DM Series pt 1: Impossible Situations and PC Egos

[Human Paragon 3]

EDIT: I've retroactively made this thread Part 1 of a weekly series of DMing conversations.

Juris's DMing Series Master TOC Page (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8392687#post8392687)


Occasionally the plot calls for overwhelming encounters, but there are dangers here.

Sometimes it takes a while for the players to realize the encounter is too hard for them, sometimes until it's too late... especially when the only reasonable way to live through the encounter is to not fight at all.

But standing down can be bad for player egos. There is a fine line between PCs being bullied by stronger NPCs and the dreaded railroading. They can go along with the NPC's demands out of fear, but then they may feel like they don't have any agency. If they try to fight back in the obvious ways (i.e. rolling d20s to make attack rolls) there's a strong possibility of premature character death, or worse a TPK. For me, a TPK means one of two things: 1, a gross player mistake or 2, DM failure.

I'm looking for insight on this dichotomy, anecdotes, theory philosophy etc. Hit me.

[MachineWraith]

Holy cow. My younger brother is the worst about this. He tends to think I'll never throw anything at the party they can't handle in combat, and gets really pissed off any time he's wrong.

In a zombie apocalypse campaign I ran, he kept trying to murder and rob this war veteran who owned a gun shop. Problem was, one of the other character's backstory involved the vet, and the party had all just met. Even after I made it clear this guy was supposed to be about as close to epic as you can get (told them he was former special forces, the vet himself told him he killed the last people who tried to rob him, etc.) my brother still wanted to kill him.

He broke in and went for him, massive gunfight ensues, both parties getting injured, some lucky and unlucky rolls on both sides. At this point, I'm really not sure who's gonna win. Then the other PC who knows the vet? She gives my brother's character both barrels from 12 gauge. Point blank. In the back.

Bro was sooo pissed off.

[jiriku]

A tactic I use when presenting encounters that PCs are supposed to flee from is using monsters that are strong on defenses and hit points, but weak on offense. Often these monsters rely heavily on battlefield control (although I specifically avoid lockdown effects that would prevent players from fleeing). Thus, if it takes the players 5 or 6 rounds to realize they're not gonna win, that's ok. The opposition can't easily kill them in that amount of time, but can soak up all the players can dish out and still be (very visibily) able to take a great deal more punishment.

Also, effects that push players back, like wind effects, slide spells, fear, and similar are helpful because you can kick them the first few steps out the door yourself. When Sir Dudley has already been blown 100' back from where he started the encounter and half his friends have fled screaming, it's a little easier for his player to accept that the battle is lost.

[Human Paragon 3]

For me, the warning sign that says "RUN" is high damage, though. If you don't feel like you're about to die, why run? And if the monster isn't dealing enough damage to kill you, you don't feel like you're about to die. You feel like you're fighting an XP bag with a lot of HP.

[Sinfire Titan]

For me, the warning sign that says "RUN" is high damage, though. If you don't feel like you're about to die, why run? And if the monster isn't dealing enough damage to kill you, you don't feel like you're about to die. You feel like you're fighting an XP bag with a lot of HP.

The problem is that high damage is standard in DnD (a CR 20 Dragon can drop anyone in a single full attack.


The other problem is players often don't remembering that Defeating an encounter != Killing it. Bypassing the encounter outright, or even negotiating a truce, also award XP. It may not award treasure immediately, but if the encounter would offer treasure and the PCs negotiate their way out of it, the DM has a psuedo-obligation to reward them later on down the line with either extra treasure or something of equal value.

Talking the enemy Wizard into nonhostility is a good example, as the Wizard can easily supply the PCs with their treasure via spellcasting.

[Raiki]

Well, in this situation, you could always pull an Ultimate Weapon on them. Beat the crap out of them (without killing them) then have the enemy itself choose to leave rather than waste any more time and resources on them. Yes, it can be a big blow to the PCs ego, but when you throw an unwinnable encounter at them that is the risk you take, no matter how hard you try to soften the blow.

~R~

[Human Paragon 3]

Dealing non-lethal damage to PCs seems a little like lip-sinking. You know what I mean?

It's appropriate sometimes, but I typically avoid it unless there is a serious in-character reason to do so.

[Raiki]

Not specifically non-lethal damage, per se. I usually go with an approach more along the lines of 2 party members below 0 HP, 1 hit with a debilitating status effect (such as paralyzed, sickened, confused [though that one can be dangerous in this situation], horribly stat damaged, etc) and the last (preferably the cleric, assuming he can actually heal rather than just 'zilla everyone's face) disabled (meaning at 0 HP, not just generically incapacitated).

This situation, while dire, is neither necessarily fatal (assuming your party isn't composed solely of morons/suicidal people) nor "pulling the punches". The PCs got soundly smacked, but live long enough to appreciate the lesson.

~R~

[Amphetryon]

Not specifically non-lethal damage, per se. I usually go with an approach more along the lines of 2 party members below 0 HP, 1 hit with a debilitating status effect (such as paralyzed, sickened, confused [though that one can be dangerous in this situation], horribly stat damaged, etc) and the last (preferably the cleric, assuming he can actually heal rather than just 'zilla everyone's face) disabled (meaning at 0 HP, not just generically incapacitated).

This situation, while dire, is neither necessarily fatal (assuming your party isn't composed solely of morons/suicidal people) nor "pulling the punches". The PCs got soundly smacked, but live long enough to appreciate the lesson.

~R~
How is this situation not fatal if the enemy is still up, functioning, and not deciding to go slaughter some other over-matched PCs?

[Raiki]

Well, that was more an addendum to my first post, about having the enemy smack the PCs around, then go away. Really, having someone uber-strong thrash the main characters and then go away, leaving them alive, is a fairly accepted storytelling mechanic/game hook in pretty much any video game/anime/fantasy novel (to a lesser extent). I've seen it used very well in a few D&D games I've played in, and used it once or twice myself when I ran. It builds character while also reinforcing the fact that the PCs are not the biggest baddest people/monsters/horrible eldritch abominations out there.

~R~

[Human Paragon 3]

I've used it myself, too. Sometimes it is appropriate. But what if the enemy has no reason to leave the PCs alive?

[Fiery Diamond]

I've used it myself, too. Sometimes it is appropriate. But what if the enemy has no reason to leave the PCs alive?

Then you, as DM, come up with a reason. It's not like everything is already set in stone and you can't alter anything.

[Human Paragon 3]

Yeah, you have to do what you have to do, but there are problems with this appraoch too.

If every time your PCs elect to go up against a superior force, you spare them through DM fiat, it makes them feel immortal and leads to a negative feedback loop of PC irresponsibility.

The real trick is to get them to think things through and act responsibly in the moment.

[Knaight]

Well, that was more an addendum to my first post, about having the enemy smack the PCs around, then go away. Really, having someone uber-strong thrash the main characters and then go away, leaving them alive, is a fairly accepted storytelling mechanic/game hook in pretty much any video game/anime/fantasy novel (to a lesser extent). I've seen it used very well in a few D&D games I've played in, and used it once or twice myself when I ran. It builds character while also reinforcing the fact that the PCs are not the biggest baddest people/monsters/horrible eldritch abominations out there.

~R~

Of course, to some extent this is symptom treatment. If the game features more proactive players, this often resolves itself on its own, more reactive players is the opposite. Assuming that they don't switch that around with characters, which I find pretty rare. The situation where they pick a fight they can't win, or are ambushed by someone connected to someone they picked a fight with is often seen as more palatable than just getting jumped by some overwhelming force, at least at a metagame level.

That said, sometimes you just need to kill the group when they don't retreat or surrender (fat chance on surrender), particularly if the situation is their own fault to begin with. Still, if you can work in an opponent who doesn't actually have anything against the characters, you can justify not killing the lot of 'em. Typically a "just following orders from someone I will happily ignore to the best of my ability" situation works best.

[Amphetryon]

Well, that was more an addendum to my first post, about having the enemy smack the PCs around, then go away. Really, having someone uber-strong thrash the main characters and then go away, leaving them alive, is a fairly accepted storytelling mechanic/game hook in pretty much any video game/anime/fantasy novel (to a lesser extent). I've seen it used very well in a few D&D games I've played in, and used it once or twice myself when I ran. It builds character while also reinforcing the fact that the PCs are not the biggest baddest people/monsters/horrible eldritch abominations out there.

~R~
I've only ever had it bring cries of 'oh, the DM's being nice', 'oh, sure, show you can TPK and then walk away', or similar. Apparently we've played in groups with different expectations.

[Magikeeper]

Well, you could just tell them. If you have players who love to charge in you shouldn't be using overwhelming attacks often at all. Have them make an int check or something. "You strongly feel that a tactical retreat would be a good idea right now". If your players hate having to retreat from anything, try to avoid letting them enter these situations.

I’m blessed right now with a group leader that tends to pick up on subtle clues. I haven’t always had that advantage, but I’ve learned that expecting players to think like you do doesn’t work. Most of my current players actually veer on the side of overpreparing. At one point I just said “You really don’t need to raise an army before chasing this guy”. Granted, I said it OOC to the players who don’t mind being told OOC things while the other guy went out to get dinner, but I said it and I don’t regret it. I would have regretted them bringing an army along. On the other hand, it might just be that my players love making NPC allies. I swear, we have a larger cast roster than Bleach.



Another idea is that, if they want to do stupid thing X, give them a reason to think of thing Y. If you want players to sneak into a castle instead of charging in like they always do, you might need to give them a clue. Have them see a shady figure lurking around. They charge up and beat the crap out of him, quickly learning that he smuggled things into the castle (or something) via a secret passage. That passage only leads to the bottom floor, but once there… If they really need help you could have a helper inside the castle think they are the new smugglers and give them a few tips (but still leave 90% of it to them). That changes the dynamic from “guess what the DM is thinking” to setting the stage for a sneaky adventure.

[Jack_Simth]

How is this situation not fatal if the enemy is still up, functioning, and not deciding to go slaughter some other over-matched PCs?
"Disabled" is not the same as "Unconcious" - as long as the baddies are willing to accept a surrender, this is not necessarily TPK - although it can be - I generally use the player's habits as a guide for that, having the clearly-defeated remainder of an opposing force surrender, and seeing how the party treats the fallen. If they slaughter the prisoners, well, sucks to be the party when they're in that situation.

[Yukitsu]

Given all things, if I'm expected to lose, I will not go along quietly. So much so, that I've offed one of my characters when I would otherwise have been captured. I rarely run. Typically, anything that can threaten me can catch me if they want.

[Knaight]

The idea of surrendering never seems to enter most players minds though, and a lot of characters seem to be built in such a way as to get around it. Though having NPCs surrender often enough that it is seen as a common tactic fixes this.

[gdiddy]

I always tell my players that I am running a lethal game. So, I am straight up grimdark sometimes. Violence is described in horrible mind-blowing detail. So when I put a threat in front of them, it's always credible, and it always leaves them hurting. If a threat is out of their paygrade, they recognize it pretty quick.

[valadil]

I always tell my players that I am running a lethal game.

I think this is the way to do it. I got into an argument on other forums with someone who very strongly believed that there should be nothing in the game that the players have to run from. If you give them a challenge it needs to be beatable. I think we agreed that it was just a different kind of game and you need to know what kind of game you're playing. Bottom line though is that there are players who will make the same assumption this other guy did. Just in case you ever get one of these, you need to tell them the kind of game you're running. Period.

[Reluctance]

If you want the PC's to really hate the BBEG, have him be a real law and order type who feels they aren't enough of a threat when they attack, so he just knocks them out, locks them up, and takes their stuff. Optionally trying to sell them off as slaves, but the simple loss of gear should be what really pisses the players off.

