D&D General Why are we fighting?

[DND_Reborn]

No. The Orcs are hunting game, the PCs are more or less hunting Orc as part of dealing with a bigger threat.

Well, without knowing precisely what is happening, do they have to "hunt" the orcs or just drive them away, etc.? In other words, does "killing" have to be the only solution?

A single Orc, yes. They travel in groups, though, as adventurers aren't the only dange rin the woods.

There might be more orcs, but they only see the one.

Given that the PCs' mission is, in part, to take out the Orcs (ultimately it's to take out the boss behind them, but the Orcs are in the way), that would be a very unexpected outcome.

If the ultimate goal is to take out the boss behind the orcs, perhaps the orcs can be allies in taking out the boss, depending on their relationship to it (are the servants, slaves, allies, etc.?).

Think of it this way: if you go back to the old D&D cartoons from the 80's, when did the party ever have to kill something to get on to the next part of the adventure or finish it? Not often, IIRC.

There's nothing wrong with it, if your group enjoys that theme, but I am simply addressing the points outlined in the video in the OP.

 

[Micah Sweet]

yeah if the PCs are in hostile territory I’d expect stealth with the main objective being avoid the hunting party and carry on to the Base - stealth check resolves encounter, move on.

If they cant stealth their way pass then is the objective to kill all the orcs in the area? Or do the PCs capture an orc in order to get information on the base defences? - as DM in this scenario I’d make sure the hunting orcs have a bit of useful information, so PCs learn that not killing monsters might be more useful than wholesale slaughter

What do they do once they have the information from the captive orc (assuming they could get it)?

The issue is the logistics problem of dealing with prisoners.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, without knowing precisely what is happening, do they have to "hunt" the orcs or just drive them away, etc.? In other words, does "killing" have to be the only solution?

The options are either killing them or turning them to peaceful ends. The latter is extremely unlikely.

There really isn't anywhere to drive them away to - if they stop raiding the village the PCs left from it'll be because they found somewhere else to raid instead, which while great for the one village ain't so great for the next.

The villagers also made it crystal clear to the PCs that if their sortie failed, they feared that any retaliation would come down hard on the village - maybe even to the point of wiping them out. The PCs are operating under this assumption; the reality is there's far fewer Orcs up there than the villagers think there are, and even a halfway-successful attempt will knock their numbers back to the point where - unless the boss (a Frost Giant) herself comes out - the villagers are probably safe for now.

That said, if the PCs cause enough trouble that the Giant herself gets hacked off and responds in force, that'll be a different story. But that would take some doing - she's pretty complacent these days.

Where it sits right now is a) the PCs have already knocked off about 1/3 of the Orcs (though they don't realize this, they're not sure if they've even made a dent in the Orc numbers) and b) the PCs are slowly coming to realize there's more to this complex/adventure than they might have been expecting. (one of the PCs downed a potion of gaseous form and went exploring, finding lots of rooms and hallways and some unexpected non-Orc monsters further in)

If the ultimate goal is to take out the boss behind the orcs, perhaps the orcs can be allies in taking out the boss, depending on their relationship to it (are the servants, slaves, allies, etc.?).

The relationship is that the boss is bigger and meaner than they are, and also (in their eyes) bigger and meaner than the PCs; never mind all the boss' not-quite-as-big friends and allies who are still also bigger and meaner than the Orcs. The Orcs don't know it (and neither do the PCs, as yet) but their main reason for being there is to be the expendable and easily replaceable "crumple zone" in case of any serious resistance by the locals.

 

[Andvari]

My players typically tie up prisoners they expect might not leave the area for good. When possible they also bring them to the local jail. Sometimes they execute them, but that is less common.

Most captives are happy to be alive and won’t trouble the party further. Mostly out of fear more than anything else. Runners are the real problem.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My players typically tie up prisoners they expect might not leave the area for good. When possible they also bring them to the local jail. Sometimes they execute them, but that is less common.

Most captives are happy to be alive and won’t trouble the party further. Mostly out of fear more than anything else. Runners are the real problem.

Do the captives mostly behave that way because it makes sense in the setting for them to do so, or because it's easier to for the table for them to not be an issue?

Also, how friendly is your PCs relationship with the local law? In my experience, most PCs are too independently minded to essentially act as law enforcement, and most law enforcement officials are very leery of vigilantes.

 

[Hussar]

In the adventure I'm running right now, one of the wandering monster possibilities in the forest is a hunting party of half a dozen Orcs. They're out hunting game animals to augment the diet for people at the main base (the PCs' initial goal), and if on sighting or encountering the PCs even one of the Orcs is able to flee back to base to report, the PCs' job just got a lot more difficult as the place will be on high alert: there's invaders in the woods.

