RPG Evolution: What Do You Mean, "Run"?

Sometimes, you're not supposed to kill the monster.
flee.jpg


It's hard. As Dungeon Masters, we meticulously craft encounters, balancing challenge ratings, hit points, and legendary actions, to make an encounter challenging. But sometimes, that intent is for the party to face an insurmountable obstacle, a force meant to inspire awe, dread, and most importantly, flight. Yet, time and again, players, despite overwhelming odds and even downed party members, stand their ground, swords drawn, with the unspoken (or sometimes very spoken) question: "If you wanted us to flee, why is it here?"

If It Bleeds, We Can Kill It​

In my campaign, the player characters are currently in the Wildlands, a realm where few smaller humanoids stay put because giants and kaiju roam the land. Every battle is a risk, because it might bring the attention of something much larger. In theory, PCs should be trying to be quiet; in practice, they never are, blasting fireballs and storm spheres left and right. So when, after a grueling fight, a giant monster shows up, my PCs turned ... and decided to battle it to the death. They didn't even really need to fight it -- they had completed their mission -- but because it was there, they stubbornly fought it head on.

This player philosophy, that "if it has stats, it can be killed," isn't new; its roots stretch back to the very earliest days of Dungeons & Dragons. A prime example is the original Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Deities & Demigods (1980) sourcebook, which famously provided game statistics for various mythological pantheons, from Greek gods to Norse Aesir. While seemingly a boon for DMs, it inadvertently solidified the "killable if statted" mentality. Players, looking at a deity's colossal hit points and saving throws, immediately began planning how to take them down, diminishing (supposedly) cosmic forces beyond mortal reckoning to a few stats. The very act of assigning numerical values to omnipotent beings led to countless legendary (and sometimes disastrous) player attempts at god-slaying.

This player-centric view stems from how various iterations of D&D often framed problem-solving: through combat. The game's mechanics rewarded direct confrontation—experience points, loot, and clear victory conditions were tied to defeating foes. When presented with a monster, the default solution path in a player's mind quickly defaulted to reducing its hit points to zero. Which can make it difficult for players to pivot from combat as the only solution.

What to Do About It​

So, how does a DM introduce a truly overwhelming threat without resorting to a total party kill simply because players refuse to retreat? It requires a shift in tactics and, crucially, clear communication.
  • Subtle Environmental and Narrative Hints: Before a single dice roll, describe the creature with palpable dread. Emphasize its sheer size, the way the ground trembles with its steps, or the aura of ancient power it exudes. Show, don't just tell, its capabilities: perhaps it effortlessly demolishes a section of the dungeon or shrugs off attacks from powerful NPCs who are quickly dispatched. Use the environment to reinforce its danger – unholy altars, scorched earth, or piles of ancient, indestructible armor hint at its destructive power and age.
  • Tactical Retreats and Alternative Objectives: Design encounters where immediate combat isn't the only, or even the best, option. Can the monster be lured into a trap? Is there a magical artifact that can temporarily banish it? Perhaps the goal isn't to kill it, but to retrieve a MacGuffin from its lair while avoiding detection, or to trigger a mechanism that seals it away. Providing clear alternative choices beyond head-on combat encourages creative problem-solving. This might involve tactical retreats to areas where the monster can be contained, or finding weaknesses in the environment rather than its stat block.
  • Direct, Honest Communication (The "Session Zero" Talk): This is perhaps the most powerful tool. In a Session Zero (or a mid-campaign check-in), explicitly discuss expectations. Explain that not every encounter is designed to be a slugfest to the death. Sometimes, monsters are environmental hazards, plot devices, or forces too mighty to be overcome by conventional means. Clarify that tactical retreats are not failures but smart strategic moves. This open dialogue helps set the tone for the campaign and gives players permission to think outside the combat box.
The "harshest lesson" – a total party kill – is always an option, and sometimes, it's the only way to drive home the reality of a threat in a brutal, unforgettable manner. However, unless that's the established tone of your game, it's a very blunt instrument that can lead to frustration rather than learning.

Fight ... or Die!​

Introducing a monster meant to be avoided rather than killed requires both a change in DM tactics and a crucial shift in player play style. The expectation that every creature can and should be killed runs deep in D&D, stemming from its very foundations. It's imperative to equip players with the tools and understanding to recognize when discretion is the better part of valor. Communication is key to preventing frustration and ensuring that players don't feel cheated when the monster potentially slaughters the party.

