"Run away! Run away!" ... what if they don't?

[Oofta]

I generally follow a few simple steps.

Step 1: during the session 0 I let them know that there may be encounters they cannot win.
Step 2: set up an encounter they can't win.
Step 3: Broadcast, broadcast, broadcast. Make it obvious they cannot win.
Step 4: Give them multiple routes of escape. If I want to make escape something more difficult than "we bravely run away", allow for failures but figure out some kind of cost for failure. If they fail horribly and repeatedly go to step 5.
Step 5: Kill them all.

Of course there is always the alternative to step 5 of playing "capture the PC". Maybe the ogres want to pay a special tribute to their queen and the group has a chance to overhear some tidbits about the planned invasion or there's someone paying a premium for living subjects which explains all the mysterious disappearances of late. The players should have some input into this decision, some would rather just start up new PCs.

 

[mrpopstar]

I leverage the descriptive terms afforded us for typical Difficulty Classes in order to push player thinking. For example, in the above scenario, I would describe the fire giants as being hard, very hard, or nearly impossible to defeat should they notice the adventurers.

Works for me!

 

[5ekyu]

I think a lot of this comes down to staging. The right setup, the wrong setup or the lack thereof makes the over the top encounters work for the game or against it.

"Three friggin' fire giants" are not sneaking around under small wagons. They are not doing b&e jobs wearing masks as some unknown squad.

So, before the gang encounters "three friggin fire giants" there *should be* quite a bit of lead up to it that sets the stage, right?

Its not a fire giant quilting bee. They arent having tea and discussing the latest 50 Degrees Hotter novel.

So what has been talked about locally? What attacks or scenes have been described? What bodies, survivors, escaped slaves have been encountered and what have they revealed?

So if you establish them as slavers, the gm has setup a story that continues after a squash. If he has shown ransom deals, same. If he has shown multiple factions at odds - possibly divisions between giants and their allies, possibly heat between giants and their minions, possibly just minions who owe the pcs - these again show lots of leeway in how things resolve during and after an over-matched encounter.

You throw two opponents into the ring as a squash with no setup, no depth, no build up... You waste the opportunity and shift the odds a great deal towards an outcome that your audience of players and gm dont find enjoyable.

 

[Ancalagon]

I think a lot of this comes down to staging. The right setup, the wrong setup or the lack thereof makes the over the top encounters work for the game or against it.

"Three friggin' fire giants" are not sneaking around under small wagons. They are not doing b&e jobs wearing masks as some unknown squad.

So, before the gang encounters "three friggin fire giants" there *should be* quite a bit of lead up to it that sets the stage, right?

Its not a fire giant quilting bee. They arent having tea and discussing the latest 50 Degrees Hotter novel.

So what has been talked about locally? What attacks or scenes have been described? What bodies, survivors, escaped slaves have been encountered and what have they revealed?

So if you establish them as slavers, the gm has setup a story that continues after a squash. If he has shown ransom deals, same. If he has shown multiple factions at odds - possibly divisions between giants and their allies, possibly heat between giants and their minions, possibly just minions who owe the pcs - these again show lots of leeway in how things resolve during and after an over-matched encounter.

You throw two opponents into the ring as a squash with no setup, no depth, no build up... You waste the opportunity and shift the odds a great deal towards an outcome that your audience of players and gm dont find enjoyable.

There is a lot of good advice here, but I would note an important caveat: it could completely mislead the party. Too much foreshadowing will lead the players to think that they are *supposed* to be defeating the fire giants (or whatever the monster is). But they aren't! The fire giants aren't the BEBG, they are just an obstacle on the way...

 

[hawkeyefan]

Plenty of good advice already. I’m a big proponent of putting the PCs in the path of foes that are beyond them as far as combat goes. However, the PCs need not run away from all such encounters...alternate paths to success are a big part of our game. Sometimes, they have to talk their way out of a fight, or sneak, or magic, or whatever.

I think if you establish this early, then the lesson tends to stick. Not all encounters are meant to be won through combat. If you use XP, then you should reward clever thinking with suitable XP. If you use milestone or any other kind of leveling system, then this isn’t really an issue.

But when the time comes and the party does need to flee, and for whatever reason it doesn’t work out, depending on the creature you can end things in a lot of ways. Have the monsters see the PCs as unthreatening insects....they maybe knock them atound a but and then send them on their way. Or they beat them all into unconsciousness, and then just walk away, leaving them for death. After having looted their packs, of course.

You can even have the minster simply leave, as if engaging them is just a waste of time. In the case of animal-intelligence creatures, most likely they’re out for a meal, and if the meal isn’t easy, then they’ll move on. If an animal is starving or something, okay maybe it would continue to fight, but I’ve all too often played in games where a hungry critter goes after the party and then just fights to the death. So a Bullette, let’s say, will attack the party and do buckets of damage before it gets hit with a spell or a crit and then it takes off. The PCs will realize they got lucky, and that if the thing wanted to fight to the death, it could likely win....luckily it has no need to do so.

