PDA

View Full Version : How to make the players choose to run.



Godskook
2011-04-03, 04:58 PM
Ok, I've been running my campaign for upwards of 4 months now, and for all the various combat situations I've thrown at the party, I've yet to make them run. From anything. Hell, I've only 'killed' them once(non-lethal that time), even, though I've come within a hair's breath quite a few times.

But the one thing is, they've never wanted to run from an encounter. In all this time, it happened once, and it was nearly a metagame reason why they ran(they assumed correctly that the dungeon guardians needed a password, so they got it instead of trying to kill the things).

So my question is this: How do I design encounters that are threatening enough to chase off a party of level 4-5 adventurers, without making it insta-lethal?

System I'm using is 3.5, but I suspect that most of the advice will be system-inspecific.

dsmiles
2011-04-03, 05:00 PM
Description.

Make them think that what they're facing is something way more powerful than it really is.

Darwin
2011-04-03, 05:06 PM
Make it insta-lethal. If you keep teasing them with certainty of death and then not giving it to them you're making your players confident nothing can hurt them. They'll have to experience dying before they can be afraid of it. When I started playing with my current group some 4 months ago I made sure their first adventure would be a short one, to make sure they'd know how to react in the next campaign when I presented things they weren't supposed to fight.

Andrewmo
2011-04-03, 05:08 PM
Make sure they know that not all encounters are level appropriate combat challanges and if they stay and fight something wearing a sign saying "run or die" they will die if they fight. It helps if they have a semirealistic estimation of their ability and running away is an option. Paladins won't run if by running away they doom an orphanage full of kids to be eaten so make sure the characters motivation does not commit them to a last stand

Ranos
2011-04-03, 05:11 PM
You need long-term consequences besides death. Admittedly, 3.5 doesn't have a lot of those. Maybe you can use rust monsters ? Level draining monsters ? Make sure you've got someone in the group who can make his knowledge check to recognize them, and give them a good chance to run before the irreparable happens.

Shinizak
2011-04-03, 05:15 PM
Don't stat it.

The lady of pain is a great example of this. In her city she is all powerful. She Never interacts with the people of the city except to flay them alive and send them to an inescapable maze. Her stats? no-one knows since they've never survived any interaction with her.

Gorgondantess
2011-04-03, 05:18 PM
Make it insta-lethal. If you keep teasing them with certainty of death and then not giving it to them you're making your players confident nothing can hurt them. They'll have to experience dying before they can be afraid of it. When I started playing with my current group some 4 months ago I made sure their first adventure would be a short one, to make sure they'd know how to react in the next campaign when I presented things they weren't supposed to fight.

This. If you prove to them over and over that they're not going to be killed, guess what? They'll think they're not going to be killed.

Blackjackg
2011-04-03, 05:20 PM
Kill off a PC.

Repeat as necessary.

At some point they'll learn.

Cespenar
2011-04-03, 05:23 PM
Also, you might make them roll some open Sense Motive checks, and give some hints to those who have a good result about the grave danger they feel when looking at the creature. A little Anvilicious perhaps, but some people will only take something serious when a solid 'crunchy' evidence is present.

Pure description would of course be the ideal choice, however. I'd say start with that, and use the checks as a last resort.

erikun
2011-04-03, 05:23 PM
How do I design encounters that are threatening enough to chase off a party of level 4-5 adventurers?
You don't.

If the party of players is determined to see every fight through to the finish, then there is nothing you can so, as the DM, to make them run short of mind-control or fear effects.

That said, there is plenty you can do that would make any sane party run - or kill off the insane ones. Throw them up against something wildly CR-inappropriate, and make sure you elaborate at how overpowering it is. You'll end up with a TPK if they try to fight it, but they'll learn that "when DM says this," it means they're in for a fight. You can throw them up against something with a high DR they don't have weapons to overcome, forcing them to retreat or get worn down to nothing. And you could, rather than throw one big fight at them, throw multiple mid-challanging fights that just keep coming. The single partol of the orc horde may not be challanging, but what about the next? And the next? Sure, they can ambush one or two, but there are still dozens to fight and no time to rest.

Something that the characters can't fight, like a burning forest or tidal wave, will probably make them run as well.

That said, why do you want to make them run? To make them fear for their characters? Some of them have already died or been dropped to negatives; if they didn't fear for them then, then being flattened by a boulder wouldn't be fearsome either.

some guy
2011-04-03, 05:39 PM
So my question is this: How do I design encounters that are threatening enough to chase off a party of level 4-5 adventurers, without making it insta-lethal?



Description.

Make them think that what they're facing is something way more powerful than it really is.

I think description only works when the players know their characters can die. If they believe they will always win a fight, making an awesome description will only make them think how awesome they will be when they beat their adversary.

In the group I play in, we would always win the encounters, even high CR ones. We would charge in without plans or strategy. We were awesome. We were big damn (anti-)heroes. We were in for a heavy helping of hubris.
Then we fought 2 ragedrakes and a bearded devil. The ranger and two animal companions died. The ranger got better.
Then we fought a storm elemental. The barbarian died and we retreated. We made plans, strategy and thought of a way of escape. The ranger died again, but we were victorious.
Nowadays, we plan if we can. We run away when things go grim. We use strategy. We play smarter. We won a fight with a red dragon because we were humbled by recent defeats. Death has taken some levels but taught us a valuable lesson.

What I'm saying is that it's very hard to make players realize that sometimes you gotta run if they think they will survive.

Frozen_Feet
2011-04-03, 05:48 PM
Put them against something obviously out of their league they can still run away from.

Example - something like a Colossus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/colossus.htm). It's huge. It's dangerous. It doesn't take a genius to realize that no, at levels 4 and 5, you aren't killing it. If they're stupid enough to try, let the rules do their thing (ie. kill the PCs off). They can still run away from it, though, and find another way.

prufock
2011-04-03, 06:22 PM
Two ideas:

1 - Have the PCs fight a single random monster. Make it a difficult or very difficult encounter (CR = party ECL + 5), but they should win. Let it consume some of their precious resources. Maybe one of them even dies.

A short time later, they see a man fighting three of these monsters, and not breaking a sweat. Upon finishing them off, he turns to the party. "So, finally you've come." Smirk.

2 - Players do not fear death? Target something they DO fear. Their equipment.

Frozen_Feet
2011-04-03, 06:26 PM
Ten thousand Adamantine Clockwork Horros is the solution. <3

The Big Dice
2011-04-03, 06:43 PM
There's an old Legend of the Five Rings adventure called Mirror Mirror that mnages to get players to run every time I've ran it. The setup is, a powerful NPC has gone of into the Shadowlands, a place that is part radioactive wasteland, part gateway to hell and just going there endangers a character's soul. Anyway, this powerful NPC has gone there to die, but he is needed. So the PCs are sent to bring him back. When they finally catch up with him, the hunting horns of a group of Darm Moto are heard and they are approaching fast.

Imagine near immortal half man, half demons that are individually capable of taking on all but the most powerful demons. And they ride demon steeds that are kind of like undead horses, except they are fast, vicious and carnivorous. The NPC and his two almost as powerful bodyguards flee without a moment's hesitation. I've yet to see a PC stand and fight at the moment.

If they don't run, this is what the module advises:

If the PCs foolishly decide to attack, four Moto akutsukai sprout skeletal wings and fly, raining arrows down from the air. Kage's guards might distract them for two rounds while they scream to the PCs to get him away, but the Moto are on horseback. Unless the heroes change that, the Moto continue shooting and lancing. Then they come back for the Down and Out people. And start to play.

So that's the trick. Set up an NPC that they respect and they know is powerful. Then when that guy runs for hs life, they are almost certain to follow.

Jothki
2011-04-03, 06:48 PM
Yeah, your best bet is probably to have a horde of Rust Monsters start to pour out of gaps in the walls.

Ezeze
2011-04-03, 07:17 PM
You've got lots of really good suggestions here - no alternative motivations, a respected NPC who runs, imminent threat of severe consequences, and a good description. There is no shame in tacking "you should probably run" on the end of said description. Seriously. It's kind of like talking to a boy - the best way of getting what you want is probably to clearly ask for it.

