Unearthed Arcana: Fight or Flight?

[ferratus]

I really loved this article, because while I have been making morale checks and had enemies flee when bloodied, or had 1/2 to 1/4 of their numbers. If nothing else, it allowed for shorter combats.

However, this lays it out rather nicely, and it gives support to the idea I've been kicking around my head that 4e would perhaps play faster and better with "round phases". I'll start a new thread about that.

 

[ferratus]

Would 4e work better if it used "round phases"

n/m mistake post.

 

[AlioTheFool]

I like it as well, but I can't help but feel like this is another "option" for DMs and players too uncreative enough to figure out how to handle this on their own. I.E. "It's not in the rules, so it must not be in the game!"

My groups have been doing this for years, long before 4e came around. If one side wanted to drop the fight and run, they were welcome to try to do that. If one side wanted to parlay, they could try to convince their attackers to hold their weapons. It doesn't need rules, but Diplomacy/Bluff/Insight are certainly helpful. If a character or monster wanted to hold a doorway so that their allies could escape, they can do that too, but only as long as they have HP or tricks to keep them standing.

>_>

Yeah, not bad, although I'm not sure why it's under Unearthed Arcana...it seems aimed at new DM's less comfortable with these situations, where many long-time DM's regularly have resolutions that aren't "You kill them all" or "you're all killed"

Posts like these drive me absolutely insane with anger.

I hate to be the one to break it to you guys, but not everyone has been playing D&D for 20+ years. Some of us have only been playing since 4E, so we don't have a grand breadth of experience with running the game.

I "collected" D&D books going back as far as BECMI, but my first true game experience with D&D was a single D&D Game Day in the death throes of 3.5, and then regular play in 4E. With no morale rules in the 4E rule books it felt to me as though there was a good reason for not having fights shortened from total kills. And I have at least viewed previous editions. Many DMs in 4E haven't even done that much.

I'm sick and tired of seeing this attitude all around the D&D internet community at-large that those of us who haven't played for decades somehow aren't good or smart enough to play the game "properly." People whine that the hobby needs new blood, but then people tell the new blood that we're somehow incapable of playing properly because we don't understand the game like you do.

I'm sorry to thread crap in here, but I've seen this general attitude repeatedly lately, and I'm tired of being told I'm too stupid to play D&D just because I need some help.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Actually I think we're all just confident that even if you haven't played for 20 years you're fully capable of running the game in a fun and interesting way.

Just speaking for myself I thought this article was basically "does this kind of thing actually need to be said?" Maybe players these days are way too wrapped up in mechanics. The game world and how it works is really the more important thing in an RPG. Remember, turns and rounds don't exist there. Action happens simultaneously and continuously. Even looking at the mechanics free actions like saying "Surrender or die!" can be taken at any time and cost nothing. Suppose the players decide to talk? Let some talk happen. Both sides can lay up for a few seconds, there's no need to use fancy rules for this, just stop rolling hits for as long as it takes for some dialog to happen. If it breaks down, then everyone goes back to hacking.

The whole retreat/pursuit mechanic seemed both too mechanical and at the same time too abstract for my tastes. Let the PCs delay or ready and use APs or just clever tactics to disengage. If there's a significant chance they are going to want to break off a fight then they should consider that during the fight, not by invoking a whole different set of rules that suddenly turn a bunch of bad decisions into a different set of mechanics with different results. It just seems odd. Pursuit challenges are fine and all, but I'd make you actually get out of melee before that is even relevant. The flip side is DMs should keep in mind that monsters don't act with perfect planning either and that deciding to pursue or not may or may not be a snap decision. Often if you withdraw the monsters will at least consider their options before rushing after. They may want to heal, get reinforcements, etc first anyway. Things rarely happen in the real world with the speed of combat rounds.

 

[Riastlin]

To piggyback on what Aliothefool is saying, I think the more important thing to remember is that even if many/most of us realize that this can be done, and that it doesn't necessarily need to be said, the reminder every now and then is not a bad thing. Let's face it, the rules for D&D are fairly complicated IF you are trying to remember everything off the top of your head and you don't want to take too long a break in the action -- which is usually going to be the case in the midst of an encounter. Sure, players will hopefully know the rules as they pertain to their characters, but will often, in my experience, not know them as they pertain to the entire game -- particularly when you hit the grey areas.

For me, an occasional article like this is great because it gives me one more tool to throw in the tool box. Plus, I also kinda look at it like the three clue rule. If players need a clue three times in order to ensure that they actually receive it, its not so far a stretch to think that a DM might need to hear something multiple times, even if obvious, to make sure that he understands it on those rare occasions a certain rule, or scenario crops up.

