Right. If you were suggesting using a cut scene, then there's no scenario at all. I think if you want to avoid railroading, and you want an unwinnable scenario, you need to actually design a scenario within the rules that at least could be played out to a TPK. Now if after a round the players are like, "We can see which way this is going. We don't have to play it out," then fine. But if they want a chance to use their abilities to change the outcome, they should have that option.
I don't think you'd really call running from a fight a win. A scenario that has multiple possible outcomes, but none of them are wins, is still unwinnable, but worth playing out.
It depends on the fight. But even with the optional rules for chasing an opponent in Xanathar's Guide, simply running is not a very fun activity.
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.
On the back of a discussion in the DM thread I wanted to get a wider view of how people feel about being put in no win situations in DnD?
To clarify I mean situations that you are meant to escape from, run away, avoid to possibly return and fight another day when you have leveled, mcguffin etc.
To give an example, you witness a bbeg destroying a villiage and enslaving the people living there. You go to fight only to find his AC is far to high and his attacks do silly damage. So you need to get creative and try and escape. Maybe you get some villagers away as well, maybe you don’t.
Will you as a player realise that this is a battle you can’t win, will you retreat and lick your wounds to fight another day, or do you assume every combat situation is supposed to be winnable and therefore fight it out to a TPK feeling cheated by your DM when after you are all dead he tell you, there was no way you could beat this guy, why didn’t you just run?
There are two conditions that need to be met, and I rarely see the second. The first, it must be clear to the players that they can't win. The second, it must be clear to the players that escape is an option.
The biggest problem in this is that if the PCs have enough movement speed to get away, they also have enough movement speed that running 500ft away and sniping with the only longbow in the group is a viable strategy. This means that you need other considerations on the field. One option is having the enemies somewhat bound to an area but leaving no attack options from outside that area.
A CR 6 monster was able to beefgate a level four party? That really shouldn't have been a very difficult fight for them.
But back to the OP's question, I'm opposed to throwing unwinnable fights at the party. If they're supposed to lose, I feel that it's better to just have it happen as a cutscene. Being forced to spend several hours in a game with a fight that it turns out I could never win is frustrating, especially if limited-use equipment was expended (because when you're getting pounded is when you start reaching for the spell scrolls you had squirreled away).
I can see that going two ways. There is a multi-page thread about taking away player agency in which some of the participants would cry tears about a cut scene capture of the party.
I totally get where you're coming from though.
For the OP, you can have the party witness the BBEG decimating a village and they will engage. Players generally hate running away and even if it is fairly obvious that they are outclassed, they will still jump into a fight. Either have the BBEG ignore their attacks and leave or have him kick their butts (without killing them) in one or two rounds.
Forcing the party to play through an unwinnable scenario instead of handling it as a cutscene doesn't actually take away any player agency. It just takes longer.
You can't win as a fight, but that doesn't mean you can't still chase success. It's a scenario where I as a player have lots of things I can choose to do and there are a pretty wide array of outcomes from better to worse that I'd be interested in pursuing. As it became clear I was outclassed, success would become getting as many people to safety as I could. Or maybe I would fight to the death (or my party dragging my body away).
Or, if in trying to save NPCs they turned out to be dumb as dirt rushing headlong into danger, I might break character and roast them as some sort of cathartic release for every video game tat made me protect an NPC who was painfully stupid and lacked any sense of self-preservation.
If there's something to accomplish other than just beating up every hostile, that should be made clear to the players beforehand. If an encounter is one where you can't win, I'm assuming that that includes via non-combat methods.
And @Scarloc_Stormcall: throwing an unbeatable scenario at the PCs is also railroading.
Ok let me use another few examples from critical roll, Matt Mercer had the party attacked by a level 20 dragon well actually 4 of them attacked the city. Party attack dragon, learn the AC is really high (20 didn’t hit) and so realise they need to run. He has stated if they had stayed and fought they would have tpkd. It was the start of a new arc gaining allies, experience and items to fight these ancient dragons.
Same campaign party attack a liche, Vecna, a fight they can’t possibly win. Matt again gives those hints but they don’t pick up on them so they attack. One of the characters dies, party scramble to escape.
Campaign 2 3 of the party get kidnapped, the rest ambush the kidnappers, Matt gives hints that these are powerful enemies but the party ignore that and just attack. Character dies and Matt confirms it is only the improvised actions of a guest player that stop more character deaths via execution to “make a point” because that is what the bad guy would do.
In all 3 situations putting the players in an un winnable fight was not rail roading, it was telling the oldest tale in storytelling. Hero faces insurmountable odds, lives to fight another day, comes back stronger (maybe after a training montage) and beats the thing he failed at before.
