The Player Psychology of Fleeing Villains

[SkidAce]

Actually, I think it's the DMs duty to try to portrait every enemy, not just major villains, in a believable way. Especially for intelligent foes that means you have to think about their motives and their evaluation of the current situation which should guide how they're acting.

This can mean that enemies flee early, late, or never. It can also mean that they aren't interested to engage in combat at all and try to bargain.

Having enemies flee when it makes sense for them to do so also happens to be a convenient way to shorten combat encounters with a foreseeable ending. I'd actually hope for every DM to consider this preferable to grinding it out!

This covers most of what I was going to say.

In closing, if the dragon was notorious as a lethal, cunning, and savvy opponent during campaign play, it flees smartly. It it has been portrayed as an angry belligerent brute of rage, it might fight to the death. Maybe.

Foreshadow you villain so when it bails, the players can say "I knew it the #$%@ was going to run" or even plan ahead for it.

 

[S'mon]

At this talk of "use tactics to win at any cost that seems realistic".

The villain poisons the PCs with a strong sleeping drug. He then kills them in their sleep. Or casts a sleep spell on the guard on duty and then murders everyone in their sleep.

Sure it's realistic, effective, and if it works why wouldn't he do that? But I would never think of doing that because the players would feed me my dice.

I used to have bad guys do that a fair bit in 1e (they get to roll on the DMG d% Assassination Table) & in principle I still would in 4e, but I wouldn't arbitrarily nerf PC precautions to do so, or waive all the PC-protecting rules in 4e. Assassins may well be deterred or even killed by effective precautions. And even if the assassin manages to poison the PCs the sleep drug may not KO them. If he tries to CDG sleeping PCs, well unless the PCs are low level that's hard to get a kill in 4e.

 

[Jack7]

I suppose I should take it as a compliment in some ways that they seemed to take it so personally. It means I really got under their skin having the dragon taunt and mock them every time they missed or it dealt them a grievous wound!

I would. And if they are smart, and I trust my players to be smart and I think you probably should too, next time they'll be prepared.

The villain poisons the PCs with a strong sleeping drug. He then kills them in their sleep. Or casts a sleep spell on the guard on duty and then murders everyone in their sleep.

Sure it's realistic, effective, and if it works why wouldn't he do that? But I would never think of doing that because the players would feed me my dice.

Rechan, I think there is a difference here between what is possible, and what a villain will actually risk. For instance once an assassin did poison and slit the throat of a major character in one of my games, killing him as he slept. And as his comrades slept, some in the same room. Why didn't he kill everyone? Far too risky. Killing six people by such means is a far different proposition than killing one. And it is time consuming upping the risk of discovery and being killed yourself.

In other words Risk runs in both directions simultaneously. This assasin had been hired to kill a particular person in the party by a powerful merchant's Guild being backed by a real bad guy.

The real bad guy was a powerful Lich. He wanted the character killed because the guy in the party was a potential threat. But he didn't do it himself because of the risk to himself.

So he used agents of his to get the local Sand-Voyager's Guild to buy a good assassin (the player's had never seen an assassin, they were in a foreign land and had originated in a country in which assassins did not exist) to assassinate the threat. The assassin actually assimilated the wrong character, but could only go by the description given him. (He had actually been after the Paladin.) And without armor and weapons and other things a couple of them looked very similar in the dark and in their sleep.

But the Lich was the real bad guy, the Guild the opponents, and the assassin the enemy. None of them wanted, however, to attempt a public, open fight, or even an open assassination (one in which the assassin's identify could be discovered or traced - that's why assassinations work the way they do, and why they are so extremely dangerous to the assassin as well as the target) because of the risk to themselves. This is the way bad guys risk themselves. Qaddafi hides while his soldiers and agents fight for him. Saddam Hussein flees while the Republican Guard and insurgents fight out his secret retreat and escape. Bad guys hire proxies and distance themselves from direct involvement. That is entirely realistic.

In real life killing and assassinations are extremely dangerous propositions. You never know what might go wrong no matter how experienced you are (as a killer) and how well you have prepared.

It might look on first inspection like a villain is a sneaky, poisonous, lethal viper. And so he might well be. But the players are also "Roaring Lions" if they play themselves right. The players are every bit as dangerous as most of their enemies, and their enemies know this. And act accordingly. And often the villain, unless he has access to a private army or militia is actually at the real disadvantage of several well trained and dangerous killers, as most parties tend to be.

