OK - in my last session, we had to break off in the middle of a combat, due to real-life time constraints.
Things looked pretty bleak for the party - and all my players were pretty sure that one of the characters is essentially doomed when we restart: they're surrounded by "bad guys", and down to 11 HP, with no chance of healing. And I've made it clear to my players that I don't have any qualms about character death ( in fact the player of the supposedly doomed character has already rolled up a replacement character ).
It occurred to me that the main bad guy doesn't have any problem believing people are attacking him - but he doesn't know which of about 8 different groups are responsible for the party assaulting his ship. He needs information.
So, it seems very reasonable to me that they would want to take at least one party member alive for interrogation.
Given background elements to the story ( which the party has so far kept side-stepping through a series of amazingly coincidental choices ), the "bad guys" have access to hallucinatory drugs. Plus it's probably pretty clear from the racial/cultural background of the character likely to go unconscious and be captured, that torture for information is unlikely to work.
So - does anyone have experience or suggestions or mechanics to deal with a 1-on DM-to-player interrogation scene?
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Hmm, I've been pondering this for a while. In as much as torture for interrogation and Jack Bauer type tactics are great TV/film/etc., IRL, it's the least likely to work. Given the access to hallucinatory drugs, you could have a "truth serum" type thing going, and have the player attempt Con saves or something. Alternately, you could try what does work IRL, which is called rapport building questioning, also known as, sitting down with someone and having a nice chat. This, however, is generally not "cinematic".
I don't think "rapport" in this case will work, as the interrogator is likely to be an intelligent "monster", while the main bad guy watches on. Also - the "monster" in question is going to have some ability for direct psychic probing and/or damage.
I can come up with mechanics for it - as you say, CON saves and the like - but as you touch on, I think what I'm looking for is how to make it "cinematic".
Especially as I might be mixing in hallucinations which don't have anything to do with the actual interrogation - for story purposes.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
So this feels like it's in the same vein as my no win scenario thread, complicated, it could go amazing, or it could flop like a lead balloon.
The biggest thing here that I'm seeing is motivation, without the proper motivation the whole concept will probably be very flat and uneventful. Unfortunately character death doesn't seem to be a motivator in your game, the one player shows this by having a new sheet already. Killing everyone off is probably going to galvanize the player who is being interrogated, making any interrogation a moot point. There needs to be something that the player(s) are going to need/want to keep from the bad guy, and something that the bad guy has access to that will make the players have to choose to bite their tongues or talk. I feel that without a proper motivation, the first part of the formula, you'll find moving it toward the cinematic event will be almost impossible.
This leads me to an idea that might work, it really depends on how well your players respond to your cues, and how well you can articulate yourself. After finding your means of motivation you'll need to prompt your player(s) to act and react in a certain way. This kind of manipulation is something I used in my drama and acting classes to remind people of their lines when we were rehearsing. By presenting your questions, the situation, the environment, et al, you'll need to do it in a certain way that your player(s) will feel compelled to respond inside a certain set of responses that you're aiming for. Much of this will feel like you're taking agency away from them, "You feel like the boss wants you to do (this action)" or "Your instinctual response is to reply with (this type of answer)". However, after a few of these types of leading statements, you'll teach your player(s) what their motivation is during the scene.
The external influence is going to be the harder part, what is it that the bad guy is holding over them to force their co-operation. As was mentioned earlier, death is not something that your player(s) are going see as a motivator. What else could you use? The other party members, rather than kill them off, use them as the punching bags when the interrogation is happening. Poison the player being questioned, have the con saves, and as they refuse to answer, or don't answer the way the bad guy wants, have another player get punished. Empathy is a great tool, "I don't want to be the reason she dies, and if I keep doing this she will...". Use information that the players don't think the bad guy has, do they have connections that are strong with NPCs or places, the bad guy threatens them. Finally, show how far the bad guy will go, grab an NPC that the players are familiar with, and kill them, make that the first victim in the interrogation, and make sure it happens. If the player is being questioned, even if they're honest, have the bad guy torture and kill the NPC whenever the player doesn't say something the bad guy knows, irrefutably, is the truth.
