and the introduction of the negative hp rules, or the cost for raising/resurrecting (in gp or in caster aging). I'm not sure if it is good or bad, but different is not surprising. They've changed things every edition. When it comes to surprising, I was not expecting 5e to have consequence-free resurrection again. No level or Con loss, no caster aging, no max # of times. Just a relatively inexpensive gp gem cost. That threw me for a loop.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;977160It is, but it isn't quite the same as having raise dead as a 3rd level spell. It is a 'have prepared and get to them in time' way of saving characters. It changes the way people play the game, but so did the change for od&d to ad&d and the introduction of the negative hp rules, or the cost for raising/resurrecting (in gp or in caster aging). I'm not sure if it is good or bad, but different is not surprising. They've changed things every edition. When it comes to surprising, I was not expecting 5e to have consequence-free resurrection again. No level or Con loss, no caster aging, no max # of times. Just a relatively inexpensive gp gem cost. That threw me for a loop.
It is why no one needs to take death seriously in the default 5E rules. Make death something that is REALLY undesirable, that reduces effectiveness somewhat if you are raised on a permanent basis, and comes with limitations on how many times it can be done, along with enforcing new characters starting at 1st level and players will do whatever they can to avoid dying.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908The problem I've noticed is that 99% of the time the players will just ignore however much danger there is for the hostage and try to bulldoze the other side and get their friend back.
Well, I guess my first question is: IS that a problem?
If they do that, should I just roll with it, or go ahead and kill the hostage?
Hostages can be held for various reasons and the reason might determine whether they are killed out of hand:
Held for ransom - Killing the hostage might cause retribution against the bandits, better to run away and hope things calm down
Taken prisoner - Just kill the hostage, saves him getting loose and attacking the bandits
Hostage to ensure good behaviour - Kill the hostage, as a punishment for not having good behaviour
Quote from: Exploderwizard;977162It is why no one needs to take death seriously in the default 5E rules. Make death something that is REALLY undesirable, that reduces effectiveness somewhat if you are raised on a permanent basis, and comes with limitations on how many times it can be done, along with enforcing new characters starting at 1st level and players will do whatever they can to avoid dying.
As with most such things, it depends on how you set it up. Sure, for your typical game, death isn't a big deal. I had a friendly, casual 5E game going, where to make it even less of a problem, I changed the time limit from 1 minute to 1 hour. Meant if you were in town with a friendly cleric, it could still work. Except, I hadn't really been paying attention to the money situation, and had been stingier than I thought. So when the cleric "died", they rushed him to the local temple--and promptly had to scrape into all of their funds and sell some equipment to afford the cost of the spell. The whole group wanted to go cautious and conservative, because they couldn't afford the spell again. Until someone pointed out that when their rations ran out, they wouldn't have anything to eat. Only time I've ever seen a group of 3rd and 4th level characters in that predicament, and it was because of the spell. If they had it happen again, I was going to have some local loan shark give them a deal at terrible rates, and see if they left the character dead instead. Heh.
I thought that spell has been around for a while. I seem to remember using it early 3e, if not late 2e.
I can remember someone complaining about dropping, and then me saying "not to worry, I've got this. CLEAR! Zapowie! back to 1 hp. That'll be 200gp, I'll send you the bill."
My first, uncensored reaction was "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."
At my table, the PC could be at full hit points, if the hostage-taker has a knife to his throat while trying to negotiate the life of his hostage, there's going to be a roll on the assassination table for instantly slaying the PC. You can risk it. After all, it is still just a dice roll. The PC might survive, even end up slaying his captor, having not needed saving in the first place. That's just how it goes sometimes. After all, not everyone is cut out to be a villain. Being the bad guy means doing something bad, not badly. Still, I don't think most players will want to gamble the life of a PC on a single die roll. Even if it's only 10-15% likely the character dies (as would be the case if the PC were 8th-9th level and the hostage taker a mere 1st or 2nd level), the stakes are just too high to leave it to chance.