I've only got two more things to add; use the "run away" scenario sparingly, and remember to give them XP for the encounter.

The first one is simple - people don't like to loose. It might be a great way to build tension, but they have to overcome eventually. We get beaten down enough in real life. When we play, we want to be heroes.

The second is a little more complicated. Remember the goal of this encounter was not to kill something, so they shouldn't be penalized for not realizing something that wasn't their goal in the first place. If the goal of the encounter was just survival, reward them for doing that.

Rixx
2011-04-03, 07:36 PM
An overwhelming encounter that isn't insta-lethal could involve lots of monsters, who can't all necessarily get to the PCs all at once. The PCs won't be instantly killed, and should they choose to stand and fight, they should end up taking out a lot of the foes before they're overwhelmed.

A good way to do this would be for them to have a fight with a moderately tough monster - say CR+2 or so - and then have the next encounter be about fifteen of those monsters. They'll get the idea.

Gamer Girl
2011-04-03, 07:46 PM
1.You need to make everything deadly. Throw out any idea of 'fairness' or 'plot' or 'fun'. Make it so that anyone character can die at anytime. If the players are comfortable with you, and know that you will be 'fair and balanced' then they won't run. When they encounter some bandits, they will just say ''Oh the Dm won't kill us here, it would not be fair we only have to worry in big fight 'end of game' scenes.

2.Make the monsters tough. You can do a lot to beef monster up, without changing their CR even. For example, give the monster good feats. A great many monsters have lame feats. Alertness is nice, for example, but a monster that will only be alive five minuets will make better use out of Improved Natural Attack. Don't give the bandits short swords, give them great swords.

Magic items are good here, especially disposable ones. Five orcs each with a potion of bull's strength or a drow cleric with a wand of doom can have big effect.

3.Keep the mystery. Avoid saying the numbers. Keep the players in the dark. Don't let them know things for free. Let them wonder why things did or did not work. This can work wonders in combat, when they don't know what spell or such has just effected them...and they don't have the time to take to 'skill check' it out.

4.Use more powerful foes. Or at least ones that look more powerful. Description is key here. They will be more afraid of a 'half dragon orc' then just an 'orc'..even more so if it can breathe lava. And illusions are great too. One of my classics is where the bad guy 'glows with red light', sure it's just an illusion, but it looks cool and scary.

5.Go for the kill. Don't have the monsters make weak attacks. A 70 foot long dragon will not cast sleep on a group attacking it....the dragon with breath and then stomp them. When fighting a wizard, don't have the wizard attack with 'acid splash', go right for lighting bolt.

7.Sneaky group tactics. This works great for goblinoids. Give each goblin a net or whip, so they can entangle foes, or buff up the orcs so they are good at grappling. And then while the player is in trouble, have others attack. Once the character is stuck under a net...the goblins with darts or alchemist fire attack them. This can work great in combos, goblin to disarm with a whip, and then worg to rush in and attack.

8.Go for debilitating attacks. Poison is the classic one. And there are tons of magic ones. A couple of strikes that make the players weakened, and then even 'weak' foes can take them. Anything that will give them a minus to hit is great. Curses are great too.

Ezeze
2011-04-03, 07:50 PM
Throw out any idea of 'fairness' or 'plot' or 'fun'.

:smallconfused: That's like sacrificing your King to get your Rook into position. Which is to say, loosing the war to win a specific battle.


Give each goblin a net or whip, so they can entangle foes, or buff up the orcs so they are good at grappling.

The idea is to make them run, isn't it? Why make it so that they can't run?

dsmiles
2011-04-03, 07:54 PM
:smallconfused: That's like sacrificing your King to get your Rook into position. Which is to say, loosing the war to win a specific battle.Exactly, I thought the entire point of playing a game was to have fun. :smallconfused:

Randomatic
2011-04-03, 07:55 PM
One thing to remember is also make running tactically possible.
One of my former GM's tried his hardest to get us to run, by having us face encounters much too difficult for us to win, but he also never gave us an out.
We faced a dragon that we couldn't fight, but flew faster than we could run on an open plain.
We faced more horsemen than we could ever handle while we were on foot, on an open plain.
In those situations we never even tried to run, we would just have been chased down.
The GM never even thought of that, his whole purpose for those encounters was just to try to teach us that we should run away.
If you're going to use an overpowering encounter, make it slow, or confined to specific terrain. You could also make it large and have a small cave that the PCs can run into where they can't be followed or something like that.
I've found that when running is an actual option it's much more attractive.
I'd also suggest not having creatures that you want the PCs to run from threaten things that they care deeply about. Your characters aren't likely to run from an encounter if that means that their homes and families are going to be destroyed.
I'd also not be too adamant about your idea of forcing your characters to run, it can get tedious when you're playing and the GM is dead set on you performing one specific action.
If you've been trying to push them into running more often, you might just end up making them obstinate.
If that's been a theme of your game lately, I'd suggest giving the players a bit of a breather, and then showing them a difficult encounter, with an obvious way out of it. They'll tend to get the message.
You could also work on getting them in the habit of bypassing encounters. Come up with a time sensitive objective, with ways around most of the encounters, and once they get used to occasionally not having to face down an encounter it will seem a more normal reaction.


Stuff

That seems more advice to kill off your PCs not to get them to run away. I wouldn't run from most of those situations, as they don't provide an opportunity.

hoff
2011-04-03, 08:04 PM
Use the environment. The cavern collapsing, raising water/lava. They will run for stuff they can't fight (unless you have a very prepared wizard).

erikun
2011-04-03, 08:23 PM
1 - Have the PCs fight a single random monster. Make it a difficult or very difficult encounter (CR = party ECL + 5), but they should win. Let it consume some of their precious resources. Maybe one of them even dies.

A short time later, they see a man fighting three of these monsters, and not breaking a sweat. Upon finishing them off, he turns to the party. "So, finally you've come." Smirk.
Nearly every player I've gamed with absolutely loathes this kind of character. It's practically oozing "I am a better-than-you DMPC." They might stick around and try to assassinate him, just out of spite.

It might make a pretty good Big Bad.

navar100
2011-04-03, 08:24 PM
All the OP said was that the party won't run. He didn't say why they won't run. Saying they aren't running because they don't think the DM will kill their characters is only supposition. Maybe they won't run because they're determined to be heroes and think running away is cowardly. Maybe they don't want to lose a fight.

I will make my own supposition. Why do you want the PCs to run? To make them fear the awe inspiring power of the DM's gameworld such that the players know they aren't the center of the multiverse; the DM has all the power mwah ha ha ha? Newsflash, the PCs are the center of the multiverse. Without them there is no game. The PCs are supposed to be the stars of the show.

It serves no purpose to purposely create a combat scenario the PC's are forced to run away just to teach them a lesson they should run away. That is not to say there shouldn't exist being more powerful than the party; just that there's no point to teaching the players a lesson of the almighty power of the DM. Naturally more powerful beings populate and interact with the gameworld. If the PCs initiate the combat for whatever reason all the time, fine, that's where metagame DM should help the players realize they aren't meant to fight everything or you're setting up the BBEG or his Lieutenant the PCs will fight many levels later. If the DM initiates the combat via the bad guys, teaching the players a lesson is DM vs Player attitude. For such a combat, defeating the stronger bad guys should not be the goal. The party should instead be having to get the McGuffin, destroy the McGuffin, cause the McGuffin to happen, or prevent the McGuffin from happening.

Godskook
2011-04-03, 08:29 PM
Ok, here's the thing:

1.The point is strategy - I'm not trying to do this so that the PCs simply start running from encounter, but rather choose to start engaging in smarter ways.

2.I've dropped them into life-threatening situations a few dozen times already. Sometimes its sheer luck, like the time I sent 3 Deinonychus at them when they were level 3.

3.While I'm ok with killing off a player, I'd rather not set out a plan with the mentality: "Ok, this will kill at least one of them".

