D&D General Why are we fighting?

[Lanefan]

...we're playing a game.

A cooperative storytelling game.

No, a game. Cooperative and storytelling are qualifiers you're putting on it. Not everyone uses those same qualifiers.

Failures can happen without the entire thing being turned into a Shaggy Dog Story. I think this lack of understanding is why some people are so hung up on death as the only stake. As much as they profess to hate 'the video games', they can't comprehend failure without a Game Over.

So what other mechanical fail states are there now? All the "snakes" have been removed from the board (as have, in fairness, many of the "ladders" as well). "Game over" is the only fail state that's left.

Even more so when, as keeps arising in this thread, parties insist on all going down together in a TPK rather than putting the party's survival ahead of any one character i.e. being a bit callous and treating the falling or fallen party member as being the resource you have to burn in order to escape with your own lives.

A TPK truly is a "game over" state, to be avoided at almost any cost.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, but is every situation like that? Is that scenario even that common? "Punch the tough guy in the nose and he'll leave you alone" doesn't work every time, and not every enemy is one BBEG and a horde of intimidated followers who can be turned away with a threatening gesture or rousing speech.

There is a considerable difference between works all the time and never works.

Unfortunately many DM’s default to never works.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is a considerable difference between works all the time and never works.

Unfortunately many DM’s default to never works.

What I've been hearing is that not always works is the same as never works. I don't believe that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My experience is that players are willing to accept rules for "disengage without a last attack to avoid the opponents' last attacks" and "fleeing combat is faster than pursuit, at least in the short to medium turn," as a convention of the game. The hard part is retreating when comrades are slowed or immobile.

I don't doubt they will accept that. Unfortunately, that's not the rules of most games, D&D or not (and of course unless you make other accommodations it only gets you so far with opponents with ranged attacks).

It also can run into issues I suspect with some players who are, in theory, willing to accept it as a tool for themselves to use, would be--unamused--for it as a tool for opponents, who in most games you would expect to be in a situation where they want to flee than the PCs are. You really need to train players that NPCs running for it is not a great evil (and that's going to be some real work with leader-types).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't doubt they will accept that. Unfortunately, that's not the rules of most games, D&D or not (and of course unless you make other accommodations it only gets you so far with opponents with ranged attacks).

It also can run into issues I suspect with some players who are, in theory, willing to accept it as a tool for themselves to use, would be--unamused--for it as a tool for opponents, who in most games you would expect to be in a situation where they want to flee than the PCs are. You really need to train players that NPCs running for it is not a great evil (and that's going to be some real work with leader-types).

Having the bad guys escape and/or having the protagonists take prisoners is just not a big part of the fantasy genre, largely because law enforcement as an ally is not a big part of the fantasy genre. You really want a superhero-styled game for that, and while 5e certainly has the power for that, the genre remains pretty much fantasy.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No, a game. Cooperative and storytelling are qualifiers you're putting on it. Not everyone uses those same qualifiers.

So what other mechanical fail states are there now? All the "snakes" have been removed from the board (as have, in fairness, many of the "ladders" as well). "Game over" is the only fail state that's left.

I said failure. Mechanical is a qualifier you're putting on it. Not everyone uses those same qualifiers.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Having the bad guys escape and/or having the protagonists take prisoners is just not a big part of the fantasy genre, largely because law enforcement as an ally is not a big part of the fantasy genre. You really want a superhero-styled game for that, and while 5e certainly has the power for that, the genre remains pretty much fantasy.

I'm not sure I entirely agree, but it almost doesn't matter: it still comes back to "if you want people to treat it that something other than slaughters is acceptable, you have to teach them that the price for not killing everything isn't prohibitive." If you don't care about that, then the question is moot, but if you do, the statement is still accurate.

 

[overgeeked]

A TPK truly is a "game over" state, to be avoided at almost any cost.

Nah. You can play through a TPK just fine. Have the PCs wake up in the afterlife and have the gods strike a bargain with them to go back and complete unfinished business. Have them wake up a century or two later as undead servants to a necromancer and now they have to fight their way out. Have them wake up on the banks of the River Styx and they’re out of coins for Charon…who sends them back to the land of the living to collect the proper obols.

 

[Hussar]

What I've been hearing is that not always works is the same as never works. I don't believe that.

I wouldn’t know because all I ever see or hear about is never works. One need only look at this thread and see that.

Here’s a simple solution. Baddies that run away cause similar baddies in the same region to begin encounters frightened with a dc 10 Wis save at the end of turns removing the effect. Effect is removed by a long rest.

Poof. Instant fantastic results for the party to let things flee and spread panic.

But I’m fairly sure no dm ever does this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I wouldn’t know because all I ever see or hear about is never works. One need only look at this thread and see that.

Here’s a simple solution. Baddies that run away cause similar baddies in the same region to begin encounters frightened with a dc 10 Wis save at the end of turns removing the effect. Effect is removed by a long rest.

Poof. Instant fantastic results for the party to let things flee and spread panic.

But I’m fairly sure no dm ever does this.