I would also give the idle players something to do, maybe they'll pull a fantastic escape plan. Maybe they'll converse and decide to work with the bad guy, but give them something to do other than watch and be bored. Hope this all helps, or at least gets the creative juices flowing.
I think I was picturing it as sort of a "cut-scene" as the player won't really have much agency. I think that was the wrong way to approach that.
I really like making this a "scene" with a conflict/dramatic question/goal: Can the bad guys get the information vs. Can the player withstand.
I think motivating the character (single character is likely to be captured; rest of party is likely to get free ) to resist shouldn't be an issue. Due to their backstory, they're pretty touchy about "letting people down". If they spill the beans about the larger story going on around them, they betray a whole lot of friends and allies, and lose the possibility ( probability? ) of rescuing the kidnapped team member the party is currently trying to rescue.
However - the former team member they are trying to rescue is "on site" although they don't know that - so bringing them in as the "fall guy" for the player-character's refusal to answer is a very real possibility.
I also like your idea of keeping the rest of the party active.
I'd probably concentrate on them while the prisoner character "cools their heels" for a bit, and let them set up their "plan of action" - then once they put it into action "cut the scene" back and forth between the player-characters trying to rescue their compatriot.
I think I have to also decide how "dark" I am willing to let this scene get; I have a pretty "light" group - don't want things to get to graphic.
This really helped a LOT - thank you :)
Edit: I'm also going to have to come up with a positive outcome the player can strive for - how can they "win" the scenario. Even if "winning" for them is holding out until the end of the scene, what determines when that scene ends, and why does it end?
Perhaps there are other possible "positive" outcomes - can the player being interrogated learn something important from their interrogators?
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
You don't really have to go too dark with this, considering this is a mental cat and mouse game. Simple descriptions to re-enforce action and consequence should do you just fine.
Bad Guy: I know you're here because you want to stop my plans, what do you know about my plans? Player: Nothing, we weren't told anything, we're simply following orders! Bad Guy: *knows this is a lie* You see, this is where you need to learn that I may already know the answer to the question...*points to his thug* DM: You watch as the thug standing next to the prisoner balls up his fist and drives it into the hanging man's floating ribs, you hear the prisoner wheeze from the impact. Bad Guy: Now, let's try this again, what do you know about my plans? DM: roll a con save Player *rolls* 12 DM: You flinch as the lights become glaringly bright for the briefest of moments, almost blinding. Bad Guy: I see the drug is starting to take effect. You may find resisting my questions will be more difficult.
And so on, it's a very simple set up and you don't have to get too graphic. However, take cues from your players as well, if they seem unaffected by the goings on then you'll have to lay it on thicker to drive the point home. Done right there'll be a sense of urgency from the rescuers, the one being interrogated will become emotionally charged, and you'll be able to time when to let certain beats happen, such as killing the random NPC or giving the players a much needed hint on how to proceed.
By having the "bad guy" telegraph right up front the information that he's looking for, that tells the players what the "winning conditions" are for the "bad guy".
By having the bad guy demonstrate that he's willing to take out the player-character's reluctance to speak on someone else, there's time pressure on the "rescuers" - assuming that we're cutting back and forth between the rescuers.
By having the interrogated player understand that there is a recue effort underway, I've given them the "end condition" for the scene: "hold out until they get there".
By having the bad guy use the former member of the part which the party is currently attempting to rescue, it's a motivation for the rescuing players.
With the last two points, it's really using meta-game information against the players *evil grin*
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
In the end, yes, you've summed it up quite nicely. The pace at which you reveal all the different pieces of the puzzle will help you keep the game going at your pace. You're going to have to create the different beats, trigger points, where something shifts and the players or the bad guy changes the status quo.