That's half of it, anyway. Teh rulez.
The other half is how the GM plays the hostage-taker. Not all of them are going to be brilliant schemers or negotiators, but some might be. Since you can't win the actual, live human players over with a bunch of good stats and/or dice rolls, you actually need to bring it yourself. There can be some fact of the situation unknown by the PCs that makes following standard operating procedure disastrous. Imagine, for instance, the bad guy projects some kind of illusory panel interposed between the party and the downed PC that makes it look like the bad guy is threatening to drop a killing blow on the PCs while behind the panel, the bad guy is making off with the PC's body down a secret passage. The PCs might have discovered the trick if they'd bothered to try talking to the illusion. By attempting to attack it, they have been adequately misdirected, and now the bad guys know the PCs do not negotiate in good faith.
Quote from: Chris24601;977100From a player perspective, every bit of news and fiction tells us that hostage situations only end well for the hostages if the people holding them get taken out swiftly and decisively.
This really depends on the kind of fiction one reads, watches, or listens to. It certainly used to be more common in fiction that the good guys would put down their guns bravely risking their own lives rather than risk an innocent hostage being killed.
I'm also thinking that if the hostage is a princess that some parents of princesses would be really pissed at the PCs who got their darling daughter killed or maimed. And if the PCs get a reputation for getting important people maimed or killed...well that reputation might be more posthumous than otherwise.
QuoteActual Medieval hostage taking was done AFTER the battle with those who surrendered.
Typically people captured in battles weren't hostages. They were prisoners to be ransomed. And their surrender was often taken during the battle rather than waiting until after. In olden days, hostages were typically taken to ensure the compliance of reluctant ally or a defeated foe. Often hostages were prominent citizens or the children of the rulers and they were not ransomed. A battle might or might not have occurred prior to the taking of hostages, though the threat of violence was almost always present.
I can't help you with D&D5e, but I find it weird that Feng Shui 2 is obviously more lethal to hostages;).
Quote from: Skarg;977122Your knowledge is incomplete. It depends on the situation and the what the other side does. It's also currently a politically-charged topic, and US government policy to not pay ransoms etc since about the Nixon era, as well as the usual situation when you have criminals surrounded and they're making demands to go free etc, skew what we generally hear about in modern US media etc.
For example, in the typical recent situations with hostages taken by "terrorists" in the Middle East, the USA doesn't pay ransoms but European nations often due, and guess which hostages are liable to survive, and which are not? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2731097/America-start-negotiating-terrorists-hostages-Reporter-held-prisoner-Taliban-says-US-policy-needs-change-save-lives.html
It's true that many players are exposed to US media which tends to encourage attacking hostage-takers. And that may often be the right move, especially if the GM is also thinking that way, or the situation really makes that the best choice, or if your game system/world has trivial resurrection.
I would agree that Chris24601 is overstating, but it's still true that not succumbing to hostage demands is a common and arguably effective approach - both in fiction and in the real world. This is mostly in reply to the idea that the PCs are stupid or crazy or special snowflakes if they attack, rather than complying with the enemy's demands. There is room for argument about whether it is the best idea, but it's not crazy - especially if they don't have any reason to trust that the enemy will stick to their promises.
As far as the real world goes, even if U.S. hostages are killed more often - we also need to look at how often they are taken hostage. In the article, it stands out that there are few examples given of Americans taken hostage at all. If they are taken hostage sufficiently less, then the no-negotiation policy is working. Compared to the population and total wealth of the U.S., it seems that we are taken hostage significantly less often than European countries like Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. Of course, politics figure into it - but I would think that the U.S. would be targeted more based on our policies.
Quote from: Bren;977189This really depends on the kind of fiction one reads, watches, or listens to. It certainly used to be more common in fiction that the good guys would put down their guns bravely risking their own lives rather than risk an innocent hostage being killed.