Randomatic
2011-04-03, 08:35 PM
You could try setting up encounters with obvious strategic advantages.

Create ways for them to bypass sentries, places that they could use to ambush opponents that are as blatant as you can stomach making them, etc.

If your players have been having success then there isn't any drive to improve, but forcing them to fail is more likely to frustrate them than have them learn everything.

It might take time to get them thinking strategically, not every player approaches that game that way. So it might end up taking time for them to get used to the idea.

valadil
2011-04-03, 08:47 PM
A few campaigns ago I told my players there were two types of encounters: fights and chase scenes. Winning a fight meant killing or disabling all the enemies. Winning a chase scene meant escape. Prior to that, my players had a mindset that escape was a failure since they didn't win the fight. The didn't want a consolation prize. As far as they saw it, they could win or die trying. I just had to redefine what winning meant and they were happy to do chase scenes after that.

BiblioRook
2011-04-03, 08:50 PM
All the OP said was that the party won't run. He didn't say why they won't run. Saying they aren't running because they don't think the DM will kill their characters is only supposition. Maybe they won't run because they're determined to be heroes and think running away is cowardly. Maybe they don't want to lose a fight.

I was thinking about this too. Usually when I experience PCs refusing to run from a fight it's really simple. TO them, Fight = Reward. Not even going into the possibility of treasure, usually the reward in question is simply Exp.
My hypothetical solution to this? Don't grant the exp biased on individual encounters but rather just in bulk all at once once they reach the appropriate point to level up. (Or even alternatively opt out of giving exp all together and just inform them once they hit another level).
This really would be a tactic you would have to run by your players first though as you would want them to be clear on what's going on. Last thing you would want is for your players to think they weren't getting any opportunity to advance :smalleek:

But yeah, take out the reward and hopefully your players will realize that there's no real gain to fighting everything they come across.

Unfortunately this doesn't solve the kinds of characters that just simply want to fight for the sake of fighting and/or honor. In those cases? Yeah... you probably will have to start killing people off to get your point across as everyone else has mention...

erikun
2011-04-03, 08:54 PM
The point is strategy - I'm not trying to do this so that the PCs simply start running from encounter, but rather choose to start engaging in smarter ways.
Make the opponents start using strategy. Have them ambush the party occasionally, especially if the party is walking into their territory. Have the archers move behind a wall or tree before attacking. Make the spellcasters turn invisible and start summoning stuff. Give one of the brutes spiked gauntlets, a two-handed guisarme, and Improved Trip.

You obviously don't want to throw all this at the party at once - a single new one in each different encounter should be challanging enough. However, if you want the players to start using strategy, then have their opponents start using strategy. Make use of situational bonuses. Once the players notice that the orc on the table gets a bonus to hit, and the orc behind the pillar gets a bonus to AC, then they'll start making use of these bonuses as well.

As a bonus, even these slight versions of optimization can make the opponents a lot more dangerous without increasing damage output.

JKTrickster
2011-04-03, 09:43 PM
I don't think you should be "making the players run" since that doesn't actually involve any strategy. In fact, out of my list of "strategies" that would be my LAST one.

You should be convincing them of PRIOR planning, not last ditch efforts to save their lives. Running doesn't really accomplish your goals at all.

I agree that you will have to run opponents that utilize their own strategies as well. And don't afraid to make these strategies potentially lethal, especially if it would fit the story (e.g. the Armed Guard of a King, etc.)

Another approach could be coming out and talking to your players. Tell them that you're stepping up your game (and actually do step up your game) and that they have to plan accordingly. And if they die afterwards, you already warned them sufficiently.

Blackjackg
2011-04-03, 09:46 PM
All the OP said was that the party won't run. He didn't say why they won't run. Saying they aren't running because they don't think the DM will kill their characters is only supposition. Maybe they won't run because they're determined to be heroes and think running away is cowardly. Maybe they don't want to lose a fight.

I will make my own supposition. Why do you want the PCs to run? To make them fear the awe inspiring power of the DM's gameworld such that the players know they aren't the center of the multiverse; the DM has all the power mwah ha ha ha? Newsflash, the PCs are the center of the multiverse. Without them there is no game. The PCs are supposed to be the stars of the show.

It serves no purpose to purposely create a combat scenario the PC's are forced to run away just to teach them a lesson they should run away. That is not to say there shouldn't exist being more powerful than the party; just that there's no point to teaching the players a lesson of the almighty power of the DM. Naturally more powerful beings populate and interact with the gameworld. If the PCs initiate the combat for whatever reason all the time, fine, that's where metagame DM should help the players realize they aren't meant to fight everything or you're setting up the BBEG or his Lieutenant the PCs will fight many levels later. If the DM initiates the combat via the bad guys, teaching the players a lesson is DM vs Player attitude. For such a combat, defeating the stronger bad guys should not be the goal. The party should instead be having to get the McGuffin, destroy the McGuffin, cause the McGuffin to happen, or prevent the McGuffin from happening.

You're not wrong, and I applaud you for bringing this up when no one else in the thread has.

However, I propose that D&D is a game of collaborative storytelling, and the DM carries a lot of responsibility for making the story fun and memorable, not only for the players, but for him- or herself as well. A DM could have very good narrative reasons for creating scenarios in which wiser and more involved players (to say nothing of the characters) would flee. If he or she crafts a battle to be obviously and undeniably beyond the capabilities of the players, it sucks for the story (and therefore, for everyone) if the players won't take the hint and the DM is forced to nerf a formidable encounter in order to keep everyone alive. Better to let them learn (the hard way, if they haven't benefited from the easy way) that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

So yes, if this is a stunt being pulled out of pique to show the players who's boss, then by all means pull the plug. But if it's a legitimate reaction to stubborn players messing up a finely-crafted story that's supposed to be fun for everyone? Then smoke 'em one by one until they learn. Give them a satisfying payoff in the end, and they'll be happier in retrospect for it.

BiblioRook
2011-04-03, 09:53 PM
I don't think you should be "making the players run" since that doesn't actually involve any strategy. In fact, out of my list of "strategies" that would be my LAST one.

You should be convincing them of PRIOR planning, not last ditch efforts to save their lives. Running doesn't really accomplish your goals at all.

I don't think he means running as means of 'escaping' as it is 'avoiding combat'

Randomatic
2011-04-03, 10:22 PM
However, I propose that D&D is a game of collaborative storytelling, and the DM carries a lot of responsibility for making the story fun and memorable, not only for the players, but for him- or herself as well....

So yes, if this is a stunt being pulled out of pique to show the players who's boss, then by all means pull the plug. But if it's a legitimate reaction to stubborn players messing up a finely-crafted story that's supposed to be fun for everyone? Then smoke 'em one by one until they learn.


If you've put together a finely-crafted story, then how are the players to know what they're supposed to do? Also how is that collaborative storytelling if the GM is writing the story?

I've run into the problem of players often not following a GM's plot, but that's because without a script they don't know what that plot is.

Also, trying to teach players how to react is both condescending, and usually doesn't make much sense from the other perspective.

Even if you're trying to guide the players it usually ends up confusing with one person knows what's they want to happen, and everyone else is supposed to follow clues and try to read their mind. It might be obvious to the GM, but not to anyone else.

The core of the problem is that when players don't want to run away, or perform some other act in a game, they aren't going to do so. Punishing them to try to make them learn better isn't something that I've witnessed as effective.

That's why I've suggested trying to make it obvious that they have other options available to them, and encourage them that they can approach the game from different angles.

Presenting new choices can get them to make those decisions on their own, and they'll be much less likely to react stubbornly.

Cerlis
2011-04-03, 10:42 PM
i think the idea of killing them to try to teach em a lesson is a very bad idea, expessially since they dont have any form of resurrection (lvl 4-5 i believe it was).

Why does death have to be the only bad thing to be scared of? there are many other things. Disease, horror, pain.

