I'm having trouble even understanding the question. I routinely set up situations where the party should run, or sneak by, or pit one monster against another, etc. Should a party of four 1st-level adventurers never see a company of Hobgoblin soldiers passing by or a troop of Wolfriders? Should they never break down a door into a roomful of evil acolytes, mid-ritual?Remathilis said:
When to Run? Balancing Descretion with Heroism
- Thread starter Remathilis
- Start date
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
I don't understand this question either. But then again I think a lot of the "modern" gaming philosophies are alien to my way of gaming. 
Remathilis
Legend
Ok. Lets try this again.
You flip through the monster manual and find a creature with a nasty ability (we'll keep with the aformentioned Rusty). Your group is Typical Mix. (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard. For extra, the rogue is wearing a Chainshirt). So you put in the dungeon/encounter a rust monsters.
The PCs have two options.
1.) Run, and protect there expensive (and maybe magical?) swords, shields and armor.
2.) Stay and fight, and take the chance that you'll lose your stuff.
You know your party. 90% of the time, they'll run from Rusty cuz they want to keep their gear. Ergo, the ONLY reason you would put a Rust Monster there is to make them run from the encounter (or surprise you greatly and lightning bolt it, but thats neither here nor there.) So if you can assume with some accuracy that your PCs will almost ALWAYS run from a certain encounter, why place the encounter in the game in the first place?
The logic holds (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the encounter with Rusty serves two points. 1.) to remind PCs they are not all powerful and 2.) to seriously screw up foolish players that do. If the point to make the PCs flee, a rust monster, an army of orcs, or the Tarrasque all could create the same desired effect.
More Importantly, running to protect your +1 sword is NOT heroic. If you give XP for challenges overcome, running in terror is NOT overcoming a challenge (its actually one of the ways to lose!).
So in essence, the rust monster encounter was a black hole; it gave no XP, no treasure (indeed, it can cause negative treasure if it goes first!) and has set your game back a few paces ("I'm not going into that cave, I don't care what MacGuffin is there. That thing ate my father's sword!"). It almost was an anti-encounter. By running, the PCs gained nothing, potentially lost much, and are no farther than when they started.
My game time is limited; why run encounters you know aren't going to go anywhere? I'd rather run a spectaular combat even against a superior foe than throw an encounter you KNOW is going to eat up time for no one's gain.
So I ask again? Why pitch a monster you KNOW your PCs will run from?
You flip through the monster manual and find a creature with a nasty ability (we'll keep with the aformentioned Rusty). Your group is Typical Mix. (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard. For extra, the rogue is wearing a Chainshirt). So you put in the dungeon/encounter a rust monsters.
The PCs have two options.
1.) Run, and protect there expensive (and maybe magical?) swords, shields and armor.
2.) Stay and fight, and take the chance that you'll lose your stuff.
You know your party. 90% of the time, they'll run from Rusty cuz they want to keep their gear. Ergo, the ONLY reason you would put a Rust Monster there is to make them run from the encounter (or surprise you greatly and lightning bolt it, but thats neither here nor there.) So if you can assume with some accuracy that your PCs will almost ALWAYS run from a certain encounter, why place the encounter in the game in the first place?
The logic holds (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the encounter with Rusty serves two points. 1.) to remind PCs they are not all powerful and 2.) to seriously screw up foolish players that do. If the point to make the PCs flee, a rust monster, an army of orcs, or the Tarrasque all could create the same desired effect.
More Importantly, running to protect your +1 sword is NOT heroic. If you give XP for challenges overcome, running in terror is NOT overcoming a challenge (its actually one of the ways to lose!).
So in essence, the rust monster encounter was a black hole; it gave no XP, no treasure (indeed, it can cause negative treasure if it goes first!) and has set your game back a few paces ("I'm not going into that cave, I don't care what MacGuffin is there. That thing ate my father's sword!"). It almost was an anti-encounter. By running, the PCs gained nothing, potentially lost much, and are no farther than when they started.
My game time is limited; why run encounters you know aren't going to go anywhere? I'd rather run a spectaular combat even against a superior foe than throw an encounter you KNOW is going to eat up time for no one's gain.
So I ask again? Why pitch a monster you KNOW your PCs will run from?
green slime
First Post
Remathilis said:
Why pitch a monster you KNOW your PCs will handily defeat?
The_Gneech
Explorer
*shrug*
I've never found players to be so predictable. There are lots of things that could happen if a rust monster shows up, ranging from high comedy (fighter jumps into wizard's arms) to interesting character interaction ("So, Devastator the Uber turns to ME for protection against a cute little bug, eh? Wait 'til the boys down at the Dancing Dragon hear THIS one!") to a completely unanticipated turn of events ("The druid ... tamed the rust monster and effectively took it as an animal companion??? That is SO COOL!").