That's a cool idea under appropriate circumstances. I like it.

 

[Lanefan]

I wouldn’t know because all I ever see or hear about is never works. One need only look at this thread and see that.

Here’s a simple solution. Baddies that run away cause similar baddies in the same region to begin encounters frightened with a dc 10 Wis save at the end of turns removing the effect. Effect is removed by a long rest.

Funny - this almost-exact scenario came up in the session I just ran. A couple of Orcs ran off into the dungeon as their buddies got hopelessly slaughtered, the party knows there's (almost certainly) more of 'em in here somewhere.

Character A: "Do we chase 'em?"
Character B: "Nah - let 'em run scared, 'cause they'll make any of the rest of 'em they bump into scared."

Which, thinks me as DM, is very likely exactly what will happen. Morale is sinking fast among the Orcs overall, and their two leaders are both dead; these two running scared might just send the whole lot of 'em packing other than a couple of die-hard elites who will fight to the death in hopes of gaining brownie points with Gruumsh.

Poof. Instant fantastic results for the party to let things flee and spread panic.

But I’m fairly sure no dm ever does this.

And then I read this post. What impressive timing!

 

[Andvari]

I had a similar scenario a while back where orcs had settled around a temple the PCs were hired to reclaim. They found out their leader was holed up in a nearby mansion.

They stormed the mansion, slew the leader and some patrols, then retreated from the area to recuperate. I figured the remaining orcs would discover their dead leader in the meantime and that they would at least relocate their children and most of their women.

But would their warriors and clerics also leave? I couldn’t decide, so I made a morale check. They passed, and I decided a cleric would assume leadership and set up the remaining forces within the temple.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I had a similar scenario a while back where orcs had settled around a temple the PCs were hired to reclaim. They found out their leader was holed up in a nearby mansion.

They stormed the mansion, slew the leader and some patrols, then retreated from the area to recuperate. I figured the remaining orcs would discover their dead leader in the meantime and that they would at least relocate their children and most of their women.

But would their warriors and clerics also leave? I couldn’t decide, so I made a morale check. They passed, and I decided a cleric would assume leadership and set up the remaining forces within the temple.

That’s a cool way to do it. I would probably suggest finding ways to let the players know they almost scared off the whole group; maybe they overhear a patrol complaining, or the cleric has to give a motivational speech before anyone attacks. Stuff like that.

One distinction that isn’t always clear is the line between “can’t work” and “didn’t work this time.”

 

[Paul Farquhar]

What I've been hearing is that not always works is the same as never works. I don't believe that.

11% works?

 

[Andvari]

That’s a cool way to do it. I would probably suggest finding ways to let the players know they almost scared off the whole group; maybe they overhear a patrol complaining, or the cleric has to give a motivational speech before anyone attacks. Stuff like that.

One distinction that isn’t always clear is the line between “can’t work” and “didn’t work this time.”

They discovered the surrounding buildings were abandoned and that guards were still at the temple. And the cleric did in fact give a monologue.

 

[Blue]

We're fighting in D&D because the class format requires attrition based resource management for the game aspect to work.

Having combats that are cut short without using the full allotment of resources is counterproductive in that it requires additional combat(s) to make up that lack-of-usage.

Notice I didn't mention anything about goals, story, challenges, etc.? Because you can have those in other mechanical systems that do not require the attrition. But this is why in D&D, we must.

So any discussions about alternate goals and all of that are wonderful - and are useless until we address the underlying mechanical issue with the rules.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I have never once included a combat because I felt the need to honor resource management.

I include combats because contrary to what I am contractually obligated to say, violence is awesome and doing it in a controlled, fictional environment is the best way to do it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And of course, in case people want to forget, having a class system where the majority of powers on the majority of classes are focused on combat one way or another, avoiding combat is going to--at best--come across to a lot of (if not most) people as pretty perverse.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And of course, in case people want to forget, having a class system where the majority of powers on the majority of classes are focused on combat one way or another, avoiding combat is going to--at best--come across to a lot of (if not most) people as pretty perverse.

Now if every class got some perverse options, we'd be talking.

 

[Blue]

I have never once included a combat because I felt the need to honor resource management.

In this case, of "RPG", you are neglecting the "G" part of it.

Class balance in D&D is strongly affected by the number of encounters between rests. You can make up the deadliness of fewer encounters with mroe challenging encounters, but class balance is off. Think like this - compare a rogue, a nice at-will repeat-every-round type of charactrer, with a full casters. In a game where the full caster just needs to cast their highest level slots that caster will have a much higher effect per round that the at-will. On the other hand if there's enough that the same full caster is at times using cantrips and other things which are less than the at-will repeatable, the average effetiveness per action will come down and they will be in the same neighborhood. An even easier example is where is a barbarian more powerful - where they can rage every combat, or rage in half the combats.

Mind you, 5e is pretty poorly calibrated on how many enocunters are needed to use up all the resources they gave to classes. That doesn't mean that it isn't still what the balance between different classes in based on, just that it often gets reduced. When you fully don't care though it really gets neglected.