Every so often I ask my players if there are any kinds of adventures they want to do or sorts of situations they would like to be put into to play off of. Its how I strike a balance in the group to make sure everybody gets to have their bit of fun. This time around, two different players put down 'hostage negotiation' and 'hostage crises'. But I'm having trouble coming up with a good way to do that.This is a flintlock era adventure sort of deal, no magic on the table at all so bullshitium to force a contrivance is not an option. Obviously, most of our "hostage negotiation" tropes are based around police negotiating with some gunman making demands, but I just don't see how that realistically works in this scenario since not only do modern police not exist but what kind of demands could they even make that don't even with them shot anyway? With single-shot gunpowder weapons, if there are more guys outside than inside there's very little reason not to just storm the place, but also if the demands are met the guys is never getting out of there alive anyway. Its not like he can ask for an escape helicopter and fly away, at most he gets a horse. So what occurs to me is that the hostage and hostage taker are in an unknown location and everything is being done by written correspondence, but I'm not sure how to make that particularly interesting as an adventure either. Like, what is there for the players to actually *do* in that situation? Anyone have any good ideas for how to make this work that would actually be any fun to play?
>>97362015The players are the hostages.https://youtu.be/B0K_7gHUZBs?si=hpqYR6VSnJEMvmOI
>>97362015The taking of hostages was done fairly commonly in times of war, usually to get the other party to pay a rich ransom. In japan it was pretty standard practice to exchange hostages when striking a political deal, that way both sides had a way to ensure the others would stick to their word or lose face and a loved one. If they were callous, they still could lose an asset.>what kind of demands could they even make that don't even with them shot anyway?Money, enforcement of previously made deals, renegotiations of said deals in a more favourable manner, stalling for time for something else happening somewhere else.>if there are more guys outside than inside there's very little reason not to just storm the placeThe basic assumption is that not everyone is happy to get shot in the face, and more importantly, even if you deem the ones getting shot as expendable, you are still dealing with the fact that while you enter, the hostage can be killed if the kidnappers see that the negotiation failed.>Its not like he can ask for an escape helicopter and fly away, at most he gets a horseThey could very well have a tunnel ready, or take their chances with the horses, or just don't care if they're doing this for something bigger than themselves.>hostage and hostage taker are in an unknown location and everything is being done by written correspondence, but I'm not sure how to make that particularly interesting as an adventure eitherAssuming you don't want the negotiation to go along the usual way, there's plenty to do. PCs can take a look at the correspondence and try to understand who's behind the letters, if possible. The next obvious step is finding out where the hostage is kept. Then they can go in and save the hostage/neutralize the kidnappers.
>>97362101...interesting idea. Gives them a central role in the situation and a strong investment in resolving it with something other than violence. I'd probably have to start it in media res just put them in the situation in the first place. ...what I could do is have them all roll, and the two lowest rolling members of the party are the hostages, while the higher two rollers are on the outside doing the negotiating. Makes it random which could have interesting consequences, and means that we have both an inside and outside POV on the situation. This might have potential.
>>97362015>With single-shot gunpowder weapons, if there are more guys outside than inside there's very little reason not to just storm the place... you know the main reason they take hostages is to threaten harming them right? That's the thing that prevents storming, not modern firearms. That's the entire point.
>>97362015>With single-shot gunpowder weapons, if there are more guys outside than inside there's very little reason not to just storm the placeOne of the presumptions of hostage taking is that someone gives a fuck about the hostages. If anything flintlocks would seem to favour the hostage takers, who can't reliably be taken out at a distance.
>>97362227Yes. But with pre-modern firearms you run into a bottleneck of action.Lets say that I have taken three hostages. I have one flintlock pistol. If two guys kick in the front door to rescue the hostages or assault me, how do you think this plays out? Even if I prioritize shooting the hostages instead of protecting myself from harm, I have one bullet. At most, one hostage dies. Its just not possible for me to reload and kill another in time, and the act of doing so as removed my ability to protect myself from the people that just kicked in the door. This is a far cry from a modern hostage situation, where a single man with a handgun can easily kill all three hostages in a matter of seconds. With the lower tech level firearms, I simply represent less of a threat to the hostages in a time crunch. I'd have to resort to a knife or something to get the job done faster than it takes to reload a muzzle-loaded weapon. It makes storming the place and saving most of the hostages, though probably not all of them, a reliably viable strategy. Which is exactly the sort of risk vs reward that players would often consider acceptable. Remember, IRL combat is where most people find that they lose control of the situation but in a tabletop game combat is where players have the MOST control of the situation.
>>97362289Anon, you stab the hostages. This is not complicated. Taking various nobles or whoever as hostages has been a thing long before modern firearms. It is funny you seem to miss the entire restraint part of the hostage taking situation. Your game is going to be a mess.
>>97362307>Taking various nobles or whoever as hostages has been a thing long before modern firearms.Yes. Done under circumstances where storming the position to reclaim them literally isn't an option. This brings us back to "correspondence by letter". You don't take King Richard hostage and hold him for ransom in a shop surrounded by english men at arms demanding your surrender as you read out a list of demands, you send a letter from another country safely behind your own army saying that you have taken Richard hostage and demand a ransom for his safe return.
>>97362289>how do you think this plays out?I think the hostage takers hold the hostages between them and their rescuers, threatening to shoot the latter and stab the former.
>>97362409> 1 hostage taker> 3 hostagesStill works out to a reliable 2+/3 survival rate on the hostages. The one guy only has so many arms to work with.
>>97362387Anon, you still haven't addressed the entire god damn point of taking hostages:They're important enough to not risk getting killed which removes >just rush 'em as an option. That's it. The time it takes to kill a bound prisoner will always be less time than it takes to storm a building, even a grass hut or whatever. Full stop. Its deeply amusing you don't get the life value thing and want to run a hostage bit.
>>97362436>muh realism You can very easily kill people when they're tied up. Far faster than anything else people outside a building can do. There isn't a way around that without snipers or magic if you aren't talking or relying on the hostage takers to be deeply retarded. You have to deal with the hostages being important enough it has to be resolved without violence. This is difficult to do in a ttrpg. Everyone knows the npcs aren't real and for sure does not give a fuck about them. Good luck!
>>97362289>Lets say that I have taken three hostages. I have one flintlock pistol.Amateur.
>>97362436>Still works out to a reliable 2+/3 survival rate on the hostagesPlayers may not care about the one guy dying, but the people around them definitely will. Make it clear that losing any one hostage means serious repercussions.
this is just nogame's fetish at work again.
>>97362548If it was nogames it would just be generic unspecified fantasy setting.
>>97362618Don't give it attention
>>97362618right right.So the BANDIT captures the TAVERN WENCH and holds her hostage when the ADVENTURING PARTY arrives.
>>97362015Potential twist: the hostage has actually been dead the whole time. There was an escape attempt or something that went wrong early on and they have been winging it ever since. The hostage-takers know that they are fucked because they have no leverage, but are trying to bluff their way out of this because if anyone realizes that the hostage is dead they are totally screwed. So their demands and actions to stall for time and secure a route of escape become increasingly unhinged and nonsensical because they can't ever actually give what they say they have.
>>97362705This could be a nice twist, and the PCs would have to come out with a way to prove the hostage didn't die because of some fuck up of their own.
But how should you do hostage elves in your setting?
>already resorting to passive aggressive bitchingkek
>>97362548Given that it's a stock image rather than pic from a bondage photoshoot, I think this is a genuine question from OP.