My players understand from day one that every encounter has multiple potential resolutions, including avoidance and negotiation not just murder and death. They also understand I will give them mountains to climb that sometimes may be too hard for them at first. But I will never put them into a corner where tpk is the only option, they may do that themselves but that is on them. They understand if there actions result in a tpk that’s on them, if they charge the 300 strong undead horde I won’t plot armor them out of it and I don’t think a dm should. We simply allow the world to react to character actions.
Several 5th Ed campaigns actually use this. Out of the abyss has level 4-5 characters come face to face with demagorgon. The notes in the book state the characters should get a sense this is a fight they can’t win, but it also accepts this might be a TPK. Curse if Strahd also advises having the characters come face to face with strahd early on that encounter is meant to play out as hard but not deadly as Strahd toys with the characters but I have seen players not take the hint and go after him far too early and die.
In the description I gave I stated there was an out, escaping the bad guy because his attention was not fixated on the party. Surviving sometimes is winning, as a player I knew that in every encounter i went into in every system I have played. But that might come from years of playing Cthulhu where as a human you are never going to be able to go toe to toe with all the nightmares, or L5R which was notorious for being brutal in combat and I mean an opening adventure in the handbook that could result in a player being ordered to commit seppuku if things went well.
Ok let me use another few examples from critical roll, Matt Mercer had the party attacked by a level 20 dragon well actually 4 of them attacked the city. Party attack dragon, learn the AC is really high (20 didn’t hit) and so realise they need to run. He has stated if they had stayed and fought they would have tpkd. It was the start of a new arc gaining allies, experience and items to fight these ancient dragons.
Same campaign party attack a liche, Vecna, a fight they can’t possibly win. Matt again gives those hints but they don’t pick up on them so they attack. One of the characters dies, party scramble to escape.
Campaign 2 3 of the party get kidnapped, the rest ambush the kidnappers, Matt gives hints that these are powerful enemies but the party ignore that and just attack. Character dies and Matt confirms it is only the improvised actions of a guest player that stop more character deaths via execution to “make a point” because that is what the bad guy would do.
In all 3 situations putting the players in an un winnable fight was not rail roading, it was telling the oldest tale in storytelling. Hero faces insurmountable odds, lives to fight another day, comes back stronger (maybe after a training montage) and beats the thing he failed at before.
My players understand from day one that every encounter has multiple potential resolutions, including avoidance and negotiation not just murder and death. They also understand I will give them mountains to climb that sometimes may be too hard for them at first. But I will never put them into a corner where tpk is the only option, they may do that themselves but that is on them. They understand if there actions result in a tpk that’s on them, if they charge the 300 strong undead horde I won’t plot armor them out of it and I don’t think a dm should. We simply allow the world to react to character actions.
Several 5th Ed campaigns actually use this. Out of the abyss has level 4-5 characters come face to face with demagorgon. The notes in the book state the characters should get a sense this is a fight they can’t win, but it also accepts this might be a TPK. Curse if Strahd also advises having the characters come face to face with strahd early on that encounter is meant to play out as hard but not deadly as Strahd toys with the characters but I have seen players not take the hint and go after him far too early and die.
In the description I gave I stated there was an out, escaping the bad guy because his attention was not fixated on the party. Surviving sometimes is winning, as a player I knew that in every encounter i went into in every system I have played. But that might come from years of playing Cthulhu where as a human you are never going to be able to go toe to toe with all the nightmares, or L5R which was notorious for being brutal in combat and I mean an opening adventure in the handbook that could result in a player being ordered to commit seppuku if things went well.
The first two examples require the use of high level spells that aren't available to most parties. The third was heavy railroading (the kidnapping didn't follow the rules, it was a scripted event to explain characters not being present when their players couldn't play) into an encounter that was badly balanced, to the point that he apologized to fans afterward.
Even if the bad guy wasn't fixated on the party, once they attack him, they are almost certainly the greatest threat. They've demonstrated that they have the backbone to attack someone as strong as him, so even if they aren't a threat now, they will be in the future. If the other targets in the area are significant enough that he would go after them instead of the PCs, the PCs can contribute damage that (in their mind) might help defeat him.
Unless you make it clear to your players that an enemy is beyond them, they're unlikely to figure it out before they engage. At that point it is almost always too late to escape unless you make it even more clear that they can.
