I personally think this is a fine idea, but a lot of players would give you BS about TPK surrender encounters taking away player agency ( which it doesn't ), or being a cruel DM ( which you aren't being ), Just giving you a fair warning as this happened once or twice when I DM'ed :).
Once players gain control of their characters, it is extremely hard to make them:
1. Surrender and
2. Run away
It's not in their nature. They will fight to the death and complain afterwards. They will face the odds because the DM couldn't possibly put insurmountable odds before them. If it's there it means we fight it, right?
It takes an experienced group that is very focused on narrative aspect of the game ("this makes for a great story!") and has a great deal of trust between everyone at the table for the DM to feel safe when designing an encounter where the players are expected to run away or surrender.
They will fight to the death and complain afterwards. They will face the odds because the DM couldn't possibly put insurmountable odds before them. If it's there it means we fight it, right?
Yup. This.
To some degree you can't blame them. Even in brutal campaigns, MOST encounters are not meant to be deadly. It's not always clear as a player which ones are which, and by the time you figure it out, you get into the sunk-cost fallacy and such.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I agree to a lot here, but I'll try another angel.
If the outcome of the combat is beyond what the PC's can do anything with, the combat in itself is not interesting for the scene. It is a backdrop, a "color", just like that the weather is "stormy", or it is "in the middle of the night".
If the scene is going to be interesting, it has to be about something else than the combat. If the goal isn't to defeat the enemy, what is it? Escape with your life? Rescue some innocent civilians? Find and get away with the information needed to continue the fight? It can be a lot of things, and it can create great role-playing moments. But if you don't give your players some goals they CAN succeed at (or fail), they will probably don't feel very happy with the session.
They will fight to the death and complain afterwards. They will face the odds because the DM couldn't possibly put insurmountable odds before them. If it's there it means we fight it, right?
Yup. This.
To some degree you can't blame them. Even in brutal campaigns, MOST encounters are not meant to be deadly. It's not always clear as a player which ones are which, and by the time you figure it out, you get into the sunk-cost fallacy and such.
It's something that can be discussed during session zero, though that doesn't always get the idea across (and you won't know if it did until you try). But you can occasionally just openly tell the players the outlook and be blunt about it. Matt Colville's Chain of Acheron campaign started with a big unwinnable set piece and he'd told his players that's exactly what it was. It's easier to do that as the opening scene of a new campaign than in the middle of unfolding events though, with an intro setup the players aren't as likely to mind not having full control - the alternative would have been starting right after the unwinnable encounter anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
They will fight to the death and complain afterwards. They will face the odds because the DM couldn't possibly put insurmountable odds before them. If it's there it means we fight it, right?
Yup. This.
To some degree you can't blame them. Even in brutal campaigns, MOST encounters are not meant to be deadly. It's not always clear as a player which ones are which, and by the time you figure it out, you get into the sunk-cost fallacy and such.
It's something that can be discussed during session zero, though that doesn't always get the idea across (and you won't know if it did until you try). But you can occasionally just openly tell the players the outlook and be blunt about it. Matt Colville's Chain of Acheron campaign started with a big unwinnable set piece and he'd told his players that's exactly what it was. It's easier to do that as the opening scene of a new campaign than in the middle of unfolding events though, with an intro setup the players aren't as likely to mind not having full control - the alternative would have been starting right after the unwinnable encounter anyway.
Yeah and it did help that the player killed in that session was actually in on it so the trust was there.
It is unfortunate that this couldn't have been better relayed to the audience because Matt got a bit of a trashing for that 1st episode in which he basically kind of threw outside the window some of his teachings.
Knowing that the player consented to give up his character in order to help shape the narrative in the beginning it's kinda hilarious to watch, especially when Matt takes a handful of dice with his both palms and starts throwing them and you can hear that it was A LOT and then he says "Oh I'm not done" and takes ANOTHER two fists of dice to throw xD
But that episode showcases one important thing about running D&D - once you know all the do's and dont's and establish a proper relationship of trust with your players, you can bend those rules or ignore them. Matt Colville could kill his player in the first combat without allowing him any meaningful action, Matt Mercer could take away one of his players powers for several sessions. Both times it worked because the players trust their DM and value the overall narrative that can come out of it.
Both of those things would've been absolutely trashed by other DM's here or on reddit and the person asking advice on "how to do it" would've been called a terrible DM. Difference is, if you need to ask how to do it, then you probably shouldn't. Those who have enough experience and confidence just do it.
