The Player Psychology of Fleeing Villains

[Havrik Stoneskimmer]

Tonight's D&D 4e game went a little weird. The party fought a young green dragon, their very first solo. The fight was intense, and definitely their toughest fight yet. The fighter, thief, and warpriest were all knocked out with ongoing damage (one of the scariest situations to be in), and came within the skin of their teeth of negative bloodied. I really thought at least two of the four were going to be making new characters next time, but they all squeaked through. I played the dragon aggressively and with a lot of condescending trash talk (although I did make some choices that could be considered generous to the players). It was about as good as I could want from a fight.

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.

The reaction from the players shocked me, frankly. Immediate furrowed brows and narrowed eyes. Anger and irritation at losing their kill. I can't decide whether it was "curse you, you dastardly DM" or pure unadulturated anger at me "stealing" their kill. I'm hoping that once the heat of the moment passed, this will turn into a game-enhancing hate for the dragon, which will make their final victory next time all the more sweet. But man, if looks could kill...

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.

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?

 

[Rechan]

In my experience, players hate enemies fleeing. When an enemy starts to flee, they concentrate fire on that guy. I hear a lot of "it's vermisilitude to have smart enemies flee" but that always translates to the enemies getting shot in the back.

It seems their thinking is that a fleeing enemy means reinforcements or revenge.

 

[Vegepygmy]

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?

Rechan's experience mirrors my own: players hate for their enemies to get away. But screw 'em. If they're mature, it will be a "delicious sort of agony," as you put it. If they're not, maybe you can help them grow up.

 

[Jack7]

I don't know Havrik, maybe I just come from a different generation but I never once gave a crap about everyone's enjoyment. And I never fought the bad guy/enemy/opponent based upon what I thought the players wanted, but based upon how I thought the bad guy/enemy/opponent would really react. (Which would be in their own best interests, not in the best interest of the PCs.)

I always thought of it as the player's job to adapt and overcome and deal with the enemy. My job was to provide tough challenges that would allow opportunities for the players to become better (wherever it was they were) over time.

If the players were smart and flexible and cunning they became better. If not their characters died.

I'm not critiquing your way of looking at it, and truthfully I sect this may be a generational matter, but I can honestly say I never once thought about and still never do, if the characters enjoy, or not, how I play an enemy. To me the enemy has motivations of his own and these have nothing to do with the comfort or desires of those he fights, including the PCs or their players.

I play opponents to challenge the PCs, enemies to harass and sometimes kill the PCs (if they can), and bad guys to torment and doom the PCs (if they can).

It's the job of the players to survive that, to escape that, or to track down and destroy their enemies (if they are so inclined). But as a DM that's not my job, and it's not my job to survive for them, or to improve them so that they can survive, or to make it easy on them so that they will be assured of surviving.

It's the player's job to be clever and crafty and efficient in battle.

It's my job for their enemies and monsters to be crafty and cunning and vicious in battle.

And may the best man win. And the best man wins by earning it.

Personally I wouldn't worry about it.

But also in my opinion, the dragon should have learned as much about the party through this encounter as the players learned of the dragon and when they next meet the dragon should be a more, not less, dangerous opponent.

 

[Havrik Stoneskimmer]

Jack7, I agree with you far more than I disagree. I play the monsters to win, too. In this case, I had already decided the dragon would flee if near death (even a young dragon is several times older than any of the PCs so it should have a high sense of self-preservation).

I was perfectly ready to kill any of the PCs (and very nearly did). The only exception is that I really didn't want to kill the PC whose player was absent and was being played by the group. So I did make a few choices that I might not have made if that player had been present.

Your last paragraph is a really good point. I don't want the fight to feel like a rehash of this one (it was a long fight, maybe 1.5 hours) but I agree the dragon should have some advantages the next time they meet.

Edit to add: I don't think it's the DM's job at all to cater to the players' wishes and preferences all the time, but I do want to be sure that everyone enjoyed themselves so they will want to come back and play again next time.

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!

 

[Embermage]

As a DM, I love recurring villains. Love them. Just by showing up a second time, the villain brings with him the emotional response of the earlier meeting, a sense of purpose for the players ("hey, I know him! he's a bad guy! get him!), and they let you weave a better story, as you dont have to stop and explain (or give the PCs the opportunity to discover) his backstory, motives, etc.

As a player, I can completely understand your players' responses, though. They see the bad guy escaping as a failure, even if they get the loot and XP. It's just a normal psychological response to being stymied at the end of a tough fight.

