PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Do your DMs have raiders and larger predators behave intelligently?



sengmeng
2014-04-02, 11:29 AM
I've noticed that DMs rarely, if ever, do this. What I mean is, outside of video and tabletop games, if two factions square off and one loses 100% of its personnel and the other loses 85%, the second would be known as the "survivors" not the "victors." If a gang of ruffians attacks a stagecoach and kills everyone on board and loses two of their own number, that is a NOT a successful robbery. Likewise, if a cat jumped on a mouse and received several serious but non-fatal stabs for his trouble but still got to eat the mouse, that is not a successful hunt. You expect a battle or a grudge match to have serious consequences, but a hunt or a raid isn't a success unless it's a slam-dunk, overwhelming victory. If you and your buddies went out deer hunting and got eight deer and lost one of your friends to the deer, that would be the worst hunt you'd ever been on. Does anyone have monsters and bandits do proper risk-assessment? There are videos of cats chasing bears. Most creatures don't want to fight to the death. A realistic fight with a large predator of animal intelligence would probably have it run away if it lost 10% of its hitpoints, because equated to real life, that meal is not worth it. It might make the game more boring (standard seems to be, if you encounter it, it fights to the death and you loot the corpse) but I think it could enhance gameplay for NPC's and monsters to have a little self-preservation instinct (villains and nemeses are not included, however. Insanity and hate are fine explanations for their actions). It could even function as a plot hook if you meet several groups of goblins who flee after one or two casualties, and then later meet some who fight like fanatics. What do people think?

The_Werebear
2014-04-02, 11:38 AM
Gameplay concerns come up and overwrite at least part of that. It's not fun to have everything bail out as soon as it gets scratched.

There are two quick fixes I can think of to get around it - First, having a HP/wound differential helps, as it gives a clear "marker" point to run away at while still allowing the fight to go on a reasonable time. The second is that Humanoid enemies like bandits are usually on a subsistence level, and really need to kill you if they're going to eat. A few casualties for a particularly nice haul may end up being worth a desperate group's effort.

Another consideration is things like Undead, which have no self preservation, or things that regenerate, and thus have a different paradigm. A hydra or troll wouldn't care nearly as much if it killed a meal with only one HP left, as it would be in fighting shape again in hours rather than days.

Calen
2014-04-02, 11:52 AM
I have frequently given my players enemies that run away. But usually I put the NPC's into the situation that they won't want to run away.
Bandits trying to rob the players? Yeah they might run away real fast.
Bandits having the party come up to their campfire (with hidden treasure nearby) less likely to run away.
I have also had predators that have fled when half their forces were killed. So like Werebear said gameplay does trump some of your points. But I don't think it needs to trump them completely.

sengmeng
2014-04-02, 12:02 PM
Gameplay concerns come up and overwrite at least part of that. It's not fun to have everything bail out as soon as it gets scratched.

There are two quick fixes I can think of to get around it - First, having a HP/wound differential helps, as it gives a clear "marker" point to run away at while still allowing the fight to go on a reasonable time. The second is that Humanoid enemies like bandits are usually on a subsistence level, and really need to kill you if they're going to eat. A few casualties for a particularly nice haul may end up being worth a desperate group's effort.

Another consideration is things like Undead, which have no self preservation, or things that regenerate, and thus have a different paradigm. A hydra or troll wouldn't care nearly as much if it killed a meal with only one HP left, as it would be in fighting shape again in hours rather than days.

You're kind of proving MY point by bringing up undead and trolls. There are plenty of things that WILL figh to death, so why should things motivated by hunger or greed behave exactly the same way? Mindless zombies and cowardly goblins frequently end up doing the same things. Too frequently, says me.

Knaight
2014-04-02, 12:32 PM
I generally have them run for it, but there are cases where that doesn't make sense. Lets take your carriage example again - a gang of robbers attack a carriage, and out comes several heavily armed people with ranged weapons who jump on the horses, cut them from the carriage, and start cutting the bandits down. Suddenly, running isn't such a great option - the people on horse are faster, and all that does is get them to pull their bows out, and shoot you in the back. Surrendering might be, but it's very possible that the confusion would throw that off entirely. As such, said robbers just got themselves into a fight to the death, and will treat it that way, though that is very much not what they were intending to do.

ElenionAncalima
2014-04-02, 12:47 PM
Thats something I have been trying to work on including in my current game. Its not something you want to overuse. Just like with NPCs fighting to the death, if everyone runs away it can get really stale...and players will get really frustrated if everyone keeps getting away from them. However, when done in moderation, I think it can add a lot more flavor to the game

For instance in my current game, I had a member of a prison riot realize he was surrounded and surrender to the party, while they were still fighting other prisoners. When they continued fighting the remaining prisoners, turning their backs to him, the guy booked it to the cafeteria (hoping to alert the boss, who the party had already killed). Upon finding everyone in the main room knocked out or dead he panicked and tried to get away from the rogue, who had pursued him, by hiding under the long cafeteria tables. The rogue tried to goad him out with lies that he wouldn't hurt him, while the prisoner attempted a stream of lies about being an innocent man...neither one bought the others lies. Finally, the rogue got sick of giving warnings so did a ninja style roll through the stools and under the table (nat 20 acrobatics) and knocked the guy out in one shot.

If I had just had the guy fight to the death, like expected, he would have been another forgettable CR 1/2...instead he became more memorable than all the bosses and sub bosses that they fought that session, combined.

sengmeng
2014-04-02, 01:27 PM
Thats something I have been trying to work on including in my current game. Its not something you want to overuse. Just like with NPCs fighting to the death, if everyone runs away it can get really stale...and players will get really frustrated if everyone keeps getting away from them. However, when done in moderation, I think it can add a lot more flavor to the game

For instance in my current game, I had a member of a prison riot realized he was surrounded and surrender to the party, while they were still fighting other prisoners. When they continued fighting the remaining prisoners, turning their backs to him, the guy booked it to the cafeteria (hoping to alert the boss, who the party had already killed). Upon finding everyone in the main room knocked out or dead he panicked and tried to get away from the rogue who had pursued him by hiding under the long cafeteria tables. The rogue tried to goad him out with lies that he wouldn't hurt him, while the prisoner attempted a stream of lies about being an innocent man...neither one bought the others lies. Finally, the rogue got sick of giving warnings so did a ninja style roll through the stools and under the table (nat 20 acrobatics) and knocked the guy out in one shot.

If I had just had the guy fight to the death, like expected, he would have been another forgettable CR 1/2...instead he became more memorable than all the bosses and sub bosses that they fought that session, combined.

That's exactly what I'm talkin about. Using it to enhance realism and vary gameplay. It makes enemies less cookie-cutter and combat less repetetive.

Slipperychicken
2014-04-02, 01:31 PM
Gameplay concerns come up and overwrite at least part of that. It's not fun to have everything bail out as soon as it gets scratched.

To be fair, realistic combat is pretty much the opposite of fun.

Cikomyr
2014-04-02, 01:34 PM
I believe this video, by Spoony, is a very good point into this discussion

http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-circle-strafe/

Yes. Monsters will always leverage their strenghts and minimize their weaknesses. Trolls WILL attack you while it's raining, and they will stay put during the dry season. Dragons will flyover and just breath to your face until you die. Kobolds will ambush, use crossbows, traps.

Intelligence of 10 is actually pretty fearsome when it comes to just understanding the very basics of tactics. There's a reason the human race is on the top of every food chains.

