Robbers on the Road

[CourtFool]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

Actually I have had this prob before, usually only with one Character / playerat a time though.

 

Thank goodness with using HERO's fully optioned combat system I simply cheated and gave him a nasty head injury straight away that translated into lost stats - permenantly.

 

Not death but a lesson well learned...

 

That will teach him for having a different playing style than you.

[Guest taxboy4]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

That will teach him for having a different playing style than you.

 

Yes, damn all those wrong thinkers!!!!

[Victor]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

Another idea might be to turn the tables. Perhaps the local militia has been out looking for the bandits. Attracted by the sounds of combat, they soon gather and arrive en masse. Not knowing the PC's, they demand everyone stop fighting and disarm. Let the thugs grudgingly do so first, as a cue to the players that this isn't the time to press things. If necessary, have one of the bandits quietly urge the players to follow suit.

 

PC's and bandits then get loaded into caged wagons, and on the way back to the militia camp (or the nearest town), the bandits start planning on how to get out, and require the PC's help (or vice versa, if the PC's are on the ball). Then again, maybe they've got some leverage back in town (thieves' guild, or something), and are willing to sit tight and wait to get released as usual.

 

 

 

Another option, instead of having the PC's get ambushed, is to happen upon someone else getting ambushed. Only this time, not by nose-picking purse snatchers. Instead, it's group of heavily armored cavalrymen getting attacked by spell-tossing, robe-wearing finger wagglers (or vice versa). The scaled up power evident will give them pause, or should. Without taking a moment to figure out who is who, and what's going on, they won't know which side to take, or if they should just watch from a safe distance -- if they even get that option -- reinforcements might arrive from behind them.

[sbarron]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

However' date=' unless the "gentleman bandit" angle is played up, the PCs are relying on the GM to not have them murdered or sold into slavery (which is unrealistic for the fantasy genre).[/quote']Generally, that outlook by the players is the problem with the "Captured!" scenario. The PCs equate surrender with death or slavery, when surrender should be a way to avoid death. That's the D&D mindset. The players view the game as a war-game where you kill the opponent and take his stuff or he kills you and takes your stuff.

 

Players always rely on the GM not to murder them or sell them into slavery (whether they realilze it or not). The fact that they had some DM early in the gaming lives take all their stuff and sell their characters into slavery is why they fight on. Which is why I might do a little railroading in the scenario I mentioned above. My players have to trust me. They have to know that I'm not going to put a level 3 threat against level 1 players without a reason (other than murder and slavery for the PCs). Taxboy4's players obviously do not trust him. If the only way to teach them is to create a really well thought out ambush (railroad), so be it. Hopefully, next time I can just play it straight, and if the tables turn against them, surrender looks better than certain death.

[Lupus]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

In my experience, it's not just that PCs would rather die than surrender. It can also be that they see themselves, on death's door, and they say 'why should I surrender? I can still fight! If I can get in just one good hit then I can win...' But then they don't get in that one good hit... they miss, and they get decapitated on the bad guy's next action, unless the GM fudges the dice.

 

Three solutions there, I guess:

1) fudge the dice. Maybe so the bad guy misses, maybe so the good guy just gets knocked out (or permanent head injury, I like that one, it's nasty-ass).

2) Kill the PC. Darwin will take care of the rest.

3) Explain to the PC, before they take action, that they have to get VERY lucky to win, and perhaps they might think about surrendering, because the bad guy isn't going to let them live if they keep fighting.

 

The last option will often sound like railroading, though (even though it isn't).

 

I began to realise this when it was explained to me why my villains kept dying. A very wise man told me that you don't have them run away on the turn when you think they HAVE to. You have them run away on the turn BEFORE you think they have to.

[JMcL63]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

It seems to me that a lot of the answers to this matter come down to the GM educating the players about what kind of game is being run. I know from personal experience how important it is for players to know this. At the very least, players should know whether or not you're running 'real death'. This might give them the idea that stupidity will result in dire consequences (although, as has many have already said, players being what they are, they might just fight on all the harder!).

