The Art of the Chase - Getting players to engage

[Azgulor]

Chase mechanics have typically been a weak point of RPGs. With the purchase of Tome of Secrets, the Hot Pursuit chase rules were used to great effect in my Pathfinder session I ran for my son. (I had previously purchased Hot Pursuit separately but hadn't used it much.)

Expecting to build off of that success, I created a scenario that included several opportunities for chases with my regular gaming group (all adults, ages 30+). Getting players to pursue foes was easy enough. However, whenever a scenario arose where the players should have considered fleeing, the players always opted to fight. When faced with overwhelming numbers at most they would fall back to a defensive position.

While I applaud their use of defensive tactics, it occurred to me that all these years of gaming with poor chase mechanisms may have conditioned them to a stand-and-fight mentality.

So fellow GMs, any advice on conveying to the players that chases/escapes are sometimes more viable than standing and fighting?

For the players out there, what kind of triggers force the flight-response instead of the fight-response?

 

[Snoweel]

When playing a game with such potential power disparity as D&D (30+ levels is a lot) you should be able to tell the players when their characters feel overmatched.

I don't think it's an intrusion on PC sovereignty to tell the player what kind of gut feelings their characters have, considering our feelings IRL are mostly involuntary.

 

[buddhafrog]

When playing a game with such potential power disparity as D&D (30+ levels is a lot) you should be able to tell the players when their characters feel overmatched.

I don't think it's an intrusion on PC sovereignty to tell the player what kind of gut feelings their characters have, considering our feelings IRL are mostly involuntary.

Agreed completely. I think sometimes CM's neglect to tell the PC's things of this nature -- thinking somehow that this would be railroading. Rather, I think we should describe these gut feelings/instincts in order to inform, just as we might describe how one tunnel might smell compared to another. These are instincts that could lead to important decisions and neither are voluntary.

But, I want to hear more about Hot Pursuit chase rules! I will do some research right now but I'm looking for a way to make "the chase" fun and part of the adventure -- it fits the campaign I'm running 100%

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

IME, in addition to poor chase mechanics, there's usually PCs who are heavily armored, and the rest of the PCs don't want to abandon them. For the party to escape their foes (unless they're dwarves or something) just doesn't work out.

In fact, in real-life medieval military tactics, you often lost more people when your "army" broke and fled (especially if facing cavalry) than when you clashed in combat. Fighting retreats, which are hard to pull off in real life, were a valuable skill.

I tried out Spycraft's chase rules. They worked really well for vehicular combat, but only if the PCs were restricted to one vehicle. It didn't work well if there were, say, three PCs being chased by goons.

 

[Jack7]

Agreed completely. I think sometimes CM's neglect to tell the PC's things of this nature -- thinking somehow that this would be railroading. Rather, I think we should describe these gut feelings/instincts in order to inform, just as we might describe how one tunnel might smell compared to another. These are instincts that could lead to important decisions and neither are voluntary.

I'll third that sentiment.

In fact, in real-life medieval military tactics, you often lost more people when your "army" broke and fled (especially if facing cavalry) than when you clashed in combat. Fighting retreats, which are hard to pull off in real life, were a valuable skill.

I tried out Spycraft's chase rules. They worked really well for vehicular combat, but only if the PCs were restricted to one vehicle. It didn't work well if there were, say, three PCs being chased by goons.

This is also a good set of points. To be good at anything you must have a real plan and be well-trained and practiced. Also if your escape and evasion plan involves separation or breaking into small teams then you need a good communications system, or a good plan with good timing/regrouping elements.

While I applaud their use of defensive tactics, it occurred to me that all these years of gaming with poor chase mechanisms may have conditioned them to a stand-and-fight mentality.

So fellow GMs, any advice on conveying to the players that chases/escapes are sometimes more viable than standing and fighting?

With games I think you've got a real point. The built in habit with most games (not just RPGs, but everything from wargames to boardgames to video games) is to either stand your ground, looking for advantage as the conflict evolves, or at best tactical retreat to a defensible position. Because after all nothing is really being lost other than a game.

One thing I think you can do is teach your players good Escape and Evasion tactics. For instance in real life I taught my children good Escape/Evasion, and Tracking and Pursuit methods and procedures as part of their natural Security Training. As a component of their overall Security Training Program. So they are fundamentally aware of such techniques and how to employ them and under what circumstances.

But in a game exposure to these ideas and training might develop in a very different way, such as "training and practice" one might deceive from an NPC while conducting wargames, a simulated assault, or in being instructed in how to fight a particular enemy prior to a difficult engagement.

For instance really good Escape, Avoidance, and Evasion techniques can be successfully recombined with redeployment and reassembly/regrouping techniques (not to mention things like survival techniques) in order to scatter enemy forces, divide, outflank, and ambush them. Seen in this way then Escape and Evasion makes good tactical sense, as well as being a very useful security and survival tool.

What I often do, in my games, when it is apparent a player or a group of players does not understand the peculiar advantage of a particular maneuver or type of tactical behavior, is either to get the other players to teach them, or sometimes I will conduct NPC or third party training to demonstrate to them lessons that will augment or improve their repertoire of possible actions. Then again you can let them learn in the field out of necessity (applying so much pressure along certain routes of action that the players are left no other choice but to reconsider their typical responses, or sometimes perish out of stubborn adherence to a narrow range of behaviors. In cases like that I often hold a post-game Lesson's Learned debriefing and discuss with them what some of the possible options they had but refused to consider or undertake, and then I stress to them that they can think and act more flexibly and cleverly in the future. (Yes, I know, how dare anyone suggest that their players aren't being as clever and cunning as possible, but only egotistical idiots have no need to learn something new. Both the wise and experienced survivors are anxious to learn new techniques and capabilities, and are humble, determined, and earnest about it.) I also encourage them to keep "Formations" and "Tactics" with ideas on how they might best respond to a particular encounter, situation, or type of enemy.

