[3.5] Chase Scenes in D&D: One Side Simply Runs Away

[Amphetryon]

NB: Though partially inspired by events in recent actual games in which I've participated, this is not intended as a complaint about those sessions, merely an exploration of available tools for both sides of the DM screen in this type of situation.

Imagine this scenario: Three PCs are surprised while outside by four members of the Evil Organization (tm) with which they've been clashing heads for much of their adventuring careers. The PCs have been expecting this confrontation, but they were expecting it in the morning, when they'd rested, not near dusk. The day has been long and difficult; the PCs are relatively low on resources, outnumbered, and not at full health. One resource available to the PCs is Invisibility, along with other forms of concealment such as Blur. They scatter, running at full speed in different directions, and activate their Invisibility and other concealment items. Their adversaries, who have similar access to Invisibility, have limited means of pinpointing the PCs. In this case, we'll assume that their Lifesense only works out to 60', and that the PCs are similarly limited in their ability to see the unseen.

How do you reasonably allow the Evil Organization (tm) members to engage the PCs in combat in such a scenario, if at all?

One anticipated response: Amph, the problem is you're railroading. You're trying to force an encounter to become a combat. Don't do that; it's Bad DMing. Encounters should be an organic, whether combat or otherwise, else the whole thing feels stilted and artificial.

Rebuttal to my own anticipated response: So, flip the script. Let the PCs get away and go deal with the Evil Organization (tm) on the morrow as they'd intended, when they're fresh. Why in the world would the bad guys not use these same tactics, having seen their efficacy and having full access to that same bag of tricks? Why in the world would any group ever willingly engage an enemy which seems at least an even match for them, which they know they can successfully escape?

[Troacctid]

You could try the chase rules from DMG2.

[Amphetryon]

You could try the chase rules from DMG2.

And when one side refuses to engage, or do other than run outside the range of the others' perception?

[nedz]

I've seen this sort of thing done badly but that was on a rail-road rather than in a game.

Running away is a valid tactic which PCs should use more often — and NPCs too. In fact being able to disengage is a more important PC ability than being able to fly — or should be anyway.

Recurring villains are a good thing BTW, and this is how you do it organically.

[BowStreetRunner]

Why in the world would any group ever willingly engage an enemy which seems at least an even match for them, which they know they can successfully escape?
And there you have the entirety of the Napoleonic wars on both land and at sea. In fact this has been one of the most important considerations involved in warfare going back to the beginning of civilization. In many instances, actually bringing an enemy to battle was infuriatingly difficult as they far too often could just decline the battle and move off.

To Quote Sun Tzu, "And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him."

Generally it is a matter of either forcing the enemy to stand and fight or convincing them that they doing so is in their interest. Forcing them may be accomplished by physically trapping them. It may also be accomplished by 'morally trapping' them, by putting them in a position when they feel obligated to fight such as to defend a town that you will sack if they do not. Convincing them that they want to do battle can often be a matter of deception (such as making your side seam weaker and their stronger) or it may even be a matter of goading or taunting them into attacking without first considering their situation.

[Amphetryon]

I've seen this sort of thing done badly but that was on a rail-road rather than in a game.

Running away is a valid tactic which PCs should use more often — and NPCs too. In fact being able to disengage is a more important PC ability than being able to fly — or should be anyway.

Recurring villains are a good thing BTW, and this is how you do it organically.

How do they become villains, rather than off-screen antagonists, when they need never engage the PCs, and how are you defining 'recurring' if no encounters other than escapes take place?

How much XP do you choose to give to PCs who simply go Fancy the Bard on every encounter?

Why would PCs - particularly self-interested, rather than altruistic, PCs - fight anything they can successfully run away from, and why would the inverse ever happen?

[Mrs Kat]

The problem here is lack of goal other than "PCs kill baddies" or "baddies kill PCs".

Honestly? It's ok that people can disengage. Let it be.

If you want the groups in question to engage, give the situation stakes. Make the goal something larger like "Break into the tower" or "protect the Mcguffin"

In the case of "Break into the tower", if the PCs force the baddies to disengage, they have won, and may loot at leisure. If the PCs flee, then they are not in the tower, and have failed. In the case of the Mcguffin, the PCs have a choice- flee with the Mcguffin, and possibly have the baddies track them with a Mcguffin locator, or surrender the Mcguffin to the baddies.

[Amphetryon]

The problem here is lack of goal other than "PCs kill baddies" or "baddies kill PCs".

Honestly? It's ok that people can disengage. Let it be.

If you want the groups in question to engage, give the situation stakes. Make the goal something larger like "Break into the tower" or "protect the Mcguffin"

In the case of "Break into the tower", if the PCs force the baddies to disengage, they have won, and may loot at leisure. If the PCs flee, then they are not in the tower, and have failed. In the case of the Mcguffin, the PCs have a choice- flee with the Mcguffin, and possibly have the baddies track them with a Mcguffin locator, or surrender the Mcguffin to the baddies.

If the DM is adding 'stakes,' how is that different than adding 'rails?'

How do the PCs add stakes to force the NPCs to fight them, rather than running away?

[Troacctid]

How is it the same as adding rails? I'm not sure I even see any obvious similarities.

[Mrs Kat]

If the DM is adding 'stakes,' how is that different than adding 'rails?'

How do the PCs add stakes to force the NPCs to fight them, rather than running away?

A scene ceases to be on rails when it no longer has a predetermined outcome? A railroaded scenario will have a scripted event "Baddies steal the Mcguffin" in order to proceed to the next scene, where a nonrailroaded scenario will accept "PCs protect Mcguffin" or even "PCs team up with baddies to throw Mcguffin in a volcano". It's about how the DM rolls with it.

To the second question- it's about knowing what the baddies want. Say a gather info check tells the PCs that the baddies are gathering up plot shards for their plot device. Then they head straight to the entrance of the plot shard mine to stop them and you have a point defense encounter.

If what the baddies want is "kill the PCs", then it's even easier. You have to lay a trap, and ambush the baddies. Have the rogue bluff being badly wounded, and load some spray guns with torch-bug paste (prevents invisibility) and tanglefoot bags (prevent fast movement) or level-appropriate equivalents (dim anchor etc).

[Psyren]

How do the PCs add stakes to force the NPCs to fight them, rather than running away?

Generally speaking, they don't. That's just the nature of storytelling in general, at least in the sort of "heroes vs. villains" narratives D&D is designed to emulate. The PCs are the protagonists, the protagonists are (at least nominally) on the side of good, and good is largely reactionary. The villains are the ones with the agency to force conflict or not, particularly since they have the most options available for doing so (since they have the fewest moral/ethical quandaries about how the choose to engage.)

Thus, fleeing is almost always an option for the bad guys, as long as they aren't physically prevented from doing so.


If the DM is adding 'stakes,' how is that different than adding 'rails?'

