D&D 5E Bravely running away

[Vaalingrade]

Then they can stay stood in and die to no useful purpose; or they can bug out, survive, and then do whatever's needed to get their friends revived (or rescued, if they were captured) later.

I'd so much rather be playing a heroic character and not be punished for not being a 90's antihero.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I'd so much rather be playing a heroic character and not be punished for not being a 90's antihero.

It being EVER so much more honorable to die pointlessly with your friends than to run away and have a chance at actually saving them after all...

 

[Distracted DM]

As written the chase rules seem to be neither useful nor realistic.

Why is it automatic that they're goiong to be defeated?

And if your answer is "the chase rules make it that way" then I return to my point that the chase rules aren't any good.

1. Correct, that's the point.
2. Because the situation discussed is that they're fleeing from a combat that they're losing. I'd call that defeat.
3. Correct.
I was saying "the chase rules don't work if you're in the middle of a close combat" you replied to my post saying "actually it works fine," I then said why the chase rules didn't work, and you appear to now be saying that you agree? So... Weird interaction, but ok.

 

[TiQuinn]

Following the chase rules:
1. You leave your downed comrades behind. Again, very unlikely that friends at a table are going to opt to do this.
2. You're essentially wasting a turn NOT fighting. Chases are still done in initiative order. Instead, you're running away. Your enemies will get a free round of attacks, and then start pursuit of whoever else is left.
3. This seems like a tremendous waste of table time, when there are other games with simpler retreat systems in place. Not only are you going to be spending time, turn by turn, trying to escape- your downed friends are going to be sitting around waiting for it all to end as the fleeing players with fleeing characters basically have to experience defeat in an excruciatingly drawn-out, desperate fashion. This is the worst kind of slog gameplay.

I like simulationist rules in many places, but in the awful parts like realizing that you're going to fail and have to just try to survive, I'd like those parts to be brief but poignant. Obviously this is my opinion- maybe there are players that enjoy what I consider an awful morale-shattering slog.

I agree that’s an overriding factor. Slogs are death for a game. There’s no point to continuing it, and it’s fully within the rights of the DM to fast forward past whatever game mechanic is causing the slog rather than rolling, rolling, rolling…particularly in the case you mention where PCs are down and missing turns.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

I'd so much rather be playing a heroic character and not be punished for not being a 90's antihero.

Then your GM shouldn't be putting you into a scenario where fleeing is a requirement.

 

[S'mon]

Following the chase rules:
1. You leave your downed comrades behind. Again, very unlikely that friends at a table are going to opt to do this.

This is completely alien to my experience. IME the players of the fallen PCs are usually the ones yelling at the others to flee!

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

The player have a choice of either leaving them and surviving or trying to drag them along and risk being killed. This is a feature of a roleplaying game, not a bug.

It's really puzzling that people sometimes bring up arguments like that: "Well, (insert rule) sucks because it forces the players to take decisions which have lasting consequences"

Don't know, maybe it's just my age showing.

It's a simulationist thing. If a rule produces incentives and results that cut against the vision of how things work in the game setting, then so much the worse for the rule.

So if the GM and the players want a world where comrades are frequently left behind to die, because attempting to drag them along is a high-risk move that is likely to get the rescuer killed too, then they want a rule giving the result that attempting to drag along a fallen comrade is a high-risk move. But if the GM and the players want a world where retreating with a fallen comrade is common and commonly successful, at least for heroic types with superior abilities, then they'll want to change the rule to one where retreating with a fallen comrade is low-risk and easy, at least for those aforementioned heroic types.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Then your GM shouldn't be putting you into a scenario where fleeing is a requirement.

Well yes, that's the answer. The first step to making running away an option is making sure that option is wanted.

 

[Lanefan]

Then your GM shouldn't be putting you into a scenario where fleeing is a requirement.

And if the players put themselves into a situation where fleeing is a requirement, what then?

 

[FrogReaver]

I think some DMs here have far too ingrained an opinion about how realistic it is to have a chance at fleeing in small group combat.