My flow would look like this:
Opening scene with bad guy and player Bad guy brings in npc victim Bad guy asks a few questions, setting a base line of truth and lie Demonstrates willingness to kill based on lies Cut to free players Give them options for how to free captives (giving the players' end condition) Wait for suspenseful moment, like just before entering stronghold Cut to interrogation Bad guy brings in the other party member, Bad guy describes his end condition
From there it's simply waiting for dramatic moments to pause and transition to the idle group.
The tricky part is that The DM ( me ) is reluctant to kill the NPC ( after I told you in your "no win scenario" thread that bad guys shouldn't hesitate :p ).
The complication is that the NPC in question is a former character of one of my party members - and it's who the party is currently focused on rescuing her; I don't think I can kill her off casually.
But - give that the monster/interrogator is capable of inflicting psychic damage, I think harming the character is within the scope possibility.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I'm talking 2 different NPCs, one that is a red shirt and one that is part of the cast. The first NPC to go is just a red shirt, someone you can throw in there that they've met before so there's a little bit of connection, kill 'em and then bring in the former character. What you'll have done is set the precedent, and then stacked the emotional connection of a former character into the mix. No need to kill off the former pc, but if you can make it look like that's where things are headed, you have one heck of a motivational tool.
Edit:
As to a positive outcome, yea, you can totally play along with the whole give and take of information. The bad guy is going to feel like he's in power, he'll flaunt it, he'll go on about victory. You can have a henchman come in and the player can over hear something, you can have the bad guy answer the player's questions if the player comes up with any. Give them a nibble, but let the player do most of the leg work for finding a way to turn it to their favor.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Good luck, I hope it plays out well, I may end up using this in my campaign later on down the road...my players are potentially going to free an entire continent from a dictatorial, magic hating, and racist fallen paladin.
Just RP it out to the best of your ability and stay true to the character of the NPC, I'd be ready to have to kill the PC depending on the character and willingness to relent under torture.
I think between you and DMThac0, you've covered off the most important bits. But to weigh in anyway, in my experience, prisoner situations are notoriously difficult to navigate, because the player is always going to resist.
You're going to have to be very clever to ensure the player can do something satisfying here. Otherwise, they'll simply be rolling dice begrudgingly, feeling like they actually have no choice in the matter. Even raising the stakes and having death a possibility might actually make it worse - as they'll probably choose death over being robbed of their agency.
I only speak from experience, where one of our party was captured and interrogated. The rest of the party attempted a daring rescue, but the DM simply threw more and more enemies at the party to prevent them from proceeding. As tense as it was from the party, the result was the captured player simply became very frustrated, as he quickly realised he only had two options: Either reveal the information the enemy wanted, or lose his character. He chose the latter, out of frustration, and was executed, lost his character, and left the group.
However exciting or tense you make those interactions, however many NPCs get killed because your player won't talk, remember that if there's only one ultimate end to the situation, it doesn't matter. Your player is likely to choose the one that gets him killed out of pure frustration and not being able to have even the hint of an option of 'I can win this without having to reveal the information'. While you've identified this, I just thought I'd reiterate: have as many scenarios and outcomes as you possible can.
That's why I think dipping into the meta-game knowledge here might be of use.
And you're completely right, the players all have to have a means of winning - in the situation you described, I think it was a mistake on the part of the DM to make the rescue impossible. The rescue party has to have a chance to get to their captured teammate.
If the player of the interrogated PC knows that the other player-characters are mounting a rescue - because they're discussing it right there at the table - then the player knows that his goal is to hold out until the rescuers arrive - even though the character realistically has no clue that there's an "end point" in sight.
If the Bad Guy ( BG ) spells out of the points he wants to know in the opening moves of the interrogation, then the player of the interrogated character now has the conflict, and "winning conditions" of the scene, all spelled out: Resist giving up the information until the rescue arrives, and you win; Give the bad guy the information and betray the operation, the bad guy wins.
