What happened to Morale?

[Guest 6801328]

As it stands, retreating is basically a suicide option against most player groups, who are trained from years of video games to kill everything and hope that XP orbs pop out.

I'm aware that elitist grognards like to blame anything they don't like about D&D on the influence of video gaming ("damn kids! get offa my battlemat!"), but everybody I know was killing everything in sight around the time we were playing Zork. I suspect the influence was the other way around: XP farming exists in video games because that's how TTRPGs were played.

 

[77IM]

Morale break is not a rational behavior. It is brought on by fear of death by violent combat.

It’s also not random. It is determined by the goals of the NPC and what they are willing to do to achieve them?

Hungry spider? Runs away when hurt to find easier food.

Momma spider? Fights to the death to protect her egg sac.

You're both right. It's like any other NPC interaction. If the NPC clearly wants to flee, they flee. If they clearly want to stand their ground, they stand their ground. But if it's somewhere in the middle, the DM can roll dice to decide.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm aware that elitist grognards like to blame anything they don't like about D&D on the influence of video gaming ("damn kids! get offa my battlemat!"), but everybody I know was killing everything in sight around the time we were playing Zork. I suspect the influence was the other way around: XP farming exists in video games because that's how TTRPGs were played.

Slaughtering the routed enemy predates all forms of RPGs. It goes back to medieval times at least, and probably the Stone Age. The principle is straightforward: When someone has just tried to kill you, and they run away, you do not wave goodbye and wait for them to come back and try again. You run them down and you kill them dead.

There's probably also some predatory instinct at work, too. But 90% of the time, it is the correct tactic, so why anyone is surprised that players do it is beyond me. Why would you want to leave a threat lurking around if you have the opportunity to eliminate it?

 

[Tony Vargas]

This also sidesteps the 3.x "Intimidancer", someone focused on Intimidate and able to mechanically force encounters to end well before they should.

That portmanteau just doesn't flow the way "Diplomancer" did. "Intimancer" isn't any better....

As it stands, retreating is basically a suicide option against most player groups, who are trained from years of video games to kill everything and hope that XP orbs pop out.

I think D&Ders were already doing that when the most sophisticated video game was still Asteroids.

I think what the game needs is quick and abstract "flee from combat" rules, to make retreat a viable option.
At my table, if you reach the edge of the battle map, you can use your action to successfully flee. It doesn't matter who has the faster movement speed or longer attack range or whatever. We use a pretty big map, so if a creature manages to get to the edge, it's just no longer worth worrying about that stuff. This works for both PCs and NPCs.

I could make a crack about what happens when you go off the edge in an old videogame, but actually I think that's a pretty reasonable idea. At least, while the combat's still going on. Once everyone on one side has fled, the option of pursuing them or tracking them down would be reasonable. But successfully escape from the current combat - so you're not a target anymore - that makes a lot of sense.

Is it up to the DM to roleplay (ie, decide) if a monster hits or miss, or makes a save?

In 5e, sure... and he decides when the players hit/miss/save, too...

....if he judges there's no uncertainty. I think it's fair to say that combat's usually pretty uncertain.

 

[jasper]

I'm aware that elitist grognards like to blame anything they don't like about D&D on the influence of video gaming ("damn kids! get offa my battlemat!"), but everybody I know was killing everything in sight around the time we were playing Zork. I suspect the influence was the other way around: XP farming exists in video games because that's how TTRPGs were played.

note to secret assassin demons. Elf crusher has learn the truth. Make him have a happy face.

 

[iserith]

Hold me closer tiny

"Intimidancer"

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think what the game needs is quick and abstract "flee from combat" rules, to make retreat a viable option.

The problem I always have is, where do you end up? If you enter a room, and you're ambushed by ogres or whatever, so you abstractly flee from combat, where are you now? Are you still in the room? Are you in the previous room? And if so, what if something has entered the previous room after you left, and you flee from this combat (but we aren't playing out the process of going back through the door), so now you find yourself in a room with a dragon? Can you abstractly flee back to the ogres?

The best suggestion I've seen so far is that you just end up back outside the dungeon, but even that raises issues. Can you flee the dungeon, when you're not in combat? Can you not flee from combat, if something is blocking the dungeon exit?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Slaughtering the routed enemy predates all forms of RPGs. It goes back to medieval times at least, and probably the Stone Age. The principle is straightforward: When someone has just tried to kill you, and they run away, you do not wave goodbye and wait for them to come back and try again. You run them down and you kill them dead.

Really?

First of all, I think you need to study your history. Slaughtering your enemies to the last many is by far the exception (e.g, The Alamo). Bear in mind that the word "decimate" literally means that 1 in 10 was killed, and yet it has become a word we associate with utter destruction.

But more importantly, I wasn't talking about the concept of killing all of your enemies, I was talking about the game strategy of killing things just to get experience points. (Maybe the medieval warriors you are thinking of killed defeated enemies to improve their sword skills?)

