How often do you use unwinnable battles in your campaign? Do you make sure your players know they are unwinnable from the start? What about battles where the bad guy runs away? Or where someone else steps in to save the day?
When the battle should be unwinnable -I avoid those as a rule- as a GM I usually pump up the opponents to look scary or give some clue. If you do give clues what kind of clues do you give? The bad guy running away I stopped doing completely since I saw my players faces when it happened, but that depends on the group. Then there's someone else coming in to save the day, which I never do.
I'm looking to see what others do as GMs, what "rules" do you go by when setting up a battle like that and what players think of them.
Your best bet is to as a player find ways for your hero to retreat that are in character.
If you choose to play a hero who will fight until the bitter end when the odds are obviously suicidal is your decision, but you need to live with the consequences of it.
As for the questions brought up, I don't like "unwinnable" scenarios. In a game of heroic fantasy, I think the mindset of the players is the heroes can win. It's counter intuitive to think otherwise. It's one thing if a random encounter is beyond the group, or if a bbeg shows up early and is very strong, but if fiat is the sole reason we can't win it burns my ass. With that, I don't have an issue with the enemy leaving us for dead so we can mend if they run over us.
Bad guys running away is fine, provided the rules are adhered to. Fiat sucks.
GMNPC's being involved is a mixed bag. Used rarely to effect is fine. If the group is finding itself the sidekick to the overpowered GM characters, it's an issue.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My players, after 30 years, don't seem to grasp the fact that they can run away if things go awry. Or at least they don't until they're too beat down to have any chance of winning, then they run. Then after they heal up they demand to go back for revenge. Sometimes the same cycle repeats itself as they go up in level. Sometimes they forget the bad guy goes up in level, too. I have some really intelligent friends, but the Wisdom scores can be a little low.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My players, after 30 years, don't seem to grasp the fact that they can run away if things go awry. Or at least they don't until they're too beat down to have any chance of winning, then they run. Then after they heal up they demand to go back for revenge. Sometimes the same cycle repeats itself as they go up in level. Sometimes they forget the bad guy goes up in level, too. I have some really intelligent friends, but the Wisdom scores can be a little low.
My group are exactly like this. I DM knowing that if I screw up the challenge, it's all but certain they'll TPK before running away (and I've literally never seen them surrender).
In answer to the OP I think a scenario in which the result is preordained shouldn't be played out, it should be narrated. If you let a player roll dice, you're implicitly stating they have a chance to affect the outcome, in my view.
Making them roll then changing the situation to ensure you get the outcome of choice is going to erode both trust and buy-in, I think. Far better to tell them what happened and let them participate when their participation is actually meaningful.
My players, after 30 years, don't seem to grasp the fact that they can run away if things go awry. Or at least they don't until they're too beat down to have any chance of winning, then they run. Then after they heal up they demand to go back for revenge. Sometimes the same cycle repeats itself as they go up in level. Sometimes they forget the bad guy goes up in level, too. I have some really intelligent friends, but the Wisdom scores can be a little low.Retreat can be difficult in this game. It seems you are as reluctant to learn as your friends.
Possibly, though there has been more than once time the opponent has gone after them. They usually escape via dimension door or teleporting and I will be honest I often forget the trace teleport (I think that's the name) spell. And truthfully I've been a little soft on them this campaign, but only a little. They've had more than one death, but resurrection and the cheat death option of Hero Points has saved them from total obliteration. The next campaign will be different. I've already begun working on it, though that one won't begin for about a year.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your best bet is to as a player find ways for your hero to retreat that are in character.
GMNPC's being involved is a mixed bag. Used rarely to effect is fine. If the group is finding itself the sidekick to the overpowered GM characters, it's an issue.
I hate GMNPCs with a passion. I know some GMs play them well, but I've had bad experiences with them continuously "saving" the group. I'd rather scale down the battle, or just pretend the bad guy ran out of spells, fudge some rolls or something, than have someone pop in the last minute. As a GM if I mess up the DC the other way around -too easy- I just let it roll. My last bad guy was taken down in a round, no one complained. So I try to make sure the battle is not overwhelming, and if in the end its too easy so be it.
My players, after 30 years, don't seem to grasp the fact that they can run away if things go awry. Or at least they don't until they're too beat down to have any chance of winning, then they run.My group are exactly like this. I DM knowing that if I screw up the challenge, it's all but certain they'll TPK before running away (and I've literally never seen them surrender).
In answer to the OP I think a scenario in which the result is preordained shouldn't be played out, it should be narrated. If you let a player roll dice, you're implicitly stating they have a chance to affect the outcome, in my view.
Making them roll then changing the situation to ensure you get the outcome of choice is going to erode both trust and buy-in, I think. Far better to tell them what happened and let them participate when their participation is actually meaningful.
I like the idea of narration, it takes the presure of the players wondering if the can or cannot (are supposed to or are not supposed to) take the battle. If you take out the map, place everyone on it... well, then I'm expecting a fight, not a run-for-your-lives scenario.
As a player, I may be wrong, but I go in with the idea of playing the "hero". In real life, yes I would run, but this is supposed to be fantasy. Three cheers for your group, I like the way they think :) I know a couple of other players who will make characters that, for the lack of better words, are cowards, but that's not what I like playing.