The difference is that rails are a hard obstacle ("you must do X") while stakes can be ignored, even if there is a cost associated for doing so. ("You should do X, because if you don't, Y.") In other words, it shifts the agency back onto the players - they have no options with the former, but with the latter, the cost Y for not doing X may actually be worthwhile.

This doesn't apply though if the stakes are too high for there to be a choice. "Do this or the world gets destroyed and you all fail the campaign" is indistinguishable from rails. But "do X or the BBEG acquires another fragment of the macguffin and unlocks more powers" may not be, because the alternative to X may actually make the PCs stronger relative to said BBEG than doing X would have done.

[ExLibrisMortis]

If the DM is adding 'stakes,' how is that different than adding 'rails?'

How do the PCs add stakes to force the NPCs to fight them, rather than running away?
Stakes may be refused, if they are too low (or high). Refusing rails is a bit more disastrous:
http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/300px-train-wreck-at-montparnasse-1895.jpg

The PCs can add stakes by vowing - in a public place - to destroy the villains, motivating them to take rigorous preventive action (i.e. eventually killing and soul-trapping the PCs), and adding to the inevitability of the eventual final showdown. The vow can be a lie, of course, but a good bluff check works wonders, and there should be a generous circumstance bonus, given the history of animosity between the two parties involved.

Other ways include: obtaining an item or person that the villains want, putting a bounty on the villain's head (or your own), denouncing the villain's god/patron/idol, or by otherwise being an attractive yet stealthily prepared ambush target (e.g. the carriage of travelling love priests [m/f] with suspiciously revealing clothes, the gold shipment, the ice cream stall). I'm presuming the villains we are dealing with want things besides their core villainy objective.

[Amphetryon]

Generally speaking, they don't. That's just the nature of storytelling in general, at least in the sort of "heroes vs. villains" narratives D&D is designed to emulate. The PCs are the protagonists, the protagonists are (at least nominally) on the side of good, and good is largely reactionary. The villains are the ones with the agency to force conflict or not, particularly since they have the most options available for doing so (since they have the fewest moral/ethical quandaries about how the choose to engage.)

Thus, fleeing is almost always an option for the bad guys, as long as they aren't physically prevented from doing so.
Is this agreement or disagreement with the notion that the PCs also almost always have the option to flee, rather than fight? Is this somehow different when the PCs are not ethically or morally the 'good guys?'

(Sorry I keep repeating this question) How is the DM to deal with an adventuring party that merely disengages from every fight they're not overwhelmingly winning? How are the PCs to deal with adversaries who behave this way?



The difference is that rails are a hard obstacle ("you must do X") while stakes can be ignored, even if there is a cost associated for doing so. ("You should do X, because if you don't, Y.") In other words, it shifts the agency back onto the players - they have no options with the former, but with the latter, the cost Y for not doing X may actually be worthwhile.

This doesn't apply though if the stakes are too high for there to be a choice. "Do this or the world gets destroyed and you all fail the campaign" is indistinguishable from rails. But "do X or the BBEG acquires another fragment of the macguffin and unlocks more powers" may not be, because the alternative to X may actually make the PCs stronger relative to said BBEG than doing X would have done.
Stakes that can be ignored are not motivation when the alternative is possibly fatal to at least one PC, in my experience, and stakes that cannot are apparently indistinguishable from rails by both our understandings. I am personally unfamiliar with any use of the term 'MacGuffin' that indicates other than 'the thing that makes the plot go.' That makes the MacGuffin the sine qua non of the adventure, which, again, makes it indistinguishable from a railroad.

[Kalirren]

^^ seconded. "Face me here" OR "you lose something". The PCs thought they didn't have anything worth defending, so they ran away. If they get away and regroup, then it's their turn - it'll be the PCs' job to find a way to make the villains lose something, or the villains will just run away, etc...

[Psyren]

Is this agreement or disagreement with the notion that the PCs also almost always have the option to flee, rather than fight? Is this somehow different when the PCs are not ethically or morally the 'good guys?'

What I'm saying is that it's far easier to engineer a scenario that the PCs can't choose to flee from than it is to do the same for the villains. The villains, almost by definition, don't care about anything other than themselves and their goals, while the heroes do have to worry about bystanders and hostages and other innocents that might be caught in the crossfire; it's a fundamental difference between the two camps.



(Sorry I keep repeating this question) How is the DM to deal with an adventuring party that merely disengages from every fight they're not overwhelmingly winning? How are the PCs to deal with adversaries who behave this way?

The DM deals with such a party by having the consequences of disengaging outweigh the benefits.
The PCs usually don't have a recourse but to get the bad guys next time.


Stakes that can be ignored are not motivation when the alternative is possibly fatal to at least one PC, in my experience, and stakes that cannot are apparently indistinguishable from rails by both our understandings. I am personally unfamiliar with any use of the term 'MacGuffin' that indicates other than 'the thing that makes the plot go.' That makes the MacGuffin the sine qua non of the adventure, which, again, makes it indistinguishable from a railroad.

I think it's possible for a creative GM to achieve middle ground - stakes where "we can leave this fight" is not a foregone conclusion, but where the consequences for doing so are not insurmountable either.

Order of the Stick is as usual a good example. When the odds are heavily stacked against Roy, who has lost both of his primary casters and has not one but two high-level evil parties bearing down on him, he seriously considers retreat. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0881.html) Now, putting aside Belkar's prodding to get him back in the fight, running then wasn't a terrible idea. Yes, doing so would mean the LG would get the gate, followed by Xykon - but even if Tarquin withdrew rather than facing off against the epic lich, it would still take Xykon and Redcloak weeks (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0416.html) to perform the rituals to control the Snarl - enough time for Roy to potentially arrive with reinforcements, such as a contingent of the High Priests we're seeing now. It would be a very difficult fight, but not impossible.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

D&D tends to have countermeasures for known strategies, and illusion-based escape definitely has them. A simple scroll of See Invisibility would have made a scattered retreat seem like a terrible idea, as it would have nearly guaranteed the capture of one PC.

If you really want to screw over running away, perhaps the antagonists start using Runehounds (MM3). Ridiculous 500' blindsight, decent speed, web breath, and decent toughness make it very hard to run away from them barring teleportation. And it's CR3.

But really, I'll echo everyone else's sentiments that running away is fine. The PCs do it instead of being killed, and if the antagonists do it that generally means the PCs get to do what they wanted anyway. I count enemies running away as a win, generally.

Edit: Fixed slight typo, added sauce/more info for Runehounds.

[Amphetryon]

D&D tends to have countermeasures for known strategies, and illusion-based escape definitely has them. A simple scroll of See Invisibility would have made a scattered retreat seem like a terrible idea, as it would have nearly guaranteed the capture of one PC. These particular Players make a habit of turning and running when one of them is gravely injured. The 'nearly guaranteed. . . capture' of one of their member seems unlikely to give them pause. A different group could, theoretically, respond differently.


