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?

 

[Imaculata]

As a Dark Souls and now Sekiro player, running away is an essential battle tactic.

But I suppose that is because these computer games enjoy luring the player into fiendish traps against deadly foes, and playing unfair tricks on the player. These games very much encourage a similar mindset in the player; to be cruel and unfair. Something missing in newer editions of D&D.

I think a lot of this is on the DM though, to come up with good challenges and cruel traps. DM's could take some lessons out of the Dark Souls playbook. The way these games lure their players into a false sense of security, by placing a few weak archers at the end of a corridor, only to have 2 stronger foes flank the player as they go for the bait. Or the way snipers are placed on vantage points, just out of view of the players.

One of my favourite traps was in Demons Souls, in the Valley of Defilement. This level is full of little trolls on rickety bridges above deadly drops. Then all of a sudden there's a huge troll on a huge bridge, cleverly disguised thanks to some forced perspective. Fiendish and briljant! You don't even notice this troll is bigger until you are too close and he starts chasing you. Yeah, you'd better run!

 

[Blue]

I think parties don't run away because DMs train them that ever encounter framed as a battle will be winnable.

Don't.

Now, when starting to do this, make sure that there is a way to escape like a faster party, able to go somewhere the foe can't, maybe it's too big, or just a mother beast scaring PCs away from it's lair/nest where children are. And clues that the players can pick up on ahead of time that maybe they don't want to engage in the first place. Then, slowly remove the training wheels.

Most combat rules work rather poorly as retreat rules, and the party can end up losing more trying a retreat as foes chase and attack. I like systems like 13th Age where you can always manage a retreat with all PCs (or their bodies), but at the cost of a campaign setback. So you can pull the plug even if rules designed around staying and fighting would be punitive if used to retreat.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

When did "not running away" become commonplace?

3.x/PF.

Why?

"Oh man, you died again! Ok, I guess roll up another 6th level PC and take 13k worth of magic items and equipment".

THAT is when it started... imnsho, at least.

When the game changed at it's core from "You start at level 1...don't expect to reach level 2, but if you do... yay! Now try to get to level 3! ... ... OH, what's that? You died at level 6? Ouch! That sucks. Well, make a new 1st level PC and try again"... ... to "You died? Make a new PC of same level with same magic and gold". When the 'game' removed the BIGGEST consequence of dying ...starting at 1st level again (or even 'significantly lower' than PC level average), then there was virtually no drawback to running from a fight.

Now, to make things worse... "adventures" changed from dungeons, caves and ruins infested with bad things and direction of PC's left up to them and the DM to create/improvise (re: A, B, 4, 6, 5, blue, %$, I like pineapple)... to ...self-contained "movie story lines" that needed to be tackled in a relatively (or very) linear way (re: A, B, C, D, E, F, G). With the former, 'old school', style of adventure modules, new PC's could be brought in and pretty much be up to speed in minutes. With newer, 'new school', style of adventure paths, new PC's are tricky or out right difficult to be brought in and feel 'natural' to the continuation of the storyline.

Combine those two facts and you have a recipe for DM's not wanting to let a PC die, and Players expecting to not die because it would 'ruin the story'...added with the non-level-1-start for new PC's, and...well...there ya go.

EDIT: And reading some other posts just made, the training of DM's to "build encounters for the PC's to overcome" in stead of "build a cool dungeon with monsters, treasure, traps and tricks that can kill PC's", is a major factor to the 2nd point I made ("modules" to "adventure paths").

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[GMMichael]

Why would a NON-combat chapter tell people how to deal with a combat?

That was partially rhetorical. But to spell it out: gathering information, choosing supplies, recruiting help, and making battle plans are all, technically, not combat.

Who here has played Horizon: Zero Dawn?

Not me. Waiting for a glitch-free PC version.

If D&D had weapons of that much variety, and anyone could use them, then you'd have more reason to scout, or to hit a vulnerable enemy and then withdraw so you can switch weapons or craft something they'll be especially vulnerable to.

Not sure if Lewpuls was talking about D&D. I saw a couple references to "the game" so...

