How to enable Running Away

[Janx]

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

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.

I think just about everybody else is saying that running away in D&D is NOT easy to use and does not APPEAR to have a low cost. it may just be a perception problem, but perception is reality for most people.

And some of us think the system SHOULD cater to the kinds of activities that you want players to do. [MENTION=6673496]Rogue Agent[/MENTION] just posted an excellent article to that point.

I would also question, what else is the point of putting in a higher level monster except to entice the party to run away (or at least not fight)? It certainly isn't to fight it as the general lesson is you can't beat a sufficiently superior force. in fact, use of too strong of a force removes the validity Fighting from the 6 basic responses to an encounter. If the monster is also able to thwart running away (faster, teleporty, whatever) then that's another option that is removed from viability. ironically enough, certain encounters vaunted for their "look how open my world is" and in reality they restrict options. It is not valid debating to say "look at all your freedoms, you could kill yourself if you want to" when for most people, that's not a choice they would directly take (though their actions may get them killed, few people sign up for Direct Suicide).

 

[Derren]

I think just about everybody else is saying that running away in D&D is NOT easy to use and does not APPEAR to have a low cost. it may just be a perception problem, but perception is reality for most people.

Running appears to be costly because no one prepares for it and just assume, or even want in the game, that they can get away without spending any resources.

But like with a party who refuses to buy any ranged weapon and then gets defeated by archers in a good position the problem is not the system but the players.

 

[Janx]

Running appears to be costly because no one prepares for it and just assume, or even want in the game, that they can get away without spending any resources.

I agree that nobody prepares for it.

I don't think they asssume it is free. I think they assume it isn't practical. the monsters will catch up to them/there isn't a way to get away with the resources they have.

If players thought it was free and would always work, they would be quite ready to use it and come back later (as I can easily do in Elder Scrolls or Red Dead Redemption videogames).

But like with a party who refuses to buy any ranged weapon and then gets defeated by archers in a good position the problem is not the system but the players.

I've never played a PC that did not carry a ranged weapon, general melee weapon and a knife or dagger for close quarters fighting (grappling).

But I've also never played a PC that had any of the stuff you listed to help in a retreat, nor have I ever seen any other player do so.

 

[Rogue Agent]

But like with a party who refuses to buy any ranged weapon and then gets defeated by archers in a good position the problem is not the system but the players.

The difference is that there's actually a system for resolving ranged attacks in D&D. There is no system for running away post-1989.

The equivalent would be if there were no rules for ranged attacks in D&D and your response was, "Well, people just need to invest in magic missile spells."

That may be a functional work-around, but there wouldn't be a lot of ranged combat if that was the only way to do it within the published system.

 

[S'mon]

The difference is that there's actually a system for resolving ranged attacks in D&D. There is no system for running away post-1989.

I could say "4e skill challenges"... but there's a broader issue if players won't attempt anything there's not a system for. That leads to a very narrow game. It's the flip side of the GM never having monsters run away because there's no morale system.

IMCs it's routine for monsters to flee and not unusual for PCs to flee, because I always try to run the setting as a living world, but I can see the risk of gamey-ism where players & GMs see the game as nothing more than the mechanics; nothing outside the box. For them I'd think a robust flight/evasion system would be best.

 

[Derren]

I could say "4e skill challenges"

I would say "movement rules". Nothing more is needed.

 

[Janx]

IMCs it's routine for monsters to flee and not unusual for PCs to flee, because I always try to run the setting as a living world, but I can see the risk of gamey-ism where players & GMs see the game as nothing more than the mechanics; nothing outside the box. For them I'd think a robust flight/evasion system would be best.

I reach the opposite conclusion. There needs to be a system/rules/declaration of pattern that the monsters will flee before many GMs will abjudicate that the monsters flee partway through the battle.

Otherwise, I suspect that a large portion of GMs simply make the monsters fight to the death because there is nothing in the documentation that indicates a change in behavior can/should occur.

 

[Rogue Agent]

I could say "4e skill challenges"... but there's a broader issue if players won't attempt anything there's not a system for. That leads to a very narrow game. It's the flip side of the GM never having monsters run away because there's no morale system.

Not exactly. Because it's actually a larger problem than that: Not only are there not rules for running away, but if you actually apply the rules that DO exist for movement then running away is difficult or impossible.

So it's not just the players saying, "Hey, let's try something there are no rules for. Can you figure out how to adjudicate that?"

It's the players saying, "Hey, we want to do something that the rules actively discourage. Will you let us break the rules and then figure out how to adjudicate that?"

Beyond that: Combat in D&D is heavily regimented, very specifically structured, and largely self-contained. And when you put players into that kind of structure I think it is, in fact, inevitable that they will mostly contain themselves to the play supported by that system.

 

[S'mon]

It's the players saying, "Hey, we want to do something that the rules actively discourage. Will you let us break the rules and then figure out how to adjudicate that?"

There are rules for tactical movement in combat. I'm starting to get the impression that GMs are continuing to apply those rules even once combat has broken off and characters should no longer be acting in initiative order/combat turns. Are you guys continuing to cycle through combat turns even when the two sides are no longer in contact (eg on the same battlemat), but one side is chasing the other? Or are the players scared you'll do that?

 

[Janx]

There are rules for tactical movement in combat. I'm starting to get the impression that GMs are continuing to apply those rules even once combat has broken off and characters should no longer be acting in initiative order/combat turns. Are you guys continuing to cycle through combat turns even when the two sides are no longer in contact (eg on the same battlemat), but one side is chasing the other? Or are the players scared you'll do that?

Every time I've considered a retreat, the first step was always to use the combat movement rules. Which tends to be choices of:

• move 1 square (5 foot step, slow but safe)
• move 6 squares away from the enemy (move+standard action)
• do a full move for 12 squares (move + move)*
• run away for 24 squares (Move + Move at double-speed)

Combat Statistics :: d20srd.org

Invariably, the enemy, just does the same thing to keep you in melee range. Which might mean an AoO when you leave them, but no AoO when they rejoin you.

Attacks Of Opportunity :: d20srd.org

As I starred one of the items, it corresponds to the Withdraw full-round action which is a move+move with no AoO:
Actions In Combat :: d20srd.org

Withdraw is the closest thing I see on d20srd that relates to trying to retreat. And technically, while it negates the AoO risk, you're only moving 12 squares and the enemy can probably move the same to keep up.

Furthermore, a PC doing 12 or better is using a full round or standard action, they aren't free to deploy any other trick to get away. This means that the best the PC can do is do a single move, play their trick (drop caltrops) and wait until next round to move away. Meanwhile, the enemy has moved up next to them, making taking a little pain from the caltrops.

So, to S'mon's point, yes, my peeps apply the tactical combat rules to retreat and generally come to the conclusion that you can only run away from slow enemies or enemies who have no reason to pursue (which is why some of my ideas revolve around the psychology of why NPCs might not pursue).