Fabletop
2014-04-02, 03:06 PM
It seems you're upset or at least concerned about how NPCs & monsters act.

As if they should normally bow to a superior force and/or consider the logical aspects of an encounter.

This begs to question the relative intelligence and/or determination of your foe. Ever try & pick-up an animal that doesn't want to be touched? Ever corner a scared animal? Ever find yourself standing between what an animal or determined human animal wants?

It gets nasty real quick.

I've been D/GMing for over two decades and have seen plenty of PCs fall in combat. Many of those failures were attributed to the players inability to think tactically.

See also: FLEE. Every encounter isn't designed so the PCs win. Some, surprisingly so for the less enlightened group, are true challenges that are better avoided. There are several OD&D & AD&D modules that demonstrate this.

What's wrong with running away? In "Lord of the Rings", the protags spend most of the story running. In "Star Wars", Luke & co. find themselves running away. "Raiders of the Lost Arc", Terry Brooks' "Shannara" series. Hell, even Conan knew to run away at times. Why is it players think every encounter is a cakewalk? It has never been so & (rightly) shall never be. If a D/GM is providing that kind of cakewalk experience, I question how they create drama in their games. Drama arises from conflict/challenge that meets or exceeds the PCs capabilities.

One of my favs: "Die Hard". MacLain doesn't win with an all-out confrontation, rather, he uses hit & run tactics to overcome a superior force. Thus, he saves the day using his head, rather than relying on a frontal attack tactic that would get him killed.

RPGs are born from Wargaming & tactics weigh heavily on the group. Instead of criticizing a DM for presenting challenging encounters, look instead at how you handle them.

There are no "Killer DMs", just misguided players who ignore tactical options.

Finally, the above comments are my experiences & your experiences may vary based on situation.

Game On!

Knaight
2014-04-02, 03:42 PM
What's wrong with running away? In "Lord of the Rings", the protags spend most of the story running. In "Star Wars", Luke & co. find themselves running away. "Raiders of the Lost Arc", Terry Brooks' "Shannara" series. Hell, even Conan knew to run away at times. Why is it players think every encounter is a cakewalk? It has never been so & (rightly) shall never be. If a D/GM is providing that kind of cakewalk experience, I question how they create drama in their games. Drama arises from conflict/challenge that meets or exceeds the PCs capabilities.
Nobody here has an issue with running away - though I will note that chase mechanics have an annoying tendency to suck in a lot of games. The opening post outright encourages NPCs to do this, so that they can use better tactics.


One of my favs: "Die Hard". MacLain doesn't win with an all-out confrontation, rather, he uses hit & run tactics to overcome a superior force. Thus, he saves the day using his head, rather than relying on a frontal attack tactic that would get him killed.
Exactly. This is the sort of thing that the opening post suggests that NPCs should be doing. A large predator should probably be doing something like striking the weakest in the group from ambush, then hightailing it with their kill, and when this fails running for it. Hit and run tactics.


RPGs are born from Wargaming & tactics weigh heavily on the group. Instead of criticizing a DM for presenting challenging encounters, look instead at how you handle them.
:smallsigh:
I don't know how you're getting "I dislike tactics" from "My DM is playing the monsters like a bunch of morons". I really don't. The OP is encouraging better tactics. Also, just because RPGs were born from Wargaming doesn't mean they need to stay there. There are plenty of really good RPGs where tactics are a complete irrelevancy, largely because combat probably never happens.


There are no "Killer DMs", just misguided players who ignore tactical options.
This is absurd. I've seen GM's who actively try to kill PCs. "Rocks fall everybody dies" is the classic case of this, as is "Haha, you went slightly off on an obscure piece of etiquette that was mentioned in passing ten sessions ago. The King has you executed". Then there are things like a group of random bandits just so happening to be led by some famous war hero, which somehow never makes it into the information about them. Similarly, said famous war hero just so happens to have a bone to pick with a particular PC, which is played by a player which just so happens to have annoyed the GM OOC somehow. Then there are milder cases, such as where the opposition always seems to have exact knowledge of PC stats, even in scenarios where they really shouldn't. For instance, say there's a very dangerous swordsman who looks like the spoiled son of an aristocrat, who deliberately hides his competence and wears a sword that looks like a decoration piece - this is an actual player character in a recent campaign of mine. If every random street tough just so happens to avoid that character like the plague in melee, while happily getting in fights with the party scholar who happens to be seven feet tall, bearing scars, menacing looking, and not actually any good with weapon, there is a problem. The problem might just be GM's focusing too much on challenge, and the problem might be a killer GM, because it makes far more sense for the deceit to work most of the time*, at least until said spoiled aristocrat has skewered one of the street thugs and demonstrated that he's actually a threat.

*An assassin informed about the act, a perceptive noble who's dealt with the spoiled son enough to know that there's much more to him than that, and other such people could easily come in with advance knowledge, as would just about anyone who actually knew the scholar.

Mastikator
2014-04-02, 04:10 PM
I do this.

A pack of worgs were hunting the party, they sent in their omega-member first, to give the party looksie.
They managed to wound the worg in his hind leg, it immediately retreated into the night, one of the players said "I follow the worg", I asked "You run after the lone worg into the night?" He said "um... actually no.".
I told him he did manage to take a few steps out and in doing so saw a pack of worgs hiding and getting ready to strike, he backed slowly and told the others about this. They all took defensive position and one of them fired an arrow into the pack.
The pack attacked them, but when one of the members of the pack died in the first round they retreated and didn't engage the party again.

A small group of wildlings were exploring ruins and so were this very party, they saw each other, the wildlings took cover and attempted to make a few snipe attacks, but when that failed they fled and the planned an ambush that they executed the day after, which would've been successful if it wasn't for the troll in the party's team that scared them off. Two of them died quickly, the third fled, one of the players (the only one fast enough to keep up) tried to catch the wildling, it took a good 10 minutes of running until he actually reached him, though at this point he quickly noticed in their combat that his chances of actually defeating a wildling was very low (since the wildling was a warrior and he was a burglar), so he ran back, and the wildling did not pursue (because it needed to go home and talk about what has happened).

heavyfuel
2014-04-02, 04:29 PM
Not usually, I don't.

Even if they the enemies have every reason in the world to act smart, players tend to hate this so so much. Most battles enemies charge deal some damage and then die.

However, every now and again I pit them against enemies from their opposed faction and those guys are brutal. Their clerics will counterspell the party's, melee characters are trippers, their wizards will battlefield control so much with just suck spells that the party dreads meeting them because they fight with their brains instead of charging and hoping to kill the party. Note that they are always, on paper, weaker than the party (lower stats and worse equipment) and still manage to give them fuel for nightmares

If every fight is like this, the players will probably lose interest in the game, so you really have to mix it up. Throw some easy encounters here and there, a martial brute every once in a while, maybe some of these smart fighting enemies are caught without their party to support them. The important thing is to keep combats fresh.

