The scenario happens in almost every kind of fiction: A bad guy gets the drop on the heroes by pointing a gun at them.

In most fiction (and I daresay in real life), unless the hero is literally invulnerable to weapons (like Superman, Iron Man, or Vader in Empire), the heroes actually pause and act with caution because they know they could be seriously hurt or killed by somebody pointing at gun at them.

I'm reading the beginning of "Heir to the Empire", and some thugs get the drop on Luke using a weapon he's not familiar with. He doesn't want to fight, because he's a Jedi, but he acts with caution, instead of just saying "Oh I know my character has enough wound threshold to take at least one shot so I'll just attack them".

I feel like in RPGs, the player character knows how much wound threshold they have, and probably has a good idea of how much damage a blaster pistol might do.

In your experience, do players respond realistically or do they just take the hit and start shooting?

I'm thinking in a case like that I might give the bad guy who has the drop on them several boost dice to represent this advantage, or even an extra shot before the combat starts, because I'd like the characters to behave as though they are real people who could be mortally wounded rather than characters with a set number of hit points.

Thoughts?

I think this depends on the experience and maturity of the players. I would run it straight the first time and if the players don't react realistically then I would consider my otpions. Also if the players are just thinking about wounds then they are forgetting the enemy may roll advantages and triumphs which you should then take full advantage of. They may get lucky a couple of times which would realistically increase their character's bravado which will make the shock even greater when bad stuff happens.

Also remember not every character would realistically act the same way. A battle hardened soldier is going to react differently than a smuggler who is going to react differently from the diplomat. One might attack immediately while one attempts to make a run and the other tries to talk his way out.

I feel like in RPGs, the player character knows how much wound threshold they have, and probably has a good idea of how much damage a blaster pistol might do.

In your experience, do players respond realistically or do they just take the hit and start shooting?

I'm thinking in a case like that I might give the bad guy who has the drop on them several boost dice to represent this advantage, or even an extra shot before the combat starts, because I'd like the characters to behave as though they are real people who could be mortally wounded rather than characters with a set number of hit points.

It kind of depends on player expectations of the GM. One GM in our group is pretty lenient, and usually gives time to recover between any encounters. So the players aren't as afraid to throw caution to the wind. Personally I'm more random, and the players know that this might not be the last time today they will see action, so they tend to be more cautious.

I'd have no trouble giving an NPC boost dice or even an extra shot if I felt the players weren't respecting the blaster's authoritah...

If you're holding a blaster at someone for a little bit, I'd say that counts as at LEAST one Aim maneuver, maybe two.

You can warn the player that you will treat the shot as a "coup de grace" if for example you roll enough advantages.

I remember playing Cyberpunk 2020 some years back, and doing the old "Talk to my lawyer, he's with Smith & Wesson!" routine, and getting everyone within an inch of perishing. I thank that GM every time I play for that experience. And I don't mind putting my players through it.

They don't have to die, but losing enough wounds or even a crit or two for the party usually makes them think twice.

During the beginner game, the party learned that Stormtroopers are not so easily dismissed as in the movies. Now that was a lesson to be remembered!

Having the drop on someone. Difficulty dice start at zero. Advantages needed to activate a critical are reduced by one. Other factors like setback dice from armor or boost dice from Aim can still be in effect.

IME one of the players always tries to draw down on the bad guys, so this scene is very hard to do in RPGs.

If one or some of your players is playing a Non Combat Character - some whose first instinct when a fight starts is to hide under a table - you might be able to do it so long as it is just those characters present and the ones who would write 'badass' as their job description are somewhere else.

Essentially someone playing a C-3PO rip off might surrender, but someone playing a Boba Fett clone never will.

As a general rule, action beats reaction. (There are exceptions, but it's a good general rule.)

Pointing a gun at someone does not, by any means, a guarantee that you'll be the first one to get the shot off, even if your target has his gun holstered, and concealed. This would be the perfect example of when to roll Initiative to start a combat. The 'mexican stand off' works when *nobody* actually wants to have to shoot anyone. If someone does, it quickly degrades into a fire fight.

Also, pointing a gun at someone is not the same as *aiming* a gun at them. If you are aiming at someone, you are actually focused on the front sight of your weapon, not the target. Being thus focused, you are going to be *slower* to notice and react to the target beginning to take action. This is why the old 'mexican stand off' is such a dangerous situation. In that scenario it takes only an almost imperceptible action to turn the stand off into a fire fight, and the guy who acts first is going to come out ahead better than 9 times out of 10. (On the other hand, the sudden *loud* noise is likely to end up resulting in the other guys flinching and pulling the trigger without proper aim, which can be bad or good, depending on the distances involved.)

Difficulty dice in EotE are based on range, not how prepared you were for the shot. The best way to deal with that scenario is with overwhelming numbers. That way, even if the character *does* think about trying to 'draw down' the baddie, he's going to know that he'll be intercepting a *lot* of incoming fire as a result. Since it only takes 3-4 good shots from a pistol in EotE to really turn it into a bad day, the player had better be *darned* sure that he can handle the results of his actions.

