"Losing a fight" vs. "losing the game"

[quinron]

The diverse array of responses to this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?634065-Fights-that-are-quot-supposed-quot-to-be-lost) has gotten me thinking about how we tend to handle failure in D&D and related games. Heroic fantasy games tend to create what seem to be zig-zagging arcs - you start the day healthy, you burn through resources through the day until you're almost out, you get knocked unconscious once or twice, but at the end you're able to pull off an upset and recover, just to do it all again the next day. But zooming out, you end up with a pretty uncomplicated positive trend - every skin-of-your-teeth victory means more XP and potential magic items, which means you're getting stronger every day, and in more recent editions there's no way to lose levels, so you'll never lose the innate powers you've gained. I think what I like about "supposed-to-lose" fights in video games is that they usually signal that I'm in for a stretch of play where I've been stripped of my equipment and abilities and have to rely on my skills or wits to proceed, and it always feels rewarding to reclaim whatever you lost - the two biggest examples in my mind are getting your team back in Hollow Bastion in the first Kingdom Hearts game and escaping Cidhna Mine in Skyrim.

Personally, I've run a few adventures where I decided the NPCs were more likely to take prisoners than kill the party, and they've always been fun because they've forced the party to work together and plan more. Besides the idea of being captured, I'm kind of interested in running a game where fights are generally more dangerous but have lesser consequences - you probably won't be killed if you lose, but you'll have your magic sword taken and will need to track down the person who beat you if you want it back.

Is there a system folks could recommend that might facilitate this type of play more than D&D? I guess I'm looking for something like "Kenshi: the TTRPG." Also, I'd be interested in hearing stories of how you as a player or your players as a GM have bounced back from losing fights; I feel like this is pretty rare in games, but I think I only feel that way because most official adventures don't seem to put any advice in their that suggests they're anticipating this happening.

[Alteiner]

It's very rare that I run encounters where both sides are trying to kill each other. Typically, the opposition is either protecting something, in which case their goals is to drive the PCs off rather than kill them, or is trying to get something, in which case their goal is to get the thing and get away. Generally, neither requires that anyone ends up dead. I think too many players and GMs think of death as the one and only consequence of combat in RPGs when, given how durable both PCs and NPCs can become in certain systems, it doesn't really make any sense for things to be that way. If you divorce the idea of victory and defeat from character death, the range of possibilities for the outcome of conflict expands considerably. Sometimes, you "win" by never getting into a fight at all, and achieve your objective without your opponent even realizing you were gunning for them. Sometimes you lose without even knowing the identity of the person you lost to. Is it not a "fight" if the enemy is somewhere inside of the city and trying to escape, and the goal of the PCs is to keep them from escaping? In this case, a valid end-state is rendering the city inescapable. No one even needs to be in the same room for someone to "win" and someone else to "lose."

[RandomPeasant]

Part of it is about expectations. If people are expecting fights to be to the death, they'll fight to the death. Getting them out of that mindset can be difficult. "You get captured" is also an experience that players often associate with railroading and will try to avoid.

[Time Troll]

You are close to describing my default game: a hard game play adventure with lots of character death.

Most foes in my games are out to kill the PCs. Players need to keep on their toes.


Loosing a fight, or even just loosing a character is not the end of the game. You can never really loose the game.

My classic plot, that I have been doing for years and years, is the legacy idea. The players go on some adventures over say a year, then try and take on a big foe....and all the characters die. Then the players make all new characters that are the children of the first characters. They try again, and fail. Next make new characters that are the apprentices/squires of the second set of characters, and they fail too. Next the players make "pet" characters that were left over from the second set of characters. Next the players move to a new group of characters that just try to complete the task. For a special "holiday game" they get to play clones of the first set of charaters(again). For Halloween they get to come back as the ghosts of first characters...or even mix up charaters. And so on.

The players use the legacy to advance each run through: the characters leave items and even more so information "in case they loose". So they can try again with new characters.

And this gets even better when I can intertwine players and even whole other games too.

[Alcore]

Systems to recommend...


O.V.A. (an anime based one)

Golden Sky Stories (another asian, made there even. Non combat.)

Maid RPG (definitely requires adult players lest it devolve into something creepy... recommend play by post. Also asian made/based)

Mutants and Masterminds (recommend 2e as it is a 3.5 clone and the learning curve is much less. Killing is only possible if GM allows and is not default))

[quinron]

You are close to describing my default game: a hard game play adventure with lots of character death.

Most foes in my games are out to kill the PCs. Players need to keep on their toes.


Loosing a fight, or even just loosing a character is not the end of the game. You can never really loose the game.

I suppose I may have been inaccurate in my OP - this is kind of the opposite of what I was talking about. I phrased it as "losing the game" because even if the players decide to roll up new characters, the characters who were TPK'ed have indeed lost - any plans the players may have had for them are over. I'm more interested in games like those Alteiner described, where a character or group getting beaten in a fight doesn't necessarily mean they're dead - it could mean they've been captured, robbed, enslaved, or even just slowed down from achieving their goals.

Which isn't to say I don't like the "legacy campaign" - I think that format's also very cool, and it's one of the game types I've been hoping to run once I can get a stable group together.


"You get captured" is also an experience that players often associate with railroading and will try to avoid.

This is interesting to me. I pretty much never run games where I plan for the PCs to be captured; it's almost always a spontaneous response to them being beaten by a group of NPCs who would have more use for them alive than dead (held for ransom, enslaved, what have you). It actually tends to create a lot more cognitive burden for me than railroading them would, because I have to figure out where they're going to be kept, where their equipment ended up, how the NPCs are going to respond to them being out of their cells once they've escaped, etc.

[False God]

I've never enjoyed the whole "being stripped of your hard-earned goods" concept. It's always felt more like a way for a DM (or a video game) to take away things they really shouldn't have given you to begin with (see: Artifact items in WoW), only to make you grind out all new ones. Experience has taught me that you will almost never regain 100% of what you lost. Some magic sword will forever be lost, some special spell will be barred to you going forward, you'll lose stats in some area, forcing you to patch holes instead of progress forward.

I'm also not a fan of level-drain mechanics for the same reasons, but also for how much sheet editing they require. It's a lot of paperwork for what can be a fairly common effect that requires very specific defenses.

Of course, I've employed "setback mechanics" from time to time, but I tend to keep it more around the lower levels, where what you are losing is not the Magic Master Sword, but a mundane sword, a little gold, and your pantaloons. If you don't get them back, there are viable alternatives that are readily available. I do try to avoid them though. I'd rather be more judicious with items and powers to begin with than feel like I'm making attempts to dial everything back later. (I realize this is my personal perception of things, but suffice to say, I don't like it, so I try to avoid it.)

"Temporary Limitation" mechanics are fine though, ie: "You're in an anti-magic zone, only spells of level 3 or lower work 100%, everything else has a % chance of failure!" You haven't lost anything, you've just been limited for a while.

