D&D 5E 5/30 Q&A: Charm, Chases, and Combat Free

[delericho]

If this is true, then the mechanics will fail.

Combat doesn't require the GM to be prepared - you drop in half-a-dozen gnolls, sketch out your room with a table, a firepit and a portcullis-and-winch at the other end, and things are good to go. Chases, if they are to work, need to be equally easy to implement.

Three things about that:

1) In all honesty, most no-prep combats aren't terribly interesting either. The 4e DMG was right to note that heterogeneous groups of enemies were usually more interesting that "4 orcs", and also that combats were likewise better if the DM could prepare a battlefield with several moving parts. But that generally means the DM needs to be able to prepare that ahead of time. (Of course, you did make sure to include at least some terrain in your example. My experience with no-prep encounters, both as player and (unfortunately) as DM, has been rather less successful. IMX, D&D from 3e on, and probably before, benefits hugely from being prepared.)

2) The most interesting things in most combats are the PCs, then the monsters, and then the terrain. In the chase scene, most of the PCs' abilities cease to be relevant (because they're combat focussed), and the opposition is likewise reduced - with his interest essentially coming from how fast he can move. The terrain effects therefore need to carry a vastly greater portion of the load than in a combat.

(Of course, the game could provide some sort of "monster manual for terrain", allowing chase building in the same way the MM allows for combat building. But such a thing hasn't really been done in the past, and is unlikely to sell terribly well now - meaning that the burden falls to the DM.)

3) I don't really have a problem with them suggesting that staging chases is an "advanced technique", probably best used sparingly, by experienced DMs, and only if they have time to prepare it properly.

I've run several chases, most of them bad. The key to the few good ones was invariably preparation. But YMMV, of course - and, actually, if you do have an example of a really good method for putting together good chases quickly, I would be grateful to see it.

 

[pemerton]

In my experience, adding extraneous die rolls to situations with no tension does not create tension. It creates boredom.

But in a chase there is tension - who will win?

Combat is easy: consequence hp loss, resource use and possibly death.

I liked your post - just wanted to point out that "hit points" are nothing but chits in a minigame. In a chase system we could just as easily have "separation points" or "advantage points", which are whittled away over the course of the chase. Then instead of debating whether or not hit points are meat, we could debate whether or not separation points are distance, or also correspond to "intangibles" like the will to maintain pursuit, remaining endurance reserves, etc!

In the chase scene, most of the PCs' abilities cease to be relevant (because they're combat focussed)

<snip>

if you do have an example of a really good method for putting together good chases quickly, I would be grateful to see it.

On the ability point, the obvious solution is to give PCs abilities that matter for chases. 4e has various ones which allow creation of difficult terrain, either via "simulationist" or metagame mechanics. Rangers, druids, rogues and perhaps bards (lucky in urban environments!) are natural candidates for this sort of stuff.

On the "really good method" point, I have run a few chases as skill challenges. I don't know if they would count as "really good" by your standards, but they were fun at the time - skill failures, in particular, create opportunities for narration of complications that the players then riff off in keeping up the chase. Two I remember involved two PCs chasing a fleeing priestess on a captured behemoth (dinosaur), and a PC trying to outfly hobgoblin wyvern riders in a flying carpet, using spells and vials of elemental fire to try and delay their pursuit. A skill challenge framework makes it fairly easy to handle these sorts of things. But it's obviously not the only way. (Especially, it has no opposed rolls, and so leans especially heavily on GM narration of complications.)

 

[delericho]

On the "really good method" point, I have run a few chases as skill challenges. I don't know if they would count as "really good" by your standards, but they were fun at the time - skill failures, in particular, create opportunities for narration of complications that the players then riff off in keeping up the chase.

Thanks for the reply. I've had very mixed success with chases as Skill Challenges (actually, with Skill Challenges in general) - one I ran at the start of my current campaign quickly foundered because the mechanics were too overt and it just devolved into a marathon of dice rolling.

Conversely, one I ran in a recent SWSE game went much better. The key difference, as far as I could see, was that the chase route was mapped out ahead of time so that, at each stage, there were at least three 'obvious' things the PCs could try (plus, of course, anything else they came up with).

 

[Manbearcat]

I've run several chases, most of them bad. The key to the few good ones was invariably preparation. But YMMV, of course - and, actually, if you do have an example of a really good method for putting together good chases quickly, I would be grateful to see it.

I'm a huge fan of chases and I consider myself highly proficient in running them. Skill Challenges in 4e, when treated properly, are a perfect mechanical framework to compose a closed scene such as a chase. I agree with @pemerton above and that there is a natural tension produced by the stakes, the scene distinctions and the inclusion of the metagame in the same way that HPs are the metagame measure in combat of "who is winning" or "where are we in the continuum of this challenge"?

