You can't win this encounter

corwyn77

Adventurer
The problem with "the party should run" is frequently the party cannot run. As in they can run, but the foe can run as fast as they can, or faster. Like your Dragon example. How do you run from a dragon? They fly 80 feet in a single move. The party can run away at 60 feet a round taking no attacks, while the Dragon can keep ahead of the party while still making attacks. So...it's worse than staying and fighting. They cannot actually run away if the dragon wants to pursue...and why wouldn't the dragon want to pursue someone who just tried to kill them and who is on the ropes?

I've played a lot of games and I don't know of any off the top of my head where fleeing is a valid tactic for a typical encounter, especially at a point where you know you should be fleeing. I've had a few GURPS characters who could do it, but the rest of the party would still be screwed. The one exception is most supers games, depending on the characters.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The problem with "the party should run" is frequently the party cannot run. As in they can run, but the foe can run as fast as they can, or faster.

Or the party doesn't want to run, or the party thinks the opponent will catch up to them, or the party thinks they can beat the foe, or the party thinks there will be dire consequences if they flee.

All of these are reasonable thoughts for the party to have. I think designing an encounter where the party 'must do x' is flawed thinking, and likely to result in disaster. D&D is a game that is all about choices. As the DM you are their window to the world, they know only what you tell them. So it is up to you as a DM to provide enough information so that they can make informed choices.

As a DM, I consider it my duty to present my players with a diverse set of challenges and options, not solutions. I don't throw them into a situation where they 'must run away from the Balrog', because if I did, I might as well be playing the game by myself. Fighting the Balrog should also be an option. And maybe avoiding the Balrog is an option too. I simply frame the scene, while presuming no specific course of action on the part of my players. The design philosophy of 'You must do X to not die' does not fit in D&D in my opinion.

So although my players can run into a very VERY tough opponent that is not level appropriate, I will never make the fight unbeatable. Who knows? Perhaps the players come up with a clever strategy that turns the odds in their favor. And speaking from experience, my players do this ALL the time!
 

Emerikol

Adventurer
My groups over the years have developed a high degree of paranoia. They tend to be cautious and well prepared. I find a lot of my groups can take encounters considered too high for them. Part of that is they are experienced and work well as a team but the other is that I don't overplay dumb monsters. I've had low level villains who are smart vex my groups far more than a big bad dumb monster ever has. Intelligence is underrated and I play the intelligence of the monster.

I give warnings if the group is actually trying to find warning and they exist to be found which often they do but not every single time. My groups are always looking.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
The problem with "the party should run" is frequently the party cannot run. As in they can run, but the foe can run as fast as they can, or faster. Like your Dragon example. How do you run from a dragon? They fly 80 feet in a single move. The party can run away at 60 feet a round taking no attacks, while the Dragon can keep ahead of the party while still making attacks. So...it's worse than staying and fighting. They cannot actually run away if the dragon wants to pursue...and why wouldn't the dragon want to pursue someone who just tried to kill them and who is on the ropes?
This shouldn't be a problem in an actual game - if as a DM I am putting non-level-appropriate encounters to low to mid level characters (before they get ability to get away via items or magic), I'm going to make sure they have a way to get away. A dragon's flight speed means nothing there's a narrow set of caves. A monster might be defending a nest, or have other reason why it doesn't want to give chase. Or maybe a dragon can be bribed with a service.

Don't turn monsters into murderhobos who will all mindlessly pursue and fight to the death unless it make sense - many will only kill when there is a reason, and a retreating foe satisfies their goals. Thew dragon may want to leave them alive simply to spread the word of "Don't go there! It's a dragon's domain".
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I've played a lot of games and I don't know of any off the top of my head where fleeing is a valid tactic for a typical encounter, especially at a point where you know you should be fleeing. I've had a few GURPS characters who could do it, but the rest of the party would still be screwed. The one exception is most supers games, depending on the characters.
But we're not talking typical encounter, we're talking about non-level-specific encounters that will crush the players.

If you tell me that you have DMs intentionally set up encounters that you should not engage, didn't signal it to the players so they attacked, and then provide no method to flee, then I'll tell you that you have poor DMs in that aspect. Not that the concept that not everything is there to fight is wrong.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
All of these are reasonable thoughts for the party to have. I think designing an encounter where the party 'must do x' is flawed thinking, and likely to result in disaster. D&D is a game that is all about choices. As the DM you are their window to the world, they know only what you tell them. So it is up to you as a DM to provide enough information so that they can make informed choices.
There's a world of difference between "the party must not do X" and "the party must fight it, not retreat, and die".

