Pathfinder 2E Creating a Retreat System

[Thomas Shey]

One thing that occurred to me is it might be a good idea to outline default expectations for how aggressively enemies will pursue the party (particularly when the party goes out of sight). That was a point of contention in the other thread.

And of course this is going to need to be broken down based on the enemy type. Some guardian types will be unlikely to budge from where they started, though if they have ranged attacks they may take potshots at your retreating backs; some animalistic enemies will chase you out of their turf then call it good; some others may try and track you back to your camp or the like and deal with the problem. One size is distinctly not going to fit all.

 

[kenada]

I think it should be possible to give a reasonable default that applies broadly with examples of when the GM might decide to do things differently (e.g., in a secure area, pursuers might start systematically searching for the PCs). The important thing is to set a baseline understanding.

Breaking it down by type or motivation isn’t a bad idea, but I'd be wary of being too prescriptive. PF2 already has a lot of moving parts. That’s why I suggested some reasonable default (like @GMMichael’s suggestion of some odds for pursuit).

 

[Ixal]

I think it should be possible to give a reasonable default that applies broadly with examples of when the GM might decide to do things differently (e.g., in a secure area, pursuers might start systematically searching for the PCs). The important thing is to set a baseline understanding.

Breaking it down by type or motivation isn’t a bad idea, but I'd be wary of being too prescriptive. PF2 already has a lot of moving parts. That’s why I suggested some reasonable default (like @GMMichael’s suggestion of some odds for pursuit).

Which is why I wonder why you need a codified system for this anyway.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, I expressed my opinion about that: because without something as a baseline, a lot of people seem to default to using things like just movement speed, and that typically translates to PCs trying to withdraw as "you lose". Its hard to see that as serving good purposes.

 

[Ixal]

Well, I expressed my opinion about that: because without something as a baseline, a lot of people seem to default to using things like just movement speed, and that typically translates to PCs trying to withdraw as "you lose". Its hard to see that as serving good purposes.

What else should they use?

 

[Thomas Shey]

What else should they use?

Terrain. Enemy motivations, Perception.

Movement is an element, but its not the only element, and its not self-evidently the most important one.

 

[kenada]

Which is why I wonder why you need a codified system for this anyway.

Like I said, I don’t think it should be too prescriptive. It’s tempting to provide a bunch of tables of possible reactions, but I think it should be kept pretty simple. There doesn’t need to be a lot of gameplay around it. What’s important is that escape is there as a pressure release valve for when PCs get in over their heads and need to back off. Putting it in a procedure codifies that as a baseline assumption. Otherwise, the prevalent assumption is that escape is not possible (especially when the escaping side is slower than the pursuing side), and people will just default to how they’ve always done things. (See also: “System Matters”.)

Edit: My default assumption would be that pursuers are easy to lose. If you can navigate to a hiding space or get out of sight, they’ll give up the chase. There are exceptional circumstances when they might continue the chase or systematically search for the PCs. A list of example situations can be provided, but it should be disclaimed as non-exhaustive. This is basically the approach B/X takes, which I favor because it is very simple.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm rather prone to having a slightly more detailed system in terms of having discussion of the 3-5 important elements, but otherwise I and Kenada are fundamentally on the same page, if in slightly different paragraphs.

 

[Campbell]

If we're looking to build something that represents a realistic depiction of retreating from a determined enemy in who will doggedly pursue you in the context of a mostly melee skirmish than it will be brutal. Historically most successful retreats (when armies mostly fought with melee weapons) depended on what Sun Tzu called the golden bridge, meaning to allows leave your enemy with a means to escape. When retreat is not an option you fight much more fiercely and are likely to do the same to your enemies.

Within the context of a game where we want to reward proactive action a realistic depiction of fleeing is most likely not the best design decision.

 

[Tonguez]

Personally I’m not sure how this helps - Disengage followed by Movement (Chase rules) would seem to be sufficient.

Personally I always work on the notion that sapient creatures dont want to die and thus ‘Run Away” is the default. As soon as someone takes a disengage and a run away movement then I’d leave the whole retreat and pursuit to narrative decisions instead of mechanics - if its the PCS retreating then the GM makes a decision to see if pursuit makes narrative sense and tells a cool story