Ever been in a game/campaign where no character has yet died, but a player loudly complains that the DM is being unreasonable and unfair, because some encounters cannot be won through direct, frontal combat, at that party's current level?

This happened after the party was forced to retreat, a couple of times. The last straw for this player; us showing up a the gate of a stronghold, with clearly too many opponents to overcome, who warned us then allowed us to leave. The setting is a sandbox, and this particular player ran the leader PC, choosing our party's path.

In other words, this player was implying, then later confirmed, that they believe that all encounters presented to them should be set/adjusted so the party can engage and defeat everyone or everything they encounter, at their current level.

Though this mindset likely existed back in the 70s, 80s, 90s, I had not experienced this particular one from a fellow player until recently.

Do any of y'all see this come up? Does it happen very often?

I would say this is a fairly common mindset, even if players are unaware of what's happening or that those players are doing it. One of my players is also someone who DMs a game I play, with a mutual group of friends, and if I didn't know any better I would say you're describing him, lol. He does this frequently enough that he's encouraged other players at the table to break character and go along with him instead because it is the easiest way to move the story (or any other myriad of excuses). None of them do, to be honest, but they have also noticed this pattern.

Surrounded by a dozen bandits, two veterans, a bandit captain, and a Medusa? No problem, Eldritch Blast! Then complains when he's downed after one round of shortbow valley's that he should have been able to do more and them not as much. (at the time it was his character and only one other during that encounter, which was basically a recruitment shakedown by a local gang as part of the main plot , lol.)

Our most recent game, in which I was DMing for our group of six, he literally tossed me his character sheet and said, "WELL I am no longer interested in playing this character." because his character was magically aged 20 years after failing a save versus a ghosts horrifying visage, when he instigated what was, at first, an otherwise non-hostile encounter. The Ghost ended up running away after a few rounds of combat because of a skill check from the party's face. After the aging effects were reversed on his character because of Greater Restoration, he tried to go back to summon the ghost and trap it, so he could kill it at a later time.

He doesn't learn much, lol

I think this mindset is still very much common. I personally think DnD 5e doesn't sit well with retreating. To me it's a highly heroic system where the enemy is clearly the enemy and always more or less beatable. Then there may be some creatures or npcs beyond the scope of player power. But the actual enemies are meant to be defeated. 

I'd have a really hard time evaluating which enemies are unbeatable in DnD 5e, especially when nearing lvl 10. Because numbers don't necessarily mean anything. Size doesn't mean anything either. So what would I base my assessment on? 

But if I play Call of Cthulhu, then I expect every encounter to be the end for me. In Savage Worlds I feel like every encounter needs to be carefully assessed before engaging, or I might end up way over my head. If I see a dragon in Savage, I freakin run. In 5e I go "yyyyyeeah, dragon fight!!!!"

But in DnD 5e, I generally feel rather care free about combat and meet every obstacle or encounter with heroic confidence. Then I expect a somewhat balanced, but still risky combat. 😄

As a player and DM, I think there’s an expectation that encounters are balanced. but for the world to feel lived There should be encounters where the party can’t win, this should be hinted at or roleplayed by the DM to make it obvious. As for the mindset of every encounter should be winnable, that feels like it’s something from computer games where it’s all about the hero fantasy. Not to say dnd isn’t also a hero fantasy but plot wise there’s foreshadowing encounters the party might return to when they are stronger.

I have found that among players with less than about 5 years experience or a limited familiarity with the sandbox style of play (open world, sandbox, whatever), this is very common.

Had I not switched to sandbox style, I likely wouldn't know it. This is why the concept of zero session can be really helpful -- provided that player's ask questions instead of make assumptions, lol (not everyone knows what a sand box or open world is, or what they mean).

I Can't say that's a solution, though. Even when I sit with them and explain that yes, they will run into creatures even in planned adventures that are simply too much for a party to handle, they will still have a problem.

It doesn't help that much of the current edition sorta keeps suggesting that as a standard of play, but the default presumptions of the standard rules are not built around the notion of a sandbox, so it isn't like they are at fault -- this is something that people need to learn.

What's particularly upsetting to me is that they want to have fun, and since my games are a goodly amount more involved than regular games (less non-played downtime, more environmental hazards, more travel), that is one of the  things that they come for -- but they do expect the world to be set at their level, and so rob themselves of the primary value of an open world: the ability to say "screw it, Imma go do this".

I am lucky that my groups will sorta guide them often, and if they give it a chance, they usually fall into the spirit and really get into it. 