I don't -know- that my players are going to do anything. The best I can make is an educated guess. But I do know that in my group at least, they're likely to try something before they turn tail and run. And seeing what they try is where the fun comes.
-The Gneech
I've never found players to be so predictable. There are lots of things that could happen if a rust monster shows up, ranging from high comedy (fighter jumps into wizard's arms) to interesting character interaction ("So, Devastator the Uber turns to ME for protection against a cute little bug, eh? Wait 'til the boys down at the Dancing Dragon hear THIS one!") to a completely unanticipated turn of events ("The druid ... tamed the rust monster and effectively took it as an animal companion??? That is SO COOL!").
I don't -know- that my players are going to do anything. The best I can make is an educated guess. But I do know that in my group at least, they're likely to try something before they turn tail and run. And seeing what they try is where the fun comes.
-The Gneech
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
I can guarentee that my players would retreat and scheme a way to defeat it.
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
green slime said:
Theres a difference between a fight, and an encounter thats specifically designed to screw over one party member. A rust monster is nothing more than a trap. It lasts one round, does its harm, then goes away. A similar thing would be a souped up memory moss that drains ALL a wizards spells in one hit unless they make a fairly tough fortitude save.
Similarly, the guy in the front who gets old school level drained is useless for the remainder of the dungeon. He may as well go home early, unless the party retreats back and fixes him.
Those arent engaging challenges, they are just irritating. They disrupt the flow fo the story. Its the same way I feel about randomly placed traps. They bog down the game, story, and action. Thats three strikes and you're out IMO. Would you want to watch a movie where the main character spends 10 minutes screwing around with each door and 10 foot length of passage?
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
green slime said:
In order of significance...
(1) Dramatic pacing.
(2) Players can fall into habits that may be undesirable if every fight is a knock down, drag out, fight to the death for them. For example, I have heard numerous complaints from DMs on these boards that their players' PCs only fight when buffed to the gills and they run away to a safe hole to sleep for the night whenever they are at less than 93% of full resources.
Now, undoubtedly some of these players are simply timid and haved not yet learned the pleasures of losing their PC while fighting the good fight. OTOH some DMs train their players into these habits. "Damn! They are so buffed out! The only way to challenge these guys is to railroad them into a really tough battle..."
(3) Practice. If you do not game at least once per month or so, we have found that diving right into a tough battle is a recipe for dumb mistakes on part of both the players and the DM.
Bladesong
Explorer
Remathilis said:
Well, I for one understand your question, but it is disappointing that this ends up being the case.
What the quote above means to me is that 90% of the time your party does not consist of heroes to begin with, which is truly unfortunate.
Just this last week, running a barbarian, my party encountered a rust monster (we are all 1st level). I charged it (knowing full well as a player what it was, but my barbarian had no clue) and I lost my weapon to it. I then proceeded to pummel it until it stopped moving and then stomped it until it was a puddle for ruining my weapon. I would have reacted the same if I had been 15th level with a magical sword. Reward for actions? I used a club for several encounters until finding a nice master work weapon to replace the lost one.
In a prior game my mid-level paladin threw down his sword, grappled it, lost his magical chainmail to it and held it until the others could kill it with wooden clubs and spears. His reward for his actions? Better magical armor 3 encounters later. Same character, later in his career (about level 17), had to fight a room with about a dozen spectres himself because no other fighters would do so. The brave wizard joined me and in the ensuing battle my character received 8 negative levels (fun huh); 2 became permanent. I finished the adventure and never complained. Reward for action? I received a vision of a holy quest which led to the obtaining of a very nice holy avenger and enough experience to gain a level back. There were several roleplaying perks as well as far as status in the kingdom and the gratitude of priests within his faith.
The best part? Great roleplaying, true heroic actions and DMs who appreciate you acting this way.
As for the last statement above;as a DM my worlds are fairly set and a party can definitely wander into an encounter area that is way beyond their capabilities. I do, however, give them clues so that they should know to run. They find the remains of a party with a spellcaster that has spell components for spells which are higher than the current party has, so they know that if a higher level party was killed here...RUN AWAY!!! I then reward the party, albeit minor, for having the good sense to turn around rather than continue on.
It is possible that perhaps if the party is running away, you as the DM have not given them enough reason to be heroic. Just something to think about.
Last edited:
green slime
First Post
I'm with The Gneech, there isn't any KNOWN at all when it comes to what players will do.
Similar Threads
