CharlesRyan
Adventurer
In the most recent installment of his blog (here), the tremendous Matt Colville addresses the issue of retreat in combat--and particularly, how to convey sufficient information to the players not just so they can make a good retreat decision, but also to cue them to make it at all.
Matt starts off by pointing out that occasional retreat, when appropriate (and not forced) can be dramatically and narratively satisfying--certainly more so than a TPK that the party sort of wandered into because the encounter went off the rails and the players never really considered options other than fight on. That's certainly been my experience. When my players were chased out of the first room of KotS by a couple goblins and some rats, that generated stories that are still told now a year later.
Matt goes on to propose a three-act structure for encounters; assigning some minor mechanics to each phase--or, more accurately, to the seams between the phases. I'll let you read the whole thing for the details.
I think Matt's onto something, but if I read him correctly I disagree at one point. At the seam between Act II and Act III, the GM basically decides whether the fight is headed toward the foregone conclusion of player victory, or toward the very real danger of a TPK. He then employs one of two mechanics, based on that assessment.
I like the idea that the players are given a cue to make a fight/retreat decision, but not that the GM assesses which decision to promote. As GM, I might use this system, but give the players the choice when the reach this point. In other words, declare to the players, "You've reached a turning point in this battle. As a party, you can choose to take the bonus on attacks or a free healing surge when you use the retreat action. Whatever you choose, it applies to the entire party for the rest of the encounter."
What do you think (about this or the whole idea)?
Matt starts off by pointing out that occasional retreat, when appropriate (and not forced) can be dramatically and narratively satisfying--certainly more so than a TPK that the party sort of wandered into because the encounter went off the rails and the players never really considered options other than fight on. That's certainly been my experience. When my players were chased out of the first room of KotS by a couple goblins and some rats, that generated stories that are still told now a year later.
Matt goes on to propose a three-act structure for encounters; assigning some minor mechanics to each phase--or, more accurately, to the seams between the phases. I'll let you read the whole thing for the details.
I think Matt's onto something, but if I read him correctly I disagree at one point. At the seam between Act II and Act III, the GM basically decides whether the fight is headed toward the foregone conclusion of player victory, or toward the very real danger of a TPK. He then employs one of two mechanics, based on that assessment.
I like the idea that the players are given a cue to make a fight/retreat decision, but not that the GM assesses which decision to promote. As GM, I might use this system, but give the players the choice when the reach this point. In other words, declare to the players, "You've reached a turning point in this battle. As a party, you can choose to take the bonus on attacks or a free healing surge when you use the retreat action. Whatever you choose, it applies to the entire party for the rest of the encounter."
What do you think (about this or the whole idea)?