Hmm... this was actually while we were still in 3.5, and the GM in question is certainly an extremely nice and player-focused guy, but that doesn't mean he might not have made a mistake.
|
In most such cases with my GM, we reminded him that the way the monsters and the combat rules are built, it is a much better tactical choice to fight rather than try to flee. Unless the GM exerts obvious GM fiat / deus ex machina.
The rules for AoO while moving and the withdraw action both make it far less dangerous to stand your ground and full attack rather than try to escape from the Large (or bigger) enemy who will also have a better speed than your party or even fly/teleport abilities.
Also, that the party is outclassed may be obvious to the GM but not to the players. The GM really should take extra precautions to make sure the players understand with no ambiguity that their PCs will not survive direct confrontation AND will survive fleeing from their enemy. In short, the GM must not hesitate to tell the players that he intends them to flee if they do not catch his drift.
After all, even Frodo (low level Rogue) had to be told to flee from a BALROG (very high level Demon).
My campaigns are very sandbox-y, so there are ample opportunities for the PCs to get in over their heads. But I usually make it clear in-game: e.g., "as you walk in, you see Sir Badass, the greatest hero of the realm -- the one who outfought all of you put together in training -- get hit by the dragon's breath; he is instantly charred to ash. You know at this point that you're almost as good as he is, but that with more experience you'll one day far exceed him. As you're thinking on this, the monster gobbles up the remains of Badass' bones, looks incuriously at Badass' fabulous sword as if it's not worth noticing, and settles in to groom its scales."
See, now they know that (1) the monster is currently too powerful for them to tackle head-on; (2) it won't always be; and (3) it uses fire as a breath weapon. Generally, the players take this kind of stuff and run with it; often they spend a lot of time rigging things in their favor (and maybe gain a level or two), so that eventually the villain -- too powerful to just charge -- ends up going down like a chump thanks to their planning.
Late to this, but:
Yes, it is okay.
But you sometimes need to make it clear to players: "it is okay to run. I am not going to scale every challenge perfectly to you. You will not lose treasure, XP, etc. if you run away."
The problem usually when players DON'T run away, it's because they're stuck in "I must win the fight to win the game" mentality. I am reluctant to bring up the comparison to video games and thus unintentionally encourage possible derailment (because I like video games and I play them and I do not in fact think they are the ruination of TTRPGs), but I think it is a video (or sometimes board) gamer-esque attitude--many simple action CRPGs and other games, the goal is you don't pass the fight/the level/get XP/treasure UNTIL you kill the bad guy. And there is no choice but to kill the bad guy in these scenarios--your choices are kill the bad guy or shut off the game. It's easy to forget in a TTRPG, where you've got a real human being adapting to your choices and trying to create interesting, organic challenges, rather than IF MONSTER=DEAD THEN PLOT POINT=TRIGGERED, that the goal of the game isn't always to just kill the bad guys.
Players fighting to the death is going to happen especially if XP and other rewards are only given out when they kill a monster. We humans are fairly simple creatures, and we respond all too well to reward systems. If killing the monsters equals reward, then we'll always try to kill the monster, because otherwise we get nothing out of it.
It's important to note the rules of Pathfinder is that you earn XP for many things, including "overcoming" an encounter. "Overcoming" does not have to mean killing something. It could also mean bypassing, trapping, sneaking around, running from, distracting, talking down, or engaging in a friendly knitting competition or whatever with something. Players need to be trained that success does not equal the monster is dead. Success equals the PCs are alive and learned something. If the players were clever to do whatever the heck they did to get around a challenge, they should get rewarded--whether with XP or whatever other carrots the particular GM offers.
And again, the GM should be clear "fighting is not the only way around this."
Now if the GM wants to run a monty haul, kill the critter hackfest where he does want everything attacked, he should be clear about that to.
TL;DR: Players and GMs communicating clearly fixes most game problems. And yes, it's okay to run.
|
So nothing happens in your games except what the party comes up with?I guess my problem with that style is: Why are they there in the first place? Why do they want to fight the dragon?For whatever reason the party came up with.
False premise. The characters have to react to what the NPCs do, after all. So what they come up with is predicated on what the NPCs come up with.
I guess my problem with that style is: Why are they there in the first place? Why do they want to fight the dragon?For whatever reason the party came up with.
Exactamundo. I don't railroad the players -- their PCs are free to "wander off the board" on their own, if that's what they collectively decide to do. I understand very clearly from your reply that you, personally, wouldn't likely accept any of the reasons the other players might come up with, but if they all outvote you on that, I'm not going to say, "Come on, guys! You know perfectly well that thejeff is always right and we all have to obey him in all things!" If you want your PC to hang back, that's your prerogative, but neither you nor I get to tell all the other players what THEIR PCs are going to do.