IMO: The "cost" of losing isn't what gear you're going to lose, or if you're going to be captured. The "cost" is whatever goals you were trying to achieve becoming further away or lost entirely. Being unable to save the Princess. Not stopping the BBEG's superweapon. Not retrieving the Sacred Relic before the enemy can (or before it is destroyed). You can go home with 1 HP and all your gear and still have failed in achieving your goals. That's the real cost here.

IME players are possessive enough about their "stuff" to begin with. There's no need to amplify that sort of paranoia with every potential fight loss costing them this or that magic item. Make fights meaningful, have the occur at important points in the game: the defense of the castle, the attack on the princess, etc... and make the costs to them clear and relevant to the goals of the party. You'll get better results with that sort of cost than taking their "stuff".

[quinron]

[snip'd]

That's fair enough. I suppose, since only about 5% of my RPG experience had been as a player, that I might not have the best idea of how players will see things.

That said, I don't think I'd ever run a game where losing a fight would leave you unable to get back everything you lost; that just feels petty. If I realized I'd given the players something too powerful, I'd much sooner just tell them I'd messed up and de-power the item than contrive a way to steal it. Recovering your possessions might be a hassle, but I have the ability to make it an interesting and hopefully fun hassle, and probably one that ends with the party coming away with more treasyre than they lost after they loot the thieves.


IME players are possessive enough about their "stuff" to begin with. There's no need to amplify that sort of paranoia with every potential fight loss costing them this or that magic item. Make fights meaningful, have the occur at important points in the game: the defense of the castle, the attack on the princess, etc... and make the costs to them clear and relevant to the goals of the party. You'll get better results with that sort of cost than taking their "stuff".

This is, I guess, the operative point here - it seems that for most people, GMs and players alike, the assumption is that roughly 9 times out of 10, a loss in a fight means not just a loss of your items/abilities but full-on character death (and the 10th time was a screwjob set up by the GM to force you back onto the rails). I reckon a setback like "a gang of bandits mugged you, you'll have to tangle with them if you want your magic weapons back" is a lot more fun in terms of how we spend our table time than "you all died, roll up new characters" or "you failed your mission, campaign's over."

Mind you, you don't have to rob the players all the time; obviously that will get old. I'm just interested in exploring how to implement more meaningful failure states than "you die" or "you lose," since I think failure and low points can make the players' eventual victories more valuable.

[False God]

This is, I guess, the operative point here - it seems that for most people, GMs and players alike, the assumption is that roughly 9 times out of 10, a loss in a fight means not just a loss of your items/abilities but full-on character death (and the 10th time was a screwjob set up by the GM to force you back onto the rails). I reckon a setback like "a gang of bandits mugged you, you'll have to tangle with them if you want your magic weapons back" is a lot more fun in terms of how we spend our table time than "you all died, roll up new characters" or "you failed your mission, campaign's over."

Mind you, you don't have to rob the players all the time; obviously that will get old. I'm just interested in exploring how to implement more meaningful failure states than "you die" or "you lose," since I think failure and low points can make the players' eventual victories more valuable.

I agree that there are more "loss states" to be explored than a TPK or a game-over, but I tend to populate a larger world with smaller campaigns, so "losing" doesn't mean the whole world has been destroyed, it just means you failed this quest. Doesn't mean you can't travel through time and steal the magic power rocks and try to beat the BBEG again. Or you can move on to some other events going on in the world.

I actually roll monks, companion-less druids, sorcerers and eidetic wizards in D&D for exactly this reason. So I really don't need "gear". If the DM can't think up anything better than "You get attacked, they steal your stuff!" I can just shrug and keep going on the quest. If the DM gets to the point where he starts stealing my "ki" or my spells straight from my mind, I'll understand that the DM's goal isn't to provide an interesting side-track, but to take things away from me for the sake of taking things away from me.

I'm always down for an interesting side-quest. But it needs to be interesting beyond "Go beat up those guys if you want your stuff." I'd rather just not need the stuff, and not have it to be stolen in the first place.

[kyoryu]

Fate is built on this assumption, but the general thought is that most of the time what's up for win/loss is less personal power and more story stakes.

[Rakaydos]

Ironclaw uses a status death spiral instead of HP, but one of the early statuses is "Afraid: You cannot perform an attack action (though you can use the counter defense if attacked in melee) until removed by an ally who is NOT afraid using a Rally action with a successful (pretty easy) skill check."

After a few turns of combat, it's pretty easy to tell if a side is losing a battle. And very few enemies in Ironclaw are mindless or fearless. And if it's the players who are losing, they are honestly better off exercising the better part of valor than pushing their luck in a losing fight. (also there's no attacks of opportunity for disengaging)

[King of Nowhere]

my style of campaign may be pretty close to your goal.
I have an advanced, organized campaign world with large nations and powerful organizations. The players generally go working from one of those. The players may not have access to high level clerics by themselves, but those organizations always do, and the main thing they offer is safety. You get killed? you'll get raised. You get captured? you can expect to be subject to a prisoner exchange. As long as you keep being useful enough, which has never been a problem.
The fights are often close enough, with the party facing npcs from enemy organizations that are almost the equals of the party. Especially at higher levels, save-or-die effects are used often. The party is generally given a loose objective, and they have ample autonomy in how to achieve it. If they mishandle the situation, they can expect to find a "receiving committee" made of people stronger than they are. in which case they can try to escape; tattoos of single-use teleport are widely available, and i always advise players to get one. Similarly, npcs on the losing side will try to escape when things go poorly.

So, most fights are close; when they are not, it's most often because the players can organize well and get the perfect ambush. it is fairly common for a pc to be killed during a high level encounter. occasionally the party has to retreat, quickly teleporting away carrying a couple of their dead. But because of the easy resurrections, it's not a big deal and the campaign goes on.
Complete defeat would result in being looted of their equipment, but this never happened. The closest thing was an enemy grabbing the cloak of a fallen pc before escaping. even if that happened, the party would be given second-hand gear from their allies. Just like a defeated boss npc can be expected to be raised and to come back, but with lesser gear. Considering how important is equipment in 3.5, this is a powerful debuff; after a couple of lost bouts, a major villain will stop being a major villain, and will either fade into irrelevance, or become a henchman for a greater villain. So there's still a sense of accomplishment to winning a fight, and a sense of a setback to losing one. Oh, besides any strategic objective that was being sought in the combat in the first place.
But the story continues.

