You can't win this encounter

[Mistwell]

This shouldn't be a problem in an actual game - if as a DM I am putting non-level-appropriate encounters to low to mid level characters (before they get ability to get away via items or magic), I'm going to make sure they have a way to get away. A dragon's flight speed means nothing there's a narrow set of caves. A monster might be defending a nest, or have other reason why it doesn't want to give chase. Or maybe a dragon can be bribed with a service.

Don't turn monsters into murderhobos who will all mindlessly pursue and fight to the death unless it make sense - many will only kill when there is a reason, and a retreating foe satisfies their goals. Thew dragon may want to leave them alive simply to spread the word of "Don't go there! It's a dragon's domain".

Your players don't know you've got a monster who won't pursue. All they know is if they flee and the monster pursues they're dead. And they know the dragon is trying to kill them and they just tried to kill it so they don't have time to suddenly open unlikely negotiations instead of taking a more assertive direct action.

A monster who tries to kill a party who JUST TRIED TO KILL IT IN ITS HOME is not a "murderhobo" in any sense of the term. First, it's their home so not hobo. Second, it's self defense so not murder. Monsters killing people who tried to kill them is not mindless, it makes perfect sense and mindful.

This is, in my opinion, bad DMing if you're expecting your party to know this sort of stuff about a foe because it's in your head. Unless you're strongly signally these things and you have a lot of trust in your own ability to adequately convey those signals to the people you're playing with, expect the party to not flee because they see it as not a logical course of action in the situation.

 

[CleverNickName]

You don't to it subtly. If you are being subtle, the players will miss it.

Yep, every time. Sometimes you have to actually pull a Gandalf and tell them bluntly, "This foe is beyond any of you. Run! Fly, you fools!"

 

[Imaculata]

Yep, every time. Sometimes you have to actually pull a Gandalf and tell them bluntly, "This foe is beyond any of you. Run! Fly, you fools!"

And even then they might turn around and say:

"We'll just see about that Gandalf!"

 

[Blue]

Your players don't know you've got a monster who won't pursue. All they know is if they flee and the monster pursues they're dead. And they know the dragon is trying to kill them and they just tried to kill it so they don't have time to suddenly open unlikely negotiations instead of taking a more assertive direct action

You are starting pretty far down the line here. The players have already decided to engage with the creature(s), and have decided to turn that engagement into a combat. The players have not looked around for things that may make their escape easier. And this assumes that their assessment is "if they flee their dead". Starting with all those what if's already decided gives you a real corner case that you describe, not the general case of play.

.

A monster who tries to kill a party who JUST TRIED TO KILL IT IN ITS HOME is not a "murderhobo" in any sense of the term. First, it's their home so not hobo. Second, it's self defense so not murder. Monsters killing people who tried to kill them is not mindless, it makes perfect sense and mindful.

Which is not the case we're talking about. The heroes are attempting to leave, which usually means disengages or dashs, not attacks. So not attacking any more, trying to flee, and soon not where you encountered them which may or may not have been their home in the first place.

This is, in my opinion, bad DMing if you're expecting your party to know this sort of stuff about a foe because it's in your head. Unless you're strongly signally these things and you have a lot of trust in your own ability to adequately convey those signals to the people you're playing with, expect the party to not flee because they see it as not a logical course of action in the situation.

Pardon this if it's not true, but it feels like "we can win any encounter" is how you've been playing so long that you don't realize it's a not how the world works. Instead it is a concious choice on the DM's part and meta nowledge on your part.

Know what's less meta that assuming all combats are winnable? Assuming a DM doesn't want to intentionally set them up with a predetermined TPK as it is for players to assume that every encounter is winnable and at an appropriate level to fight. To make that assumption is not "bad DMing", it's foundational. Every DM can kill the characters, they have all the monsters, all the traps, all the hazards, even before they can change the rules. Assuming a DM isn't trying to intentionally set up a TPK is a perfectly acceptable assumption and not "bad DMing".

 

[Mistwell]

You are starting pretty far down the line here. The players have already decided to engage with the creature(s), and have decided to turn that engagement into a combat. The players have not looked around for things that may make their escape easier. And this assumes that their assessment is "if they flee their dead". Starting with all those what if's already decided gives you a real corner case that you describe, not the general case of play.