Imagine you go into a dark place and fight this monster and that, when you encounter a zombified fungified looking monster. Maybe you explain how the plants of fungi seem to be growing into the things head and body, with tendrils going over its limps and into its skull. it fights it dies, but one or two of the group gets infected. They soon develop a rash and have to start trimming mushrooms off the infected area. NOw this effect is immediate (so they know within minutes that this past fight was bad) but there shouldnt be any real harmful effects till days or weeks later. It spreads even if treated without magical or alchemical assistance, but slowly.
From the beginning they know there are consequences to even getting near this thing, and its a disgusting, horrible (and more importantly curable but fatal if left unchecked) threat

or how bout your Frodo encounter. Whats more horrible than being eaten by a monster? Getting captured by a monster and taken away to be eaten. if you do it right you can even do a TPK without killing them the poison from the spiders or whatever are very strong and knock em out or paralize them, but as they recover from it when they wake up in the spiders den it being in their system makes them partially immune to more injections. SPiders arent clever enough to get rid of weapons or bind spell casters. The players know after they escape that one of these can almost instantly knock them out. and know a swarm will get all of them.

Or how about the scary little things that are almost not seen that jump on you and dig their fangs in your face?

think about all those horror monster movies and whats scary about em. its not being killed. Its being killed horribly. its turning into a monster. its seeing something growing in you thats going to explode.

and to achieve that you dont have to give them some Save or Die Disease.
If they all get "captured" it doesnt have to be the end.
And like i said with the fungus disease, you can make many things a sort of "Creeping doom" scare, so its a threat but doesnt permantly main their characters unless they dont do anything about it

'
---------
point is there is a middle ground between making the players want to retreat and come back later, or avoid a monster or two without having to outright kill them

P.S.
Oh, i just had this nice image, that sometimes happens in video games. Of this creeping zombie/eldritch horror that slowly follows the group everywhere, and if it gets to close it shoots slimey (slowly) paralizing tentacles out to pull them into its maw. It barely takes damage and almost unkillable, and they have to constantly avoid it while finding a way to kill it
(careful, if you over use it it will just be annoying)

Frozen_Feet
2011-04-04, 09:11 AM
So yes, if this is a stunt being pulled out of pique to show the players who's boss, then by all means pull the plug. But if it's a legitimate reaction to stubborn players messing up a finely-crafted story that's supposed to be fun for everyone? Then smoke 'em one by one until they learn. Give them a satisfying payoff in the end, and they'll be happier in retrospect for it.

It doesn't need to have anything to do with a story, finely crafter or not.

Instead, lets look at it this way: in any given situation, there are options that are demonstrably smart, and options that are demonstrably stupid. In real life, you (hopefully) learn to think your options through, because acting stupid often has undesireable consequences.

Many players, especially new ones in my experience, have a tendency to not spend a second thinking about consequences in fiction land. They do things that would be stupid, criminal or downright suicidal because they're detached from the world their characters live in. They don't know how to get "in character".

For many possible games, especially those that focus heavily on the roleplaying part, it's desireable to weed this behaviour out so the PCs start acting more like real persons. One of the simplest ways to achieve this, and one that is good for verisimilitude also, is to implement Karma within the framework of the game. Characters don't exist in a vacuum, and bad choices lead to bad consequences.

If a system is highly focused on lethal situations, this unfortunately often leads to PCs being torched time after time. This might not be very fun, but if the goal is to keep a serious game using such systems, learning the lesson is fundamental to get it to work.

Goober4473
2011-04-04, 11:12 AM
Have the PCs fight a single random monster. Make it a difficult or very difficult encounter (CR = party ECL + 5), but they should win. Let it consume some of their precious resources. Maybe one of them even dies.

A short time later, they see a man fighting three of these monsters, and not breaking a sweat. Upon finishing them off, he turns to the party. "So, finally you've come." Smirk.

I've found that if you want your players to avoid combat because the opponent is too strong, something along these lines works. I would just avoid the middleman. They fight something that they barely win against. It costs them quite a bit to do. Later they see 12 more of whatever they fought, but haven't been spotted yet. They really don't need to see anyone else fight the things, and they have a chance to avoid combat (stealth, go a different way, etc.), not just run the hell away.

Of course, there are other reasons to avoid fighting. Make sure the players know XP comes from compelting objectives, not killing stuff, and bypassing an encounter is worth jsut as much as killing everything. Then, things like time limits work well.

The Watchman
2011-04-04, 11:24 AM
I've found that if you want your players to avoid combat because the opponent is too strong, something along these lines works.

And this is concrete proof that my playgroup is not exactly normal.

Gamer Girl
2011-04-04, 12:40 PM
You don't want to make the game go fun, that is not what I meant. I'm talking about the 'fun mentality' that says the players must always win'. That is the game is no fun if everyone is not immortal(like playing a video game with an infinite lives cheat).



The idea is to make them run, isn't it? Why make it so that they can't run?

In this case you simply want the encounter to be possibly deadly.

1.A standard encounter would go like this: five goblins attack a character..maybe one or two hit a round and do maybe five points of damage..yawn, players are not even worried.

2.The better encounter:on the first round a character is hit by a net and are and easy target. Then the five goblins can hit a good four out of five times. Even if the character only takes a round or two to get the net off them, they can easily take 25% to 50% of their hps in damage. More then enough to scare the players into running.

Engine
2011-04-04, 01:04 PM
If a system is highly focused on lethal situations, this unfortunately often leads to PCs being torched time after time. This might not be very fun, but if the goal is to keep a serious game using such systems, learning the lesson is fundamental to get it to work.

I doubt players will learn any lesson this way.

The DM, for the most part, knows what's going on. The players, well, no. I, as a player, really don't like to guess what's in the DM's mind, and what I have to do to please him\her.
I sit on a table to roleplay, not play "Guess what the DM wants you to do". As a DM, I don't put my players on a constant guess: they know all too well that I'll throw at them nasty surprises, but that their characters could handle them (of course, except they try actively to go suicidal). But they know that I'll never scale an encounter just because their characters are injured and low on resources.

So when they see that they start to be low on resources they play cautious (well, now they play cautious all the time). But they learned that in the simplest way: I just told them how I dm.

The Big Dice
2011-04-04, 01:07 PM
2.The better encounter:on the first round a character is hit by a net and are and easy target. Then the five goblins can hit a good four out of five times. Even if the character only takes a round or two to get the net off them, they can easily take 25% to 50% of their hps in damage. More then enough to scare the players into running.
That would make most players want revenge rather than making them want to flee. Now a cave troll that Pounces and rips the caster to pieces in one round because it lands all it's attacks and gets the Rend in, that's a different story.

Simply doing damage isn't going to make players want their characters to flee. Putting them in a position where they either panic and follow an NPC they respect, or where they realise before the fight that they're going to die screaming are usually what it takes.

The problem is, recent editions of D&D teach that there should be four balanced encounters per game day. To which I say HA! There should be as many encounters as the situation demands, and they should be as balanced as the situation demands.

Yukitsu
2011-04-04, 01:17 PM
Any time you make an encounter, and say "I want my players to do X" you're doing things wrong. Say instead "Here's an encounter, I wonder what my players do." Nothing is more irritating as a player, than a DM who wants you on puppet strings.

Choco
2011-04-04, 02:20 PM
One thing you have to remember: The enemy has to be strong enough to easily beat the PC's, yet it also needs to be something they actually can run away from. I've had a DM throw things at us that we were supposed to run from, then he gets all annoyed when we don't and asks why. Of course the answer was because we couldn't: Either the enemy was WAY faster than us, and/or it was powerful enough to kill us before we got to cover, and/or we literally had no escape path that we could think of, etc. So we decided our best shot was to fight it.

Jothki
2011-04-04, 02:33 PM
More seriously, I'd suggest starting with a threat that isn't actually enough to kill them, but increase that threat in a predictable manner and make sure the players know that the threat will continue to increase until they leave the area. The collapsing environment was a good suggestion, but you could also go with an alarm sounding and increasing numbers of weak guards rushing in each round. The players will be able to handle the first few waves easily, but they'll eventually become overwhelmed. If the guards are balanced so that they are somewhat difficult to kill but do very little damage, the battle will be obviously lost long before the players are actually threatened.

