Worlds of Design: The Lost Art of Running Away

How often does an adventuring party avoid an encounter, even run away from one? This used to be common in earlier versions of the game, but less so now. What changed?

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.
​

“Run away, run away!” King Arthur, fleeing the carnivorous rabbit in Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Do you ever have your character run away in video games? In most video games, because there's the "save game" mode, there's no incentive to run away. Try to beat the enemy, and if that doesn't work, respawn and either try again or wait until you're stronger. You can't do that as easily in tabletop role-playing games, where if you die, you die. (Well, most of the time . . .)

On the other hand, players from my campaign have been struck by how seldom other gaming groups actually gather intelligence, or run away. They'd learned not to fight every fight, not to jump on every random encounter, not to push beyond their limits while relying on the GM to bail them out. Fighting every encounter becomes habit with some players, to the point that they may characterize a too-tough encounter a GM failure, not their failure to recognize when they should bail out (or not even start a fight).

This is exacerbated by GMs who, if players won't take on an encounter NOW, will not let them take it on later when they're better prepared. In my opinion, this encourages foolish choices in a tactical-style game. It's OK when you play a storytelling game, where characters aren't really in danger unless the story requires it.

Perhaps another reason why running away is uncommon, is that there's work involved. Avoiding a too-tough encounter requires good scouting as well as good intelligence-gathering (such as interrogating prisoners). But poor scouting is not confined to RPGs; it was a characteristic of many ancient and medieval armies. Entire armies could be ambushed because of poor scouting (as Romans at Lake Trasimene by Hannibal). Roman and Macedonian armies at the Battle of Cynoscephalae marched along with a ridge in between, unaware of their immediate proximity despite earlier skirmishes near Pherae, until someone went atop the ridge and spotted the enemy.

I think part of succeeding, in military terms especially, should be knowing when NOT to fight. Think about combat odds from "Always tell me the Odds." If you recognize how dangerous combat can be, and avoid the most dangerous when you can ("run away"), you're actually helping out your GM, who has the difficult task of making combat feel dangerous without making it too dangerous!

Of course, in earlier editions of the game, one of the most exciting adventures was where you got lost. Then it's extra smart to avoid fighting. Perhaps if parties got lost more often, they’d be less in the habit of fighting everything. So what can a GM do to encourage players to avoid fighting what they should not?

• Emphasize the mission. A random encounter along the way may be worth avoiding simply because it doesn't move the mission forward. Which brings us to...
• Give mission-based XP rather than XP for "monsters" killed. If you give XP for every encounter regardless of relevance to the mission, many players are going to fight every encounter just for the XP.
• Let interrogation yield useful information. Not every time, of course, but often enough that players will take prisoners, and even organize cutting-out expeditions to capture someone, in order to gather information. If interrogation never works, who's going to bother with prisoners?
• Don't let adventure publisher control how you GM the adventure. Modules tend to assume the party will fight whatever it encounters. You don't need to do it that way.
• Or at worst, let the party get their butts well and truly kicked a few times, and they might decide to pick and choose their battles.

My question to readers: how often does the party run away in your campaign?

 

[Hussar]

Steading of the Hill Giant Chief

Only strong and experienced characters should adventure into these areas if the party is but 3 or 4 characters strong. The optimum mix for a group of 9 characters of various classes with an average experience level of at least 9th, and armed with 2 or 3 magical items each. For a small party the most important thing is experience and even a party of 3 or 4 highly experienced 9th level characters can expect a reasonable chance of survival if they use their knowledge and cunning to best advantage.

Sounds like a pretty solid level guide there. A fairly standard party of 9th level characters or a smaller, twinked out party of 9th level characters. Dunno about you, but, that sounds an awful lot like it's supposed to be a module for 9th level characters.

Thing is, CR wasn't invented by 3e. It was always in the game. It was just codified in 3e. In earlier editions, you had "dungeon level" for how powerful the monsters were. However, what people tend to ignore is that 3e monsters are FAR, FAR more deadly in combat than AD&D monsters. Outside of save or die effects anyway. I mean, good grief, an orc, piddly little Monster Manual orc, no bonuses, no classes, nothing, in 3e could deal 48 points of damage in a single hit (3.5 orcs were given falchions for a reason). One lucky die roll and that 1/2 CR creature could potentially off your 4th level character.

I killed far more PC's in 3e than I ever did in all the years I played AD&D. It was actually harder NOT to kill PC's in 3e/3.5. Between the fact that a given monster by and large could do around (give or take) 10XCR in a single round, plus criticals, offing PC's was easy. All I had to do was get lucky once. The players had to get lucky every time.