Just yesterday the new party got its first strategic defeat. As assassin on employ from a foreign power killed some people in their nation, then retreated. They were tasked by their bosses to try and hunt that assassin in hostile territory. They started to investigate on the best chance to set up a good ambush, but they got reckless and they got recognized (they wanted to play as unique snowflakes races, and while this gave them advantages, it also makes them stand out). so, the enemies sent more high level npcs to fight them. Luckily, the party druid decided to scout the ambush area from the day before, tree shaped for disguise, and so he could discover the enemy waiting for them. the party had to call off the attack. the assassin they were seeking will hide somewhere else, and they lost the chance to kill him for the time being.
it was basically a defeat, but they realized they were heading into an ambush and so they only lost an opportunity. they also spent a lot of time planning, and the whole business resolved without a fight

[KineticDiplomat]

I have found that non-gear centric games and abstract wealth can go a long way to encouraging this mentality. I can think of several systems that essentially come down to “tell the GM what gear you think you should have; that’s your starting set and honestly may be your ending set”, and where wealth comes down to “yes/no, are you generally rich enough to buy the thing, does it requires a wealth altering investment, and are there any complications”.

The general effect is that loss framing takes on a different tone. Your life is important. Your axe is not the central defining feature of who you are, nor is it the pinnacle of your investment in the game so far, nor is it needed to match some algorithmically identified progression. And wouldn’t you know it, it’s better to take a loss than to die once the system isn’t predicated on losing being the equivalent of dying for the player.

[Duff]

Most D&D has a few mechanical features which drive fights to the death.
- If you turn and run, the enemy get an attack at you, but if they're as fast of you, they can charge and hit you and you have to do the same thing again next round. And the one after...
- No drop in your ability to fight as you get wounded. Games where this is a thing are more likely to see PCs looking for the exit early, as soon as they take a hit or 2
- Morale/intimidation systems which don't drive monsters fleeing early. This is even more of a GM choice than most rule related things, but the rules have built the culture. Most intelligent groups of monsters should be making a moral check the first time one of their comrades goes down, and by the time they've lost their leader and half the group, the remainder should be routing, not just trying to break off the fight. Instead that's usually about when they start wanting to break off the fight.

[Tanarii]

D&D used to have rules for breaking off fights.

For example in BECMI:
- Before combat even began, you could attempt Evasion
- Monsters (which included NPCs) had morale, and it was checked regularly and early:
In Combat: When the creature is first hit, taking 1 or more hit points of damage.
In Combat: When the creature is reduced to one-quarter (or less) of its starting hit points.
In Combat: When the first death (on either side, PC or NPC/monster) takes place; the DM makes one morale roll for the remain- ing creatures to see if they wish to continue.
In Combat: When half of the creatures are not free to act (because they are dead, asleep, controlled, etc.).

Monster morale breaking was a very important factor. And high morale creatures (especially undead with no chance to break) were scary.

[Democratus]

D&D used to have rules for breaking off fights.

For example in BECMI:
- Before combat even began, you could attempt Evasion
- Monsters (which included NPCs) had morale, and it was checked regularly and early:
In Combat: When the creature is first hit, taking 1 or more hit points of damage.
In Combat: When the creature is reduced to one-quarter (or less) of its starting hit points.
In Combat: When the first death (on either side, PC or NPC/monster) takes place; the DM makes one morale roll for the remain- ing creatures to see if they wish to continue.
In Combat: When half of the creatures are not free to act (because they are dead, asleep, controlled, etc.).

Monster morale breaking was a very important factor. And high morale creatures (especially undead with no chance to break) were scary.

In addition, there were rules for getting away from an opponent who is chasing you after you start running. Often it involved dropping treasure or food in your path.

[Xervous]

In addition, there were rules for getting away from an opponent who is chasing you after you start running. Often it involved dropping treasure or food in your path.

Quite obviously a kender qualifies as food. Will you agree that they’re also a treasure since many people would want to bury them?

[NorthernPhoenix]

Fate is built on this assumption, but the general thought is that most of the time what's up for win/loss is less personal power and more story stakes.

I think this is the most important factor. If your "robbing the players" or equivalent scenario results in a meaningful loss of personal power, to the degree that they will not be able to just "go get your stuff back", then there is no good incentive for them not to fight to the death, and at worst have to make a new character with all their stuff after the current one dies. If the "loss scenario" is story stakes, rather than a "broken" character that you feel like should be put down, people will generally be a lot more likely to go along with it.

[Tanarii]

Quite obviously a kender qualifies as food. Will you agree that they’re also a treasure since many people would want to bury them?
There's a treasure because of how awesome they are.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There's a treasure because of how awesome they are.

Awesome at causing gaming groups to disintegrate into PvP? (Note, I'm not old enough to have actually played with kender, so I'm going off of stereotypes).

[kyoryu]

I think this is the most important factor. If your "robbing the players" or equivalent scenario results in a meaningful loss of personal power, to the degree that they will not be able to just "go get your stuff back", then there is no good incentive for them not to fight to the death, and at worst have to make a new character with all their stuff after the current one dies. If the "loss scenario" is story stakes, rather than a "broken" character that you feel like should be put down, people will generally be a lot more likely to go along with it.

100%. Some personal power loss is still a thing, of course. And the "story stakes" thing can be abused by making every single loss SUPER EXTREME.

But, yeah, overall people are more willing to go along with story stakes and losing them, especially if that generally results in complications/etc. And once every fight can be lost, it adds a level of tension that can really change the game. Which is kind of counter-intuitive, really.

[icefractal]

I think maybe why I dislike enslaved/imprisoned plotlines is that when I'm playing a TTRPG, I don't want to think of myself as being in a story, I want to think of myself as being in a world. If events in that world make a good story, then all the better.

I realize that far more GMs run "story games" than "world games", and I'm at peace with that, but I still don't like being reminded of it. If I have to shift into the mindset "Yeah, things look hopeless, but this is just the 'low-beat' to make our ultimate victory sweeter" or "Of course they'll have conveniently stored our gear nearby because that's how a prison-escape plot works" then I'm moving farther away from what I enjoy.

And when you look at it from a "NPCs acting like PCs do, no plot armor" POV, then a lot of things seem implausibly convenient:
* Why keep a group of prisoners they know are very dangerous in a single cell or nearby each-other, only watched by a few poor-quality guards?
* Why leave the powerful magic gear sitting in a box in the prison, rather than distributing it for their own use or taking it to be sold? PCs very seldom give NPCs their stuff back, even if they end up just questioning and releasing them.
* Why treat their prisoners better than most present-day countries do, if they're supposedly an evil group, bad enough that shooting first and asking questions later was justified?
* Why stop their pursuit to pick up a few coins which were dropped in their own dwelling and they can easily go back for later?
* If they have an ability / tactic which overwhelmingly defeated the PCs in the lead-up to the prison arc, why stop using it for the 'real' battle?

None of these are impossible, but especially when you stack them up they get increasingly unlikely. And for me, they start giving the feeling that what happens is determined more by the story beats than by actions in the world - which is not something I like.

[Sapphire Guard]

It depends on why the fight is happening. If they're fighting against bandits, they might just take some of their more useful gear (they're not taking everything, just the things that are useful to them, and if they are tracked down, they'll be using that gear, it's not just on a random shelf). If it's a city watch, they might end up in a cell. If it's trolls in a random encounter, they might just continue about their day and not care if the players are dead or not.. If it's beasts, they might drag them back to their den to eat them.