CombatOwl
2014-04-02, 04:36 PM
I've noticed that DMs rarely, if ever, do this. What I mean is, outside of video and tabletop games, if two factions square off and one loses 100% of its personnel and the other loses 85%, the second would be known as the "survivors" not the "victors." If a gang of ruffians attacks a stagecoach and kills everyone on board and loses two of their own number, that is a NOT a successful robbery. Likewise, if a cat jumped on a mouse and received several serious but non-fatal stabs for his trouble but still got to eat the mouse, that is not a successful hunt. You expect a battle or a grudge match to have serious consequences, but a hunt or a raid isn't a success unless it's a slam-dunk, overwhelming victory. If you and your buddies went out deer hunting and got eight deer and lost one of your friends to the deer, that would be the worst hunt you'd ever been on. Does anyone have monsters and bandits do proper risk-assessment? There are videos of cats chasing bears. Most creatures don't want to fight to the death. A realistic fight with a large predator of animal intelligence would probably have it run away if it lost 10% of its hitpoints, because equated to real life, that meal is not worth it. It might make the game more boring (standard seems to be, if you encounter it, it fights to the death and you loot the corpse) but I think it could enhance gameplay for NPC's and monsters to have a little self-preservation instinct (villains and nemeses are not included, however. Insanity and hate are fine explanations for their actions). It could even function as a plot hook if you meet several groups of goblins who flee after one or two casualties, and then later meet some who fight like fanatics. What do people think?

Well, I've had both. I've had one DM that planned out complex tactics for bands of orc raiders on wargs. I've also had one where the DM threw "pack crocodiles" at us while we were travelling through a deciduous forest in the mountains, because he misread both the random encounter table and the group size indicator for the monster's entry.

Kiero
2014-04-02, 04:49 PM
In my historical game, the PCs and their warband were attacked by a band of Ligurians. Said Ligurians were paid to do so by a Carthaginian governor who didn't want the PCs to arrive at their destination, since they spurned his offer of alternative employment. The real inducement for them, though, was the horse-herd the PCs have following them around. That's what sealed the deal and their plan involved essentially distracting the PCs with combat while a contingent of their forces made to steal the horses.

It all fell apart when the fighting started, despite outnumbering the PCs 2:1, their poor armour and training counted against them. They got mauled and their chief was captured (and later ransomed back to his people).

sengmeng
2014-04-02, 05:11 PM
Not usually, I don't.

Even if they the enemies have every reason in the world to act smart, players tend to hate this so so much. Most battles enemies charge deal some damage and then die.

However, every now and again I pit them against enemies from their opposed faction and those guys are brutal. Their clerics will counterspell the party's, melee characters are trippers, their wizards will battlefield control so much with just suck spells that the party dreads meeting them because they fight with their brains instead of charging and hoping to kill the party. Note that they are always, on paper, weaker than the party (lower stats and worse equipment) and still manage to give them fuel for nightmares

If every fight is like this, the players will probably lose interest in the game, so you really have to mix it up. Throw some easy encounters here and there, a martial brute every once in a while, maybe some of these smart fighting enemies are caught without their party to support them. The important thing is to keep combats fresh.

That's all well and good, but I'm actually talking about motivations more than actual tactics. You have people who really, really hate the party devising intricate plans specifically tailored to defeat them; I'm saying random robbers, raiders, and hungry crocodiles shouldn't be as invested in fighting down to the last man if things start to go rough on them. There should be a difference in the level of dedication and will to fight between bandits and the party's personal nemesis.

Parra
2014-04-02, 05:18 PM
Its been my experience that, outside of teleporting away (or similar), once an enemy flees then the PC's tend to run them down. This means if I ran encounters realistically and have the opponents try to flee at a certain HP/Casualty thresh hold, all I have done is handed my players an easier victory.

Slipperychicken
2014-04-02, 05:26 PM
Its been my experience that, outside of teleporting away (or similar), once an enemy flees then the PC's tend to run them down. This means if I ran encounters realistically and have the opponents try to flee at a certain HP/Casualty thresh hold, all I have done is handed my players an easier victory.

Have you considered using chase rules (such as PF has) or some other checks to determine whether they escape?

Parra
2014-04-02, 05:36 PM
Have you considered using chase rules (such as PF has) or some other checks to determine whether they escape?

I find chase rules to be situational at best.

icefractal
2014-04-02, 07:40 PM
Chase rules can often be awkward to transition into, because there's usually not a clear line when it goes from "moving farther away, but still in combat" to "chasing". And usually, if the chase rules are disadvantageous to the PCs, they'll resist transitioning to them.

Fiery Diamond
2014-04-02, 08:19 PM
Chase rules can often be awkward to transition into, because there's usually not a clear line when it goes from "moving farther away, but still in combat" to "chasing". And usually, if the chase rules are disadvantageous to the PCs, they'll resist transitioning to them.

My opinion on chase rules: they should provide the advantage to whoever is fleeing. This will be disadvantageous to players when the enemy is fleeing, but it will also encourage players to consider that fleeing is actually an option if they are/think they will be losing.

Knaight
2014-04-02, 08:55 PM
My opinion on chase rules: they should provide the advantage to whoever is fleeing. This will be disadvantageous to players when the enemy is fleeing, but it will also encourage players to consider that fleeing is actually an option if they are/think they will be losing.

This also has some realism aspects to it. Consider groups - 1 person is going to have a very difficult time running down 4, provided they split up. Meanwhile, 4 people running down 1 is hardly a guarantee of success.

Rhynn
2014-04-02, 09:00 PM
What do people think?

I run opponents and monsters smart. Undead frequently fight until destroyed, constructs mostly do, and some stupid creatures (giant insects, etc.) can go all win-or-die, but usually animals are looking for a meal and will flee after they're hurt or suffer some losses (or if they're able to drag away a victim). Humans and humanoids, unless they're berserkers or crazy, will fight smart and try to retreat or surrender when possible if they're taking a beating.

By the same token, I expect the PCs to be smart. They need to judge whether surrender and e.g. offering a ransom for their release is possible, and need to use good tactics and not just rush into battles blindly.

Obviously, none of that works in RPGs designed on videogame logic (mostly D&D 3E/4E) where all XP comes from monsters (and awarding XP for fleeing monsters is basically giving the party XP they didn't expend resources on, and brings up the problem of "what if they attack again but you already got XP for them"), but it works perfectly well in old-school D&D where full monster XP for an adventure would only amount to 1/4 the XP for treasure available.

Older D&D editions also have the awesome advantage of having rules for morale, with clear conditions for when it's checked, so it's not just a matter of GM fiat. (And, for that matter, reaction rolls.)


To be fair, realistic combat is pretty much the opposite of fun.

Nonsense, The Riddle of Steel, HârnMaster, and Twilight 2013 combat is extremely fun; the realism just means the stakes are higher and you're less likely to enter into combat casually, and there's more incentive to play it smart.


Its been my experience that, outside of teleporting away (or similar), once an enemy flees then the PC's tend to run them down. This means if I ran encounters realistically and have the opponents try to flee at a certain HP/Casualty thresh hold, all I have done is handed my players an easier victory.

That's called a rout, and that's what happens in routs. One of the main roles of light cavalry in ancient and medieval armies (and, to a degree, post-Renaissance armies!) was to ride down routing enemies.

Routing enemies should be splitting up, forcing the PCs to either split up or only chase some of them. If the PCs only chase some of them, the rout has paid off for a portion of the enemy. If the PCs split up, the enemy can notice that they've got one enemy chasing them and have a few friends in sight, and can turn the tables on the pursuer (especially in non-D&D games where capabilities are much more likely to be essentially similar).

Really nasty enemies fighting on their home turf (a common scenario) might even have prepared ambush points or traps in case they need to retreat.

