How to enable Running Away

[Derren]

Why would the NPCs all split up that way? They know not to split their forces, the same way PCs try to avoid that. In essence, the NPCs have to "weaken themselves" to the PCs' levels to lose.

In your example the enemies with ranged weapons fire away while the others chase the PCs. Now when the PCs turn around they can gang up on the melees that followed them while the archers suffer heavy penalties. The PCs can also more easily use magic or items to separate the enemy force

It's a rules problem impinging on player psychology, since not all systems have AoOs. That issue just doesn't come up there. (The same issue affects the use of things like bull rushing someone into a pit trap. People without Improved Bull Rush don't do it, due to fear of AoOs, even if the damage they could do is higher than stabbing would do.)

Players also fear that their characters die, so is it the systems fault that the PCs can take damage?
When the PCs do not use a option, especially one which is so easy to use or has such a low cost then the only one at fault are the players.
The system should not need to cater to players without even a basic grasp of tactics or chances in order for something to be viable.

 

[El Mahdi]

And how effective do you think is running away in real life?

Not very good, but better odds than in an RPG...

Most casulties in war, especially in the medieval period was during the enemies rout.

And that was due to a disorderly running away, not a tactical retreat. You're also talking about bigger numbers which means a target rich environment...and even then not everyone was slaughtered. A group of PC's is a much smaller unit. Medieval military routs of fleeing armies is not a very good comparison.

A route always turns into a slaughter when the enemy pursues, especially when he is faster than you or has ranged weapons. Successful escapes nearly always require a fighting retreat or a rear guard which bears the brunt of the attack while the rest flees.
And I don't think that most RPGs make escapes even less effective than that. Especially in 3E I think that running away is much more viable than in real life thanks to magic items. A potion of invisibility is enough to make pursuing you very hard and there are a lot of spells which restrict movement.

I agree, which is why I mentioned using a rear guard in my previous post...(did you read all of it?)

However, I do believe that RPG's tend to make it less effective than real life. Most especially so in D&D.

The only instance where terrain has a different effect in D&D than in real live is that mounted units are not slowed down more than someone on foot, but I don't think that alone makes running away not viable.

I already gave you an example in my previous post: dense jungle. Dense jungle is not going to affect all creatures the same way. The larger the creature, the harder it will be...even to the point of impassability.

But D&D rules just cause a flat reduction in movement speeds across the board, leaving the faster creature, even though larger and in terrain that should be impassible, still faster than the PC's. That's an obvious conflict. One created by rules geared primarily toward being easy, rather than easy and realistic.


So, what would you do to make the rules reflect and enable real tactical choices, with at least some chance of success (rather than the near zero the rules seem to present)...?

 

[Derren]

So, what would you do to make the rules reflect and enable real tactical choices, with at least some chance of success (rather than the near zero the rules seem to present)...?

Near Zero? I gave you several examples of how easy it is to run away in D&D. You do not even need a rear guard to do so.

Expeditious retreat and you can run away from most enemies. Invisibility and you will pretty much always get away unless the enemy can hunt by sound or can see invisible characters at a distance. Both are available in potion form for everyone.
Cheap items like caltdrops or tanglefoot bags can slow down enemies and smokesticks can conceal your movement. Enterprising players can find many more ways to escape. And once teleportation magic comes into play, either through normal spells or scrolls, escape is just a matter of standing next to the wizard.

And you scenario is easily covered by not just writing "jungle" onto an area but by actually placing trees. That way larger creatures have to use the squeezing rules or have very difficult terrain where they can only move 5ft. All of those things are in the rules.

I stand by my opinion that escaping in D&D is already easy and that only the players unwillingness to run away prevents them from doing so.

 

[El Mahdi]

Near Zero? I gave you several examples of how easy it is to run away in D&D. You do not even need a rear guard to do so.

Expeditious retreat and you can run away from most enemies. Invisibility and you will pretty much always get away unless the enemy can hunt by sound or can see invisible characters at a distance. Both are available in potion form for everyone.
Cheap items like caltdrops or tanglefoot bags can slow down enemies and smokesticks can conceal your movement. Enterprising players can find many more ways to escape. And once teleportation magic comes into play, either through normal spells or scrolls, escape is just a matter of standing next to the wizard.

And you scenario is easily covered by not just writing "jungle" onto an area but by actually placing trees. That way larger creatures have to use the squeezing rules or have very difficult terrain where they can only move 5ft. All of those things are in the rules.

I stand by my opinion that escaping in D&D is already easy and that only the players unwillingness to run away prevents them from doing so.

As said in previous posts, including by me, magic is not always an option, which is why I didn't acknowledge it in your post. For numerous reasons: the magic user is out of action, out of potions, potions not available, out of gold, an area where magic doesn't work, wild magic, etc...and low magic campaings...magic is not always an alternative, and most certainly shouldn't be the only alternative. There should also be mundane avenues.

You are right about the Squeezing mechanic, but only in most situations, and only in 3E (4E doesn't have it). For instance, Small creatures and Medium creatures take up the same space according to the rules. So when "Squeezing" through restricted areas, they are both affected the same...which may even leave the small creature actually moving slower through a restrictive space than a medium creature. Common sense would tell you that it should be the other way around.