The point of internal conflict for the captured character - the reason that the player character can't just "go silent and heroically endure the pain" is - "How does your character balance betraying the larger operation going on, and you allies, with your allies and former team-mate being tortured for your reluctance to talk?".
This conflict becomes an escalating point: first an unnamed generic NPC ( there was one of those ), then the named NPC ( again one of those ), then the former PC.
As per DMThac0's suggestions, the first is casually disposed of the first time the BG catches the interrogated PC in a lie to demonstrate the bad guys resolve, and to emphasize the point that the BG has some of the truth, and the interrogated character can't just lie. The second - the semi-identified-with NPC - that's more prolonged and graphic. The "big guns" are brought out when that NPC is disposed of, and the former teammate is brought out.
At what point does the interrogated PC break - if they break?
I would also try to time the "story beats" between the interrogated character and the rescue party - cutting back and forth between the two groups - so that the rescue party manages to get to their captured interrogated PC just after the BG has a chance to torture the former teamate one time - meaning, we've gotten the dramatic answer from the interrogated character to the question "are you willing to let your former team mate be tortured to keep the information secret".
I think that if I cast the "rescue operation" as as skill challenge, then I have some control of the pacing - if they have to make 4 successes before they get to 3 failures, then there are between 4 and 7 "rounds" that the rescue party has before they reach the place where their friends are being held.
I think I need to come up with some level of success here as well - make it to the room in 4 "rounds", maybe they get there before their former teammate is tortured - but after their former teammate is revealed. Really take a long time, and things could go really badly for the former team mate. Fail outright ... maybe the BG is "tipped off" that the rescue party is coming and kills the interrogated character before they fall back ( the BG would not kill the former team mate, for larger story reasons - the BG has a motive for keeping her alive, as she's a bargaining chip in negotiation with other "bad guys" ).
I'm pretty sure that the player of the interrogated character would be fine with this, as an "appropriately dramatic death", and true to the character's personality. Plus, if I was playing the situation in which the interrogated character was captured out as a "hardass", then that character would have been dead already.
Whew ... I really like the drama of how this is working out ... I hope I have the "DM chops" to pull it off satisfactorily.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Thanks for everyone's input - but no plan survives contact with the players.
The party refused to let the character go - and rallied to an amazing mid-battle rescue, under fearful odds, using some of the most creative tactical and magical use I think this party has ever deployed - they just would not let this character get captured.
So - no interrogation - but some cool chops from the party - I'm kinda proud of 'em ;)
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Thanks for everyone's input - but no plan survives contact with the players.
The party refused to let the character go - and rallied to an amazing mid-battle rescue, under fearful odds, using some of the most creative tactical and magical use I think this party has ever deployed - they just would not let this character get captured.
So - no interrogation - but some cool chops from the party - I'm kinda proud of 'em ;)
As I mentioned in my earlier post, I've yet to either DM, or be a player, in an encounter where capture wasn't resisted. It's a bit of a strange phenomenon; capture is always resisted. I've DM'd sessions where capture seems like the most logical, sensible choice for the players to make, yet they've fought to their last breath to avoid it.
Yet I've also been a player where we've done exactly the same as your players did. Resisted capture - even at the expense of our lives - and I know that the DM probably has an escape session in mind.
Perhaps because D&D represents character freedom, any threat to that subconsciously overtakes all reason. Glad it all worked out for you and your players!
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Congrats on an entertaining session that went sideways!
I was rather interested to see how the interrogation played out, and how you were going to introduce the new character (assuming that your other post is what's being referred to here).
OK - in my last session, we had to break off in the middle of a combat, due to real-life time constraints.
Things looked pretty bleak for the party - and all my players were pretty sure that one of the characters is essentially doomed when we restart: they're surrounded by "bad guys", and down to 11 HP, with no chance of healing. And I've made it clear to my players that I don't have any qualms about character death ( in fact the player of the supposedly doomed character has already rolled up a replacement character ).