If you really want to screw over running away, perhaps the antagonists start using Rune Hounds. Tasty long-range blindsight, ridiculous speed, web breath, and decent toughness make it very hard to run away from them barring teleportation.If those with whom you play do not cry 'railroading' or make 'choo-choo' noises at such countermeasures, I congratulate you on your good fortune.


But really, I'll echo everyone else's sentiments that running away is fine. The PCs do it instead of being killed, and if the antagonists do it that generally means the PCs get to do what they wanted anyway. I count enemies running away as a win, generally.
Does that 'win' include XP?

[jiriku]

NB:Their adversaries, who have similar access to Invisibility, have limited means of pinpointing the PCs. In this case, we'll assume that their Lifesense only works out to 60', and that the PCs are similarly limited in their ability to see the unseen. How do you reasonably allow the Evil Organization (tm) members to engage the PCs in combat in such a scenario, if at all?

In this case, I'd expect the villains pursue ineptly. If they are at all clever, they can at least improve their chances by ganging up on the PC who seems easiest to catch. They may have to let the others go, but if they can catch one and kill him, they'd weaken the PC group as a whole (except of course that a new PC would miraculously appear to replace the dead one, but the villains don't know that).


One anticipated response: Amph, the problem is you're railroading. You're trying to force an encounter to become a combat. Don't do that; it's Bad DMing. Encounters should be an organic, whether combat or otherwise, else the whole thing feels stilted and artificial.

Yes, you were. Yes, they should be. Good on you that you already get this idea.


Rebuttal to my own anticipated response: So, flip the script. Let the PCs get away and go deal with the Evil Organization (tm) on the morrow as they'd intended, when they're fresh. Why in the world would the bad guys not use these same tactics, having seen their efficacy and having full access to that same bag of tricks?

The bad guys should use those same tactics. Bluntly, if you aren't doing this already, then you're playing them stupid. Remember verisimilitude -- you're supposed to be running NPCs as if they were real people. Why wouldn't real people seek to preserve their own lives whenever possible? When I run combats, the NPCs almost always retreat when it becomes clear that they're going to die if they don't -- in fact, the steady trickle of survivors escaping encounters with the PCs is a well-established in-character method by which the BBEG becomes of aware of the PCs and their tactics and takes pre-emptive action against them or prepares in advance to defend against their common tactics.


Why in the world would any group ever willingly engage an enemy which seems at least an even match for them, which they know they can successfully escape?

This reflects an important dimension to your work as the Dungeon master. You need to provide motivation for NPCs, and provide the raw materials players can use provide motivation for their characters. If no one in your world cares about anything enough to die for it, or even to risk death for it, then you haven't provided motivation. If people are willing to die for some things, but they never need to fight for those things, then you haven't provided relevant motivation. From your question about the difference between stakes and railroading, I suspect that you have the opportunity to get better at creating stakes and raising the stakes in your games. You want a situation where the players are so involved in the consequences of the game that they'll risk character death to further the plot. You want a situation where the NPCs are visible enough and have enough depth that the players can predict and understand when the NPCs would or would not be willing to risk death in pursuit of their goals.

And maybe, just maybe, if players tend to run from fights frequently, there's some unnecessary combat in your game that's not plot-related, and you could dispense with that in order to spend more of the group's gaming time on the good stuff. I know next to nothing about your campaigns so I can't say whether that's the case or not.

Edit: Think about tactical goals in each fight. In your example situation, the NPC goal was "kill the player characters". The player goal was "don't let the villains kill us". Tellingly, the players had no immediate motivation beyond survival. They had nothing to protect, no agenda to advance, no axe to grind with their foes that was worth dying for. When you see this, imagine your players are like actors examining a new script and asking the script-writer "what's my motivation in this scene?" They're looking for you to give them something to care about.

[BowStreetRunner]

How is the DM to deal with an adventuring party that merely disengages from every fight they're not overwhelmingly winning? How are the PCs to deal with adversaries who behave this way?

Physically block their routes of escape.
Create a situation where the consequences of running away are greater than the risk of staying and fighting.
Deceive them into believing the opponents are weaker than they actually are.
Taunt or goad them into staying and fighting.

As for the PCs - give them a chance to figure out a way on their own before you start feeling you need to hand them a gift-wrapped solution. Then, if they come up with something you hadn't thought of yourself, borrow that idea and use it against them later on.

[Strigon]

One way of dealing with opponents who run, if they have any loyalty to one another, is to focus entirely on the slowest member.
I.E., the Evil League of Evil ambushes a squad of Goodie Two-Shoes Inc's adventurers in a ruined city. The good mage becomes invisible, the thief leaps over the rubble and into the shadows, but the heavily armoured tank has trouble maneuvering. Rather than split up and chase each member individually, the Evil League of Evil focuses entirely on chasing and trapping the tank, forcing him into a confrontation. This leads to the tank's squadmates being forced to either:
Engage
or
Lose a squad member, and be weakened the next time they meet.

[Psyren]

Does that 'win' include XP?

By RAW, yes, though I'm uncertain if you're houseruling differently based on what I'm reading.

[DarkSonic1337]

If those with whom you play do not cry 'railroading' or make 'choo-choo' noises at such countermeasures, I congratulate you on your good fortune.


Maybe if you bring it out the first time they try to run away.

But turning invisible and running away has been the PC's specific response to a losing battle correct? If so it is completely reasonable for anyone who has let them escape to enact countermeasures if they want to engage the PCs again.

If you know the opponent can teleport away, prepare dimensional anchor. If you know they turn invisible, prepare see invisibility. Forcecage for incorporeals, true seeing for illusions, ect. And when you can't turn to spells for counters, there's probably a monster that does the job just fine. The BBEG getting some hounds (literal hounds too!) to track some troublesome adventurers is completely reasonable, and if your players think that's railroading then your players don't actually know what railroading is or perhaps just want to play in a world that doesn't adapt to their tactics.


Also I'm gonna second raising the stakes. Adding consequences for not fighting the badguys is not railroading. They're bad guys because they're doing bad things to more than just the PCs right? Just have them get more and more successful at doing bad things because nobody is stopping them. At some point...your players will have to stop them or the bad guys will succeed their final plan and the campaign will end (or take a drastic turn as the PCs decide to switch sides or something).

As far as when the side is flipped...give PCs goals beyond "kill the bad guys." The bad guys don't succeed by merely surviving, they have to enact parts of their plan. As long as the PCs are stopping said plans the bad guy will have a reason to fight them, and with more fights the PCs will figure out how the bad guy likes to escape and enact countermeasures, eventually trapping the bad guy and taking him out for good.

[Psyren]

The bad guys should use those same tactics. Bluntly, if you aren't doing this already, then you're playing them stupid. Remember verisimilitude -- you're supposed to be running NPCs as if they were real people. Why wouldn't real people seek to preserve their own lives whenever possible? When I run combats, the NPCs almost always retreat when it becomes clear that they're going to die if they don't -- in fact, the steady trickle of survivors escaping encounters with the PCs is a well-established in-character method by which the BBEG becomes of aware of the PCs and their tactics and takes pre-emptive action against them or prepares in advance to defend against their common tactics.