I try to establish early that not all encounters are to end in violence and not all violence is 'to the death'. Several have been almost GMfiat bits, but the party has so far not TPKed themselves. I have one player that is apparently always working on a way out of anything. She has forced the rest to know and follow her 'run' commands. The big time it was about to TPK when she said Run, delayed and went just as the last fled past her, tumbled and dropped a Tanglefoot bag or three. I try not to TPK, and often, the depletion of spells and HP is enough to deter 'last stands'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My players, after 30 years, don't seem to grasp the fact that they can run away if things go awry. Or at least they don't until they're too beat down to have any chance of winning, then they run. Then after they heal up they demand to go back for revenge. Sometimes the same cycle repeats itself as they go up in level. Sometimes they forget the bad guy goes up in level, too. I have some really intelligent friends, but the Wisdom scores can be a little low.
Can they? how many of them are suboptimal in movement speed? If the party is one that sticks together, as they should, that means they are all limited by the speed of their slowest member, especially if they don't have high level options such as teleport.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I give my players very strong clues, so strong they almost break the fourth wall without actually breaking it. The clues are within the narrative itself and my description, so I try to keep them IC, but my player group understands the cue.
To start with, I have never pitted my players against a single foe that is beyond their capacity to defeat. By defeat, I do not mean kill - I have pitted them against things that are far more powerful than they are, but aspects of the environment or the tools at their disposal allow them to defeat the challenge with some ingenuity, or courage, or sacrifice, or whatever theme I need for that story. I also avoid the GM NPC stepping in to save anyone, as such a thing usually leaves a bad taste in my players' mouths, and for good reason. They are the heroes of the story, after all. However, the heroes can be saved by "the cavalry" in some situations, as it were - the arrival of forces they have become friendly with for backup, for example, like local law enforcement or the horsemen of the steppes or whatever applies in the scenario. Then it isn't a single person outshining the PCs, it is the PCs own previous actions to gain their alliance being cashed in to help them out.
There are only a handful of situations I have run that fit this bill, because I use them sparingly. One is when reinforcements are arriving in greater numbers than the PCs could handle, such as if they are assaulting a location where enemy forces can be marshaled quickly. I allow a Perception check mid combat to "hear the sounds of reinforcements gathering and approaching" and tell the PCs they think the reinforcements will arrive in X number of rounds. That way they have time to try to extricate themselves. In the case of enemies that get the jump on them, where a perception check to notice reinforcements is irrelevant because the reinforcements just got there, or the Perception check failed, I will simply say, "this feels like a second wave, and the enemy fights with a certain confidence - sparingly, defensively, as though they are waiting for even more reinforcements to arrive", thus handing them the hint that things are going to get hairy.
I also like to give surrender or escape options to the PCs through an enemy NPC, as well. For example, an enemy leader calls a brief break in the fight to allow his forces to maneuver and the PCs to take a breather. His motivation is to try to get them to surrender without him sacrificing any more of his men and resources than he has to. This allows the PCs to plan an escape as necessary, if they feel that's what they want to do. It also puts a human face on their enemy, because they regard an challenge who has a sense of honor - or, at least a sense of humanity - far differently than just random monsters that give no quarter. I often find it makes for a more interesting story when the enemy is not out to kill the PCs, necessarily, but definitely does not want them to win. If they are more goodly or neutral aligned, they begin to hamstring themselves a bit in fights because they don't want to outright slaughter their enemies because they are "just doing their job". This doesn't work for every situation, but it works very well for the ones where it applies.
My players, after 30 years, don't seem to grasp the fact that they can run away if things go awry. Or at least they don't until they're too beat down to have any chance of winning, then they run. Then after they heal up they demand to go back for revenge. Sometimes the same cycle repeats itself as they go up in level. Sometimes they forget the bad guy goes up in level, too. I have some really intelligent friends, but the Wisdom scores can be a little low.Can they? how many of them are suboptimal in movement speed? If the party is one that sticks together, as they should, that means they are all limited by the speed of their slowest member, especially if they don't have high level options such as teleport.
It is even worse than that. Even if they are all 30ft move speed, many enemies have greater than 30ft move speed, and they frequently have alternate movement modes, such as flying. On top of that, even retreating against a creature with equal move speed is suicide - the Withdraw action leaves you within charging range, and running simply makes them run after you, while provoking AoOs which (maybe not so) slowly kill you. In general, the only viable tactics for retreating are leaving a PC behind to do a delaying action while everyone else bugs out, or scattering in all directions and hoping that the threat doesn't chase down more than one PC. A retreat that saves everyone is remarkably difficult.
Your best bet is to as a player find ways for your hero to retreat that are in character.
GMNPC's being involved is a mixed bag. Used rarely to effect is fine. If the group is finding itself the sidekick to the overpowered GM characters, it's an issue.
** spoiler omitted **
I hate GMNPCs with a passion. I know some GMs play them well, but I've had bad experiences with them continuously "saving" the group. I'd rather scale down the battle, or just pretend the bad guy ran out of spells, fudge some rolls or something, than have someone pop in the last minute. As a GM if I mess up the DC the other way around -too easy- I just let it roll. My last bad guy was taken down in a round, no one complained. So I try to make sure the battle is not overwhelming, and if in the end its too easy so be it.