It occurred to me that the main bad guy doesn't have any problem believing people are attacking him - but he doesn't know which of about 8 different groups are responsible for the party assaulting his ship. He needs information.
So, it seems very reasonable to me that they would want to take at least one party member alive for interrogation.
Given background elements to the story ( which the party has so far kept side-stepping through a series of amazingly coincidental choices ), the "bad guys" have access to hallucinatory drugs. Plus it's probably pretty clear from the racial/cultural background of the character likely to go unconscious and be captured, that torture for information is unlikely to work.
So - does anyone have experience or suggestions or mechanics to deal with a 1-on DM-to-player interrogation scene?
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Hmm, I've been pondering this for a while. In as much as torture for interrogation and Jack Bauer type tactics are great TV/film/etc., IRL, it's the least likely to work. Given the access to hallucinatory drugs, you could have a "truth serum" type thing going, and have the player attempt Con saves or something. Alternately, you could try what does work IRL, which is called rapport building questioning, also known as, sitting down with someone and having a nice chat. This, however, is generally not "cinematic".
Thanks for the feedback :)
I don't think "rapport" in this case will work, as the interrogator is likely to be an intelligent "monster", while the main bad guy watches on. Also - the "monster" in question is going to have some ability for direct psychic probing and/or damage.
I can come up with mechanics for it - as you say, CON saves and the like - but as you touch on, I think what I'm looking for is how to make it "cinematic".
Especially as I might be mixing in hallucinations which don't have anything to do with the actual interrogation - for story purposes.
I know - can I make it more complicated? :p
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
So this feels like it's in the same vein as my no win scenario thread, complicated, it could go amazing, or it could flop like a lead balloon.
The biggest thing here that I'm seeing is motivation, without the proper motivation the whole concept will probably be very flat and uneventful. Unfortunately character death doesn't seem to be a motivator in your game, the one player shows this by having a new sheet already. Killing everyone off is probably going to galvanize the player who is being interrogated, making any interrogation a moot point. There needs to be something that the player(s) are going to need/want to keep from the bad guy, and something that the bad guy has access to that will make the players have to choose to bite their tongues or talk. I feel that without a proper motivation, the first part of the formula, you'll find moving it toward the cinematic event will be almost impossible.
This leads me to an idea that might work, it really depends on how well your players respond to your cues, and how well you can articulate yourself. After finding your means of motivation you'll need to prompt your player(s) to act and react in a certain way. This kind of manipulation is something I used in my drama and acting classes to remind people of their lines when we were rehearsing. By presenting your questions, the situation, the environment, et al, you'll need to do it in a certain way that your player(s) will feel compelled to respond inside a certain set of responses that you're aiming for. Much of this will feel like you're taking agency away from them, "You feel like the boss wants you to do (this action)" or "Your instinctual response is to reply with (this type of answer)". However, after a few of these types of leading statements, you'll teach your player(s) what their motivation is during the scene.
The external influence is going to be the harder part, what is it that the bad guy is holding over them to force their co-operation. As was mentioned earlier, death is not something that your player(s) are going see as a motivator. What else could you use? The other party members, rather than kill them off, use them as the punching bags when the interrogation is happening. Poison the player being questioned, have the con saves, and as they refuse to answer, or don't answer the way the bad guy wants, have another player get punished. Empathy is a great tool, "I don't want to be the reason she dies, and if I keep doing this she will...". Use information that the players don't think the bad guy has, do they have connections that are strong with NPCs or places, the bad guy threatens them. Finally, show how far the bad guy will go, grab an NPC that the players are familiar with, and kill them, make that the first victim in the interrogation, and make sure it happens. If the player is being questioned, even if they're honest, have the bad guy torture and kill the NPC whenever the player doesn't say something the bad guy knows, irrefutably, is the truth.