It's worth pointing out that not all enemies will behave this way; many will indeed fight to the death out of stupidity, insanity or savagery. Even some intelligent enemies lack a concept of self-preservation, or consider death the more tolerable outcome. A ghost for instance might be very intelligent, yet its existence is torment unless laid to rest, and so it will fight rather than retreat. Various demons simply don't care, whether due to sheer mania or secure in the knowledge that they will reform in the Abyss at some point, and simply want to inflict as many wounds as they can or maximize their chances of taking a PC down with them. Some special villains like liches and vampires know that they will return regardless, and so fleeing prior to the moment of destruction robs them of valuable intelligence they could have gained from their opponents; thus they fight as long as possible even against great odds (provided their phylactery and coffin are safely hidden away elsewhere.) And then there are the multitudes of mindless or barely sentient creatures that are simply following instinct or instruction.

Even some intelligent mortal creatures can be played this way - this works best if they are fanatics or otherwise dedicated to a far more frightening evil power. Retreat or surrender can indeed be worse than death for a particularly sadistic master who does not tolerate failure, and so those underlings may choose a relatively quick end on the PCs blades rather than whatever torments await them back home as a reward for messing up.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If the DM is adding 'stakes,' how is that different than adding 'rails?'

Seriously?

If there are no stakes involved then why are these potential foes considered enemies that need to be engaged at all? Most people don't just randomly pick a fight to the death with a pack of wild murderhobos.

If the DM hasn't laid a hook that engages the PC's motivations then they have no reason to consider these people their enemies and there is no good reason to fight them unless they're invading territory that the PC's consider their own.

Stakes aren't railroading, they're absolutely necessary to have any plot other than "defend the homefront."

For real, if the PC's don't have any goals, don't want to engage in random fights, and don't have anything they want to protect, then why are they adventurers instead of bakers or stable hands?

[Mrs Kat]

(Sorry I keep repeating this question) How is the DM to deal with an adventuring party that merely disengages from every fight they're not overwhelmingly winning? How are the PCs to deal with adversaries who behave this way?

In either case, there are countermeasures that sensible characters (PCs and NPCs) may take. Many have been suggested in this thread; trackers, blindsense creatures, faerie fire. I like the mindsight feat as a countermeasure to invisibility, personally, but there are options.




Stakes that can be ignored are not motivation when the alternative is possibly fatal to at least one PC, in my experience, and stakes that cannot are apparently indistinguishable from rails by both our understandings. I am personally unfamiliar with any use of the term 'MacGuffin' that indicates other than 'the thing that makes the plot go.' That makes the MacGuffin the sine qua non of the adventure, which, again, makes it indistinguishable from a railroad.

Eh, I think this is a question of scale. Not all plots are epic and world ending. If your plot is about a bakery competition, your mcguffin could be a prize-winning cake recipe. And no-one would argue that "I was so railroaded into protecting that cake recipe". I mean, they took that job for the Baker's guild in the first place, right? So if they run, they face the consequences of angry Baker's guild giving them a bad reputation, and not getting paid. Not deadly, not world-ending.

[Novawurmson]

I actually rather like the Pathfinder chase rules (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/chases).

[dehro]

Consider the scenario I'm currently playing:
Going from A to B we have stumbled upon location a.2.
It looks like a temple or fortress of some sort which my character proceeds to scout towards.
As he gets closer, invisible and flying, he gets noticed and chased by a large creature which turns out to be of the draconic and undead variety.
My character's reaction is to gtfo, extra motivation given by a pants-scorching blast of something flammable..
Most other companions agree that it doesn't look good and exploring location a.2 might just not be worth risking our lives for, since we have no attachment to the place.
One of us however is an aasimar cleric of kelemvor, whose personal mission is to fight the undead whenever possible.
Will we manage to drag her away? Will she force our hand? It's entirely in the hands of the players for things to go either way. This is in no way a railroad.
The same situation with different variables, say location a.2 is the only source of fresh water within days, we hear the screams of tortured innocents, there are 5 more of those creatures flying around, we come upon the location with our resources depleted, can either bring about a confrontation or discourage one.. And either choice may or may not have consequences both for the party or the individuals within it.. A paladin Who chooses to ignore screams for help or is forced to do so might suffer individual loss of powers, a greedy treasure Hunter might start resenting his companions for playing it safe and not trying to pilfer that giant gem on top of the building, a wounded warrior may find himself forced in battle to the brink of death when he'd have preferred to let this one go...And All of that may bring about consequences in the telling or extra expenditures in potions, internal strife, or any such consequence. Refusing a confrontation may carry long term consequences that are not immediately apparent.. For instance stopping in location a.2 may make us reach destination B too late to accomplish our goal there, or may lead us to find nothing but smoldering ashes when we get there.
So maybe next time we will make a different call.. Or maybe we won't.
A side-quest can be made relevant to one or more characters and it's then up to them to convince the others to take part. A main quest usually has objectives. It's up to the players to decide how much they want to reach those objectives and when the time comes to cut their losses. A DM will throw obstacles at them.. Until the point where they say **** this I'm out.. Then he'll give them a break, fill their belly with sweets and present them with a new lure, which they can decide to take... Or not.. either way it's the DM's call whether that lure is connected to the unresolved plotline or not.
Maybe the main quest will never be completed because the characters get into one side-quest after the other, or because the opponent is simply that slippery.
If you watch the anime series Lupin III, you'll see that he never gets caught for good neither can he ever rest easy because the cops or side-show baddies are always on his heels... He still gets plenty of challenges and occasions to run off with loot, every episode.

Wanting a particular plotline to move forward and be resolved at all costs can lead to railroading, if it's done within single sessions, but make the plot scale big enough and it will really not matter, because as a DM you have an entire world to move around... You may bring back the plotline at your leisure and eventually the pcs may stumble back on it at a time they feel their chances to be better, or when personal and group stakes are higher, whether it's true or not... And even then, things may go differently.
I once accidentally caused a rift to another world to open, and the plot was so affected by it that the DM literally (and somewhat theatrically) threw away a copybook worth of plot/notes/setting and characters, winging the rest of the session and rewriting the rest of the campaign, which still led to a confrontation with the original bbeg, albeit in a completely different manner and with a surprise ending.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

These particular Players make a habit of turning and running when one of them is gravely injured. The 'nearly guaranteed. . . capture' of one of their member seems unlikely to give them pause. A different group could, theoretically, respond differently.Sounds like a group-specific problem then. It's been said before that railroading is best done when front-loaded, i.e. during character generation and developing the premise of the game. Perhaps, at least as an exercise in something new, they should make characters who care about each other more.
If those with whom you play do not cry 'railroading' or make 'choo-choo' noises at such countermeasures, I congratulate you on your good fortune.I guess I'm fortunate not to have players with frankly silly expectations that an intelligent, organized enemy - especially ones that witnessed the retreat first-hand! - will never develop any intelligent countermeasures.

