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

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.
Again, I don't think that's a D&D problem, I think it's a DM problem. The fights are not properly structured.

If it's a confined dungeon, then yeah, letting them retreat means they are retreating towards reinforcements, so that's one situation where letting the mobs go might not be a great idea...but what about taking them prisoner and negotiating? Or letting a few run back to warn the others not to mess with the party. It really depends on the situation (maybe it's a stealth situation, etc., though incapacitating an opponent is typically also an option).

As far as coming back another day, that's often not an issue because D&D parties tend to be on the move, but even if it is (say, it's an urban campaign), then it's a risk/reward situation. Why do these guys want to come back, if you already kicked their ass? Continuing to fight when there are other options should often be a last resort in game, just like it is IRL.

I think that if players think that always fighting to the death is the least risky option, then that's a DM problem. The stakes are too low, which to me begs the question of why the fight is even happening.

Example: in our last game, once the pirate leader was killed and the fight had clearly swung towards the players, every single one of the minions did a morale check with a high DC, failed, and got out of there right quick, diving overboard or back into their boat. The party was happy to let them go, knowing that without their leader the minions were probably not much threat, and none of the characters are sociopaths. And from a game play and narrative perspective, continuing the fight from that point would have been tedious.

IRL, most battles are not fought until one side is annihilated, they are fought until there is a clear winner (same in the animal kingdom).

Edit: for the same reason, when I set up a particularly tough fight I always try to consider a losing option for the party, which might be retreat, being taken prisoner, left beaten and unconscious, etc. Losing should not always or even often mean a TPK. Surrendering should be a viable option a lot of the time for the players, as well.

For example, in that last pirate situation, I had an entire alternate scenario prepped for if the party lost: the pirates would take them prisoner for use in an upcoming dark ritual, and the next session would start with some NPCs and companions (the artificer's automaton, a familiar, a friendly NPC, etc.) trying to bust the party out. I was actually kind of bummed that the party won.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


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!
Yes, to both. But players are risk-averse, they want to succeed- if a bad guy lieutenant escapes, the player is probably thinking that it'll make things more difficult for them later on. That might be correct, or it might not. It doesn't often occur to them that if they killed this lieutenant, there'll just be a new lieutenant 'round the corner.. because they're thinking like a player, not a GM (or, huzzah, they're treating the game world as if it's real). Say there's an upcoming boss fight- letting the baddie go might mean it's boss + surviving lieutenant now! Kill the LT, and it's just the boss. GM thinking might be "I want to make this fight challenging, so even if that LT is killed there'll still be boss+something else," meaning escape or kill the LT there'll still be extra pain at the boss fight.. but a player might not consider this, or they might not want to consider it because that'd be more weight on the "world is a game, not a real place" balancing act.
Though it's probably more fun if the LT is there at the boss fight, 'cuz then he can quip and barb the PCs regarding their previous encounter.
 

Again, I don't think that's a D&D problem, I think it's a DM problem. The fights are not properly structured.

If it's a confined dungeon, then yeah, letting them retreat means they are retreating towards reinforcements, so that's one situation where letting the mobs go might not be a great idea...but what about taking them prisoner and negotiating? Or letting a few run back to warn the others not to mess with the party. It really depends on the situation (maybe it's a stealth situation, etc., though incapacitating an opponent is typically also an option).

As far as coming back another day, that's often not an issue because D&D parties tend to be on the move, but even if it is (say, it's an urban campaign), then it's a risk/reward situation. Why do these guys want to come back, if you already kicked their ass? Continuing to fight when there are other options should often be a last resort in game, just like it is IRL.

I think that if players think that always fighting to the death is the least risky option, then that's a DM problem. The stakes are too low, which to me begs the question of why the fight is even happening.

Example: in our last game, once the pirate leader was killed and the fight had clearly swung towards the players, every single one of the minions did a morale check with a high DC, failed, and got out of there right quick, diving overboard or back into their boat. The party was happy to let them go, knowing that without their leader the minions were probably not much threat, and none of the characters are sociopaths. And from a game play and narrative perspective, continuing the fight from that point would have been tedious.

IRL, most battles are not fought until one side is annihilated, they are fought until there is a clear winner (same in the animal kingdom).

Edit: for the same reason, when I set up a particularly tough fight I always try to consider a losing option for the party, which might be retreat, being taken prisoner, left beaten and unconscious, etc. Losing should not always or even often mean a TPK. Surrendering should be a viable option a lot of the time for the players, as well.