Yup, I get that. We had a GM for Shadowrun we had an intervention for after the third time his old PC turned GMNPC came Ramboing to our rescue. Heck, the last time he showed up we were not even in trouble, he just wanted to get the last hit in on a miniboss.
As far as believing you have a fair shot in game, I feel the same. I think the idea of having to run goes against the spirit of the game in general. I'm cool with bad luck forcing retreat and whatnot though.
As for your hero, I'd likely have run something in the middle. Maybe your hero could concede they need to retreat with the party to keep them alive. Be the last combatant off the field, running a screen while the rest escape. Then it's less running off with your tail tucked and more you protecting the party.
My players, after 30 years, don't seem to grasp the fact that they can run away if things go awry. Or at least they don't until they're too beat down to have any chance of winning, then they run. Then after they heal up they demand to go back for revenge. Sometimes the same cycle repeats itself as they go up in level. Sometimes they forget the bad guy goes up in level, too. I have some really intelligent friends, but the Wisdom scores can be a little low.Can they? how many of them are suboptimal in movement speed? If the party is one that sticks together, as they should, that means they are all limited by the speed of their slowest member, especially if they don't have high level options such as teleport.
No one is suboptimal in movement, and they can teleport away if necessary (and they sometimes do). It's happened a couple of times that the muscle stayed behind to hold off the baddie while the rest whisked away, but was rescued at the last minute by the teleporting member of the party.
I don't really throw 'balanced' encounters because a lot of times, it simply doesn't make sense. This doesn't mean that I never gauge my encounters, or only throw hard encounters, but say, if you assault a castle with 35 goblins and alert everyone in said castle, I'm not going to throw them at you in bite sized, appropriate encounters tailored to your level. I'm certainly no Tucker's Kobolds, but running would be a good option. However, there are three things I do for this.
1. I tell my players. I give clues and such, but if they press on and are losing, I let them know straight up that things are looking very bad.
2. Before the game even starts, I let the players know that I'm not always beholden to the CR chart. But I am also fairly open about crazy ideas and player ingenuity and like seeing players try new things. So if you are facing a horde of said goblins in a castle, you could (as the players did) catch it on fire and attack during the confusion.
3. This one is really important. Have rules for running away from a battle. Remember those video game RPGs like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, or Pokemon, where you can choose to simply Run from the battle? I have rules for that. If the players all decide that the battle isn't panning out, they can all elect to et the hell out of dodge. I have them roll a die for the group and if they beat it, then they are able to run away. I use the Adventurer, Conqueror, King rules for running away, which basically take into account doing things to get them off your tail. It's important to have these rules because it does show the players that running away is a supported tactic in the game.
We recently had to use them in my 5e game, when the players tried sneaking through an underground village of over 80 grimlocks. They were spotted by a few and I had the grimlocks funnelling in towards the players every so often. When they started dropping, they grabbed their dead, and rolled to make a run for it. So it worked out.
That said, I don't put players into unwinnable scenarios. I may put them in a scenario where combat may not be the optimal choice, or even possible choice. But I always allow and encourage player ingenuity when dealing with an obstacle.
Your best bet is to as a player find ways for your hero to retreat that are in character.
GMNPC's being involved is a mixed bag. Used rarely to effect is fine. If the group is finding itself the sidekick to the overpowered GM characters, it's an issue.
** spoiler omitted **
I hate GMNPCs with a passion. I know some GMs play them well, but I've had bad experiences with them continuously "saving" the group. I'd rather scale down the battle, or just pretend the bad guy ran out of spells, fudge some rolls or something, than have someone pop in the last minute. As a GM if I mess up the DC the other way around -too easy- I just let it roll. My last bad guy was taken down in a round, no one complained. So I try to make sure the battle is not overwhelming, and if in the end its too easy so be it.
I've played a couple characters where retreat wasn't an option. One had it built right into him as a mental block: when he went into combat, his a rage filled him until either he won or he dropped. Sometimes it can be fun to play someone like that. However, when you choose to make a character like that, or with a "no retreat, no surrender" type mentality, there's no room for getting upset when said character goes down. You have to know it's coming, and it's not the GM's job to ease up on the character based on an RP decision you made for the character. Besides that, according to your spoiler, it sounds more like this became a "player vs. GM" situation, not an in-character thing. Stubbornness against story. Not saying the GM was in the right for making such a ridiculous comment that served no purpose but to infuriate; just saying that you as a player could have handled that differently in an out-of-character way, rather than simply saying screw the character, I'm not giving into the GM here.
I can think of two times in my GMing career where I set the characters against a "no-win" scenario. Both were relatively early on, and one was prophesied: if you take this item, this will happen eventually. It was built into the story. As a rule, I haven't really designed anything like that since. I've come to accept that having nothing you can do about a situation as a player just isn't any fun for them. As stated above, I have used narrative (cinematic) situations when story has dictated that something needs to happen, and it happens too quickly for them to stop. My players have been good with this, primarily because they are all "story trumps all else" players and understand its reasoning. Even so, I do this relatively infrequently, as well. Again, like Odraude stated above, sometimes player actions lead to the blowing up of the CR system, which I also allow. Consequences are important, and if players start getting the notion that they can do whatever they want whenever they want however they want, logistics start to break down and the game spirals out of control quickly. Boundaries are important. Sometimes, it's not about whether they can do something, but about whether they should do something.