Often non-level-specific encounters are signalled by the DM's description, lore, etc. So you can avoid. If you don't want to avoid you can try a non-combat approach - RP, stealth, bribery, offer to do a mission if they give you what you need, etc.

The idea that everything is there to fight is what's tripping up here. Once the players have chosen that route they have, though their own choice and actions, closed off a number of successful routes. That's not the DM at all planning 'the party must do X'. And even then, if fighting doesn't work and fleeing doesn't work, try surrendering.

Remember, failure that doesn't involve a TPK is just another branch of the story.
 

MarkB

Legend
We had a GM growing up who, not only did he treat his campaign like he was writing the Great American Novel, but his definition of heroic was this:

Of six encounters, three should be heavily favoring the baddies so the party retreats, two should be 'neutrally' balanced 50/50, and one should be winnable by the PCs. He thought that was heroic. I can't even think of a fantasy novel that follows that math.
The Hobbit?
 

Emerikol

Adventurer
There's a world of difference between "the party must not do X" and "the party must fight it, not retreat, and die".

Often non-level-specific encounters are signalled by the DM's description, lore, etc. So you can avoid. If you don't want to avoid you can try a non-combat approach - RP, stealth, bribery, offer to do a mission if they give you what you need, etc.

The idea that everything is there to fight is what's tripping up here. Once the players have chosen that route they have, though their own choice and actions, closed off a number of successful routes. That's not the DM at all planning 'the party must do X'. And even then, if fighting doesn't work and fleeing doesn't work, try surrendering.

Remember, failure that doesn't involve a TPK is just another branch of the story.
Just to add to what you said. Oftentimes, the party will engage an enemy they think they can beat and on many occasions they might beat it. For whatever reason, this time they are losing. They will likely have done a lot of damage to the enemy. In some cases, that enemy is going to let them go and thank the gods they lived through it themselves. But even in pursuit, like you mentioned there are often many avenues the PCs can take.

The monsters don't always have the morale that PCs do, a morale that honestly probably is unbelievable but it is a game. These humans who are heavily armored and hit hard are not the sort of enemy you just want to chase off into the woods. What's the upside for you? Maybe you'll hang back and take a sling shot at one if you get the chance but lead the charge into the woods? Nah.
 

There's a world of difference between "the party must not do X" and "the party must fight it, not retreat, and die".

Oh absolutely. But the example I'm thinking of, is where a DM may have a cinematic escape in mind, but is then stumped when the players choose not to flee. Often when a DM only presents one solution, the players will do the unexpected.
 

rmcoen

Adventurer
At 1st level, when they encountered an ogre, I described the 9' tall thousand-pound mass of muscle (and fat) bearing down on them, swinging a ceiling support beam as a weapon. In the last encounter - PCs now 4th level - I mentioned the dozen goblins, the two ogres, but then I described the new ogres: one with 80 pounds of dwarven mining-platform chain wrapped around its fist and arm, one carrying a light ballista like a crossbow, struggling to pull the string back, and one carrying a howdah-like contraption on its back. Ogre CR2, Ogre Chain Brute CR3. They had a moment where the ballista ogre fired and missed where they could have run back into the tunnels they just exited, avoiding the fight; they had the same (slightly more limited) opportunity throughout the fight, knowing that 90' back down the tunnel was a rope bridge that the ogres couldn't pass. They fought to the end, the battlemaster and bard were KO'd, the spellcasters were out of spells; the rogue was unharmed. They were victorious, with three goblins and a shaman having fled.

Earlier, they snuck up on a suspected ogre-and-goblin camp, and through careful scouting discovered a hill giant supporting the camp, and almost double the number of foes expected. They snuck away. The only "clue" I gave was that the cooking fires seemed a little too numerous for just the foes they had seen.

I have gotten in the habit of having stat sheets ready for any encounter, because I don't know what the PCs will do - or how effective they will be! But I do try to provide descriptions of "out of the ordinary" details or potential threat. I will also generally give "Lore" style checks for new creatures encountered, or lean into class or character backgrounds. "Ranger, you've seen X before... but not one carrying a Y!" "Cleric, your studies of the undead make you very familiar with these foes; you don't know what this creature is, but you know that incorporeal foes are always much more dangerous!" "Wizard - this is clearly a demon. You don't know the type [failed Arcana check], but the power required to summon such things is currently quite a bit beyond you." "Military Scholar, your recent studies in the Wizards' Library have reminded you that warlocks that throw multiple bolts of eldritch power at a time are threat to a regiment, not just a squad..."

Rarely I will foreshadow with environmental effects or "you see a big X in the distance", but I do it occasionally. In the case of the upgraded ogres above, the party had come across walls and doors simply bashed down instead of opened...
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top