Mr Beer
2014-04-02, 10:02 PM
I try to run them as smart as they merit. So brainless undead and other such things just move forward attacking monotonously until dead. Animals (that are prepared to fight humans in the first place) tend to run when injured. Mooks will generally be smart enough to flank and swarm dangerous opponents. Rival adventurers, liches, intelligent dragons, the cleverer demons = nasty - they will buff, hit and run, target spellcasters and ruthlessly exploit PC mistakes.

jedipotter
2014-04-13, 11:18 AM
If a gang of ruffians attacks a stagecoach and kills everyone on board and loses two of their own number, that is a NOT a successful robbery. Likewise, if a cat jumped on a mouse and received several serious but non-fatal stabs for his trouble but still got to eat the mouse, that is not a successful hunt.

It really does depend.......

If I was the leader of a a gang or ruffians, say ten of them, and we were splitting the loot ten ways......I'd sure be happier if two of them died and we got to split the loot just eight ways(and no I would not give the dead guys loot to their families).

And a hungry predator considers any hunt where they got to eat a good hunt.

Slipperychicken
2014-04-13, 11:36 AM
If I was the leader of a a gang or ruffians, say ten of them, and we were splitting the loot ten ways......I'd sure be happier if two of them died and we got to split the loot just eight ways(and no I would not give the dead guys loot to their families).

And a hungry predator considers any hunt where they got to eat a good hunt.

If two of your buddies die (especially if they share some deep fraternal bond), that's tragic, and a sane person would likely experience extreme guilt and possibly stress disorders at their loss. That goes double if you're somehow responsible for them, or even perceive yourself as such. Only some kind of psychopath could shrug that off so easily.


If a predator is injured during a hunt, that hampers its ability to keep hunting. Really. Try running down a wild animal when even walking hurts. An injured predator is likely to die of starvation, or even become prey itself. This is why predators almost never "fight" unless they're cornered or one of their children is in danger. Wolves, for example, will spend many weeks waiting for easy prey because even one injury could mean a slow agonizing death.

Altair_the_Vexed
2014-04-13, 03:43 PM
I use a morale check when the NPC side - beasties or bandits or whatever - take their first hit or casualty.
I can override the result if it seems appropriate, of course.

Jay R
2014-04-14, 01:19 PM
The players haven't figured it out yet, but my goblins always flee when their leaders are struck down.


My opinion on chase rules: they should provide the advantage to whoever is fleeing. This will be disadvantageous to players when the enemy is fleeing, but it will also encourage players to consider that fleeing is actually an option if they are/think they will be losing.

They should provide the advantage to flyers over non-flyers, horse riders over those on foot, and unarmored over armored.

When an army routs, the cavalry should follow and harry - lots of people's backs to chase and strike down.

Mnemophage
2014-04-14, 03:04 PM
I always score "making the enemies flee" the same as "killing the enemies" the exact same for purposes of XP allotment, and I ensure my players know this. It may cause some plot complications (such as if survivors return to their base and inform their comrades of the really, brutally tough group that killed 3/4ths of a raiding party despite being surprised), but that's my thing to work out, and usually my players are clever enough to figure out that if one guy in the scout party manages to get away, then that is a successful scouting mission.

Furthermore, tricks of tactics or positioning can easily increase the difficulty of a standard group of enemies. Five fighters armed with crossbows and short swords are an entirely different beast when they're positioned on rooftops, with cover, concentrate their fire on one target at a time and have worked out a fire signal in advance. Similarly, I hate running NPC wizards who do nothing but fire artillery, unless there's nothing BUT wizards in the enemy group - a clever spellcaster with meat support will know to actually SUPPORT them, to hinder or nullify dangerous targets, isolate and dogpile individuals and other such tricks.

The problem is that the same tactics the party uses to nullify their opponents - mind control, immobilization and paralyzation, transmutation and teleportation tricks - are INCREDIBLY IRRITATING when applied TO the player party. Everyone here has either experienced or seen a situation where, in a big fight, someone screws their roll and gets dominated, immobilized or held, and just can't do anything for three rounds but stand there and watch everyone else have fun. It's a very viable tactic, but the DM is ultimately there to furnish fun for the players, and excluding the people in the room with you in favor of the nameless goons in your head is absolutely Not Fun.

It is, ultimately, a balance. If you need enemies that fight to the death, there are ways around it - the poster who said that bandits would value splitting a take six ways instead of ten has a VERY good idea, and there are a ton of ways you can justify people or people-like things placing lesser value on their own life. If your enemies belong to an organization that routinely and publicly tortures deserters, then the mooks would absolutely value success at all costs. If your enemies subscribe to a religion that promises paradise for those who defy their enemies to their last breath, the same would apply. Often, this can be shown in little setting cues - finding the bandits' logbook that shows their constant personnel losses due to infighting; discovering the tormented bodies of deserter troops hung by their skin to magical racks that keep them endlessly alive; having each enemy zealot carry a copy of their holy book over their heart.

Lord Torath
2014-04-14, 03:10 PM
Very good points, Mnemophage!

Also, you can have the troops audibly state why they fight to the death (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0918.html): "Fight so your families aren't killed!" :smalltongue:

Coidzor
2014-04-14, 05:17 PM
Trolls WILL attack you while it's raining, and they will stay put during the dry season.

Do Trolls have the ability to turn off their metabolisms? I missed that part of their biology. :smallconfused:

Slipperychicken
2014-04-14, 09:09 PM
Do Trolls have the ability to turn off their metabolisms? I missed that part of their biology. :smallconfused:

Wouldn't trolls simply don some manner of fireproof/acid-proof garment before going into battle?

Qwertystop
2014-04-14, 09:29 PM
I've also had one where the DM threw "pack crocodiles" at us while we were travelling through a deciduous forest in the mountains, because he misread both the random encounter table and the group size indicator for the monster's entry.

That's just excellent. :smallbiggrin:

NichG
2014-04-14, 10:17 PM
I actually really like this idea from a gameplay point of view, rather than one of 'realism' - it allows harsher encounters, helps enable recurring villains, controls exponential wealth gain, and helps further distinguish different types of creatures from eachother. However, it needs particular and consistent integration into the game for that to work. Basically, whatever you have things in the game world do, its a truism that PCs will tend to fight to the death before they run. Part of this is that game systems often make running a very hard option to execute, but a big chunk of it is the psychology of gameplay. So you need to take that into account and make it so that the system itself enforces this sort of behavior as the default.

For example, you could do the following thing for something based on D&D 3.5:

- When a normal creature hits 0hp, it is 'panicked' rather than 'unconscious' and can only take actions to flee to the best of its ability. Its movement rate is increased by 50%. When a creature hits -MaxHP, it is knocked out/disabled/incapacitated. When a creature hits -MaxHP*2, it is killed.

- The point at which creatures on a side are forced to flee is increased by 1hp per HD of ally who they directly witness getting killed/incapacitated/running away during the fight (so take out the commander and the army might rout).

- Undead, Constructs, and creatures immune to fear may continue to act normally all the way down to -MaxHP, but they do not gain the increase in movement rate and they suffer a -4 to hit due to damage to their body.

- Certain effects (feats, Bardic music, drugs, etc) can cause normal creatures to be able to use the rules for Undead/Constructs in battle, as can making a Will save whose DC is equal to 20+(damage below rout threshold).

