Is it a good idea to have NPCs escape?

[The Sword]

I thought I would throw this question out there and see what responses came back. Is it a good idea to let NPCs escape?

To be clear I'm not talking about the last few goblins alive running for their lives.I regularly have outclassed mooks run and attacks of opportunity or ranged usually do for them. I'm talking about BBEG, and classed NPC enemies using equipment, magic or tactics to engineer an escape - in some ways without any chance of failure. There are already lots of threads about how you 'could' do it, I'm interested in whether you 'should' do it.

I understand it makes NPCs more memorable, it also increases antipathy towards the escapee as you want to catch the one that got away. However it also means you don't get closure, or the rewards of the NPCs gear. It can also make you question what is the point of fighting if they are just going to run each time.

Anyway just interested in your thoughts.

[Nicos]

It is just a narrative you can use. It could be good or it could be wrong depending on the circumstances. The biggest mistakes here is to overdo it (your player will get bored), and to not give the opportunity for you players to do something about it (No escape plan should have plot immunity)

[GM Rednal]

It helps if your players have some warning. For example, when gathering information, they might hear rumors about how the BBEG has been known to swallow their pride and run if things look too bad for them - this way the players know it could happen and have a chance to try and stop it.

[Chengar Qordath]

And I would say to never make their method of escape un-counterable or pure GM Fiat. I once ran an NPC wizard that ran from the fight by casting teleport. So the next time the party ran into her, they immediately had the Monk grapple her, then hit her with a Dimensional Anchor spell to make sure she wouldn't get away this time. The players were very satisfied when they managed to take the NPC down, since they'd all been frustrated by her escape and put a lot of thought into how to stop her from pulling it off again.

Nicos definitely has a point on not over-using it. I would also add to not have the bad guy return until your party's got some means of stopping whatever trick they used to escape last time. It's very satisfying to see the enemy try the trick that worked last time, only to have it fizzle because the players out-played him.

Also, making sure your PCs have a counter for the NPCs escape tactic ensures he won't get away more than once. One escape can make for amemorable nemesis. Multiple escapes makes the NPC start looking like a pet the GM won't let the party kill.

[Lincoln Hills]

Others have already cautioned against the over-use of escapes: I'll just add that each time it happens you should have your villain react to defeat in a new and different way. An enemy whose morale breaks completely might abandon the whole evil plan in favor of leaving the city/kingdom/dimension permanently. More persistent enemies might start having underlings impersonate them in all public appearances, or enter the service of a different villain - and then try to engineer a confrontation between the PCs and his new boss. At the very least the villain should delay his reappearance until he has some kind of advantage that he didn't have before.

Whatever you do, don't just wait til he's got his hit points and/or spells back and have him charge back in: that's hero logic, not villain logic.

[Dragonchess Player]

Short answer: Sometimes it's a good idea; most of the time, no.

If you want to set up an NPC as a particular foil or nemesis, then plan them with one or more means of escape. If the PCs can counter the means, then allow them the victory.

Certain specific abilities are extremely difficult to counter, however, and should be reserved for villains that are central to the campaign: liches with their phylacteries hidden in distant, protected locations (along with a replacement body under the effect of a permanent gentle repose); clonemaster alchemists with multiple doppleganger simulacra and a readied clone via the Rebirth archetype feature; reincarnated druids that hide for the full seven days after returning; etc.

[Devilkiller]

If a rational enemy is clearly outclassed and has a viable escape option I'll usually use it unless it seems against the enemy's nature or personality. For instance, demons can teleport, but they might fail to retreat due to their murderous rage.

Another option perhaps less used is villains who die but then come back anyhow whether by getting raised or becoming undead. The players get the satisfaction of defeating the foe and perhaps a bit of a surprise when he or she returns, perhaps as part of a deadly ambush.

Escaped enemies can also act against the party in subtler ways by telling other villains the party's strengths, weaknesses, whereabouts, etc. Stuff like this can make running down that last goblin a little more interesting.

[Jack of Dust]

For the narrative or just something the creature has a tendency to do, it's absolutely fine. Just be mindful not to do it too often or you might make the players feel like they arbitrarily lose at every turn. Admittedly loot does help alleviate this and I do think the players deserve some provided they didn't do something incredibly stupid that could lead to it being moved/destroyed. The characters don't necessarily have to get the gear the villain is wearing but if they get some nice loot throughout the dungeon, they're less likely to feel like the entire adventure was just to buy the GM more time to plan properly for the next part of the story.

From a player's perspective, one of the most frustrating things that can happen is the villain escaping via plot armour. Defeating a villain over and over becomes incredibly tedious.

[Euan]

Follow the role play. I have NPCs try to escape all the time. Why fight to the last hit point when the opposition clearly has the upper hand? Foolish. Granted, some NPCs are fools, but not all.

But never let the NPC get away through DM fiat. Players will revolt, and for good reason. If they closed the circle, they should get the prey.

[The Sword]

Interesting points. I think the answer seems to be yes, but not too often. I particularly like the idea of escaping and then giving the PCs the means to prevent that next time and catch them out. Players do like a cunning plan.

DM fiat sounds like a cardinal sin. That said a NPC with a holy word, dimension door spell, fog cloud and hide; rigged cave-in, invisibility and fly or beast shape all seem like DM fiat. At the end of the day if the PCs don't have the spell to counter e.g see invisibility/dimensional anchor/fly then it practically is DM fiat. As the DM you know what resources/spells the party has and doesn't.

I also like the idea of enemy coming back in a different form/status, undead or ruined etc.

[Paulicus]

As others have said, do it if it makes sense for the story/character, but not all the time. It's like having NPCs that counter a strong PC trick: fun on occasion but annoying if it's common.

As for having spells/abilities that you listed above, as long as they don't have *all*of them at once they're okay. The PCs won't have counters to everything unless they think of everything and invest in countering them. If they don't have something to stop the BBEG the first time, they'll learn, and that's okay. A lot of what you mentioned is far from guaranteed anyway.

[GM Rednal]

To add to my earlier statement - which I though about doing just after I posted it - you could have someone mention it to the PCs. For example, if the BBEG is fond of teleportation to escape, someone could mention how he's been known to magically pop in and out of places without any warning. While giving ANY escape power technically is GM fiat, it's much less of a problem if the players have a chance to learn about it and prepare to beat it.

[Mark Hoover]

It also sort of depends on your players. I had a group of guys that were really into the whole "kill monsters, get treasure" aspects of the game and could care less about plot. The second adventure they met an intelligent female ghoul who was going about eating people ritualistically to regain her former spellcasting powers. They stumbled into the middle of her plans, defeated her minions and saved a bunch of teenagers but the ghoul got away.

They couldn't have cared less.

Said ghoul then sent undead to attack a neighboring town, summoned up the ghost of a PC's mom and even turned some of the teens they saved into undead. Nothing I did lit a fire under them to track her down, they just kept utterly destroying all the things she threw at them without emotional engagement.

For them it was a video game so the villain taunting them off screen didn't matter.

The campaign ended due to scheduling/real life issues. The last adventure they were going on though was to go end the "Ghoul Queen" once and for all. They weren't doing it for a sense of pathos or closure; the local nobles were fed up with the Plague of Undeath she was causing and they were willing to pay these unfeeling mercenaries well to put an end to it.

TL/DR: like in all things, test the waters with your players before committing to the escaping/recurring villain thing.