Think about it this way: If you were a PC (it sounds like you're the DM, but correct me if I'm wrong), and the enemies kept running away from you using the same tactic, you'd prepare countermeasures. Turnabout is fair play.

Using Runehounds may be too extreme depending on level and optimization, but again, it's not so strange for one of the enemies to have a scroll of See Invisibility even in low-op.

EDIT: Actually, this problem could solve itself. Let them engage the enemy on good terms a few times, and have them annoyingly escape each time. Watch them develop countermeasures and kill/capture enemies. Use those countermeasures. Surely they can't cry foul then; or at least when they do, you have ammunition.
Does that 'win' include XP?Forcing a strategic retreat is a victory, yes. No loot, though.

The DMG does have some loose rules about providing XP based upon completing objectives - which you can often manage to accomplish in part by forcing a retreat - and I whole-heartedly support it. I just wish they went into more detail on that variant.

[Vaz]

Sounds childish to me that they are crying railroading anything that doesn't go their way.

There are a lot of things quicker than them in D&D, and for a party who's known for running away by a party who want them dead/captured, bringing along a counter to their running abilities is no differrnt than targeting a fighter with a high DC Will Save or Suck/Die like hold person, or the rogue type with a fort save.

Do they cry railroading when a rogue is fighting undead enemies?

If all they do is run, and they always succeed at running because you feel nothing is achieved (until they can survive until the next day to alpha strike), then there is no challenge. If they are making encounters trivially easy without them having to expend around a quarter of their daily resources or even some of their limited use items, what experience is there. What do they learn?

Sometimes they will come up against somethung better skilled or better equipped. A D&D Equivalent of dog the bounty hunter coming with Mindsight, a 60ft speed gained from his monk levels and psionic feats, and incredible stalking skills.

'Teach' your party how to play better. They may not have motivations to join in with the "world is ending" plot, and thwart it, instead stealing the valuables from the banks of all the people in stormreach, and then bug out to somewhere safe and start again. This time, they are fighting the guards and private armies of the wealthy, assassins/thief guilders wanting a piece of the pie and then elite former special forces turned bounty hunters hired to force them into the draft, while other assets (perhaps sleeper agents
from the invaders) attempt to contact them/attack them for their own nefarious needs; whether that is removal of potentially dangerous threats, or using them to destroy part of the cities protection.

You are a player in the game, with the exception that you have a different role to play, in the same way that they have the role of healbot, tank, dps, scout or godwizard of whatever. You are the AI of the world. But that shouldn't prevent you from having fun eother. Are you having fun with them 'just escaping' all the time? Why not harry them? Scry and die or figjting on favourable terms only is really boring after all.

TL;DR, tell them to suck it up, buttercup.

[Amphetryon]

Seriously?

If there are no stakes involved then why are these potential foes considered enemies that need to be engaged at all? Most people don't just randomly pick a fight to the death with a pack of wild murderhobos.

If the DM hasn't laid a hook that engages the PC's motivations then they have no reason to consider these people their enemies and there is no good reason to fight them unless they're invading territory that the PC's consider their own.

Stakes aren't railroading, they're absolutely necessary to have any plot other than "defend the homefront."

For real, if the PC's don't have any goals, don't want to engage in random fights, and don't have anything they want to protect, then why are they adventurers instead of bakers or stable hands?
"The PCs having goals" is a different set of circumstances than "the DM adds stakes," unless one of us is defining either 'goals' or 'stakes' in an unusual way.

[nedz]

How do they become villains, rather than off-screen antagonists, when they need never engage the PCs, and how are you defining 'recurring' if no encounters other than escapes take place?
They fight, and when things aren't going well for them, they run.

How much XP do you choose to give to PCs who simply go Fancy the Bard on every encounter?
Not very much — if that's all they ever do.

Being able to disengage, or to pursue a disengaging enemy, is an essential ability of any character.

You could have enemies use Pyrrhic tactics. Deploy, force the PCs to consume resources, disengage. This is similar to hit and run tactics.

This is not rail-roading, just intelligent tactics.

You can also use this to build suspense, or have the enemy lull them into complacency when, after refusing to fight a few times, they attack for real.

[dehro]

repeat the pattern of the fights a few times, then throw in an anti-magic field or something else that screws with the running side of the conflict's usual MO..
have a clock ticking for time allowed to adjust strategy and induce a panic mode/forced reaction.. purely based on circumstaces that are entirely logical and believable.. after a few times of the same routine not working out for whoever of the two sides that is trying to accomplish something, changing things up is only natural... whether it's bringing out the big guns or changing the MO significantly in order to force a deviation from the usual running tactics...
if things repeat themselves despite these countermeasures, just have all the chasers focus on one chasee at a time and bring them down one by one.. new characters might bring about new tactics, especially if during creation you ask to add a background or some other form of plot hook that allows you to either lure them into a somewhat foreseable reaction or screw with their allignement if they conveniently "forget" their own backstory in order not to risk their hides.

[Mrs Kat]

Honestly, given how your players are behaving and the fact that they seem to cry "railroad" at the slightest hint of consequences or countermeasures... I think you have an OOC problem.

Sit down with your players and talk about what you want out of the game. You and them both. Explain that you don't like them fleeing every encounter, and they can tell you that your monsters are too hard/they want to play a more social campaign. Whatever.

The real issue is that it feels like you/your players are unhappy.

[Psyren]

"The PCs having goals" is a different set of circumstances than "the DM adds stakes," unless one of us is defining either 'goals' or 'stakes' in an unusual way.

But they are intertwined. The stakes are that the PCs do not achieve their goals, or that their goals are delayed. The PCs, being heroes, are more likely to have goals that involve entities other than themselves - "protect the kingdom" or "save the enchanted forest" for instance. And if they fail, a savvy GM can turn their failure into opportunity. Maybe they failed to keep the enchanted forest free of corruption, so the forest spirit drew upon hidden power to make that happen instead, but now she is dying and there is a new quest/time limit on them.

[Strigon]

Honestly, given how your players are behaving and the fact that they seem to cry "railroad" at the slightest hint of consequences or countermeasures... I think you have an OOC problem.

Exactly; in real life, choices have consequences.
Unless they also claim to be railroaded in real life...?

[dehro]

Would be fun if they turned out to work for the *insert relevant local Railway company*

[Mrs Kat]

Would be fun if they turned out to work for the *insert relevant local Railway company*

Or they're all sentient steam trains. Would explain the noises.

[Twurps]

Like many have said before: You(r group) has a problem with motivation.

This might be you as DM aren't providing them with enough motivation to complete a fight, or it might be a lack of motivation from the Players OOC to respond to your motivation without you resorting to railroading tactics.

As always: The first sollutions is to adres your issues OOC. Your not having as much fun as you would have liked, and chances are neither are your players. Work something out.

If the above doesn't work, or they are having perfect fun: Remember that you don't have to provide them with the motivation to fight the standard 4x per day. Or to fight at all. A halfway decent PC should have enough goals and motivations of his own.

