Retreating or advancing in the other direction is a necessary experience in pathfinder. The players are not supposed to be unstoppable otherwise the game would be boring and would be better as role playing without stats and numbers. The numbers should better experience, not dictate it. So what happens when a power gamed or optimized party runs into a room they are under leveled for?
The party that has never known defeat or never had to flee eventually meets its match and the result is never pretty. These parties would never "reasonably" want to or know how to retreat because of their unstoppable record. When they find themselves in too deep, survival usually takes GM grace or meta-gaming.
Example 1: The party walks into a room and is ambushed by high cr trolls. 10 trolls vs 5 adventurers? No problem. Except it is and the party gets wrecked. Before the TPK, a GM could decide to spare the party by sending the trolls to fight a real threat or a player could decide that his Paladin of Iomedae who never retreats, stuffs his party into a bag of holding and full withdraws.
Example 2: A party on a hotstreak with few character deaths runs into a room with a Nosferatu, I think. The vampire gives the party the option to retreat at the cost of two thousand gold. The party that has yet to meet its match decides to attack the vampire that they couldn't hope to defeat and are properly beat up. The TPK was looking certain until the power gamed barbarian decides to grapple the vampire and tie it up. Two party members are down and one is dominated. Before He could coup de grace the vampire it poofs into a swarm of bats. The few remaining party members grab their incapacitated friends and run away with their last friend chasing them as he is still dominated. The GM later revealed that he played the vampire wrong and could've easily killed the party but he didn't read the encounter before hand because it was not supposed to happen.
How could GMs avoid these situations? How can players avoid getting themselves into these situations? Example 1 was hypothetical though inspired by a different game. Example 2 recently happened.
Is pathfinder too strict with its numbers? I know GMs are free to change encounters to make sure that this doesn't happen but some only go off of the APs. We had a party that skipped the Castle in Jade Regent because the Barbarian used his barbarian strength to open a gate that was supposed be opened with a key that is found by clearing the dungeon. Our GM didn't adapt the campaign or give us ways to catch up on xp so each encounter ended with a character dying until we stopped the game.
Maybe my tables are just bad at retreating but I've seen it too much. Is it always the players fault or is the game too strict?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem is that fleeing can be difficult without a plan set up in advance, which will often require investment. A dwarf or a character in medium/heavy armour likely has a base speed of 20' and few monsters are that slow. Even 30' is less than many monsters. There's no morale system other than GM's judgement call, so pursuit is likely in the players minds unless the GM has set up expectations in advance. Fighting on and hoping for a miracle may seem the better chance.
I don't use modules/APs but failing to adjust encounters to the party (down or up) is a major GM fail.
I remember several cases of where one party member investigate a room alone and had to run back to the party for support against the creature chasing him. But to get the entire party to retreat, they need time. Magic helps.
Once the party was under cover identities in a hostile city. When their true identities were discovered, they escaped the immediate threat via magic, went into hiding, and sneaked out of town.
Two levels later, a Wall of Force to buy time for Plane Shift was their ticket to escape.
A different party went against a tough foe who could cast Charm Person. With half the party charmed, the others ran for it. One of the victims had resisted the Charm spell and rolled a nat 20 to bluff that he was charmed. He got a message to the escapees, who recruited help and rescued the charmed people.
As for Brinewall Castle in Jade Regent, the eight-person party in my campaign finished it at 3rd level due to splittig the xp among so many PCs. We took a hiatus before continuing the game, one family of players moved to another state, and the game resumed with only four players. I let them level up to 4th level immediately.
In stories people often meet their match.
I had a planned out an idea for a villain who was a LN Feysworn worshipper of Magdh who was gifted with foresight. This meant that to serve fate they ultimately had 0 agency, and while they could challenge and cripple certain people, they sometimes just had to let live. By threatening the PCs, they would be spurred on to a specific action fated to happen.
This can happen fairly often in stories though. Alien Covenant is just one example.
They are about to be killed off when David comes in and scares them off with a flare. He does this because he wants to gain their trust,
and hitchhike off the planet so he can continue his experiments on live specimens. The team eventually finds out, but he still manages to sneak on and succeed.
Retreating or advancing in the other direction is a necessary experience in pathfinder. The players are not supposed to be unstoppable otherwise the game would be boring and would be better as role playing without stats and numbers. The numbers should better experience, not dictate it. So what happens when a power gamed or optimized party runs into a room they are under leveled for?
<snip>
How could GMs avoid these situations? How can players avoid getting themselves into these situations?<snip>
Maybe my tables are just bad at retreating but I've seen it too much. Is it always the players fault or is the game too strict?
Are you asking how an optimized group that's gotten cocky can avoid occasionally getting in over their heads? You say initially that PCs "are not supposed to be unstoppable" yet the rest of your post seems to question how to avoid situations where the party might be "stopped".