In the end, I had a frank conversation with my players, and I realized I had not given them obvious reasons to flee for most of the campaign (with a few exceptions). They always prevailed, and even though the monsters have gotten harder and the party nearly died a few times, they still stuck it out. So it's on me to make it clear the stakes are being raised, particularly as they increase in level.

Sometimes the best solution to defeating a monster isn't at the end of a sword. But it's also on DMs to make sure the PCs learn that, and how that's conveyed is the difference from a desperate retreat to fight again another day ... or a brutal TPK.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

This is one of the best points made in this thread, show that it is not only acceptable to retreat and live another day but that it is a viable option.
I like that not every combat encounter ends in a complete massacre for a number of reasons, least of which is a small amount of realism. A surrendering opponent can give valuable information about what the BBEG plans entail, force locations, treasure locations, etc.

As I've noted, the big problem there is a lot of players have been taught to not let opponents retreat, and often the same systemic features that make it hard for PCs to do so aren't always better when its NPCs.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


"They're running away with MY treasure and experience points!"

In my experience, it's more that allowing enemies to retreat invariably leads to them alerting the entire dungeon/castle/whatever and returning with massive reinforcements. It doesn't take many experiences like that to teach that allowing retreats is bad.

Likewise, if allowing enemies to surrender turns into an endless hassle of dealing with prisoners who are constantly trying to escape, steal stuff, and/or shiv you, then you're going to learn to ignore surrender.
 


In my experience, it's more that allowing enemies to retreat invariably leads to them alerting the entire dungeon/castle/whatever and returning with massive reinforcements. It doesn't take many experiences like that to teach that allowing retreats is bad.

Likewise, if allowing enemies to surrender turns into an endless hassle of dealing with prisoners who are constantly trying to escape, steal stuff, and/or shiv you, then you're going to learn to ignore surrender.
And on the players-attempting either side of things: Retreat quickly reminds you that your 30ft base speed's 60ft dash is still well within that green dragon's 80ft base flight speed, while surrender, well... we've all gone through torture sessions. And not every system-shock roll's a success.
 

In my experience, it's more that allowing enemies to retreat invariably leads to them alerting the entire dungeon/castle/whatever and returning with massive reinforcements. It doesn't take many experiences like that to teach that allowing retreats is bad.

Yup.

Likewise, if allowing enemies to surrender turns into an endless hassle of dealing with prisoners who are constantly trying to escape, steal stuff, and/or shiv you, then you're going to learn to ignore surrender.

There's a whole other can of worms you open when taking prisoners, and its one that's easy for a GM to mishandle.
 

And on the players-attempting either side of things: Retreat quickly reminds you that your 30ft base speed's 60ft dash is still well within that green dragon's 80ft base flight speed, while surrender, well... we've all gone through torture sessions. And not every system-shock roll's a success.
These all sound like DM problems. So yeah, if you want your players to be able to retreat or accept surrender, don't put them in situations where retreat, allowing surrender, etc. is not much of an option.
 

I assume the DM who wants players to run when appropriate will also have their monsters retreat from a battle once in a while to show that it's acceptable???
Enemies retreating: the players never want to let them do so, and if it's DnD the mechanics are working against the baddies trying to retreat. A retreating enemy means either 1. they're going to alert other enemies nearby, 2. it's an enemy that might come back for you another day, or 3. they'll leave you alone from now on. Players often don't want to take the chance in case it's 1 or 2, understandably, because they're risk-averse. So kill'em.

I enjoy it when they try to capture prisoners- they're more open to that. I will often ask them "are you actually going to let them go?" because, yeah, sometimes the players want to question and then kill their prisoners... and if it seems like that's the case, the prisoners have no reason to cooperate. So making that clear DOES increase the prisoners' survival rate.

Back to the "retreating" point.. I'll often have to DM fiat it, because mechanically (DnD) they just can't escape. "They're going to escape into the underbrush. If you want you can try to hunt them down, but after those parting shots they're gone. You'll have to dedicate the time if you really want to pursue."

So.. since fiat is used with retreating enemies, we come back to my earlier post:
I always point to, and try to use, 13th Age's Flee/Retreat rule.

From their (new) second edition draft:


From 13A 1e:
 


A retreating enemy means either 1. they're going to alert other enemies nearby, 2. it's an enemy that might come back for you another day, or 3. they'll leave you alone from now on. Players often don't want to take the chance in case it's 1 or 2, understandably, because they're risk-averse. So kill'em.
I don't understand number 2 except from the point of view that as Players we will eliminate fun out of the game if given half a chance to do so. It is fun for an enemy to come back for us another day!
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top