I would also give the idle players something to do, maybe they'll pull a fantastic escape plan. Maybe they'll converse and decide to work with the bad guy, but give them something to do other than watch and be bored. Hope this all helps, or at least gets the creative juices flowing.
Awesome advice DMThac0, thanks!
I think I was picturing it as sort of a "cut-scene" as the player won't really have much agency. I think that was the wrong way to approach that.
I really like making this a "scene" with a conflict/dramatic question/goal: Can the bad guys get the information vs. Can the player withstand.
I think motivating the character (single character is likely to be captured; rest of party is likely to get free ) to resist shouldn't be an issue. Due to their backstory, they're pretty touchy about "letting people down". If they spill the beans about the larger story going on around them, they betray a whole lot of friends and allies, and lose the possibility ( probability? ) of rescuing the kidnapped team member the party is currently trying to rescue.
However - the former team member they are trying to rescue is "on site" although they don't know that - so bringing them in as the "fall guy" for the player-character's refusal to answer is a very real possibility.
I also like your idea of keeping the rest of the party active.
I'd probably concentrate on them while the prisoner character "cools their heels" for a bit, and let them set up their "plan of action" - then once they put it into action "cut the scene" back and forth between the player-characters trying to rescue their compatriot.
I think I have to also decide how "dark" I am willing to let this scene get; I have a pretty "light" group - don't want things to get to graphic.
This really helped a LOT - thank you :)
Edit: I'm also going to have to come up with a positive outcome the player can strive for - how can they "win" the scenario. Even if "winning" for them is holding out until the end of the scene, what determines when that scene ends, and why does it end?
Perhaps there are other possible "positive" outcomes - can the player being interrogated learn something important from their interrogators?
Lots to ponder :)
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
You don't really have to go too dark with this, considering this is a mental cat and mouse game. Simple descriptions to re-enforce action and consequence should do you just fine.
Bad Guy: I know you're here because you want to stop my plans, what do you know about my plans?
Player: Nothing, we weren't told anything, we're simply following orders!
Bad Guy: *knows this is a lie* You see, this is where you need to learn that I may already know the answer to the question...*points to his thug*
DM: You watch as the thug standing next to the prisoner balls up his fist and drives it into the hanging man's floating ribs, you hear the prisoner wheeze from the impact.
Bad Guy: Now, let's try this again, what do you know about my plans?
DM: roll a con save
Player *rolls* 12
DM: You flinch as the lights become glaringly bright for the briefest of moments, almost blinding.
Bad Guy: I see the drug is starting to take effect. You may find resisting my questions will be more difficult.
And so on, it's a very simple set up and you don't have to get too graphic. However, take cues from your players as well, if they seem unaffected by the goings on then you'll have to lay it on thicker to drive the point home. Done right there'll be a sense of urgency from the rescuers, the one being interrogated will become emotionally charged, and you'll be able to time when to let certain beats happen, such as killing the random NPC or giving the players a much needed hint on how to proceed.
Very nice!
By having the "bad guy" telegraph right up front the information that he's looking for, that tells the players what the "winning conditions" are for the "bad guy".
By having the bad guy demonstrate that he's willing to take out the player-character's reluctance to speak on someone else, there's time pressure on the "rescuers" - assuming that we're cutting back and forth between the rescuers.
By having the interrogated player understand that there is a recue effort underway, I've given them the "end condition" for the scene: "hold out until they get there".
By having the bad guy use the former member of the part which the party is currently attempting to rescue, it's a motivation for the rescuing players.
With the last two points, it's really using meta-game information against the players *evil grin*
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
LOL, is it really meta-gaming if you're the DM?
In the end, yes, you've summed it up quite nicely. The pace at which you reveal all the different pieces of the puzzle will help you keep the game going at your pace. You're going to have to create the different beats, trigger points, where something shifts and the players or the bad guy changes the status quo.