If you have 4 PCs, and 2 bad guys, you shouldn't be surprised *at all* when one or more characters decides to 'draw down'. Quite simply, they know that the likely end results are going to be in their favor, even if they aren't pleasant. If you have 4 PCs and 8 bad guys, things aren't so clear. As a result, you're much more likely to see the players think twice about turning the confrontation into a fight.

I agree on the "make sure they are outnumbered" front.

I've been RPGing for 30+ years (the majority of the time as GM) and have played with probably close to 100 different players, maybe more. In that time, I've found that one of the hardest things to get a PC to do is yield.

Regardless of how integral it is to the genre (and it is integral to most) that the heroes periodically be captured, imprisoned, or just plain throw down their weapon to protect a threatened loved one, fiction is one thing, but RPGing often boils down to a PC knowing the numbers, knowing the rules, and taking a calculated risk. "I know my nemesis has the drop on my beloved grandmother, but I'm pretty sure I can win initiative, and even if I can take him out, I'm confident she can take one hit. Even if he wipes out her HPs, I've got at least three rounds to stabilize her..."

As I write this, the two most recent posts cite using "overwhelming odds," to which I say "Ha!" I was in a D&D game once where the GM wanted us to surrender. "The four of you are surrounded by one hundred enemy soldiers. What do you do?" We did the math and took our chances.

And we won.

I would also like to suggest that a GM shouldn't HAVE to resort to ridiculously large mountains of enemies to get their players to surrender. I think there are other options. But I think it's important to think about it from the PCs' point of view.

I remember a game many years ago, I think it was a superhero game in the 1980s, talking about how difficult it is to capture PCs, since they will fight to the bitter end. Worse yet, even if you DO capture them, even though fiction routinely skips to "Days later" (if not weeks or months), if you capture your PCs, you can expect to have to play EVERY MINUTE of that captivity until they've figured out how to free themselves.

PCs, in general, like action, and there's nothing wrong with that. So how do you get them to NOT take action? One option IS to overwhelm them. It can work... most of the time.

I prefer to reward them.

I forget if I got the name or just the idea from one of John Wick's games, but in my Saga campaign, I have a house rule called "The Better Part of Valor": For some players, surrendering is a form of defeat, but in a rollicking adventure like Star Wars, it's often a vital part of the plot and leads the story forward. Consequently, any time the players surrender at a dramatically appropriate moment and go along with the villains, demands, each player earns a reward of [some Saga specific stuff here].

In this game, I would consider maybe a one-shot, no-flip Destiny Point as the reward. In other words, you use it, but it doesn't come back to bite you. So, the reward for letting the bad guys get the upper hand? An opportunity to get the upper hand at a later date.

I'll say that in this system, I don't think players are going to be taking down overwhelming odds that have the jump on them unless they are REALLY advanced.

One possibility is to "teach" them. If they choose to fight back, ensure everyone who has a gun pointed at the PCs has an intiative slot to automatically go first... or at very least assign challenge dice for initiative. However, use the guns on stun, and simply have the characters wake up with their hands bound and in prison. They could have chosen to go quietly, or they could have been stunned outright. The end result is still the same.

Remember, if you need to, let the narrative trump dice rolling. It says that the dice rolls are involved when there's a chance of failure... the opposite is true... dice rolls are involved if there's a chance of success as well. As such, if someone has the drop on them, says hands up, and they go for their weapons with no chance of success... the last thing they hear is the sound of blasters firing on stun... and then blackness... and then they wake up wherever you need them to be.

You could even go so far as to have your Bad Guy perform a Coercion check vs your PC's. The social skills are there for a reason! A failure could result in a fear check, or any other number of pre set outcomes devised by the GM. It's one thing to suggest to your PC's that they should be afraid, it's another to actually back it up with the dice.

It could be a fun way of shining the spot light on a well trained Politico character. Reward your non-combat focused character(s), that have invested those precious exps in social skills, with a decent shot at passing the Coercion check and watch as they become the salvation of your now fearful party. Then, have them rally the others with a leadership check, coerce the Bad Guy into dropping his gun, or deceive them into thinking that the party has back up on the way or friends in high places and boom - The brave politico, refusing to be intimidated, nothing to lose and desperate, calls the Bad Guy's bluff, bolstering his fellow fringers to action with his headstrong bravery, coercing the Bad Guy right back and defusing the situation!

Presto change-o, you've got your self a memorable little moment of story telling that leaves the agency in the hands of the PC's, their hard earned skills and merits rewarded.

I have players like this, too. They play to win rather than to enjoy a good story.

We were playing Rogue Trader a while back and I instrumented a Genestealer "invasion"of their ship. The Magus wanted their ship to get him and his brood to a particular system and they managed to get to the bridge of the PC's ship and hold them at gun point.

The Magus had his pistol aimed at the 1st officer (an NPC) and ordered the Rogue Trader to stand down and surrender his vessel or else his right hand lady would be killed.