However, this thread is in general for a reason. Specific rules aren't the point, and in general, most rules do not effectively model such situations so that a realistic tactical choice can be used...and that includes D&D.

So without resorting to magic, how do you fix this problem?

 

[S'mon]

However, this thread is in general for a reason. Specific rules aren't the point, and in general, most rules do not effectively model such situations so that a realistic tactical choice can be used...and that includes D&D.

So without resorting to magic, how do you fix this problem?

Without resorting to magic, without discussing rules, and without addressing players'-side issues?

 

[howandwhy99]

Y'know, taking the title of this thread a little more literally, I was thinking a better question might be:
"How do you mechanically differentiate in your game for creatures that have Escaped?"

My initiating of encounters and avoidance of encounters (and pursuit) all have to do with sensory ranges, like line of sight. Surprise is when you sense them and they don't sense you.

Maybe the creature ran up a tree and is hiding? Are they "free" then?
For me, they're not sensed, so they are free. They are in a tough spot and might easily be found by a search party, but technically they have "escaped".

What do you think about never being free as long as someone is after you? Perhaps it's about believing someone is after you? So we leave it up to the players to figure out when to stop believing the bugbears are tracking them after five days? Or perhaps they trust a well traveled road? Or perhaps a secure town or city where they don't believe the bugbears will follow?

A chase can go on for a long time, but I think the basic parameters of when it's over should be up to the players. For the NPCs then we're getting into a whole other ball of wax.

 

[El Mahdi]

Without resorting to magic, without discussing rules, and without addressing players'-side issues?

Yes...except for the player's-side issues. I don't recall anyone saying we shouldn't discuss player's-side issues. That and DM issues are exactly what needs to be discussed. But simply saying it's all the DM's or the players fault, isn't discussing and doesn't help at all.

Generic houserules and discussion of general tactics might help also...and in that case it may help to give examples in various systems or editions, but not limit it just to D&D.

 

[Janx]

Without resorting to magic, without discussing rules, and without addressing players'-side issues?

i don't see why addressing player's side issues wouldn't be part of enabling running away. If you send them to therapy, counseling and training, and they come back fresh and ready to run away, you've enabled running away.

Personally, I don't mind the bit of rules-referencing that's going on. I don't want to see "you should play a different game, because your game doesn't do that well" as I find that to be useless advice as most people won't be switching game systems.

IME, I have never seen expeditious retreat used. Never seen any potions other than healing you could buy (had to find them). Never seen a tanglefoot or smokestick at all. I've never seen caltrops used (how many do you need per square, and how many AoO's do you draw when you dig in your pack for them and dump them?). So personally, I'm looking at the problem as how to make a retreat work with nothing special for the task.

One idea i just had, was to setup a fighter's academy or officer's training school or some such. When the PCs are first starting out, pick a PC that would fit into such a structure and start his part of the game in a tactical training class. Put a magical combat board on the table and have the instructor's "Last Lesson" be a study on Retreat. Plop some miniatures on the board and simulate a 1st level party that is like your actual party and have the other players (not just the fighter PC) help run the other chars. From here, have them demonstrate the tactics to successfully retreat from the Monsters (potentially starting at full health even).

The point is, the players get a chance to experience how to execute a withdrawal on the board with real game rules, but nothing at stake. They can repeat the exercise, see how the math rules work and how the variations work in relation to retreating.

 

[Rogue Agent]

In new gaming parlance, this is called "railroading". (I'm not saying it's always a bad idea.) :/ It also seems like a waste of a DM's time. It's pretty rare to put work into creating a powerful NPC, and then expect your PCs to never face them.

You have that exactly backwards.

Giving players information with which they can make informed decisions isn't railroading.

Predetermining how the PCs will interact with the monster you've created, OTOH, is railroading.

In regards to enabling retreats: OD&D solved this problem by having rules for running away. This isn't rocket science: RPG gameplay naturally gravitates towards structure.

 

[Janx]

In regards to enabling retreats: OD&D solved this problem by having rules for running away. This isn't rocket science: RPG gameplay naturally gravitates towards structure.

Nice article.

I have a theory, that in designing an encounter, there are six basic responses that GM should be prepared to accept:

1. Talk through it
2. Fight through it
3. Sneak around it
4. Trick it
5. Run away from it
6. Avoid it

1-3 cover the basics talking, combat and rogue-skills. #4 covers whatever crazy idea the players do that doesn't fit into anything else and is usually a surprise to the GM. #6 assumes the PCs detect it first and just avoid engaging with the encounter. And of course #5 is relevant to this thread.

I believe that a GM should reasonably expect the players to do one of these 6 things and not have an expectation that they will consistently choose only one of them (like Fighting every monster). A GM who expects every monster to be fought may be prone to blocking an attempt to talk when the PCs try something different. The same is true if the GM is surprised that the PCs try to run away and he wasn't expecting that as a possibility.

tying this back to [MENTION=6673496]Rogue Agent[/MENTION]'s comment, the GM should review his game's rules on running away. If they don't specifically have a section on "how to run away" make a new section in your house rules called that, collate the basic facts of how to do it, maybe add a little more to spice it up or reference some Chase rules. But having that clearly denoted and raised to the players attention would frame the concept in their minds and get entice them to engagge those rules when needed.