 

[R_Chance]

That wizard is lucky if they have more than 31 hp, though. Sure, lightning bolt hurts, but with superior numbers, the party has a decent chance to disrupt the magic-user and blow through the 32hp...I think the odds are against the magic-user. 2 wizards in the party using magic missile with a casting time of 1, doing 3d4+3 for approximately 10 damage each, likely disrupting a bigger spell...

The average for a 14th level magic user would be 35 hit points. He wouldn't use Lightning Bolt on the party and, with a Minor Globe of Invulnerability (4th level) no spell below 4th level could affect him. That includes Magic Missile, Lightning Bolt and Fireball. He can cast out as long as it passes the edge of the Globe, nothing 3rd level or below comes in (including the effects of an area spell). That covers everything they have as 6th level characters. It lasts one round per level of the caster. A Shield spell (1st level) blocks Magic Missile completely and provides armor of various levels against more mundane attacks. It lasts 5 rounds per level of the caster. In short if you knew, or guessed, you might throw down with intruders you could cast these before the encounter. This is AD&D / 1E btw for the spell effects. And, he can Teleport (5th level) or Dimension Door (4th level) out if need be and get prepped. Then look out. Unless he just grunts and leaves

As for his attack, I mentioned the 6th level possibilities above; a Death Spell killing 3-8 characters of 5th-6th level, no save allowed, or a Disintegrate spell destroying, well disintegrating, everything in a 10' x 10' x 10' cube. Saving throw allowed on that one. The Death Spell is obviously the optimal attack for the 14th level magic user. Thinking back I'm not sure if Disintegrate, despite the area of effect, can target more than one creature. That's nagging me. There's Cloudkill (5th level, save or die - 5th level at -4, 6th level normal vs. poison) though, or just Fireball. 10D6 save for half damage. Crispy critters any magic users or thieves of 5th to 6th level. Not too much fun for other characters, especially if they fail their save (which most Fighting Men need 14, Clerics need 14, and Thieves need 13) will. Magic Users have about a 50% chance of making their save (12 if 5th level or 10 if 6th level), but half of that average 35 hp Fireball will kill most of them anyway at that level.

As I said it depends on the environment and circumstances. If the situation isn't extremely good for the lower level types they are in huge trouble. Anyway, without knowing a lot more (including the 14th level Magic users "load out" of spells) it's hard to say exactly how it would work out.

 

[R_Chance]

Sounds like a pretty solid level guide there. A fairly standard party of 9th level characters or a smaller, twinked out party of 9th level characters. Dunno about you, but, that sounds an awful lot like it's supposed to be a module for 9th level characters.

I didn't say it wasn't for certain levels, just that it's a really broad range of numbers and power levels. It's not hard to notice that. Nine characters of various classes averaging 9th level vs. 3-4 "experienced" characters of 9th level. No differences there...

Thing is, CR wasn't invented by 3e. It was always in the game. It was just codified in 3e. In earlier editions, you had "dungeon level" for how powerful the monsters were. However, what people tend to ignore is that 3e monsters are FAR, FAR more deadly in combat than AD&D monsters. Outside of save or die effects anyway. I mean, good grief, an orc, piddly little Monster Manual orc, no bonuses, no classes, nothing, in 3e could deal 48 points of damage in a single hit (3.5 orcs were given falchions for a reason). One lucky die roll and that 1/2 CR creature could potentially off your 4th level character.

What we had was the guide to establishing how much xp a monster was worth (page 85 of the DMG, I've still got that memorized ) and, yes, random encounter tables for dungeon levels. It was used that way but they tried to formalize and codify it in 3E. With limited success I thought. I didn't find 3E / 3.5E combat deadlier than AD&D. I guess our experiences differed there. Lower hit dice for Magic Users and Thieves, save or die poison, coma if you go below zero hp and get saved, as well as good old fashioned beat downs abounded in 1E. More healing (and the infamous wand of clw), higher hp / hd types, easier resurrection, and the magic x-mas tree of goodies, in 3/3.5. PF made the Christmas tree effect worse when they dumped the xp cost for magic items. Any advantages monsters had in 3E PCs had as well. By design. I gathered the design reason for less lethality had to do with how much more time players had to invest in just creating a 1st level character for 3/3.5E. I don't know, I played a lot more Original / 1E / 2E than 3-3.5E and my experience of the two systems differed from yours. Well, both of our experiences are anecdotal in nature.

I killed far more PC's in 3e than I ever did in all the years I played AD&D. It was actually harder NOT to kill PC's in 3e/3.5. Between the fact that a given monster by and large could do around (give or take) 10XCR in a single round, plus criticals, offing PC's was easy. All I had to do was get lucky once. The players had to get lucky every time.