Frozen_Feet
2011-04-04, 02:38 PM
I doubt players will learn any lesson this way.
My players, one the other hand, learned the lesson exactly this way. It's about methods of teaching - just telling is less efficient than showing and telling. To someone who's new to a game, just telling them how things work won't necessarily be all that helpful to them, especially in a highly abstract hobby as RPGs. For example, a fresh player rarely has any idea how much damage a dragon can do, so they don't know when they should back off based on their own HP.

They'll have a much better picture of it if they fought and maybe lost a character to a dragon before.

The DM, for the most part, knows what's going on. The players, well, no. I, as a player, really don't like to guess what's in the DM's mind, and what I have to do to please him\her.
I sit on a table to roleplay, not play "Guess what the DM wants you to do".
It isn't about what the GM wants anyone to do. It's about what your own character would realistically do. For example, in real life, you would not pick a fight with someone twice your size without a good reason. Getting players to play something else than violent hobos requires teaching them to apply common sense within the context of the gameworld.

As a DM, I don't put my players on a constant guess: they know all too well that I'll throw at them nasty surprises, but that their characters could handle them (of course, except they try actively to go suicidal). But they know that I'll never scale an encounter just because their characters are injured and low on resources.

So when they see that they start to be low on resources they play cautious (well, now they play cautious all the time). But they learned that in the simplest way: I just told them how I dm.

You see, it's not always that simple. This loops back to the first part - some people can't link what you've said to them to what actually happens in the game before they've played. "Your characters can really die" does not hit home until someone does, in fact, die.

Just_Ice
2011-04-04, 02:51 PM
See, a lot (but not all) of these suggestions are weak because they focus on something that the players can really defeat, namely enemies.

There's only one consistent way to get people to run, and that's to destroy the terrain around them. They can stay if they really want, but it's really hard to recommend it when the jagged cliff drop is their prize for staying their ground. It also makes for an interesting escape. Twisted nethers and sawblades and whatnot are alternative " probably shouldn't fall this way"s, but use them at your own risk.

Alternatively, room fills with lava. Some players may find ways to swim in the stuff, but even in 3.5 that's generally 20d6 freaking damage. You don't really fight lava.

You can say what you want about wizards fixing these things, but chances are they can't below level 10 too easily, anti-magic fields are your friend, and also they probably haven't prepared the necessary spells anyhow.

Engine
2011-04-04, 02:53 PM
It isn't about what the GM wants anyone to do. It's about what your own character would realistically do. For example, in real life, you would not pick a fight with someone twice your size without a good reason. Getting players to play something else than violent hobos requires teaching them to apply common sense within the context of the gameworld.

I really don't see the point: in real life I'm not a Wizard. Within the context of the gameworld, I am. (Or a Solo. Or a Vampire. Or a Werewolf. And so on)
And, by the way: none of my players play a violent hobo. It's not they're always smart, sometimes they pull out really stupid things. But I'm not a teacher, and I doubt I have any right to teach them anything. I'm there to play, to have fun: and I say them how I want to play. Simple as that.


You see, it's not always that simple. This loops back to the first part - some people can't link what you've said to them to what actually happens in the game before they've played. "Your characters can really die" does not hit home until someone does, in fact, die.

Or, maybe, just say that isn't enough. I apply the "Now, explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old" method. People know how the game will be: no whining, no frustration from different expectations, no new characters to introduce every even-numbered session and so on. They know I'm fair.

As a player, I greatly prefer a DM who explain to me how he games instead of be on a constant guess.

Sillycomic
2011-04-04, 02:54 PM
I would say part of this would be choice monsters.

Will O'Wisp.

It's a CR 6 monster, so it's about the right challenge for your characters.

But it has an awesome AC Of 29. (plus dodge!)

It has a touch attack of +16 but only does 2d8 damage. (average 9 points per round, even the wizard can be hit with it a couple of times)

It's immune to most spells and can turn invisible at will.

The best part? Will O wisp's don't like confrontation. They have no reason to chase after the adventurers if they start running.

This monster is a tank. It doesn't deal massive damage, it just sits there and takes whatever the adventurers can throw at it.



Centipede Swarms.

They're immune to weapon damage. Unless your level 4 players have acid or fire weapons, they'll just be swinging around very useless fly swatters.

There are some spells which will help, but odds are your casters won't have them prepared (or won't have enough prepared since you can throw 3 or 4 of these things at the party)

As a swarm they automaticall hit (cause they only hit something if they're in the same square as it) only deal 2d6 points of damage... and have poison.



Both of these creatures have a lot going for them. They can take, or are immune, to most of what the party can throw at them in a given round. They don't deal a lot of damage each round so wiping the party shouldn't be a concern, and after a few rounds of being frustrated by the situation I believe your players will finally decide some strategy is in order.

Unless your group of players is just super awesome at preparing spells, items and in-game strategy.

Frozen_Feet
2011-04-04, 04:17 PM
I really don't see the point: in real life I'm not a Wizard. Within the context of the gameworld, I am. (Or a Solo. Or a Vampire. Or a Werewolf. And so on)
You're focusing too much on the things that deviate from reality. Instead, think of all the things that overlap. For example, nearly all RPGs have humans. It shouldn't be very hard to grasp that if you hit a human, you risk hurting them. It should be likewise easy to grasp that other humans might not appreciate you hurting their friend.

It isn't a major leap to consider that same things might apply when dealing with a non-human yet likewise intelligent entity.

Many lessons that the players have learned in their lives can be applied to their characters and the world they live in. However, many players don't do that if they don't perceive the gameworld as a dynamic system. This makes them more prone to play their characters in wildly unrealistic manner, which does harm many possible games.

It can also prevent the players from having fun, if the premises of the game run counter to such behaviour.

And, by the way: none of my players play a violent hobo. It's not they're always smart, sometimes they pull out really stupid things. But I'm not a teacher, and I doubt I have any right to teach them anything. I'm there to play, to have fun: and I say them how I want to play. Simple as that.
Okay, so your players can apply a degree of common sense to their characters. Good for them, and good for you. It doesn't invalidate what I've said.

Saying how you want to play is teaching them - namely, about the kind of game you're playing. If it happens you know the rules and they do not, you probably have to teach them about how some rules work as well. Quite often, for something to be fun, you must teach how it works. That's exactly what you're doing.


Or, maybe, just say that isn't enough. I apply the "Now, explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old" method. People know how the game will be: no whining, no frustration from different expectations, no new characters to introduce every even-numbered session and so on. They know I'm fair.

As a player, I greatly prefer a DM who explain to me how he games instead of be on a constant guess.
Constant guessing doesn't enter to it. I told my players how the game works and what it expects from them at session two. At session 15, they're still learning. Some people are just that thick.

More to the point, saying "my game will be like this" only has substance if the game really is like that. Sometimes, enforcing that leads to a situation which isn't much fun to the players - this is what inspired my original comment: "If a system is highly focused on lethal situations, this unfortunately often leads to PCs being torched time after time. This might not be very fun, but if the goal is to keep a serious game using such systems, learning the lesson is fundamental to get it to work."

If the premise of a game is lethal combat, and the players make their characters act in a tactically ill-adviced manner, they often get the sucky end of the "lethal" part. Again, this might not be very fun - but it enforces the premise of the game and teaches the players to avoid similarly bad options in the future. Failure makes people think. If the rules are consistent enough, they will learn from their mistakes and the game will be better for it.

navar100
2011-04-04, 05:34 PM
Ok, here's the thing:

1.The point is strategy - I'm not trying to do this so that the PCs simply start running from encounter, but rather choose to start engaging in smarter ways.

2.I've dropped them into life-threatening situations a few dozen times already. Sometimes its sheer luck, like the time I sent 3 Deinonychus at them when they were level 3.

3.While I'm ok with killing off a player, I'd rather not set out a plan with the mentality: "Ok, this will kill at least one of them".