GMNPCs aren't something I like. More often than not, it's not because I use them to overshadow the PCs, but because the PCs turn to them for all the answers rather than try to figure it out themselves. If a GMNPC gets involved in a combat with me, it's because the players wanted he or she to be involved. Basically, they end up needing the NPC to thwart people dying. I tend not to make GMNPCs powerful for that reason. More often than not, however, unless there is some pivotal story point that requires their presence, I don't even have them available.
Finally, when it comes to retreating, I've instituted a rule that states when you make it off the map, you've either successfully gotten away, or there will be a chase scene coming. This has worked very well for us, thus far, and my players have gotten a kick out of the chases, too! It does help make tactical retreats (or, for those of you who hate retreating, "tactical redeployment") much more successful. Many times, in fact, making that successful escape with everyone can be far more hair-raising and heart-pounding than just sitting there watching as PC after PC goes down in turn. I think it's imperative that you provide the PCs with a retreat mechanic that can make it successful. As the game is written, it really doesn't exist, and watching the frustration on the faces of the players as their characters drop dead because they know they can't get away anyway just isn't any fun at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually like GMNPCs and I use them a lot. I am also the kind of GM who gets attached to NPCs, but I always take care not to solve situations with them or take PCs' spotlight. That's not right. I often use them to solve minor issues that could be boring or repetitive for the main characters and spicing up the adventure. I hardly ever let them take part in encounters and when I do I make them confront minor issues while PCs confront major ones. I hate deux ex machina with NPCs and stealing characters spotlight for whatever reason. I think decissions should always be taken by players, not by NPCs. But I love giving my players interesting characters to interact with and they usually like keeping one or two if them around and they get attached to them. Actually I decided to completely ban Leadership from my games, as my players love recruiting NPCs and I let them do it. So I decided to ban Leadership and let them gain similar benefits through roleplaying. It never proved to be unbalancing and they had much more fun like that.
Very interesting takes, loving the posts so far. I really like the idea of having mechanics for a chase, would give the players a sense of accomplishment at beating something, even if they had to leave the battle.
@Drahliana Moonrunner and those who posted on retreating not being easy. I agree. Unless you realize early on you can't win -GM clues- by the time you decide to retreat you may be surrounded, low on hps and unable to afford a single AoO... lots of things could go wrong.
@Sub-Creator. I agree that when you play a no-retreat character you take your chances, but I also believe a GM should tailor encounters to the party. If my party consists of holier than thou paladins of Iomedae out to smite Mr. UberEvil that just torched the orphanage, as a GM I should expect that they will fight till they TPK and make sure there is a way out they can take in character. That said, I did indeed handle the situation badly. Nice take on retreating being exciting. Might try it once in my campaign, see how it sits with the party :)
@Kileanna I do believe I would enjoy interacting with your GMNPCs as a player. Seems like you make them interesting and play them well.
@Kileanna I do believe I would enjoy interacting with your GMNPCs as a player. Seems like you make them interesting and play them well.
Thank you!
Having read some of your posts I think I'd probably enjoy a game with you. It seems we have similar ways of understanding roleplaying games.Back to the post. I completely aggree that a GM should know the characters well enough to be able to predict their reactions so you don't have to make your players decide if they want to go completely OOC to save their character or lose their characters.
As I said in another post: stupid behaviour must be punished IC. But you shouldn't be punished for just playing your character in a balanced logical way. Having to deal with some handicaps related to your character concept is nice, losing your character because of it is not.
A GM should give advice in the character creation so the players can make a character that fits the story, and trying to model everything that he can to fit the characters. But if he misses something a GM should be able to improvise a logical way of not killing a well played character in the first sessions or having the baddies to behave OOC just to save that character. It completely ruins any realism you were going to have.
I'm not totally against characters being rescued or getting help from outside as long it doesn't eclipsate their own efforts and it's coherent and carefully planned, not just making a savior appear because you have miscalculated some danger and PCs are going to die.
They are fighting a fight they know they cannot win, and suddenly they see the reinforcements coming. Now their goal should be surviving enough so they can get some help. You are not setting that they are going to be saved by a deux ex machina, they can still die before they can get any help so they still have to fight for their lives. Aside from that (this has happened to me more than a few times) if your players, via some intelligent planning, somehow manage to deal with something that they weren't supposed to, I think you, as the GM, should allow them to have their victory instead of forcing a defeat or making the reinforcements steal their victory (even ir that means that you have to delay the reinforcements arrival a bit to let PCs finish their job).
Just because the NPCs can chase the players if the players retreat doesn't mean they have to. NPCs could be taking care of their own wounded, concerned that someone else with take what they are guarding when they leave or any number of other reasons.
I rarely do the rescuing truthfully, though with the rules for running away, it is generally unnecessary. If they don't feel though, usually I either let them get captured, or, if that doesn't make sense, then they die or are left for dead. But it has rarely come to that, except for the player that, like you, fights to the death. I like to encourage player choice and ingenuity, but I feel that failure and success at a cost help to add meaning to player options. If there is no chance to fail, then really, it doesn't matter what the players do because someone will just come in and save them. I don't really like DXM, though I do like Kileanna idea of the obstacle switching from "Finish the fight" to "Escape and be rescued". Feels more palatable to me and my group of friends.