There's probably also some predatory instinct at work, too. But 90% of the time, it is the correct tactic, so why anyone is surprised that players do it is beyond me. Why would you want to leave a threat lurking around if you have the opportunity to eliminate it?

Yes, this was the point I made earlier. Most RPGs, and very much so 5e, are not very "dangerous", so combat is fun and in general desirable because of XP. If you actually ran the risk of getting maimed or killed you'd be more reluctant to start a fight, and more willing to accept surrenders or let survivors flee (mitigated situationally by the risk of them coming back with friends, of course).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Really? First of all, I think you need to study your history. Slaughtering your enemies to the last many is by far the exception (e.g, The Alamo).

To the last, yes that was pretty unusual, but slaughtering routed enemies as they try to get away was prettymuch standard practice. They're suddenly much easier to kill and doing so is much less risky to yourself, personally. But, sure, you get tired or see something worth looting on a body... so not /all/ of them.

So, really, you're both right. Routed troops tended to suffer heavy casualties as they stopped fighting & ran. And, exterminating the other side was rarely a strategy in warfare. (Indeed, convincing the enemy they'd have to - that you'd "fight to the last man" - would probably prevent or at least delay the battle, if you could sell it.)

Bear in mind that the word "decimate" literally means that 1 in 10 was killed, and yet it has become a word we associate with utter destruction.

And, it's not even derived from casualties suffered in battle. It was a Roman punishment for a unit that failed. So when a Legion was "Decimated" it didn't necessarily mean the enemy killed a lot of 'em (or any of 'em), but that they failed horribly and were punished for it.

But more importantly, I wasn't talking about the concept of killing all of your enemies, I was talking about the game strategy of killing things just to get experience points. (Maybe the medieval warriors you are thinking of killed defeated enemies to improve their sword skills?)

Agreed, if the game were realistic, you'd improve your skills mainly by training. Experience could also help you improve in applying your training, gaining confidence, etc...

Yes, this was the point I made earlier. Most RPGs, and very much so 5e, are not very "dangerous", so combat is fun and in general desirable because of XP. If you actually ran the risk of getting maimed or killed you'd be more reluctant to start a fight, and more willing to accept surrenders or let survivors flee (mitigated situationally by the risk of them coming back with friends, of course).

Player buy-in to the role can be a significant factor in that kind of thing. D&D traditionally has a lot of PC behaviors that are the result of the players & rules being the way they are, that don't always match up to RL behaviors, let alone Heroic Fantasy behaviors. Combat can be as dangerous as you like, and to a point, it might get players to make their PCs take fewer risks (fight fewer combats, try to engineer overwhelming advantage when they must fight, give up adventuring and open a pawn shop*, whatever), past that point it might cause them to divest from their characters and treat them more like pawns. But if you do get buy-in, players caring about their characters, the NPCs, the focus of the campaign, etc - they might deliver some more realistic, or at least genre-appropriate, PC behavior...

...maybe.

If not, buy some beer & pretzels and kill things.









* still a tad risky.

 

[77IM]

The problem I always have is, where do you end up? If you enter a room, and you're ambushed by ogres or whatever, so you abstractly flee from combat, where are you now? Are you still in the room? Are you in the previous room? And if so, what if something has entered the previous room after you left, and you flee from this combat (but we aren't playing out the process of going back through the door), so now you find yourself in a room with a dragon? Can you abstractly flee back to the ogres?

The best suggestion I've seen so far is that you just end up back outside the dungeon, but even that raises issues. Can you flee the dungeon, when you're not in combat? Can you not flee from combat, if something is blocking the dungeon exit?

Those are very good questions. In general, I'd say abstract systems should never be used if their results would cause a discontinuity by glossing over details that are actually very important. In this particular case, I'd say that a prerequisite for "quick retreat" is a plausible story for what's going to happen.

It's like when the party returns to the dungeon, and they cleared level 1 the previous day, and they say, "OK, we go through level one to the stairs down." Most DMs say "sure" and then select the most likely path (asking the players, if there's any doubt) and then if the party stumbles into a wandering monster, so be it. So yes, you can flee the dungeon, when you are not in combat; it just might go sideways.

I treat abstract flight the same way: "I'm running for the secret room where we slept for the night" or "I'm fleeing through the alleys back to headquarters" or "I'm just high-tailing it into the woods as far as I can in the hopes they lose me." If that won't work, I usually tell them up-front ("Uh, that secret room is right around the corner, they might hear you go in there..." or "You can't flee through the alleys when you are already cornered; that's what 'cornered' means" or "It has a flight speed of 80 and can detect thoughts up to 120 feet, so running into the forest probably isn't going to help") but sometimes panicked flight leads from one bad situation to another.

The object of abstract retreat is to speed up the tedious process and make it more likely to succeed, but not necessarily make it automatically always succeed.