[Calthropstu]

Big general. Huge threat. A cr 19 daemon in pathfinder. It leads an army of about 120k demons. It travels in the center of the army as it moves towards an elven fortress.

Party strikes at flanks killing hundreds of lesser daemons in seconds. Other elven strike teams attack elsewhere. Big general sends out shock troops and investigates what is CLEARLY the biggest threat himself.

Beats the crap out of the party, they retreat.

March continues, less about 10k daemons vs about 300 deaths to the elves.

Their objective was to lure the leader and try to kill it. It obviously failed. But they had more chances, and after 4 more tries finally forced a retreat and assaulted the gate the daemons were using to get there. Huge battle took place, general died.

Good times.

[Duff]

* Why keep a group of prisoners they know are very dangerous in a single cell or nearby each-other, only watched by a few poor-quality guards?
* Why leave the powerful magic gear sitting in a box in the prison, rather than distributing it for their own use or taking it to be sold? PCs very seldom give NPCs their stuff back, even if they end up just questioning and releasing them.
* Why treat their prisoners better than most present-day countries do, if they're supposedly an evil group, bad enough that shooting first and asking questions later was justified?
* Why stop their pursuit to pick up a few coins which were dropped in their own dwelling and they can easily go back for later?
* If they have an ability / tactic which overwhelmingly defeated the PCs in the lead-up to the prison arc, why stop using it for the 'real' battle?

Prisoners in a single cell - It's the only free cell? The party might corrupt good wholesome murderers? The murderers in the next cell might kill valuable sources of info before they can be properly interrogated? It's the only Anti-magic Cell and they don't trust that the fighter doesn't have a level in bard? There's only one cell and all the prisoners are in it?
Magic gear in a box? Harder but, Not sorted yet? Held in trust until there's been a trial (Lawful or good can be OK here). Otherwise, year, that's gear you're going to have to replace or track down over time.
Treatment of prisoners. Why would you think they have to be treated well? You're in a stone dungeon with rags to sleep on with 20 other prisoners and only bars in the window and door. So that's what you have to escape from
Dropping coins - They won't be there later. If I don't stop, that scumbag Blort will!
If we beat them once we can beat them every time. This one actually has some depth to it. What did the PCs show? If they were hit with overwhelming force quickly, they didn't show how dangerous they are. If they rolled terribly, they seemed less good than they really are. Only if they had a chance to show their abilities are they getting the supervision they deserve. And even then, they evil empire has other fish frying. They don't have enough guards to cover every event. And guards have lapses, that's how real prisoners escape from real prisons. And the PCs probably aren't the only thing going on in the castle - when the rebellion attack, seize your chance! When the Salt mine collapses, take the guard's uniform

[Vahnavoi]

The heart of the distinction lies in scenario design. Since I've been watching the Olympics lately, I'll focus on the most obvious scenario-level solution:

Make the game about combat as sport. Literally, combat sports. The characters are fighting in an arena or in a tournament, where simply killing your opponent doesn't count as a win and losing a fight doesn't mean losing your character, it means losing positioning in a competition and you can usually try again later.

You can build entire campaigns around training for fantastic gladiator Olympics where nobody dies except by accident. The Pokemon franchise does it, the Areena franchise does it, all the sports game franchises do it. Just get your head out of the hole in the ground - that is, stop thinking of dungeons and saving the world.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The heart of the distinction lies in scenario design. Since I've been watching the Olympics lately, I'll focus on the most obvious scenario-level solution:

Make the game about combat as sport. Literally, combat sports. The characters are fighting in an arena or in a tournament, where simply killing your opponent doesn't count as a win and losing a fight doesn't mean losing your character, it means losing positioning in a competition and you can usually try again later.

You can build entire campaigns around training for fantastic gladiator Olympics where nobody dies except by accident. The Pokemon franchise does it, the Areena franchise does it, all the sports game franchises do it. Just get your head out of the hole in the ground - that is, stop thinking of dungeons and saving the world.

As a note, that kind of campaign would bore me to tears. Sports bore me already. Doing it slow, in a system that isn't really designed for it? No narrative, no real stakes, no exploration of the unknown, no real setting beyond the fake walls of the arena? Ugh.

Different strokes for different folks, to be sure.

[KorvinStarmast]

Monster morale breaking was a very important factor. And high morale creatures (especially undead with no chance to break) were scary. Yes, it's a feature of the game I wish that 5e had put back in. :smallmad:

Quite obviously a kender qualifies as food. Will you agree that they’re also a treasure since many people would want to bury them? yes to both. Kender is an old elven word for "Ogre Snacks". :smallcool:

Awesome at causing gaming groups to disintegrate into PvP? Grief play will do that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, it's a feature of the game I wish that 5e had put back in. :smallmad:


There are actually rules for that in the DMG. Not a fixed numerical value (which is good because it's the sort of thing that doesn't make any sense to apply at the stat-block level rather than the session-level fiction). But a fair amount of guidance as to when to check for morale and factors that influence it.

[Vahnavoi]

As a note, that kind of campaign would bore me to tears. Sports bore me already.

[ . . . ]

Different strokes for different folks, to be sure.

I can sympathize, for me it took a decade of doing martial arts before watching martial arts competitions became exciting. Some of your objections are pretty weird, though:


Doing it slow, in a system that isn't really designed for it?

If you're thinking of D&D, D&D has rules for lethal and non-lethal combat both, you can do gladiator games within the normal rules just fine. Similarly, rules-wise the distinction between an obstacle course and a dungeon is non-existent. Skipping over chunks of downtime where little happens is very easy and doesn't take much actual play time. Indeed, you can just embrace the 15-minute-workday and make game days last 15 minutes or less in real time, that's what I do. :smallwink:


No narrative, no real stakes, no exploration of the unknown, no real setting beyond the fake walls of the arena? Ugh.

That's weird lack of imagination on your part. Basing a campaign on combat sports doesn't mean lack of those other things. :smallconfused: Maybe watch Rocky movies? Or Gladiator. Or play some Pokemon. Or Robin Hood, an archery tournament is an iconic part of Robin Hood adaptations.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can sympathize, for me it took a decade of doing martial arts before watching martial arts competitions became exciting. Some of your objections are pretty weird, though:



If you're thinking of D&D, D&D has rules for lethal and non-lethal combat both, you can do gladiator games within the normal rules just fine. Similarly, rules-wise the distinction between an obstacle course and a dungeon is non-existent. Skipping over chunks of downtime where little happens is very easy and doesn't take much actual play time. Indeed, you can just embrace the 15-minute-workday and make game days last 15 minutes or less in real time, that's what I do. :smallwink:



That's weird lack of imagination on your part. Basing a campaign on combat sports doesn't mean lack of those other things. :smallconfused: Maybe watch Rocky movies? Or Gladiator. Or play some Pokemon. Or Robin Hood, an archery tournament is an iconic part of Robin Hood adaptations.