Again, my experience differed. The drive towards "balanced" encounters (often meaning encounters the PCs should pretty much win while expending some of their resources) seemed to lend itself to less lethal play. For me, the Original D&D was the deadliest, 1E / 2E a bit less so, and 3/3.5 less than that. Not to say PCs didn't die, but fewer in my experience. And I ramped up the encounters in 3E when I realized the PCs were just cruising through it. But, to each their own.

Edit Clarification, spelling and added a bit.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Again, my experience differed. The drive towards "balanced" encounters (often meaning encounters the PCs should pretty much win while expending some of their resources) seemed to lend itself to less lethal play. The Original D&D was the deadliest, 1E / 2E a bit less so, and 3/3.5 less than that. Not to say PCs didn't die, but fewer in my experience. And I ramped up the encounters in 3E when I realized the PCs were just cruising through it. But, to each their own.

Good point.

I never bother with 'balance'. The enemy has what they have, and the players need to figure ways to even the odds, or pay the consequences.

Thinking on the thrust of this thread, it occurs to me that since my group are all former high school and college athletes, the idea of backing away from an all-out push is alien to them.

 

[R_Chance]

Good point.

I never bother with 'balance'. The enemy has what they have, and the players need to figure ways to even the odds, or pay the consequences.

Thinking on the thrust of this thread, it occurs to me that since my group are all former high school and college athletes, the idea of backing away from an all-out push is alien to them.

I went straight 3E for awhile and then 3.5E. I didn't migrate to 3E from 2E for a while, so my 3E time was short. I rapidly went back to encounters the way I had done them before. More challenging for the PCs but still less lethal than 1/2E. The athletic drive to win certainly makes sense of the "don't run" thing. My group were originally board and miniature wargamers. Getting your rear handed
to you in a battle and suffering the loss of needed resources later in a campaign teaches a solid lesson on the need for tactical withdrawals. Well, that and Monty Python and the Holy Grail

 

[Hussar]

Heh. Yes, as the saying goes, your mileage may vary.

Like I said, a single monster of CR=PC level can (not likely, true, but, can) kill most PC's in a single round. All it took was one good run of dice and I had a dead PC. Wands of CLW simply sped up game pace. They weren't any good for in combat healing.

Now, where I did kill AD&D PC's was with save or die effects. Every bloody thing and it's mother had poison and most of the monster poisons were save or die. But, kill a PC through HP attrition? In AD&D or 2e? Not something that happened hardly ever IME. In my 3e games though, I was killing a PC on average 1/3 sessions. So, about 1/level I was whacking a PC. Not through save or die typically, but, through simple HP damage. 3e and 3.5e monsters are about the most dangerous of any edition of the game. I mean, look at a 3e troll. Max damage of 54 points in a single round. That's a CR 5 creature. 5th level PC's don't have 50 HP (outside maybe the barbarian). Fire Giant - CR 10 - 99 points of damage without using it's power attack. And heaven help the PC if you roll a crit.

Put it this way. The most damaging 1e monster is an ancient huge red dragon's breath attack - 96 points of damage. Whoof. That's going to hurt. But, that's what fire giants do in 3e. And it's not like 3e characters have more HP before 10th level. They're pretty close to the same. Same HD from AD&D to 3e. Maybe a couple more points/level from Con, but, again, not a huge difference.

After 10th level? Ok, fair enough. 3e characters get gross. But, then again, so do the 3e monsters. It's called rocket tag for a reason.

 

[prabe]

Thinking on the thrust of this thread, it occurs to me that since my group are all former high school and college athletes, the idea of backing away from an all-out push is alien to them.

It seems to me that's not inconsistent with picking the time and place for that all-out push with some care, which might involve delaying it for some time (depending, of course).

I'm also bothered by the conflation in this thread of "disengaging from an ongoing fight you can't win," which is ... not easy to do, by the rules; and "not starting an unnecessary fight you don't think you can win," which is arguably playing intelligently--and which is arguably the thing the OP says is missing. The former is clearly "running away"; I'm not sure the second is.

 

[Jd Smith1]

It seems to me that's not inconsistent with picking the time and place for that all-out push with some care, which might involve delaying it for some time (depending, of course).

I'm taking it you never played football. 'All-out' is the base speed.

I'm also bothered by the conflation in this thread of "disengaging from an ongoing fight you can't win," which is ... not easy to do, by the rules; and "not starting an unnecessary fight you don't think you can win," which is arguably playing intelligently--and which is arguably the thing the OP says is missing. The former is clearly "running away"; I'm not sure the second is.