 

One way of encouraging players to consider not fighting to the last is for your NPC's to flee and/or surrender just like real people would. If this happens often enough, players might start to realise that slaughtering everyone out of hand is not the best idea, and that surrender in the face of insuperable odds isn't necessarily the worst idea, especially if they have reason to believe that their opponents aren't heartless killers themselves. This is all about consequences really, which is IMO the best way of encouraging players to play their characters as more than just killing machines. Dead robbers can have friends who would seek vengance, or they might have hostages they can use to blackmail the PC's, and so on.

 

If all that fails, then just play the robbers sensibly. Have them attack with surprise, using Brace and Set from cover to improve their to hit chances while being hard to hit themselves. Or have them use teamwork and multiple attacker bonuses sensibly. If you're playing a 'real death' game, killing off a few PC's might start to get through to the players.

 

Finally, in the end, don't forget to talk to your players about what you're trying to do with the game, and to talk over what happens in incidents like this.

[CourtFool]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

Why is it so important to capture the PCs?

 

I know some people say that to ignore that tactic limits your options, but I do not see that as necessarily a bad thing. Not all options are good. Not runing your favorite god-like pet NPC is limiting your options but probably a good idea.

 

If players do not enjoy playing in a game where they are captured why is it the GM's duty to convince them that they are wrong?

[Outsider]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

Generally, the person who is running a game puts a lot more time and effort into it than any of the people playing in it. The GM is generally putting in all this effort (without pay) because he/she enjoys running the game. If the GM doesnt enjoy running a game where the PCs are immune to capture and/or death, why should they continue to put in the effort? If the players do not enjoy playing in the game that the GM is running, they can go find another game.

[Savinien]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

Why is it so important to capture the PCs?

 

I know some people say that to ignore that tactic limits your options, but I do not see that as necessarily a bad thing. Not all options are good. Not runing your favorite god-like pet NPC is limiting your options but probably a good idea.

 

If players do not enjoy playing in a game where they are captured why is it the GM's duty to convince them that they are wrong?

 

Because always fighting to the death is ludicrous. It isn't role-playing, and for some, that's the point. It isn't much of a story if, everytime PCs are outmatched they all fight until they die. What kind of story is that?

[Trencher]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

What kind of story is that?

An heroic one.

[Trencher]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

In my campaign I take a more realistic aproach and use bandits as they were in history. First off bandits rarely prey on the merchants unless they are paid to do it by someone else. Or they are organized enough to have an reliable fence so they can get rid of the stolen goods without giving themselves up.

Bandits are _not_ master combatants, they don't make a living of killing people they make a living of intimidating people. In particular pesants. The reason for this is that there were not enough merchants to keep a bandit going. You have to prey on the commoners if you are going to live like a bandit.

As far as combat tactics go bandits should be not bright, but pragmatic. Don't go one one go five to one or most likely ten to one. If you surround a man with twenty of your buddies he is going to give his stuff without a fight but if you and your highly trained friend try to shake him down he might fight back. Sooner or later one of the marks is going to get lucky no matter how good you are.

Last and this is the most important part: Bandits was almost never bandits first. They almost always had a primary profession and used banditry to get some quick cash.

Different group makes different bandits.

Pesants: These guys are handy with a bow and know the local terrain as the back of their hand. If they are lucky the whole village can be in on it and that gives them alibi if needed.

Soldiers/deserters: Soldiers who where on foreign ground in medieval times did not hesitate to do a little looting on the side even if the nobles (might) frown upon such practice, (less taxes for them). Deserters makes exelent brigands or robbers and might be very well armed and trained and can give the most powerful group (of normals) a run for their money.

Nobles: Bored nobles can create a secret identity for themselves and go on looting travelers. They look primevally for thrills not money. They might even have a reputation. "Don't travel in the forest at night sir. the Beige bandit is about tonight"

Pilgrims: Pilgrims often resorted to banditry in medieval times and in turn also was preyed upon by other bandits, however you could say that the bandit in question was not really pious and that the pilgrim suit was a disguise. If a whole religion go corrupt then you could use something like the whitecloacks from the wheel of time series. They were bandits true and true.

Finally I would advice you to not use magicians in your bandit group. Nothing ruins the mystery of magic as much as a couple of magic users in a bandit group. Unless offcourse he/her is a leader of some kind there would be very little reason for a mage to hang out with bandits, he could earn more money doing tricks on the market place.

