Retreating: Creating decision points

[CharlesRyan]

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)?

 

[Mephistopheles]

I think he presented some good ideas (thanks for the link). I seem to have read it the same way you did: at the end of act two the DM evaluates the situation and either gives the players a boost to mop up or a hint that they should think about withdrawing from the fight.

I like your alternative; it fits the push design that Matt discusses, but I think it would act as more of a sign to the players that they should take a look at their situation and decide for themselves whether to press the fight or withdraw.

I suppose the counter to your alternative would be, as Matt also discusses, that when players take that look at their situation they most often choose to press on no matter how bad things look. They'll most likely take the attack bonus to even the odds or use the retreat action as a regroup action and then continue the battle, so he proposes the DM uses the offer of the retreat action to put a little dent in their optimism when it appears they're in over their heads but haven't yet realized it.

I could see myself using his suggestion as presented or your alternative, depending on the situation.

 

[vagabundo]

Very nicely thought out: Morale rules for 4e.

I'd like more of this kind of stuff.

 

[RangerWickett]

What about this?

Giving Players Info. Whenever a PC attacks an enemy, or it attacks him, that PC becomes aware what level it is. That's a lot faster to resolve than making Knowledge checks, and it just provides a general sense of "this thing is not as tough as me" vs. "this thing is really dangerous."

(Of course, with the usual caveat that you have to see the monster, and if it's pretending to be weenie you get a weenie result, etc. These are all guidelines.)

The Turning Point. Whenever the end of the fight is near, you tell the players that this is the battle's turning point. They can choose to take that Retreat action from his post, in which case they take a second wind as a free action (even if they've already done so; I wouldn't give free healing if they're out of healing surges). Or they can choose to 'Rally,' in which case they get a +2 bonus to attack rolls.

(When do you decide to do this? I don't suggest an arbitrary rule, but maybe a guideline like, "when all the PCs are bloodied, or when a PC drops, or when all the enemies' total HP has been reduced by about half.")

Alternately, maybe say that each PC can, once per encounter, choose to either Retreat (and get a free second wind) or Rally. Hm, but then everyone would 'rally' at the start of combat. Okay, obviously this needs some tweaking, or perhaps just fewer rules, and more arbitration of when it's cool to do it.

 

[Korgoth]

What he calls "Bad Design" (with the capitals) I call perfectly reasonable design: it's up to the players to figure out when they should retreat.

He also misses, when he discusses the resource management of older editions, that the primary resource you're managing is Hit Points.

It's like this: the PCs are in combat. They've been hitting the monster, but not as well as they'd like and maybe it has made a save or two against some spells. Several of the PCs are running low on HP. Do they retreat, or stand and fight?

That decision cannot be reduced to a formula. However, there are certain things which might help or hinder the decision. When I run games, big things have big stats. That may sound obvious, but ever since 3E it was possible that you could be fighting 17th level Kobolds. Bugger that. If the monster is a shrimp, it has shrimp HD. If it's huge, it has huge HD. If they're fighting a member of a race which produces heroes (i.e. PCs or NPCs) then they'll get some clues from me, the Ref, to the effect that "this guy is really good".

So they need to think: is this monster close to dieing? That judgment is partially based on its size, and partially based on whether I've described it as faltering. They also need to ask themselves how intelligent it is. In my games, dumb monsters act a lot like animals: if you go away from its lair, or it if is badly hurt, withdrawl is generally possible. Only a hungry pursuit hunter will generally pursue. Intelligent foes are a different matter... it depends on how well they're doing and what's at stake.

In the end, it's a judgment call on the part of the players. As usual, it's a calculated risk. What will they miss out on if they run? If it's a monster lair, maybe nothing... it probably isn't going to go get a new lair if it ran you off. So do you withdraw and heal, or risk your lives and fight on? The players "pay their money and take their chances." Who knows how it will turn out?

Skill at the game is being good at those kind of decisions, as well as being good at saying the right thing to NPCs, solving puzzles and thinking creatively and ahead. And so what if they make the wrong call and half of the party gets killed? Big deal... they'll roll up new characters and probably not make the same mistake again.

 

[LostSoul]

I don't think I would like to use "Pull" mechanics in this situation. However, I wouldn't mind making retreat a better option for both PCs and monsters.

Maybe something like:

Retreat
Until the end of the encounter:

• Your speed increases by 1
• You gain a +2 bonus to all defenses
• You suffer a -5 penalty to all attack rolls
• You can no longer make opportunity attacks