Don't like any of those. I play for exploration of the unknown. An archery tournament only has meaning in a broader story. I get no enjoyment from competition--in fact, competitive events are literally anti-enjoyable.

I've run arena arcs. They ran out of steam within minutes, and they were arena as part of a bigger story (doing well to gain access to people for external, larger goals). I don't claim that it's bad (objectively), merely that I don't like it and it bores me.

[Witty Username]

Whether losing a fight becomes lethal depends a lot on the play group. The more they are willing to run or surrender the less likely they will die. Also, revivify type spells can trade resources to avoid death, so close victories can still mean losses. I think 5e has a down side of not having many long term or permanent effects to cover near defeats. Also, creating time frames can lead to narrative victory and loss.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Whether losing a fight becomes lethal depends a lot on the play group. The more they are willing to run or surrender the less likely they will die. Also, revivify type spells can trade resources to avoid death, so close victories can still mean losses. I think 5e has a down side of not having many long term or permanent effects to cover near defeats. Also, creating time frames can lead to narrative victory and loss.

The DMG has optional rules for both various kinds of long term psychological damage, and physical damage (lingering injuries). In line with the discussions in this thread though, these can end up being so painful that you might as well just die and create a new, uninjured character, which is why i imagine most DMs don't bother with them.

[Telok]

In much of D&D losing a fight often is losing the game since, by default, fights only stop at 0 hit points. Sure, one side can try to run away, but the turns and movement speeds make that really hard for almost everyone without personal escape magic. Even if defeat doesn't mean a TPK you have the "imprison a caster" issue and the problems that most gearless martials are mostly useless in the inevitable escape attempt fight.

The DM can implement house rules or optional stuff, but by default the losing side of a D&D fight is all dead and TPKs are "losing the game".

[Calthropstu]

Don't like any of those. I play for exploration of the unknown. An archery tournament only has meaning in a broader story. I get no enjoyment from competition--in fact, competitive events are literally anti-enjoyable.

I've run arena arcs. They ran out of steam within minutes, and they were arena as part of a bigger story (doing well to gain access to people for external, larger goals). I don't claim that it's bad (objectively), merely that I don't like it and it bores me.

I love arena fights. Just our team vs another team. Come at us bro!

It's a good way to solidify party tactics, gives us a good idea what the gm can do and tells the gm where we are strong and how he can threaten us in the future. A good number seems about 5 bouts before it will get repetitive.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I love arena fights. Just our team vs another team. Come at us bro!

It's a good way to solidify party tactics, gives us a good idea what the gm can do and tells the gm where we are strong and how he can threaten us in the future. A good number seems about 5 bouts before it will get repetitive.

White rooms are very very rarely useful scenarios. Just like theorycrafting. Because they don't actually reflect play. Tactics and strategies that work there (especially in a 1-fight-then-rest regime) rarely work the same outside of there, and often are inverted.

Plus, it's just horribly boring, at least to me. If I wanted a tabletop skirmish game about meaningless battles, I'd play 4e WH40K/Kill Team.

[Witty Username]

The DMG has optional rules for both various kinds of long term psychological damage, and physical damage (lingering injuries). In line with the discussions in this thread though, these can end up being so painful that you might as well just die and create a new, uninjured character, which is why i imagine most DMs don't bother with them.

I have read them, the big ones I miss that aren't in there are stat damage and negative levels. They are scary as crap, and because they healed slowly they could change the tone by simply being. Shadows are scary in 5e for a very good reason because they are the only ones that get in on it.

[Kyovastra]

I have read them, the big ones I miss that aren't in there are stat damage and negative levels. They are scary as crap, and because they healed slowly they could change the tone by simply being. Shadows are scary in 5e for a very good reason because they are the only ones that get in on it.
There's also the maurezhi from Mordenkainen's that can deal Charisma score damage and inflict paralysis, and the even nastier intellect devourer that can reduce your Intelligence score to 0. I think they're the only ones in 5e, unfortunately, since everything in D&D lacks the danger it had in AD&D now, which encourages fights to the death where there can be no loss except total loss, rather than treating encounters as encounters where you can also parley with the monsters, try to avoid or trick them, or otherwise take advantage of what they want, and where there's loss that isn't total loss, since it's expected your character won't be perfect or optimal and exists as more than a stat sheet. The way modern 3.x ability scores and modifiers work, along with the prevalence of the character building minigame and tendency to see character sheets as defining everything you can do, don't help much with any of this either.

Now, I think game mechanics are unintentionally designed in a way that trains players and DMs into thinking loss must be total loss, and their character is thought of as "broken" if they become suboptimal or face a permanent penalty. Don't get me wrong, loss is always loss, and everyone's preferences for how much they want and what kind are different, but it can seem far worse if game mechanics reinforce aversion to it. I think the Internet has intensified this as well, because information travels so quickly, meaning the average level of player optimisation is higher than it ever was (whether or not a player is an optimiser), and people are far more aware of how "good" their character is; consciously or not. It seems tougher than ever if this isn't what you want out of an RPG, especially when default expectations seems to have changed so much that now things like the above are characterised as a "deadly" experience or seen as harsh or punishing in a game, which I think is missing the point, as you can easily have a deadly, harsh, and punishing experience without any of that, and certainly a less deadly experience that subjectively feels less harsh and punishing with it.

It's always easier to dial scary mechanics down a bit if you either don't want to use them or think they'd be too frustrating, but if you want to do the opposite, it comes across as negative rather than positive. I think part of this goes back to core game design concepts, like of qualitative design versus quantitative design. If you focus on numbers more, it'll feel worse if anyone's go down, and if the system is focused on numbers, it also makes you think with numbers more, which can make coming up with other forms of loss more difficult and can make it harder for them to have an impact (to actually be a loss).


In much of D&D losing a fight often is losing the game since, by default, fights only stop at 0 hit points. Sure, one side can try to run away, but the turns and movement speeds make that really hard for almost everyone without personal escape magic. Even if defeat doesn't mean a TPK you have the "imprison a caster" issue and the problems that most gearless martials are mostly useless in the inevitable escape attempt fight.

The DM can implement house rules or optional stuff, but by default the losing side of a D&D fight is all dead and TPKs are "losing the game".
Remember, this wasn't always the default, though.

[Telok]

Remember, this wasn't always the default, though.

Yeah, I grew up with basic d&d before thief & nwps. Actual running away rules. Chuck a steak or a bag of gold and make a cautious retreat happened sometimes. Buying wheelbarrows and barrels a lamp oil before a dungeon trip. Spoofing reinforcements with some torches and banging spare weapons to provoke a morale check (hey, it worked once).

Ya know... what if running speed was x6 or more, instead of x4, and didn't require the stupid "straight line" thing. Morale was a good way to introduce new dms to the idea of not fighting to the death, but people object to rules that help new dms because rules stop them from dming the way they like. So perhaps it might help if people could actually run away instead of "flee to the perfect charging range".