If you're looking to impress the players that they'll have to run sometimes, say so at the start of the game, and then proceed to not pull any punches. Players may not act it at first, but after the first TPK or so they should wise up. It may be harsh, but it's also the only way to show that deadly really means deadly.

[awa]

not so great in dnd but in some games a good way is to have powerful characters be in someway recognizable. I ran one game where the pcs knew any thing size large was a boss level encounter and anything size huge was unbeatable in a fair fight. (the one creature bigger then size huge was more a terrain feature then a creature)

[AxeD]

If you want the PC's to really hate the BBEG, have him be a real law and order type who feels they aren't enough of a threat when they attack, so he just knocks them out, locks them up, and takes their stuff. Optionally trying to sell them off as slaves, but the simple loss of gear should be what really pisses the players off.

Yeah, being sold into slavery/ being locked up would be a pretty good solution. Hell, give them chances to escape, and until they escape from enslavement/ they are released from prison, skip forward a number of years and increase their age categories. If they complain about this treatment, tell them that it beats a TPK.

[Lin Bayaseda]

You know, I just talked to my players OOC at the start of the campaign, and explained that while I do not wish their deaths, I do not feel responsible for their lives. I told them that I will have them face a variety of foes, some weak, some strong, play the NPCs and monsters as appropriate, and let the dice fall as they may.

It seems to have worked.

[icefractal]

Often, the problem with expecting the PCs to act at all sensibly is that the majority of the time, they act in ways that are not at all sensible - successfully and with the DM's full approval!

This may not be the case in a highly gritty game where the PCs are more the mercenary type - but in most "heroic" games, challenging foes that saner people would run away from and going into places anyone practical would avoid are the PCs' bread and butter. So when the DM does decide to bring in an "overwhelming" giant monster, there's little obvious difference between it and the totally beatable giant monster the PCs were fighting last week.

This is not aided by the fact that a lot of the toughest creatures in D&D have class levels and thus don't look physically different than their much weaker relatives. I mean, without fighting it, how do you tell an unbeatable arch-vampire master assassin from a bog-standard vampire (or even spawn) that just brags a lot?

One trick, although it's a bit cliche, is the "sacrificial NPC". Have an NPC travelling with the party, establish via a few fights that he's pretty tough, and then have your BBEG slay him with trivial ease. That should be a pretty big hint to GTFO.

[BRC]

It really depends on what your intent is here.

Players like to be in control of situations. As I've said many times, Railroading is not saying "There is a wall there", it's saying "There is a wall everywhere BUT there".

The best place for an overwhelming enemy is to make the PC's adopt a different strategy than "Kill everything". You can throw a big nasty guy at them and they'll say "We can't beat this guy, we should run". That's no problem.
If you're goal is to set up the enemy as somebody who could kick the PC's asses in combat, I find merely saying so is the best option. Descriptions don't matter in DnD, where every monster in the manual sounds awesome. Unless you're clearly describing a specific monster that the PC's know about, they'll just think your trying to make them feel awesome when they beat it.

Outright declaring "You cannot beat this encounter head on" says several things. It says "You shouldn't try to take this guy in a stand up fight", it says "I have planned for you to handle this in a way that is not killing him", it says "Other options exist, and you should look for them".

The Sacrificial NPC works, but frequently that will just come across as more "This guy is tough. When you beat him you will feel awesome".


A great trick I found is that, if you expect the PC's to encounter multiple such situations, try to make them immediately recognizable. Introduce an easily recognizable character or organization and have them show up.

For example, in a campaign I ran once I had The Poet. An undead rogue who greatly outleveled the PC's, combined Spring Attack with Hide in plain sight, to wreak havok, had a hide check far above the PC's spot check, had a devastating sneak attack, and always spoke by quoting Shakespeare.I introduced him by saying "Meet The Poet (They'd heard about him before), he will kick your ass".
At that point, when the PC's ran into somebody stabbed to death, and heard a raspy voice from the shadows quoting Shakespeare, they knew to start running.

You could do the same thing with an organization. "These are the elite Dragonguard, they will kick your ass". The PC's associate somebody wearing the Dragonguard seal with an encounter that cannot be solved in the usual fashion.


The big advantage of establishing a reoccurring enemy that the PC's know they can't beat, is that eventually, once they level up, you can let them beat it. After spending an adventure running away from these guys, the Players will LOVE beating their skulls in.

[Human Paragon 3]

Premise: Even in a party of smart players, it only takes one stupid character mistake to turn an overwhelming encounter fatal. Sometimes this mistake is a player acting "in character."

Discuss.

[Yukitsu]

It's only stupid if the players know as much about the encounter as the DM.

[Learnedguy]

Best way to this safely is probably through conditioning your players. First show them a few monsters escaping by some easy, accessible means. Then throw a very tough encounter at them. Then throw the same encounters, only this time you've doubled, if not tripled the bad guys (but it's the same guys. Just more of them).

If they don't take the hint, learning the hard way might be the only option. Sometimes love gotta be tough.

[Human Paragon 3]

Best way to this safely is probably through conditioning your players. First show them a few monsters escaping by some easy, accessible means. Then throw a very tough encounter at them. Then throw the same encounters, only this time you've doubled, if not tripled the bad guys (but it's the same guys. Just more of them).

If they don't take the hint, learning the hard way might be the only option. Sometimes love gotta be tough.

QFT. Best advice so far.

[Starbuck_II]

The idea of surrendering never seems to enter most players minds though, and a lot of characters seem to be built in such a way as to get around it. Though having NPCs surrender often enough that it is seen as a common tactic fixes this.

For one, why are you trusting the enemy?
Evil creatures are rarely trustworthy.

[Yukitsu]

I for one wouldn't condition to run in those situations. Running is simply not a good idea under most circumstances except via some form of fiat.

[Riffington]

I for one wouldn't condition to run in those situations. Running is simply not a good idea under most circumstances except via some form of fiat.

Except when you're outmatched, or when the consequences of winning are bad.

[Yukitsu]

D&D isn't really competent at that running away gig. Most things that can outmatch me can also run me down.

That and I don't really know when the win would be bad.

[Zach J.]

The party I'm part of actually has the opposite problem. When presented with a fight that we don't think is necessary or would just be a drain on our resources (read: random encounter) we'll try our best to get out of combat only to have the DM calling us all "cowards" the whole time.

[Riffington]

D&D isn't really competent at that running away gig. Most things that can outmatch me can also run me down.

Lots of humanoids have speed of 20 in armor. Or heck, if you have equal speed, you may get to a place with more favorable terrain where they won't follow. Pursuing a retreating foe is sometimes a good idea, but they may be afraid of an ambush. Or of violating orders - they are there to guard the tower, not to go running off over the hills. At high levels there's teleportation.



That and I don't really know when the win would be bad.
Examples:
1 the Prince, in a fit of drunken rage, pulls out his sword. If you run you can have a little social awkwardness when he sobers up. If you kill or beat him up the consequences would be severe.
2 you can easily defeat the orcish raiding party, but you'd really rather it get to your rival merchant's caravan. The loss of those wagons would set him back years.
3 you can defeat that mummy, but you are low on spells and need to stop the cult before it performs its dark ritual at midnight. Deal with the mummy another day - gotta get to the occult chamber now.

[Yukitsu]

Lots of humanoids have speed of 20 in armor. Or heck, if you have equal speed, you may get to a place with more favorable terrain where they won't follow. Pursuing a retreating foe is sometimes a good idea, but they may be afraid of an ambush. Or of violating orders - they are there to guard the tower, not to go running off over the hills. At high levels there's teleportation.

Humans in heavy armour are never visibly intimidating, and I ignore reputation as those are just as often complete fabrications as they are actual facts. And for pursuit at high levels, there's teleportation. Or teleportation prevention spells.


Examples:
1 the Prince, in a fit of drunken rage, pulls out his sword. If you run you can have a little social awkwardness when he sobers up. If you kill or beat him up the consequences would be severe.

There are non-lethal solutions to that problem that can involve winning. Like calm emotions, or something like greas.


2 you can easily defeat the orcish raiding party, but you'd really rather it get to your rival merchant's caravan. The loss of those wagons would set him back years.

Then don't run up against them in the first place. :smallconfused:


3 you can defeat that mummy, but you are low on spells and need to stop the cult before it performs its dark ritual at midnight. Deal with the mummy another day - gotta get to the occult chamber now.

Well as punishment for bad time management, sure.

[CockroachTeaParty]

For me, a TPK means one of two things: 1, a gross player mistake or 2, DM failure.

I'd add a third option: rotten dice luck, especially at low levels.

[Riffington]

Humans in heavy armour are never visibly intimidating
???


, and I ignore reputation as those are just as often complete fabrications as they are actual facts.
"Now, for you, my reputation is not from gossip. You see this man, he does not do the job. I show you what I do with him and now, my reputation for you is fact, is... solid. You do the train job for me, then you are solid. No more gossip."


And for pursuit at high levels, there's teleportation. Or teleportation prevention spells.
Blindly teleporting after someone is really pretty dangerous. Dimensional anchor takes time (and you have to be in range etc.)




There are non-lethal solutions to that problem that can involve winning. Like calm emotions, or something like greas.
You dare cast a spell on the Prince?



Then don't run up against them in the first place. :smallconfused:

Well, they ran into you. I just recommended running away instead of staying to fight.

[Yukitsu]

???

Oh yeah, a tin can. Real intimidating compared to that dragon we slew last week.


"Now, for you, my reputation is not from gossip. You see this man, he does not do the job. I show you what I do with him and now, my reputation for you is fact, is... solid. You do the train job for me, then you are solid. No more gossip."

And yet, that's more tough talk. I won't know for sure until I lose. Or as happens due to optimization differences, I don't.


Blindly teleporting after someone is really pretty dangerous. Dimensional anchor takes time (and you have to be in range etc.)

If I have to run from another caster, and I am a caster, he can follow and kill me at his leisure.


You dare cast a spell on the Prince?

They dare hold title over a wizard?


Well, they ran into you. I just recommended running away instead of staying to fight.

Then that's what you get for not having spotters.

The problem is, unbeatable encounters don't add anything. We could run away blah blah, but we aren't getting anything out of it story wise except that surprise surprise, the party isn't invincible. Well I think the attrition and losses sustained from encounters we are expected to beat pretty boldly demonstrates that anyway. It's basically just an irritating delay that could have been a literal wall, or an intelligent conversation with an affable villain (the former being expedient, the latter being a better plot device) rather than an ad hoc "battle" where the only outcome is to lose.

[Riffington]

Really? Every game you play, you arrogantly insult/attack knights and kings and get away with it? Not a one is better than you? Every wizard you see holds an eternal grudge against everyone that ever fled him?


How are you not getting anything storywise from the Prince's drunken rage? You have to overthrow the monarchy to advance the story? Every time?

What's wrong with a knight who can defeat you? One day you can come back and defeat him. Or maybe he'll always be better than you. You are the one assuming a battle. I told you you can avoid a battle. By, you know, running away.

[Yukitsu]

Really? Every game you play, you arrogantly insult/attack knights and kings and get away with it? Not a one is better than you? Every wizard you see holds an eternal grudge against everyone that ever fled him?

How many kings randomly attack me and expect me to just back away? I could go back to the wizards guild and decry it as an act of war, which, I have succesfully done on one occassion.

Why should any intelligent wizard let a rival escape, when they would benefit more by simply killing you outright? I do not want to see a wizard or cleric who is hostile to my cause grow stronger.


How are you not getting anything storywise from the Prince's drunken rage? You have to overthrow the monarchy to advance the story? Every time?

What, that the prince is irresponsible, and shouldn't get the throne? That if the king backs the prince on random proclomations that restrained him from killing those around him, that the king too is corrupt and should be deposed?