To be fair, it's also very common in fiction for the heroes to bravely put down their guns, and then the enemy behaves dishonorably and still tries to kill both them and the hostages.
Without that expectation that the enemy is honorable and trustworthy, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to comply. For me, one of the nice things about RPGs is that we're not bound to the conventions of fiction.
The whole issue of hostages and prisoners and negotiations can be very complex and interesting. It shifts focus to why people are fighting and what else they might do. That can either be an interesting thing to explore in a game, or something some players don't want to look at at all, and preferences can vary from game to game which is fine, though it can also cause conflict when players disagree. If players always just fight to the death and refuse any negotiations or threats, it can remove a lot of that complexity and raises the stakes.
Quote from: Skarg;977203If players always just fight to the death and refuse any negotiations or threats, it can remove a lot of that complexity and raises the stakes.
...and bores me to tears. ;)
Quote from: jhkim;977199To be fair, it's also very common in fiction for the heroes to bravely put down their guns, and then the enemy behaves dishonorably and still tries to kill both them and the hostages.
Without that expectation that the enemy is honorable and trustworthy, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to comply. For me, one of the nice things about RPGs is that we're not bound to the conventions of fiction.
Yeah that's one that bugs me in fiction. Known evil badguy has gun to hostage's head. Rescuers have gun pointed at hostage-taker. Evil guy tells rescuers to throw away their guns, and they do, putting everyone at the mercy of the known evil badguy, instead of just one person? Even police, who IRL are trained never to do that.
Quote from: Bren;977208...and bores me to tears. ;)
To me it depends, but yes I usually prefer there to be more possibilities and the PCs & NPCs to act like real people who want to stay alive and don't reduce everything to a fight to the death.
Quote from: Dumarest;976940Yes. Kill the hostage. Stupid decisions by PCs should have appropriate results.
Also, if someone if bound/tied and a hostage, killing the hostage shouldn't require any rolls or counting hit points or saving throws. At least I wouldn't bother with that as it makes no sense. If a PC with 100 hit points jumps off a 1,000-foot cliff, do you roll for damage to see if he dies?
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;976946Exactly. We're not 14 any more.
It seems in our games when using a system where 0 HP is unconscious and negatives get to whatever before the PC dies, we usually ignore the PC that's down. They're out of the fight, so resources are not wasted on them by the attackers. I did have a habit of making animal level intelligence creatures try and grab the smallest, easiest meal (usually my son's halfling in my last campaign) and trying to drag them away some place quiet to dine on his still living carcasse. He became affectionately known as "The Halfling Chew Stick".
Quote from: Skarg;977210Yeah that's one that bugs me in fiction. Known evil badguy has gun to hostage's head. Rescuers have gun pointed at hostage-taker. Evil guy tells rescuers to throw away their guns, and they do, putting everyone at the mercy of the known evil badguy, instead of just one person? Even police, who IRL are trained never to do that.
In the better works of fiction, of course, the good guy only throws down his weapon because he's got another plan and wants the bad guy to let his guard down some. It's certainly not the only example, but the end of Die Hard is a great one. I think the two elements of a great hostage scene are asymmetric information and negotiation technique. Either or will do.
Quote from: Lunamancer;977307In the better works of fiction, of course, the good guy only throws down his weapon because he's got another plan and wants the bad guy to let his guard down some. It's certainly not the only example, but the end of Die Hard is a great one. I think the two elements of a great hostage scene are asymmetric information and negotiation technique. Either or will do.
Yes, quite!
I was thinking more of lazy, apathetic, or thoughtless writing.
Quote from: Skarg;977210Yeah that's one that bugs me in fiction. Known evil badguy has gun to hostage's head. Rescuers have gun pointed at hostage-taker. Evil guy tells rescuers to throw away their guns, and they do, putting everyone at the mercy of the known evil badguy, instead of just one person? Even police, who IRL are trained never to do that.