I'm sure you're familiar with the Cortex Plus systems (spsecifically MHRP) or Fate systems. The success/failure model maps perfectly to the "stressed out" model of those systems. If you acrue enough failures to lose the challenge then you're "stressed out" and the GM must determine what that means with respect to the stakes and the context of the scene's journey and its ultimate resolution. If you acrue the requisite failures then the inverse is true; you've "stressed out" the opposition (in a chase that is typically the pursuit or the quarry) and you've either gotten away (personally or with a McGuffin, etc) or captured/cornered the fleeing party.

At my table we use the metagame to our advantage to make the tension palpable. Its clear and out in the open how many successes or failures are remaining to "stress out" the opposition or for the opposition to do the same to you. That carries the weight of pacing the scene and allows the players to know where the "panel" that they are currently on is with respect to the scene's full continuum, thus allowing them to derive tension from that knowledge's framing of the advance of pursuit vs the escape of the quarry (which is resolved by reaching the end of that continuum, one way or the other, in the same way the HP continuum is used to adjudicate combat or the "stressed out" continuum is used to adjudicate scene resolution in other systems). Obviously, It is a tool for the GM to texture the fictional accompaniment as well.

Like Fate and a system like MHRP, you should be using Aspects and Distinctions for your scene that serve as setting elements for the PCs and GM to riff off of to produce genre-relevant complications/decision points and potential answers from panel to panel. Technique-wise, these can either be explicit and metagame-leveraged by writing them down on cards and putting them in the middle of the table where everyone can see them; eg Crowded Fruit Market, Vast And Treacherous Badlands, Ravenous Hyena Pack, Foggy Dawn, Worn-Out Horses, Overflowing Storm Drains, Drunken Parade, etc. You should be adding new ones as the the chase advances toward its conclusion. These are all Aspects/Distinctions of the scene that should serve both the GM in their challenging/pressuring the PCs and in the PCs attempting to resolve their respective panel.

You don't have to go the "writing them down on a card and presenting them on the table" metagame route, but, in-play, the functionality of the scene resolution should be the same. If I put a Ravenous Hyena Pack yipping hungrily while attacking a tethered horse while Mob of Angry Sentinels emerge from the temple where the Precious And Pilfered McGuffin was just stolen, set in a Vast And Treacherous Badlands with allies Too Far Away To Lend A Hand set under a Dimly Moonlit Sky...the upcoming panels, both PC-side and GM-side, need to leverage these for complications and mechanical/narrative resolution. Players can use their resources (such as a Difficult Terrain inducing resouorce like a distinct trap) to introduce complications for their opposition and they become a new Distinction/Aspect. Adjudicating and deriving the whole (both mechanically and the narrative rendering) is quite easy with practice.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I find the attitudes expressed about chase scenes in rpgs here interesting, since they are so far from my gameplay experience. In cinema, chases are hugely compelling, and can push all the right buttons (for me, at least). This is true whether they are seen as an extension of combat (e.g. the precredit parkour sequence in Casino Royale) or as an ongoing overland track-and-pursuit (e.g. "Who are those guys?" in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid), or whether the PCs are pursuing or being pursued (same examples). The question becomes why doesn't that translate well into D&D, especially when chases are naturally compelling in other rpg systems (esp. FATE).

I see three factors at work:

1. Urgency and terrain. Part of the appeal of a chase is the varied terrain. If the PCs are the pursued, then the choices they are making leave the chase route uncertain, and we get the (brilliantly named, @permerton) "Shroedinger's terrain" problem. There exists a tension between the cool landscapes and obstacles and the need for speedy decision making. If the players have time to strategize about the best course to take, the urgency of running for your life naturally evaporates. But players don't want to make un-clever un-optimized choices.
--> a compelling chase needs non-random terrain established, and it needs the players to make choices with inadequate information on the fly. There must be the possibility of disadvantageous results, without the appearance of randomness (which removes meaning from the choices being made). Without a separate subsystem, this requires a lot of work by the DM, and a willingness for the players never to experience much of it.

2. Line of sight. The pursuer must be able to see the pursued, either directly or indirectly. For the pursued, remaining undetected is the victory condition, not necessarily achieving a certain distance from the pursuer. In D&D, though, there are problems: there are great differentials in basic senses in some circumstances but not in others. 60' darkvision vs. 30' darkvision is a big difference, but it is presumed that everyone except a kobold can see any unobscured object in daylight. And there are magical solutions as well (plus Ranger tracking, etc.).
--> a compelling chase needs both more granularity in senses (with clear mechanisms for seeing imperfectly through crowds, or distinguishing between similar-looking pursueds) and the possibility to fail. In D&D skills and abilities should cover this (between bluff, sense motive, etc., vision and tracking abilities). But their importance has to come into play for a chase to be compelling. The problem is that D&D characters usually have all-or-nothing here, and the game's focus on optimization means that one side will typically start with an overwhelming advantage over the other, which is less fun.