Frankly, yes, every prince that acts in such a manner, and every king that supports such an action should be overthrown. If they can't keep control of themselves around their allies, and cannot show the proper restraint and decorum required of their office, they cannot expect to last as a kingdom.


What's wrong with a knight who can defeat you? One day you can come back and defeat him. Or maybe he'll always be better than you. You are the one assuming a battle. I told you you can avoid a battle. By, you know, running away.

And what's the point of it? It's not as though I go around seeking the strongest people to fight, I try and achieve my missions. But if someone is in my way and I can't walk past them, I go through them. I can't tell if some random knight is stronger than me, or stronger than say a dragon or powerful outsider that I'd already beaten. But once I'm in there, I don't play the coward and back down.

[Saph]

In my experience, one of the marks of a smart player is being more than willing to run away. So I find that if an encounter is of the obviously-deadly kind, the smarter players will usually pass the message on to the newbies.

The problem comes when you have an entire group of newbies/idiots. Ultimately, you can give PCs hints and you can give them relevant information and you can even flat-out tell them that it's time for them to run, but if the players refuse, there's only so much you can do. At this point it comes down to what sort of game you want to play. Do you want to run a game where the PCs always win because they're the PCs? Or do you want to run a game where the actions the PCs take lead to logical consequences?

I typically run games which are dangerous, and which the players know are dangerous, so it's less of an issue. The PCs who behave like idiots and refuse to run away provide an illustrative example for the rest of the group by dying horribly and are quickly eliminated by a process of attrition. The ones who do know when to run away survive. Natural selection ensues.

[Zeful]

They dare hold title over a wizard?

"What blood flows through your veins to give you such leave? I do not recall any kings or princes from your land daring such a scandalous act that would produce a peasant with you're imagined stature. And if they did, your title has no meaning to me, a fellow wizard employed by this crown to deal with fools such as yourself." Court Wizard, before disintegrating your character.

Being a wizard only gets you so far. If you are the only wizard in the setting you'd get away with it. Odds are you aren't. You're no one important for at least the first 10 levels and that you even think you can get away doing something so monstrously stupid means you had a Monty Haul DM that knows precious little about... anything in a feudal society. They wouldn't just hold a title over a wizard, they would arrest you, strip you of all your possessions and leave you imprisoned in a tower for the rest of your life with no trial. At best. Otherwise, your character is dead, and the rest of the party imprisoned for associating with an assassain. TPK with only 1 death.

EDIT:Also, Yukitsu, you are perfectly demonstrating the point of this thread.

[Riffington]

How many kings randomly attack me and expect me to just back away? I could go back to the wizards guild and decry it as an act of war, which, I have succesfully done on one occassion.
You obviously never play low-level campaigns. Kings do all kinds of good and bad things, and you have to roll with them. All out war is not the answer every single time.



Why should any intelligent wizard let a rival escape, when they would benefit more by simply killing you outright? I do not want to see a wizard or cleric who is hostile to my cause grow stronger.
Just because you got in a position to potentially fight this one time, doesn't mean that you are forever hostile to one anothers' causes. Also, if you pursue every wizard who flees you, you will die in an ambush.



What, that the prince is irresponsible, and shouldn't get the throne?

Lots of princes are irresponsible and get the throne one day. I'm not sure how you can just blanket assume this will never happen in a campaign.



I can't tell if some random knight is stronger than me, or stronger than say a dragon or powerful outsider that I'd already beaten. But once I'm in there, I don't play the coward and back down.

He who runs away, lives to fight another day.

[Yukitsu]

I should note that in explicitly dangerous games, I'll of course run. CoC is generally the system that I will.

[Yukitsu]

You obviously never play low-level campaigns. Kings do all kinds of good and bad things, and you have to roll with them. All out war is not the answer every single time.

Or I was level 3 when I did that. The local wizards guilds should not view a situation in any lower a light just because I'm a lower level, that has nothing to do with the situation. Nor should a PC tolerate a bully just because he's weak.

Or maybe the DM can't complain when at a higher level, the kingdom lays in ruins. I dunno, I've never seen a situation such as that where I had to personally resolve it at a higher level.


Just because you got in a position to potentially fight this one time, doesn't mean that you are forever hostile to one anothers' causes. Also, if you pursue every wizard who flees you, you will die in an ambush.

I would really love to see that demonstrated. Unless of course he's ambushed by a stronger wizard, that simply won't happen at the levels where teleport is used to escape the ECL+>4 wizard. As for hostility, if he drove me off, I'm obviously not done being antagonistic to his cause, nor he to mine.


Lots of princes are irresponsible and get the throne one day. I'm not sure how you can just blanket assume this will never happen in a campaign.

I don't know why you think the players should tolerate it, as opposed to fighting against it.


He who runs away, lives to fight another day.

No guts no glory, if you're going to quote things that only really apply if it's what you're already doing.

[Zeful]

Or I was level 3 when I did that. The local wizards guilds should not view a situation in any lower a light just because I'm a lower level, that has nothing to do with the situation. Nor should a PC tolerate a bully just because he's weak.
To be very blunt: You're DM's an idiot.
First: While a Wizard's guild might not appreciate the bulling of one of their own (If you are one of there own), but if they are in the capital city of a country, then they are in the pocket of the king. He's paying them for advice, spellcasting and specialized services. They wouldn't do anything because you screwed up.
Second: The Nature of bureaucracy prevents you as a 3rd level character, a big nobody, from tattling on a prince.


Or maybe the DM can't complain when at a higher level, the kingdom lays in ruins. I dunno, I've never seen a situation such as that where I had to personally resolve it at a higher level.At higher levels it's not going to be the prince, you're to much of a threat to the throne. Realistically, you'd have to face the Court caster, and then the several hired friends that are there to keep you from doing something stupid. Kings won't risk a "fair fight" when they have the resources to ensure a win.

[Riffington]

Yukitsu: let's just point out the two most obvious contradictions:
1. If wizards who hate each other automatically kill one another, there could be no wizard's guild. Having a guild requires wizards who hate each other and see each other as rivals to nevertheless coexist peacefully and even cooperate.
In short, if you can't run away and then make up then you can't have a guild.

2. If said wizard's guild is so much more powerful than a king, and so willing to interfere in affairs of state, then its leader is de facto the king. If his boyfriend picks a fight with you, I still recommend running away.

And also - really? You think that terrain and allies and traps make zero difference to the outcome of a fight? That if you can defeat an enemy in one area this means you can defeat her in every possible area?

[Starbuck_II]

2. If said wizard's guild is so much more powerful than a king, and so willing to interfere in affairs of state, then its leader is de facto the king. If his boyfriend picks a fight with you, I still recommend running away.


King could be a face for the group (king looks better than a guild for people). Kinda like queen of england isn't real ruler of england, but is the Queen.

[Human Paragon 3]

I think it's impossible to say that running away is NEVER EVER a good idea, or that surrendering is NEVER EVER the right move.

Sometimes it is.

Sometimes fighting to the last is the right move.

I think the real issue at hand is one of how to deal with a superior force, how as a DM to alert your PCs that a superior force is superior, and how to prevent player anger when they realize they are in an encounter they can't win by fighting.

[Riffington]

King could be a face for the group (king looks better than a guild for people). Kinda like queen of england isn't real ruler of england, but is the Queen.

True, there's lots of possibilities there - I'm just saying that there often exist people in the world who are powerful well-connected jerks, and that you're usually better off getting out of their way.

[BRC]

I think it's impossible to say that running away is NEVER EVER a good idea, or that surrendering is NEVER EVER the right move.

Sometimes it is.

Sometimes fighting to the last is the right move.

I think the real issue at hand is one of how to deal with a superior force, how as a DM to alert your PCs that a superior force is superior, and how to prevent player anger when they realize they are in an encounter they can't win by fighting.
As I said above, putting your PC's into a situation they can't fight their way out of is less of a problem than putting you're PC's in a situation that requires their Surrender. If they Run, they're still in control of the situation, but Surrender means handing over their character's fates for an indefinate amount of time.

[Human Paragon 3]

I would prefer nipping the problem in the bud: getting the PCs to avoid the fight in the first place. But PCs are prone to viewing all problems as a nail, because when all you have is a hammer...

[Paulus]

I'd make it overly obvious "you can not win" or "I really don't think you should" I would cheat and have an NPC be the defaacto DM hint here... but otherwise I'd just overly describe the threat in such as way that it is clear, 'fly you fools'.

Example:
As you make you way you feel slightly odd, as if you've expected another step when there wasn't one on a flight of stairs. Then it happens while you are standing still and you realize the ground is shaking. Suddenly a flock of birds disturbed from the forest takes flight and veers away, as you follow their passing you notice the shadow. The flock of birds, perhaps thousands in all seem a wisp of cloud in comparison to the monolith cresting the hill. This creature is covered in horns, spikes, scales, and each foot fall shakes the very ground. It carries in it's jaws the corpse of a Elder Black Dragon, like a rag doll. It pauses lazily, dropping its chew toy to ground with a thunderous concussion, dwarfed by the next sound, it's terrible roar. Make a reflex safe not to be deafened, yes, even at this distance. It hasn't seen you yet, but it is clearly blocking your path. What do you do?

[Yukitsu]

To be very blunt: You're DM's an idiot.
First: While a Wizard's guild might not appreciate the bulling of one of their own (If you are one of there own), but if they are in the capital city of a country, then they are in the pocket of the king. He's paying them for advice, spellcasting and specialized services. They wouldn't do anything because you screwed up.

Getting attacked unprovoked by a drunkard is not a mistake that I can fathom.


Second: The Nature of bureaucracy prevents you as a 3rd level character, a big nobody, from tattling on a prince.

That doesn't make any difference, as for one, third level is not common among wizards, and a threat to the wizards autonomy is a threat to the wizards autonomy.


At higher levels it's not going to be the prince, you're to much of a threat to the throne. Realistically, you'd have to face the Court caster, and then the several hired friends that are there to keep you from doing something stupid. Kings won't risk a "fair fight" when they have the resources to ensure a win.

Uh huh, so basically, what you're saying is, a DM can't cope with the consequinces of his own jerk NPCs. OK. And after a while, you're going to start trashing any willing suspension of disbelief if the king just happens to have a steadily escalating number of higher and more powerful servants willing to serve under him as opposed to leaving.


Yukitsu: let's just point out the two most obvious contradictions:
1. If wizards who hate each other automatically kill one another, there could be no wizard's guild. Having a guild requires wizards who hate each other and see each other as rivals to nevertheless coexist peacefully and even cooperate.
In short, if you can't run away and then make up then you can't have a guild.

I fail to see the contradiction. A guild doesn't hand out billets for one man to counter another from their own organization. That would be stupid. It's a group of individuals who work together and work towards a monopoly, not a cooperation of all wizards everywhere.


2. If said wizard's guild is so much more powerful than a king, and so willing to interfere in affairs of state, then its leader is de facto the king. If his boyfriend picks a fight with you, I still recommend running away.

Yes, that was discussed at length in several other posts. There is no reason that a traditional king should be respected at all in D&D. However, even if they are powerful enough to say "No, you aren't allowed to tax wizards" doesn't mean they'll come in and say "You're going to raise farmer taxes by 5%." because politics that don't influence them don't interest them necessarily.


And also - really? You think that terrain and allies and traps make zero difference to the outcome of a fight? That if you can defeat an enemy in one area this means you can defeat her in every possible area?

In many fights, no they don't. Unless you have a build that specifically takes advantage of certain terrain types, like an ubercharger, you won't bridge a 5 CR gap with terrain and traps within your budget.

