D&D General worst (real) advice for DMs

[hawkeyefan]

To have clear mechanics would require a considerable degree of complexity as a huge variety of situations would have to be accounted for. Doable, yes; but the returns may or may not be worth the effort.

It would not require that. The rules can be as simple or as complex as one wanted, but it would not be required to be either. I would think the simpler the better, but that's with 5E in mind. Other editions of D&D or other games might call for more complex or less complex rules, and of course any play group will have their own preference.

In any event, if the returns were not worth the effort, then I would say to lower the complexity to a point where the returns become worth the effort.

It could be something as simple as a kind of reverse morale roll. At signs of the enemy retreating, make a morale check and have tiered results like "total pursuit/attack" and "parting shots" and "celebrate the victory". Something like that.

Indeed, it comes down to the DM playing the opposition in good faith and as far as possible thinking as they would.

Sometimes the foes will chase fleeing PCs if it's to the foes' advantage to do so (almost always the case when, say, the foes can fly and the PCs cannot) and-or the foes know they have the upper hand and are smart enough to realize they need to strike while the iron is hot.

Sometimes the foes are just glad to see the PCs off (and almost always the case when the foes know they cannot outrun the PCs) as - unknown to the PCs - they too were barely hanging on, and-or they've defended what they need to defend (often, their homes) and see no reason to move away from its location.

Sometimes it's a mix.

Yes, but this is where the GM has significant input. You say playing the opposition in good faith....but faith to what? To the goals and ideals that the GM has given them. The GM has also decided the types of enemies and their number and very likely the information that brought the PCs to this encounter and on and on. Perhaps the players got themselves into this mess, that certainly does happen, but very often the GM will have a very significant role in getting things to this point.

Again, if the goal is to make party retreat an option that players are more likely to consider, then barring mechanics for this, the GM's response when PCs do retreat is pretty much the only factor. So in that case, I'd say that in all but the most extreme examples, let the PCs flee. Have the NPCs gloat and mock them as they run off. That's a perfectly valid response.

Now, you don't want to always have that be the response, I get that; having the same outcome every time makes things predictable, and that works against the sense of danger that should be present. But if you take a GM who always has the enemies allow a retreat and a GM who never has the enemies allow a retreat, I think the latter is worse for the game than the former. It's no less predictable, and it essentially removes a party retreat as a viable option.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's the "game" part of role playing game. And you see it with players too who won't let the enemy flee either.
And as far as the "optimal" fashion goes, there are reasons I'm not interested in always playing "optimally".

I'm not sure exactly what you mean in the second sentence, but I'm not talking about playing optimally. I'm talking about the GM falling into a habit of running the NPCs from a standpoint of pure tactical optimization with the goal of killing the PCs. Not with winning, but with eliminating the PCs.

I don't think this is a good habit to fall into, but plenty of GMs do. I can say that I have done so at times. I justified it as "but this is what a bloodthirsty gnoll would do" and so on. But there's almost always more than one thing that someone "would do". Do I even have to cite the trope of the villain gloating when they should simply put a bullet in the hero's head? Or examples like a wide receiver thinking he's broken away for an easy TD and he starts gloating only to have a defender strip the ball at the 2-yard line?

Opponents don't always behave in a perfectly calculated pattern of the kind that games like D&D promote with the math and the turns and so on. GMs should break out of that thinking a bit more if they don't want those patterns to determine everything.

So if a party retreat is a desired option....if a given game group wants that to be available to the PCs....then they either need to make rules for it, or else the GM has to allow it to work often enough that it becomes something the players will consider.

 

[billd91]

Routs have been the death of many an army.

Though the D&D rules could be kinder to attempts to disengage from a combat. Overall, the biggest obstacle tends to be individual initiative; either you have to risk waiting for the lower initiative characters to withdraw or cover your retreat or take a chance that if you withdraw immediately, the enemy won't just follow you and wail on you. It can quickly become an "F' it, I'll stay and fight" moment.

I agree that the lack of side-based initiative does significantly hamper the potential to coordinate a withdrawal or flee. But I wouldn't underestimate the "eff it, I'll stay and fight" impulse even if not because of complications due to individual initiative. Players do that plenty often based on misplaced assumptions about level-appropriateness, DM willingness to TPK, sunk costs (like PC death/incapacitation already incurred), and hopes that they can still "pull it out".

I'm tempted that should the party decide to book it, to drop initiative and make it some sort of group skill + story check - failure being taking a couple whacks on the way out, or if the result is too poor, the fight starts back up again (possibly in a new area).

