Retreating *is* an option!

[Janx]

In Merric's case, I think he didn't do anything wrong.

But from a "what can DM's and players learn from this" perspective, it might help to look at things from the players perspective.

The players expect to win any encounter. Why? Because they're the players. They're luckier than the DM, and have better characters.

If the PCs face enemies that run, a common response is to give chase to the enemy. Therefore, the PCs cannot run, because the enemy will pursue them.

When PCs start dropping, if the remaining PCs flee, the fallen's stuff will be taken, and likely the bodies will be mulched and used for fertilizer. Worse, the enemy will be that much stronger for having the equipment. Worse, the enemy will scoop up the good sword while chasing after the fleeing PCs. Even worse, the enemy would have fallen with just a few more rounds of combat and some lucky rolls.

When the PCs are losing, they have some choices, the trick is, as a DM, to make these choices actually viable as solutions to the PCs.

They could:
run: there needs to be a way to slow down pursuit, otherwise running will just get them killed

Surrender: there needs to be a history of surrendering being an acceptable practice. Knowing that the Orc King accepted the surrender of some goblin tribe (and didn't wipe them out) might be useful.

"I'll hold them off".... this tactic always sounds heroic in the movies. A PC would be the last character to ever suggest or volunteer for it. But this would make running more viable for the rest of the party.

"We don't leave a man behind" While noble, it's a lawful stupid policy in a fight. In a D&D world, we're talking loss of equipment that will goto the enemy, but that's not an immediate thread. Dragging wounded or dead also slows the party down, making retreat all the more unlikely. Knowing that the enemy takes prisoners, might make retreat more palatable, as the PCs could then regroup and mount an effective escape.

Janx

 

[Matchstick]

Once battle is joined, especially against an obviously-stronger and obviously-faster foe, it's not always obvious that retreat is an option. My Red Hand of Doom campaign ended in a TPK which could have been a retreat, because the battle was against a dragon, and there was no obvious reason why the dragon, once engaged, wouldn't use its superior speed to keep attacking them all the way back down the trail.

In this case, your players had the clue of the mount dragging its rider away, but since it clearly fought back once engaged, they might well have assumed it would then continue to do so.

It's a difficult balancing act. I guess the general principle is: When setting up an encounter in which the PCs may well have to retreat, ensure that all emergency exits are clearly marked.

I agree. Most of the situations I've been in like this as a player the tactical retreat was felt to be unwise because of a similar situation to the dragon example up above. And really, if you feel like you're going to either die running or die fighting, I'd go with the latter.

The only thing I can think of for the OP would be to have the horse act very apparently protective toward the body, only leaving it to respond to ranged attacks, and then returning as soon as appropriate. And Merric might have done that. In that case I would call the exit marked.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

To be fair to Merric's players, the horse being stronger than the rider IS counterintuitive. The PCs may have thought that, since they downed the rider, they could handle his mount without much difficulty. It's not like killing a Dragon Highlord in Dragonlance and having to deal with his dragon, which would clearly be more dangerous; the typical PC probably sees 'evil warrior, funky horse' and thinks 'blackguard, fiendish servant' - and with the exception of a few builds that ALSO involve dragons (and may not work RAW for blackguards, I don't recall offhand), the blackguard is much more dangerous than his fiendish servant.

Or, or more likely, they may have thought that, since they killed the rider, they still had to take his stuff!

I wager if it had gone the other way around (killed the horse but the rider was alive), the PCs would have been much more likely to retreat.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Let me turn this around (and I don't direct this question at MerricB in specific) - do your bad guys ever retreat? Besides last-ditch attempts, that is. I try to make it so that the bad guys break off the fight before things get desperate. If the bad guys do it a few times, then the PC's may get the sense they can do it, too

I also let the players know upfront that they will gain some XP even if the foes escape.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

The more I read this, the more I'm reminded of a recent game session (Within the last 6 months) for Year of Zombie.

It was week one, and these guys decided they were going the loot, pillage, & burn route. They attacked military stragglers, robbed refugees at gunpoint, and ambushed law enforcement, all the while avoiding zombies.

So, they come to a fortified position. A public library. They use binoculars and Spot checks to suss out the defenses, and I tell them:

The windows are all sandbagged, you can see thick barrels pointing out. (WHen someone asked, I told him that it did look like .50 cal machineguns and M-249 light machineguns) There was razor wire around the front, and across the boarded up windows. I told them that there were four burnt out vehicles in front of the building, as well as at least 100 dead or crippled Risen, not to mention Risen stuck in the pungi-pits, spiked trenches, and hung up in the razor wire.

Guess what they did.