The problem with that is really a matter of playing a character that is such an absolute. "My character never runs away from a fight". "My character hates all elves" "My character kills evil on sight." etc... the biggest problem is that while it adds nice flavor and conflict and potential adventure to your PC, when you are faced with the source of your absolutism, then you truthfully have a limited choice on how to react that will more than likely negatively affect yourself and your comrades. And it's a damned-if-you-do/don't thing for the GM. If the GM presents the source of your conflict, then they are the bad guy for purposefully punishing your player. But if they don't, then the work you put into defining your character went to waste. That's why I feel it is better to have a somewhat looser, less absolute set of principles that the player can have some meaningful engagement when presented with the situation at hand. So instead of saying "I fight till the bitter end," try going "I'm overconfident in a fight." Instead of "I despise ALL elves!", say "I don't trust the shifty knife ears." That makes a more well-rounded character that still has their source of conflict for good RPG potential, and won't be completely derailed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with that is really a matter of playing a character that is such an absolute. "My character never runs away from a fight". "My character hates all elves" "My character kills evil on sight." etc... the biggest problem is that while it adds nice flavor and conflict and potential adventure to your PC, when you are faced with the source of your absolutism, then you truthfully have a limited choice on how to react that will more than likely negatively affect yourself and your comrades. And it's a damned-if-you-do/don't thing for the GM. If the GM presents the source of your conflict, then they are the bad guy for purposefully punishing your player. But if they don't, then the work you put into defining your character went to waste. That's why I feel it is better to have a somewhat looser, less absolute set of principles that the player can have some meaningful engagement when presented with the situation at hand. So instead of saying "I fight till the bitter end," try going "I'm overconfident in a fight." Instead of "I despise ALL elves!", say "I don't trust the shifty knife ears." That makes a more well-rounded character that still has their source of conflict for good RPG potential, and won't be completely derailed.
I don't like absolutes in any way. Shades of grey make more balanced characters than black or white ones, and they make more interesting stories. When a character says "I would never do that" I take it as the character wouldn't in most situations, but you can never say never.
I don't like absolutes in any way. Shades of grey make more balanced characters than black or white ones, and they make more interesting stories. When a character says "I would never do that" I take it as the character wouldn't in most situations, but you can never say never.
The problem with that is really a matter of playing a character that is such an absolute. "My character never runs away from a fight". "My character hates all elves" "My character kills evil on sight." etc... the biggest problem is that while it adds nice flavor and conflict and potential adventure to your PC, when you are faced with the source of your absolutism, then you truthfully have a limited choice on how to react that will more than likely negatively affect yourself and your comrades. And it's a damned-if-you-do/don't thing for the GM. If the GM presents the source of your conflict, then they are the bad guy for purposefully punishing your player. But if they don't, then the work you put into defining your character went to waste. That's why I feel it is better to have a somewhat looser, less absolute set of principles that the player can have some meaningful engagement when presented with the situation at hand. So instead of saying "I fight till the bitter end," try going "I'm overconfident in a fight." Instead of "I despise ALL elves!", say "I don't trust the shifty knife ears." That makes a more well-rounded character that still has their source of conflict for good RPG potential, and won't be completely derailed.
Exactly. If you're going to make a character that wants to be like King Leonidas, you can't exactly get mad when you encounter your own Thermopylae.
Players should have the freedom to design extremely strict characters. If this means a dead PC on occasion, that can be a plus for the campaign. I had this once, a dwarven warrior charging against a whole orc fortress, because of 'my character would do this!'. While I usually give PCs the chance to escape or bribe their way out, this case was so extreme that I didn't even consider it. So the dwarf died, just his corpse was saved via Obscuring Mist. I had to make up a nearby settlement with a temple which resulted in some nice roleplay (including a reoccuring popular NPC) and the dwarf being back next session.
The incident resulted in strong tensions between the dwarf player (who focusses on roleplay) and another player (who prefers tactics and character building). We got it settled with a lot of talk, with the other player being frustrated enough to threaten with leaving - but at the end everyone was wiser than before.
So it's a three-edged sword - a strict PC affects the player, the other players and the GM. Usually not for the better, but there is positive potential in most situations...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a house rule, which the players rarely avail themselves of, but it is there.
If they want to retreat, they can. It has to be unanimous.
If they choose to retreat, they are automatically successful, but I as GM will impose a sort of campaign loss on them for their get out death free card. It means a later encounter is now more difficult, or the bad guy gets part of their plan to work, an NPC ally dies/no longer an ally, etc. Something bad happens, not always directly related to the encounter itself (sometimes just to do with time).
Players should have the freedom to design extremely strict characters. If this means a dead PC on occasion, that can be a plus for the campaign.
I aggree. You should be able to roleplay a strict character but you must be able to deal with the consequences. There are players who like playing strict characters but then complain when they can't get along with the rest of the group or NPCs because of their lack of flexibility. Or they end having their characters killed. If you're not confortable with such outcome you maybe want to rethink your character. Talking to the GM during the character creation is also useful to see if the character can fit well in the campaign and in the group. There are perfect stories voy that kind of characters where they will perfectly fit and other stories where they will probably end having a lot of trouble.