I think you have hit on something here.

 

[Eric V]

The average for a 14th level magic user would be 35 hit points. He wouldn't use Lightning Bolt on the party and, with a Minor Globe of Invulnerability (4th level) no spell below 4th level could affect him. That includes Magic Missile, Lightning Bolt and Fireball. He can cast out as long as it passes the edge of the Globe, nothing 3rd level or below comes in (including the effects of an area spell). That covers everything they have as 6th level characters. It lasts one round per level of the caster. A Shield spell (1st level) blocks Magic Missile completely and provides armor of various levels against more mundane attacks. It lasts 5 rounds per level of the caster. In short if you knew, or guessed, you might throw down with intruders you could cast these before the encounter. This is AD&D / 1E btw for the spell effects. And, he can Teleport (5th level) or Dimension Door (4th level) out if need be and get prepped. Then look out. Unless he just grunts and leaves

As for his attack, I mentioned the 6th level possibilities above; a Death Spell killing 3-8 characters of 5th-6th level, no save allowed, or a Disintegrate spell destroying, well disintegrating, everything in a 10' x 10' x 10' cube. Saving throw allowed on that one. The Death Spell is obviously the optimal attack for the 14th level magic user. Thinking back I'm not sure if Disintegrate, despite the area of effect, can target more than one creature. That's nagging me. There's Cloudkill (5th level, save or die - 5th level at -4, 6th level normal vs. poison) though, or just Fireball. 10D6 save for half damage. Crispy critters any magic users or thieves of 5th to 6th level. Not too much fun for other characters, especially if they fail their save (which most Fighting Men need 14, Clerics need 14, and Thieves need 13) will. Magic Users have about a 50% chance of making their save (12 if 5th level or 10 if 6th level), but half of that average 35 hp Fireball will kill most of them anyway at that level.

As I said it depends on the environment and circumstances. If the situation isn't extremely good for the lower level types they are in huge trouble. Anyway, without knowing a lot more (including the 14th level Magic users "load out" of spells) it's hard to say exactly how it would work out.

Isn't the hp for a 14th level magic-user 11d4+3? That's an average of 30.5, no?

He has to cast GoI first, though, right? It has a casting time of 4 segments...odds are against him getting that off. And then he spent a round doing no damage, giving the fighter types a chance to close and engage him in melee which is the last thing he wants.

His offense is fine (though remember his fireball is doing 14d6 in 1e) and if he can get his bang spells off, he's good. It's just that when you look at the probability of him doing so, it's not good.

For purposes of the discussion at hand (overcoming a random encounter) forcing him to retreat is fine.

I am not saying the PCs win all the time, but, mathematically, the lone 14th level magic-user against 6 PCs is in trouble.

 

[Haffrung]

My AD&D group routinely ran away from combats - I'd estimate around every second session. The whole approach to adventures and combat were different from modern norms, and much like the OP describes.

Scouting was absolutely essential. A thief/rogue always scouted ahead, typically using invisibility, to reconnoiter the geographical layout and identify threats. A combat entered unexpectedly was already halfway to disaster. Preparing spells that enabled evasion and retreat was essential.

Once a threat was identified, the PCs would decide if they should kite the foes, ambush them, or evade them altogether. Prepared combats were usually initiated by using silence spell to ensure the foes couldn't alert allies. After the battle was underway, tactical dispositions and spell use were always made with one eye to pulling back and retreating once a PC went down or it became clear they were out of their league. Then well-practiced tactics were employed - careful withdrawal to chokepoints and narrow passageways, the use of entangle, web, or grease to slow pursuit, hold portal to lock doors, rope trick to disappear into a safe void, etc.

My group now is more typical of modern play. They scout only when I prompt them. Give little regard to retreat - they certainly don't prepare for it tactically, with spell selections, etc.

What changed? I think a couple of things:

1) D&D became increasingly shaped by heroic fantasy fiction. Players wanted to be heroic protagonists in a fantasy saga, rather than gritty explorers/commandos pushing their luck in a perilous and cruel environment. Scouting doesn't feel heroic. Retreat doesn't feel heroic.

2) Structurally, encounters became the core element of the game. They became detailed, prepared, and calibrated. A lot of work sent into them. And along with that work, the expectation that they would be used and play out in a prepared, dramatic fashion. Look at old modules and a major encounter might simply read 4 Hill Giants guard this area. How the PCs approached the area and how the giants reacted were typically improvised. In many cases, the encounter might be bypassed altogether. As encounters became more developed and prescribed, it came to be seen as wasteful to skip or substantially change the development of an encounter.