I've been thinking about the nature of recurring villains for a while, since the campaign I've just kicked off features several. I came up with a few general guidelines for myself to govern when and how the bad guys get away:

1) Don't let the escaping villain change the outcome of the fight on its own. That is, if the boss is going to run away and fight another day, don't have him flee when he's the last guy on the field. That makes the players feel like they lost. Have him escapee early on, and let them focus on the mooks he leaves behind. If the fight is still tough, not only do the players still feel like winners, but they're often glad the leader got away, since his presence would have made the fight that much harder.

2) Make it clear that the bad guys lost (assuming they did lose, of course). The BBEG escaped, sure, but having to flee the field that way cost him dearly in some other resource. Maybe the PCs took control of an important base or resource, or maybe he just lost the respect of his goons. Make it clear that the PCs hurt him in more than just hit points, and your players will see it as a win, instead of a draw or loss.

Basically, don't script anything that takes away from the players' sense of achievement if you can help it. There's nothing necessarily wrong with having a bad guy escape in a way that makes your players angry, but it's not a fun experience. Having the dragon just quit and fly off needs to be a damn rare experience, or the players can start to feel like the game is stacked against them. Having the dragon taunt your PCs for failing to kill it is, in my opinion, a big part of their reaction. It makes sense in the context, but remember that the taunting is coming at them from the same side of the table that controls the whole world. It tends to create an adversarial attitude between players and Dm.

3) This is purely metagaming, but in my experience, it helps if you demonstrate up front that the villain is meant to hang around a while. Make sure he has a name (and the PCs know it ahead of time). Tie him into the setting and/or the plot in a significant way that signals to the players that when he escapes, it's for a good reason. Again, it's pure metagaming, but it can help give the players a sort of tacit justification of the villain's survival.

 

[Rechan]

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.

 

[Havrik Stoneskimmer]

Basically, don't script anything that takes away from the players' sense of achievement if you can help it. There's nothing necessarily wrong with having a bad guy escape in a way that makes your players angry, but it's not a fun experience. Having the dragon just quit and fly off needs to be a damn rare experience, or the players can start to feel like the game is stacked against them. Having the dragon taunt your PCs for failing to kill it is, in my opinion, a big part of their reaction. It makes sense in the context, but remember that the taunting is coming at them from the same side of the table that controls the whole world. It tends to create an adversarial attitude between players and Dm.

Lots of food for thought here. To be clear, I didn't have the dragon taunt them as it fled. I had it taunting them during the fight, and then as it fled it said something like "This day will live in infamy... I shall never forget this shame... and I will hunt you for the rest of my life." Very much an acknowledgement that it had been bested.

I will certainly play up their victory and make it clear that they won the battle. Maybe the dragon's obnoxious little kobold lackeys will worship the PCs now that they have proved themselves more powerful than their "god".

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

*In fact to me, the less "real" it is, the more fun it is.

I, for one, tend to have more fun when GMs aren't concerned about my fun too much, and focus more on the motivations of NPCs, don't fudge rolls, etc. It makes my inventive and creative approach to problems a real strength, and it makes the victories all that much sweeter when they're earned.

On the other hand, some people prefer an approach where the GM makes the game specifically with these players in mind, and purposefully engages their wants individually. This approach is perfectly fine, too, and is a lot of fun for other players.

It's just playstyle preference. It most certainly is the same game, but the type of game is probably drastically different in style. It's only really "wrong" to play that wa if your group doesn't enjoy it. Because, as always, play what you like

 

[S'mon]

I'll very often have villains flee or surrender, but if you use the 4e flying rules as written it's far too easy for flying monsters to escape. I don't let most fliers go straight up like a helicopter, I'll normally require at least a straight double move on level terrain before dragons and similar can take to the air, then they'll rise diagonally and I'd limit the climb rate to half their speed, not full speed. I also require most fliers to land before attacking ground-based PCs, unless they're relying on fly-by attacks.

So I'd have to know more about how the dragon disengaged your PCs before I can tell if I thought your DMing was harsh, though I'm sure it was done by RAW. This is an area where 4e's rejection of simulation causes trouble - fleeing is unrealistically easy because the flying rules ignore all the real-world constraints. I suspect the authors never considered the possibility of a Solo flier fleeing.

On the general principle though, as I said it's fine for enemies to flee. I like your idea of major damage inflicting lasting wounds on the critter.