All of which seems perfectly reasonable on the Orcs' part; meanwhile it's very much in the PCs' interests to make sure none of the Orcs get away should they meet any.

But that’s the problem. The players cannot know that. So the players will always assume that every encounter will return to bite them in the ass if they don’t completely exterminate every npc.

It’s just reinforcing behaviour. Even if only one in four encounters has this rider, every encounter has to be treated like it’s true.

After all, why couldn’t the fleeing orc so discourage the others that they suffer penalties when the pcs show up?

But that never happens. It only ever works against the players to not kill everyone.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But that’s the problem. The players cannot know that. So the players will always assume that every encounter will return to bite them in the ass if they don’t completely exterminate every npc.

It’s just reinforcing behaviour. Even if only one in four encounters has this rider, every encounter has to be treated like it’s true.

After all, why couldn’t the fleeing orc so discourage the others that they suffer penalties when the pcs show up?

But that never happens. It only ever works against the players to not kill everyone.

Seems like you'd have to establish some genre conventions to avoid that. Not really the way D&D works generally.

 

[Hussar]

Do the captives mostly behave that way because it makes sense in the setting for them to do so, or because it's easier to for the table for them to not be an issue?

Also, how friendly is your PCs relationship with the local law? In my experience, most PCs are too independently minded to essentially act as law enforcement, and most law enforcement officials are very leery of vigilantes.

Again, this all sort of meshes together. If the players don’t kill everyone, the dm just keeps putting up problems and roadblocks until the players just start killing everyone to avoid them. Every prisoner will suicidally try to escape or cause problems. Every neutral npc is automatically “quite leery” and May as well be hostile.

It’s such a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again, this all sort of meshes together. If the players don’t kill everyone, the dm just keeps putting up problems and roadblocks until the players just start killing everyone to avoid them. Every prisoner will suicidally try to escape or cause problems. Every neutral npc is automatically “quite leery” and May as well be hostile.

It’s such a self fulfilling prophecy.

An NPC is "hostile" if they attack you or clearly intend to do so. If a PC decides to strike preemptively, that has more to do with them than the NPC.

Not that there aren't plenty of reasons why that might happen.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's basic operant conditioning; if the mouse get a shock for doing something, it stops doing that thing.

 

[Hussar]

An NPC is "hostile" if they attack you or clearly intend to do so. If a PC decides to strike preemptively, that has more to do with them than the NPC.

Not that there aren't plenty of reasons why that might happen.

Hostile in the sense that they will actively work against you. IOW, the roadblocks that DM's continually place in the way of the players in the name of "believability" simply reinforce the very behaviour that these same DM's complain about.

If every NPC will automatically treat the PC's as untrustworthy and "be leery" of them, resulting in the players constantly being frustrated by trying to resolve situations in anything other than just killing everything, then the players will default to the path of least resistance.

Like I said earlier in my response to @Lanefan - if the fleeing baddie will always result in a negative, then the players will never let anything go. Why bother talking to anything, taking prisoners or letting things run away if it just bites them in the ass?

If you want players to actually behave in a particular way, then that particular way has to be rewarded in some fashion. If it is only ever penalized, then no rational player will ever do it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It doesn't help that D&D has rarely given players tools to address problems non-violently that aren't entirely dependent on properly second-guessing how the GM will respond to them, where the tools for violence are at least fairly predictable and relatively objective.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Hostile in the sense that they will actively work against you. IOW, the roadblocks that DM's continually place in the way of the players in the name of "believability" simply reinforce the very behaviour that these same DM's complain about.

If every NPC will automatically treat the PC's as untrustworthy and "be leery" of them, resulting in the players constantly being frustrated by trying to resolve situations in anything other than just killing everything, then the players will default to the path of least resistance.

Like I said earlier in my response to @Lanefan - if the fleeing baddie will always result in a negative, then the players will never let anything go. Why bother talking to anything, taking prisoners or letting things run away if it just bites them in the ass?

If you want players to actually behave in a particular way, then that particular way has to be rewarded in some fashion. If it is only ever penalized, then no rational player will ever do it.

What would you suggest then? Give specific examples that give those reasons without breaking from the reality of the situation at hand. Not every group of PCs are the Avengers, and they shouldn't have to be.

 

[Lanefan]

Hostile in the sense that they will actively work against you. IOW, the roadblocks that DM's continually place in the way of the players in the name of "believability" simply reinforce the very behaviour that these same DM's complain about.

Some of the DMs, maybe. Not me. If in-character they wanna slaughter everything that moves, who am I to stop 'em?

If every NPC will automatically treat the PC's as untrustworthy and "be leery" of them, resulting in the players constantly being frustrated by trying to resolve situations in anything other than just killing everything, then the players will default to the path of least resistance.