And one final thing. Bandits are the scum of the earth in my campaign and the players like that, even if you choose to go with the noble protector who just happen to steal a little type of bandit you should throw in some real scumbags just to make the nice bandit look good.

[Curufea]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

Ah - some come from the school of thought that people in roleplaying games should be as well rounded and three dimensional as they are in real life. And the world should behave in a non-narrative, but realistic way.

However, some play fantasy games just like the superhero genre - everything is black/white and good/evil. There are no shades of grey, the PCs will always win (eventually) and the role of the PC is to be the centre of any historical event.

 

There are many variations on style. Just bear that in mind.

 

I find the use of the word "heroic" in the various rulebooks to be somewhat misleading in this regard. Roleplaying games don't need heroes, they just need people.

[Victor]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

Finally I would advice you to not use magicians in your bandit group. Nothing ruins the mystery of magic as much as a couple of magic users in a bandit group. Unless offcourse he/her is a leader of some kind there would be very little reason for a mage to hang out with bandits' date=' he could earn more money doing tricks on the market place.[/quote']

 

This presumes a lot about the campaign setting, though I agree with most of your other points.

 

In a high-fantasy setting where magic is a powerful form of combat, there's no reason why the bandits wouldn't have magic, or try to hire/retain someone who did... especially since even a small display of magic is going to be more intimidating than a few clubs and slings. That prospect will certainly fuel someone's ambition to hit a wealthier target at some point, and a wielder of such magic won't likely be content doing parlor tricks for farmers on the village green. Not only is it likely to pay for itself from the bandits' perspective, that "edge" gives them the incentive to ambush "adventurers" in the first place. It can make the story more interesting and challenging from the GM's and players' perspective, though I admit it's not a given.

 

Likewise, in a setting where magic is less powerful but commonplace, the "mystery" is less about how magic works and where you'll find it, than about what any given individual can do with it... and some of them will have magic that lends itself (or was created specifically for) banditry. Again, there's a lot of potential to make the encounter more interesting and challenging.

[Old Man]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

I hate fudging dice. If I were inclined to have the PCs captured, I would arm the bandits with blunt weapons, have them outnumber the PCs ten to one, and have foolhardy NPCs in the PC group who could be made examples of for trying something as foolish as resisting capture. Finally, intervention by a third party of overwhelming force might dissuade the PCs from a heroic but pointless death.

[CBikle]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

You could always have the bandits back down or negotiate first, but then there wouldn't really be a point to the whole scenario.

 

If the bandits somehow had one of the player's DNPCs captive, that might get them more willing to play ball.

[Markdoc]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

In my campaign I take a more realistic aproach and use bandits as they were in history. First off bandits rarely prey on the merchants unless they are paid to do it by someone else. Or they are organized enough to have an reliable fence so they can get rid of the stolen goods without giving themselves up.

 

I think if you want to rely on history, you'll need to do a bit of reading up - bandits did - historically - do many things: you even allude to this yourself.

 

Bandits most certainly preyed on merchants (as well as anybody else). After all, you rob the people with stuff worth stealing. Since many bandits were - as you noted - unemployed soldiers, they can be well-equipped and led (the successful ones generally were). After the hundred Years war ended France and Burgundy were plagued with roving gangs of bandits many of whom had been professional soldiers, but others of whom were simply peasants that had lost everything. Not only did they rob merchants (so that goods started to travel only in heavily guarded convoys), but they fought off local lord's armies, sacked castles and forced towns and villages to pay ransom or be looted and destroyed.

 

They ddin't worry about fences - they took what they wanted for their own use, or goods that could easily be sold.

 

In Japan, even the fearsome samurai were often unable to dislodge bandits from mountainous areas. The Machi-gumi (forerunners of the Yakuza) even set up their own toll gates in some places forcing travelling merchants to pay a fee or be robbed (and then sometimes robbed them anyway). When the emperor travelled to Ise in 1449, his courtiers paid off the bandit chietains in areas he would pass through, since the local armies were not strong enough to ensure his safety.

 

There are lots of other examples, but bandits can range all the way from some guy with spear hiding behind a tree, to a collection of gangs under a nominal leader, that number in the tens of thousands. The Old Man of the Mountain was a bandit leader (with a profitable sideline in assassinations) who primarily preyed on overland trade between the Med. and India. In your own country, Erik Thorvaldssen supported himself by banditry after he was exiled from Iceland, while Rollo Gangeren was such a successful bandit in France (preying on merchant ships as well as overland transport) that the king eventually made a treaty with him and he became a duke...