This reminds me of a story from a DM with a very similar problem (might have been on this forum, might not have been). Players wouldn't respond at all to his incentives. And the OOC approach didn't work. Here's what he did:

He stopped feeding his players any incentives. PC's got up one morning in the local tavern they were staying in, and nothing happened. (no baddies turned up, no fights erupted. etc). PC's didn't take any initiative, so they just lingered in the tavern for the full session. If memory serves me right, it took some 3 sessions of 'mind-numbing tavern lingering' (without any XP being given) but PC's finally got their s**** together, made a plan and ventured out into the big bad world with enough motivation to take on anything the DM threw at them.

[Kelb_Panthera]

"The PCs having goals" is a different set of circumstances than "the DM adds stakes," unless one of us is defining either 'goals' or 'stakes' in an unusual way.

I disagree. The DM sets stakes based on the PC's goals. The two are very tightly linked if not the same thing, outright.

[DarkSonic1337]

By the PCs HAVING goals they are introducing stakes (the denial of those goals). If the PCs don't care about the outcome (there are no stakes), then the outcome does not affect their goals. They are two sides of the same coin.

What is probably tripping you up is that many people think that introducing stakes means the PCs have to LOSE something upon failure, when you should be looking it as two sides on a scale (the other side being whoever or whatever is opposing the PCs). Yes the PCs can lose by losing something, but they can also lose by having the other side GAIN something. Less concretely, they can also lose by failing to gain something (they really maintained the status quo, but it FEELS like a loss when you try something and make no gains). They can lose by failing to make the other side lose anything (again, this is more of a feeling than a tangible loss).

I could be totally off base and just putting words in your mouth, in which case my bad for the stawman. Still worth saying imo because I've seen people struggle with this mentality

[Deadline]

"The PCs having goals" is a different set of circumstances than "the DM adds stakes," unless one of us is defining either 'goals' or 'stakes' in an unusual way.

Well, yes, but there are ways you can goals and stakes, usually by making the interaction between the PCs and the bad guys personal. For example, let's say that there is an evil cult operating in the town the PCs have been staying in for the past few adventures. The DM could make some of the NPCs memorable and fun, and hopefully endearing to the PCs. Perhaps they have a favorite bartender at the local watering hole who was a former adventurer, and he always gives the PCs their first ale for free. Let's assume the PCs have grown to like him (parties will often adopt an NPC in this fashion, keep an eye out for it). This lays the groundwork for a possible increasing of the stakes. Now, townsfolk are starting to disappear because the evil cult is sacrificing them for some dark purpose. The PC's are looking to put a stop to it, and manage to find a cult hideout. Combat ensues. If the PCs flee when the fight isn't a complete steamrolling of the bad guys, then they've left the cult to continue operating and given the cult an idea of what the PCs are capable of. How do you raise the stakes? Well, maybe the cult kidnaps the innkeeper's young daughter. Now there's an NPC they like, tearfully asking for their aid. If they go back after the cult and run away when the fight gets hard, then the cult sacrifices the NPC's daughter. If they tough it out and win the hard-fought encounter, then maybe they rescue her. One way makes them feel like bottom dwelling cowards, the other makes them feel like big damn heroes. This isn't railroading. Railroading forces a course of action, this is merely presenting situations and following the natural conclusion of the PC's choices. These choices should usually be difficult ones, because no bard ever sang the tale of when Gottleib the Brave had to courageously choose between having chicken or fish for dinner.

So to continue, let's say the PC's run again, what is the natural outcome of that? The NPC's daughter is probably sacrificed, right? What is the natural outcome of that? Would the NPC be upset? Does he hold it against the PC's? At the very least, they probably lose their free beer. And what happens to the town if the cult goes unchecked? Eventually, something pretty bad I bet. All of that makes sense, and is a direct reaction to the PC's choices and actions. In essence, they have just directed the plot, and this is a good thing.

To answer your question about why the NPC's might not run away, that one is easy. If you want there to be an encounter, give them a reason not to. Perhaps the encounter takes place in their makeshift temple, which contains a heavy bronze idol of their evil deity. They can't really run away with a thing that requires a horse and cart to move, and most of them are fanatics who will fight to the death in order to protect their holy place. Maybe the terrain itself makes running away a non-viable strategy. Maybe the bad guys surrender, throwing themselves on the PC's mercy. Maybe running away and allowing the heroes to do as they please means that their overlord will make them suffer a fate worse than death. Or, perhaps they have no reason not to run, and will do so, which means the PCs win the day (this time). PC's hate unresolved things though, so be sure the bad guys recur later.

All of those, of course, require that your players have some investment in the game beyond "Kill thing A, steal its treasure." If that's all your group wants, then these concerns (and the difficulties of planning encounters and creating stakes) go entirely out the window. Just set up a series of interesting fights to the death with your bad guys, and string loose plot to get from encounter to encounter. In fact, the Feng Shui action movie role playing game recommends just that. Find three pictures of places that would make great movie fight scene locations, then come up with a loose plot for why the bad guys would be at each location and how the locations could be tied together. Shake together with some loose plot threads, and toss it in front of your players to see what they do. If they are the type to speculate openly at the table, listen in, they may hit upon an idea that fits and sounds better than what you thought of. If so, steal it, file off the edges, and pass it off as your own. The players will feel awesome for "figuring it out", and you'll run a fun and engaging game.

[Amphetryon]

One way makes them feel like bottom dwelling cowards, the other makes them feel like big damn heroes. This isn't railroading.1. My Players, 95% of the time, will choose to feel like bottom-dwelling cowards, when the other option looks deadly. They can find another bar.

2."Do what I, the DM, say you ought to or I take away something you like in-game" isn't railroading? Okay. Different definitions at work here, clearly.

[Strigon]

2."Do what I, the DM, say you ought to or I take away something you like in-game" isn't railroading? Okay. Different definitions at work here, clearly.

You have a very loose definition of railroading if it counts "Not stopping bad guys will cause bad things to happen" as railroading.

[Deadline]

1. My Players, 95% of the time, will choose to feel like bottom-dwelling cowards, when the other option looks deadly. They can find another bar.

This is the root cause you need to address then. Your players certainly seem to have a very different expectation from the game than you do. Have you spoken to them about what it is they are looking for from the game? Also, perhaps they don't want to play heroes? If not, there is plenty of advice that can be offered here about different campaign styles.


2."Do what I, the DM, say you ought to or I take away something you like in-game" isn't railroading? Okay. Different definitions at work here, clearly.