It's something that can be discussed during session zero, though that doesn't always get the idea across
The problem is, even if you tell the players it's a killer campaign and they should make back-up characters in session 0, nobody *really* believes their character can actually die until it happens.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Because players have a hard time running away. They are heroes, and as players they showed up to roll dice and kick ass, not roll dice and run away.
You yourself just said that it took a ton of deaths before the groups learned caution. It takes things going seriously wrong before players even think that maybe the fight was a bad idea, and then it is often too late. I haven't encountered many players willing to leave fallen comrades behind.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
It's something that can be discussed during session zero, though that doesn't always get the idea across
The problem is, even if you tell the players it's a killer campaign and they should make back-up characters in session 0, nobody *really* believes their character can actually die until it happens.
That's possibly largely true for groups with players who only know 5E, but most of the players I know from older editions - particularly TSR editions - tend to be prepared for fatalities. Conversely, the same tends to go for absolutely new players: if I tell a first timer that I'll be fair but that character death is nonetheless possible, they usually take me at my word. I've also run games for groups where we had a few houserules to make things a little more deadly, and having a few of those gets the point across as well. So, mileages may vary.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Ok so looking at all your suggestions I think the best thing to do here is to lessen the difficulty of the encounter so it's still quite deadly, but with some clever use of resources possible to defeat. If they follow the first plot hook which leads to this battle then they do have another goal to achieve which is to defend the town they were in, so they might find a way to at least drive the enemies away if they can't be defeated, I'll also notify them beforehand so they know that the encounter isn't going to be easy.
It's something that can be discussed during session zero, though that doesn't always get the idea across
The problem is, even if you tell the players it's a killer campaign and they should make back-up characters in session 0, nobody *really* believes their character can actually die until it happens.
Do this to me at your table, and you'll get the opposite effect - I'll show up with like 5 characters as backups for each other and all of them were built nihilistically since you functionally told me not to get emotionally invested in them, so I'll play all of them like train wrecks. Which can be fun in its own way, but I always believe the GM when they warn me the more time I spend on my character the more I'm about to lose.
To date I have never encountered a situation where the PCs were both unlikely to win a fight and likely to be able to escape it after the fight started, at least from the point of view of the PCs. There have been few encounters where there are things in play that the PCs likely do not know about which would allow them to escape, but it's hardly fair to expect them to assume something will save them.
One example of this is the first possible encounter in Curse of Strahd. The (level 1-3) PCs can encounter up to 5 CR1 monsters with a speed of 50ft. There's no reason for the PCs to believe that running away would benefit them in any way.
To date I have never encountered a situation where the PCs were both unlikely to win a fight and likely to be able to escape it after the fight started, at least from the point of view of the PCs. There have been few encounters where there are things in play that the PCs likely do not know about which would allow them to escape, but it's hardly fair to expect them to assume something will save them.
It's situational and somewhat dependent on the PCs thinking in terms of retreating; it's a lot easier to retreat if the PCs actually prepare to do so (wall spells, sacrificial summons, mobility effects, etc) or if the fight is more complicated than a simple head to head.
One issue with fleeing... often by the time they realize it is a good idea to flee, it is too late. Several PCs are down and making death saving throws, and it may be either impractical or flat out impossible for the remaining ones to get their friends out without going down themselves. If fleeing means saving your own character at the cost of someone else's character (or several characters) being offed while they are still incapacitated, a lot of players won't do that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
5E's rules don't provide mechanical incentives to flee most of the time. Unless you're a Rogue that can use Cunning Action to dash twice in a round, or you've got a race/class combo that gives you a substantial bonus to movement, it's hard to actually escape from a fight once it's broken out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
5E's rules don't provide mechanical incentives to flee most of the time. Unless you're a Rogue that can use Cunning Action to dash twice in a round, or you've got a race/class combo that gives you a substantial bonus to movement, it's hard to actually escape from a fight once it's broken out.
You might try skill challenges. Not a 5E mechanic and the situation can be a bit specific for this purpose as long as combat's still fully engaged, but it's an option.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
we might need to flee, or at least to test the strength of the adversary before committing, then we look for earlier signs that things might go bad, then plan and act accordingly. Of course, if you wait until half the party is down to flee, it is probably too late.