When this came up early in my current campaign, my players attacked a couple of frost giants. They were maybe level 4 or 5...so I had one giant swat one party member aside, knocking him down in one round. Then the giant said to tge PCs “take your broken froend and leave us alone” and they listened.

Another instance was at 6th level they encountered a marilith. She toyed with them, easily deflecting most of their attacks, and only using one or two of her own attacks. Then, once the fighter decided to action surge and did a good amount of damage to her, she unleashed all her offensive power on him, and had him down to single digits...she then sent him on his way, having “learned his lesson”.

Monsters and NPCs are as complex and/or flawed as you want them to be. There’s no need for a PC loss to always mean that the enemies slay them all. I think that possibility should be present...but if it is, then it likely doesn’t need to be used.

 

[Maxperson]

1: Metagaming. "there is no way the GM would put a monster too strong for us, that wouldn't be balanced. Let's fight!"

This is a one time mistake on their part. The next campaign they won't do this.

2: Hubris. "We just hit level 7! nothing can stop us. Let's fight!"

I've never seen this, but if it happens they deserve what they get and hopefully the next campaign they won't do this.

3: Spite. "How dare the GM have 3 giants show up? We'll show him!"

Same as above, except that there won't be a next campaign for them, at least not by me. Intentionally disruptive and spiteful players won't come back to my game.

4: Cleverness. "I have a cunning plan"

This I have seen, more than once. Sometimes they win. Sometimes they(or some of them) survive. Sometimes there's a new campaign.

5: Encounter-stopping spell "I'll just cast fear on them!"

If they can do this, then it wasn't an encounter that was "too much."

6: Incompetence: "let's get out of here! I roll stealth... I have a 3... oh boy... Can you cast fog cloud?" "Nope I'm out of spells"

I'm not going to place an encounter that is beyond the abilities of the group and then hinge their survival on a roll or exhaustible resource. They will usually have ample time to avoid the encounter with just a decision to do so, have to go and intentionally engage the encounter, or be able to roleplay past it.

As an example, I once had an ancient red dragon sunning itself on a hill when the part was 5th or 6th level. It was full and didn't feel like moving from its comfort to kill the PCs. There was some discussion on whether they should go up to it, since it appeared to be asleep, but then they thought better of it and just continued on. They made the correct choice and lived. Go them! Had they gone up to it, I would have had no problem invoking Darwin and having another session 0 the following week.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Lots of good advice already so I won’t ramble on with a lengthy post.

If they die, they die. Hopefully they learn from it. Memorable adventures are made when you overcome great odds of failure. If you never have a risk of PCs dying, then the combat part of the adventure is no more heroic than brushing your teeth.

 

[Shiroiken]

The best method of keeping the PCs willing (and prepared) to flee is to have the reputation as a "killer DM," who's motto is "if he dies, he dies"

My current group never actually witnessed any TPK, but they've heard stories of ones from earlier groups. They know I'm old school, and that the "Encounter Guidelines" are kind of a joke for me. They've had over a dozen PCs meet a gruesome end, which I callously shrug aside. Because of this, they know that death can lurk around any corner, and they're always prepared to run if things look bad.

 

[5ekyu]

There is a lot of good advice here, but I would note an important caveat: it could completely mislead the party. Too much foreshadowing will lead the players to think that they are *supposed* to be defeating the fire giants (or whatever the monster is). But they aren't! The fire giants aren't the BEBG, they are just an obstacle on the way...

Well, certainly a GM can fail his "booking" check and give the players the wrong impression or their characters the wrong conclusions.

However, in my ecperience with campaigns, not one offs where this doesnt apply, the notuon of "supposed to" being a campaign thing or not is likely established well bwfore three fire giants are an issue.

Part of the issue in this discussion may well be the idea of "supposed to" as opposed to "would want to" or "would choose to"?

In a game where the characters are supposed to make chpices based on circumstances and situations, "supposed to" as a player side meta thing really needs to not be a thing - established early on before life and death hangs on them realizing it.

If the game has shown them in the past that not doing "supposed to" is fine, to just judge based on actiins and consequences, not a thing.

But if they have bedn shown or taught to put that aside based on "working with GM" or "accepting conventions" or "dobt derail plots" etc etc etc etc (see many threads bout that here and most any rpg forum) then in those games the GM has bought for himself a certain degree of obligation to not make that acceptance a punishable offense.

In my games, its covered sesdion zero, irs shown in play well before life and death is on the line and they will have seen a lot of choices-to-outcomes played out before three fire giants dance on the pinheads.

It's all in the booking and selling the matches before they get in the ring.

 

[Satyrn]

It should also be an "escapable" monster - if the monster has great speed and great perception... not great.

I find this is the one place place I'm happy as a DM to invoke that Plot Armor [MENTION=6906155]Paul Farquhar[/MENTION] mentioned. When the players choose to flee, I'll most often find some reason, any reason, the monster chooses not to give chase.

It works great when I can applh some cost to the reason. Like, maybe it snags tbe players' lackey and settles down for a meal.