It made sense to me. It usually happens in situations where the entire reason a hostage is taken is the character is a softy, and it is one of their loved ones. They don't want to risk the chance that the guy will pull the trigger before they save them.
[video=youtube_share;snRvmi8kelQ]https://youtu.be/snRvmi8kelQ[/youtube]
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;977318It made sense to me. It usually happens in situations where the entire reason a hostage is taken is the character is a softy, and it is one of their loved ones. They don't want to risk the chance that the guy will pull the trigger before they save them.
Mhmm, though the examples that bug me have no plan (they don't even get a promise, or take cover themselves before dropping the gun, or have a backup, or anything) and don't seem to realize that the evil one probably cares about their own survival more than they want to kill the hostage, so the gun on them is what's preventing them from firing, and dropping it just leads to all the non-evil characters being at the mercy of the evil one, who then often predictably intends to kill everyone anyway, and is only stopped by writer intervention of one form or another.
Quote from: Baron Opal;976980We stabbed the bad guy before he put a knife to her neck.
Or we cast stoneskin on her.
Or gambled and magic missile -ed the creep.
Or dimension door-ed her away.
Or charmed the creep.
Or negotiated with him, ransoms work too.
Or said "kill her! We'll just raise her!" (BTW, not a good plan.)
Ooh! My favorite was polymorphing the princess into a troll! Then they get to take out the bad guy, instead. They like that- good plan.
That last one reminds me of a session we were in way back. Villain and minions have the hostage, a priestess of some prestige, and its a standoff.
One of the players had an item belonging to the priestess and as we were out of options that didnt end in "dead hostage" he tossed her the item. A ring I believe. And by some miracle she got the initiative, slipped it on, and promptly turned into a bronze dragon.
All hell breaks loose. The roof breaks loose. Dragons blasting people and we are grabbing loot and waiting behind a wall for the dust to settle. Dragon/priestess/whatever-the-hell flies off and we get to loot the aftermath.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;977148Raise Dead is now only a third level spell? Fuck.
5th level in 5e. Takes an hour to cast. Works only within 10 days of death, penalties that linger for a few long rests.(days)
Also 5th level in BX and AD&D and 2e and 3e.
In 4e is some sort of ritual, level 8. No clue if that is PC level or spell level?
He who controls the diamonds controls the resurrections (revivify, etc.)... :cool: DeBeers owns your next lives. :p
Thank you all for confirming that D&D 5e is not a game I am interested in.
Let the dice fall where they may if the PCs bullrush the hostage takers. If the hostage takers are serious about killing the hostage then have them do so. It seems to me that the OP's players continue to use "bullrush the hostage takers" as a tactic for one simple reason, it works.
It seems that under 5e rules the hostage is in minimal if any danger of actually dying and the players know this. Under these circumstances there are only two choices. One, stop taking hostages that are in no danger, that gambit to increase drama will continue to fail. Two, change the rules so that the hostage is in actual meaningful danger.
I don't think that's what I would take away from this. If the hostage taker goes through with the "if you attack, I will try to kill your fallen comrade" plan, said PC will very likely die. Yes, there is a 3rd level cleric spell that could save any character who has died from hp loss if gotten to quick, is memorized and a slot available, and requires DM-controlled components. But that is a single spell. I don't consider it more campaign/game reshaping that the introduction of restoration changing energy drain from a "don't get hit or you have to re-earn that level" to "don't get hit, or we have to find a high level cleric and negotiate." It's a spell, it can be omitted or made harder by a DM who wants to shape their campaign in a specific way.. 5e is not the D&D that I would make. It is, IMO, the closest one I'd expect to see published that can be run as the 'BECMI-like to satisfy me, but that addresses things my gamers want like having dwarven clerics and no race-as-class or level limits etc. It's a decent game. Of course, if you already have what you need, I would also say there's no burning need to pick up 5e. It's a good compromise edition and easily alterable to fit multiple playstyles.