It should be alright. Some parties might have to learn the hard way via a few deaths or a TPK. Our group for instance basically refuse to believe that they have to run away from any fight and they seem sure that we should be able to beat anything the DM throws at us. I'm sure we'll be taught a lesson eventually :)
This is session zero material for me. I flat out tell my players that their characters are going to find encounters that aren't always winnable right now and they will always have character agency on when to fight or run. My DM agency gives me the option to have encounters and foes that aren't easy/possible to defeat upon first contact. There are two other pillars of play in 5e D&D (explore, social) and sticking to combat all the time simply won't always work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It depends on the fight. But even with the optional rules for chasing an opponent in Xanathar's Guide, simply running is not a very fun activity.
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.
There are two conditions that need to be met, and I rarely see the second. The first, it must be clear to the players that they can't win. The second, it must be clear to the players that escape is an option.
The biggest problem in this is that if the PCs have enough movement speed to get away, they also have enough movement speed that running 500ft away and sniping with the only longbow in the group is a viable strategy. This means that you need other considerations on the field. One option is having the enemies somewhat bound to an area but leaving no attack options from outside that area.
Ok let me use another few examples from critical roll, Matt Mercer had the party attacked by a level 20 dragon well actually 4 of them attacked the city. Party attack dragon, learn the AC is really high (20 didn’t hit) and so realise they need to run. He has stated if they had stayed and fought they would have tpkd. It was the start of a new arc gaining allies, experience and items to fight these ancient dragons.
Same campaign party attack a liche, Vecna, a fight they can’t possibly win. Matt again gives those hints but they don’t pick up on them so they attack. One of the characters dies, party scramble to escape.
Campaign 2 3 of the party get kidnapped, the rest ambush the kidnappers, Matt gives hints that these are powerful enemies but the party ignore that and just attack. Character dies and Matt confirms it is only the improvised actions of a guest player that stop more character deaths via execution to “make a point” because that is what the bad guy would do.
In all 3 situations putting the players in an un winnable fight was not rail roading, it was telling the oldest tale in storytelling. Hero faces insurmountable odds, lives to fight another day, comes back stronger (maybe after a training montage) and beats the thing he failed at before.
My players understand from day one that every encounter has multiple potential resolutions, including avoidance and negotiation not just murder and death. They also understand I will give them mountains to climb that sometimes may be too hard for them at first. But I will never put them into a corner where tpk is the only option, they may do that themselves but that is on them. They understand if there actions result in a tpk that’s on them, if they charge the 300 strong undead horde I won’t plot armor them out of it and I don’t think a dm should. We simply allow the world to react to character actions.
Several 5th Ed campaigns actually use this. Out of the abyss has level 4-5 characters come face to face with demagorgon. The notes in the book state the characters should get a sense this is a fight they can’t win, but it also accepts this might be a TPK. Curse if Strahd also advises having the characters come face to face with strahd early on that encounter is meant to play out as hard but not deadly as Strahd toys with the characters but I have seen players not take the hint and go after him far too early and die.
In the description I gave I stated there was an out, escaping the bad guy because his attention was not fixated on the party. Surviving sometimes is winning, as a player I knew that in every encounter i went into in every system I have played. But that might come from years of playing Cthulhu where as a human you are never going to be able to go toe to toe with all the nightmares, or L5R which was notorious for being brutal in combat and I mean an opening adventure in the handbook that could result in a player being ordered to commit seppuku if things went well.
The bar keep even gods tremble at the might he has if he so chooses he could destroy all planes and we'd be doomed.
The first two examples require the use of high level spells that aren't available to most parties. The third was heavy railroading (the kidnapping didn't follow the rules, it was a scripted event to explain characters not being present when their players couldn't play) into an encounter that was badly balanced, to the point that he apologized to fans afterward.
Even if the bad guy wasn't fixated on the party, once they attack him, they are almost certainly the greatest threat. They've demonstrated that they have the backbone to attack someone as strong as him, so even if they aren't a threat now, they will be in the future. If the other targets in the area are significant enough that he would go after them instead of the PCs, the PCs can contribute damage that (in their mind) might help defeat him.
Unless you make it clear to your players that an enemy is beyond them, they're unlikely to figure it out before they engage. At that point it is almost always too late to escape unless you make it even more clear that they can.
It should be alright. Some parties might have to learn the hard way via a few deaths or a TPK. Our group for instance basically refuse to believe that they have to run away from any fight and they seem sure that we should be able to beat anything the DM throws at us. I'm sure we'll be taught a lesson eventually :)
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
This is session zero material for me. I flat out tell my players that their characters are going to find encounters that aren't always winnable right now and they will always have character agency on when to fight or run. My DM agency gives me the option to have encounters and foes that aren't easy/possible to defeat upon first contact. There are two other pillars of play in 5e D&D (explore, social) and sticking to combat all the time simply won't always work.