PCs Running away when they should

[Celtavian]

re

Our group is really a mixed bag, sometimes they push to far and sometimes they run at the right time or at least before everyone is dead. It is really hard to decide when to run.

When we do, it is very efficient. The fighters and clerics initiatate a fighting retreat. The rogue moves quickly back to check the retreat path. The wizard erects walls or prepares assault spells to slow any kind of attack meant to finish us. We do our best to retreat effectively.

I still remember the time my two dwarves retreated. The dwarf fighter/paladin and the dwarf cleric moved one square at a time with the fighter moving fighting defensively with combat expertise to draw the main creatures attack while the dwarf cleric was one square behind and to the left ready to heal and defensive when healing wasn't needed. they slowly but surely made their way back down the hallway and to the rest of the party who had retreated down a different hallway. That is sometimes what you have to do to retreat effectively, split up and run for it. Hope for the best.

 

[Greybar]

I'm also fully expecting that my players may take on an army and win under the right circumstances. They also recently met one of the few dragons that exist in my world, legendary creatures not seen for centuries. They got hints that it was too much, I tried to make sure there was a big build up, and by the time the dragon appeared they were already well into fleeing.

So I hope this hits on a couple things that people have said:
* My world contains all manner of things, some beneath the notice of the heroes, some beyond their reach.
* "We are not going to go back and fight that thing." from one of the PCs - nice touch for roleplaying.
* Another PC is now sworn to come back and kill the dragon once he has retrieved a certain holy weapon.

john

 

[Umbran]

A goblin army in caverns or forests is much better protected.

Yeah, but then there's all that stone, or all those trees in the way. Massed archers need open space and a clear line of sight. Kinda hard to fire of hundreds of arrows when there's a foot of solid rock between you and the target

 

[hong]

I kinda agree with this. I don't think much of the Song of Roland (Frankish posturing glorifying an ignominious retreat) but there are plenty of legends where individual 'high-level' heroes are the equal of several hundred 'mooks' - Arthur is said to have personally slain over 900 Saxons at Badon Hill, for instance. Unless the mooks are fanatics, they won't line up to be slaughtered, though. IMC on a typical large-scale battlefield, over the course of several hours a Fighter PC will have to take a move action to attack an NPC, and will rarely get to Full Attack and Great Cleave, so he'll typically be killing 1 man/round (and I start requiring Endurance checks after 50 rounds of combat).

Uhgh, that sounds horribly tedious.

I think you misunderstand the point of such uber-encounters. They're not there to give an opportunity to beat the PCs to within an inch of their lives or live out the experience of personally killing 5,000 people with a sharp (or blunt) stick. If I wanted to put the PCs in mortal fear of their lives, a few uber-monsters is a tool much better suited to the task than an army.

In FotR, the orcs all charge straight up to Aragorn to be scattered like ninepins, even if the smart thing might be to stand back and fill him with arrows. Ditto at Helm's Deep. In _Hero_, the emperor's guards keep charging the two warriors who have stormed the palace, even as their comrades are lying in heaps on the ground. The reason for this is because it demonstrates to the theater audience, in the most graphic terms, how the heroes are a force to be reckoned with. In an RPG you don't have a theater, but you still do have an audience of sorts, namely everyone around the table.

Nor would I actually go to the trouble of playing out each and every meeting between a 1HD orc and a 20th level barbarian. I'd probably just say that a pack of a dozen orcs charges the barb, and have the entire encounter played out in a few die rolls. At most, the orcs might hit once (if they roll a natural 20) and do a nominal amount of damage. Repeat as necessary.

This clearly isn't an approach that emphasises verisimilitude above all else, but a stand-up fight between an army and a few individuals is highly unrealistic to start with. Trying to inject some degree of realism isn't going to make that go away. To me, the point of these fights is to provide spectacular action sequences that showcase just how powerful a high-level character is. And that means playing the monsters in a way that plays to the characters' _strengths_, not exploiting their weaknesses. If you prefer more realism or grittiness, then high-level D&D (which is basically a supers or wuxia game in disguise) basically isn't for you.