I'm not saying that 5e is a bad game or that people who enjoy it are wrong. It's just the more I read about it the longer the list of little things that aren't my cup of tea gets. Others may well love those same things.
In Earthdawn, all healing costs you one of your Recovery Tests (limited per day). There are no Clerics or dedicated healing "class", and the effects are spread around various character types. Some effects will grant you a bonus recovery test if you are out of them (Healing Potion, etc). In the setting, the Passions (god-like spirits) have trapped the Spirit of Death below a great sea of molten rock (that takes up the north half of the Black Sea around Crimea), as a boon to their favored beings (the Namgeivers, humans, elves, dwarves, orks, etc). This is the conceit to make resurrection-magic, etc work, but also has in-game and in-setting effects. For example, miss your chance to apply a Last Chance Salve, and it will take HUGE amounts of magic, and probably bargaining personally with Death (& ending up owing her a favor) to bring your companion back. It is rumored, though, that Garlthik One-Eye, Thief Lord of Kratas (and the oldest Ork anyone has ever seen), steals back his life from Death each night.
Last Chance Salve (600 Silver, Very Rare): A last chance salve can be applied to a character who has been dead for a number of hours no greater than the higher of his Toughness or Willpower Steps. After it is smeared over the character’s body, a process usually taking 5 minutes, the salve glows a gentle blue over the next ten minutes as it works its magic. The character may take all of his remaining Recovery tests. If he has no Recovery tests available, the last chance salve grants him a bonus Recovery test. If the character’s Current Damage total is brought below his Death Rating, then he returns to life, otherwise he remains dead. Multiple last chance salves may be applied to a character, but only one salve will be effective during any one hour period.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;977086Sadly, in the default 5E universe, gold isn't very valuable and players don't spend much time pursuing it. To the 5E murderhobo storygamer-if you can't use it to buy better shit to make you better at muderhoboing then what good is it?
OK, gold is not valuable.
QuoteDeath is easily fixed in a number of ways using just a little of that useless gold and the poor bastard is none the worse for wear and doesn't suffer any long term consequences no matter how many times he takes a dirt nap and gets brought back.
But it can be spent to save somebody's life.
The only way I can reconcile these comments is to conclude that you're giving out way, way too much gold in your 5e campaign.
Quote from: DavetheLost;977500Thank you all for confirming that D&D 5e is not a game I am interested in.
Let the dice fall where they may if the PCs bullrush the hostage takers. If the hostage takers are serious about killing the hostage then have them do so. It seems to me that the OP's players continue to use "bullrush the hostage takers" as a tactic for one simple reason, it works.
It seems that under 5e rules the hostage is in minimal if any danger of actually dying and the players know this. Under these circumstances there are only two choices. One, stop taking hostages that are in no danger, that gambit to increase drama will continue to fail. Two, change the rules so that the hostage is in actual meaningful danger.
You thought wrongly.
First off the rules only apply in combat to things like unconcious and other effects. Outside combat all bets are off what may or may not happen.
The villain has the hostage and threatens to kill them. They obviously arent in combat and if they have the knife at the PC/NPC's throat then insta-death may well result.
As a DM Id say since its out of combat the villain shoving a knife in the NPC/PC drops them to 0 HP. If they follow up with another attack then thats an auto crit, which counts as 2 failed death saves as per 5e rules. Assuming the villain is on par with the PCs.
Or if you wanted to be more generous, use the massive damage rules in the option section of the DMG. Have the villain roll the damage for each attack, which would count as criticals. And if its at least 1/2 their HP gone then roll the table.
Both of these work to simulate those cases where someone has done a coup-de-grace and left the victim for dead. And the victim lived. And this HAS happened in real life up to and including people being shot in the head. Its rare. But it happens.