[Riffington]

I fail to see the contradiction. A guild doesn't hand out billets for one man to counter another from their own organization. That would be stupid. It's a group of individuals who work together and work towards a monopoly, not a cooperation of all wizards everywhere.
It's an organization. In every organization, people come into conflict and are threats to one another. In most, some hate each other. A basic minimum requirement to have such an organization is some method of resolving these conflicts nonlethally.




Yes, that was discussed at length in several other posts. There is no reason that a traditional king should be respected at all in D&D.
There are some worlds where they are, and some where they aren't. My point is that regardless of how "traditional" the king is, someone is going to have power and be a jerk. And you need to get out of their way.



In many fights, no they don't. Unless you have a build that specifically takes advantage of certain terrain types, like an ubercharger, you won't bridge a 5 CR gap with terrain and traps within your budget.
Do all fights have a 5 CR gap in your game? If so, no wonder you never need to run.

[Yukitsu]

It's an organization. In every organization, people come into conflict and are threats to one another. In most, some hate each other. A basic minimum requirement to have such an organization is some method of resolving these conflicts nonlethally.

Or they have the "unseen university" method of ascencion which only stops when the guy at the top says stop, and is powerful enough to enforce it.

Either way, it's a long way off from the first case, which is a wizard that is already trying to kill me while I'm doing my work and trying to make sure I don't come back to finish the job.


There are some worlds where they are, and some where they aren't. My point is that regardless of how "traditional" the king is, someone is going to have power and be a jerk. And you need to get out of their way.

No, I don't. Just like in real life, you don't step aside for the bullies.


Do all fights have a 5 CR gap in your game? If so, no wonder you never need to run.

In the enemy's favour is what is required for it to be an insurmountable challenge, in other words one that I have to run from. However, a standard ECL+4 encounter is perfectly within the abilities of a party to defeat, and it's in fact expected that you can defeat an ECL+4 encounter. It has to be ECL+5 or higher for it to be a "you should run" fight.

[Paulus]

No, I don't. Just like in real life, you don't step aside for the bullies.


How about for the drunken loved one which can't handle loss appropriately?

[Yukitsu]

You calm them down, because they're your freind. You don't let them flail around raging, they could hurt themselves.

[Paulus]

You calm them down, because they're your freind. You don't let them flail around raging, they could hurt themselves.

"I don't need to calm down! Get out of my way!"
*violent action*

could go on and on, but I think the point I'm trying to make is that there are sometimes very violent encounters you simply can't solve with violence. It should be made clear then that violence is not usually the answer to everything, and that standing your ground is not always the best option.

If a party member is possessed by an evil spirit... if your facing a bad guy with babies tied onto him for armor... if you find yourself in the way of an oblivious Tarasque... that sort of thing. Violent actions must not always been answer by violent reactions in any case.

[Yukitsu]

Given what my freinds are like when they are drunk, it doesn't really matter how violent they get, I can still restrain any of them. I can't imagine they'd be my freinds if I weren't willing to try.

As well, you'll note I don't always advocate violence in encounters. Just preventing the opposition from using it against you.

Edit: And in the baby armour case, you don't hit armour when you miss, so you're good to fire. It only takes damage when he nat ones a reflex save.

[Riffington]

Or they have the "unseen university" method of ascencion which only stops when the guy at the top says stop, and is powerful enough to enforce it.
Whatever method you have, you have to have one. And that means you have to be able to say "yes, we had a fight, and I ran away. Now that I ran away you have to let me live." Otherwise you have no organization.


In the enemy's favour is what is required for it to be an insurmountable challenge, in other words one that I have to run from. However, a standard ECL+4 encounter is perfectly within the abilities of a party to defeat, and it's in fact expected that you can defeat an ECL+4 encounter. It has to be ECL+5 or higher for it to be a "you should run" fight.

So you're telling me you can always beat an ECL+4 foe on their favored terrain with traps of their making, and with their allies nearby, but that you could never beat an ECL+5 foe on your favored terrain with traps of your making and with your allies nearby? Really?

[Paulus]

Given what my freinds are like when they are drunk, it doesn't really matter how violent they get, I can still restrain any of them. I can't imagine they'd be my freinds if I weren't willing to try.

As well, you'll note I don't always advocate violence in encounters. Just preventing the opposition from using it against you.

Edit: And in the baby armour case, you don't hit armour when you miss, so you're good to fire. It only takes damage when he nat ones a reflex save.

Also 'restrain' is no so effective when you are trying not to hurt someone, especially if they are a barbarian and rage at your interference...


also,I think there would be a miss chance in there somewhere... or maybe if you try to strike him you have a chance of hitting a baby... like, half the time. Pretty potent spell that baby armor. You sure you want to swing?

[Yukitsu]

Also 'restrain' is no so effective when you are trying not to hurt someone, especially if they are a barbarian and rage at your interference...

Trust me, I'm better for them than they are for themselves. Considering how often they've lit themselves on fire sober, angry and drunk would not be a healthy thing for them.


also,I think there would be a miss chance in there somewhere... or maybe if you try to strike him you have a chance of hitting a baby... like, half the time. Pretty potent spell that baby armor. You sure you want to swing?

It's a spell? Conjuration? Then I don't have to worry, those aren't real babies. :smalltongue:

It's a glitch in the rules that you can't actually ever damage a guy's armour with normal swings, but when someone is doing something that dumb, it's not one I mind bringing up.

[Yukitsu]

Whatever method you have, you have to have one. And that means you have to be able to say "yes, we had a fight, and I ran away. Now that I ran away you have to let me live." Otherwise you have no organization.

Or a high turnover rate. Seriously, how many things do you honestly think people would get into a fight in the first place over? Probably everything if they are as big of jerks as you're presenting anyone with any authority ever as.


So you're telling me you can always beat an ECL+4 foe on their favored terrain with traps of their making, and with their allies nearby, but that you could never beat an ECL+5 foe on your favored terrain with traps of your making and with your allies nearby? Really?

I don't know why you've added favoured terrain and all that, as that adjusts the CR of encounters. Either way, I just used +5 because that's what's in the DMG. +5 or higher is classified as "insurmountable" even though it isn't. However, to "ambush" the pursuing wizard as you proposed, I'd need a buddy that's 5 levels higher than me just to match him.

[Paulus]

Trust me, I'm better for them than they are for themselves.

Tell them that. They won't go quietly, you bully. Trying to prevent their freedom, why, you're just--just--! *full attack*



It's a spell? Conjuration? Then I don't have to worry, those aren't real babies. :smalltongue:

It's a glitch in the rules that you can't actually ever damage a guy's armour with normal swings, but when someone is doing something that dumb, it's not one I mind bringing up.

Hard to say, better make a spell craft check. But you'd better not fail and better hope they aren't real. Swinging at babies? instant true evil! Also spells at babies too... or puppies... or kitten. Improbable? sure. Possible? definitely.

[Yukitsu]

The difference between me and someone that isn't looking out for them is that they usually thank me in the morning, assuming they remember what happened.

And like I said, when you attack a guy in armour, you can't hit his armour. :smallbiggrin:

[Paulus]

The difference between me and someone that isn't looking out for them is that they usually thank me in the morning, assuming they remember what happened.

And like I said, when you attack a guy in armour, you can't hit his armour. :smallbiggrin:

In the morning? You may not be there in the morning. Remember? You won't stand aside from him or run so you'll have to fight him, so either you die or he dies. Can't step aside remember?

Too bad the babies are on the armor... also you're meta gaming, thirdly it still applies to any hostage situation. Sure you may attack in time to stop him from killing all of them, but maybe one or two? and what if he says either let him go or in ten minutes his buddies will blow up a an orphanage?

The point is, there are situations that may seem impossible but CAN happen, that you only have a few select answers for. Fighting will not work in these times. No matter what we may sensationally there can and WILL be a time when you should do nothing but run for the consequences are dire if you decide to fight etc.

[Zeful]

Getting attacked unprovoked by a drunkard is not a mistake that I can fathom.Exactly, you don't understand. The Prince is a stand in for the King, the ultimate authority over a kingdom, who funds that guild that you would run to. Attacking him is no different than attacking the King, which is attacking the guild's employer, who may terminate the largest portion of funding (warding the vault, the royal bedchambers, the throne room would provide far more money to an organization than you ever will) over your mistake. A guild is no different from a corporation, they will wash their hands of you, and if the offense if big enough (killing a prince, because he's a violent drunk? that's a huge offense), start hunting you down on their own.


That doesn't make any difference, as for one, third level is not common among wizards, and a threat to the wizards autonomy is a threat to the wizards autonomy.Really? Level 3 wizards tend to be the average to small towns according to the DMG. Even then, you're not seen as a heroic figure. You're words don't merit any trust on their own. A King's? within his borders? Those do. You would likely get jailed for slander against the throne, if you complained to the guild.


Uh huh, so basically, what you're saying is, a DM can't cope with the consequinces of his own jerk NPCs. OK. And after a while, you're going to start trashing any willing suspension of disbelief if the king just happens to have a steadily escalating number of higher and more powerful servants willing to serve under him as opposed to leaving.That's because you're Willing Suspension of Disbelief is different than mine. Where you see a poorly placed "Rocks fall" button. I see a situation that makes total sense when analyzed at any depth. A king is a man with the power to rule over an entire nation. There's money that comes with. In a world where magic is the norm. A King would employ any number of magicians to protect him and his family from falsehoods and assassins. This would make it beneficial to have a place where they can study on their own work while between working on the King's projects. The money paid for their work goes into the land, the building, the regents, the manpower. Everything they do is funded, tangentially at best, to the King. With a word he can cut funding, look for others to take up his projects, confiscate notes and materials and the land itself. No one wants to rock that boat, so they back off, ignore small insults, or big insults to the powerless. Corruption spreads, the upper ranks stop hearing about these "small" incidents because someone's afraid of losing their job, or getting arrested, or being executed for rocking the boat. Such insults will stopped being talked about. When the men from "outside" come flanked on all sides by incredible tales of combat against horrific monsters and incredible odds, of heroism so vast that they seem bigger then life, men who glow with power from dozens of magics used on them, by them. No king could sit on his throne and not fear them, what if they had come to take what was his? He's going to surround himself with the most powerful men he can afford, and try to remove every advantage he can, so if they do try to take what's his, he will survive, and they won't.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Riffington]

Or a high turnover rate.
In other words, no guild.


Seriously, how many things do you honestly think people would get into a fight in the first place over?
If they're experts? Not much. But you're adventurers. You get in fights for a living.
Hired to steal the emerald of Antioch? Oh, maybe someone else was hired to protect it.
Hoping to capture that Impilturan fort? Presumably it's guarded. Just because you are on different sides of this war doesn't mean you have to be enemies forever. Just til someone's fled, been captured, or is killed. Wars don't need a 100% mortality rate on one side.


I don't know why you've added favoured terrain and all that, as that adjusts the CR of encounters.
Because it's a reason to run. So you admit that in one area, an encounter may be a different CR than in another area. If that's true, fleeing may be a good choice for the person in unfavorable terrain, no?



However, to "ambush" the pursuing wizard as you proposed, I'd need a buddy that's 5 levels higher than me just to match him.
Or a few low-level rogues with sneak attack?

[Yukitsu]

Exactly, you don't understand. The Prince is a stand in for the King, the ultimate authority over a kingdom, who funds that guild that you would run to. Attacking him is no different than attacking the King, which is attacking the guild's employer, who may terminate the largest portion of funding (warding the vault, the royal bedchambers, the throne room would provide far more money to an organization than you ever will) over your mistake. A guild is no different from a corporation, they will wash their hands of you, and if the offense if big enough (killing a prince, because he's a violent drunk? that's a huge offense), start hunting you down on their own.

What are you talking about? All I said is preventing him from killing me. That does not mean "murder the prince!"