You got it. Frontal assault. They charged, firing at the firing slits, running past painted lines around the building (They looked like shots from a paintball gun, different colors for each "ring" of splotches) and yelling.

And were chopped into hamburger. Even after half the party was dead, and they were getting boiling water poured on them through sluices stuck out the third story window, they still kept trying to knock in the door. Even when one PC was electrocuted for 8d6 points of damage when he tried to pry open the front door. They still kept trying to assault the place.

They didn't have to assault the library. They did, even AFTER I warned them with corpses, bullet impact marks, burnt out vehicles, the whole nine yards.

Some players refuse to believe that the GM will kill them, and because of this, they won't retreat. Or worse yet, think it's a player VS GM thing, and that they have to win to show the GM that he can't make anything they can't beat.

Of course, some players are just blasted idiots.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Let me turn this around (and I don't direct this question at MerricB in specific) - do your bad guys ever retreat? Besides last-ditch attempts, that is. I try to make it so that the bad guys break off the fight before things get desperate. If the bad guys do it a few times, then the PC's may get the sense they can do it, too

I've had wizards tp out, clerics vanish, undead dive into the water and escape, dragons take flight, and warriors ask for parlay.

Only a creature with an Int less than 8 will fight to the death in my campaign, and even then, I've had lions, tigers, bears, and even raptors flee once they were injured farther than 50% or more than 20% of the pack is killed.

I also let the players know upfront that they will gain some XP even if the foes escape.

Same here. Even full XP at times, depending on how tough the NPC was.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Let me turn this around (and I don't direct this question at MerricB in specific) - do your bad guys ever retreat? Besides last-ditch attempts, that is.

Absolutely.

At one point in my old campaign the party had a list of escaped foes as long as their arm. They were delighted when they finally managed to take someone down before they escaped!

 

[Janx]

I've had wizards tp out, clerics vanish, undead dive into the water and escape, dragons take flight, and warriors ask for parlay.

Only a creature with an Int less than 8 will fight to the death in my campaign, and even then, I've had lions, tigers, bears, and even raptors flee once they were injured farther than 50% or more than 20% of the pack is killed.


Same here. Even full XP at times, depending on how tough the NPC was.

I could argue that INT has nothing to do with it. Darn near any animal WILL flee if faced with a stronger threat, or injured enough (thereby proving the threat is stronger). There are some exceptions where the animal may not realize it is outgunned (small dog versus big dog), but once combat ensues, it if lives past the first rounds, it'll figure it out. Even a berserker animal (wolverine, some dogs) will take a step back as their wounds mount or their energy level drops. They may lash out again if pressed, but they WILL stop fighting.

Generally, only PCs and monster run by DMs who aren't thinking about realism will fight to the death.

A more natural attack pattern for an animal would be to circle each other, then one lunges in for the attack. The two will go at it pretty strong for a few rounds. Then they may break apart (5' step away). They may circle some more. One may try to intimidate the other. If the opening fighting was telling, the weaker party may flee at this point. Otherwise, the other may respond with more fighting. Basically, it's circle, intimidate, fight or flight, 5's step away from fight, repeat.

Humans generally follow a similar pattern. The initial circling/intimidate may be co-opted for a surprise attack (humans are sneaky that way).

Berserking/crazed fighting generally would be the same, except that the attacker would be less likely to break off fighting. This is a very good scenario for fighting to the death, and not having an opportunity to retreat. The person would have to be so intent on causing injury to the other, that they disregard the situation around them. This could cover a barbarian, a wizard recklessly lobbing spells, or a guy in a machine gunner's nest that's going to be overrun.

But in general, these "to the death" scenarios should be rarer. In most instances, folks are gonna stop fighting at the first serious injury.

Case in point, many years ago, I was sparring an big teen-aged black belt. He got carried away and did a spinning heel kick. I chose that time to move in (he was spinning), and I caught his heel on my cheekbone. I got a fractured tripod and a concussion out of it. The fight stopped immediately. I went down to my knees, but didn't pass out. But I was not going to fight anymore. Now I could have tried to be a tough guy and say "let's keep going" but the fact was, I knew I was seriously hurt. That was just a sparring match, but if that were a real fight, I would have gone all defense, and looked for a escape route.

side note: that incident cost over $15,000 to install metal plates to fix the damage, so my eyeball wouldn't sink into the cavity below it, the concussion was also number 2 or 3, I forget

I don't know how many of you actually have fighting experience (the general impression is few). Overall, a fighter will keep fighting as long as he thinks he can win. He'll take acceptable damage, if he's giving the same in return. If he takes a major hit, and is unable to return the favor in short order, he is going to lose, because your performance doesn't improve when you continually take more damage than the enemy.

