How to enable Running Away

[S'mon]

I think any set that allows mobile combat (eg charging) makes running away impossible. Moving away defensively (what is that called?) lets you move at half or full speed. Your opponent can catch up and hit you. Same in 3.x and 4e. Or they can just charge (even easier in 4e).

Even if combat is occurring on an infinite plain with infinite field of vision, the 4e Run option gives you +2 move over a Charge, so a speed 5 guy in heavy armour has speed 7 while fleeing & cannot be repeatedly Charged by a guy with speed 6. At worst he's getting moved up to then OA* when he runs off.

In this worst case scenario the slowest PC(s) might indeed get killed. But dungeons are not infinite well-lit plains. There are plenty of opportunities to evade pursuit.

If you act like pursuit = auto death that is a mindset problem whether from DM or player.

BTW my PC nearly got killed last session when I pursued some fleeing monsters, only for them to turn around & wallop me. Smart monsters will be aware of that possibility.

*Which may be at -5 for running, need to check that.

 

[Serendipity]

Unfortunately, it is my experience that the vast majority of players simply refuse to run, and become intractable when such is even suggested. Not just in D&D but in near any RPG. This baffles me.
Generally speaking, as long as the game is being run fairly, I don't see a particular need to 'help' the PCs run away. If they have the foresight to retreat from an encounter that's kicking their butt, the reward is the continued existence of those characters. To me, if you have an attachment to a character, keeping the character alive is reward enough.
Otherwise, report to chargen.

 

[steenan]

In my experience, the best way to enable running away is to make it very easy - but at the same time make sure that there are significant stakes in most encounters.

In other words, if PCs want to run, in most cases they can do it with no effort. Just cut to the next scene "Half an hour later, you're catching your breath after you finally lost your pursuers.".

But the combat was for something - and by running away PCs lost it. They failed to save the merchant's daughter. They didn't get the magic sword and now monsters took it somewhere else. They didn't interrupt the ritual and the next time they meet the necromancer she will be a lich.

Of course, it only works if there is something important to be lost by running away. But I prefer to use no "filler" combats (ones with no significant stakes) and few "live or die" combats (where the stake is PCs' lives), so it comes naturally in my games.

 

[S'mon]

In my experience, the best way to enable running away is to make it very easy - but at the same time make sure that there are significant stakes in most encounters.

In other words, if PCs want to run, in most cases they can do it with no effort. Just cut to the next scene "Half an hour later, you're catching your breath after you finally lost your pursuers.".

I agree; within the bounds of plausibility it's best to err on the side of allowing escape. That applies to NPCs as well as PCs. The combat rules as such are not designed to model pursuit and evasion, so "X moves faster than Y, Y can never escape" is not a good for adjudicating pursuit.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I like to encourage/reward actions that slow down fast pursuers. Objects, terrain, route, etc. may all be used to do so, but are not guaranteed.

 

[Derren]

It's "How to enable Running Away."

There is no way to "enable" running away. The rules already allow you to do so and provide enough ways to help you with it through items and spells (at least in 3E).
And unless the DM specifically plans to make it impossible to run away it is, most of the time, a viable option.

The one thing you need to do is to get the players to comprehend that running away is not equal to loosing the adventure and that they can continue adventuring quite successfully. And if they still don't run away then also tell them that you don't do scripted "The PCs have tu run from this one" encouters but that they have full control over the tactics they use.
Also, get them to talk about running away openly. What keeps many player from running away is that they don't want to leave the others behind.
And if they still don't run, then they simply won't run. Nothing for a DM to do about it.

 

[El Mahdi]

There is no way to "enable" running away. The rules already allow you to do so and provide enough ways to help you with it through items and spells (at least in 3E).
And unless the DM specifically plans to make it impossible to run away it is, most of the time, a viable option.

The one thing you need to do is to get the players to comprehend that running away is not equal to loosing the adventure and that they can continue adventuring quite successfully. And if they still don't run away then also tell them that you don't do scripted "The PCs have tu run from this one" encouters but that they have full control over the tactics they use.
Also, get them to talk about running away openly. What keeps many player from running away is that they don't want to leave the others behind.
And if they still don't run, then they simply won't run. Nothing for a DM to do about it.