Surely it is not possible, unless the DM sets up very artificial circumstances, to be able to test the power of an enemy every single time. It's when you miscalculate the strength of the enemy that things go south, and often quickly. That monster that you didn't realize had that powerful reaction that put someone down in one hit... you may not have been able to anticipate that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
5E's rules don't provide mechanical incentives to flee most of the time. Unless you're a Rogue that can use Cunning Action to dash twice in a round, or you've got a race/class combo that gives you a substantial bonus to movement, it's hard to actually escape from a fight once it's broken out.
I'm not sure why you should need mechanical incentives to flee. Story incentives should be all you need, like in "you are all dead if you don't flee". After that, there are so many spells and powers that can be used to flee, including so many teleportation effects that it should not really be a technical problem, especially after the very first levels. But for that, you need to have well-rounded characters, not stupid builds that focus on one thing, for example doing the maximum damage in specific circumstances.
Okay, let me put it like this: I have a fighter. They're in melee with a hobgoblin when they realize that they need to retreat for whatever reason. I have two basic options: Disengage and move my normal movement, at which point the hobgoblin uses their normal movement and starts hitting me again; or Dashing and double moving, eating an Opportunity Attack and then having the hobgoblin Dash to get up to me again. Either way, once in melee the game's rules really encourage you to keep fighting unless you've got specific class or racial abilities. Which a lot of player character builds don't get.
And no, that's not something that's restricted to "stupid builds" that focus on damage output. You can be very well-rounded and still have issues with this simply because there are so few ways to get around it and most of them are very specialized.
I personally think this is a fine idea, but a lot of players would give you BS about TPK surrender encounters taking away player agency ( which it doesn't ), or being a cruel DM ( which you aren't being ), Just giving you a fair warning as this happened once or twice when I DM'ed :).
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
Once players gain control of their characters, it is extremely hard to make them:
1. Surrender and
2. Run away
It's not in their nature. They will fight to the death and complain afterwards. They will face the odds because the DM couldn't possibly put insurmountable odds before them. If it's there it means we fight it, right?
It takes an experienced group that is very focused on narrative aspect of the game ("this makes for a great story!") and has a great deal of trust between everyone at the table for the DM to feel safe when designing an encounter where the players are expected to run away or surrender.
Yup. This.
To some degree you can't blame them. Even in brutal campaigns, MOST encounters are not meant to be deadly. It's not always clear as a player which ones are which, and by the time you figure it out, you get into the sunk-cost fallacy and such.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I agree to a lot here, but I'll try another angel.
If the outcome of the combat is beyond what the PC's can do anything with, the combat in itself is not interesting for the scene. It is a backdrop, a "color", just like that the weather is "stormy", or it is "in the middle of the night".
If the scene is going to be interesting, it has to be about something else than the combat. If the goal isn't to defeat the enemy, what is it? Escape with your life? Rescue some innocent civilians? Find and get away with the information needed to continue the fight? It can be a lot of things, and it can create great role-playing moments. But if you don't give your players some goals they CAN succeed at (or fail), they will probably don't feel very happy with the session.
Ludo ergo sum!
It's something that can be discussed during session zero, though that doesn't always get the idea across (and you won't know if it did until you try). But you can occasionally just openly tell the players the outlook and be blunt about it. Matt Colville's Chain of Acheron campaign started with a big unwinnable set piece and he'd told his players that's exactly what it was. It's easier to do that as the opening scene of a new campaign than in the middle of unfolding events though, with an intro setup the players aren't as likely to mind not having full control - the alternative would have been starting right after the unwinnable encounter anyway.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yeah and it did help that the player killed in that session was actually in on it so the trust was there.
It is unfortunate that this couldn't have been better relayed to the audience because Matt got a bit of a trashing for that 1st episode in which he basically kind of threw outside the window some of his teachings.
Knowing that the player consented to give up his character in order to help shape the narrative in the beginning it's kinda hilarious to watch, especially when Matt takes a handful of dice with his both palms and starts throwing them and you can hear that it was A LOT and then he says "Oh I'm not done" and takes ANOTHER two fists of dice to throw xD
But that episode showcases one important thing about running D&D - once you know all the do's and dont's and establish a proper relationship of trust with your players, you can bend those rules or ignore them. Matt Colville could kill his player in the first combat without allowing him any meaningful action, Matt Mercer could take away one of his players powers for several sessions. Both times it worked because the players trust their DM and value the overall narrative that can come out of it.