The problem might be a combination metagame/in character. The players might fear the consequences of failing the combat - the bad guy gets away with it. Consequences will happen, but the players need to understand all is not lost about the plot point by retreating. The BBEG combat, sure, that's all in, win or bad guy wins. For all other combats, even with the BBEG's Lieutenant, the players need to know they can make a comeback if they lose. Many heroes in fiction have suffered setbacks before ultimately defeating the villain. Players need to understand losing the combat is not losing the game. For a metagame perspective, they're still getting XP. Not saying that's the players' motivation, but it is nice and relevant lollipop.

kyoryu
2011-04-04, 05:41 PM
I'm going to have to deal with this situation soon. Me and another guy are running a game world together, and he tends to run far more linear games than I like, with far more railroading and "sequence of level-appropriate encounters" stuff.

I plan on breaking the players out of this mold with a scenario where they can't "win" by beating the enemies at all. All they can hope to do is slow them down long enough for the cavalry to ride in.

And before I drop them in this, I'm going to have a very meta discussion about what the scenario involves, what the win conditions are, what the "loss" conditions are, and that the game will go on either way.

Players will only want to run if they believe it's an option, and if they believe that it is their best option. If you keep giving them encounters that they can defeat, they won't want to run.

Another way to do it might be to have them need to conserve resources for some reason. While they might be able to beat the fight, they may not want to expend the resources necessary. Time constraints probably work well for this.

Another thing they need to understand is that running *won't* end the game, that there are paths other than the one they've chosen.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-04, 05:50 PM
Make sure they know that not all encounters are level appropriate combat challanges and if they stay and fight something wearing a sign saying "run or die" they will die if they fight.
This.

The reason your Players don't run from Encounters is because they don't know they're supposed to. They assume (correctly, for base WotC D&D) that Encounters are designed to be fought; until you tell them otherwise, this is how they'll act. So, in short:

Always Make Sure You and Your Players Are Playing The Same Game

Insta-Death Encounters or other forms of Rocks Fall Everyone Dies (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RocksFallEveryoneDies) solutions are just going to tick off your Players. If you want your Players to "go about Encounters more intelligently" tell them as much. Explain in detail that not everyone they meet is going to be killable; some need to be worked around or avoided. Then when they die to the next Encounter they were supposed to run from you can say "I told you so."

Unsolicited Advice
Don't design adventures where there is only one way to resolve Encounters - particularly when that way is not obvious.

If Encounters need to be killed, that's usually acceptable - they're playing D&D and if they didn't realize that meant they were going into dungeons and slaying dragons there's nothing you can do about it. However, most parties will get bored eventually when every "challenge" they encounter is just another thing to kill - which is why you make it so some monsters can be bypassed in other ways.

However, when Encounters cannot be killed and must be bypassed by a specific second route, you start running into trouble. In addition to the issues mentioned in the main post you run into the problem of what to do if the Players do fight. Either you kill the party (TPK - and usually the end of a campaign), or you have to invent some excuse for them to survive. Do it once and your Players might not care; do it a lot and they'll start complaining. It is much better to simply design the Encounter so that there is more than one possible solution - and that failing the Encounter doesn't end the campaign.

My advice here? Make your former "insta-kill" encounters into "very difficult" encounters. Calibrate them so that a PC death is nearly assured and that a streak of bad luck can result in a TPK. These sorts of Encounters give you (the DM) what you want - situations where murder isn't the best option - and gives your Players a fair shake if they decide to fight it out. For good measure, include an "out" for your Players ahead of time - the monsters are simply territorial and won't pursue, or they'd be happy to renegotiate when the party seems weak. Plan this ahead of time and it will be easier for your Players to accept the "out" you give them and maybe learn the errors of their ways :smallamused:

dsmiles
2011-04-04, 05:54 PM
Honestly, I can't believe that this hasn't been brought up yet...

...two words:

Tucker's Kobolds

Low level critters, that should induce nothing but contempt, instead induce nothing but death (if the party chooses not to run).

Ezeze
2011-04-04, 06:58 PM
Ok, I've been running my campaign for upwards of 4 months now, and for all the various combat situations I've thrown at the party, I've yet to make them run. From anything. Hell, I've only 'killed' them once(non-lethal that time), even, though I've come within a hair's breath quite a few times.



Ok, here's the thing:

1.The point is strategy - I'm not trying to do this so that the PCs simply start running from encounter, but rather choose to start engaging in smarter ways.

2.I've dropped them into life-threatening situations a few dozen times already. Sometimes its sheer luck, like the time I sent 3 Deinonychus at them when they were level 3.

3.While I'm ok with killing off a player, I'd rather not set out a plan with the mentality: "Ok, this will kill at least one of them".

Maybe you need to redefine "smart" strategy. Their strategy is clearly working. It's not wrong just because it's not what you think a strategy should be.

erikun
2011-04-04, 07:09 PM
I plan on breaking the players out of this mold with a scenario where they can't "win" by beating the enemies at all. All they can hope to do is slow them down long enough for the cavalry to ride in.
Make sure you specify that they're just there to hold things off. Most players I've gamed with haven't liked the "random encounter" that suddenly ends with the calvary showing up. It makes them feel like you just wasted 30 minutes of their time to show off how cool your NPCs are. They're typically fine if they know beforehand that they are just holding off a force and not trying to slaughter all of it, though.

I would recommend some other suggestions in the thread, such as granting XP for goals rather than kills (makes going out of your way to kill encounters pointless) and having the option to withdraw or bypass encounters (makes it possible to do so). There's nothing saying you can't throw impossible encounters against the party, but there should be some reasonable way to know about it beforehand - not everyone has memorized the MM to know what is level-appropriate.

NMBLNG
2011-04-04, 07:50 PM
I think another good way is to help the players realize that alternatives to fighting are generally better. Situations where killing the bad guys is somewhat irrelevant to the main goal.

The first step is to craft a goal for the players that does not explicitly involve killing stuff. Steal/Rescue/Locate the Princess/Triforce/Diplomat. Protect the NPCs from evil monsters. Get to Location X before Team Y gets there. Make it clear that killing the monsters is not part of winning. Failure to rescue the Princess is a FAIL. Successfully finding the Magic Talisman before the Linear Guild does is a WIN. Kinda like capture the flag in FPS games. Having a lot of kills means nothing if the other team gets your flag.

Next, when the players come up with a plan that's not about violence, go with it. It doesn't have to be a good plan. Any plan will do. Give them some positive reinforcement for not resorting to violence first.

Last, don't be afraid to let them fail. And failure shouldn't mean a TPK, or any other kind of combat-related failure. It's a story-related failure. The princess is dead, the spy escaped, or the bad guy now has the Magic Talisman. The players now have to clean up their mess. Now, this doesn't have to break the campaign. In fact it will probably make it more interesting.

Sillycomic
2011-04-04, 08:22 PM
If you just want your players to use strategy and not just run away, you might also want to just give your players a couple of days to set something up.

As a gm, one of my first campaigns, I told my players that an army of goblins was coming to completely destroy this town. They had 2 days before this army arrives.

The town was filled with little more than farmers.

So, my group began planning. They made a list of all the items they had, bought out the general store (everything was free since they were using it to stop an army) began training farmers to help fight, put up a fence around some areas.

It was amazing to watch my players do this.

It was like watching generals in a war room. They were arguing over weapons and armor, which troops should be where, what was the age cut off for children wanting to help fight? Where would they keep the wounded?

For a good half hour as a GM, I just sat back and watched. I answered questions here and there, but that was it. My group really didn't need my help, they were busy playing the game all by themselves.

It was very fun session for everyone. I try to use something along this line in almost all of my games, cause it's so much fun.

NMBLNG
2011-04-04, 08:50 PM
+1 for giving the players prep time. That and good recon.

You can't expect the players to plan if you don't let them know what's coming or have time to make plans in the first place.

Elric VIII
2011-04-04, 10:19 PM
A good way to force strategy is to make an encounter that the players cannot defeat easily with their day-to-day preparations, and eats their resources, but doesn't necessarily kill them.