Loaded phrasing aside, it really isn't. Enforcing logical consequences for actions is diametrically opposed to not letting them take those actions in the first place. The latter is my understanding of the traditional definition of railroading. Non-logical consequences for actions leans heavily towards the railroad idea, but at least it still allows for player agency (albeit with a heavy slant towards a scripted plot). To put it another way, guiding in a particular direction is very different from forcing in a particular direction, assuming the guiding allows for players to choose their own way with logical consequences for those choices. The "adding stakes" bit that folks have been talking about is basically how you run a plot (i.e. guide the game in a particular direction) in sandbox-style play (drop plot hooks, and when the players bite, add stakes to amp up tension). The players don't have to save little Sally from the evil cult, but if they don't then they can't fault the townsfolk for giving them the stink-eye for leaving little Sally to be killed (and if they try, the rather effective "what did you think they were going to do with her?" argument works well). At the same time, the DM has to be ok if the PC's decide to blow this two-bit popsicle stand and try their luck elsewhere.

And the best advice, that has already been mentioned by others, is to make sure you and your players are on the same page. For example, one of the DMs in my local group has a general rule, "I'm pretty much open to running whatever as far as genre and the like is concerned, but I prefer to run a game where the PC's wind up being heroes. If you guys are cool with that, great! If not, I'm not interested in running." Given that his games are always top-notch and entertaining, none of us has any issue with it. We have run a few that didn't fit this mold, but most do. Our current one is a depressing, post-magical apocalyptic world where the bad guys kind of won, and the PC's are actually normal folks who are able to call upon the spirits of dead heroes to fight against the overwhelming supernatural evils of the ruined world. Some of the PCs aren't nice people, but they'd best be described as anti-heroes, not villains. Some of the summoned spirits of the dead are past villains as well, but the juxtaposition of making them fight against the current evil is fun. By far the best thing about these games (and it's something I don't get in other games) is that each player is actively interested as an audience member when their PC isn't the current focus, or isn't present. It's awesome.

[DarkSonic1337]

2."Do what I, the DM, say you ought to or I take away something you like in-game" isn't railroading? Okay. Different definitions at work here, clearly.

Cause and effect is a law of the universe, not a railroad. You seem to have a very strange definition of railroading, where anything that results in bad things happening thanks to the PCs not taking the route you guided them towards is railroading.

At first glance it looks okay, but what this really means is that PC's actions (or inaction) having consequences of any negative sort is unreasonable, and that isn't true in real life and certainly shouldn't be true in the game. The bad guys do bad things, and if the PCs don't stop the bad guys from doing bad things then they will logically continue to do bad things, some of which will inevitably happen to the PCs.

You need to straight up ask your players what they expect from your game, and if they want their adversaries to actually be competent and require the PCs to stop them in the first place.


As long as you are allowing the players agency you are not railroading. But allowing them agency REQUIRES that their decisions matter, and not all decisions will be unquestionably favorable for them. Your players are already aware of the ultimate downside for taking action and catastrophically failing, but you've given no downsides for retreat or inaction to weigh that against. You're actually removing player agency with your CURRENT style of gaming, because one of the choices (running away) actually has no effect on the world and it happens to be the choice your players are picking. Make that choice meaningful, even if that means making it detrimental (which it should be since it is weighed against another detrimental outcoming...staying and potentially dying).

[dehro]

and if they happen to be the bad guys in this scenario, or the lazy layabouts, bring the force of the law upon their toes.
in fact, put them in jail with some trivial excuse, maybe by the hand of a corrupt officer.. and leave them there until they decide to try and escape..after which they'll be escaped fellons, constantly chased after by the law, condemned to either find out who framed them or live on the lam with the fuzz after them and having to resort to banditry to survive...
one way or another, action and confrontations must necessarily ensue.. and no, that really is not railroading anything.
the world has a plot, a great number of them probably.. inevitably one or two of those plots affect the players or involve them in some manner, be it only as innocent patsies who take the fall for something they had no involvement in....If nothing else because they look a bit like the culprits...Or because they've been framed.
you "forcing them" to do something, anything, is NOT railroading them.. Nor is making something happened that one way or another disrupts their status quo beyond their ability to slip away unnoticed. It would be if you determined the outcome of their action/inaction, and the shape of their involvement.. but getting a ball rolling towards them is precisely what you're there to do. If they complain you're forcing them into something, be it dodging the ball, stealing it or kicking it back, then get rid of them.. they need another game altogether or they need to clarify what they want to spend their gaming sessions doing
if all they want to do is to drink in a tavern and avoid confrontations, then they really don't need a DM to regulate a session that at the most is going to be about who can hold his beer better.

[Psyren]

I'm with everyone else - your definition of railroading, or your players', or both, is very badly skewed.



If those with whom you play do not cry 'railroading' or make 'choo-choo' noises at such countermeasures, I congratulate you on your good fortune.



2."Do what I, the DM, say you ought to or I take away something you like in-game" isn't railroading? Okay. Different definitions at work here, clearly.

It sounds as though your players don't want consequences for their actions at all. In which case... heroic fantasy is simply the wrong genre. Play a zany comedy campaign with no stakes where the universe can get rebuilt every time it collapses or something.

[kalasulmar]

And this thread is why it sucks to run campaigns for non-heroic parties.

[DarkSonic1337]

And this thread is why it sucks to run campaigns for non-heroic parties.

Well normally the motivation issue doesn't come up with evil PCs. If the PCs are the ones enacting the bad things then the world reacts to them, so the players naturally feel proactive. Being a hero on the other hand naturally feels reactive (the bad guys do things and you respond), leading towards the feeling that bad things are happening to them arbitrarily (and...that's kinda true).

[Perturbulent]

1. My Players, 95% of the time, will choose to feel like bottom-dwelling cowards, when the other option looks deadly. They can find another bar.

I don't feel it's fair to claim that the term bottom-dwelling cowards is fair to apply in a no-win situation. Theoretically, every PC and NPC in the world has everything to gain from finding the biggest dragon in the world and slaying him to take his hoard, but it's not possibly for everyone, particularly single-handedly. They are not cowards for not seeking that goal, nor for fleeing from certain death. The two instances I can think of in which fleeing has been a problem as a player in your campaigns were

1 When I was already rushing back to the party that I had been separated from via a Nailed to the Sky spell, and the biggest dragon in the world, a full 6 cr out of my paygrade starts chasing me when I'm alone (clearly a losing battle, and I had specific motivation to not engage even if I had a chance) this all also being prompted by the explanation he found me via scrying a non-unique item in my bag of holding, that was a piece of 50 in a set (only 1 of which I possessed) which should likely not be possible as either scrying does not allow crossing planes or it does, but would show the object in an extradimensional place, and not the location of me, only the contents of said space.
and
2, rushing to find the phylactery of a lich across huge distances while under the affect of some druid spell that temporarily turned us into birds to gain access to greater speed and flight when 2 lava children approached us in an empty expanse from some distance away(in which case stopping to fight means losing the casting of the spell to be able to fight, the lava children pose no threat nor reward to us, they pose no obvious threat to the surrounding area, and finally, we lose time in seeking out the phylactery before the lich regenerates.)