My flow would look like this:
Opening scene with bad guy and player
Bad guy brings in npc victim
Bad guy asks a few questions, setting a base line of truth and lie
Demonstrates willingness to kill based on lies
Cut to free players
Give them options for how to free captives (giving the players' end condition)
Wait for suspenseful moment, like just before entering stronghold
Cut to interrogation
Bad guy brings in the other party member, Bad guy describes his end condition
From there it's simply waiting for dramatic moments to pause and transition to the idle group.
The tricky part is that The DM ( me ) is reluctant to kill the NPC ( after I told you in your "no win scenario" thread that bad guys shouldn't hesitate :p ).
The complication is that the NPC in question is a former character of one of my party members - and it's who the party is currently focused on rescuing her; I don't think I can kill her off casually.
But - give that the monster/interrogator is capable of inflicting psychic damage, I think harming the character is within the scope possibility.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I'm talking 2 different NPCs, one that is a red shirt and one that is part of the cast. The first NPC to go is just a red shirt, someone you can throw in there that they've met before so there's a little bit of connection, kill 'em and then bring in the former character. What you'll have done is set the precedent, and then stacked the emotional connection of a former character into the mix. No need to kill off the former pc, but if you can make it look like that's where things are headed, you have one heck of a motivational tool.
Edit:
As to a positive outcome, yea, you can totally play along with the whole give and take of information. The bad guy is going to feel like he's in power, he'll flaunt it, he'll go on about victory. You can have a henchman come in and the player can over hear something, you can have the bad guy answer the player's questions if the player comes up with any. Give them a nibble, but let the player do most of the leg work for finding a way to turn it to their favor.
OK - yeah, a "red shirt" NPC would totally work.
They have a triplet of NPCs - one of them "named" - which they've brought along as representatives of their allies. Would fit perfectly.
Hmmm ... I was kind of dreading this, even though it made the most logical/narrative sense to me - now I think this could be really interesting.
I really do appreciate the help :)
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Good luck, I hope it plays out well, I may end up using this in my campaign later on down the road...my players are potentially going to free an entire continent from a dictatorial, magic hating, and racist fallen paladin.
Just RP it out to the best of your ability and stay true to the character of the NPC, I'd be ready to have to kill the PC depending on the character and willingness to relent under torture.
This sounds fun to do now....hmm
I think between you and DMThac0, you've covered off the most important bits. But to weigh in anyway, in my experience, prisoner situations are notoriously difficult to navigate, because the player is always going to resist.
You're going to have to be very clever to ensure the player can do something satisfying here. Otherwise, they'll simply be rolling dice begrudgingly, feeling like they actually have no choice in the matter. Even raising the stakes and having death a possibility might actually make it worse - as they'll probably choose death over being robbed of their agency.
I only speak from experience, where one of our party was captured and interrogated. The rest of the party attempted a daring rescue, but the DM simply threw more and more enemies at the party to prevent them from proceeding. As tense as it was from the party, the result was the captured player simply became very frustrated, as he quickly realised he only had two options: Either reveal the information the enemy wanted, or lose his character. He chose the latter, out of frustration, and was executed, lost his character, and left the group.
However exciting or tense you make those interactions, however many NPCs get killed because your player won't talk, remember that if there's only one ultimate end to the situation, it doesn't matter. Your player is likely to choose the one that gets him killed out of pure frustration and not being able to have even the hint of an option of 'I can win this without having to reveal the information'. While you've identified this, I just thought I'd reiterate: have as many scenarios and outcomes as you possible can.
I agree with those points.
That's why I think dipping into the meta-game knowledge here might be of use.
And you're completely right, the players all have to have a means of winning - in the situation you described, I think it was a mistake on the part of the DM to make the rescue impossible. The rescue party has to have a chance to get to their captured teammate.
If the player of the interrogated PC knows that the other player-characters are mounting a rescue - because they're discussing it right there at the table - then the player knows that his goal is to hold out until the rescuers arrive - even though the character realistically has no clue that there's an "end point" in sight.