I feel that it can at times be a legitimate storytelling technique, but only if it's used very sparingly. Yes, it is realistic to end up in a tactical situation that even the best commanders couldn't salvage an actual victory out of, and a narrow escape from clear disaster can itself be a thrilling tale, but if overused, it gets frustrating fast. I find players typically like to feel powerful, and if most or even just a high proportion of combats are battles that cannot be won, it's very hard to feel powerful or even feel like your actions matter at all. Also, if you're going to have something like the defeated retreat from Dunkirk, consider having Normandy later on to make up for it. Or putting the PCs somewhere in defeat that matters, like the battered and eventually killed or captured French forces who kept up the rearguard around Dunkirk (which even opens up the possibility of the PCs being taken prisoner, escaping/being released with France leaving the war, and either becoming maquisards or finding some way to get to the Free French Forces).
Part of the problem is that sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between the description of a tough-but-beatable boss monster from the description of a challenge out of your weight class. I've seen that from both sides of the screen. And it gets tougher because often our parties can handle things above normal CR.*
I will now break character and flat out tell them that this is a problem outside of their normal scope. this lets them decide what to do from there, but with accurate information.
*one GM regularly puts out five monsters that individually have a CR=APL. This is usually not a problem. But when you have things with unusual abilities, they can mess up our world. Stun auras, incorporeal foes, etc.
I aggree. You should be able to roleplay a strict character but you must be able to deal with the consequences. There are players who like playing strict characters but then complain when they can't get along with the rest of the group or NPCs because of their lack of flexibility. Or they end having their characters killed. If you're not confortable with such outcome you maybe want to rethink your character. Talking to the GM during the character creation is also useful to see if the character can fit well in the campaign and in the group.
You have a point about the talk at the beginning. While it's tough to foresee any possible problem with the character, I guess many GMs could point out the risks of a strict character. And it's also nice to know before session 1 that you (as a GM) are dealing with such a PC - especially since level 1 battles tend to be wonky...
Speaking of lowest levels, I guess they need extra care when you want to pull an unwinnable battle. PCs with few HD and little equipment are so... fragile...
Very interesting takes, loving the posts so far. I really like the idea of having mechanics for a chase, would give the players a sense of accomplishment at beating something, even if they had to leave the battle.
What mechanics do you use? I created my own homebrew rules for chases that my group really enjoys using.
Instead of unwinnable scenarios, I think it's better to have alternate means of approaching a problem. So while straight up combat may not work, subterfuge, skills, or discourse might. And vice versa. But I think having unwinnable encounters has similar issues with encounters that can only be beat using one method. It bottle necks the adventure into one specific method to get to the outcome and if the players can't do it, then your adventure goes off the rails and wrecks. Better to have obstacles with some limiting factors than one single solution to an almost impossible problem.
Of course, like all things, there are exceptions to the rules.
My personal take on this is a bit strange.
Most campaigns I've been in, we've heard how rough a fight is going to be (or seen dramatic evidence of how rough it is going to be), planned meticulously, accounted for the chaos of war, and then rolled the dice, as it were.
Of course, with one gaming group it was more certain that we could face 'Doctor' level opponents with about as much equipment as he has and come away with a victory than...
...dealing with a Wish spell.
I avoid thinking of something as impossible as resourceful players can come with intelligent plans that make impossible things be possible.
One of the last stories I ran took place at a hostile land. The characters being infiltrated to release the land from a Red Great Wyrm. There was a Marilith, and a high level Antipaladin. The characters started at level 5 and they knew who their enemies were from the very first. They could confront them whenever they wanted to. Of course they had to go underground to avoid catching their enemies attention.
They ended the story at level 11. Through some clever developement, recruiting people (all of them of lower level than them), getting some magic items (mostly scrolls and potions, nothing as expensive as you might think as I gave them limited resources) and specially a lot of clever planning they took the dragon and it was even easy. They didn't get access to any spell or advantage that they couldn't use at their level. I felt so proud of them.
The group who defeated the dragon was:
A Kagonesti elf (it was a Pathfinder story but with a Dragonlance setting) mounted archer with dragons as his favored enemy.
A Kagonesti elf barbarian/rogue.
A Silvanesti elf white robed wizard.
A half kender bard.
A goblin alchemist bomber.
A minotaur fighter with a scythe.
A human rogue with butterfly sting (to give her critical hits to the minotaur).
Very interesting takes, loving the posts so far. I really like the idea of having mechanics for a chase, would give the players a sense of accomplishment at beating something, even if they had to leave the battle.What mechanics do you use? I created my own homebrew rules for chases that my group really enjoys using.
I don't use any mechanics. I was referring to the people that posted. For now, from what is written, I figure:
1. One roll and decide whether retreat is successful or now.
2. Homebrew mechanics. Would be interested to know how you set this up.
3. Let them retreat and pay the consequences in the story. I kinda like this idea. It makes the PCs actions important.
I run campaigns where people who will get into fights and never consider retreat would die very quickly.
The same goes for campaigns I am in.
We had a game session just last night where we had the chance to fight an adult Green Dragon. Guess what...we didn't want to stick around and fight an Adult Green Dragon. We are 4th level presently. Not liking those odds.
I think if people play games where they will face challenges beyond what they can physically fight, or match with their skills, they'll start to look at other approaches to things and find other ways to deal with obstacles than simply running up and smashing it with a hammer.