Let me try and explain, Jeff, although I sense it's a pointless endeavor.
Say I make it clear that some evil ninjas are terrorizing town. Say the players decide their PCs were treated poorly by the town, and they don't care if it gets terrorized, so they decide to go lie low in a nearby cave, and stay out of the whole thing. Now, maybe there were rumors of a dragon slumbering for decades in that cave, but they don't believe it, and go there anyway. I throw in a little set piece to illustrate that, yes, the monster actually is there and yes, it's currently more than a match for them. They might decide to gain more levels, come back later, and kill it and loot its hoard to pay off their neice's gambling debts or whatever. Or they might decide to leave, catch a boat to some other country, and start new lives there. Or whatever. What the PCs do is up to the players. I can point to a ready-made adventure (in this case, the ninjas), but it's up to them how they react.
Later on, if they return to town, they'll likely find it overrun by ninjas and ruled by their evil warlord, who has substantially advanced his plans in their absence -- so their actions or inactions affect the game world.
a group of people who have saved your life, shared their food and worked with you daily for an extended period of time are to be sacrificed because the player is ticked off.
Who says they did any of that? Maybe the PCs wandered into town based on another decision they made previously. And maybe a series of failed diplomacy checks left them with a bad feeling about the locals.
Is it ever okay to say to a player--"Your character wouldn't do something like that?"
No, what their PC "would do" is up to them. I'm a referee, not a novelist.
or do you simply play it out--ruin everyone else's good time and not invite the guy back?
And what are the other PCs doing in the meantime? If they don't like what one of their fellows is doing, they are free to stop him. Or, if they LIKE what he's doing, then in what way is he "ruining everyone else's good time"?
I'm at a loss.
Clearly so. Let me put it this way: I generally game with people who are mature enough to make group decisions based on what they want to do, without me having to demand that they do exactly as I tell them.
I'm happy this circumstance has never happened to you. Anyone else who has played with a less mature or perfect crowd of people?
Ah, OK, I begin to see where you're coming from. I guess the unspoken rule at our table is "do what you want, as long as you're not just being a dick." And that's been good for us lately, largely because we take very great pains to screen out dick players and not invite them in the first place.
I can see that someone GMing in, say, a public venue -- a gaming shop or con game -- wouldn't be able to do that, and would sadly be forced to deal with a lot of problems that I, personally, wouldn't want to have to put up with.
It's only when there is some driving need to confront the situation that I have a problem with the "You should just have run" argument.
I'd largely agree with you on that, with the caveat that I often contrive scenarios in which a little bit of planning is worth a lot of PC blood.
Example: One time the PCs encountered a pair of fallen angels -- anti-solars -- that would have wiped the floor with them head-on. The PCs backed off, consulted a local LG temple for help, and were told "there are no fallen angels on the Prime Material Plane at this time." Another save vs. disbelief later, and they're soon mopping the floor with 20% real shadow/illusion anti-solars, which they dispatch easily.
The problem usually when players DON'T run away, it's because they're stuck in "I must win the fight to win the game" mentality.
As a GM, it's easy to blame the players.
But I'm usually a player, and my reluctance to run away is usually based on the premise that by the time we know we're in over our heads, it's too late for everyone to escape (e.g. the tough monster has already knocked some of our party unconscious or it has some of our party cornered). I find that GMs are very reluctant to come out and state "Your characters are sure they they're outmatched" -- they want the players to figure that out by themselves, for some reason. But the line between figuring out you're in over your head and having it be too late to run is much thinner than you might think.
That's a good point, Hogarth. Generally, if I'm going to add an adventure-relevant encounter that's too tough for them to tackle head-on, I make that abundantly clear, and I make sure there's a back-door solution.
Another example, ignore at will:
The problem usually when players DON'T run away, it's because they're stuck in "I must win the fight to win the game" mentality.As a GM, it's easy to blame the players.
But I'm usually a player, and my reluctance to run away is usually based on the premise that by the time we know we're in over our heads, it's too late for everyone to escape (e.g. the tough monster has already knocked some of our party unconscious or it has some of our party cornered). I find that GMs are very reluctant to come out and state "Your characters are sure they they're outmatched" -- they want the players to figure that out by themselves, for some reason. But the line between figuring out you're in over your head and having it be too late to run is much thinner than you might think.
That's why I said
But you sometimes need to make it clear to players: "it is okay to run.
And then said,
And again, the GM should be clear "fighting is not the only way around this."
And then concluded,
TL;DR: Players and GMs communicating clearly fixes most game problems. And yes, it's okay to run.
So, glad to know we are on the same page.