In briefing or setting up for the next adventure or mission you might remind your players that they have a variety of encounter options, that not everything devolves down to, "stand rooted, stab, and be stabbed until someone bleeds out."

That's a stupid way to fight in any situation anyways unless absolutely forced to, but it is a common response in games. Only I suspect because most people playing games have never been stabbed, clubbed, shot at, or really threatened with lethal force, or they'd definitely be fighting smarter than that. And killing smarter than that. As a matter of fact they'd just plain be smarter than that all the way around.

Anywho, good luck to ya.

 

[howandwhy99]

So fellow GMs, any advice on conveying to the players that chases/escapes are sometimes more viable than standing and fighting?

For the players out there, what kind of triggers force the flight-response instead of the fight-response?

Morale rules work because NPCs have just as much interest in saving their own lives as the players. Plus the game has a way of teaching players good tactics by displaying them from the foes.

As a player I don't always do this, but good strategy means having a good exit strategy too (no politics please). When I'm facing something I feel I know fairly well, then I already have a fair idea on whether I should even face it or not. Or if I should try a more indirect approach. When facing something wholly new, then I'm going to try and have a means to get away. I don't think it's shameful to run and maybe that is something that could be imparted through gaming to influence the players position on it?

I use different chase rules based upon the environment. My preference is towards rules that do not require preparation beforehand. Just a knowledge of the area and whether enemies will give pursuit or not. I don't care to have to set up a separate "chase scene" encounter design every time the possibility might present itself.

 

[Snoweel]

I'm curious as to how a fighting withdrawal is conducted with melee weapons. How exactly do you achieve separation without covering fire?

I can only picture a melee fighting withdrawal turning into a running battle.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm curious as to how a fighting withdrawal is conducted with melee weapons.

Realistically, it works. In game terms, it doesn't. I think it's because the attackers don't want to die rushing a shield wall or wall of pikes, and would rather watch you walk off the battlefield than risk themselves attacking you.

However, if the NPCs have the advantage, they'll keep attacking. They're probably not going to fight to the last man (especially if they're winning) but they're probably willing to take greater losses than "realistic" opponents.

How exactly do you achieve separation without covering fire?

Since you're basically walking backward, you have to leave that to the enemy.

I can only picture a melee fighting withdrawal turning into a running battle.

In d20 terms, a melee fighting withdrawal is, in effect, a running battle.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm curious as to how a fighting withdrawal is conducted with melee weapons. How exactly do you achieve separation without covering fire?

I can only picture a melee fighting withdrawal turning into a running battle.

That's a really good point. Make sure you know the combat system you are using. If it doesn't enable the chance of running away, then chase scenes are rarely going to happen. Encounter sighting rules would still work though, but running from a battle going bad should be served by the game rules IMO.

I think in real life running from melee depends upon the number involved. Being outnumbered is more difficult just like being backed into a wall, corner, or hole (all bad strategic positions). Running from a mano a mano melee is based more on the speed of both participants, while group combat is likely easier because it can potentially be more fluid about separation. ...making a slow dwarf a good friend.

 

[Jack7]

A lot, in any tactical retreat is terrain and cover and order and enemy dispositions and movement and training and leadership.

In combat anything and everything is potentially important, or exploitable, or advantage-less depending upon the nature of your forces, and the nature of the forces you oppose.

I've seen tactical retreats turn into routes (for those retreating), and into death-traps (for those pursuing). (As a matter of fact I highly recommend field re-deployment and regrouping maneuvers which are practiced tactical retreats but which, upon signal, can turn and reform into envelopments and flankings - in this way if a retreat needs to be undertaken it can be executed in an orderly and effective fashion, if it need not continue then it can quickly transform into a counter-formational tactical advantage.) But much depends upon the involved parties.

But if it is for game purposes, then I suggest the following: devise different rules, or at least procedures, for different types of combat.

Most games tend to treat all combat as singular, and the same. In nature and execution.

Anyone who has ever been in a fight knows that isn't true at all.
And that's especially true in group combat.

I'll also suggest this. Back when the game was young and one supposedly had to "train-up" between levels, and undertake training from experts, I developed a form of "over-lap training." So that there was an in-game Cost and Benefit system, and a real Cost and Benefit system.

If a Fighter wanted to level up then his training consisted of whatever he had to do in-game. At the same time I suggested he read, or he could pick his own (within reason) book or text to read on warfare or combat. Such as Sun Tzu (Art of War) or On War, or so forth. Or he could get real training. Some of us used to box, and that counted, getting good instruction at boxing.

If a Cleric he would read something about the church or some theological or mythological text. If a Paladin he would read a book on religion, or maybe one on fighting, or monk-warriors. Or mounted combat.

If a Ranger he might read a book on tracking, or combat, pursuit, security, or investigations.

If a Wizard he might read a book on the history of magic, physics, chemistry, languages, or some special area of knowledge or skill he possessed.

If a Thief a book on camouflage, cover-identities, stealth, lock-picking, psychology, escape, etc.

These are of course only examples of what is possible.

Then whenever his in-game requirements were met and his real life "over-lap training" was completed, well, then he advanced in level. Usually at least a little wiser and more capable in more than one way.

Also, instead of in-game Manuals and Tomes I gave my players useful real-world books. After they read them then they would go up in strength or wisdom or intelligence, or increase in skill, whatever the case may be. I still use this system.

You'd be surprised how much you can learn in this way that's useful in both settings (Real World, and in-game). And the more you know the greater your range of options.

Not to mention that knowing is half the battle...