Which is not the case we're talking about. The heroes are attempting to leave, which usually means disengages or dashs, not attacks. So not attacking any more, trying to flee, and soon not where you encountered them which may or may not have been their home in the first place.


Pardon this if it's not true, but it feels like "we can win any encounter" is how you've been playing so long that you don't realize it's a not how the world works. Instead it is a concious choice on the DM's part and meta nowledge on your part.

Not at all. I didn't say a word about how I am playing. I was talking about common situations like this in play (no reason to make it personal to me). It's not at all metagaming anything - the players themselves may know you have built in a way to get out, but their PC likely don't know and part of the game would be that they wouldn't know. Indeed, because you as the DM set up a situation where they could not win, you've already communicated to the PCs that the world is a harsh place that will kill them for making a mistake. And the mistake characters are most likely to jump to in that situation, because of the way the mechanics of that world work, is that 1) monsters will try to kill you once you've tried to kill them, and 2) monsters, particularly big ones with wings, will move faster than you and will kill you if you give them the opportunity like by turning you back on them and slowly (relatively to them) flee.

Predators kill prey that flees. That's part of being a predator. Dragons in this situation are the predators. That's not meta knowledge, that's PC knowledge. That's the world those PCs live in. They are not assuming all combats are winnable. They are assuming any combat is more winnable than fleeing and dying a certain death. Which is the position they are in - if they flee, they die, so might as well try to win a combat they don't think they can win. They could roll all criticals and the dragon could roll poorly or make a mistake in combat. Those odds might be incredibly low, but they're still better than the PCs not trying to attack at all and running away slower than the dragon chasing them can catch them AND attack at the same time.

Know what's less meta that assuming all combats are winnable? Assuming a DM doesn't want to intentionally set them up with a predetermined TPK as it is for players to assume that every encounter is winnable and at an appropriate level to fight. To make that assumption is not "bad DMing", it's foundational. Every DM can kill the characters, they have all the monsters, all the traps, all the hazards, even before they can change the rules. Assuming a DM isn't trying to intentionally set up a TPK is a perfectly acceptable assumption and not "bad DMing".

When a DM sends a monster against the party where the party cannot win, AND ALSO doesn't signal to the party that combat is not a winnable option but there are other options which would let the party survive sufficiently that the party can and is likely to pick up on those signals, THEN it's the DM either intentionally or recklessly setting them up for a predetermined TPK. Because the DM should know that fleeing doesn't work well in D&D. And you might have noticed that fleeing was in fact the topic raised in the original post, which is why I keep coming back to it.

 

[CleverNickName]

Your players don't know you've got a monster who won't pursue. All they know is if they flee and the monster pursues they're dead.

A safe getaway shouldn't be a guarantee either IMO. Trespassing in a dragon's lair (to borrow your example) is a risky endeavor no matter what unfolds. You aren't guaranteed a safe exit any more than you're guaranteed a fair fight or a victorious battle.

The only thing you can do is plan carefully. Make sure everyone has something they can do when it's time to bug out: drink a potion of gaseous form, cast Expeditious Retreat, save a spell slot for Haste, wildshape into hummingbirds, whatever. Expecting the DM to rig the game in your favor every time* isn't much of a plan.

*I say 'every time' because sometimes, the story requires it. Sometimes the party is supposed to be captured, sometimes there's a rescue mission to undertake, sometimes a character needs to exit the story in a heroic manner.

 

[Mistwell]

A safe getaway shouldn't be a guarantee either IMO. Trespassing in a dragon's lair (to borrow your example) is a risky endeavor no matter what unfolds. You aren't guaranteed a safe exit any more than you're guaranteed a fair fight or a victorious battle.

The only thing you can do is plan carefully. Make sure everyone has something they can do when it's time to bug out: drink a potion of gaseous form, cast Expeditious Retreat, save a spell slot for Haste, wildshape into hummingbirds, whatever. Expecting the DM to rig the game in your favor every time* isn't much of a plan.