All that said the rules for 0HP in 5e are still a little off as healing magic does indeed get the subject back on their feet instantly. But. Its magic, so who are we to argue? Well ok. Id argue. Luckily all the spare the dying cantrip and healers kit does is stabilize someone. The cleric still has to blow spells to actually get them on their feet. And they may promptly go right back down. Its not as big a problem as some make it out to be.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908I love turning combats into hostage situations when a PC is downed. Rather than instantly kill him, it lets me wring some drama out of the situation, and it makes sense for the enemies too.
The problem I've noticed is that 99% of the time the players will just ignore however much danger there is for the hostage and try to bulldoze the other side and get their friend back.
Well, I guess my first question is: IS that a problem?
It is only a problem in that you are deliberately railroading the Players into specific courses of action. Of course, by bulldozing, you should punish the Players because "Charge!" should only rarely be a viable battle plan.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908If they do that, should I just roll with it, or go ahead and kill the hostage?
You can always maim the hostage (pluck out an eye, cut off a hand, etc) instead of just killing them.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908In D&D 5e you have the additional problem that "attacking" someone who is at 0 hp still requires an attack roll, AND they need to fail saving throws, so you end up in the absurd situation where an orc has a knife to the unconscious character's throat and somehow misses the attempt to slit his neck open. Or he does it but the guy still has one more saving throw so it made no difference, really, that he was being held hostage, and the players can assume they have some time to free him.
That seems to undermine the tension of what the situation is supposed to be. In those cases, is it right to say the PC instantly dies? But I know people would get upset by that probably too since it's circumventing the traditional rule.
This is a system flaw, and system does indeed matter.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908How do you handle these situations? Have you ever had a PC die because of a hostage situation? Do you let them get rescued? What do you do?
Everything is dependent on who the adversaries are and what the PCs do in response. Yes, PCs can die or they can be rescued or they can be booby-trapped and released to wreck havoc in the rest of the party.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908I love turning combats into hostage situations when a PC is downed. Rather than instantly kill him, it lets me wring some drama out of the situation, and it makes sense for the enemies too.
The problem I've noticed is that 99% of the time the players will just ignore however much danger there is for the hostage and try to bulldoze the other side and get their friend back.
I've often had that kind of situation with certain PC groups. Ultimately, the answer is this: you should not be setting up these situations artificially. If you are, you're basically railroading them into it. If you aren't, and the situation happens organically, then whatever the PCs do as a reaction should be allowed to play out, even if it means the whole party dies.
I don't know if this counts as "organic" but it usually happens in a combat when the bad guys are losing and seize on a chance to turn things around when they know continuing the fight as normal would end in their defeat.
Medieval prisoner-taking for ransom was often done in mid-battle, especially if an opponent was injured but not lethally.
Of course, that depends on the person in question being worth ransoming!
What would happen if the ransom was not paid?
Imagine some bandits take a PC hostage and demand 500-5000gp for his return, and the rest of the party says "fuck that" because it's so expensive.
Do they just kill the guy?
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;979688What would happen if the ransom was not paid?
1. In many situations the party are not the people who pay someone's ransom so their decision is irrelevant. In the real world ransoms were and are most often paid by families, membership organizations (religious, social, professional), and employers.
2. In a number of cultures the ransom amount is determined by status so a person of such and such rank would have a worth of 10 cows, silver pieces, or what have you. Sometimes these amounts were well known or even established by law and custom. So the ransom demand would not be a range but a set amount. In some cultures the victim themselves might establish a ransom amount. It was not unheard for the victim to raise the amount above what a kidnapper might otherwise ask. A low ransom amount implies a low status. So if you are important you don't want a low ransom amount since you have effectively lowered your status by saying you are only worth that amount.
3. I'd almost never expect the ransom amount to be a range, especially such a wide range where the upper number is 10x the lower number.
