"Run away! Run away!" ... what if they don't?

[Ancalagon]

Hello

Now this is not a universal opinion, but some DMs (and I'm one of them) believe that not all encounters should be balanced. Once in a while your party should encounter bandits and crush them, but also once in a while the party should encounter a monster that is just *too much*. The encounter isn't a "fight the monster!" challenge, it's a "hot damn, *three* fire giants? Let's get the hell outta here!" challenge. If the party manages to hide, move quickly, create a distraction etc etc, they can escape.

BUT... what if they don't?

It's the GM's job to telegraph that the incoming monster is *particularly* dangerous. It's a bit shabby that the goblin dressed in a burlap sack happens to be a devil-conjuring 20th level wizard. It should be really clear that this monster is exceedingly dangerous, and I think most GMs are up to the task. It should also be an "escapable" monster - if the monster has great speed and great perception... not great. But even if these tasks are not bungled, there are still several ways things could go wrong:

1: Metagaming. "there is no way the GM would put a monster too strong for us, that wouldn't be balanced. Let's fight!"

2: Hubris. "We just hit level 7! nothing can stop us. Let's fight!"

3: Spite. "How dare the GM have 3 giants show up? We'll show him!"

4: Cleverness. "I have a cunning plan"

5: Encounter-stopping spell "I'll just cast fear on them!"

6: Incompetence: "let's get out of here! I roll stealth... I have a 3... oh boy... Can you cast fog cloud?" "Nope I'm out of spells"

et cetera

The best time to run away from a fight is before it starts, not when half the PCs are in the negatives. So... what to do if this happens? I think that "oh, look at that, those Fire Giants all had 14 hit points each, lucky you!" isn't a great solution for the GM. Anything else that isn't lame?

Edit: see post 294 to find out what happened

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

BUT... what if they don't?

If they get lucky, I let it stand.

If they use superior/unexpected tactics and succeed, I let it stand.

I will occasionally fudge things in the players favor if things (dice) just screw them over.

But generally, if they don’t flee an overwhelming encounter, so be it.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Assuming an intelligent foe, give them a reason to take the PCs alive. Slaves. Ransom. A later meal. Information.

Then make an adventure out of the PCs finding their way out.

Alternatively, you can have an outside force, such as an ally the PCs made earlier, step in. You shouldn't do that often; in fact, I'd say not more than once. It's cheesy, and a lot of players (myself included) hate it. But if things have gone truly pear-shaped, its a card you can play--and make it clear to the players that yes, some encounters are too tough, and no, they won't get rescued if it happens again.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You missed something out.

0: I'm wearing Plot Armour of Invulnerability. The DM never kills off player characters, and the players know it.


The only solution to this is to be willing to kill PCs, even the whole party. You know that finely tuned plot you have in mind? You have to be prepared to throw it in the bin. That's part of the responsibility of being a DM.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Sometimes you have to follow through on the character deaths to keep the game moving properly. But I would tend to warn my players directly when the campaign starts that not all encounters will be within their respective power level and sometimes it's important to run. Tends to result in fewer dissatisfied or irate players.

 

[Draegn]

I tell my players to pick their fights and choose their battlegrounds carefully.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Frankly, I think the best solution for those issues is to let the dice fall as they may.

If the players get really lucky, maybe they'll survive (or even win). If not, they learn that bad stuff can happen to them. The advice about capturing rather than killing is good too, though you should be careful not to overuse it because doing so can negate the lesson that not every potential encounter should be engaged.

If this is the style of game you want to run, then letting characters die when they make bad mistakes is arguably one of the best ways to teach the player not to make those mistakes. If they believe there is a safety net, whereby fate will always intervene to spare them ala James Bond, then they are less likely to learn caution. They'll rather intuit that when they bite off more than they can chew they get a side-trek out of it.

Lastly, don't make eluding the threat excessively difficult. If you effectively force them into a no-win situation, they'll be justifiably upset. IMO, it's better to give them right of free escape than to pummel them over the head with an unwinnable encounter. Running away is something that many players seem to be innately averse to, so if you want them to engage in it you can't make it needs to be fairly reliable. Otherwise the players are likely to feel that you are simply heaping insult upon injury (forcing upon them the indignity of fleeing and then killing or capturing them anyway).

 

[Blue]

I never steal player agency from them. If they want to do something that they know is dangerous I wouldn't make it less dangerous. That's invalidating their decision.

Mind you, in my current campaign of 4 years, there's been only 1 PC death and it wasn't in combat. My players have learned that there's things they can't face and retreat or don't engage. This may have been starting training them early with them seeing things that they knew were above them and they had the opportunity to avoid - instilled a "not everything is a fair fight" from the beginning. (Also have the opposite - cakewalk fights at times. Both to show the other side of things not being level adjusted*, and to give them the feel of how cool they've become.)

* - it is still a game - most things they could fight (many encounters don't need to end up in a battle) are things that are an interesting fight - not too easy, tough but not party killers. Now that my party is in the upper tiers I've even had combats so easy that we just narrated them instead of taking table time, going around the table and everyone adding to the montage of something cool they did.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Adventuring is dangerous. If death is not an actual possibility then it wouldn't be dangerous. Part of the problem is player expectations and the design of the game. If the game communicates that players are supposed to portray big damn heroes and game play represents creating stories about how they kick monster butt with style and panache then of course there will be an expectation that challenges are to be faced and that no threat cannot overcome because.....HEROES!

That is the offering that the current game defaults to. If the DM does not intend for this to be the case, it must be clearly communicated at the start of the campaign. Once campaign assumptions and expectations are understood by all, decisions can be made in the proper context.

A game's mechanics will also drive play decisions. With a focus on short duration encounter-centric effects the approach to play shifts from strategic to a tactical one. There is very little that cannot be cured by a good nights sleep so most resource concerns are based around the adventuring day. The consequences of engaging in frequent deadly combat are hand-waved away in favor of expeditious game play. With a base assumption that the bulk of experience points comes from winning encounters, and the more difficult encounters providing the most experience, avoiding difficult encounters is counterproductive.

With those realities of play in effect there is little that players can be told that will change play style. The only thing that teaches players anything is what works and what doesn't work via trial and error. In other words, it isn't enough to explain that things work differently in your campaign, you have show them through play. In simpler terms- the deaths will continue until play improves.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I let any PC retreat from combat automatically if there is a reasonable path or potential for them to do so. No rolling necessary. They can grab a downed ally automatically, regardless of positioning, should they have the strength to do so. The loss of hp and other resources for no gain is usually punishment enough for entering into combat recklessly or by misfortune.

If the monsters pursue (based on my reading of their character and goals), I usually have each fleeing PC make 3 skill checks (usually athletics) vs. DC15 (for most foes, DC20 for faster ones or those adapted to the environment). Each failure draws an attack (or 1d3 if they are being chased by a mob or by foes with ranged options and good sightlines). After 3 checks, success or failure, they get away (or are caught). I reserve chasing for enraged and mindless foes, though, to make it a bit more dramatic.

These rules work for me. I want the group to be cautious about entering combat for the most part, but I don't want them to feel that they have to go through Seal Team Six levels of recon and maneuvering to take on enemies. This is a happy middle ground that keeps play moving, gives a comfortable buffer against TPKs, and allows me to through in insane level-inappropriate stuff (dragons everywhere, 800 goblin tribes, Willie the Wandering Lich) without worry of derailing the campaign.