Really? Level 3 wizards tend to be the average to small towns according to the DMG. Even then, you're not seen as a heroic figure. You're words don't merit any trust on their own. A King's? within his borders? Those do. You would likely get jailed for slander against the throne, if you complained to the guild.

Slander applies when there are no means to cast magic to automatically discern truth.


That's because you're Willing Suspension of Disbelief is different than mine. Where you see a poorly placed "Rocks fall" button. I see a situation that makes total sense when analyzed at any depth. A king is a man with the power to rule over an entire nation. There's money that comes with. In a world where magic is the norm. A King would employ any number of magicians to protect him and his family from falsehoods and assassins. This would make it beneficial to have a place where they can study on their own work while between working on the King's projects. The money paid for their work goes into the land, the building, the regents, the manpower. Everything they do is funded, tangentially at best, to the King. With a word he can cut funding, look for others to take up his projects, confiscate notes and materials and the land itself. No one wants to rock that boat, so they back off, ignore small insults, or big insults to the powerless. Corruption spreads, the upper ranks stop hearing about these "small" incidents because someone's afraid of losing their job, or getting arrested, or being executed for rocking the boat. Such insults will stopped being talked about. When the men from "outside" come flanked on all sides by incredible tales of combat against horrific monsters and incredible odds, of heroism so vast that they seem bigger then life, men who glow with power from dozens of magics used on them, by them. No king could sit on his throne and not fear them, what if they had come to take what was his? He's going to surround himself with the most powerful men he can afford, and try to remove every advantage he can, so if they do try to take what's his, he will survive, and they won't.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Hah. Kings are not where wealth and money came from. The nobility were the major holders of wealth in the region, not kings. Merchant guilds held as much wealth as a king, and it wasn't the royal family who paid for the funding of projects and works.

Despite the perception, kings were never an omnipotent entity with unlimited resources, the ones that managed to last a few centuries relied heavily on the support of the nobility to fund their wars and their major works, and in the case of wealthy or powerful guilds, they relied on them for finance, not the other way around. King acts like an utter tit? The major guilds moved their headquarters to another kingdom. Nobles start recruiting phantom troops to make it look like they're fulfilling their obligation. Kings couldn't get away with being randomly murderous to talented guildsmembers without retribution.

[Yukitsu]

In other words, no guild.

If they're experts? Not much. But you're adventurers. You get in fights for a living.
Hired to steal the emerald of Antioch? Oh, maybe someone else was hired to protect it.
Hoping to capture that Impilturan fort? Presumably it's guarded. Just because you are on different sides of this war doesn't mean you have to be enemies forever. Just til someone's fled, been captured, or is killed. Wars don't need a 100% mortality rate on one side.

Yes, and if I flee in any of those cases, I either lose immediately (if I'm guarding it) or I, and they know that I'll come back again until I succeed. Unlike with soldiers, for an adventurer, it is until one side backs down and fails, dies and fails, or the payroll dries up and you fail. Or maybe you push through and succeed.


Because it's a reason to run. So you admit that in one area, an encounter may be a different CR than in another area. If that's true, fleeing may be a good choice for the person in unfavorable terrain, no?

Sure, if I knew what could possibly be favourable to me. Frankly however, I can't think of what sort of terrain would have been favourable to the other guy either. If we both teleport, we're both casters, the terrain that favours him should favour me.


Or a few low-level rogues with sneak attack?

Hahaha. No. Though if you really want to run that test, go ahead.

[Riffington]

What are you talking about? All I said is preventing him from killing me.
Well, the best way to prevent someone from killing you is to leave. Laying hand or spell on the Prince may have consequences (not as severe as killing him, but hey).



Slander applies when there are no means to cast magic to automatically discern truth.
A few things constitute slander even if true (disparaging a lady's virtue, for instance)
But yeah - the correct word is sedition, not slander.



King acts like an utter tit? The major guilds moved their headquarters to another kingdom. Nobles start recruiting phantom troops to make it look like they're fulfilling their obligation.

I don't think this was typically true. There were quite a number of poorly-behaved Kings whose nobles remained loyal and whose merchants remained profitable.


/also, I don't think we need baby armor for this.
How about someone starts a fight in your favorite bar, or in a pottery shop. It may well be better to flee than to stand and win.

[Yukitsu]

Well, the best way to prevent someone from killing you is to leave. Laying hand or spell on the Prince may have consequences (not as severe as killing him, but hey).

A few things constitute slander even if true (disparaging a lady's virtue, for instance)
But yeah - the correct word is sedition, not slander.

Punishment for that is so low by contrast that I'd just accept it. Murdering or slandering the prince obviously would be a death penalty, even in self defense, but a punishment for stopping him when he was trying to kill you non-lethally I'd rather just take (a bad flogging usually). Inversely, princes were commonly punished when they didn't uphold the proper decorum, so that's mine up his.


I don't think this was typically true. There were quite a number of poorly-behaved Kings whose nobles remained loyal and whose merchants remained profitable.

They typically treated the people they relied on fairly well in a large enough majority that their combined resources could quash the people that he bullied. Or he bullied little peasants who didn't have the means to move, or rise up in any sufficient manner. A wizards guild, the clergy in D&D are the main two that you simply can't tick off, as either one represents a clear and large portion of your power. The monks temples you could bully though.


/also, I don't think we need baby armor for this.
How about someone starts a fight in your favorite bar, or in a pottery shop. It may well be better to flee than to stand and win.

Depends on my build. In general, "take it outside" is a common idiom that would apply to this, but many of my characters can disable a guy without breaking a lot of property. Even that aside, the owner of the bar should have someone that can push the instigator outside anyway.

[Paulus]

/also, I don't think we need baby armor for this.
How about someone starts a fight in your favorite bar, or in a pottery shop. It may well be better to flee than to stand and win.

Hey if we are going to situational extremes to prove a point by hair splitting...

There will be times when you CAN NOT FIGHT that is the point of OP, HOW do you deal with them and the player attitude that says we can fight through anything such as "I can hit the guy in baby armor because I can't hit the babies." Thus, "Well, better not use spells of any kind because those will hit the babies. Meaning you are going up against a massive level wizard lich without the use of your spells? Also every time you swing at him he tells his hench men to hurt the princess who he holds captive." Still want to fight? or maybe you'll listen to his demands and pick a better time to strike?

the point of it all is not WHAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN but that it COULD POSSIBLY happen, and how do you deal with it.

Doing all this just to make one person see it could happen is pointless, we've already done this with the extreme of baby armor. and if it takes baby armor to make that point so we can get to what OP really wants to know...

I'll use baby armor. or hostage situation. or any of the other five situations I gave in which violence isn't the best answer unless you don't care one way or the other. In which case you have a big player problem if they don't care about the game and just wish to do violence to anyone who dare cross their path.

[Riffington]

I, and they know that I'll come back again until I succeed. Unlike with soldiers, for an adventurer, it is until one side backs down and fails, dies and fails, or the payroll dries up and you fail.

That's just silly. If you're beat you're beat - go find a different contract or target that won't get you killed.


Sure, if I knew what could possibly be favourable to me. Frankly however, I can't think of what sort of terrain would have been favourable to the other guy either. If we both teleport, we're both casters, the terrain that favours him should favour me.
Ambushes are favorable to the guy doing the ambushing. Traps are favorable to the guy who knows where they are. Plains are favorable to cavalry (who says we have to be fleeing by teleport, or that we're casters)?




Hahaha. No. Though if you really want to run that test, go ahead.
Wait, so you think a 10th level wizard can beat a 9th level wizard who benefits from
*anticipate teleport
*it's 9th level wizard's home turf.
*a few 3rd level rogues with held actions.

Please explain how.



Murdering or slandering the prince obviously would be a death penalty, even in self defense, but a punishment for stopping him when he was trying to kill you non-lethally I'd rather just take (a bad flogging usually). Inversely, princes were commonly punished when they didn't uphold the proper decorum, so that's mine up his.

Depending on the country, his punishment would be that he has to execute you himself. Laying hands on the Prince, even in self-defense, is treason.
But even if not - it may still be that you lose contracts or your welcome at court, and that it's better to just run.



Depends on my build. In general, "take it outside" is a common idiom that would apply to this, but many of my characters can disable a guy without breaking a lot of property. Even that aside, the owner of the bar should have someone that can push the instigator outside anyway.

In real life, at least, fighting in a bar frequently gets both parties kicked out.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Impossible situations and impossible encounters are different IMO. Impossible encounters are reasonable, given the sheer mass of potential enemies out in the world. The solution is to run away (and if that hurts your PC's ego, perhaps you ought to become more acquainted with scoundrel-types).

Impossible situations, however, often come about by DMs overestimating the power of the status quo. Judging from my limited anecdotal evidence, at least.

[Yukitsu]

That's just silly. If you're beat you're beat - go find a different job that won't get you killed.

Rather die than fail. It's a choice that's just as legitimate as any other, and would certainly enhance the reputation and desireability of hiring your group.


Ambushes are favorable to the guy doing the ambushing. Traps are favorable to the guy who knows where they are. Plains are favorable to cavalry (who says we have to be fleeing by teleport, or that we're casters)?

In the tangent that this conversation is, I did. I said at later levels you flee by teleporting, but if you still have to use it to run, usually what you're up against can get you anyway, because it will pretty much always be a caster.

Note, I've demonstrated that a level 15 wizard can beat a level 20 fighter solo, so I have a very different expectation as to the power levels of casters and non-casters.


Wait, so you think a 10th level wizard can beat a 9th level wizard who benefits from
*anticipate teleport
*it's 9th level wizard's home turf.
*a few 3rd level rogues with held actions.

Please explain how.

I wouldn't run from a level 10. As I said, it has to be at least ECL+5 before it's expected that I run by the DMG outlines. If the DM tosses an ECL+4 and expects the party to run, I'd question how he runs boss fights.

So a level 14 wizard against a level 9 with all of that, yes, yes I can expect him to beat that.


Depending on the country, his punishment would be that he has to execute you himself. Laying hands on the Prince, even in self-defense, is treason.
But even if not - it may still be that you lose contracts or your welcome at court, and that it's better to just run.

For one, I don't work for jerks in character. It's inane for such an individual to act in such a manner and expect me to jump when he says jump.

For another, that's almost never the case for princes. Princesses and queens yes, but almost never for a prince. They are far more commonly expected to be roughly handled, or to roughly handle others.


In real life, at least, fighting in a bar frequently gets both parties kicked out.

In real life, if you didn't instigate it, and if you are a regular, you've got pretty good odds that you'll be allowed back. Though I was more saying that you wouldn't have to fight if the guy got kicked out.

[PersonMan]

Impossible situations and impossible encounters are different IMO. Impossible encounters are reasonable, given the sheer mass of potential enemies out in the world. The solution is to run away (and if that hurts your PC's ego, perhaps you ought to become more acquainted with scoundrel-types).

Impossible situations, however, often come about by DMs overestimating the power of the status quo. Judging from my limited anecdotal evidence, at least.

+1

Today(second session) I told my players that my campaign may hold unbeatable encounters, and to try other methods when possible.

[Norn-Eater]

lol, getting PCs not to fight everything they see is like herding cats.

I ran a 3.5 session yesterday where my seven players were assembled by a mysterious organization under false pretenses, who knew details about their lives only they knew, and some which they didn't. They used complex illusions to trap them (including a Wizard with perma-Arcane Sight) in a basement with about 30 Rangers with readied bows and "at least a dozen" high level (read: 1 more than the party's level) Clerics. The intent of all this was to force the characters to agree to the terms of their deal, carrot-and-stick style.

Needless to say the Druid/Master of Many Forms had to be talked down (IC) from going Fire Giant and getting them slaughtered 15 minutes into the campaign.