[Calthropstu]

Well, losing a fight is fine. As long as you can come back, or can at least continue the campaign you are golden.

Losing the game is losing the game. Yes, that game. Yup, you just lost it. The game.

[halfeye]

Well, losing a fight is fine. As long as you can come back, or can at least continue the campaign you are golden.

Losing the game is losing the game. Yes, that game. Yup, you just lost it. The game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(mind_game)


There are three commonly reported rules to The Game:[1][2][3][4]

Everyone in the world is playing The Game. (This is alternatively expressed as, "Everybody in the world who knows about The Game is playing The Game" or "You are always playing The Game.") A person cannot refuse to play The Game; it does not require consent to play and one can never stop playing.
Whenever one thinks about The Game, one loses.
Losses must be announced. This can be verbally, with a phrase such as "I just lost The Game", or in any other way: for example, via Facebook. Some people may have ways to remind others of The Game.

I refuse the game, and I suggest everyone else should too.

[Calthropstu]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(mind_game)



I refuse the game, and I suggest everyone else should too.

I sense hostility.

I sense well deserved hostility.

[halfeye]

I sense hostility.

I sense well deserved hostility.

Nothing against you, the thread title absolutely demanded it, but the game can **** off.

[LibraryOgre]

One thing I miss about modern iterations of D&D is Morale... basically, the point at which the OPFOR is going to decide "This fight isn't worth it" and surrender. This sometimes gets mentioned in modules ("If half of them die, or most of them are injured, they'll surrender"), but that pretty much every encounter had a point where the fight would end, even without mass death, made it a bit less of a bloody scrape to get through things.

[False God]

One thing I miss about modern iterations of D&D is Morale... basically, the point at which the OPFOR is going to decide "This fight isn't worth it" and surrender. This sometimes gets mentioned in modules ("If half of them die, or most of them are injured, they'll surrender"), but that pretty much every encounter had a point where the fight would end, even without mass death, made it a bit less of a bloody scrape to get through things.

I always found Morale too mechanical. If X happens -Y, if Xa happens -Yb, if A happens +C, etc... If you knew how the rules work (and they were fairly simple), you could make meta-tactical moves to force morale penalties.

Morale should be included but only requires honest role-play, on both sides of the fight. Even animals can make reasonable deductions about their chances in a fight, intelligent enemies (and players) should be more than capable to make those determinations. And yes, sometimes they will make mistakes, but that's natural and makes the game more interesting.

Yeah, of course the player doesn't want their character to surrender, and there shouldn't be a mathematical countdown to when they finally face a will save so high they are forced to, but proper role-play of the character should include an understanding of the character's strengths and weaknesses. Sure, some of them are going to be over-confident never-surrender types, and that's fine, but that isn't reasonably going to be every character.

[Calthropstu]

Something I like to do is force partial victory.

Your party is caravan guards? Well, 15 bandits attack on horses. They charge the wagons and 3 look to engage the party. The other 12 just grab something and run. Maybe a kid off the wagons, maybe some food boxes, maybe wagon repair parts. It's a tactic actually employed by bandits back when.

And it seems universally hated by every party I have pulled ot on, especially when they grab an npc. The sentiment becomes "let's go rescue them."

[Witty Username]

I think dying at 0 hp helps people roleplay morale effectively, but that requires a braver DM then I for right now.

[Kymme]

Lethality is necessary in a game like D&D, where conflicts boil down to 'either they die or we die' and no other substantial alternatives are presented by the rules. That's obviously something that can be fixed, and as other insightful people in this thread have pointed out, it's something that previous editions of D&D addressed.

In games where there are ways of setting stakes beyond 'its them or us,' 'loss' can be a much more common experience, and it also doesn't come with a lot of the baggage prominent in D&D. For goodness sakes, we have a dedicated term for when every player character dies and the game comes to an abrupt and ignominious end.

In Dogs in the Vineyard, for instance, there is a dedicated step in every conflict that happens before dice even hit the table, where the players and the GM work out what is at stake. Once that's settling, combat continues until one side 'folds' and concedes defeat - characters can avoid 'folding' by choosing to escalate, raising the stakes of the conflict in exchange for another shot at victory (incidentally, this helps make Dogs in the Vineyard the single greatest choice for emulating escalating and dramatic Shonen anime battles). Conflict in FATE operates on a similar system, where characters may elect to concede from a conflict before having their full stress track depleted in order to have some input on how the conflict ends. If your stress track gets totally taken out, you lose your ability to get any concessions out of the stakes.

Both of these paradigms help avoid a lot of the issues that crop up when it comes losing fights in D&D and its various ttrpg children, and they do so by making the results of the conflict something you work out in advance and opt into, rather than something you don't want and have no say over that is foisted onto you. When the game provides its players with a result none of them wanted, I consider that failing of the highest order.

[icefractal]

Those do require "zooming out" from a purely IC perspective though. Which I think can be worth it - a lot more players would consider surrender if the result was known vs "could be anything" - but does go contrary to the experience some people want.

That said, IME there are a fair number of players who just do not like imprisonment or enslavement, regardless of what the mechanics are. Even with a guarantee that they'd escape in X amount of time and face no mechanical penalties, they still wouldn't like them. Not everything that works in a novel/show/movie is fun to play through - at least not for all players.

Something that should definitely be taken from those games is retreat as a failure state, rather than something you can only do during the fight. With how short (in rounds) D&D fights tend to be, it's hard to coordinate a retreat, and running away too early can cause the very defeat it's trying to mitigate.

[RandomPeasant]

Something that should definitely be taken from those games is retreat as a failure state, rather than something you can only do during the fight. With how short (in rounds) D&D fights tend to be, it's hard to coordinate a retreat, and running away too early can cause the very defeat it's trying to mitigate.

It's not just the length in rounds, the length of those rounds tends to cause problems as well, since it makes it very difficult for any kind of non-combat events to happen during combat time. And that much is applicable to a broad, broad range of games. Combat really should take more in-game time than it does, especially since that doesn't cost anything in terms of table time.

[quinron]

Something that should definitely be taken from those games is retreat as a failure state, rather than something you can only do during the fight. With how short (in rounds) D&D fights tend to be, it's hard to coordinate a retreat, and running away too early can cause the very defeat it's trying to mitigate.

I think this is compounded by the fact that about 90% of monsters move faster than the average PC, and 75% move faster than a PC mildly optimized for movement speed. If your GM retains the movement-in-combat rules for retreat, then it's incredibly unlikely for you to be able to escape any non-humanoid you'll be fighting past level 3.

[Duff]

It's not just the length in rounds, the length of those rounds tends to cause problems as well, since it makes it very difficult for any kind of non-combat events to happen during combat time. And that much is applicable to a broad, broad range of games. Combat really should take more in-game time than it does, especially since that doesn't cost anything in terms of table time.

I'm not sure that's quite the solution. A battle which takes more game time without increasing table time is simply allowing each combatant to do more before the other side get to respond. So more chance of dead or incapacitated combatants who can't flee effectively.