So under these rules, generally the game system will force enemies to flee before they are killed, but people who are trained specifically to fight to the death exist (and are particularly scary since they effectively have double normal hitpoints). Under this system I also wouldn't bother running an encounter between the PCs and, say, a normal wild animal - the animal would rout pretty quickly so it shouldn't really be a fight. I would however run an encounter between the PCs and a rabid animal who will fight all the way down to -MaxHP, since that would be an anomalous experience and meaningful at least for the PCs to take note of.

jedipotter
2014-04-14, 10:26 PM
If two of your buddies die (especially if they share some deep fraternal bond), that's tragic, and a sane person would likely experience extreme guilt and possibly stress disorders at their loss. That goes double if you're somehow responsible for them, or even perceive yourself as such. Only some kind of psychopath could shrug that off so easily.

The average group of thugs won't often be budddies or have some type of bond. Take for example the group from Reservoir Dogs or just about any other crime type movie.

dps
2014-04-14, 10:56 PM
Does anyone have monsters and bandits do proper risk-assessment?

In game turns, if the monsters or bandits do a risk assesment before attacking and decide it's not worth it, there was no encounter.

And if you're talking about breaking off the attack if things aren't going well, it's easier to enter into combat than to withdraw from it. (Which of course does NOT mean it shouldn't happen, ever.)

Coidzor
2014-04-14, 11:29 PM
Wouldn't trolls simply don some manner of fireproof/acid-proof garment before going into battle?

If they're able to gain access to such or fabricate it for themselves, certainly.


That's just excellent. :smallbiggrin:

Sounds like the anecdote necessary for the genesis of a new monster. :smallamused:

Slipperychicken
2014-04-14, 11:42 PM
In game turns, if the monsters or bandits do a risk assesment before attacking and decide it's not worth it, there was no encounter.

The PCs might still notice the armed thugs eyeing them suspiciously from the shadows, clearly sizing them up. Being PCs, they'd most likely hunt down, torture, murder, and rob their would-be assailants.

My GM regularly gives the PCs a chance (usually a round or two) to talk their way out of encounters, before things come to blows, so we've had a number of encounters which ended non-violently.

Mastikator
2014-04-15, 08:29 AM
Wouldn't trolls simply don some manner of fireproof/acid-proof garment before going into battle?

What garment could they acquire that is fire resistant and doesn't react to most acids?

Frozen_Feet
2014-04-15, 08:46 AM
If two of your buddies die (especially if they share some deep fraternal bond), that's tragic, and a sane person would likely experience extreme guilt and possibly stress disorders at their loss. That goes double if you're somehow responsible for them, or even perceive yourself as such. Only some kind of psychopath could shrug that off so easily.

In my experience, a lot of players and especially new ones play their characters as socipaths by default. "Antisocial murderhobo" is such a widespread concept for a reason. It's the same phenomenom as when people go on ridiculous murder sprees in GTA, or shoot team members in the back in a shooter for gits and shiggles. In any game where violence is possible, some players will go to lenghts to see how much they can get away with, because they know it's "not real" and they won't suffer any real consequences for being asshats.

Beleriphon
2014-04-15, 08:54 AM
If two of your buddies die (especially if they share some deep fraternal bond), that's tragic, and a sane person would likely experience extreme guilt and possibly stress disorders at their loss. That goes double if you're somehow responsible for them, or even perceive yourself as such. Only some kind of psychopath could shrug that off so easily.

Wait, isn't that the usual MO for RPG bandits? They're a bunch of maruading sociopaths only kept from killing each other by the boss, or just as often encouraged to be particularly nasty by the boss?

Rhynn
2014-04-15, 09:07 AM
What garment could they acquire that is fire resistant and doesn't react to most acids?

Gold-plated asbestos entry suits!

Morty
2014-04-15, 09:08 AM
This thread brings up a good point. On the occasions that I do run something, I definitely have enemies flee or back down when it makes sense. Mind you, last time I ran a game in which the players actually fought anyone, their enemies were brainwashed slaves of a warlock, so they weren't going to run no matter how much beating they took, and the PCs didn't strike to kill. I can't imagine a situation, in a good system, where having enemies in lethal combat behave realistically would present a gameplay problem.

Kish
2014-04-15, 09:13 AM
http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=18

NichG
2014-04-15, 11:32 AM
Wait, isn't that the usual MO for RPG bandits? They're a bunch of maruading sociopaths only kept from killing each other by the boss, or just as often encouraged to be particularly nasty by the boss?

This is basically the tendency that the OP is suggesting one might do differently. From a realism point of view, those groups that are always on the verge of collapse should be much rarer than groups which are actually somewhat internally loyal and be careful about their own casualties. The 'marauding sociopaths' basically decay via attrition until the point where they're no longer a threat, whereas the groups with reasonable behaviors prosper and end up becoming the 'infamous bandits'.

And even then, the marauding sociopaths should be more likely to break rank and flee since they have no loyalty to make them stand and fight when it looks like it might be personally dangerous. The 'fight to the last man' sort of behavior is more what you'd expect from people with either a lot of training and discipline, a lot of very effective brainwashing, or people who have been drugged up to the point where they don't have the judgement to realize they should flee.

Knaight
2014-04-15, 12:20 PM
The average group of thugs won't often be budddies or have some type of bond. Take for example the group from Reservoir Dogs or just about any other crime type movie.

Why are we trusting movies here? Besides, plenty of crime type movies feature gangs, in which the same group of associates work with each other over multiple jobs. These people would really prefer not to see their allies die - even if they had no bond, they'll need to be replaced, and replacing them is potentially difficult. It's also trivially easy to find groups of bandits that do have some sort of internal loyalty - Robin Hood, The Bandits of Liangshan Marsh, every gang in Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, etc.

Plus, lets say that there's a bandit group that operates in a group of 10. They routinely lose 2 on attacks. The people in that can see that there's a pretty high chance of them dying with every attack, and that is absolutely terrible for morale. That sort of loss just isn't sustainable.

Beleriphon
2014-04-15, 12:33 PM
Why are we trusting movies here? Besides, plenty of crime type movies feature gangs, in which the same group of associates work with each other over multiple jobs. These people would really prefer not to see their allies die - even if they had no bond, they'll need to be replaced, and replacing them is potentially difficult. It's also trivially easy to find groups of bandits that do have some sort of internal loyalty - Robin Hood, The Bandits of Liangshan Marsh, every gang in Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, etc.

Also, there's the old double cross, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish. As for Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels you're looking at a slightly different type of story, one that is distinctly a British gang story. They all sort of share certain elements. At any rate, the important part is that in a great many gangs if a guy dies we all get a share. Sure, if too many die you kill the boss and the next guy takes control, but that's part and parcel of being an outlaw.

I you want a real historical example of a fight to the death look no farther than Edward Teach. He was offered no quarter and gave none in return during that last fight. In essence his adversaries were more interested in killing him than taking him alive. He really had no way to escape by that point so he ended up dead. Even if he had escaped any future encounter with the Royal Navy would have been one where it was his head or their's. Again, being a pirate was basically a death sentence for those involved so a pirate that found themselves outnumbered and outgunned was just a wise to go down fighting as try to escape or surrender.


Plus, lets say that there's a bandit group that operates in a group of 10. They routinely lose 2 on attacks. The people in that can see that there's a pretty high chance of them dying with every attack, and that is absolutely terrible for morale. That sort of loss just isn't sustainable.

