Shouldn't combat be high risk though? If it isn't then it's no different than playing rock, paper, scissors to decide the outcome of something. High risk combat also means that Players will only participate in it if the stakes are worth the risk which really helps stop things like murderhobo behavior where Players deal with everything with violence because there is no risk involved.
Should it? I realize its not entirely parallel, but there were mercenary units that made their pay off of combat during most of history and presumably did so somewhat regularly, and the good ones had to become good
somehow, and just drilling wasn't going to do it. Now of course there was always going to be some attrition there, but it couldn't be so common that the whole process was an idiots game.
Some risk is good if you want an authentic feeling game. "High" risk I think turns the dial over to the point that, barring being forced to it, you wonder why anyone ever becomes a warrior in the first place, let alone lives long enough to get good at it.
I know for myself playing a game like D&D beyond the lowest levels render combat an absolutely boring endeavor because of how low risk it is, it feels like a complete waste of time. Why would I want to spend a large portion of a session adjudicating something that takes only a few minutes of in game time when the outcome is obvious from the get go? Low risk combat is pointless IMHO.
Some people simply enjoy the process. If you're not one of those you're not, but I wouldn't project your perception here on everyone.
Success and failure of a lot of things in TTRPG play is decided on a single roll.
Not in the "Do we fail completely at this whole thing we're trying to do" sense. When it does, I'm unconvinced most players like
that either.
That's easily fixed if the GM just allows fleeing to be a thing that works.
Most GMs are going to use the mechanics they're given in this regard. If those mechanics don't support fleeing, its not going to happen. And in most games they don't; too much opposition is actually faster than the PCs. A few games have dedicated chase mechanics that can help here, but its not uncommon by the time someone gets to that sort of game they've been taught so thoroughly in other games that it won't work that they won't even think to do it.
If you look at military history almost no battles ever end up in one side being completely wiped out because when one side begins to flee the winning side LET'S THEM!
The problem in RPGs is most players have learned that's just a way to have the fleeing opponents hit them again later, possibly with reinforcements. So it ends up being, at best, a one way idea. And of course that's not counting the type of opposition that has no motive to allow the PCs to flee, like undead or robots.
See my comments above about high risk combat and consider how that would make it a good idea for even those winning a combat to want it to end ASAP and allowing the losers to flee means eliminating the possibility that a pursued enemy gets a lucky hit that kills you.
And see my response to it.
High risk combat means you can actually get somewhat realistic behaviors out of those participating in combat. Low risk combat means you get the weird behaviors that just about everyone complains about, like enemies that pursue fleeing opponents non-stop and the infamous murderhoboism where everything gets dealt with using violence.
I think when the risk gets high enough, it creates just as unrealistic a reactions in other directions unless the PCs are compelled into combat, and usually they aren't.