D&D combat doesn't reflect this as much (wound types, locations, etc). But generally, after a taking a big hit, a fighter is more likely to back off, catch his breath, and reconsider his enemy. A more experienced fighter might take the hit (probably not on purpose), and try to lull the enemy into thinking it was worse, so he'll charge in (being prepared for it), or he'll go all offensive, not letting the enemy realize the extent of the damage, and possibly giving damage in kind.

What this has to do with "retreating" is that there are micro-retreats that should happen during the fight, where the weaker party backs off a little bit, and moves around, trying to get ready to run, or get a better advantage. By moving around more, it establishes the opportunity to decide to retreat. In stereotypical D&D combat, both parties stand in adjacent squares, and trade attack rolls against each other, until one is dead. That's not realistic, nor logical (unless you have healing source, and more HP than the enemy).

Get the NPCs to move around more, regroup, and retreat more often. Yield the ground to the PCs, in such a state that the PCs are not likely to pursue. This means block their path, make them deal with a problem at the fight scene (wounded, etc).

Give XP for solving the problem. If faced with 10 goblins, give XP for:
killing all 10, full XP
killing 5, 5 retreat, not to be seen this adventure, full XP
killing 5, 5 retreat to reinforce and warn another position, XP for 5 goblins because only half the problem was solved (a future problem was enhanced)

PCs retreat from enemy they needed to kill, 0 XP
PCs retreat from enemy they did not need to kill, % of full XP, based on % of party escaped - any math you want to avoid giving too much XP for running from a Collosal dragon

I'd advocating giving XP for a retreat IF the encounter was one that logically could be avoided. If you're in a dungeon, with the goal of killing monsters and taking their stuff, then retreating isn't something that should be rewarded with XP (not being dead is its own reward). If you're escaping from prison, not fighting the guards (and successfully running away and eluding pursuit) is very XP-worthy, heck, it's the point of the encounter.

I would argue that the XP should be based on the threat of the enemy, and the level of success of the retreat. IF only half the party escaped, that's not a majore victory. It also seems logical that by retreating, you didn't face the full threat of the enemy, so it's overall XP value should be less. Retreating successfully ought to take some work (after all there is pursuit problem to contend with). Since most combats take 6 rounds (made up but fairly true stat), you could use that as a base measurement of how much danger they faced (fought for 3 rounds, so give 3/6 of the XP).

I'm not advocating changing the XP system. Simply saying reward behaviors you want to see. If retreating at times seems logical, then make sure it isn't penalized.

 

[Ranger REG]

Hmm.

My current original campaign draws greatly on the second Corum trilogy by Michael Moorcock(The Bull and the Spear, The Oak and the Ram, The Sword and the Stallion). In the last session, I threw them against Hew Argech, once a valourous human fighter 11, but now corrupted by the Fhoi Myore into a strange part-plant creature. (AC 31, 109 hp, DR 10/slashing, Resist cold 10, improved Str, Con, reduced Dex).

The trick with this encounter that his mount was actually *stronger* than the rider, being part of the corruption process. (Str 30, AC 31, 200 hp, etc.) My party of six 8th level PCs encountered Hew Argech and slew him after a fairly tough fight.

At this point, the "horse" began to drag away Hew Argech's body. The PCs decided to fight the horse.

This is where things went wrong. In the next 12 rounds of combat, three PCs were driven to negative hit points (and healed to low levels of positive hit points) and one PC and the druid's animal companion were slain.

At any point during the combat, if they'd *stopped* attacking the horse, it would have resumed dragging away its rider's body. At the end, that's what they eventually did, but it almost needed a TPK to get the point into them. (They had managed to reduce the "horse" to 50 hp, but three of the remaining PCs were at <10 hp).

So, how would your group have dealt with this situation? I was giving clues as to how healthy the horse was. ("It's hardly damaged!" "Congratulations, you've removed 25% of its hit points!", etc.) Hitting the horse was really, really hard, etc.

Cheers!

Wow. Either they love horse steak, or they're desperate for XP.

Considering that you let it go for 12 combat rounds can only mean you enjoyed it, whether it may or may not be part of the story focus, or perhaps a test of character.

 

[MarkB]

Absolutely.

At one point in my old campaign the party had a list of escaped foes as long as their arm. They were delighted when they finally managed to take someone down before they escaped!

I've played a campaign like that. My Cleric took to memorising dimensional anchor as a matter of course, to 'tag' the bad guys before they could do a disappearing act.

Actually, in that campaign we did successfully retreat on a few occasions. Enough that it got frustrating, and we made a pact "Next time we go in there, we don't let anything stop us."

And that was when we met the half-fiendish rust monsters.