A little over two hours later (I know, it was a LOOOOOOOOONG session), the PCs witnessed the methodical assassination (via programmed Golems and explosives) of a third of that nation's nobility which they knew was planned, to the last detail, 30 years prior.

Plus, the meeting they had? Their contact was a Major illusion, programmed to respond exactly to everything they said, cast before any of them had said anything, or even thought it. The PCs know this.

So logically, they now "know" that the conspirators are weak and could be easily defeated because they "are just a bunch of powerful divinators [sic]"

Its just so damn hard to scare these guys with anything but ability score damage or Antimagic Fields.

[Riffington]

Rather die than fail. It's a choice that's just as legitimate as any other, and would certainly enhance the reputation and desireability of hiring your group.
I would be uninclined to hire a group of dead people.



In the tangent that this conversation is, I did. I said at later levels you flee by teleporting, but if you still have to use it to run, usually what you're up against can get you anyway, because it will pretty much always be a caster.

Ok, but not all games are at high levels. And even if they are, you think a druid isn't going to be more powerful in his grove than in your tower?





I wouldn't run from a level 10. As I said, it has to be at least ECL+5 before it's expected that I run by the DMG outlines. So a level 14 wizard against a level 9 with all of that, yes, yes I can expect him to beat that.
Not a 14th level wizard. A 10th level wizard who has ECL +4 worth of traps, terrain, and henchmen guarding his lair, but who can't necessarily bring most of that over to your place.

[PersonMan]

I would be uninclined to hire a group of dead people.

I would be disinclined to hire those who make typos or misspell. :smalltongue:

Anyways, I've found that it usually takes overpowering numbers or something universally recognized as very powerful to discourage the PCs. Luckily mine aren't as likely as some are to attack on sight, and can understand the concept of overwhelming odds.

[Starbuck_II]

I would be uninclined to hire a group of dead people.


Is that discrimination against the dead? Dead have rights too!
In real life, sure, but in D&D the dead relive and reincarnate.

[PersonMan]

Is that discrimination against the dead? Dead have rights too!

Hey, he's probably an equal opportunity employer-dead people are hired to be fertilizer!

Also, by 'dead' I'm assumng we mean those who are not coming back to life, or at least haven't yet.

[PersonMan]

Uninclined and disinclined would both be correct.

I see. Alternate spellings are...strange, when you don't know them. Like armour and colour, which my old computer tried to correct 'armor' and 'color' to. A very strange experience for me, as this was before I knew that was the way the British spelled those words.

[Yukitsu]

I would be uninclined to hire a group of dead people.

The company, not those particular peoples. I know I wouldn't hire a bunch of quitters when I need success against impossible odds.


Ok, but not all games are at high levels. And even if they are, you think a druid isn't going to be more powerful in his grove than in your tower?

No, he shouldn't be. Only one low level spell works in the forest better than in a tower. And most of my wizards don't invest in towers.


Not a 14th level wizard. A 10th level wizard who has ECL +4 worth of traps, terrain, and henchmen guarding his lair, but who can't necessarily bring most of that over to your place.

Let's see, traps are pretty easily avoided so long as you remember which squares you and he have been on, terrain in this instance doesn't add anything to either of you, and an ECL 10 wizard+henchmen can be split into two fights basically. If you have a party of 4, you should be able to divide it into a 2 on one and a 2 on many fight. Cleric and wizard against ECL 10 wizard, fighter and rogue against mook horde. I wouldn't run from this situation. Maybe kill the wizard, fall back and heal then go in again.

Adding other elements rarely adds to the situation as the CR guidelines suggest. A single CR 15 is way tougher than say, enough level 1 orcs to equal CR 15 normally.

[Riffington]

The company, not those particular peoples. I know I wouldn't hire a bunch of quitters when I need success against impossible odds.
But you just said you paid no attention to reputation :p
Also, I'm unconvinced that the favorable press that comes from a "always die trying" policy would make up for the expense. Real-world mercenary companies certainly found that to be an unprofitable attitude.




No, he shouldn't be. Only one low level spell works in the forest better than in a tower. Just looking at the core 1st level druid spells, I'm seeing
Charm animal, Entangle, Obscuring Mist, Pass without Trace, Speak with Animals.



And most of my wizards don't invest in towers.

Ok, well lots of wizards do.



Let's see, traps are pretty easily avoided so long as you remember which squares you and he have been on
Either you're lying or you've been playing on easy mode. First, if he can move and you can't, you have a major combat disadvantage. Second, who says the trap and the trigger are on the same space? "a mook pulls a lever and your cleric falls through the floor."


of 4, you should be able to divide it into a 2 on one and a 2 on many fight. Cleric and wizard against ECL 10 wizard, fighter and rogue against mook horde.

And if the mooks are actually preparing actions to activate traps or shoot the wizard or Silence him as he attempts to cast?


Adding other elements rarely adds to the situation as the CR guidelines suggest.
Only if your DM is unimaginative.

[Yukitsu]

But you just said you paid no attention to reputation :p
Also, I'm unconvinced that the favorable press that comes from a "always die trying" policy would make up for the expense. Real-world mercenary companies certainly found that to be an unprofitable attitude.

What, like the Swiss pikemen and some Landschnect companies? They were the most sought after mercenary formations explicitly because they were willing to throw themselves into conditions others would have considered suicidal. The latter didn't even consistently win.

Many mercenary companies were paid to provide psychological bulk, and weren't expected to hold out for very long, yes, that's true. But mercenary companies that did get stuck in and fight to the death were considered to be far more valuable.

Also, just because I'm not dumb enough to base my fights off of reputation doesn't mean there aren't others that are.


Just looking at the core 1st level druid spells, I'm seeing
Charm animal, Entangle, Obscuring Mist, Pass without Trace, Speak with Animals.

The first and last don't work in combat (they don't make animals fight for you, they just don't attack you.), and obscuring mist works just as well in a tower as it does in the woods.


Either you're lying or you've been playing on easy mode. First, if he can move and you can't, you have a major combat disadvantage. Second, who says the trap and the trigger are on the same space? "a mook pulls a lever and your cleric falls through the floor."

In the first case, I can move, I can move across squares I've been to or that the enemy has moved to. In the latter case, one would hope a level 9 cleric can fly, airwalk, earthglide or any variety of measures to escape such a nefarious trap. Or they pass the reflex save, I have had some wierd clerics that could beat a DC 20 reflex save. And what good does movement do against a caster? Their best attacks aren't effected by partial cover or partial concealment, and gaining full concealment or cover also negates my attacks.


And if the mooks are actually preparing actions to activate traps or shoot the wizard or Silence him as he attempts to cast?

If I'm actually on a trap tile with the switch that they happen to be readied for, don't have concentration, and am within 20 feet of a bard or cleric that hasn't been killed by the fighter or rogue, despite only having 16 HP.


Only if your DM is unimaginative.

Well, you can have 15 CR spread across anything more than 12 individual components, and I'll run a single CR 15 dragon and we'll see which is a harder run for a standard party.

[Godskook]

But you just said you paid no attention to reputation :p
Also, I'm unconvinced that the favorable press that comes from a "always die trying" policy would make up for the expense. Real-world mercenary companies certainly found that to be an unprofitable attitude.

Really? Consider the fact that "Life Insurance" would mean something completely different to a mercenary.

Considering the spells a cleric has available, after a certain level, the mercenary's life span will actually go *up* compared to the average citizen(who's poor) once the company's cleric reaches L9. And actually, if it wasn't for the loss of valuable xp, it'd be a handy way for a merc company to make money, cause you *know* they're going to charge extra for having to raise team members.

So yeah, the slogan of the double-digit level mercenary company is:

"Never leave a man entirely behind"

[Riffington]

What, like the Swiss pikemen and some Landschnect companies?
The Swiss pikemen were highly skilled and powerful en masse - particularly against mounted knights. But they would surrender or defect like any other mercenary groups if odds were against them. See _The Prince_ on the dangers of relying on Swiss mercenaries. Do you have evidence that the Landschnect were any different?



But mercenary companies that did get stuck in and fight to the death were considered to be far more valuable.
Yeah - but the ones with that reputation still surrendered like anyone else when they were beat.


The first and last don't work in combat (they don't make animals fight for you, they just don't attack you.)
First makes them friendly. The last says they'll do a service for you if they're friendly. Killing enemies is a service.



, and obscuring mist works just as well in a tower as it does in the woods.
It favors the one who knows the area.




In the first case, I can move, I can move across squares I've been to or that the enemy has moved to. That may or may not include the best squares to go to.



In the latter case, one would hope a level 9 cleric can fly, airwalk, earthglide or any variety of measures to escape such a nefarious trap.
Nefarious? That's supernice. A *nefarious* trap involves dropping a heavy stone from the ceiling, which falls on you, activating the attached tanglefoot bag. It's heavy enough to break the floor (bringing you down with it even if you can fly), and drops you into a pit (resting on top of the pit thus sealing it closed with you inside). Falling into the pit activates the antimagic field trap inside.

Heck, did you prepare all your spells Silenced? Tough call if you're invading someone else's home...


Well, you can have 15 CR spread across anything more than 12 individual components, and I'll run a single CR 15 dragon and we'll see which is a harder run for a standard party.
Your analogy doesn't make any sense. The dragon doesn't magically become more powerful when he leaves his lair and his servants. The same dragon in either case: one where you have home turf and allies nearby; the other case he has home turf and allies nearby. My claim is that having home turf/allies helps him; your claim is that it doesn't make much difference.

[Riffington]

And actually, if it wasn't for the loss of valuable xp, it'd be a handy way for a merc company to make money, cause you *know* they're going to charge extra for having to raise team members.

So yeah, the slogan of the double-digit level mercenary company is:

"Never leave a man entirely behind"

Well, then the employer would be paying a whole lot for that whole "dying and leaving your gear behind" service. For the same money, you could hire 10 times the number of men and instruct them to flee if they're getting beat... and for most situations where group B was getting beat, group A would be dead.

Historical mercenaries were affordable because life was relatively cheap. Raise Dead makes it more expensive, not cheaper.

[Yukitsu]

The Swiss pikemen were highly skilled and powerful en masse - particularly against mounted knights. But they would surrender or defect like any other mercenary groups if odds were against them. See _The Prince_ on the dangers of relying on Swiss mercenaries. Do you have evidence that the Landschnect were any different?

Certainly not, as they performed very inconsistently. However, I don't use novels written by a politician as a basis of comparison. There aren't really many battles of note where they struck their colours or fled.


Yeah - but the ones with that reputation still surrendered like anyone else when they were beat.

After they had tried and failed. They still hadn't run all that often, partly because running is a great way to get run down.


First makes them friendly. The last says they'll do a service for you if they're friendly. Killing enemies is a service.

Neither let you force them to endanger themselves though. Which attacking someone generally is.


It favors the one who knows the area.

Not so much that I would bother thinking about it differently depending.


That may or may not include the best squares to go to.

As I said in my last post, casters don't have to worry about that.


Nefarious? That's supernice. A *nefarious* trap involves dropping a heavy stone from the ceiling, which falls on you, activating the attached tanglefoot bag. It's heavy enough to break the floor (bringing you down with it even if you can fly), and drops you into a pit (resting on top of the pit thus sealing it closed with you inside). Falling into the pit activates the antimagic field trap inside.

Sure, but now the trap by itself is a higher CR than the caster. And you're assuming you're lucky enough to have the cleric over that one trap of any number of potential squares.


Heck, did you prepare all your spells Silenced? Tough call if you're invading someone else's home...

Most people do a dim door like spell silenced, but in this instance that's more of a matter of not many people caring to actually follow you in.