Does this mean the entire fight should be a shoo-in? Of course not. The mooks might be just speedbumps, but every army has an elite core. In FotR, for example, you knew Lurtz was the named enemy, because he had his own backing music and a slo-mo introduction. You don't have these tricks in an RPG, but the same principle applies. After the PCs have had their fill of slaughtering mooks, they can meet the _real_ opposition, who will then proceed to show them what a real fight is like. This has the bonus of providing a dramatic climax for the entire battle; an encounter that stands out compared to what came before, and so remains fresh in the mind afterward. Because really, after you've killed 1,000 1HD orcs, the next 500 will probably all look the same.

A platoon of NPC elite fighters might choose to engage and melee a 20th level PC fighter, but most grunt NPC melee troops will flee the F20's immediate area rather than fight a hopeless battle. The big threat is from companies of missile troops - 200 archers pumping out 200 arrows/round averages 10 hits on the PC fighter, for around 50 damage/round (assuming d8 with the occasional crit), so such formations need to be dealt with ASAP.

Um... why? What exactly does this prove, except that as a DM, you can hose the players any time you want?

Edit: The result is, IMC a 20th level party might well take on an army of 3000 goblins in a pitched battle with a reasonable hope of success. They'd be foolish to take on the 200,000 strong Mongali Horde, though. Extravagance works both ways.

If you have players who want to take on the 200,000 strong Mongali horde, more power to them, I say. Unless you don't want the burden of working out the consequences of such a major change to the world, which is a perfectly fine reason, but is metagame rather than in-game. Or unless the player is an annoying git, in which case, I'd just kick them out.

 

[Wraith Form]

The adventurer

(To the tune of "the gambler" by Kenny Rogers)

** SNIP **

Alternate lyrics by yours truely...

Aaron.

DANG, you have too much free time. I mean, really, WAAAAAAAAY too much.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Y'know, the more I think about this subject, the more I get back to something I mentioned in my first post in this thread (and that others have certainly pointed out as well): that the main reason D&D PCs don't flee when they should is that death, in standard D&D, is merely an inconvenience rather than a permanent end.

This has been debated in the past, and various solutions proposed ranging from house-rules on the availability of raise dead and its ilk to a deliberate meat-grinder campaign to a gentlemen's agreement among players and DM that death is permanent. But whatever the solution, or lack thereof, as long as death is something that can be gotten around, why run? Really - why run?

Recognizing that death and the need to flee go hand-in-hand, each DM and group has to decide what kind of game they want to play. If you want a game of heroes facing overwhelming odds and overcoming them, then play that way; if you want a game of heroes being outclassed and having to run away yet living to fight another day, then play that way.

I guess what I've decided is not to lose too much sleep over this "problem" of PCs not running away when they should. As long as everyone's having fun, that's what matters.

 

[mythusmage]

Remember, nothing dismays the players more than the appropriate use of tactics.

"They're flanking us! That's cheating!"

 

[BSF]

I hear that! Fun is the goal. If we are all having fun, that is what is important.

My players are not real good at choosing the best time to run. Sometimes they think they cna just tough it out. My NPC's are pretty good, but sometimes they are in a bad position and can't really get away. Retreat is probably not investigated as often as it would be if the players themselves were swinging swords and casting spells. That's why it is fantasy right?

I have a variety of challenges for the PC's. From the outset, I let the players know that many encounters will probably be tailored to their level, but some will be status quo encounters where the CR is already set. It has always been up to them to figure out when to run.