 

cheers, Mark

[Trencher]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

I think if you want to rely on history, you'll need to do a bit of reading up - bandits did - historically - do many things: you even allude to this yourself.

 

Bandits most certainly preyed on merchants (as well as anybody else).

 

But for the most part they did prey upon ordenary pesant folk.

[Trencher]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

Rollo Gangeren was such a successful bandit in France (preying on merchant ships as well as overland transport) that the king eventually made a treaty with him and he became a duke...

 

 

Old Dragfoot is a good example. That is what nobility is, bandits in fancy clothes. The reason I think that bandits has been seen as merchant robbers before extortionists is because the merchants have more influence and can tell of their plight to a larger number of ears. I never meant to say that merchants were not targets for bandits at all just rarely, but I wanted to emphasize the fact that bandits have a life in between caravans. And they have to eat.

[Trencher]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

Ah - some come from the school of thought that people in roleplaying games should be as well rounded and three dimensional as they are in real life.

I would hope so

And the world should behave in a non-narrative' date=' but realistic way. [/quote'] Bandits ganging up twenty to one is realistic, pesant who become bandits because of bad harvest is realistic. Bandits being built on fifty point + is not in my opinion.

However, some play fantasy games just like the superhero genre - everything is black/white and good/evil. There are no shades of grey, the PCs will always win (eventually) and the role of the PC is to be the centre of any historical event.

I think you do make a disservice to the superhero genre here.

I certainly do not want things to be black and white, how about grey and black? I just don’t want to advice the GM here to create a scenario where the players are attacked by people who are their moral and combative superior. You might end up with the players resigning themselves to accepting the situation and just give the bandits their stuff and a pat on the back.

If the average pc group is facing twenty times as many opponents as themselves, who all are handy with the bow and know the terrain then the pc's "will not always win" But their death will be heroic!

There are many variations on style. Just bear that in mind.

That is why I posted here, to bring some variation.

I find the use of the word "heroic" in the various rulebooks to be somewhat misleading in this regard. Roleplaying games don't need heroes, they just need people.

This is very true. But if your players always fight to the death then it is obvious that they want to be heroes. Many players I have met like kicking bandit ass more than bearing witness to the mysterious and powerful dark hero bandit fulfilling his destiny. Also many players like face to face drama and conflict rather than being teached a lesson in humility by their superiors.

[Trencher]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

In a high-fantasy setting where magic is a powerful form of combat, there's no reason why the bandits wouldn't have magic, or try to hire/retain someone who did... especially since even a small display of magic is going to be more intimidating than a few clubs and slings.

Well that be as it may, banditry is most often last resort and a mage have other options a LOT of more options than your average dirt-poor peasant or soldier. Magic wielders are not just walking pieces of artillery. Unless almost everyone has access to magic the average encounter should be magic free. At the very least a bandit gang which has access to a mage should be renowned far and wide and the fact that they have a mage on their side should be the "theme" of the gang.

[Lupus]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

This is very true. But if your players always fight to the death then it is obvious that they want to be heroes. Many players I have met like kicking bandit ass more than bearing witness to the mysterious and powerful dark hero bandit fulfilling his destiny. Also many players like face to face drama and conflict rather than being teached a lesson in humility by their superiors.

I honestly don't see what's heroic about dying to a buncha bandits.

 

I also don't see what's un-heroic about surrendering when there's no other option. Or AT LEAST trying to escape, given the overwhelming odds. After all, if you're captured, that's not the end of it. You don't have to 'watch the dark hero bandit fulfilling his destiny.' You can break out, kill him, take his stuff, and escape.

 

Now isn't that much richer and more fulfilling than 'okay, you beat down the bandits. Next...'

 

Heroic doesn't mean 'I win all the time.'

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

Agreed. As a matter of fact, The Empire Strikes Back was the most heroic of the Star Wars movies, because the Rebels' victories were so few and so much smaller than those of the Empire, and yet they fought on.

[Markdoc]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

I honestly don't see what's heroic about dying to a buncha bandits.

