Supposed to Lose Fight

[Grogg of the North]

I was listening to a long play D&D podcast recently and it felt like the party was tossed into a "suppose to lose fight". The monster was clearly over powering and the fight seemed pretty hopeless from the start. And while it made a good story to listen to, I couldn't help but think that if I was a player at the table, I would be annoyed.

Do you have any experiences with this situation? How did it go?

 

[saviirkad]

As a DM, it frustrates me that the default player response is everyone fighting until one side is dead.

As a player, it frustrates me when fights are only ever set up to be fights to the death.

I would surrender or run away more often if the options were presented as viable, if just because the next things to happen would be interesting and new.

I don't dislike fights to the death at all I just desire variety.

 

[Grogg of the North]

FWIW, in the podcast surrender / running away was not an option.

 

[saviirkad]

FWIW, in the podcast surrender / running away was not an option.

Ah, so you mean like a "supposed to be a TPK" fight?

 

[prabe]

I think the expectation (whether it's based in game rules or social norms) that all fights are to the death is a different thing from the GM putting the PCs into a situation that A) is going to be a fight and B) the PCs can't win. I'd argue the latter is bad GM behavior, whatever the expectations about fights being to the death (or not) are.

 

[Reynard]

I firmly believe that player agency is the primary feature of TTRPGs.

I can set up an ENCOUNTER and what happens next depends on the choices the players make with regards to it. Now, that often means a fight, but not always. When there is a fight, though, i generally play the monsters as smart and ruthless (unless their character says they aren't). I roll on the table, and I don't pull punches. If the players made choice that puts them in a fight with a powerful opponent, well, thems the breaks.

 

[saviirkad]

I think the expectation (whether it's based in game rules or social norms) that all fights are to the death is a different thing from the GM putting the PCs into a situation that A) is going to be a fight and B) the PCs can't win. I'd argue the latter is bad GM behavior, whatever the expectations about fights being to the death (or not) are.

Personally as a player and DM, I like when there are win conditions separate from just killing everyone on the other side, such as survival through flight or capture, and I can enjoy an encounter where there is only one win condition available, such as flight.

But I also hold true to this being a game of random dice and ingenuity, so to be clear I mean this from the viewpoint of encounter creation and intention, not that only one solution must be forced into being despite what the dice roll or what the players think up that I hadn't prepared for.

 

[Dire Bare]

Players with a more gamist approach might feel frustrated in a combat with no options, no hope of winning, no ability to retreat . . . .

However, players with a more story-focused approach might be just fine . . . if the scene results in a good story and leads into further adventure!

Not sure which podcast you were listening to, but . . . the new "Dungeon Masters" podcast hosted by WotC, this happens in the first episode. Players are in a battle with an overwhelming opponent, they lose . . . and they are whisked away to Ravenloft. The players seem fine with how things are going, as was I watching it unfold! If a DM did this to me . . . I'd be cool, if it was handled well.

 

[prabe]

Personally as a player and DM, I like when there are win conditions separate from just killing everyone on the other side, such as survival through flight or capture, and I can enjoy an encounter where there is only one win condition available, such as flight.

But I also hold true to this being a game of random dice and ingenuity, so to be clear I mean this from the viewpoint of encounter creation and intention, not that only one solution must be forced into being despite what the dice roll or what the players think up that I hadn't prepared for.

I don't think we're disagreeing, really, though I'm talking about the specific instance described and you seem to be addressing a bigger-picture preference. Yes, it's (probably, usually) a good thing if situations are not immediate fights, and if fights have ways to win beside killing all the opponents. Putting the PCs into a situation--combat or otherwise--that they cannot succeed at or escape is almost certainly bad GMing.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

It's definitely doable. But you have to thread carefully. There's plenty of anecdotes of DMs doing this and the results being not great.

I've done it a couple of times.

I also know, without having listened to it, that one of Critical Role's short campaign with Brendan had a similar dynamic going on. They were roleplaying through some world-changing events that they couldn't stop. It created lots of discussions online.

My opinion is that having a certain outcome be fixed (in this way) is not at odds with player agency. Player agency is about being able to make choices, and these choices being real and having an effect. So maybe they can't answer the question "Can we win this fight?" but there are other questions that can be answered. "How little do we lose?" could be an example. There's plenty of agency to be had.

If it's a fight that's just impossible. Either because it's conceptually impossible, or mathematically impossible. Let's say they're fighting God. There's plenty of ways to be obvious and let them know ahead. The presence of that being shakes you inside, you feel disarm and hopeless and you know in your heart that you can't do anything to it. It's fitting.

It's there's a little bit more interpretation to be had... like a foe that's just too strong at this point in the adventure, but will be defeatable later, that's where the water's muddy. The foe might be defeatable mathematically. It has hit points, the players can land hits, it's just very unlikely. I definitely lean on the side of being clear to players: it's hard to tell, but this foe is too big a threat for your group.

I think it can be done gracefully. But I'll be honest, the handful of times that I tried it, it never backfired, but I don't think it really added much. It's much cooler on paper than in play.

I tend to allow the dice to decide of what happens, and just telegraph clearly to the players when it's an abnormally difficult fight. It might happen because I really let them do whatever they want. If they decide to chase a mighty dragon at level 1, I'm not gonna move things in my notes to make sure they don't find it. I'll be clear that mathematically it's very unlikely that they don't all die, but if they want to proceed, they can.