In their defense, they have decided to break and run a few times. Though, lately it has been kind of silly. Things like them deciding to go back outside the Evil temple they are trying to clear out and trying to just camp out overnight. Silly when they know that a BBEG is inside taunting them. For some reason, they think that if they go outside, they will be safe for an indefinite period of time. (Personally, I blame computer games for this thinking. ) Boy were they upset when their private rest time was rudely interrupted. What was worse is that it was an attack geared to interrupt sleep and then the attackers retreated back to the temple. (Not that they had far to go, the party was within range from the walls.) Once they figured out that these tactics were going to be reused all night long, they wised up a bit.


Throughout the campaign, I have tried to give them a taste of their increasing power. Earlier in the game, they had trouble with a pack of ghouls. Many people paralyzed, many knocked negative, everyone was barely saved. It really made them hate and fear ghouls. Now, 7+ levels higher, I still like to throw packs of ghouls at them. Is it a challenge? Hardly! But, they like to beat them up. The first time the group re-encountered ghouls, they were a little scared. Unleashed all of their most potent attacks and took out the pack in 1 round. The players had a blast, so did I.

For the next campaign, I want a bit more rational thinking. At least initially, when they are lower level. Retreat should always be an option. Smart retreat lets you do things like research your opponent. Which might lead to new RP experiences and story references that make the game more fun.

 

[Victim]

On the other hand, Gandalf didn't run away, acted very heroicly, and was reborn more powerful than before. Mixed messages?

One reason not to run away is that running away splits the strength of the party. If part of the group runs away, then anyone sticking behind(even for a little bit) is in alot of trouble. Sure, the people who run away live, but, in my experience, concerted decisive action pays off. If the encounter is at the edge of what the party can take, then attacking together can net a big win, while retreat probably kills the slow people.

Another reason not to retreat is that successful withdraws are hard to pull off. Look in the MM. Most small humanoids have 30 speed. Small characters and characters with medium or heavy move 20. So actually running away is pretty tough, especially at low levels. Magical speeds help at higher levels, but monsters move a bit faster too - and it's nearly impossible to out run a dragon. Not to mention that 3.5 reduces PC speeds. Missile fire is a problem too. A lucky punk with lots of arrows can score hits 1000 ft away. With magic like Expiditious Retreat or Obscuring Mist, one can withdraw more safely. At higher levels, Teleportation magic combined with bracelets of friends to rescue people without ports can be effective. But anyone going after a high level group or monster will probably have Dimensional Anchor or a method of tracking teleporters and following them (Greater Scrying + more tp). Think of the Balrog and the Fellowship's retreat in DnD terms: "This foe is bey-" "BAMF!" The Balor teleports into an attack position. If the group tries to run, it can use its superior mobility from limitless Teleports to either pick of stragglers or cut them off. It's hard to run away from this kind of stuff. How do you hide from the dragon with like +40 spot and listen, a couple hundred feat of Blindsight, the ability to see in the dark PLUS whatever magic the dragon can use? If the PCs are completely outclassed by it, then they probably don't have the ability to avoid it either.

Sure, you can prepare lots of escape magics and set up plans. But, after a certain point, preparations for escape will eat into the resources the characters need to win. Sure, you can withdraw from the tough battle. But how tough would it have been if you prepared a plan for winning rather than running away? Since it's just a game, I'd rather go for the decent win chance than the assured escape ability.

Retreat is tricky enough that it's best used as part of a deliberate plan. It's not that easy to pull off in response to a sudden emergency.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I play in Old One's campaign.

He rolls all combat rolls in the open and as a player I find that makes a huge difference in having a sense of needing to stand and fight or run off. We've gotten pretty banged up when we failed to fully research the enemy and on several occasions we've withdrawn from fights we felt were headed toward being too costly.

I've talked to people in different games and it seems that players in games where the DM rolls behind a screen seem more inclined to risk fights than those in games where the combat is openly rolled. It has a lot to do with thinking the DM will fidge the rolls.

It also has to do with seeing the DM roll a '4', and say with absolute confidence, "The Blackguard hits."

Little things like that are valid clues that are not available if you hide the dice rolls. It is a big help to the players.