If the Bad Guy ( BG ) spells out of the points he wants to know in the opening moves of the interrogation, then the player of the interrogated character now has the conflict, and "winning conditions" of the scene, all spelled out: Resist giving up the information until the rescue arrives, and you win; Give the bad guy the information and betray the operation, the bad guy wins.
The point of internal conflict for the captured character - the reason that the player character can't just "go silent and heroically endure the pain" is - "How does your character balance betraying the larger operation going on, and you allies, with your allies and former team-mate being tortured for your reluctance to talk?".
This conflict becomes an escalating point: first an unnamed generic NPC ( there was one of those ), then the named NPC ( again one of those ), then the former PC.
As per DMThac0's suggestions, the first is casually disposed of the first time the BG catches the interrogated PC in a lie to demonstrate the bad guys resolve, and to emphasize the point that the BG has some of the truth, and the interrogated character can't just lie. The second - the semi-identified-with NPC - that's more prolonged and graphic. The "big guns" are brought out when that NPC is disposed of, and the former teammate is brought out.
At what point does the interrogated PC break - if they break?
I would also try to time the "story beats" between the interrogated character and the rescue party - cutting back and forth between the two groups - so that the rescue party manages to get to their captured interrogated PC just after the BG has a chance to torture the former teamate one time - meaning, we've gotten the dramatic answer from the interrogated character to the question "are you willing to let your former team mate be tortured to keep the information secret".
I think that if I cast the "rescue operation" as as skill challenge, then I have some control of the pacing - if they have to make 4 successes before they get to 3 failures, then there are between 4 and 7 "rounds" that the rescue party has before they reach the place where their friends are being held.
I think I need to come up with some level of success here as well - make it to the room in 4 "rounds", maybe they get there before their former teammate is tortured - but after their former teammate is revealed. Really take a long time, and things could go really badly for the former team mate. Fail outright ... maybe the BG is "tipped off" that the rescue party is coming and kills the interrogated character before they fall back ( the BG would not kill the former team mate, for larger story reasons - the BG has a motive for keeping her alive, as she's a bargaining chip in negotiation with other "bad guys" ).
I'm pretty sure that the player of the interrogated character would be fine with this, as an "appropriately dramatic death", and true to the character's personality. Plus, if I was playing the situation in which the interrogated character was captured out as a "hardass", then that character would have been dead already.
Whew ... I really like the drama of how this is working out ... I hope I have the "DM chops" to pull it off satisfactorily.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Player: "I peek through the chamber door and try to assassinate the BG"
*Rolls nat 1*
Prisoner: "...and that is how I wound up with one eye, we killed the bad guy only because he was on the ground laughing at my misfortune..."
So - we played out the next session tonight.
Thanks for everyone's input - but no plan survives contact with the players.
The party refused to let the character go - and rallied to an amazing mid-battle rescue, under fearful odds, using some of the most creative tactical and magical use I think this party has ever deployed - they just would not let this character get captured.
So - no interrogation - but some cool chops from the party - I'm kinda proud of 'em ;)
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, I've yet to either DM, or be a player, in an encounter where capture wasn't resisted. It's a bit of a strange phenomenon; capture is always resisted. I've DM'd sessions where capture seems like the most logical, sensible choice for the players to make, yet they've fought to their last breath to avoid it.
Yet I've also been a player where we've done exactly the same as your players did. Resisted capture - even at the expense of our lives - and I know that the DM probably has an escape session in mind.
Perhaps because D&D represents character freedom, any threat to that subconsciously overtakes all reason. Glad it all worked out for you and your players!
It was kind of funny, since the player wanted his character to be captured ( for other, meta-gaming reasons ).
But we hadn't communicated that to the rest of the party, and they refused to let it happen.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Congrats on an entertaining session that went sideways!
I was rather interested to see how the interrogation played out, and how you were going to introduce the new character (assuming that your other post is what's being referred to here).