Instakill Mechanics in TTRPGs

[zarionofarabel]

And that's really my takeaway distinction. If you are looking for a escapist fantasy where you are looking for your character to get into death-defying situations

Low risk combat really isn't a "death defying" situation though, is it?

That's really not well supported by history. Sure, few complete wipe-outs, but in general a huge percentage of casualties are after one side or the other routes and then they are absolutely devastated by the side that held (a huge portion of the value of cavalry being exactly that).

Uh...what?

 

[Thomas Shey]

If there is indeed a "fairly high probability of death" on a "semi-regular" basis, then you are playing an uncommon style of game that I personally do not enjoy. Generally when I ask my group about how often character death might occur, the response is 1-2 every year of play. So for me, "fairly high" would be 3 a year. With 5 players playing about 20 sessions a year, that's a 3% chance of death a session per player.

That's significantly lower than what I'm talking about. As I noted, back in my early days in the hobby, especially at the less experienced levels, losing a character from an encounter every couple of encounters was not uncommon. I realize that's a pretty alien approach these days (even to me), and its not a coincidence we all had the habit of playing two characters at a time then, but I was actually talking about more frequent even than that.

I also get the impression you are thinking of D&D style rewards (XP, magic items, gold) as the reward for risking death. Those are typically not the stakes that our group considers worth risking death for -- they are more likely to be roleplaying rewards (impressing a patron or love interest, political gain, ... even just showing off!)

I was, because there are a fair number of people in the hobby who are not so committed into campaign structure that those would do the job. It may not be your experience, but when discussing this I'm going to use the common vanilla player as an example here.

I am just finishing up The Great Pendragon Campaign, and we had a couple of random deaths over the three year period, generally players looking for glory in battle. But the most dangerous encounters were all about role-playing rewards:

• One knight's lady asked him to prove his love by slaying a dragon (an oldie but goldie!)
• They wanted paganism to stop being squished by Christianity, and this led to a few exciting activities.
• Duty to their king / lord
• They just hated this one guy.

I guess it depends on your group, but for me it has not been a problem defining mostly roleplaying rewards worth a fairly high probability of death of abut 3% per session. YMMV, of course.

 

[zarionofarabel]

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.

Why do people IRL choose to engage in combat? My guess is because they consider the threat of harm to be worth the risk.

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.

Perhaps that the issue then, and GMs should try to play out the behaviors of NPCs less about what is mechanically possible and more along the lines of how thinking creatures tend to actually act. The vast majority of creatures on earth, even solitary predators, run away at the slightest hint of danger because thats the best way to survive.

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.

I'm not sure how having combat that portrays a realistic threat of harm would provoke an unrealistic behavior pattern in someone. I mean, if people are very reluctant to get in to combat, unless the stakes of said combat are deemed worth the risk, then that would line up pretty well with reality. The idea that getting in to combat offers little to no risk of lasting harm is so unrealistic it's laughable, which is why it produces completely nonsensical behavior such as murderhoboism.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Why do people IRL choose to engage in combat? My guess is because they consider the threat of harm to be worth the risk.

And because the truth is, the threat of lethal harm isn't actually that great, at least on a battle to battle basis. A lot more people get wounded than killed even in modern warfare. You're talking possibly 4-5% lethality, and that's in fairly intense battles.

(This doesn't even change overly much when artillery is involved, barring special circumstances).

Perhaps that the issue then, and GMs should try to play out the behaviors of NPCs less about what is mechanically possible and more along the lines of how thinking creatures tend to actually act. The vast majority of creatures on earth, even solitary predators, run away at the slightest hint of danger because thats the best way to survive.

At that point you don't have a battle at all, so the point is moot.

I'm not sure how having combat that portrays a realistic threat of harm would provoke an unrealistic behavior pattern in someone. I mean, if people are very reluctant to get in to combat, unless the stakes of said combat are deemed worth the risk, then that would line up pretty well with reality. The idea that getting in to combat offers little to no risk of lasting harm is so unrealistic it's laughable, which is why it produces completely nonsensical behavior such as murderhoboism.

Because high lethality is not necessarily realistic. People attempting for that often overshoot as much as most of the hobby undershoots. A lot of historical mortality was based on post-battle problems that don't apply for any number of reasons in RPGs from magical to high-tech medical treatment. That should change the risk equation.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

Uh...what?

In historical battles, the side that is routed and flees would frequently be pursued and wiped out by the winning side.

Here's a nice AskHistorians Post on the subject by a Greek Historian: LINK

Basically - fleeing a fight is a really good way to die.

 

[zarionofarabel]

In historical battles, the side that is routed and flees would frequently be pursued and wiped out by the winning side.

Here's a nice AskHistorians Post on the subject by a Greek Historian: LINK

Basically - fleeing a fight is a really good way to die.

Well, there are a ton of accounts throughout history to indicate that pursuit isn't really used to cause casualties and is for more often used to prevent troops from reorganizing and rejoining the battle, but okay.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, there are a ton of accounts throughout history to indicate that pursuit isn't really used to cause casualties and is for more often used to prevent troops from reorganizing and rejoining the battle, but okay.

Its purpose, and its practical effect, are different things. The opponents who are least likely to rejoin the battle are the ones disabled or dead.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Its purpose, and its practical effect, are different things. The opponents who are least likely to rejoin the battle are the ones disabled or dead.

 

[conankeep]

Basically - fleeing a fight is a really good way to die.

That's an unfair way to put it. Obviously one side starts running when they feel they have to run or they are going to die.

 

[dragoner]

It was also a way to get counterattacked eg the Saxons at Hastings.