That internal loyalty is often due to the leader rather than some kind of fraternal bond with each other. I'd also not count Robin Hood on the basis that he and the Merry Men are the adventuring party. The sherrif are the opponents in such a game. You can also see fights to the death where running and capture means death anyways. Outlaws are literally outside of the law and you can do as you please with them. Killing them isn't murder after all, and in fact in some places you'd get in more trouble for poaching deer then tying up an outlaw and torturing him to death.

The best example I can think of is Joe and guys from the last half of the most recent season of The Walking Dead. If I was going to model a band of roving bandits off of anything I'd use them. They have a code (no lying, no stealing from each other, and calling claimed makes it yours, break a rule get beaten by the group), the leader is the one that keeps things at some level of order and they take what they want otherwise. They also seriously overestimate their abilities to control a situation when things go down.

ngilop
2014-04-15, 12:42 PM
I've noticed that DMs rarely, if ever, do this. What I mean is, outside of video and tabletop games, if two factions square off and one loses 100% of its personnel and the other loses 85%, the second would be known as the "survivors" not the "victors." If a gang of ruffians attacks a stagecoach and kills everyone on board and loses two of their own number, that is a NOT a successful robbery. Likewise, if a cat jumped on a mouse and received several serious but non-fatal stabs for his trouble but still got to eat the mouse, that is not a successful hunt. You expect a battle or a grudge match to have serious consequences, but a hunt or a raid isn't a success unless it's a slam-dunk, overwhelming victory. If you and your buddies went out deer hunting and got eight deer and lost one of your friends to the deer, that would be the worst hunt you'd ever been on. Does anyone have monsters and bandits do proper risk-assessment? There are videos of cats chasing bears. Most creatures don't want to fight to the death. A realistic fight with a large predator of animal intelligence would probably have it run away if it lost 10% of its hitpoints, because equated to real life, that meal is not worth it. It might make the game more boring (standard seems to be, if you encounter it, it fights to the death and you loot the corpse) but I think it could enhance gameplay for NPC's and monsters to have a little self-preservation instinct (villains and nemeses are not included, however. Insanity and hate are fine explanations for their actions). It could even function as a plot hook if you meet several groups of goblins who flee after one or two casualties, and then later meet some who fight like fanatics. What do people think?

I think your definition of successful needs to be re-looked at.

to put is simply successful means objective attained. and in every single one of your examples they were successful.. was it a flawless success NO. but still a success.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/successful

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/successful

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/successful

Knaight
2014-04-15, 01:45 PM
to put is simply successful means objective attained. and in every single one of your examples they were successful.. was it a flawless success NO. but still a success.

The objective in acquiring a meal implicitly contains "without being mortally wounded in the process". That scales up to "having none or very few losses" in a group.

Also, here's the exact text of the first definitions of your linked dictionaries.

"Achieving or having achieved success" where success is defined as "the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors; the accomplishment of one's goals."
"Resulting in success; assuring, or promotive of, success; accomplishing what was proposed; having the desired effect; hence, prosperous; fortunate; happy; as, a successful use of medicine; a successful experiment; a successful enterprise." where success is defined as "The favorable or prosperous termination of anything attempted; the attainment of a proposed object; prosperous issue.", using the first definition not related to succession.
"Having the correct or desired result"

You'll notice that favorable termination of attempts and desired results come into this. None of those situations are favorable terminations. None of them are desired results. "Objective attained" doesn't even show up in any of these definitions. As such, you might not want to use it as your definition of success.

ngilop
2014-04-15, 02:00 PM
The objective in acquiring a meal implicitly contains "without being mortally wounded in the process". That scales up to "having none or very few losses" in a group.

Also, here's the exact text of the first definitions of your linked dictionaries.

"Achieving or having achieved success" where success is defined as "the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors; the accomplishment of one's goals."
"Resulting in success; assuring, or promotive of, success; accomplishing what was proposed; having the desired effect; hence, prosperous; fortunate; happy; as, a successful use of medicine; a successful experiment; a successful enterprise." where success is defined as "The favorable or prosperous termination of anything attempted; the attainment of a proposed object; prosperous issue.", using the first definition not related to succession.
"Having the correct or desired result"

You'll notice that favorable termination of attempts and desired results come into this. None of those situations are favorable terminations. None of them are desired results. "Objective attained" doesn't even show up in any of these definitions. As such, you might not want to use it as your definition of success.

Having the correct or desired result is the same thing as objective obtained

lets take a look at the OP's examples

bandits wanting to rob somebody, bandits rob that somebody but suffer wounds desired result was the end, they robbed of the Y they wanted i.e objective obtained

I cna go on and on with how every one of his examples are by definition successful. if he wanted a flawless success he should have instead said ' blah blah flawless sucess' not just successful.

name me at any point in the history of existance when in combat, whether it be war, skrimish, mugging, or getting a meal that no risk at all was involved. idk why but the OP seems to think that unless one comes out of any situation without ever being exposed to risk the failed in whatever endeavor they were attempting, and I am just mind blown that people actually think that.

SUccess is to me as i was taught and eperienced( seems i was taught wrong evidcently, as well as my life eperiences being comletely inapprpiately incorrect) success is when you get what you wanted out of whatever you were attempting.

Rhynn
2014-04-15, 02:02 PM
SUccess is to me as i was taught and eperienced( seems i was taught wrong evidcently, as well as my life eperiences being comletely inapprpiately incorrect) success is when you get what you wanted out of whatever you were attempting.

You're argung semantics in bad faith using dictionary definitions.

Objective: not obtained.

Slipperychicken
2014-04-15, 02:47 PM
Wait, isn't that the usual MO for RPG bandits? They're a bunch of maruading sociopaths only kept from killing each other by the boss, or just as often encouraged to be particularly nasty by the boss?


In my experience, a lot of players and especially new ones play their characters as socipaths by default. "Antisocial murderhobo" is such a widespread concept for a reason. It's the same phenomenom as when people go on ridiculous murder sprees in GTA, or shoot team members in the back in a shooter for gits and shiggles. In any game where violence is possible, some players will go to lenghts to see how much they can get away with, because they know it's "not real" and they won't suffer any real consequences for being asshats.

I know that PCs are murderhobos, but it seemed like we were talking about realistic reactions to things. We can just as easily handwave that the usual MO is for every combatant (PC or NPC) to fight ferociously and to the death over the most petty slight.


What garment could they acquire that is fire resistant and doesn't react to most acids?

Acid wouldn't be as important, since it's not going to be as common. I'm thinking along the lines of a fireman's outfit, labcoat, or a hazmat suit: Anything made of fire-retardant material could work. D&D rules don't have much for this, though Planar Handbook has "fireproof clothes" whose mechanical impact is unclear.

Since WotC wants fire resistance to be expensive, trolls would just use some manner of magic item which renders them resistant to fire and/or acid. For example, a troll might want a Clasp of Energy Protection (MiC 500-3,000gp shield crystal, basically functions like 24 hour duration Resist Energy, of various strengths), or a Crimson Dragonhide Bracers (5000gp, MiC fire resist 5)

TheThan
2014-04-15, 03:08 PM
I have intelligent enemies roll moral checks, if they fail, then they flee. If a single monster takes too much damage, it makes a moral check failure means it’s lost it’s desire to keep fighting and flees, if a group of bad guys lose say 25% of their force, then they’ll make a moral check and flee.
I give xp for overcoming obstacles; those obstacles might be monsters, traps, social situations you name it. how they go about doing it is up to them. as long as they get by it in a satisfactory way, they’ll earn experience.