*I say 'every time' because sometimes, the story requires it. Sometimes the party is supposed to be captured, sometimes there's a rescue mission to undertake, sometimes a character needs to exit the story in a heroic manner.

Oh I absolutely agree. I am speaking to the "they should just flee once they realize mid-combat that they are unlikely to win." That's usually suicide in that situation. The certainty of their losing from fleeing is greater than the remaining uncertainty of trying to win through incredible luck during combat against the odds.

 

[CleverNickName]

But maybe that's it. Maybe some people consider "rigging the game in the party's favor" to be adjusting the encounter CRs so that the risk to the players is low. And that's fine; that's a pretty good way to rig it while keeping most of the players' agency intact. But not all DMs do it that way, and that's fine too.

It's easy enough to tell the party in-game, "The mountains to the west are filled with terrible monsters, and the elves of the west once told a tale of a great red dragon that made the area its home." If the low-level characters insist on heading west, have them encounter guards that warn them away. Guides will refuse to take them. Locals will shun them. Eventually they start finding burned-out ruins and charred bodies. And if the continue to press on, well, you can flat-out tell them "look, these mountains are for 16th level characters. One random encounter here will destroy you. Do you wish to proceed?" If they go further and something tragic happens, they have only themselves to blame.

It's slightly more work to make sure all encounters are of an appropriate level to the party, and then adjust and readjust the encounter tables every time the party gains level or finds a powerful magic item, eventually adding the Great Red Wyrm to the list once they reach the proper level. It's more work than some DMs are willing to do, but there's nothing wrong with it. I don't like it because it tends to diminish the tension and risk of the game. But to each their own.

 

[Blue]

Not at all. I didn't say a word about how I am playing. I was talking about common situations like this in play (no reason to make it personal to me).

The "you" was responding to your words, not an assumption on how you play. Because the scenario you described was already way past most of the safeguards of non-level-specific play and was cherry-picking an example where they all had been ignored. I wasn't judging your play, I was saying that the scenario you gave was already many player decisions in and we can't just look at that tiny slice.

Any time a scenario starts with "they are in an encounter", there are significant decisions in a non-level-specific world that have already been skipped that make the scenario incomplete and not useful for discussing this.

Predators kill prey that flees. That's part of being a predator.

Absolute statement not true absolutely. Have described multiple scenarios, from defending young, to having a slower speed, to the DM providing caves unnavigable to a larger creature. Yes, in many cases a predator will attempt to give chase, but again that is already multiple intentional player descisions down the road which may lead to death - just like any other character decision.

They are not assuming all combats are winnable. They are assuming any combat is more winnable than fleeing and dying a certain death.

Citation please on "certain death". That's rhetoric that's not backed up by anything, especially with the discussion you have repeated not engaged with that DMing a non-level-specific world does build in flee points for some combats, especially while getting players retrained from a "if the DM put it here it's a level-appropriate encounter" mindset.

When a DM sends a monster against the party where the party cannot win, AND ALSO doesn't signal to the party that combat is not a winnable option but there are other options which would let the party survive sufficiently that the party can and is likely to pick up on those signals, THEN it's the DM either intentionally or recklessly setting them up for a predetermined TPK. Because the DM should know that fleeing doesn't work well in D&D. And you might have noticed that fleeing was in fact the topic raised in the original post, which is why I keep coming back to it.

We agree here. Bad DMing is bad DMing. But that's a corner case not the norm when a table that is aware the world is non-level-specific so players know they need to be cautious in their choices and investigate, and the players chose to engage somethng they can't win in combat (as opposed to other methods), and the players did not investigate and the DM did not provide clues and the players have not prepared any way to flee and the DM also has no reasonable way to flee. There's a lot of ifs going on there, and a lot going wrong on both sides of the screen there to get to that niche.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Generally:

Me: Make a Nature or History check or something
Player: I rolled 14
Me: On a scale of 20, Chungus the Humongous looks like he's about a 12.
Player: And let me guess, on that same scale, I'm a 5.
Me: You betcha.

This usually works. I have one player who is super-paranoid from having had some really bad DMs, so I have to occasionally intervene and directly tell him that no, I did not plan a TPK for tonight, the players should not pack up and go home.