Both of those things would've been absolutely trashed by other DM's here or on reddit and the person asking advice on "how to do it" would've been called a terrible DM. Difference is, if you need to ask how to do it, then you probably shouldn't. Those who have enough experience and confidence just do it.
The problem is, even if you tell the players it's a killer campaign and they should make back-up characters in session 0, nobody *really* believes their character can actually die until it happens.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Because players have a hard time running away. They are heroes, and as players they showed up to roll dice and kick ass, not roll dice and run away.
You yourself just said that it took a ton of deaths before the groups learned caution. It takes things going seriously wrong before players even think that maybe the fight was a bad idea, and then it is often too late. I haven't encountered many players willing to leave fallen comrades behind.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
That's possibly largely true for groups with players who only know 5E, but most of the players I know from older editions - particularly TSR editions - tend to be prepared for fatalities. Conversely, the same tends to go for absolutely new players: if I tell a first timer that I'll be fair but that character death is nonetheless possible, they usually take me at my word. I've also run games for groups where we had a few houserules to make things a little more deadly, and having a few of those gets the point across as well. So, mileages may vary.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Ok so looking at all your suggestions I think the best thing to do here is to lessen the difficulty of the encounter so it's still quite deadly, but with some clever use of resources possible to defeat. If they follow the first plot hook which leads to this battle then they do have another goal to achieve which is to defend the town they were in, so they might find a way to at least drive the enemies away if they can't be defeated, I'll also notify them beforehand so they know that the encounter isn't going to be easy.
Do this to me at your table, and you'll get the opposite effect - I'll show up with like 5 characters as backups for each other and all of them were built nihilistically since you functionally told me not to get emotionally invested in them, so I'll play all of them like train wrecks. Which can be fun in its own way, but I always believe the GM when they warn me the more time I spend on my character the more I'm about to lose.
I think we've lost the original question.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To date I have never encountered a situation where the PCs were both unlikely to win a fight and likely to be able to escape it after the fight started, at least from the point of view of the PCs. There have been few encounters where there are things in play that the PCs likely do not know about which would allow them to escape, but it's hardly fair to expect them to assume something will save them.
One example of this is the first possible encounter in Curse of Strahd. The (level 1-3) PCs can encounter up to 5 CR1 monsters with a speed of 50ft. There's no reason for the PCs to believe that running away would benefit them in any way.
It's situational and somewhat dependent on the PCs thinking in terms of retreating; it's a lot easier to retreat if the PCs actually prepare to do so (wall spells, sacrificial summons, mobility effects, etc) or if the fight is more complicated than a simple head to head.
One issue with fleeing... often by the time they realize it is a good idea to flee, it is too late. Several PCs are down and making death saving throws, and it may be either impractical or flat out impossible for the remaining ones to get their friends out without going down themselves. If fleeing means saving your own character at the cost of someone else's character (or several characters) being offed while they are still incapacitated, a lot of players won't do that.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
5E's rules don't provide mechanical incentives to flee most of the time. Unless you're a Rogue that can use Cunning Action to dash twice in a round, or you've got a race/class combo that gives you a substantial bonus to movement, it's hard to actually escape from a fight once it's broken out.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You might try skill challenges. Not a 5E mechanic and the situation can be a bit specific for this purpose as long as combat's still fully engaged, but it's an option.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Surely it is not possible, unless the DM sets up very artificial circumstances, to be able to test the power of an enemy every single time. It's when you miscalculate the strength of the enemy that things go south, and often quickly. That monster that you didn't realize had that powerful reaction that put someone down in one hit... you may not have been able to anticipate that.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Okay, let me put it like this: I have a fighter. They're in melee with a hobgoblin when they realize that they need to retreat for whatever reason. I have two basic options: Disengage and move my normal movement, at which point the hobgoblin uses their normal movement and starts hitting me again; or Dashing and double moving, eating an Opportunity Attack and then having the hobgoblin Dash to get up to me again. Either way, once in melee the game's rules really encourage you to keep fighting unless you've got specific class or racial abilities. Which a lot of player character builds don't get.
And no, that's not something that's restricted to "stupid builds" that focus on damage output. You can be very well-rounded and still have issues with this simply because there are so few ways to get around it and most of them are very specialized.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yeah, or maybe it's just the 7th encounter the party's faced that day and they're running dry on powers.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.