A side challenge for me is something I just mentioned in a different thread, lol -- none of the stat blocks for the monster's I use are known by players. They can't find them in books, they can't find them on websites, they exist strictly on the notecards I have. That same kind of player often gets angry that they don't know what the strengths or weaknesses of a given monster are. Or, for that matter, the strengths and weaknesses of the "normal" animals they might encounter (such as a giant Bison). This has led to an argument in the past over, I kid you not, what a miniature Lion could do.

(yes, I have both miniature and giant versions of all the regular, normal animals -- these are not part of the 125 monsters I have).

So, um, yeah, been there, done that, and that's my best...

I appreciate your input, everyone.

This mindset is foreign to my own; especially as I don't play video games. As a lover of stories, I look on these moments as plot twists, or story line flavor. It's good to know that, short of careful RP dialogue, or simple out-of-character statements to the players, these moments may be hard for the players to identify. Good thing to remember.

I'm dipping my toes in the waters again, as DM/GM. Play, and to some extent players, have changed somewhat in the last couple decades. I have much to learn.

Quote from SerLoxy >>

I think this mindset is still very much common. I personally think DnD 5e doesn't sit well with retreating. To me it's a highly heroic system where the enemy is clearly the enemy and always more or less beatable. Then there may be some creatures or npcs beyond the scope of player power. But the actual enemies are meant to be defeated. 

I'd have a really hard time evaluating which enemies are unbeatable in DnD 5e, especially when nearing lvl 10. Because numbers don't necessarily mean anything. Size doesn't mean anything either. So what would I base my assessment on? 

But if I play Call of Cthulhu, then I expect every encounter to be the end for me. In Savage Worlds I feel like every encounter needs to be carefully assessed before engaging, or I might end up way over my head. If I see a dragon in Savage, I freakin run. In 5e I go "yyyyyeeah, dragon fight!!!!"

But in DnD 5e, I generally feel rather care free about combat and meet every obstacle or encounter with heroic confidence. Then I expect a somewhat balanced, but still risky combat. 😄

Your explanation of how your own approach at play varies, depending on the gaming system, is most helpful to my better understanding this mindset. Thanks!

Somebody needs to play Fallout New Vegas and try hiking from Goodsprings to Freeside

You need to keep in mind the separation between character and player. It sounds like these players are being driven by the metagame, where a roll of initiative tendsto signal a winnable combat.

In these instances, the players are pushing their characters into situations they believe are winnable, but often the characters - who are capable, knowledgeable adventurers - would see the writing on the wall. In those instances, it's okay to just tell the player, "Your character assesses the stronghold and determines a frontal assault would be folly. Any other ideas?"

Likewise if the party attacks something far beyond their means, we don't even go into combat. I just immediately resolve what the opposition decides to do to the little screeching pests. Be more upfront about unwinnable situations - generally players aren't mad that they can't automatically kill everything, they're just mad that there was a mismatch of expectations for a given scene that wasn't understood until after they wasted 30-60 min of the session.

It's not an uncommon mindset, especially among newer players since it is often what they are exposed to first, sometimes for the first several years of experience playing 5e.

As another poster mentioned, 5e is an heroic system where the characters have lots of abilities, can do a lot but they are also pretty fragile. Most NPCs/creatures don't do as much (unless the DM is using PC classed NPCs) but they typically have significantly more hit points.

DMs are often taught to produce "balanced" encounters where the fight is a challenge to the party but one they can win. Likely 90% of encounters are like this. However, there are a lot of other possible encounters out there - ones that can be avoided by clever use of terrain or through use of social skills or a cool plan - ones that are very easy but advance the plot in some way or just make the players realize how much more powerful their characters have become over time - ones that are too difficult for the party to succeed at their current level or which have substantial specific risks (e.g. Ghost, Intellect Devourer etc) where winning could come with significant costs to individual players.

When a player who is used to having the encounters scale with the party runs into these other types of encounters then you can get a wide range of reactions either because they like combat so non-combat solutions are "boring", or a story beat encounter that is too easy becomes a "waste of time" or a challenge that is too hard becomes "unfair". Some of the time this attitude comes from the player's approach to the game, they are there to advance their character, gain experience (usually associated with killing things which is part of the problem), get items, feel cool about the character - it tends to be a bit of a selfish approach since everything is related to what they want (and they tend to be vocal expressing it without consulting the other players on whether they are having a good time). The player is also often not that into the role playing or the story either except where it yields the experiences they are looking for in the game.

I also find that for all players, it can be very useful to foreshadow and telegraph the difficulty of some (not all) fights so that the players are aware when an encounter might be one that they can not resolve with combat without losing.