Your analogy doesn't make any sense. The dragon doesn't magically become more powerful when he leaves his lair and his servants. The same dragon in either case: one where you have home turf and allies nearby; the other case he has home turf and allies nearby. My claim is that having home turf/allies helps him; your claim is that it doesn't make much difference.

My point is, a CR 15 single creature is tougher than a CR 15 encounter spread out over several weaker creatures. Your CR 14 encounter with a level 10 wizard is less dangerous than a level 14 wizard, unless you also have a CR 14 trap.

[Riffington]

Certainly not, as they performed very inconsistently. However, I don't use novels written by a politician as a basis of comparison. There aren't really many battles of note where they struck their colours or fled.
He was the greatest historian of his era. Don't call Machiavelli a politican or a novelist.



They still hadn't run all that often, partly because running is a great way to get run down.
It is true that a polearm formation is not very mobile. This has nothing to do with bravery.



Neither let you force them to endanger themselves though. Which attacking someone generally is.
Force? No. They will often agree to it though.


As I said in my last post, casters don't have to worry about that.

If you have all your spells silent, and nobody has Mageslayer, and...



Sure, but now the trap by itself is a higher CR than the caster.

It's a series of traps, and you can get the total CR down to 7.


And you're assuming you're lucky enough to have the cleric over that one trap of any number of potential squares.
Drawing someone into one of your many traps is skill, not luck.




My point is, a CR 15 single creature is tougher than a CR 15 encounter spread out over several weaker creatures.

And my point is that this creature is tougher if it knows the area and has allies.

[Yukitsu]

Yeah, certainly. But your example of a CR 14 with a CR 10 wizard isn't going to scare away a party of ninth level adventurers. That's my point. A CR 14 wizard, if I were the sort inclined to run, would be.

[jiriku]

Players getting angry because they can't beat the encounters: I'd say that good communication is key. Set expectations at the beginning of the campaign or adventure that some threats are beyond a party's mastery. Introduce information about the threat that suggests it cannot be handled at the party's current level. Introduce the monster to the scene in a way that stresses its overwhelming power.

At this point, any player who is marginally paying attention should not be surprised if a fight results in some PC death.

Players not running: Honestly, there's no method of 100% surety. Some players are overconfident. Some play D&D to feel powerful and in control, and they're not having fun if they're running away or kow-towing to bullies.

I know I for one would rather get my character killed standing up to a bully than survive by swallowing my pride; the boss I work for in my day job is an ass, and I have quite enough of dealing politely with jerks in power from 9-5 without doing it some more during my gaming time, thank you very much.

Moreover, I've defeated several "impossible" encounters that the DM intended our group to flee from simply because the DM underestimated my capabilities or overestimated the monster's durability in combat. This has taught me that even if the DM earnestly tells us to flee, sometimes victory is within reach. And really, I get my jollies by succeeding when others are sure I'm going to fail, so how could I resist the urge to try?

[Paulus]

Ah~ Hypothetical arguments.


I'm looking for insight on this dichotomy, anecdotes, theory philosophy etc. Hit me.

I think we get by now that some PC's just want to kill anything until they die and some PC's actually want a bit of story. I think it's about time for a 'agree to disagree' so more can be said about the original question. I mean everybody pretty much agrees if Baby Armor comes up you can't attack the guy, so it is apparent that there are some encounter that can't be solved through violence, and you have both agreed that you DON'T solve every encounter through violence. So why continuing arguing? You're just splitting hairs, 'well what if, well what if, well what if' just goes on and on you see?

EDIT: Ninja'ed!

And really, I get my jollies by succeeding when others are sure I'm going to fail, so how could I resist the urge to try?

There is this and on the other hand, other players take the DM's plot/story/work into consideration and make a point to try to follow hooks or hints to help the DM story wise. It's more collaborative then most games where people think it's DM vs. the Players, but on the other hand it can make a game move a lot smoother and/or be rewarding in the long run.

Of course, this is not to say you should follow the DM hints/hooks all the time, after all, some free play should be involved.

[Captain Six]

I know I'm pretty smart about running. Whether the character is or not may differ. I've had a character stumble upon the session's boss while completely alone, didn't bother drawing his swords and attacked with his fists (ranger). He died pitifully but for once it was fun not to be the coward and instead jump moronically into danger. The character that replaced him was much more savvy. She was the first to run away from an impossible fight, one of the only two to run. It was a nightmare/hallucination at the end (planned that way from the start) which was almost disappointing. Sure three PCs were dead but for the first time I was frightened in what turned out to be a very mellow 'undead horror' campaign.

[Riffington]

Yeah, certainly. But your example of a CR 14 with a CR 10 wizard isn't going to scare away a party of ninth level adventurers.

Depends what else is going on, and how complementary the different elements of the encounter are, and the terrain.

Also you consistently underestimate traps. "Just keep track of what spaces I've been on and what spaces he's been on?" What if the main trap triggers the second time someone stands on a square?

If you really believe that terrain and traps are irrelevant, just look up "Tucker's Kobolds". Put those guys in a flat field and they're a much lower threat level.

[The Big Dice]

An idea I use, and that I tell to my players, is: if you never surrender or get caught, how do you make a daring escape?

It's that simple.

As for planning encounters where characters should surrender or flee, since the CR/ECL system in 3.5 doesn't really work as intended, it's easy to end up with over and underpowered encounters. Even using things that are the same CR you can end up with encounters of surprisingly varied difficulty.

[Just_Ice]

If your PCs absolutely have to fight, give them something to work with. This is difficult to do in an underground dungeon, but overland you can give them a shady theatre, an old temple, an waterfall, a broken ship or an abandoned castle. They don't necessarily have to win; if they use their surroundings right, they can stave off your creature, drop it down a pit or cliff or make a daring escape.

Another smart thing to do is to introduce a really powerful neutral creature or NPC, and have the unbeatable boss destroy it in one round. That'll make it fairly clear they're not supposed to fight it.

[Yukitsu]

Depends what else is going on, and how complementary the different elements of the encounter are, and the terrain.

Also you consistently underestimate traps. "Just keep track of what spaces I've been on and what spaces he's been on?" What if the main trap triggers the second time someone stands on a square?

If you really believe that terrain and traps are irrelevant, just look up "Tucker's Kobolds". Put those guys in a flat field and they're a much lower threat level.

That's because all they are is traps. The use of terrain for cover etc. never actually helped when I ran against something similar.

[Riffington]

That's because all they are is traps. The use of terrain for cover etc. never actually helped when I ran against something similar.

Squeezing through a space is -4 to hit and AC.
Concealment gives you surprise rounds.
An arrow slit that is less than 1 square foot breaks line of effect.

None of those helped?

[Yukitsu]

No. When going under ground, we generally prepare for such effects, because kobolds aren't the only reason we might run up against them.

For example half of us don't roll attack rolls anyway, if absolutely necessary, shrink person can be cast on a rogue in a narrow tunnel. Concealment only gives surprise rounds if you beat the party's spot and listen checks, which tucker's kobolds don't due to low levels to the thought experiment. Narrow slats and murder holes, we just roll something in front of it to block it as we go by, or if they are far away, push tables slowly up while in full cover, because when stuck behind a wall, they can't really surround or flank us.

[Riffington]

Man, must be heavy carrying all those tables and boulders.

[Yukitsu]

Yes, yes it is. Generally, we're forced to ditch them for treasure, which makes us even more paranoid when we leave. Though 9 times in 10, axe wielding dude can just cut us a block on the fly.

[Choco]

I personally am in the habit of making characters with at least 5 seperate methods of escaping a given encounter, survivalists if you will. I still attack things that seem overpowered, but only if I think I can get out of the situation alive should things go bad.

Really, the only times my characters die (with the exception of dice hate) is when they are protecting someone else.

[Doug Lampert]

Depends what else is going on, and how complementary the different elements of the encounter are, and the terrain.

Also you consistently underestimate traps. "Just keep track of what spaces I've been on and what spaces he's been on?" What if the main trap triggers the second time someone stands on a square?

If you really believe that terrain and traps are irrelevant, just look up "Tucker's Kobolds". Put those guys in a flat field and they're a much lower threat level.

It's trivial by mid-level to have the traps be command activated by a minion with a readied action (and also at mid-level you can create minions with animate dead that have more HP than anyone else in the room).

Tracking squares just doesn't work.

[Cogidubnus]

Another trick is to have a bad guy who's the equivilant of a champion boxer. He doesn't WANT to fight people not worth his time, and he certainly doesn't want to kill them. He wants them to go away, train, and become a challenge he can test himself on. If the PCs know this about him, he can even say it beforehand, trying to persuade them to go away, then they'll accept his leaving them bleeding out or disabled on the floor. A high-level monk would make a particularly amusing scene.
There's a section in the (quite famous) guide for DMs on this forum that deals with mad player actions, such as jumping into a spiked pit because they have the hits. I believe it recommends telling them "you suffer 2d6 falling damage and a further 4d4 damage from the spike you greeted, crotch first, on your way down". This sort of thing, hurting them, making them wince, is good for PCs.
I ran a 4e campaign where the PCs wouldn't die, or even need negative hits. 2 paladins, a cleric, a rogue and a warlock. The rogue kept landing sneak attacks, and 3 people with healing powers in a party (and good armour) makes taking them out difficult. Also, they kept stopping to rest whenever things, especialy their available powers, looked low. Eventually I had goblins swarm them while they slept. No one died, but it got their attention. They at least took to posting guard.

[Togo]

Hm..

It's not sedition, or slander, it's Scandulum Magnata (dissing the powerful). Historical punishments include mutilation and death, and it doesn't matter if what you said was true or not. The reputation of the king is necessary to run the kingdom. It's a national security issue. Mess with it, and war is a reasonable response.

Noone is going to handle mercenaries who are psychologically incapable of backing down from a fight, unless they're in a really desperate situation. Most of the time troops are on your own side, only rarely are they pointing at the enemy.

Historical examples of mercenaries who ran away a lot? John of Hawkwood, mercenary captain for Sienna. Managed decades with only minor scuffles, because he'd only fight when he was sure of winning. So popular the citizens built a 30foot high fiieze inside the cathedral to honour him.

Historically there have been several mercenary groups who never backed down, but noone remembers much about them.

That said, the problem with trying to physically intimidate the PCs is that you're trying, as a DM, to dictate the reaction of the PCs. That's crossing the usual divide and trying to run the PCs. It's railroading, even if only railroading a roleplaying reaction, and should be avoided.

Also most encounters look deadly to PCs. It's likely that you're not as good at telegraphing it as you think you are. This is one of those situations where having PCs who roleplay characters flexibly and with depth makes for a better game. Ultimately, however, you can't get the PCs to react in a particular way without their cooperation. Just like any other part of the game.

If you really want them to surrender, then do what they always do to tough guys in the films - capture a hostage, and kill the hostage if they don't surrender. This allows PCs to surrender without macho bull**** getting in the way.

But the reason that will work, if it works, is because the PCs know what you're trying to do. DMing isn't about forcing the PCs to do X, Y and Z, it's about working with the players as much as anything. Just because it involves combat, doesn't change that.

[Dust]

I'm looking for insight on this dichotomy, anecdotes, theory philosophy etc. Hit me.
Okay.

A heroic character - whether it be in age-old fiction or tabletop DnD - is someone who is ready to take on the odds despite the fact that they seem to be impossibly difficult.

In a heroic (as opposed to realistic) campaign, overwhelming encounters should NOT be unwinnable. If the characters are defeated or forced to flee, it causes personality erosion as they start to act more cowardly and cautious, poking down hallways with 10ft poles and tossing kobolds into pits of water 'just to see.'

You need to make it very clear what sort of game you're running before it begins. Don Quixote vs John McClane.