Depends on the NPC. In town some are trustworthy, some aren't - much like a wild-west sort of real life. In the field in enemy territory the ratio of untrustworthies naturally tends to rise.

Like I said earlier in my response to @Lanefan - if the fleeing baddie will always result in a negative, then the players will never let anything go. Why bother talking to anything, taking prisoners or letting things run away if it just bites them in the ass?

We long ago found that Speak With Dead gives the best of both worlds. You get to kill 'em AND you get their info.

 

[Andvari]

Do the captives mostly behave that way because it makes sense in the setting for them to do so, or because it's easier to for the table for them to not be an issue?

Also, how friendly is your PCs relationship with the local law? In my experience, most PCs are too independently minded to essentially act as law enforcement, and most law enforcement officials are very leery of vigilantes.

It usually makes sense as their morale is broken and they’d rather not risk face the PCs again. Though as DM you can typically come up with arguments either way, but I consider them defeated at that point, so I tend to push the fiction in that direction.

The PCs are currently employed by the city council, so local law enforcement is interested in helping them. Especially if it means they don’t have to deal with the monsters in combat. Though they might start executing prisoners on their own if there are too many captives to hold.

 

[Hussar]

What would you suggest then? Give specific examples that give those reasons without breaking from the reality of the situation at hand. Not every group of PCs are the Avengers, and they shouldn't have to be.

Ok, gaming story time.

We were playing Dungeon of the Mad Mage. On one of the levels (I'm avoiding spoilers here), we met a Drow outpost - the main town of the drow was somewhere else. Now, we went in, crushed the outpost and kept one of them alive. And, when I say crushed, I mean it. I don't think we lost so much as a hit point. Now, my very frightening Paladin of Asmodeus tells our prisoner that we will release her to return to her people. We don't want to fight, but, we will if we have too. Just stay out of our way. We've just proven that you are no match for us, we're not interested in you, just stay out of our way.

So, we do a few things, spend some time doing stuff, and then wander into the drow town (mostly by accident since we were pretty much just aimlessly wandering looking for something else). Of course, the entire town comes out to attack us. Tries to mob us.

The entire fight, I'm saying (both in and out of character), We had zero interest in this fight. This is entirely your fault.

Wound up spending most of an entire session dice rolling our way through the fights.

-----

Now, how I would have handled that is entirely different. The released drow, terrified because we just obliterated all the others with ease, goes back to her people, tells them to give us a wide berth and be really polite if we do happen to venture close.

But, of course that didn't happen. Silly me for forgetting the cardinal rule of D&D which is that you must kill every single thing you meet, otherwise, you're just wasting your time.

I'd argue that it's very much a failure of the DM's imagination if they cannot think of why the defeated bad guys stay defeated and don't monkey's paw every single thing the party does.

 

[Quartz]

For those arguing that it's mechanically impossible to flee in 5E, that very much depends on an environment.

It's little-appreciated but Action Surge is the Fighter's flee power.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It doesn't help that D&D has rarely given players tools to address problems non-violently that aren't entirely dependent on properly second-guessing how the GM will respond to them, where the tools for violence are at least fairly predictable and relatively objective.

That is why I like the Influence Action in One D&D along with the default attitude for NPCs. You could work up a set of morale rules from there.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

It's an old issue. I'm reminded of some of the discussions I participated in, ~25 years ago in the USENET newsgroups, particularly rec.games.frp.advocacy. The problems of both PCs and NPCs fighting to the death and never trying to surrender or flee, problems with GMs trying to set up scenarios where the PCs are expected to surrender, and problems with game mechanics that are weak on breaking away and escaping combat. GMs were expected to wing that last, with all the problems of unsatisfactory arbitrariness that involved. Even the pure Gamist guy's answer was that it should be intuitively obvious to everyone when a fleeing group has broken contact - no crunchy mechanics needed there.

It was a problem with games in general, not just D&D. For PCs fighting to the death, the consensus was that if everyone in the party is still able to fight, then it's too soon to try to run, and if a PC goes down (or is even just slowed by injury) then it's too late to try to run. The right time to run never happens, and no one could come up with a fix for that.

As for the original question of "why are we fighting" - for most players, combat is a big part of the fun, and while players will accept an occasional no-combat session, if offered a no-combat or best-to-avoid-combat campaign, they'll turn it down in favor of vacuuming the cat or watching paint dry. The problem is that combat is generally a lot less fun for GMs than for the players. So there is a lot of online advice on running low-combat/no-combat/best-to-avoid-combat games and getting the players to like it, because on-line discussions about gaming skew heavily (in my experience) toward the GMs' point of view.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's little-appreciated but Action Surge is the Fighter's flee power.

Which would mean something if there wasn't a whole party trying not to die in this team game that desperately wants to conceal that it's a team game.