For example, the characters would often be very capable of assessing opponents and the DM should tell the players something that would be obvious to the character. In the example from [EDIT:] the OP StylesStriker of the press gang and two PCs becoming a fight where they couldn't win ... honestly, the character, with their in game experience should usually be able to assess that, surrounded by a half dozen very competent looking fighters armed with both melee and ranged weapons, that firing off an Eldritch Blast might injure one of them but the odds are good that you and your friend would be taken down/killed/knocked out - this is something that the character would often know and they DM should make sure that the player also has that assessment before they decide what to do in the situation.

Quote from David42 >>

It's not an uncommon mindset, especially among newer players since it is often what they are exposed to first, sometimes for the first several years of experience playing 5e.

. . .

For example, the characters would often be very capable of assessing opponents and the DM should tell the players something that would be obvious to the character. In the example from the OP of the press gang and two PCs becoming a fight where they couldn't win ... honestly, the character, with their in game experience should usually be able to assess that, surrounded by a half dozen very competent looking fighters armed with both melee and ranged weapons, that firing off an Eldritch Blast might injure one of them but the odds are good that you and your friend would be taken down/killed/knocked out - this is something that the character would often know and they DM should make sure that the player also has that assessment before they decide what to do in the situation.

 

 That example was not mine, but it get where you're going with it.

Quote from first_rolled_a_die_in_1976 >>

Quote from David42 >>

It's not an uncommon mindset, especially among newer players since it is often what they are exposed to first, sometimes for the first several years of experience playing 5e.

. . .

For example, the characters would often be very capable of assessing opponents and the DM should tell the players something that would be obvious to the character. In the example from the OP of the press gang and two PCs becoming a fight where they couldn't win ... honestly, the character, with their in game experience should usually be able to assess that, surrounded by a half dozen very competent looking fighters armed with both melee and ranged weapons, that firing off an Eldritch Blast might injure one of them but the odds are good that you and your friend would be taken down/killed/knocked out - this is something that the character would often know and they DM should make sure that the player also has that assessment before they decide what to do in the situation.

 

 That example was not mine, but it get where you're going with it.

 Oops .. sorry about that :) .. I edited the message and noted the change. :)

I think, to be honest 5e has become too easy and too (for lack of a better word) Heroic. Characters in 5e (as opposed to other systems and early D&D editions) are superheroes. Being able to sleep off almost any injury, being able to learn magic so much more easily that martials tend to be the clearly weaker option...

I think players have gotten a bit too used to being able to just walk through anything. In the three 5e campaigns I've been running over the last two years..****y two player characters have fled. Mostly they'll just throw themselves up against the challenge. 

Now, I am the type of DM that believes that character death is integral to my style of collaborative storytelling. I try to ensure they don't die in silly ways, but it is always a possibility. In one campaign I've had one death to a beholder disintegration ray, and one to having their brain consumed by an intellect devourer (despite the party being level 10+). Now, in the first case, the players had a lot of big flashing warnings that something was up and wasn't right. Despite this they split the party and two of them pushed deeper into the area alone. In the second case it was simple overconfidence as the party had encountered intellect devourers at a lower level and absolutely walked the encounter. They are a rather chaotic bunch though who don't have the best party cohesion. In the background I'd already fudged to provent these two characters dying previously...which is something I do in the background to try and give the player a second chance. Problem is that in both of these situations, the party were reminded that yes their characters can die and some challenges need to be taken seriously. Each death of character is something I've been able to use as a storytelling way to reveal party flaws and weaknesses. 

Despite this the same party were recently put up against a Warlord, Ultroloth, Drow Arachnomancer, Drow Inquisitor, Mind Flayer Clairvoyant, two Intellect Devourer, 2 Specter, 2 Imp, 2 Orc, 2 Giant Spider at the same time (it made sense from a story perspective and they are all part of the enemy army). Now the party are five and all of them at level 12. They have a mix of really powerful magic items, and they were essentially beseiged. They had numerous ways out, including teleportation, an escape tunnel, and a few other magic options. What do you think a party facing that force did? Well, they decided to fight. It was a three hour encounter that in fairness nearly killed two of the party...as it is only one of them died. But they were fighting to save the home of the party. They were fighting for the very existence of magic itself in this world. The stakes are huge. 