Thank you for replying on topic. I think you're still not accepting the premise of the problem (that there are problems with the rules of many systems and editions that make retreating unfeasable in situations where it should be), but that may simply be that you personally haven't encountered this problem. Janx and I however, aren't alone in having encountered this situation. It's not always just a simple matter of the DM has made it impossible, or the players refuse to or don't realize they can retreat. There are tactical effects of many systems and editions rules that make retreating a less tactically attractive option than just fighting it out.

However, You've made some good points here. I think the thing of primary importance that you talk about here, and others have mentioned, is clearly talking to your group about retreating, how the rules of the game or edition one is using facilitate it, and that they need to always keep it in mind as a tactical possibility.

Something that might help the rules is houseruling some of the terrain rules. One problem with many systems and editions rules is relative speeds between some monsters and the PC's. Terrain can help, but according to the rules, terrain usually only reduces everybodies speed by the same percent/fraction...which leaves the monsters still faster than the PC's. In reality, certain terrain should be able to level the playing field much more, and in certain cases affect larger creatures much more detrimentally than smaller creatures (like PC's). So maybe houserules for certain terrain that limit speed to a maximum, instead of just reducing by a fraction, and terrain that provides additionally penalties for larger creatures would help make retreating more viable, and actually work more realistically. For example, medium size pc's should be able to move more easily through dense jungle, than say a large or larger creature like a bear or elephant. Granted though, once a creature exceeds a certain size, it can probably just ignore the effects of most terrain (say something like a Tarrasque).

Another thing that might help in certain situations, is having the group split up during a retreat. If you're combating just one or a couple creatures (though obviously creatures with superior combat abilities than the PC's group), then retreating and splitting up may freeze the pursuers due to not being able to follow everybody. Or, it may allow the greater number of the group to escape, while the creature or creatures are only able to pursue one of two of the group (instead of all). Leaving a rear guard of fighting types that can harry the pursuers and still escape (likely with ranged attacks), can also help the weaker PC's escape to safety first, followed by the fighter types.

 

[Derren]

Thank you for replying on topic. I think you're still not accepting the premise of the problem (that there are problems with the rules of many systems and editions that make retreating unfeasable

How exactly do you define "unfeasible"?
Is retreating unfeasible when it is not automatic or when there will be situation where escape is unlikely?
Unless you run very abstract combats where running away is just a skill roll (similar to what many jrpg video games have) there simply will be enemies where you can't run away from, at least not without losses.

When I fight as foot soldier against light cavalry I am aware that running is not an option. And this is not a fault of the system, it is my fault for fighting on foot against them.

A system can only provide tools (unless you use the abstract system mentioned above) and its the players responsibility to use them.
And as I said in a other post, I do think that D&D offers quite a lot of tools which aid escape, at least in its 3E version.

The real problem is to get the players to accept the idea of running away. And if they do they will look for themselves how to increase their chance of success by using the tools provided to them.
So where exactly do you see that running away is unfeasible in D&D?

 

[El Mahdi]

How exactly do you define "unfeasible"?

I define unfeasable in this context as a game system that by the rules, makes retreating a less realistic tactic than it is in real life, and practically suicide in almost all situations. I agree that there will be enemies you simply cannot run away from. But having a system where almost universally, retreating is certain death is also unreasonable.

A specific example: D&D's take on terrain.

D&D's terrain rules might be designed for ease of play, but they are also designed to the detriment of realistic tactics, and overly impinge upon using retreat as a feasable tactic.

 

[Serendipity]

But having a system where almost universally, retreating is certain death is also unreasonable.

I'm curious, is this a fourth edition problem? Because I'm not aware of such an issue in other rule sets (and speak from having run all of them save 4 and 3.5, though I've played enough 3.5 to not recognize this). Not trying to derail, I am just baffled at the existence of such a thing.
(Conversely, you might well understand now why I misunderstood the thrust of the O.P., if in fact I did.)