3. Speed. Speed is also crucial, and it is a difficult thing to optimize in D&D. Having a high move speed is a significant advantage, and is a difficult thing to specialize in. A Barbarian or monk or wood elf has an advantage, and there is little else in the game that encourages optimization for speed (since you are usually only as fast as the slowest party member). So improving speed requires a substantial investment, and offers (arguably) a restricted payoff. Those that haven't made such an investment are going to be bad at chases, and bad in a precisely quantifiable degree.
--> The quantified move speeds mean that with any difference between pursuer and pursued, the chase is measured in a handful of rounds. It's hard to extend beyond this. In D&D it is unusual to optimize for speed, but that is the single biggest factor in a chase (and endurance -- the ability to last, as measured off Constitution, perhaps.)

The mechanics of D&D itself pose challenges to a successful chase. A subsystem that doesn't recognize these three issues at least, is going to remain uncompelling, in my view.

(Since beginning this post, I see @manbercat has contributed with a helpful overview that summarizes helpfully how chases can be handled in other systems. Thanks!)

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=23484]Kobold Stew[/MENTION]
Yes, that's it exactly. In the past I've handled these thus:

Terrain & Choices: Each time terrain is generated, it involves a built-in choice for the PCs (e.g. "do I risk leaping across this gap in the rooftops, do I safely descend to the street and try to continue the chase from there, or do I use a spell or other limited resource to cross the gap effortlessly?").

Line of Sight: Because of the tendency for players to try to end a chase with spells like sleep, or archers with trick shots, I tended to handle this in two ways. Either the PCs had line of sit but the range was extreme, or they didn't have line of sight during most of the chase and had to make skill checks to gain it momentarily.

Speed: I used a rough system of opposed speed checks to determine the change in distance between the two sides. Alone it would be rather dull, but when combined with interesting terrain and features unique to that chase, plus player ingenuity, it worked decently well. Probably could have been better though.

 

[Dausuul]

I can think of the following categories of chase scene (not mutually exclusive):

• Tactical pursuit. This happens during or immediately before combat. One combatant is seeking an advantageous position, while another is trying to stop the first from gaining that position. For example, a spellcaster might want to get clear of melee, while the enemy fighter wants to keep in the caster's face.
• Retreat from battle. When one side of a combat is losing badly, it's natural for that side to want to bail out and avoid further losses. The winning side seldom wants any of the losers to escape, so they give chase.
• Evade battle. This happens when someone needs to achieve an objective without risking battle against a dangerous foe. PCs trying to cross a crocodile-infested river seldom want to fight the crocodiles, they just want to get to the other bank with all their limbs still on.
• Cat and mouse. The inverse of "evade battle," this happens when someone is trying to achieve an objective by forcing battle against a weaker foe. For instance, the PCs are being pursued by a pack of dire wolves intent on achieving dinner.
• Tracking. The pursuer is not trying to force battle, but wants to know where the pursued is going.
• Bait. The pursued is trying to lure the pursuer out of position. Usually the goal is to either a) spring an ambush or b) allow allies to take advantage of the pursuer's absence.

With the exception of "track to ground" and sometimes "bait," each of these scenarios involves combat or the threat of combat, and most of the suggestions for making a chase scene interesting (terrain, ambushes, concealment, et cetera) are the same things that make a fight scene interesting. For both of these reasons, I think chase rules should be built into combat. If the combat rules don't handle chases well, then fix the combat rules, don't create a whole alternative mechanic.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] I agree that pursuit and evasion need to interface smoothly with combat.

However, how would you classify the "chase the messenger/pickpocket" scene? There is no combat involved there. The tension is in whether or not the PCs intercept the messenger or the pickpocket before they reach a target. I mean, I suppose a thuggish group might start opening fire on an unarmed noncombatant in a crowded space...

 

[GX.Sigma]

But in a chase there is tension - who will win?

That's one. I'm totally in favor of "roll to see who wins the chase," but I'm against "roll to run fast... okay, roll to run fast again... okay, roll to run fast again..."

Any way you analyze this, it becomes a skill challenge debate. I don't like skill challenges, you do. We can't really go on beyond that.

 

[Dausuul]

@Dausuul I agree that pursuit and evasion need to interface smoothly with combat.

However, how would you classify the "chase the messenger/pickpocket" scene? There is no combat involved there. The tension is in whether or not the PCs intercept the messenger or the pickpocket before they reach a target. I mean, I suppose a thuggish group might start opening fire on an unarmed noncombatant in a crowded space...

The possibility of combat may not create tension here, but it still exists. When you catch up to the pickpocket or the messenger, they might surrender, but only because of the implied threat that you will pound them senseless otherwise, and the fact that you obviously have the resources to make good on that threat. The PCs will at least have to evaluate the risk before giving chase, even if they quickly conclude it's negligible.

And it might not be. Set aside the romantic image of all pickpockets as adorable smudgy-faced boys with Cockney accents. Imagine you got your pocket picked in real life and saw the guy--an adult, young and fit--running away. Would you give chase? Maybe. Would you chase the guy into a maze of dark alleys at night? Maybe... but I doubt you'd assume you didn't have to worry about the possibility of combat. That goes double in a medieval city where the punishment for theft is likely to involve amputations. If the PCs are low-level, and one of them gets ahead of the others and catches the pickpocket, it's quite possible the pickpocket would pull a knife and try to kill the PC before the others catch up.