Knaight
2014-04-15, 03:17 PM
bandits wanting to rob somebody, bandits rob that somebody but suffer wounds desired result was the end, they robbed of the Y they wanted i.e objective obtained

The end result is: Robbed stuff, two dead bandits. That is not the same end result as Robbed Stuff, no dead bandits. One of these can easily be favorable when the other isn't. The deer hunting example is an even better case there.

Morty
2014-04-15, 03:48 PM
From the point of view of the bandits who were killed, their mission was anything but a success.

Coidzor
2014-04-16, 02:37 AM
From the point of view of the bandits who were killed, their mission was anything but a success.

Be rather silly not to take the loot once they'd already gotten themselves into such a mess though. And loss of a friend would be a reason why someone who would ordinarily not go all axe crazy would murder people who'd surrendered/been captured.

ElenionAncalima
2014-04-16, 10:13 AM
SUccess is to me as i was taught and eperienced( seems i was taught wrong evidcently, as well as my life eperiences being comletely inapprpiately incorrect) success is when you get what you wanted out of whatever you were attempting.

I don't think the OP's was really talking about assessing if the damages were worth it after the battle. I think he was talking about assessments of risk/reward during the fight?

A cold hearted bandit may look back and think, "Well, two people died...but I didn't...so more money for me! Mission success". However, during combat, the thought of losing a couple people might not seem so enticing...not when he could be one of the people who doesn't make it.

vasharanpaladin
2014-04-16, 03:07 PM
The average group of thugs won't often be budddies or have some type of bond. Take for example the group from Reservoir Dogs or just about any other crime type movie.

"What's-yer-name, NOOOO!"
"Dammit, I wanted to kill him!"

:smalltongue:

Slipperychicken
2014-04-16, 03:19 PM
A cold hearted bandit may look back and think, "Well, two people died...but I didn't...so more money for me! Mission success". However, during combat, the thought of losing a couple people might not seem so enticing...not when he could be one of the people who doesn't make it.

Or the bandit leader might be pulling a Joker-style heist, where he schemes to succeed while getting every participant killed except himself, ensuring that he doesn't have to split the loot.

Granted, even if the leader is some kind of psychopath who could sleep like a baby after watching his buddies die, that kind of turnover generally isn't sustainable from an organizational standpoint, and can be indicative of deeper problems such as bad planning and poor risk-assessment.

Coidzor
2014-04-16, 03:23 PM
Or the bandit leader might be pulling a Joker-style heist, where he schemes to succeed while getting every participant killed except himself, ensuring that he doesn't have to split the loot.

Granted, even if the leader is some kind of psychopath who could sleep like a baby after watching his buddies die, that kind of turnover generally isn't sustainable from an organizational standpoint, and can be indicative of deeper problems such as bad planning and poor risk-assessment.

Like the old Sid Meier's Pirates game where you actively wanted to bite off more than you could chew before you divided up the plunder so that you could get as large a share of the kitty as possible for your score.

Which if you like playing with the fourth wall, could be interesting if you pulled it off well, I suppose. Probably a bit niche both for those who'd want to pull such a move and those who'd have the necessary metaphysics that they'd want to use.

Amphetryon
2014-04-16, 03:35 PM
In my (possibly jaded) opinion and experience, having your NPC adversaries behave intelligently brings out the cries of 'Killer GM' and 'metagaming,' while having enemies attack stupidly and ignore tactical opportunities to flee or otherwise improve their odds brings out the cries of 'kid gloves' and 'forgot to read the Evil Overlord list.'

Pick which one you'd prefer to have the Players complain about.

Slipperychicken
2014-04-16, 03:44 PM
Like the old Sid Meier's Pirates game where you actively wanted to bite off more than you could chew before you divided up the plunder so that you could get as large a share of the kitty as possible for your score.

Which if you like playing with the fourth wall, could be interesting if you pulled it off well, I suppose. Probably a bit niche both for those who'd want to pull such a move and those who'd have the necessary metaphysics that they'd want to use.

It makes a decent amount of sense from an in-character perspective, though, if crewmen are cheap and easy to hire (even after you get scores of them killed), their skills and experience are irrelevant, and you're extremely confident of your ability to bleed crew members while still winning fights.

Of course, it depends on how the loot is distributed. I know that sometimes it would work like this: the captain gets a fixed percentage (i.e. 26% of all loot, after expenses), first mate gets a smaller fixed percent, normal sailors get a fixed percent distributed between them (i.e. 30% of loot is distributed across all crewmen), and so on. Sometimes the captain gets loot measured in shares, which would encourage him to cut his underlings out of the equation (reducing the number of shares, thereby improving his own shares' value) when he could get away with it.

Morty
2014-04-16, 04:23 PM
What does that have to do with anything? Whatever their leader plans, people whose motivation is to easily get rich by robbing helpless people are not going to stay cool and calculating while their comrades die. They're at least as likely to fear that it might be them who go down next rather as they are to be glad that there's people to split loot with.

Knaight
2014-04-16, 05:19 PM
What does that have to do with anything? Whatever their leader plans, people whose motivation is to easily get rich by robbing helpless people are not going to stay cool and calculating while their comrades die. They're at least as likely to fear that it might be them who go down next rather as they are to be glad that there's people to split loot with.

Exactly this. The casual indifference only really makes sense in the context of those who have strong reason to believe that they will be among the surviving party. If, for instance, take a group of about 40 bandits, involving 15 hardened veterans with pretty decent arms and armor, and another 25 or so desperate peasants turned to banditry with some cheap weapons, no real armor, and minimal combat training. The 25 probably have some turnover - 40 might go into an attack, with about 35 coming out pretty routinely. Among the 25, this is a problem, and pretty terrible for morale, as the 5 dead are almost always coming entirely from them. Among the 15 veterans? There's really not that much cause for concern, the life is clearly working for them.

There's also the case of delusion helping here. When one of the 15 die, the other 14 can all convince themselves that they were never all that capable in the first place, and that they always properly belonged more to the disposable group that wasn't too great. It's the "sure, they died, but that couldn't happen to me" attitude. Conversely, more competent and better equipped members of the 25 might think that they are one of the hardened veterans, and as such not see the five compatriots of their group dying as cause for concern. This is particularly true as the line between them is likely to be pretty fuzzy, particularly as the peasant bandits that last longer start getting better equipment as battlefield salvage and pick up some experience.

Slipperychicken
2014-04-16, 05:30 PM
What does that have to do with anything? Whatever their leader plans, people whose motivation is to easily get rich by robbing helpless people are not going to stay cool and calculating while their comrades die. They're at least as likely to fear that it might be them who go down next rather as they are to be glad that there's people to split loot with.

Notice how I mentioned this bit:


It makes a decent amount of sense from an in-character perspective, though, if crewmen are cheap and easy to hire (even after you get scores of them killed), their skills and experience are irrelevant, and you're extremely confident of your ability to bleed crew members while still winning fights.


If that condition is not satisfied, then needlessly getting crew members killed in battle does not make sense.

Knaight
2014-04-16, 05:45 PM
If that condition is not satisfied, then needlessly getting crew members killed in battle does not make sense.

If that condition is satisfied, the crew is still going to be unhappy about it. Which causes problems.

Rhynn
2014-04-16, 06:53 PM
If that condition is satisfied, the crew is still going to be unhappy about it. Which causes problems.