So I think the best we as GMs/DMs can do is to give the players the options. If I'd have sent the party up against that group with no magic items, no resources, no options for escaping...then I am the problem. But part of what we do is to assemble to obstacle course and give the players the chance to navigate it. Will the just smash through it? Will they nimbly negotiate each challenge? Will they simply ignore it and walk away? Will they walk around it? We as GMs don't know, but that's okay. As long as we have provided the options for the party to choose from. That's the gig. In my case the party went up against an extremely deadly encounter. To their credit they had one Unconscious, and one Dead by the end and had knocked down the leader of the army (they didn't know that) so I had the option for the enemies to rob the dead character and flee. It's now up to the party if they wish to chase the fleeing enemies. That might not go so well for them, as the party know that there is still a sizeable force a little ways off...but it is the party's choice. The absolute best we can do is pop our fingers on the scale (usually in the favour of the players).

Quote from CharlesThePlant >>

Somebody needs to play Fallout New Vegas and try hiking from Goodsprings to Freeside

 You're not suggesting they pass by the Quarry are you? Lol

My general opinion is that encounters should be avoidable or beatable, but need not be both. I'm not sure where the expectation that everything can be beaten comes from; it's not a video game thing, plenty of video games have level gating where some problems are just too big for you to deal with the first time you encounter them.

This mindset is altogether all to common. An encounter, any encounter, is a challenge. Every challenge should be something the party can overcome. Not every challenge needs to be something they can overcome through combat however.

I think the death saves thing brings out the "we can beat anything" attitude. 

The look on new players after they suffer a horrific hit and don't die...

In my games I drop a lot of hints that something is a bad idea or bad thing are coming. If they go for it then they go for it. 

Quote from Wysperra >>

I think the death saves thing brings out the "we can beat anything" attitude. 

The look on new players after they suffer a horrific hit and don't die...

In my games I drop a lot of hints that something is a bad idea or bad thing are coming. If they go for it then they go for it. 

This is partly why my next campaign I've decided to implement the Injuries rules from the DMG (Page 272) Dungeon Master’s Workshop - Dungeon Master’s Guide - Sources - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)

I honestly think that it'll be an interesting difference in the game. I'd love to implement the Massive Damage rules, but I don't know that the players would go along with it as much.

I've got custom dying rules for my campaign so that covers a lot of the whack-a-mole mentality people have.

I find this mentality is in a lot of players - I am happy that my campaign sees the players play their characters as cautious in a dangerous world - as reinforced when they take big hits and realise they need to be smart. As it's a campaign, I often foreshadow things to emphasise their unwinnability. For example, they fought 3 giants and they were badly hurt. Later, they saw a skyship full of giants, and concluded "if we fight that, we will die" and ran for cover.

In drop-in games, the assumption is always that "if it's there, the DM made sure we can beat it". I try to make encounters which aren't combat and which combat will likely result in demise, to make things more of a challenge. For example, in one game they have to acquire the breath of a Gorgon. They are not high enough level to fight two of these, so they need to work out a plan. Thus far, the 2 groups have either scraped a win and captured the breath, or they have gotten the breath and scarpered. In both instances, they did not make a plan before they started the fight, despite me giving them the drop on the beast.

I wonder if this is the most telling part - the assumption, despite being told "don't kill it, or we won't get the breath", in both cases was to start swinging first, work out what to do after. In both cases, halfway through the fight, someone would pipe up "who has the windbladder?" (needed to harvest the breath), and they would start trying to make a plan on the fly.

I think that the rules put too high an emphasis on combat, meaning players make characters for what they can do in combat, and so their default assumption when facing an opponent is "combat!".

Quote from Wysperra >>

I think the death saves thing brings out the "we can beat anything" attitude.

 I doubt it. Death saves do increase what the PCs can beat, but that's just an objective power issue, not an attitude.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Wysperra >>

I think the death saves thing brings out the "we can beat anything" attitude.

 I doubt it. Death saves do increase what the PCs can beat, but that's just an objective power issue, not an attitude.

 
Having played and run far more brutal (and to my mind better designed) TTRPGs, something more like Blades in the Dark, the brutalistic damage, injury, and death mechanics in those games often mean that players try to avoid combat more than running headlong into it. Blades in particular lends itself very well to avoidance, stealth, diplomacy, or even distraction as a way of handling challenges. 

I think though being built as it originally was a rules system for minis way back in it's earliest origins D&D has at it's very core combat. If someone is looking for just pure roleplay they'd go with Fiasco, or FATE or any of those systems that are built more specifically at roleplay and rules light. If someone is looking for the jack of all trades system I'd suggest that's what D&D is. 

What I mean to say here though is that the lack of lingering consequences in standard (non-optional) D&D rulesets does kinda lend itself to the brute force combat encounter. If healing and recovery in D&D was as harsh as Blades in the Dark is...yikes, I don't think players would be as keen to throw themselves into combat.