I thought D&D had this stuff, anyway? Sunrods, tanglefoot bags, weapons that can trip. Wizards. What it doesn't have is denoted weak spots of monsters, at least if it's not a vampire or fire-elemental. I think the trend, though, is to make bigger monsters more difficult, and to give them weak spots undermines that. Somehow.

 

[Helldritch]

Strange... Players in my games learned to flee. Dying is very real and you start at half the average XP of the group. That can mean two levels down the party's average level.
Rules that I apply:
1) Random encounters do not give XP nor treasure but count towards the 6-8 encounter per day.
2) Patrols do not diminish the number of creatures in the lair. But if enough patrols go missing. The lair will be on full alert. And patrols are random encounters.
3) Capturing and releasing vilains for ransom or information is a real thing. The vilains will do the same. If you kill everything in sight, do not expect to surrender. You will be killed. If your foes can survive if they surrender, so will you.
4) There is no such thing as a balanced world. Yes you can encounter a dragon that is way too powerful for you. The dragon will be unaware of you unless you attack it first. If you do. Be ready to roll new characters.
5) Reputation can do a lot. A good reputation based on facts will bring you work and adventures. A bad reputation will show. A reputation based on a lie might bring you work that is way to hard for you. (But you said you killed a lich... what's an ancient dragon for you????)
6) Contacts can save you and bring you back from the dead. Especially if said contact is religious or has a big organisation. The mercernary way can be fun, but working for the king or a church or a mage's guild can save your ass.
7) You can have a milestone or not. It is not random, but based on specific goals that can be story related or not.

 

[Doug McCrae]

When the game changed at it's core from "You start at level 1...don't expect to reach level 2, but if you do... yay! Now try to get to level 3! ... ... OH, what's that? You died at level 6? Ouch! That sucks. Well, make a new 1st level PC and try again"... ... to "You died? Make a new PC of same level with same magic and gold". When the 'game' removed the BIGGEST consequence of dying ...starting at 1st level again (or even 'significantly lower' than PC level average), then there was virtually no drawback to running from a fight.

1e AD&D DMG pg 111:

Experienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters. If the average is 4th level, for example, an "average" die or d4 + 1 can be rolled to find a level between 2 and 5. This actually works well even if the average experience level of the campaign is 5th, 6th, 7th, or even 8th, especially when the "averaging" die is used. If the experience level is above 8th, you will wish to start such newcomers out at 4th or higher level. After all, they are not missing out on anything, as they have already played beginning character roles elsewhere, and they will not have to be virtually helpless and impotent characters in your campaign, as you give them a substantial level to begin with — 4th, 5th, or 6th for instance.​

 

[Retreater]

To answer the question, I think when the focus went from exploration and survival to engaging and balanced combat encounters as the default assumption. So very much 3.x.
Setting up enemies on a battlegrid reinforces "they are meant to be fought." With Encounter building math baked into the system, players expect fights they can win. It's also hard to run away - especially after party members start dropping - unless you just want to be okay leaving your friend's character to die. Also the modern game rewards players with XP for killing monsters, not running away from encounters. It also doesn't punish them for dying.
So there's no reason to ever run from a fight in modern D&D.

 

[Derren]

It basically cones down to the "combat as sport" and "combat as war" divide.
With time D&D shifted more and more towards the former and did everything to make sure that every encounter was level appropriate and doable by the group. So why should they run away from an encounter when the book is full of rules about how encounters should never really be dangerous?
If there is an encounter the expectation is that it is level appropriate and that it fits into the combat pay day schedule.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I don't think Challenge Rating prevents encounters from being too difficult. It only prevents it from happening when the DM doesn't want to. If you want to put 1st level PCs against CR8 monsters you can.

(Besides, in 1st edition the HD of a monster pretty much served the same purpose as CR)

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The PCs in my campaign run away quite a bit. I think the reasons are several:

First, we play a less 'superheroic' campaign. And by that I mean that our version of 5e scales back the special abilities. We prefer the characters to be more grounded and more like the rest of the world. I've mentioned this many times, but our approach to a hero is more classical, 'an ordinary person doing extraordinary things,' rather than the 'PCs are a cut above, they are special, they are more powerful than the normal population.' approach.