For me, the players really wanted to tackle a dragon they heard about. He was a little to hard for them, but they were sneaky. Caught him when he was sleepy. So they brought in a bunch black powder and caved in the cavern onto the dragon, trapping him and killing him. So that's how they defeated a dragon several CR above them.
But really, these aren't unwinnable encounters. They are just obstacles with a limitation on one or more solutions that forces the players to apply lateral thinking and problem solving to find an alternate solution.
An unwinnable situation is one where the players can never win it, no matter how they try. Combat, skills, retreat, diplomacy, clever thinking.... nada. Which admittedly, I've never seen before. More often than not, I have seen encounters that can only be beaten in one way and so the adventure hinges on that particular choke point.
For me, the players really wanted to tackle a dragon they heard about. He was a little to hard for them, but they were sneaky. Caught him when he was sleepy. So they brought in a bunch black powder and caved in the cavern onto the dragon, trapping him and killing him. So that's how they defeated a dragon several CR above them.
But really, these aren't unwinnable encounters. They are just obstacles with a limitation on one or more solutions that forces the players to apply lateral thinking and problem solving to find an alternate solution.
An unwinnable situation is one where the players can never win it, no matter how they try. Combat, skills, retreat, diplomacy, clever thinking.... nada. Which admittedly, I've never seen before. More often than not, I have seen encounters that can only be beaten in one way and so the adventure hinges on that particular choke point.
I probably have but its a matter of perspective. Last campaign with the same GM we had:
Black Maga against a group of four 6 lvl PCs, about to eat the schoolchildren to boot, the children in the middle of a lake we can't get across. We ran from that one, leaving the children to be eaten, GM asking me specifically what I do (LG cleric of Erastil) then telling me it's good that my cleric was upset or he'd fall. (This btw was a character that never ran, as Kileanna mentioned, never means... almost never)
Guy that we fail to surprise, wins initiative, casts time-stop and five delayed fireblasts, takes my cleric and the mage down from full health to dead (very dead, resurrection needed dead), before we've done anything. The warrior and the druid are alone and at half health. Then bad guy teleports away. (Edit: I didn't even roll reflex on that one, my cleric had 9 dex, he couldn't get it even with a 20)
These are a few of the ones in our last campaign. If the battle hinges on a "trick" and can't be beat otherwise... it's kinda unwinnable in my opinion. I am very guilty of "expecting" players to figure this or that out, but I used to do it in quest / puzzle type situations, not battles. Even so, players can't always figure the trick the GM expects them to and they get frustrated. In my case they quit, thankfully they did let me GM again, good people! :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Black Maga scenario is odd. Was there no boat to get to them? Or even just swimming? Or any spells? At the very least, if I were a PC, I'd find a boat and row us out there. If that's a RotRL encounter I'm thinking, that's exactly what we did.
Second one is a bit rough, but really, I imagine that this would be a matter of taste. Some people prefer their bad guys to act with great tactics and acumen. Though that is a bit rough even for me. If I ran that, I probably wouldn't have done all of the delayed fireballs. And I probably would have kept him there to finish the job (and potentially allow the warrior and druid to kill him). Though thinking on it, the GM probably had him teleport away to prevent a TPK and allow you guys to resurrect and try again. That is the price of failure alas. Five delayed fireballs though.... yikes.
For the most part, I agree. I think it's better to keep several options open for players to try cool and new ideas. I like encouraging player ingenuity. That said, sometimes it does make sense in the fiction to have one way to kill a monster. King Arthur was unkillable as long as he had his scabbard. Smaug had a single weak spot on his chest. So, I think it can work, but the GM has to communicate it well to the players, almost to the point of flat out telling them.
A good example I had of this was something based on a cross between the regenerating monster of Dead Space and the creature from the LotFP module The God that Crawls. I had a slow but deadly creature that the players simply could not kill with conventional means. This was communicated to them by heavy description of their attacks being healed and some of their NPC allies being absorbed into the goop creature. The players ended up finding different methods of finally killing the creature, using a ravine that they lured it to and then pouring oil and fire into it. So that worked out, but I had to communicate it to the players to the point of practically telling them that their weapons had no effect.
A second example was a game I ran where they were dealing with a warlord that was somehow immortal. I had it set up where it required a special weapon to kill the warlord that was in a dangerous land. However, one of the players had a great idea of simply trapping the immortal so that he couldn't escape. So the adventure went from players travelling to some old ruins to the players gathering together several factions to make an army, march up to the warlord's capital, and capture him. The final battle ended with the fighter tackling the immortal into his burning barge that was carrying the warlord's gold and sacrificing his life to keep the immortal in place as the molten gold covered them and cooled into the river. Basically, the end of Ninja Scroll. So while I had hinged the method of killing the warlord on a single method, I communicated it to them before they even encountered him. And even then, they went with an incredibly different plan that made the campaign much more memorable than what I had in store.
So I say avoid bottlenecking players into a single solution unless you can communicate it to them well and sometimes, ahead of time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hardly ever give my players situations that could be handled in just one or two ways. I really like them being creative with solutions and I have a couple of players who really enjoy that kind of game and get easily bored when everything is set too straightforward. I have to admit I am too like that xD
The Black Maga scenario is odd. Was there no boat to get to them? Or even just swimming? Or any spells? At the very least, if I were a PC, I'd find a boat and row us out there. If that's a RotRL encounter I'm thinking, that's exactly what we did.