Especially given that pirate ships were democracies, and the captain only had (theoretically) absolute authority during battle.

The same probably generally applied for bandit bands, especially given that historrically many of them were just mercenary companies with no employer...

A leader who has even one disaster (such as 20% of the group getting killed in one day) is probably going to get replaced in a hurry, if they're lucky...

NichG
2014-04-16, 07:29 PM
The thing to keep in mind is that members of a bandit gang are also a form of loot for the leader. You have to weigh whatever gains acquired from a risky attack that resulted in the death of one of the gang against all future gains that gang member might have enabled you to pull off. So 'damn the survival rate, full speed ahead' behavior is going to dominate more in people who are looking for that 'one big score', because the future gains are irrelevant, but people who are going after smaller prizes on a regular basis are going to be much more risk averse.

The cost of actually replacing a member is likely to be quite large, because if you have to hire one then you're paying them - possibly per job rather than based on a share - for their strength (whereas the initial group of bandits were probably gathered by looking for people in desperate circumstances and will just take a minor share), and if you have to wait for another appropriate person to come along then you're at reduced strength for that interval (which correspondingly means you can't make raids that are quite as big).

For example, a bandit gang living in the vicinity of a city of 2000 people. If the gang has 20 members that's a full 1% of the city's population, so there probably isn't a big pool of replacements waiting in the wings to hire into their losses, otherwise they'd be called a 'military' instead of a 'bandit gang'. If they're distributed demographically then they basically would have something like 11 Lv1s, 5 Lv2s, 2 Lv3s, and a Lv4 leader. If they just use an extreme show of force to scare non-local travelers into paying a 20gp toll to enter the city, the merchants will probably pay up without too much trouble (thats cheaper than hiring the guards necessary to fight off the bandits, even at the low wage rates in the DMG for hiring NPCs). Lets assume they're particularly smart, and they ignore travelers who are obviously well-armed or have anything significantly magical on them. If they get one traveler a day (which means that the city would roughly have a 15% temporary resident fraction, probably on the small side), thats enough for everyone in the bandit gang to earn a gold piece a day, which puts them well above peasant wages, and for very little actual work.

The total CR of the bandit gang is 10 if they all fight at once, but since thats significantly higher than the CR of the individual members its failing to account for certain problems that tend to emerge at large CR gaps (lack of things like flight or ways to deal with magic). Still, lets assume they decide to go after a 'big score' - a group of four Lv4 PCs. This is before flight becomes an issue, and they're a CR+6 encounter for the group so they have some chance despite the inherent slant in the system to favor PCs (better ability scores, better wealth, etc). They can probably expect to lose something like 6 of the Lv1 guys in the fight, and possibly even some of the higher level gang members depending on how the PCs focus fire (if the leader is obvious, expect him to go down in the first round due to standard PC tactics when dealing with ragtag groups). What they get in exchange is about 11000gp in cash after selling off the PCs' gear. This is certainly better than 20gp/day but actually its just about a year and a half's total income. And of course, this is assuming that none of the PCs escape, use up their wealth in consumables, etc. And that the transition from charging tolls to killing heroes of the realm doesn't create an arms race with the local power center. And that they didn't misjudge the CR of their victims, or pick on people who had some spell they didn't have an answer for, or whatever.

So if you have a bandit group that has been operating in an area for more than two years, its probably the slow and steady kind.

Slipperychicken
2014-04-16, 09:28 PM
If that condition is satisfied, the crew is still going to be unhappy about it. Which causes problems.

Also notice when I said "when he could get away with it".


It makes a decent amount of sense from an in-character perspective, though, if crewmen are cheap and easy to hire (even after you get scores of them killed), their skills and experience are irrelevant, and you're extremely confident of your ability to bleed crew members while still winning fights.

Of course, it depends on how the loot is distributed. I know that sometimes it would work like this: the captain gets a fixed percentage (i.e. 26% of all loot, after expenses), first mate gets a smaller fixed percent, normal sailors get a fixed percent distributed between them (i.e. 30% of loot is distributed across all crewmen), and so on. Sometimes the captain gets loot measured in shares, which would encourage him to cut his underlings out of the equation (reducing the number of shares, thereby improving his own shares' value) when he could get away with it.

You guys need to work on your Spot checks. You keep missing all my qualifiers.

dps
2014-04-16, 10:18 PM
What does that have to do with anything? Whatever their leader plans, people whose motivation is to easily get rich by robbing helpless people are not going to stay cool and calculating while their comrades die. They're at least as likely to fear that it might be them who go down next rather as they are to be glad that there's people to split loot with.

Which, if you want to talk realism, brings up another problem. Bandits aren't going to be attacking an adventuring party anyway--they're going to be going for easier targets.

Morty
2014-04-17, 07:52 AM
For example, a bandit gang living in the vicinity of a city of 2000 people. If the gang has 20 members that's a full 1% of the city's population, so there probably isn't a big pool of replacements waiting in the wings to hire into their losses, otherwise they'd be called a 'military' instead of a 'bandit gang'.

That's silly. Everyone knows that in fantasy lands, gangs of bandits, brigands, raiders and other such criminals are at least as numerous as the people they prey on.


Which, if you want to talk realism, brings up another problem. Bandits aren't going to be attacking an adventuring party anyway--they're going to be going for easier targets.

Yes, there's that too. Still, adventurers are likely to bring the fight to them.



You guys need to work on your Spot checks. You keep missing all my qualifiers.

We notice them, they're just not relevant. Whether or not the leader is fine with losing people is a secondary concern - the primary concern is that when a band of heavily armed, magical murder-hobos starts cutting their comrades down in droves, members of a criminal gang are going to leg it.

ElenionAncalima
2014-04-17, 08:47 AM
My problem with the - What if the leader is a sociopath who knows he will survive and wants the others to die to get more money - argument is that it is just one possible scenario. That one possible scenario doesn't justify having all bandits fighting to the last man in every scenario. It doesn't even justify why the minions would continue fighting.

Regarding the OPs original point, I think it can be a good thing to run enemies intelligently...but the real key is to run them interestingly. We have seen numerous bandit scenarios proposed in this thread:
-A sociopathic leader who has hired disposable minions
-Group with hardened veterans and a rotating roster of new recruits.
-A group that preys on the weak and got in over their heads by attacking a group that was stronger than them.
-A close knit group of bandits with a fraternal bond.
-A recently elected leader who needs to win the approval of his fellow bandits.

I think it is a mistake to decide that one of these is the way that bandits work. Anyone of those scenarios, if roleplayed well, would be far more interesting than fighting 10 nameless, faceless bandits, killing them all, taking their stuff and moving on with your travels.

Rhynn
2014-04-17, 10:54 AM
My problem with the - What if the leader is a sociopath who knows he will survive and wants the others to die to get more money - argument is that it is just one possible scenario. That one possible scenario doesn't justify having all bandits fighting to the last man in every scenario. It doesn't even justify why the minions would continue fighting.

Yeah, it's all basically an irrelevant side-argument that has nothing to do with the fact that, as a rule, neither bandits nor predators* are willing to sustain extensive casualties or great personal injury, because it runs counter to their primary motivation, i.e. survival.

* Or really anyone who's not a crazy monster, some kind of berserker, a constuct, magically compulsed, exceptionally disciplined under specific orders, etc. etc. - a bunch of side cases and exceptions that have no bearing on the point.