He refused and was given another chance to reconsider. He still refused, so the Magus blew the lady's brains out.

The player and I had a big argument regarding "he should have rolled to hit and rolled damage! she would have been fine" etc...

He then refused to play the game further as he thought I'd cheated and robbed him of something vital.

It wasn't until a few weeks later than I managed to confront him about it and explain that "in all my 20 years running games for you, have I ever done anything to make you believe that I would kill you and/or permanently take your ship from you without you getting a chance to get it back?" The answer was No, I've never done that. It was purely going to be an adventure about being put in the brig, managing to escape and get command of your ship back again. Would have been a lot of fun, but my players are rules lawyers and don't know when to surrender...

...it infuriates me no end.

I have players like this, too.

Everyone has players like that.

In particular, it only takes one player in the party to draw against the drop to turn it in to a shootout, and the chances of all three/four/five players being in the mood to throw in the towel at the same time is almost non existent.

I'm perhaps a meanie, but I will rule that a gun against the head, finger on the trigger is at least, if not outright death, max wound threshold, accompanying critical injury and unconsciousness.

I'd also, if a roll would be necessary to appease players, make the difficulty simple, but include upgrades from the sense ongoing effect (if force die/dice was already committed) and dodge. I'd consider side-step, but these circumstances usually outside of combat, i.e. they usually initiate combat, so those talents are usually not in effect.

When it comes to a police force demanding a surrender, and if said police fore has the initiative due to a well rolled Cool or Vigilance check, I'd give them a free aim, as usually these are minions and only one of them really needs to shout and demand surrender, but also downgrade or decrease the combat check difficulty once.

I guess this is where triumphs on the initiative check come in? Also, remember, the players are the heroes they should be able to do stuff like this... At least sometimes or most of the time.

Also, remember, the players are the heroes they should be able to do stuff like this... At least sometimes or most of the time.

Even heroes get frozen in carbonite sometimes

SpaceMonkey's story is familiar, because as everyone has noted, players tend to act aggressively in these situations. I've only felt the need to do this a couple of times, but it has worked to step out-of-game to a) assure the players I'm not out to purposely kill them or take their stuff; b) as GM I could do that anyway any time I want; c) we're playing for our mutual storied benefit. I don't like stepping out-of-game, but given how often players forget B, maybe it's useful for a group to be told at least once.

Aye, it's easy for a player to think "it's no big deal. This guy is just a character sheet, I can roll up another". Obviously in real life you wouldn't want to die or be captured and tortured, but in a game there's much much less to lose.

Lots of great suggestions!

Depending on the circumstances, I'd definitely consider just doing a "fade to black" with the bad guys stunning the heroes and having them wake up in a cell.

Sometimes you just want them to be at gunpoint for a few minutes so the bad guy can talk to them or they can talk to him. I like the suggestion about rolling Coercion and potentially adding fear setback dice.

I did a few sample rolls where I downgraded the difficulty, upgraded the ability, and added a few boost dice, and I think if I wanted to put the fear of the Maker (or at least the GM) into the players, this might do it, especially if the roll came out with 5 or 6 successes and 4 or 5 advantages or a Triumph. Could be 10 or 12 raw damage plus a critical hit, possibly with a +10 or +20 bonus.

Players might think twice in the future if someone's got the drop on them

Just be careful with the fade to black idea, mate. Some players hate having choice taken away from them... I know.

For Saga I simply ruled the PCs were helpless, meaning they could be coup de grace'd.

For this I really like the idea of a Coercion check, but this brings up the controversy of forcing the PCs to surrender via a skill check...

Just be careful with the fade to black idea, mate. Some players hate having choice taken away from them... I know.

You can always ask the player(s) who decide to risk it to make an appropriate Knowledge or Streetwise check out in the open (difficulty RRP).

• If they succeed, you can tell them they're pretty sure getting into this fight would be dangerous. Maybe even suicide, and ask if they really want to.
• If they fail, you can tell them, that they think they can take these guys, and ask if they really want to.
• If they get a Despair, point to it and tell them, "You can tell this will be an easy fight. Roll Initiative." (And then watch the other players jockey for the next available initiative slot to stun their fellow party member in hopes of *avoiding* getting the whole party killed.)

Give them plenty of rope, but if, in the end, they *really* want to hang themselves with it, let them. But remember, when, part way through the fight, they *do* decide to surrender, let them.

Just be careful with the fade to black idea, mate. Some players hate having choice taken away from them... I know.

Yeah, I wouldn't do that if it were one Nemesis pointing a gun at a party of 6 or something. It would have to really suit the situation.

For Saga I simply ruled the PCs were helpless, meaning they could be coup de grace'd.

For this I really like the idea of a Coercion check, but this brings up the controversy of forcing the PCs to surrender via a skill check...

I don't think I'd ever force the PCs to surrender via a skill check, but I do like the idea of giving them fear setbacks based on failures to a Coercion roll.