Yes, RotRL. No boat, we used a wooden door. We tied a rope to it, the warrior got on it and paddled there picking up 3 kids, with the idea of returning for more (we needed 3-4 trips). As she was reaching the shore with the first batch, the Magga appeared, the warrior lost a will save on breath of madness and their wisdom went to 4. The GM tells us the Magga is standing right next to the kids. We asked if there was any way to swim there, paddle there, do anything, without getting attacked, he said no you will get attacked. The rogue tries to fight, falls in the water, the water is bubbling etc. -really tough swim check- almost drowns. I think he expected us to have our wizard with us, but we left the wizard at a council meeting a day away, so no teleport, no flying and some really sucky swimming skills, except for our warriors swimming who was in la-la land :P
Second one is a bit rough, but really, I imagine that this would be a matter of taste. Some people prefer their bad guys to act with great tactics and acumen. Though that is a bit rough even for me. If I ran that, I probably wouldn't have done all of the delayed fireballs. And I probably would have kept him there to finish the job (and potentially allow the warrior and druid to kill him). Though thinking on it, the GM probably had him teleport away to prevent a TPK and allow you guys to resurrect and try again. That is the price of failure alas. Five delayed fireballs though.... yikes.
We got a cinematic of an NPC killing him in one go next session so... no.
A good example I had of this was something based on a cross between the regenerating monster of Dead Space and the creature from the LotFP module The God that Crawls. I had a slow but deadly creature that the players simply could not kill with conventional means. This was communicated to them by heavy description of their attacks being healed and some of their NPC allies being absorbed into the goop creature. The players ended up finding different methods of finally killing the creature, using a ravine that they lured it to and then pouring oil and fire into it. So that worked out, but I had to communicate it to the players to the point of practically telling them that their weapons had no effect.
A second example was a game I ran where they were dealing with a warlord that was somehow immortal. I had it set up where it required a special weapon to kill the warlord that was in a dangerous land. However, one of the players had a great idea of simply trapping the immortal so that he couldn't escape. So the adventure went from players travelling to some old ruins to the players gathering together several factions to make an army, march up to the warlord's capital, and capture him. The final battle ended with the fighter tackling the immortal into his burning barge that was carrying the warlord's gold and sacrificing his life to keep the immortal in place as the molten gold covered them and cooled into the river. Basically, the end of Ninja Scroll. So while I had hinged the method of killing the warlord on a single method, I communicated it to them before they even encountered him. And even then, they went with an incredibly different plan that made the campaign much more memorable than what I had in store.
I really, really love this. I'd probably never think of setting fire to the creature. Really nice examples, you've made me think on how to approach future encounters as a player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm always a little confused by these kinds of stories.
What does "we had the chance to fight an adult Green Dragon" mean? What's the situation? What's the motivation? Why would you have fought it, even if you liked the odds?
Was the usual example of "saw a green dragon flying by, could have followed and attacked it"? Most games I've been in, we would have left it alone, regardless of level.
If it was still a random encounter, but it was doing something like attacking a caravan or a village? Then it's kind of a dick move by the GM. Do the smart thing and let the innocents get slaughtered. Not the kind of game I want to be in.
If it's part of some quest or mission we're involved with? Pretty lousy move, unless there's no urgency and it's just foreshadowing for later. Or if there's some clever way to defeat it or get around it and accomplish the goal without actually fighting it. That works, though as a GM I find it needs to be more obvious than I think at first. Caper movies are fun to watch, but only work because of authorial contrivance. Same with clever plans in a game.
Basically, motivation is the important thing when it comes to "unwinnable" encounters. Don't just attack everything you see, but also don't motivate the PCs to do something and then make it too hard.
Part of a side quest where there is village destroyed by the Dragon. The mayor wanted someone to go clear it up and help them out and offered quite a sizeable reward.
However, it's not the main quest, and from what we could see, a one way trip to being dead.
It's a set up (in a sandbox type campaign, you have quests below your level, and those that will kill you right quick) that we decided to avoid.
Possibly in the future the dragon will have destroyed more villages and become more of a menace, eaten several bands of OTHER adventurers, and such things...and maybe even become a MAIN quest...but at that point hopefully we'll be a much higher level and can deal with such things rather than rushing head on into our deaths.
Truly unwinnable encounters are bad GMing, IMO.
Not every encounter is something your PCs will be able to easily handle, but anything you can throw at them within the rules (and within reasonable homebrew bounds) should be possible to beat.
There are better ways to do things than "Every time you kill one 2 more pop from the aether to replace them" or the old "He's stronger than you by a lot, you lose".
When one of my PCs challenged a level 16 pirate to a duel at like level 10, I let him do it. I didn't fudge anything, and played the combat out as normal. Who knows? He could have rolled a bunch of crits and won somehow. I mean he absolutely DIDN'T and got riggity rekt, but he could have.
You gave him an opportunity to win. He probably knew he didn't have much options but still you let him try and played it fair. When you allow dice to be rolled and the scenes to be played you are giving a chance to win or at least to make a difference. So you have to be prepared to face that they might actually succeed.
By the way