 

[Frozen DM]

While I liked the article in principle, it would never fly in my group. In general this kind of ruling would be used by my players, but they would rage against its use by NPCs. Any attempt to flee would simply be met with "No we just shoot them".

I've had players spend round after round chasing down lone goblins or orcs just for the satisfaction of having taken them down. In general, if things go well for my players, it's to the death (or at least, to the death of all but one, torture for the last).

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

While I liked the article in principle, it would never fly in my group. In general this kind of ruling would be used by my players, but they would rage against its use by NPCs. Any attempt to flee would simply be met with "No we just shoot them".

I've had players spend round after round chasing down lone goblins or orcs just for the satisfaction of having taken them down. In general, if things go well for my players, it's to the death (or at least, to the death of all but one, torture for the last).

Lovely group you have there. No offence intended.

That's a little harsh sounding. To each their own, I guess. It doesn't sound like you approve though.

 

[Frozen DM]

Lovely group you have there. No offence intended.

That's a little harsh sounding. To each their own, I guess. It doesn't sound like you approve though.

It's not too bad... I just know that running a heroic campaign is a little off the menu. Once you get the question "What kind of intimidate bonus do I get for cutting off their ..." well you can imagine, a black and white view of good vs evil isn't going to work too well. Gotta adapt for the group after all. Since we tend to play slightly more in the shades of gray it works well enough for our group.

But back to the Fight or Flight rules, it does present a way to mechanically segway into a skill challenge to flee from an overwhelming encounter. While I agree with some of the other posters that these kinds of mechanics might not be needed for more experienced groups, sometimes I find if there isn't a mechanical "out" from an encounter, TPKs are a little more likely. I've seen enough adventuring parties succumb to the very example used in the article, where all but one or two characters are ready to flee, but miscommunication or lack of cohesion dooms everyone.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

It's not too bad... I just know that running a heroic campaign is a little off the menu. Once you get the question "What kind of intimidate bonus do I get for cutting off their ..." well you can imagine, a black and white view of good vs evil isn't going to work too well. Gotta adapt for the group after all. Since we tend to play slightly more in the shades of gray it works well enough for our group

Don't get me wrong, I like to play on the "shady side of neutral" from time to time as much as the next gamer. My group has done this several times, with the whole group in agreement, but it is not our default.

I think if we were to do it consistently, it would grow tiresome. Most of the players in my group's "normal" parties seldom take a black-and-white view of good and evil, and I get the whole "adapting to the group's whim" thing, but are they seriously like that all the time?

 

[Frozen DM]

Don't get me wrong, I like to play on the "shady side of neutral" from time to time as much as the next gamer. My group has done this several times, with the whole group in agreement, but it is not our default.

I think if we were to do it consistently, it would grow tiresome. Most of the players in my group's "normal" parties seldom take a black-and-white view of good and evil, and I get the whole "adapting to the group's whim" thing, but are they seriously like that all the time?

Not the entire group, nor all the time. A few players play characters with a more "anti-hero" mindset. That it's never ok to let a villain or enemy escape, in case they come back to haunt the party later; that force is the most effective form of interrogation, etc... Basically more of a Punisher type character than Spider-Man (to use a comic analogy).

This last campaign we've been playing (Eberron with a focus on urban intrigue) has been a bit more in this style which is why it's more in the forefront of my mind. An example: when some cultists that were mentally/spiritually possessed by a creature from Khyber attacked the party, they killed most, captured two for questioning. The questioning soon turned to interrogation and torture, with hands and feet being amputated. Of course the party's guide fled in utter horror at what he witnessed. One party member objected to the amputation/torture, but when she went after the guide (to try and calm him down), the prisoners ended up in a nearby lava pit.

It was the kind of situation this article would have tried to address. The villains were beaten, and once the mental domination had weakened, surrendered. It was going to end up in a skill challenge to get some info from the prisoners, but once the torture began, I pretty much let them know this wasn't going to get anything useful.

I'd be curious to see how the party would react with a reversed role; especially considering in our last session, the party psion was captured by a group of mercenaries. This was a perfect example of where a fight/flight situation occurred. The psion was alone, against two of the mercenaries. Had he tried to flee, it could have been resolved in a skill challenge. Of course, the character stood his ground and was eventually knocked unconscious.

Had this kind of rule been part of the group's normal bag of tricks, I wonder if it would have gone down differently.