Cocky power-gamers hit an encounter that's above their weight or just doesn't go their way? They can withdraw/flee as you mention or they can risk character death and/or TPK. They're supposed to be heroes. They're going to be challenged at times and if they aren't tactically proficient enough to realize that they can't beat every encounter, they're kind of earning the loss, capture, or character deaths that result from it.
If their power-gaming extends to a mindset that no encounter should ever be at or above their power level, you need to decide if that's the kind of game you want to run. If everyone wants to play Pathfinder on Easy difficulty (or Very Easy if they're power-gaming), more power to all. But official modules and APs aren't built that way and to me, it sounds like an incredibly boring game. A power fantasy, yes, but not an exciting one.
I think it fairly undeniable that the mechanics of Pathfinder usually don't favor retreat when over matched (with the exception of magical retreat, like teleport or dimension door). Most enemies can chase down most parties. It is easier to follow and attack then it is to attack and flee and by the time a party realizes they are in trouble, they are usually already significantly down resources.
In addition, the way the mechanics of the game work, if you are facing a foe very much tougher than you, it is likely that they can kill or neutralize you in a single round. Expected damage and DCs for debilitating conditions scale upwards with level, and lower levels often don't have the means to defend against or counter higher level threats.
This is largely a factor of the relatively extreme difference between a characters power as they gain levels. A 10th level fighter is far more dangerous then 10 1st level fighters. Other systems have a more gradual power curve. Probably most people who are playing Pathfinder like this (hence why they are playing pathfinder) and seeing a character jump in power over levels and be able to face truly heroic encounters is a draw of the game, but the side effect is that if you bump up against something your could face in three or four levels, you are likely in a lot of trouble and absent GM intervention of one sort or another their might not be a way out.
I don't know that this is a major problem, although it will come up from time to time, but is something a GM should be aware of.
Are you asking how an optimized group that's gotten cocky can avoid occasionally getting in over their heads? You say initially that PCs "are not supposed to be unstoppable" yet the rest of your post seems to question how to avoid situations where the party might be "stopped".
Cocky power-gamers hit an encounter that's above their weight or just doesn't go their way? They can withdraw/flee as you mention or they can risk character death and/or TPK. They're supposed to be heroes. They're going to be challenged at times and if they aren't tactically proficient enough to realize that they can't beat every encounter, they're kind of earning the loss, capture, or character deaths that result from it.
If their power-gaming extends to a mindset that no encounter should ever be at or above their power level, you need to decide if that's the kind of game you want to run. If everyone wants to play Pathfinder on Easy difficulty (or Very Easy if they're power-gaming), more power to all. But official modules and APs aren't built that way and to me, it sounds like an incredibly boring game. A power fantasy, yes, but not an exciting one.
The real question is, how do you tell the unstoppable party that they are indeed stoppable without killing them? Without meta-gaming of course. The way CR and retreating works, it can be very easy to be in over your head.
Should a GM warn his party about their odds or scale it down if they're determined? I could see the arguments for and against but it goes back to the game being just that. It seems the best solution is just pre-planning as others have mentioned. The full withdrawal action can spare an adventurer an AoO but the dwarf isn't going to get far unless the barbarian picks him up to retreat.
I think Rich Burlew wrote something about targeting the metagame mind.
For his game he had a sorcerer casting arcane spells in full plate armor, which made the players freak out since they knew how difficult that was.
You can have the monster use an obviously high level ability.
Maybe a swarm of weaker monsters? They kill a few, but they can quickly tell it's not enough to survive, and are better off retreating. Like 30 ghouls is gonna be tough if it takes two hits to kill each one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real question is, how do you tell the unstoppable party that they are indeed stoppable without killing them? Without meta-gaming of course. The way CR and retreating works, it can be very easy to be in over your head.
If that's all you're looking for, pit them against something that (a) they can't defeat and (b) doesn't want to kill them.
Regarding running away:
The real question is, how do you tell the unstoppable party that they are indeed stoppable without killing them? Without meta-gaming of course.
I think some of the issue is in the 'meta' of the game you run. If you have run 10 levels where they have only fought foes they could easily destroy, they are naturally going to assume that when faced with a conflict they are going to be able to defeat it, and probably will be screwed before they realize they are wrong. On the other hand, if you consistently from level 1 through the occasional 'too hard' encounter at them, they will be more likely to prepare for it and accept it (and at lower levels, it is generally easier to realize right off the bat that you are outgunned.)
Both styles of campaign have different benefits. 'Only appropriate CR' games mean the characters feel like heroes, are able to advance the plot and the players get to enjoy being generally awesome. Sometimes encountering higher CR foes (either due to 'open world' or 'high CR plot points') can feel more realistic, adds an edge of real risk to the game and allows for more out-of the box thinking. Both have downsides as wells, the 'appropriate CR game' can feel easy and lacking in challenge and unrealistic while the 'high CR' can lead to TPK, feeling their characters are useless and sometimes the party being too fearful, and not fighting enemies the GM expects them to for the plot. Different groups will like one style more than they other.