For example, in that last pirate situation, I had an entire alternate scenario prepped for if the party lost: the pirates would take them prisoner for use in an upcoming dark ritual, and the next session would start with some NPCs and companions (the artificer's automaton, a familiar, a friendly NPC, etc.) trying to bust the party out. I was actually kind of bummed that the party won.
One can talk about IRL battles being morale-based, etc; that touches on the "combat as war" vs " combat as sport" mindsets. Modern DnD lends itself much more to Combat as Sport, though obviously you can go against type.

But anyway, both behaviors can be desirable:

You want the party to let enemies go when they retreat, for a variety of reasons- not the least of which is that enemies fleeing means that the encounter's over, you're not wasting time on a foregone conclusion.
However...
You also want the party to realize that the world is reactive- if they let enemies retreat, those enemies may go alert nearby allies and get reinforcements.. or they may go report to their superiors elsewhere.

Deciding which of these to go with requires some thought and discrimination on the PC's part... but if they're not in a thinking mood, they'll may to the "safer" option, which is killing everything. Yes, as you described it such behavior could be that of a "sociopath," but the murderhobo stereotype is there for a reason.
 

I've commented before that complicating their lives when avoidable is something a lot of people consider not-fun.
Again, why? And, who is "their lives" referring to, the Players or the Players' Characters. If it's referring to the Players, then why did they even show up to the table? I mean, the whole game is about setbacks, complications, and challenges.

I will say this though, as a Player, the Slog is what is not-fun. If I feel that letting an enemy go will lead to another combat encounter with the same stakes, then I might consider chasing them down. But, I'm kinda' just replacing one Slog with another.
 

It doesn't often occur to them that if they killed this lieutenant, there'll just be a new lieutenant 'round the corner..

GM thinking might be "I want to make this fight challenging, so even if that LT is killed there'll still be boss+something else,"
You're not supposed to say that out loud.

Now I have to clutch my pearls and say, "How dare you violate the solemn trust between the Players and the Dungeon Master. The Social Contract states that their actions actually have meaning and agency! You're a Monster!"
 

Yes, to both. But players are risk-averse, they want to succeed- if a bad guy lieutenant escapes, the player is probably thinking that it'll make things more difficult for them later on. That might be correct, or it might not. It doesn't often occur to them that if they killed this lieutenant, there'll just be a new lieutenant 'round the corner.. because they're thinking like a player, not a GM (or, huzzah, they're treating the game world as if it's real). Say there's an upcoming boss fight- letting the baddie go might mean it's boss + surviving lieutenant now! Kill the LT, and it's just the boss. GM thinking might be "I want to make this fight challenging, so even if that LT is killed there'll still be boss+something else," meaning escape or kill the LT there'll still be extra pain at the boss fight.. but a player might not consider this, or they might not want to consider it because that'd be more weight on the "world is a game, not a real place" balancing act.
Though it's probably more fun if the LT is there at the boss fight, 'cuz then he can quip and barb the PCs regarding their previous encounter.

The problem of course is that there's no assurance that the GM won't just add the lieutenant in to the later fight when he otherwise wouldn't have him out of some sense of authenticity or drama. There are enough GMs who actively reject active attempts to do game balance that's not a given.
 

Again, why? And, who is "their lives" referring to, the Players or the Players' Characters. If it's referring to the Players, then why did they even show up to the table? I mean, the whole game is about setbacks, complications, and challenges.

"Why" is because they consider their play cycle about simplifying and resolving a situation, not making it worse. They don't want additional complications to occur as a consequence of their actions. That's not the same thing as wanting none in the first place. Its the difference between going up and down a hill and going up and down a series of them, partly because you took the wrong path.

If this is alien to you it is, but I promise you its very real.
 

"Why" is because they consider their play cycle about simplifying and resolving a situation, not making it worse. They don't want additional complications to occur as a consequence of their actions. That's not the same thing as wanting none in the first place. Its the difference between going up and down a hill and going up and down a series of them, partly because you took the wrong path.

If this is alien to you it is, but I promise you its very real.
I think we're on the same page.
 

Deciding which of these to go with requires some thought and discrimination on the PC's part... but if they're not in a thinking mood, they'll may to the "safer" option, which is killing everything. Yes, as you described it such behavior could be that of a "sociopath," but the murderhobo stereotype is there for a reason.
It's there because of a disinterest in storytelling and setting reasonable narrative stakes, IMO. Becoming known as "murderhoboes" should be lethal for the party, turning them into shunned and hunted outlaws.

If murdering everyone is typically the "safer option," then that is pretty unrealistic. Doesn't make it wrong, but it's not for me. I establish very clearly at Session 0 that I won't run that kind of game. I find it both distasteful, silly, and ultimately boring. And others feel totally different, which is fine. But all of these are choices; there's nothing inherent to D&D which encourages the party to be murderhoboes.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top