 

I also don't see what's un-heroic about surrendering when there's no other option. Or AT LEAST trying to escape, given the overwhelming odds. After all, if you're captured, that's not the end of it. You don't have to 'watch the dark hero bandit fulfilling his destiny.' You can break out, kill him, take his stuff, and escape.

 

Now isn't that much richer and more fulfilling than 'okay, you beat down the bandits. Next...'

 

Heroic doesn't mean 'I win all the time.'

 

And this is why we're having this discussion. If there's no realistic chance of getting captured or running away, then every fight has a binary outcome. Either the players loot the bodies of everyone they encounter or their bodies get looted instead.

 

That, uh, limits the GM's story-telling possibilities a little.

 

What if Shakespeare had been a D&D player?

 

Romeo meets Juliet and falls violently in love. Romeo kills Tybalt in a fight and takes his stuff. His father tries to send him Mantua but Romeo refuses to run away, so the Capulets attack him, kill him and take his stuff.

 

Hamlet's father is killed by his Uncle Claudius who takes his stuff (including his wife, this time). Hamlet learns the cause of his father's death from his father's ghost and fearing to be captured, attacks Claudius. They both die and Gertrude gets their stuff.

 

King Lear divides his stuff between his three daughters. The youngest daughter Cordelia refuses to suck up to him, so Lear attempts to throw her out. She attacks and kills him and is afterwards killed by the two other daughters who keep all the stuff. In a subplot, Gloucester attempts to disinherit his son Edgar who kills both him and his brother Edmund and keeps their stuff.

 

I was going to convert the Merry Wives of Windsor, but on second thoughts, it wouldn't make a great D&D scenario.....

 

cheers, Mark

[Trencher]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

Well the GM who started this thread did say that his players fought to the death all the time. I do not think that capturing player-characters is a good idea. Or atleast if the players are going to get smacked around let them be smacked around by a deadly enemy like the empire in starwars. Not bandits. Being heroic is not winning all the time but it is not about surrendering either. It is about fighting and fighting and combat in the hero system is much more dramatic and filled with a much greater range of strategic choices than dnd. And it seems to me that it is dnd you are talking about here when you say that combat is boring. Combat in hero is not boring. Fighting back when someone try to take your stuff is neither unreasonable or dnd'ish.

I am not going to blame anyone for letting their player-characters run like hell if they encounter bandits, nor will I blame them for surrendering their stuff. But there is no way in hell I am going to try to vilify them for fighting either. A GM must remain impartial.

[sbarron]

Re: Robbers on the Road

 

I am not going to blame anyone for letting their player-characters run like hell if they encounter bandits' date=' nor will I blame them for surrendering their stuff. But there is no way in hell I am going to try to vilify them for fighting either. A GM must remain impartial.[/quote']I completely disagree. There is nothing about being a GM that is impartial. As a GM, I have no fun if bandits kill all the PCs. It's not like I'm running the "Bandit King" game and the "DnD 'R Us" games concurrently, and the two groups happen to meet and have a fight, winner take all.

 

The point of the bandit encounter is to move a story along, or introduce a story. The fact that the odds are overwhelming is a signal to the PCs that it's ok to surrender.

 

I wouldn't play long with a group if everytime they encounter something more powerful they fight to the death. It wouldn't be much fun at all. Luke Skywalker would have died fighting Vader the first time. Great fun that. Heroic death, but end of the rebellion. Good guys lose. Plus, the drama of Luke getting stronger for the dreaded rematch that must eventually come is lost. Such a cool story to be wasted becasue a PC is unwilling to allow the story to develop.

 

Someone earlier mentioned talking to your PCs, and that's what this is all about. My expectations for a game are to tell the story of the PCs as they have heroic careers righting wrongs (which I set up) and being heroes. The GM has to set the stage for this and be an active part in bringing it all together. Some people play it more like a game, where the party has 450 pts, so it fights against 450 pt opponents, tactics and dice ruling the day. Here the GM is more of a referee. He balances the encounters and lets the dice fall where they may.

 

There is nothing wrong with either approach. It just depends on what you're into. I don't play the second way any more, though. There is no story there. Or if there is a story, it's larger than the PCs, because PCs will die unheroic deaths occasionally. And I don't think that's fun, so I don't do it. If you think it is, more power to you. Just keep having fun.