In my first campaign I was having a lot of trouble dealing with a Fighter tripper, a Paladin charger, and a Spring Attack Monk (I was very new at this point). I kept having them fight enemies on open areas that only played to the PCs advantage. I ended up placing them in a forest scene with a couple of 8th level scouts (the party was also level 8) and playing the hit-and-run game. They could not keep up with the scouts, who were unhindered by the undergrowth and able to hide in the terrain. The party had to disengage and plan in order to bypass that specific area. Sadly, we stopped the campaign after that session, so I don't know what they would have done.

Lord.Sorasen
2011-04-04, 11:09 PM
My group never runs. I placed them against monsters fabled for being terrifying. I set them against two treants when their average party level was 4. I set them against 4 CR 10 creatures. They're terrified, generally. But here's the bit people don't expect: They like that aspect. They're like stuntmen: They're having fun because the risk is so high. And they won't run away ever because for them, running away isn't fun. Once I realized that, I sort of stopped trying. If they enjoy a high stakes game then that is what will be given, and it will be awesome for everyone. Note that while they like exp and treasure, they like experience more because it is sort of like a medal, telling them "bam, this was so insane, you deserve this huge reward for pulling through."

That said, the party did run away once. That monster was an Allip. The scary part wasn't the risk of death. It was that ability drain. Even the most ridiculous party won't leap into something that they know they can't eventually heal from. I wouldn't pull this on my party again because at this point I have no reason to make them run: But you could try such a thing, certainly.



I want to note that, unless the encounter was very obviously set up to make me run, I wouldn't run in a campaign: it's never been me. Are you sure your characters don't just like not running, as my party and myself? If that's the case, making them run will be very difficult, and succeeded will be less fun than failing.

yilduz
2011-04-04, 11:26 PM
One thing to remember is also make running tactically possible.
One of my former GM's tried his hardest to get us to run, by having us face encounters much too difficult for us to win, but he also never gave us an out.
We faced a dragon that we couldn't fight, but flew faster than we could run on an open plain.
We faced more horsemen than we could ever handle while we were on foot, on an open plain.
In those situations we never even tried to run, we would just have been chased down.
The GM never even thought of that, his whole purpose for those encounters was just to try to teach us that we should run away.
If you're going to use an overpowering encounter, make it slow, or confined to specific terrain. You could also make it large and have a small cave that the PCs can run into where they can't be followed or something like that.
I've found that when running is an actual option it's much more attractive.
I'd also suggest not having creatures that you want the PCs to run from threaten things that they care deeply about. Your characters aren't likely to run from an encounter if that means that their homes and families are going to be destroyed.
I'd also not be too adamant about your idea of forcing your characters to run, it can get tedious when you're playing and the GM is dead set on you performing one specific action.
If you've been trying to push them into running more often, you might just end up making them obstinate.
If that's been a theme of your game lately, I'd suggest giving the players a bit of a breather, and then showing them a difficult encounter, with an obvious way out of it. They'll tend to get the message.
You could also work on getting them in the habit of bypassing encounters. Come up with a time sensitive objective, with ways around most of the encounters, and once they get used to occasionally not having to face down an encounter it will seem a more normal reaction.



That seems more advice to kill off your PCs not to get them to run away. I wouldn't run from most of those situations, as they don't provide an opportunity.

I was going to make this point, but someone beat me to it. I figured I can emphasize it, though. I've thought a lot about this, as a PC and as a GM. Running away, in most situations, makes no sense as far as game mechanics are concerned. Monsters (or enemies in general) are pretty much always AT LEAST as fast as the PCs. Simply hauling ass won't actually work, especially if you have a halfling, gnome, or some other race with a land speed of 20 in the party. All they're going to do by running is give the enemy an opportunity to cut them down while they're defenseless.

I think if you're going to do something like this, put them in a ranged situation. Give them cover and concealment and have the situation make sense for them to use it (enemy army shooting tons of arrows at them, etc) and keep them at a decent distance away from their attackers. Maybe have an NPC ripped apart in a single round by a volley of arrows to show the effect of standing and fighting. Give them and out and see if they take it.

ooknabah
2011-04-04, 11:57 PM
A few good strategies to make this happen:

1. Put them up against creatures that they can't really hurt- Swarms, Incorporeal Undead, Golems- Even enemies with very particular DR. Just find some creatures that PCs will find themselves completely at odds against. Not all parties will be unable to deal with all enemies, but you are the DM so you should be able to suss out where they are weak. These creatures don't have to KILL the PCs, only be able to do a lot of damage while taking very little themselves. PCs will realize in a couple of rounds that what they are doing is not working and maybe they need to regroup.

2. For a longer set up, create an at-level party that the PCs have a relationship with. Make sure the PCs are aware that this party is the same strength as them, or at least very close. A group they can respect power wise. Later on, the PCs come across a monster that is killing THEM. Not only that, THEY are running. If the PCs don't get the hint...

3. Design a specific chase encounter. One where "winning" is just getting away. Give them obstacles that they have to get past, with a constantly bearing down threat behind them. Anti-Magic zones can make this setup lethal at any level.

Don Blake
2011-04-05, 12:44 AM
I've just started GMing with a bunch of mostly new players, but I was able to get them to decide that fighting was definitely not the best option. Being at a low level helped. They were hired to rescue some surveyors who had been kidnapped by natives. They trekked out to the native camp, killing some zombies and native sentries on the way. Since none of the sentries had escaped to give warning, they figured the Rogue should sneak into the camp and scout the situation out. Of course, this plan suffered from the camp only having one way in- it was surrounded by a carefully cultivated wall of brambles, with a narrow path leading through.

About halfway down the path, the rogue stepped into a trap, and his scream alerted the natives. The players charged the rest of the way through the path, to find half a dozen natives waiting with crossbows. Cue some fast-talking from the party rogue, the return of the surveyors (for plot-relevant reasons) and a nice juicy plot-hook.

Granted, all of this was made easier by them being Level One.

Ravens_cry
2011-04-05, 03:26 AM
The trouble with depending on your PC's running is it is a single point of plot failure with several failure modes and only one, for the GM, desirable result. What if they don't run? What if they TPK? All those carefully crafted charachter motivations and unique plot hooks, poof, all gone. It's hard to feel like the Chosen One when your previous charachter was just as Chosen as you. Or do you bring out a deus ex machina to save them? That also hurts immersion, makes the players feel pointless and begs the question of why if Deus can take the time to save them, why are aren't They saving the world?
If they try fighting and try to run if the fight goes against them, what do you do then? Do you let them go? It doesn't take a genius to wonder "Why aren't they chasing us?" And what if they succeed, actually win through the deluge of foes? What do you do then?
There is an axiom in mystery games that there should be at least three clues in each scene to pick up on to move the plot forward and I believe the same general rule is a wise one for RPG scenarios. Let's say there is some mean looking guarding a gate. Do you attack them directly, bluff or negotiate your way through or sneak by?
There are other options, and magic just adds to them, but I hope you understand my basic point n this rather basic scenario.
Getting players to do what you want is like herding cats and as about as productive. Instead focus on goals. Instead of basing the plot on them running, base it on them surviving. How they do it is up to them. That adds at least another fail-safe in this situation and potentially adds more while feeling less forced.
I admit a lot of this ivory tower stuff, real hypothetical, I don't have much experience Game Mastering, but I hope they are helpful.

Incorrect
2011-04-05, 04:35 AM
Are you using a battle map, and minis?
If you are, you are giving the players some hints. Namely how many opponents and their tactical position (at this point the wizard is already planning his fireball, and the fighter his charge path)
You are also telling them that you didnt plan for them to move off the battle map. As a player, I have a really hard time placing my mini outside of the map.

Deny them all this information.
It comes back to the advice about description.

It works even better if they are used to using the map, and suddently are facing something that you cant draw, but now they have room enough to retreat.