A good real life example is a serial killer, and I know a little bit about serial killers. They stalk and seek to maneuver victims into vulnerable situations, locales, and positions so that they can murder them. They choose weaker victims. Isolated victims. Trick their victims. Play upon the ignorance and naiveté of their victims (as the assassin in my example did.) Victims they consider a reasonably safe bet. But they almost never attempt the same thing with a cop. Or a soldier. Or even a dangerous looking Citizen. And they rarely attempt such things in public. Why? They know what that means.

Just as a tiger, unless desperate or starving, will not attack an elephant - because although the tiger can be a real danger to the elephant, an elephant is potentially lethal to the tiger. For the same reason most villains, unless stupid or desperate, will not attack dangerous characters by any means they can think of just because they are villains. And if he is a real and realistic villain he will not risk himself in such an undertaking anyway, if he can hire out assistance.

Danger and risk is a universal game and both villain and hero know this. Realistic villains are not anxious to assume risks upon themselves from dangerous adversaries. They have motivations too, which do not usually include suicidal risk, or assisting their enemies to place them in a vulnerable situation. They live to see another day exactly because they understand risk, not because they tempt it recklessly, or ignore it foolishly. This doesn't mean they won't attempt a risk, it just means they will do so wisely and cunningly.

And as I said contracting a single assassination is a very different affair than attempting to kill everyone in a group of dangerous men. What if some are resistant to your poison/ method of attack? What if some escape the attempt? What if some wake or recover fast enough to counter-attack the attempt? What if the survivors see you and learn your identity? Or your employer? What if you are captured? Killed?


Realistic bad guys have realistic concerns. A smart villain survives precisely because he is smart about the risks he will face in any given situation. Risks mitigates what he will attempt.

(And personally I think most RPGs are far too full of cartoon villains, who will do anything within their powers just because they can, rather than far more interesting and far more insidious and patient and dangerous and realistic villains and opponents and enemies, who do what is in their own best interests. Smart and self-interested enemies can teach the players far more about being who they are, and can bring out far more of the potential of the player, than can a cartoon or comic book opponent or monster.)


By the way after the party discovered what an assassin was (in the area of the world they were visiting) and how they were operating, although a few more attempts were made to assassinate some of them, such attacks were never again successful. (In that game anyway.)

Players can and should learn from such attempts and by facing such dangers, and so should the villains.

But both can and should learn this: there is real danger in attacking dangerous opponents, openly or covertly. It's not just a roll of the dice. It's a risk assessment, and you ether prepare for it and try to survive it, or you make the same mistakes over and over again, and don't survive it.

 

[Gryph]

Wow really? People do not think that it's the DM's job to care about how players feel and their level of enjoyment?

Are we playing the same game?

I don't come to a game for realism*, I come to have fun, and if I'm not I'll leave. As a DM my job is to cater to the players because they're my only audience. And if they're not having fun they leave, as I would.

*Pure style preference here, but I've found the more "real" it is, the less I enjoy it.

Not to speak for others, but playing out an enemy in what I feel is the "realistic" way for that enemy, regardless of player wishes, is not the same as having no regard for the players level of enjoyment.

The choice of enemies, the situations they pursue, and the over all tone of the campaign are constantly informed by player preference. However, if players are catered to and never surprised and never frustrated or thwarted by their enemies, they will have trouble engaging with the campaign at an emotional level. I believe, resulting in an unsatisfying play experience. Conflict is the root of drama and I like dramatic games, so I like to have things happen that conflict with the players desires.

And finally, I am not able to get much enjoyment as DM from simply trotting out a series of NPCs to be slaughtered and used as Pez dispensers to suck out XP and treasure. If I am not engaged in the story, which includes handing the players temporary setbacks, than I can guarantee the players will get bored and lose interest.

It is my belief that always saying yes to the players only works if they are handed consequences that surprise them. As always, the internet will disagree with me.

 

[the Jester]

At this talk of "use tactics to win at any cost that seems realistic".

The villain poisons the PCs with a strong sleeping drug. He then kills them in their sleep. Or casts a sleep spell on the guard on duty and then murders everyone in their sleep.

Sure it's realistic, effective, and if it works why wouldn't he do that? But I would never think of doing that because the players would feed me my dice.