In both cases, it seems the issue is not having little to die for, but rather surviving to fight the fight we planned, and acknowledging the stakes already in place, particularly when there was nothing to gain from doing otherwise. PC's don't generally have enough explosives in them to have working as kamikaze pilots be effective in play. They either survive to fight again, or lose and lose everything: their goals, their lives, and the greater good (or nearest ideological equivalent). Sorry for the long post, but the thread seemed to get pretty far from the actual scenarios as they exist, and became about a theoretical super-horrible group of players, and it seemed that you were beginning to conflate those two.

Edit: I feel it's also worth pointing out we have fairly interesting and extensive and easily exploitable goals, stakes, and connections. We have built community, and highly value the well-being of several towns, and our evergrowing families. (Evil characters still care.) It's not as though there is nothing tethering us. Sure we might not care about the bar in East Humptyville, but we certainly care about each individual in Madera and Cliffton, particularly those mothering or fathering our disturbing breadth of children.

[Amphetryon]

1. As indicated in the first post, this is not intended as kvetching against the current group or about how the dragon flight - or even the lava children - panned out. Rather, it is intended to explore options available to the DM, and the Players, when a fight that one side or the other truly wants becomes a 'run for it' scenario from go. Whether it has evolved along intended routes is another matter entirely. If you have taken offense, Perturbulent, I can only apologize and clarify that such was never my intent.

2. I would call the examples less 'theoretical super-bad group' and more an amalgam of examples of actual experiences I've had from both sides of the DM screen. Recall that my DMing experience has been with an extremely varied and fluid group, locally, and predates local experience. When something happens that is labeled a 'bad play experience' from one side of the screen or the other, I file it away and try - note keyword used - to avoid it in the future. Given enough Players and enough time, and this sometimes results in contradictory input issues where my experiences tell me that all the available options are bad, while I'm striving for a scenario where the opposite occurs.

[Perturbulent]

I didn't mean to jump conclusions. I just interpreted "my players" to mean my current players. Just didn't want to have the current group misrepresented.

[martixy]

And this thread is why it sucks to run campaigns for non-heroic parties.

Now why the frick would you say something like this?
If you're thinking of what is described by the term "murder-hoboing", that's a different matter altogether.

But running a world for a non-cliched party is some of the most fun you'll probably ever have as a DM.


Now, to our regularly scheduled on-topic discussion:
Others have already pointed out, please take their advice - with the amount of crying over rail-roading you or your players seem to have some OOC problem.
Figure out everyone's expectations then proceed.

Just stop harping on about your mythical "railroad", cuz your definition is slowly growing to encompass every major narrative work humanity has ever produced.
Oh look, Frodo found the one ring, it's totally railroading the entire bunch into a needless adventure. Better let them frolic in the fields.
Pox on you for suddenly springing a big bad evil guy with a massive army no one has a hair's chance of defeating when they ignore the obvious railroad completely out of the blue - I mean no history there, yep, none whatsoever.
I mean shame on Sauron, Saruman and their lot(heck, Melkor too) for daring to be sentient enough to have personal beliefs and motivations that don't coincide with your protagonists world view and actually working towards that goal.

[Amphetryon]

Now why the frick would you say something like this?
If you're thinking of what is described by the term "murder-hoboing", that's a different matter altogether.

But running a world for a non-cliched party is some of the most fun you'll probably ever have as a DM.


Now, to our regularly scheduled on-topic discussion:
Others have already pointed out, please take their advice - with the amount of crying over rail-roading you or your players seem to have some OOC problem.
Figure out everyone's expectations then proceed.

Just stop harping on about your mythical "railroad", cuz your definition is slowly growing to encompass every major narrative work humanity has ever produced.
Oh look, Frodo found the one ring, it's totally railroading the entire bunch into a needless adventure. Better let them frolic in the fields.
Pox on you for suddenly springing a big bad evil guy with a massive army no one has a hair's chance of defeating when they ignore the obvious railroad completely out of the blue - I mean no history there, yep, none whatsoever.
I mean shame on Sauron, Saruman and their lot(heck, Melkor too) for daring to be sentient enough to have personal beliefs and motivations that don't coincide with your protagonists world view and actually working towards that goal.

TTRPGs are not novels, generally, and are not designed with the same goals or experiences in mind. DMs that run the former as if they were the latter OFTEN have Players voice concerns about their lack of agency.

[martixy]

TTRPGs are not novels, generally, and are not designed with the same goals or experiences in mind. DMs that run the former as if they were the latter OFTEN have Players voice concerns about their lack of agency.

I appreciate the advice you're trying to impart, but the non-sequitur response seems to indicate you misunderstood the central point.

Having conflict and consequently stakes is part of building a good narrative(in every form humans are familiar with - from books to TTRPGs; I can't speak for aliens).

[tiercel]

Just to speak more toward the original post:

Running away is, in my experience, wildly UNrepresented in D&D, given that most players tend to have a more trigger-happy "if we are encountering it, we can/are meant to kill it" and too many encounters in prewritten modules tend to assume that the encounter will end only with the wholesale annihilation of the monsters/Bad Guys.

Not having a "morale check" mechanic seems to leave the default encounter setting as "fight to the death." IMO, most encounters should actually end with one side attempting to flee, if possible (or even - gasp - surrender).

From the villainous/NPC side, fleeing should be far more common whenever it seems clear a fight is not going well/is not likely to go well. There are exceptions: mindless foes, magically controlled foes, foes who perceive no likely/possible escape, or foes driven by fear or fanaticism or desperation (though any of the latter would have to be quite severe to outweigh a survival instinct). I'd go so far as to say, barring these exceptions, most foes would and should flee fights that appear to be tilted against them, and even many foes would avoid fights that don't appear to be tilted TOWARD them.

To a certain extent, PCs embracing this approach are actually significantly more thoughtful, in principle, than the standard "kick-in-door" playstyle. If your players are asking "why would our characters risk their lives on an uncertain venture like this?" it's arguable that they are ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION.

The problem comes in whether this is a playstyle disconnect, whether the players haven't developed enough/strong enough goals to merit answers to that question, whether they don't perceive the possible consequences of NOT risking PCs' lives, or some combination thereof. As others have said before me, this is likely grist for an OOC discussion.

If the real question is "why do fights happen at all?" there are a couple of major factors:

-- both sides believe, through some sort of risk/reward thinking (no matter how intuitive) that the gain in winning a fight outweighs the risk of fighting one, often because

-- at least one side does not grasp the true risk or reward of such a fight (e.g. the stereotypical "stupid bandits attack adventurers" scenario)

The latter can involve deception (feigning weakness, ambush, etc) and/or maneuvering a foe into a situation where the (apparent) cost of NOT fighting is unacceptable to that foe.

PCs don't typically chronically avoid fights, simply because there is a built-in reward system for fighting and winning (XP and loot). If players are not simply finding these lacking and yet are having their PCs avoid fights, they presumably are seeking greater story-based motivations.

Feed them.

[Myou]

I didn't mean to jump conclusions. I just interpreted "my players" to mean my current players. Just didn't want to have the current group misrepresented.

You aren't the only one interpreting it that way.