[Paulus]

Okay.

A heroic character - whether it be in age-old fiction or tabletop DnD - is someone who is ready to take on the odds despite the fact that they seem to be impossibly difficult.

In a heroic (as opposed to realistic) campaign, overwhelming encounters should NOT be unwinnable. If the characters are defeated or forced to flee, it causes personality erosion as they start to act more cowardly and cautious, poking down hallways with 10ft poles and tossing kobolds into pits of water 'just to see.'

You need to make it very clear what sort of game you're running before it begins. Don Quixote vs John McClane.

what? Both Don Quixote and John McClane ran away or allowed themselves to be captured... or in Quixote's case applied to D&D died several times simply because he wouldn't back down against an over powerful foe, or even under powerful foe. Shepard with rocks for example.

[arguskos]

If the characters are defeated or forced to flee, it causes personality erosion as they start to act more cowardly and cautious, poking down hallways with 10ft poles and tossing kobolds into pits of water 'just to see.'
But that's FUNNY. I do this any chance I get. :smallamused:

No, I've nothing to add other than that. We need more humor in these threads.

[Dust]

what? Both Don Quixote and John McClane ran away or allowed themselves to be captured... or in Quixote's case applied to D&D died several times simply because he wouldn't back down against an over powerful foe, or even under powerful foe. Shepard with rocks for example.
That's true, the example wasn't as accurate as I'd like. How about 'The Scooby-Doo Gang versus the Justice League? Hamlet vs Beowulf? Bush vs Lincoln?

[jiriku]

That said, the problem with trying to physically intimidate the PCs is that you're trying, as a DM, to dictate the reaction of the PCs. That's crossing the usual divide and trying to run the PCs. It's railroading, even if only railroading a roleplaying reaction, and should be avoided.

QFT.

I often see posts by DMs lamenting a party wipe with phrases like "It was obvious they should have done X" or "any idiot could see that Y was a foolish thing to do". Even the basic premise of the OP, "How do I get my PCs to do X" is based on this assumption that the DM can/should be able to specify PC responses. It's all well and good to develop a scenario where a particular course of action is likely, but D&D isn't a novel or a movie, and the DM is not an author. A good DM always knows that no matter how obvious the "intended course of action" is painted to be, he always needs to be prepared with contingencies, because the players will ultimately decide for themselves what to do.

[Paulus]

That's true, the example wasn't as accurate as I'd like. How about 'The Scooby-Doo Gang versus the Justice League? Hamlet vs Beowulf? Bush vs Lincoln?

How aboooooooout.... Mega Man vs. the Original D&D Cartoon Cast!

Wow... it took me several minutes to think of a character who never runs, backs down, was captured or for that matter looses. All I could think of was Super Mario but even he can bypass levels, whereas, Mega Man has to fight the bosses no matter what and the big boss and the only way he doesn't is if he dies. Or don't play. Wow. I was GUNNA say power rangers but then I remember they were captured, defeated, and ran away sometimes too... heck even Mega Man was later captured or had to run from a fight or couldn't fight in later games. I can't honestly for the life of me, off the top of my head, recall a character who didn't at one time run from a fight, back down, or surrender/captured. Go long enough in any character's story and they will do one of the three guaranteed. Because it CAN and DOES happen.

As opposed to running from EVERY fight. I'm looking at you cavalier. Now THAT was railroading.

[Human Paragon 3]

QFT.

I often see posts by DMs lamenting a party wipe with phrases like "It was obvious they should have done X" or "any idiot could see that Y was a foolish thing to do". Even the basic premise of the OP, "How do I get my PCs to do X" is based on this assumption that the DM can/should be able to specify PC responses. It's all well and good to develop a scenario where a particular course of action is likely, but D&D isn't a novel or a movie, and the DM is not an author. A good DM always knows that no matter how obvious the "intended course of action" is painted to be, he always needs to be prepared with contingencies, because the players will ultimately decide for themselves what to do.

It's not about trying to script PC actions, it's about making sure they feel like they still have agency and control even when they come up against a threat they can't overcome. "Oh, we're level 3 and you put us up against a group of level 11 NPCs..." If the PCs fight the level 11 NPCs, they will lose. That's not the DM scripting their actions, it's a cold hard fact.

You never know what your PCs will actually do. Maybe they will fight and lose, maybe they will run, maybe they will try to outsmart or outmanuever the threat in some way. You just don't know. The challenge is making it fun for them. And it probably won't be fun for them to run up and attack the enemy without any preamble and be summarily beaten to death for their trouble.

And for the record, the OP isn't asking "How do I get my players to do X." It's actually inviting discussion on how players react to an overpowering encounter.

The OP:


Occasionally the plot calls for overwhelming encounters, but there are dangers here.

Sometimes it takes a while for the players to realize the encounter is too hard for them, sometimes until it's too late... especially when the only reasonable way to live through the encounter is to not fight at all.

But standing down can be bad for player egos. There is a fine line between PCs being bullied by stronger NPCs and the dreaded railroading. They can go along with the NPC's demands out of fear, but then they may feel like they don't have any agency. If they try to fight back in the obvious ways (i.e. rolling d20s to make attack rolls) there's a strong possibility of premature character death, or worse a TPK. For me, a TPK means one of two things: 1, a gross player mistake or 2, DM failure.

I'm looking for insight on this dichotomy, anecdotes, theory philosophy etc. Hit me.

[SpikeFightwicky]

In my experience, you have to plan equally for PCs not retreating. In a game I DMed for about 2 years, there were many MANY times when the PCs would pick fights with NPCs many levels their senior (they usually expected to be able to fight their way out of any encounter - their past DM wouldn't let them die, even by their own stupidity) - once every few sessions, and it usually involved something I intended more as role playing style scene. Even when they were obviously outmatched, it usually only sunk in a couple of rounds too late. I also heard a lot of "one more round... I'm sure it's almost dead".

[Doug Lampert]

Even when they were obviously outmatched, it usually only sunk in a couple of rounds too late. I also heard a lot of "one more round... I'm sure it's almost dead".

When running 3.0 and 3.5 I ALWAYS gave my PCs the information when they'd done 1/4th damage, or 1/2 damage, or 3/4ths damage.

4th of course has codified the "bloodied" state and it's known to everyone.

One of the big problems in RPGs is that players have FAR FAR less information than someone who's actually there. Don't squeeze away what information they can have access to.

He's shrugging off your best shots with no trouble, or he's down to his last gasp, shouldn't be a guess.

Roll combat dice in the open, something like: "Oh look, he rolled a 2, hit, now 1d12+56 for damage given the power attack" does WONDERS for letting people know that they're overmatched. Same thing for saves and DCs and AC. Let the players figure them out based on what dice succeed or fail.

Rolling in the open ALSO lets them know that I'm unlikely to declare a 19 a miss the next round after that 2 hit one round just to keep them alive.

GM screens have a few uses, but for the most part they are evil and encourage bad play on both sides of the screen.

[Asheram]

I'm currently playing in an L11 campaign, and have recently been Very humbled by our DM.

To make a long story short, our last session involved running from a coven of Vampires, and when using our goverment contact to call a jihad on them (one of our partymembers adoptive father and also a high-priest of anubis), we.. *coughs* led the soldiers into an ambush, obliderating a good percentage of the kingdoms forces, as well as a Lot of clerics and our goverment contact...

In the morrow, we'll start the session from the cliffhanger of have being forcibly teleported out of the mountain lair of the vampires before it exploded...

Now, up until now our DM has been very lenient, we haven't been punching princes in the nose (though it seems that my IC butler did that and got away with it), but we've been quite confident that our GM wouldn't throw something at us that we Clearly couldn't handle. And now when he did... *coughs* Let us just say that we got the message.

[Choco]

I let my players roll their own damage.

On occasion they get overconfident and get in over their heads. Note that I run the style of campaign that is full of powerful, high level characters. The PC's start out at the bottom of the food chain, being bullied and bossed around, and slowly fight their way up to be the top dogs, making sure to pay back all their built up grudges :smallamused:.

I don't sneak powerful characters up on them (at least not aggressive ones, if they choose to attack someone who is friendly/indifferent and stronger than he looks, tough luck). I am sure to describe IN GREAT DETAIL the power of NPC's/creatures that can wipe the floor with the PC's as a hint that they should hide or run.

If they do not, one of them inevitably gets hit and gets to roll his own damage. After a player's lvl 5 character in 4e takes 2d12 + 15 damage in 1 hit after getting all of his attacks deflected, the whole group gets the point.

They usually know that patience and cunning will lead to an eventual and oh so sweet revenge, but sometimes gotta be reminded of that.

[Human Paragon 3]

I'm currently playing in an L11 campaign, and have recently been Very humbled by our DM.

---
Now, up until now our DM has been very lenient, we haven't been punching princes in the nose (though it seems that my IC butler did that and got away with it), but we've been quite confident that our GM wouldn't throw something at us that we Clearly couldn't handle. And now when he did... *coughs* Let us just say that we got the message.

Was that fun for you? Or were you upset/dissapointed by the results? I'd be interested in hearing more of your perspective. You say you got the message, but what was that message? Thou art mortal? Or was it a comment on how you were roleplaying?

@choco:

What would you say the psychological effect of rolling your own damage is? How does it play?

[Asheram]

Was that fun for you? Or were you upset/dissapointed by the results? I'd be interested in hearing more of your perspective. You say you got the message, but what was that message? Thou art mortal? Or was it a comment on how you were roleplaying?

@choco:

What would you say the psychological effect of rolling your own damage is? How does it play?

Uhm... It's difficult to say. First we were shocked, I had a good look at the other players faces as it happened and it was quite indescribable. Now, the closest thing I can compare it to is gambling, you don't gamble to win, you gamble for that rush of adrenaline when you lose and lose Big.
We might not have thought it much fun back then when it happened, we Liked that old fellow, but after we sat down, talked about what happened and what's going to happen now it's a lot of fun. :smallsmile:

The message was basicly "If you keep charging enemies you know nothing about you will die. (We do that a lot, I'm afraid.)"

Up to L10 we've had just a single death in the group, and that as the halfling barbarian that was reincarnated about an hour later by the groups artificer. (From male halfling to female elf! Hurray for random races!)
Now In L11, after some adjustments to the group, we've got an L10 or so cleric with us, and the artificer, so as long as either of them'd survive we can avoid the TPK...
But now, it just feels that our GM've taken off the kid gloves and that both frightens and intrigues us. :smalltongue:

[Human Paragon 3]

IMO this is what all DMs [should] go for.

[Choco]

What would you say the psychological effect of rolling your own damage is? How does it play?

Depends on the situation, but mostly good. They know exactly how powerful their opponents hits are as opposed to guessing if they just got lucky or rolled low (makes sense, IRL you can tell when someone lands a good/lucky hit or a glance, and if a glance is enough to almost take you out, you in over your head), and they know I am not fudging (damage rolls anyway) because they are the ones rolling.

There are some amusing mixed reactions when a PC dies because they roll max damage, especially after they rolled low for their own attacks. My group does not appreciate fudging though, as much as it stings losing a character sometimes they always tell me they like it this way because there is actually some risk and danger involved.

It is also good for leading them into a "trap", because most monsters have more than 1 standard action attack, and some attacks are much stronger than others. Start out weak to lure them into a false sense of security, then bust out the big moves.

[Human Paragon 3]

So I played the session that inspired this thread all that time ago, and was amazed at how my players acted in the face of overwhelming odds. They actually DID attack, but then saw that they would all die, so they DID surrender, and then brokered a deal with the enemy. Read the details here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145066) (post #14).

I am pretty happy since nobody died. And now they know how strong the knights are as an enemy, and will tread carefully in the future.