I would, and have, done things very like this. Sometimes it has worked for the villains, but other times... not so much. Usually, a wary party with enemies takes some measure to guard their sleep! Even if they don't, they might detect the assassin or drug; the drug isn't automatically going to do what the assassin intends; etc.

Heck, if you want to talk playin' dirty, the epic 3.5 game I ran had one of the pcs take 80d6 damage from nowhere while they were just walking along. "WTF??" he said, and upon investigation they learned that Asmodeus was gunning for them with an epic spell- that he could hit them with while he was safe in Hell.

This led to the most kick-ass game I've ever had the pleasure to be involved in!

So yes, it's possible for bad guys to use sneaky underhanded tactics. Should they? As with so many things in D&D, it depends on the group's playstyle preferences.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Its called morale and it has a place wherever life is threatened. The dragon did what it thought was needed to stay alive. The party still got the treasure trove and lived to tell the tale.

They can quit whining any time now.

 

[Umbran]

They got it down to about 30 hit points, at which point I had decided it would abandon its hoard and flee, swearing eternal vengeance upon them. It had to fly up about 100 feet to get out of the ravine its lair was in, and after it survived one more crossbolt bolt from the thief, it did so and escaped.

...

As a DM, I'm kind of glad the dragon escaped, and I already have some cool ideas of when it could return to repay its defeat. The PCs will probably have gained two more levels at that point, so the fight will not take as long and should let them feel more powerful fighting the same creature with new powers (and I will probably start the dragon at 3/4 maximum hit points to reflect its near-mortal wounds in this fight, which should speed the combat up). I think they will really be able to savor that victory. But there were a lot of apparently disgruntled players tonight.

Stepping to a side question for a moment... down to 30 (or a bit below) is "near mortal"? And part members were worse off than the dragon - they can heal up in the interim (and even gain levels), but somehow the dragon cannot? Does that make sense?

They came close to beating the dragon already. You probably aren't going to need to softball it if they are two levels higher at the next meeting. If the win is too easy, the players will not "savor" it, especially if they're already feeling weird about it.

So what do you all think? Is it the duty of every DM to let a tough villain taunt the PCs and escape to hound them another day? Deep down inside, is this a delicious sort of agony for the players? Or did I just destroy everyone's enjoyment of tonight's game?

It is the GM's job to run the villains to type. Some villains will fight to the death, others will not.

If they got the XP for defeating the dragon, and they got the treasure, I don't see a reason for the players to be upset at you. If the characters want to have a mad on for the dragon, that's up to them.

 

[Rechan]

However, if players are catered to and never surprised and never frustrated or thwarted by their enemies, they will have trouble engaging with the campaign at an emotional level. I believe, resulting in an unsatisfying play experience. Conflict is the root of drama and I like dramatic games, so I like to have things happen that conflict with the players desires.

And finally, I am not able to get much enjoyment as DM from simply trotting out a series of NPCs to be slaughtered and used as Pez dispensers to suck out XP and treasure. If I am not engaged in the story, which includes handing the players temporary setbacks, than I can guarantee the players will get bored and lose interest.

Good thing I'm not advocating that.

 

[Gryph]

Good thing I'm not advocating that.

Perhaps, I read too much into your post. As a response to the OP and Jack's post it seemed to be advocating a player entitlement stance that I think is damaging to a campaign.

If that was not your meaning, I apologize for framing my post as a response to yours.

More broadly, I would offer my remarks in support of the OP and offer them as my reasoning for why I would have, and have in the past, finished that encounter the same way he did.

 

[The Shaman]

At this talk of "use tactics to win at any cost that seems realistic".

I didn't go back and re-read every post, but for my part I used the words "smart gameplay" and "verisimilitude," not realism.

The villain poisons the PCs with a strong sleeping drug. He then kills them in their sleep. Or casts a sleep spell on the guard on duty and then murders everyone in their sleep.

Do the adventurers have a chance to detect the poison? Do they get saving throws against its effects?

And did they really post only a single guard of low enough level that a sleep spell would take him out? Have they never heard of defense in depth?

Most gamers with whom I play understand the concept of reasonable precautions, and as referee I have, again, respect for the verisimilitude of the setting, so what you're outlining here is unlikely to ever come up in any game I run.

Sure it's realistic, effective, and if it works why wouldn't he do that? But I would never think of doing that because the players would feed me my dice.

That says more about you and your players than it does the tactics.