There may be some fertile ground here for ideas. I'd even consider giving some classes/specializations a bonus to the checks. It would also make a good option for a battlemaster to apply their superiority dice.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean in the second sentence, but I'm not talking about playing optimally. I'm talking about the GM falling into a habit of running the NPCs from a standpoint of pure tactical optimization with the goal of killing the PCs. Not with winning, but with eliminating the PCs.

Agreed; however the flip side is that the most common response to people claiming 5e (or whatever version) is "easy mode" is that the DM must be playing the monsters like idiots. Seems like a can't-win situation here.

I don't think this is a good habit to fall into, but plenty of GMs do. I can say that I have done so at times. I justified it as "but this is what a bloodthirsty gnoll would do" and so on. But there's almost always more than one thing that someone "would do". Do I even have to cite the trope of the villain gloating when they should simply put a bullet in the hero's head? Or examples like a wide receiver thinking he's broken away for an easy TD and he starts gloating only to have a defender strip the ball at the 2-yard line?

I've seen PCs do this too.

Every time I see the very-overused trope bolded above I quietly facepalm.

Opponents don't always behave in a perfectly calculated pattern of the kind that games like D&D promote with the math and the turns and so on. GMs should break out of that thinking a bit more if they don't want those patterns to determine everything.

So if a party retreat is a desired option....if a given game group wants that to be available to the PCs....then they either need to make rules for it, or else the GM has to allow it to work often enough that it becomes something the players will consider.

I think the latter; though it'll always be based on some combination of situation, characterization, and dice and thus likely never be the same twice.

For example, let's say we have a party in the woods around a major Gnoll settlement who have decided the way to weaken said settlement is to slowly whittle away at their patrols and hunting parties once they get well clear of the settlement. Each group of Gnolls the party meets is liable to react differently - some might flee, some might fight to the death, some might use smart tactics while others don't, some might pursue fleeing PCs while others might gloat and-or themselves fall back, and so on; depending on my random dice rolling and narrated/rationalized (if anyone cares to pay attention) as variance in personality/courage/fanatacism/viciousness between the patrol leaders.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes. But you don't end it there. You expect it of them, or at least consider it dumb that they don't.

(And just to make it clear; I'm not talking about a situation where the players got themselves into this; once that occurs any solution is going to be different degrees of bad. But if you've actively placed them in it, especially without warning? There's no virtue to that whatsoever, and at least at the start of this sequence you included that and seemed to think it was a good thing to do).

It's rare if ever that the bolded occurs, and if-when it does there's usually an out-clause of some sort often involving talking/thinking rather than combat provided the players/PCs think to try something different. That said, it's certainly more than possible for PCs to get themselves in too deep if they're not cautious and-or don't pay attention to their surroundings. If the 1st-level group just walks up to the Lich's castle and tries to wade in* without doing any info-gathering first then their life expectancy just took a severe turn for the lower, which seems quite realistic.

* - this is in fact a famous-around-here story from an early-days game that, regrettably, I was not in. I think three (?) of seven (?) survived and fled, with the corpses of their ex-companions being thrown at the survivors by the Lich's guardian Trolls as they ran off.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Protip: You don't need to outrun the monster. You just need to outrun your slowest party member

 

[Lanefan]

Protip: You don't need to outrun the monster. You just need to outrun your slowest party member

Yeah, I've been raked over the coals a bit in this thread for suggesting exactly this.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's rare if ever that the bolded occurs, and if-when it does there's usually an out-clause of some sort often involving talking/thinking rather than combat provided the players/PCs think to try something different. That said, it's certainly more than possible for PCs to get themselves in too deep if they're not cautious and-or don't pay attention to their surroundings. If the 1st-level group just walks up to the Lich's castle and tries to wade in* without doing any info-gathering first then their life expectancy just took a severe turn for the lower, which seems quite realistic.

Go back and look at what you said in post #111. Heck, I'll quote it for you:

"If, however, you're suggesting that parties should never be put (or be able to put themselves!) into positions where choices like this have to be made, then I have no sympathy." [Emphasis mine].

"be put into positions where choices like this has to be made" has no obvious other meaning except that they'll have to decide to abandon people or die. If that's not what you meant, you expressed it extremely badly. If you did, then I see no reason to change my reaction at all: its bluntly, terrible GMing no matter what your own preferences are, unless the players have bought into it (and your last clause indicates that doesn't matter).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Protip: You don't need to outrun the monster. You just need to outrun your slowest party member

Its amusing when intended as a joke.

 

[Guest 7034872]

His decisions are not your decisions. Let it go.