What can be a real problem though is trying to switch midstream, which is what your response above seems to indicate you are trying to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it depends more on the party than the campaign, honestly.
Hubris should be costly.
AoO are limited, as not every monster has Combat Reflexes. So withdrawing or retreating or hastily advancing in the opposite direction is always as much of an option as the party wants to make it.
Knowledge checks to identify the monster should be enough in a lot of cases, and if it's not, then it's on the party for choosing to fight something out of their league.
I don't think a friendly reminder that retreat is an option before particularly difficult encounters is too far out of GM jurisdiction.
I simply told my table at the beginning of our first session that they WILL meet enemies that they WILL have to retreat from. I made sure to emphasize that this is not a drill or a joke, that there are things here that will kill and eat low level players for a casual snack, and no amount of strategy or preparation will change that.
No, the party cannot yet do anything against the huge Golem in the forest. I'm not going to change my plan and have it not be there. I'm not going to make the huge Golem in the forest weaker to match the party. And I'm not going to hold back if they insist on sparring with the huge Golem in the forest at too low of levels. It should be a blatantly apparent opportunity to retreat... but the choice is there's, not mine. The huge Golem in the forest is going to do exactly what he is programmed to do either way.
I am not trying to kill the party, at all, but I'm also not going to hold their hand or put training wheels on my campaign because people are too stupid to run away. Stay and fight, see what happens, it's your choice... I hope you have backup characters.
How bored does a huge air elemental have to be to give chase to the party if they turn to run?
Why would it bother chasing them at all?
Even if the party doesn't know, IT knows they are not a threat to its existence.
If it's guarding something, it won't chase them very far, for fear of being lured away from whatever it may be guarding.
They done messed up if they have managed to personally upset the huge air elemental, but by the sounds of it, they found it in a random dungeon, so just leave.
Most things in the game do not immediately intend to coup de Grace everyone in the party.
Yes, the huge air elemental COULD, but why would it even bother?
@ DJ Ustus: not to badger a point, but I humbly submit that another big quotient to this is game mechanics.
Earlier in this thread I addressed the mechanical issues that a) make an overwhelming challenge likely to be a TPK and b) make running away difficult.
Yes, there are 1000s of ways a GM can either purposefully or accidentally wipe out a party with an APL + 4 encounter.
One of the risks of a 'more dangerous' campaign is that that will happen.
Beyond all that, I'm not sure what your point is.
I wasn't offended, but I wasn't sure where you were going.
After discussing the mechanical difficulties of running, the thread moved more toward the meta of running, i.e. how to let a party know that they should run from a specific encounter without giving overly heavy handed hits. (this is all assuming that the encounter has been set up where running is a viable option, if not, then it really is moot whether they try and run or not.)
I suggest that the only way to do this is to have running be a viable (and necessary) option from the beginning of the campaign, not just thrown is later after the party is used to being able to defeat everything they run into.
The mechanical issues of how to create encounters where running is viable without it seeming ludicrous or overly GM contrived remains an issue, and it is a place where the system is relatively weak, but it is possible to do, although even then embracing this strategy certainly does make it more likely that you will kill off your party. Depending on preferences, this may be an unacceptable risk for some groups.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.
- Voltaire.
Expectations and consistency are what we are talking about here.
The GM and the party both have a responsibility to each other to be forthcoming with their expectations. As a GM, I told the party that there are encounters they will have to run from or surely burn and die. I also told them directly that I have no interest or intent to kill them. I design encounters to be challenging and fun, but these encounters do have realistic level requirements for them to not just be a guaranteed TPK.
Now, the party has NO OBLIGATION to remain consistent in their approach to encounters. I, however, MUST remain consistent in my approach. I told them the generics of my formula, at Meeting Zero, they agreed to stay and play. I'm now on a contract for the next two or three years to deliver a foundation off of which they can build their champions. Not a literal contract, mind you, I just like to keep my word.
It's too easy to kill everyone in the party. The real challenge is to feed them and water them and watch them blossom into something you aren't afraid to throw the book at.
You have to be on it as a GM to constantly train your party. I see everyone is really liking their first nifty class abilities, or their first fancy spells. Everyone going nova because they just got these abilities and don't yet know proper resource management. Let me introduce you to a three day dungeon, say goodbye to the sun, you won't be seeing it for a while, and I hope you got some sleep, because you can say goodbye to that, too.
Constantly forcing them to adapt their strategies, use their abilities in different ways, use their character's place in the party in different ways. And if you are good enough, as a GM, constantly challenging them in new and creative ways, yet providing a consistent enough experience, they should have no problem retreating to resupply or replan or not come back until later. If you are dependable, they know that the encounters will be there when they get some levels and come back. And they know that this isn't the only fight.
This guy is big, I'm not, plus I gave dude one of my healing potions for some arrows, yeah screw this, let's go fight something, well, less big.
And they KNOW there are less big things to fight because their GM is consistent.