Heliomance
2011-04-05, 06:50 AM
On a related note, is it okay to put the players in a situation without having a way out in mind? It's a truism that for every n scenarios the DM thinks of, the players think of n+1. So is it okay to not have a clue how the players will survive, and trust to their ingenuity to get them out of it?

some guy
2011-04-05, 11:05 AM
On a related note, is it okay to put the players in a situation without having a way out in mind? It's a truism that for every n scenarios the DM thinks of, the players think of n+1. So is it okay to not have a clue how the players will survive, and trust to their ingenuity to get them out of it?

I have had plenty of times that I had given no thought about how the pc's would get out of something but trusted they would and, indeed, they did. But players will need to have something to work with something here.

Placing the PC's on a barren plain with something that is faster and stronger than them and with multiple modes of movement is a bad idea.
Place the PC's in a forest with the same creature and they will probably think of something that could work.

Haarkla
2011-04-05, 12:19 PM
2 - Players do not fear death? Target something they DO fear. Their equipment.
Or their levels, or their stats.

kyoryu
2011-04-05, 12:45 PM
Make sure you specify that they're just there to hold things off. Most players I've gamed with haven't liked the "random encounter" that suddenly ends with the calvary showing up. It makes them feel like you just wasted 30 minutes of their time to show off how cool your NPCs are. They're typically fine if they know beforehand that they are just holding off a force and not trying to slaughter all of it, though.


Absolutely. The plan is to tell them both as DM, and have an NPC tell them this.

They're still cool. They still held off the nasties long enough for the cavalry to show up - and if they didn't, the nasties would wreak havoc on the town. If they succeed, they'll get plenty of kudos for accomplishing that, standing firm in the face of a superior force.

Lord.Sorasen
2011-04-05, 06:46 PM
Are you using a battle map, and minis?
If you are, you are giving the players some hints. Namely how many opponents and their tactical position (at this point the wizard is already planning his fireball, and the fighter his charge path)
You are also telling them that you didnt plan for them to move off the battle map. As a player, I have a really hard time placing my mini outside of the map.

Deny them all this information.
It comes back to the advice about description.

It works even better if they are used to using the map, and suddently are facing something that you cant draw, but now they have room enough to retreat.

I've been thinking...

Has anyone ever tried using a second map, with a different scale? Like in many video game RPGs, where you have the main screen and also sort of a map/radar? I feel like that way you could use the map, but still convey to the players that there is significantly more map out there if you need it.

I'm not sure if such a thing would work in practice, though.

Anxe
2011-04-05, 09:02 PM
Descriptions do wonders for this. My players often don't run away either. But I can make them run away by providing a simple description of how amazingly powerful their enemy is. In one instance the bad-guy was just posturing. They started running away immediately. The bad guy got one full attack on them and missed every blow. They decided to stay instead and beat him and all his cronies up. They wanted to run because of the description, not the actual power of the badguy.

Come to think of it... They were almost out of spells for that encounter as well. Yeah! Drain their spells and then throw a "run away" encounter at them.

Lord Thurlvin
2011-04-06, 02:19 AM
Edit: Whoah. I did not notice this discussion had reached three pages. As such, my comment doesn't really add anything.

Jothki
2011-04-06, 12:34 PM
Are you using a battle map, and minis?
If you are, you are giving the players some hints. Namely how many opponents and their tactical position (at this point the wizard is already planning his fireball, and the fighter his charge path)
You are also telling them that you didnt plan for them to move off the battle map. As a player, I have a really hard time placing my mini outside of the map.

Deny them all this information.
It comes back to the advice about description.

It works even better if they are used to using the map, and suddently are facing something that you cant draw, but now they have room enough to retreat.

I wonder if it'd work to do the opposite, give them a huge corridor of space behind them.

Provengreil
2011-04-12, 10:05 PM
Descriptions do wonders for this. My players often don't run away either. But I can make them run away by providing a simple description of how amazingly powerful their enemy is. In one instance the bad-guy was just posturing. They started running away immediately. The bad guy got one full attack on them and missed every blow. They decided to stay instead and beat him and all his cronies up. They wanted to run because of the description, not the actual power of the badguy.

Come to think of it... They were almost out of spells for that encounter as well. Yeah! Drain their spells and then throw a "run away" encounter at them.

I once got them to run like hell from a bartender(actual levels: commoner 1) by having him talk passive-aggressively, putting them into a social situation that was decidedly uncomfortable without open hostility, and with him holding(but not aiming) a heavy repeater crossbow. so far they have more afraid of this bartender than any NPC i've ever thrown, though they keep dying before reaching any bbegs so make of that what you will.

TheAmishPirate
2011-04-12, 10:48 PM
Try simply have the enemy fight sub-optimally. Give him the chance to full attack? He only attacks once. Sorcerer built for crazy blasting? He teleports between hiding spots plinking them down with low-level rays.

Basically, show them, firsthand, that they are out of their league, and he's not even going full-out. If that doesn't work, try giving him a reason to speed up the fight after a few rounds.

Tytalus
2011-04-13, 07:30 AM
I've found that when running is an actual option it's much more attractive.


:smallsmile: Wise words.

docHigh
2011-04-13, 08:48 AM
First of all - if players won't run away, kill them. Leave the battle field as it is when all characters are dying. Let the fortune resolve it. We were stupid enough to fight a large pack of wolves while climbing a tree was an option. So the DM ripped us apart. The sole survivor managed to stabilize on -7 and regain conciousness and got to the next village on the following day.

Secondly - give penalties for new characters. -10% to experience & wealth. Or penalties to some stats. Whatever works. Make the players understand, that every death has its cost.

Thirdly - depending on the setting, not all worlds or regions are full of elves. If the party has killed off 10 elves in a region where they are rare, then next allowed races are humans. Or half-orcs in mountains for that matter. See how they like to create a wizard out of an orc with penalties to wealth&exp.

In short - make players understand, that they are not there to get the world. The world is out there to get them. And if they are caught, then make them pay. :smallcool:

Provengreil
2011-04-13, 10:29 PM
First of all - if players won't run away, kill them. Leave the battle field as it is when all characters are dying. Let the fortune resolve it. We were stupid enough to fight a large pack of wolves while climbing a tree was an option. So the DM ripped us apart. The sole survivor managed to stabilize on -7 and regain conciousness and got to the next village on the following day.

Secondly - give penalties for new characters. -10% to experience & wealth. Or penalties to some stats. Whatever works. Make the players understand, that every death has its cost.

Thirdly - depending on the setting, not all worlds or regions are full of elves. If the party has killed off 10 elves in a region where they are rare, then next allowed races are humans. Or half-orcs in mountains for that matter. See how they like to create a wizard out of an orc with penalties to wealth&exp.

In short - make players understand, that they are not there to get the world. The world is out there to get them. And if they are caught, then make them pay. :smallcool:

Jib. Cut. Like.

OTOH, what happens when a player is unhappy about being an orc and won't shut up about it, and is ruining the game for other people around?

Rixx
2011-04-13, 11:50 PM
Negative reinforcement sucks. It's a game.

Your players are there to have fun, not to sit down with someone who will tell and show them constantly that they're nothing special and have them eaten by fiendish badgers if they don't wet their pants and run whenever they see something scary.

kyoryu
2011-04-14, 12:58 PM
Negative reinforcement sucks. It's a game.

Your players are there to have fun, not to sit down with someone who will tell and show them constantly that they're nothing special and have them eaten by fiendish badgers if they don't wet their pants and run whenever they see something scary.

Apart from the extreme strawman nature of your point, I will simply say that I disagree, and do not care to take part in games where failure is not a possibility. In fact, I do not consider them games, but something else.

Lemunde
2011-04-14, 01:11 PM
Think back to a previous encounter that was particularly difficult. Then use elements from that encounter to build a new encounter. For instance if they just barely managed to fight off a young dragon earlier create an encounter with two large dragons. That way they can better judge their chances of success, see that they're small, then turn tail and run.

Yukitsu
2011-04-14, 02:55 PM
Apart from the extreme strawman nature of your point, I will simply say that I disagree, and do not care to take part in games where failure is not a possibility. In fact, I do not consider them games, but something else.

Given how many people here say "if the players don't do exactly as you want them to in that situation, kill them" I'd argue this isn't really a straw man.