I suggest the following are more useful in allowing fleeing
- More encounters where the sides size each other up before the fight. Maybe talking, maybe just posing. Most creatures in nature want to avoid loosing a fight more than they want to win one
- Make closing in for battle more dangerous than withdrawing rather than the opposite. (Free attacks for breaking contact, bonuses for charging are common, especially in D&D)
- Make "hot pursuit" dangerous. Rounding corners without checking should be something requiring courage. Ambushes are bad for you! (Note fleeing around corners is also dangerous, but if you're in pursuit you know there's a hostile force around that corner

[False God]

I think this is compounded by the fact that about 90% of monsters move faster than the average PC, and 75% move faster than a PC mildly optimized for movement speed. If your GM retains the movement-in-combat rules for retreat, then it's incredibly unlikely for you to be able to escape any non-humanoid you'll be fighting past level 3.

Absolutely. It's always irritating when you know the right strategy is to retreat, but you can't because you move 30 and the monsters all move faster and worse get special attacks on a charge.

[vasilidor]

Sometimes the monsters goal is to get them to go away.
Not always. Monsters should be played to their intelligence as best as one can and unless otherwise stated they should care about their own well being first and foremost.
why is the goblin warband attacking? to get supplies or to kill the tall people? If they are going after supplies, what will they do if the target proves to difficult, what is their desperation level?
If it is to kill the Tall People, again what are they willing to risk? would they settle for driving them back, be willing to retreat etc.
Lone predator animals will hesitate to attack groups, especially when they know they have been spotted unless they are desperate. Even then they will try to wait until someone is on their own or otherwise incapacitated. Group predators will also try to play it smart and try to wear down prey before striking making it a war of endurance, or they will have distractors and strikers. if the distractors cannot do their job right because the party is too good they may decide to move on to easier prey. they will also try to pull someone out of a group, if you can avoid that it may prove to be too much for them to want to deal with.

[Stonehead]

Those do require "zooming out" from a purely IC perspective though. Which I think can be worth it - a lot more players would consider surrender if the result was known vs "could be anything" - but does go contrary to the experience some people want.

That said, IME there are a fair number of players who just do not like imprisonment or enslavement, regardless of what the mechanics are. Even with a guarantee that they'd escape in X amount of time and face no mechanical penalties, they still wouldn't like them. Not everything that works in a novel/show/movie is fun to play through - at least not for all players.

Something that should definitely be taken from those games is retreat as a failure state, rather than something you can only do during the fight. With how short (in rounds) D&D fights tend to be, it's hard to coordinate a retreat, and running away too early can cause the very defeat it's trying to mitigate.

I think there's a balance for sure, but I also don't think some players not liking it means you shouldn't ever do it. I mean, players also don't like missing their attacks, or being lied to, or npcs being killed, but that doesn't mean those things should never happen. Obviously if it goes deeper than just a dislike, you should be sensitive to that, if one of your players has been kidnapped irl or something crazy like that, it's better to just avoid that entirely. But, barring like, actual trauma, I don't think "players don't like when x happens" is synonymous with "x should never happen in game".


Sometimes the monsters goal is to get them to go away.
Not always. Monsters should be played to their intelligence as best as one can and unless otherwise stated they should care about their own well being first and foremost.
why is the goblin warband attacking? to get supplies or to kill the tall people? If they are going after supplies, what will they do if the target proves to difficult, what is their desperation level?

I think a lot of DMs have it in their head that there's only one realistic outcome to any scenario, and that it's always the most brutal. High fantasy is in general less brutal than reality, but that doesn't mean that in each individual case, more brutal = more realistic. There are also a lot more than one "realistic" outcome for any given scenario, and "less likely" isn't the same as "unrealistic". When dice are involved, everyone seems to accept that, but when it's up to the DM, all of a sudden only "natural 10" outcomes are realistic.

As an easy example, most animals are territorial, not evil. If you get in a fight with a moose it's not going to stand over your bleeding body and crush your neck or any other coup de grace. It's like people have it in their head that it's "unrealistic" somehow for an animal/monster to leave a player alive, when if you look in the news, it happens all the time. The moose literally doesn't care if you live or die, it just wants to eat in peace.

Another example, look at human enemies. How often do the player characters go around and slit the throat of every bandit they just defeated? Maybe it's different in different groups, but in mine it's basically never. Why would the bandits act differently? You might think it's unrealistic for them to leave their victims alive, but assault and robbery is way more common than murder is in real life.

Or, maybe they're irredeemably evil, and have no regard for the sanctity of human life whatsoever (I'd argue such a character is much less realistic than the alternative, but whatever). As unpleasant as it is to talk about now, the slave trade was an incredibly lucrative business, especially in the medieval/renaissance era. One might ask "Why would the orks leave the party alive?", but a better question might be "Why would they spoil such valuable merchandise?".

In very few of the combat encounters of any campaign I'm in is one side's goal to completely eliminate the other. It does happen some times, but it's much more likely that they're just doing their job, or they got spooked, or they're after money, or they want what's behind the other side. The thing too is, coming up with examples like these isn't hard, it's pretty easy to improvise after the party loses a fight, you don't need to plan any of it. If your group doesn't like the more lenient/merciful consequences, fair enough, I like games like that too. But your issue is a tonal one, not a realism one.

[Xervous]

On imprisonment / enslavement my biggest gripe is wasted table time. We all hate loading screens, unskippable cutscenes, the 30min of coming attractions at the movie theater. I’ve scheduled this time to park my keister for tabletop and waiting to be told I’m allowed to do something sounds like a visit to the DMV.

The one time any of my groups has gotten themselves in serious trouble with the law, yes they were imprisoned. I spent 10min on flavor and entertaining the banter as they were subdued. Then timeskip, an outline of what had happened, and they were free again with full agency. That’s not to say there weren’t any consequences, just that I didn’t smother them in unwanted GM monologues. Player aversion to imprisonment / enslavement is usually a matter of not wanting to waste time on things they didn’t show up to play.

[Tanarii]

Another example, look at human enemies. How often do the player characters go around and slit the throat of every bandit they just defeated? Maybe it's different in different groups, but in mine it's basically never.
Your players are weird. :smallamused:

[Telok]

As an easy example, most animals are territorial, not evil. If you get in a fight with a moose it's not going to stand over your bleeding body and crush your neck or any other coup de grace. It's like people have it in their head that it's "unrealistic" somehow for an animal/monster to leave a player alive, when if you look in the news, it happens all the time. The moose literally doesn't care if you live or die, it just wants to eat in peace.

Note: depends on how pissed off the moose is. Kids throwing snowballs and rock? A few charges and stomps. Momma moose saw you clobber its calf? Might be in for a moosey version of Moby ****.