4. If the ransom was not forthcoming than the response would vary. The prisoner might just continue to be held in custody. Especially if their absence is convenient for the captor. For important people (nobles and rulers for example) their absence interferes with the rule of their lands since they couldn't easily be permanently replaced nor could their heir succeed them. Some honorable captors might feel compelled to maintain their prisoner in a style befitting their status which could be expensive to the captor in the long term. This might motivate the captor to find another alternative. They might be sold into slavery. They might be killed. They might even be freed without payment. Typically the likely outcomes should be well understood and would often be culturally prescribed.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;979688What would happen if the ransom was not paid?
Imagine some bandits take a PC hostage and demand 500-5000gp for his return, and the rest of the party says "fuck that" because it's so expensive.
Do they just kill the guy?
Depends! No... really.
They might sell the hostage to foreign slavers.
They might lower their ransom fee.
They might resort to violence.
They might kill the hostage.
They might release them.
They might recruit them.
and so on.
Quote from: Omega;979698Depends! No... really.
Yes, pretty much.
A social convention in my game is that the temples hold ransoms. The exchange happens on holy (neutral) ground. It was a practice started to lessen the bloodshed among nobles, and adventurers, who have the income, adopted it. The temple helps broker the transaction, for a nominal fee.
Now, if you don't want to pay, you don't have to, of course. The Valoric sorcerers need experimentation subjects, the Imperial farms need tending, and the ore from the Diamond Lake mines isn't going to mine itself. If slavery isn't suitable, there's always the knife and a pig farm.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;979688Do they just kill the guy?
As has been said, it depends.
If the hostage belongs to a powerful family, they might send people after the kidnappers. Best to let the hostage go or convert to their cause.
If the kidnappers think the hostage's friends are just playing hardball, then they can try sending parts of the hostage, one finger/ear/body part at a time, to see if this softens the attitude.
If nobody knows who the kidnappers are, then they might just kill the hostage out of spite.
Quote from: soltakss;980508If the hostage belongs to a powerful family, they might send people after the kidnappers.
Depending on the culture sending people after the kidnappers instead of paying a ransom may show the family as powerful and not to be messed with...or too poor to afford a decent ransom and too uncaring of their family members to borrow enough to pay a decent ransom when they can't afford one.
Quote from: Bren;980565Depending on the culture sending people after the kidnappers instead of paying a ransom may show the family as powerful and not to be messed with...or too poor to afford a decent ransom and too uncaring of their family members to borrow enough to pay a decent ransom when they can't afford one.
Mess with us and see what happens ...
Quote from: soltakss;980649Mess with us and see what happens ...
Yes, that would be the way that such behavior could lead to others thinking the family is powerful and dangerous.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908The problem I've noticed is that 99% of the time the players will just ignore however much danger there is for the hostage and try to bulldoze the other side and get their friend back.
Well, I guess my first question is: IS that a problem?
No.
Players get to make their choices.
The NPCs react to those choices and take their own actions.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908If they do that, should I just roll with it, or go ahead and kill the hostage?
Yes, if that makes sense for the NPC.
In your case, the Orc is gonna slice the throat.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908That seems to undermine the tension of what the situation is supposed to be. In those cases, is it right to say the PC instantly dies?
Yes, unless a throat slice isn't lethal in your game.
Maybe, the 5e rules work in this scenario. I don't know.
In 4e, I would take the PC to zero HP. Then they start the save vs. death dance, and I'd have the Orcs work over the dying body each round taking the PC to the dreaded negative half HP for instant death. But that's high fantasy.
In 0e, you're dead.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908How do you handle these situations? Have you ever had a PC die because of a hostage situation? Do you let them get rescued? What do you do?
Yes, I've had PC's die. That's why D&D has the spell "Raise Dead" and why Traveller has the spell "Roll A New Character."
If the PCs take actions to rescue their friend that works, so be it.
If not, so be it.
It's okay for the players to lose sometimes.
Quote from: spinachcat;980788it's okay for the players to lose sometimes.
Heresy!
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980866Heresy!
Right. They lose on a roll of 1 or 2 on a d6.