They are also more grounded in the setting, with more 'real-world' ambitions, like raising a family or owning a business, etc. It's not uncommon for PCs to retire and still play a part in the campaign, but infrequently. They consider the consequences of death as having an impact on other people they love that are back home.

I also prefer the older style design where the encounters were often designed to be much more dangerous. A handful of goblins isn't a big deal, but dozens are. We tend to stick at either 4th level or 8th level, but the dangers do not. Running away, investigating, and planning are all viable and frequently used tactics to move forward as a result.

We tend not to follow the BBEG model. That is, there might often be an important villain, such as a local mob-boss style NPC. But that doesn't address the much, much larger organization behind them, which is too large to defeat entirely. The 1e/2e Zhentarim are a good example. James Bond and SPECTRE another one.

Combat is rarely their first choice to solve a problem, and often not even their second or third. In part this is because combat is dangerous and seen as just another obstacle to something else, rather than the purpose itself. Think of it like the Fellowship in Moria, the goal was to get through Moria, not to explore, plunder, and clear it of the goblins/orcs that had overrun it. Combat is often inevitable, but the PCs try to avoid it where they can.

We also modify the rules, in particular initiative and the turn-based combat system. When combat resembles a game of freeze-tag, then it's hard to envision running away. We separate movement from creature's turns, and it occurs naturally as we describe the combat. It makes it much, much easier to initiate and envision chase sequences or, perhaps more frequently, combat on the move. Again, think Moria - fighting specifically to move forward, rather than standing your ground to defeat them first and then proceed when you have.

We also don't base opportunity attacks on most movement in combat. That's one of the things that has made combat very 'sticky' in 5e. Compare 5e combat to something like boxing. In boxing you are usually just out of reach of your opponent, turning and running away wouldn't be a challenge. Opportunity attacks occur when you try to close to make your attack. Because that's when you're entering their reach and the risk of attack. This is the same in fencing as well.

In the end, combat is made more dangerous by these and other approaches in our game. Whenever possible, enemies will try to avoid attacking unless they have superior position and/or numbers. When they can, this immediately puts the PCs at a disadvantage. One that requires them to try to alter the situation to avoid heavy losses simply due to attrition. Because of that, the PCs do their best to control when it does happen.

I guess the general design approach is that the PCs are almost always the underdog in our campaign. Which immediately alters their approach to engaging in combat. It's very clear right from the start that combat is dangerous and should be engaged only when you can't avoid it, and if at all possible, you are pretty sure you'll win.

As a quick example, I have a tomb scenario that I've used many times to introduce new players to my game. The first part is almost entirely destroyed by time and natural forces, like a stream. Traps are non-functioning but were clearly deadly, there is some treasure, and natural creatures (stirges, giant insects, animals, etc.) and natural challenges (pit traps, etc.). The second part is plundered, but still holds some more deadly traps that have yet to be sprung, with some undead or construct guardians that may still be present. In addition, there are the remains of clearly much more powerful adventurers, mostly plundered as well. The treasure that remains is mostly of the type that is too large to easily move (furniture, tapestries, etc.). The third part is the undisturbed tomb itself. There is great treasure, but it's clear that whatever is protecting it has not been awakened or triggered. Smart adventurers will choose to leave it and come back later. Occasionally they don't take the (obvious) hints, and we're making new characters. We make at least 3 characters at a time, and they can switch them in and out at appropriate moments. A TPK after the first few weeks of playing is as good a spot as any. For the parties that didn't take the hint, they love it. It clearly tells them what to expect for the future and they adjust accordingly.

Another common encounter I have is with a bear, that is startled, attacks one PC and then flees. More often than not, the single attack from a bear is very dangerous for a 1st-4th level PC. I wouldn't want to be face-to-face with a bear in real life, and it's important that the PCs feel the same way.

So make it obvious that it's an option (and sometimes preferred), and tweak rules that get in the way.