Something that worked well in the last "prison" scenario I had to run was giving the players agency even if their characters didn't have any. Letters & phone calls out, they still controlled their assets & could call on allies & contacts. They got solicitors/lawyers, paid or assigned, that I had them run for a bit. On trial day I split them into teams based on the evidence against them and gave one the prosecutor lawyers stats. They had a list of charges & evidence and did a short series of opposed skill tests, modified by rp. Then switched teams an the pcs on different charges got their trial.

In theory they could have all gotten off or sentenced to immediate in-court execution if the dice rolls went insane. But I put in enough rolls to come out with a strongly avarage result of "penal battalion". Then let them use backing, allies, contacts, etc., to let them influence which penal battalion they went to and to let them get critical gear sent to them as care packages.

As a bonus, I didn't have to roll anything during the trials or other stuff. The players went all in for prosecuting their friends.

[kyoryu]

Historically, most battles do not end with one side getting wiped out.

Like, at the Battle of the Bulge, approximately one million soldiers fought between both sides. There were roughly 60K-80K casualties (dead or missing), with a lot more wounded. That's less than 1/10 of the involved soldiers... and it was reasonably evenly distributed.

[Stonehead]

Note: depends on how pissed off the moose is. Kids throwing snowballs and rock? A few charges and stomps. Momma moose saw you clobber its calf? Might be in for a moosey version of Moby ****.

True. IMO, if the players are clubbing baby animals, maybe they deserve to "lose the game".

[Xervous]

True. IMO, if the players are clubbing baby animals, maybe they deserve to "lose the game".

The clubs are necessary, otherwise it damages the pelt. The old ones are too tough and don’t sell for much.

[Tanarii]

True. IMO, if the players are clubbing baby animals, maybe they deserve to "lose the game".
Beowulf disagrees and thinks it's heroic.

[DwarfFighter]

Personally, I've run a few adventures where I decided the NPCs were more likely to take prisoners than kill the party, and they've always been fun because they've forced the party to work together and plan more.

In Star Wars, the bad guys are the ones taking prisoners. If I recall correctly, The heroes take the following prisoners:

* I: The Gungans capture Qui-Gon and Obi Wan.
* I: The Royalists capture the Trade Federation leaders.
* II: Anakin and Obi Wan try their best to capture the assassin.
* V: Lando's men ambushes the Imperials escorting Leia, Han, Chewie and C-3PO to Vader's ship.
* VI: The rebels and Ewoks capture the guards at the shield generator. Twice.

Meanwhile...

* I: The Trade Federation captures Qui-Gon and Obi Wan.
* I: The Trade Federation captures Padme and heaps of Royalists. Twice!
* I: Anakin and his mom are slaves.
* I: The Trade Federation takes the Gungans prisoner on the field of battle.
* II: Anakin, Obi Wan, and Padme are captured on Geonosis.
* III: The Trade Federation has capture Chancellor Palpatine.
* IV: Darth Vader captures Leia.
* IV: The Jawas capture C-3PO and R2-D2.
* IV: The Sand People capture Luke.
* IV: The Death Star captures the Millennium Falcon.
* IV: Luke and Han as Stormtroopers capture Chewie.
* V: The Wampa captures Luke.
* V: The Imperials capture Han, Leia, Chewie and C-3PO
* VI: Leia as a Bounty Hunter captures Chewie.
* VI: Jabba captures Leia and later Luke
* VI: The cannibalistic Ewoks capture everyone.
* VI: The Imperials take Luke prisoner as goes to confront Vader.
* VI: The Imperials capture everyone at the shield generator.
* VII: Finn starts out as a slave soldier.
* VII: Kylo captures Rey.
* VIII: The First Order captures Finn and Rey.
* IX: The First Order captures Chewbacca.
* IX: The First Order captures Finn and Poe.
* IX: The Emperor captures Rey.

I probably missed a few. This may give the impression that the Bad Guys are satisfied with de-escalation and non-lethal conflict resolution, capturing the heroes is actually a show of force: They'll typically start the conflict and attempt to kill the heroes, and ultimately overwhelm them with superior numbers or other brute force. The heroes, on the other hand, generally don't have the opportunity to take prisoners since they are fighting for their lives and need to keep moving.

This is acceptable in a scripted narrative where the characters have motivation but not choice, e.g. a movie or book, or to a limited extent in video games (there is choice, but only scripted options).

In an RPG, the GM needs to be sure his players are fine with being defeated as a contrivance to add drama or drive the plot; that the DM's Bad Guys' motivations have the right to also affect how the story develops. If your Players hate it, you shouldn't do it.

[MightypIon]

I think it depends on the setting.

Generally speaking, the more sides their are, the higher the odds of prisoners being taken and being treated reasonably.
After all, your current enemy may be your ally of convenience tomorow.
It would also depends on how frequent sides switch, how frequent Geas/Pact like abilities are and wether or not "giving parole" is a thing.

In the middle ages, there were examples where one knight got captured, could not cough up his ransom, so he gave his parole, went to his fief, worked hard to cough up the money and then paid his ransom 4 years later, even with interest.

We had parties who surrendered to Nocticula (partly their own fault) and did not particularly regretted it in the long term.

There is also the question of how to actually handle prisoners. There are massive issues with it, especially in stealth heavy settings.

If you would like to increase the whole "losing combat not = death" thing, here are things you can do:

1: Establish the presence of ransom brokers. These could be perhaps outsiders, whom you pay money, in return they give you an undestroyable and unfakeable certificate of how much ransom money you are worth, if returned alive.

2: Establish binding parole pledges. Probably geas, magically enforced.

3: Establish that flags of truce exist. If there is a big good, the big good can ransom or negotiate for the parties release.

4: If there are multiple bad guys, have one stage assist in a rescue in order to inconvenience the other. I really like that one when GMing.

[kyoryu]

If you would like to increase the whole "losing combat not = death" thing, here are things you can do:


You're ignoring "normalize retreat/running away". Which is, realistically, what most people should do. Unfortunately, most game systems don't handle it particularly well, so it probably helps to reify that in some way.

Allowing for retreat/fleeing, while making sure that there are stakes besides death/capture in the fight has solved that issue pretty effectively.

A simple way of thinking of stakes is this: Fighting is risky. Death is permanent. Nobody wants to die. So.... why are people risking death to fight in this case? If there's not a good reason, then there's an opportunity to add a lot to the game.

[MightypIon]

My experience is that normalizing retreats can result in a situation were fights become too inconsequential, especially if the opponents also retreat.
A thing is that many opponents are more capable of retreating then a party may be in pursuing.
I also want to discourage rest, blast, run, rest, repeat style shenangians.

I am completely willing on having a good bluff role or roleplay cover a retreat, but in real life, succesfully retreating is pretty hard.


Take a typical anti demon campaign. Nearly every Demon can teleport. As such, nearly all of them have mobility that clearly outdoes what mobility the players have (certainly at their level).
If a GM would play demons to their full abilities, it would be incredibly hard, even for a mid level party, to get much done at all.

We had a thing where a GM together with me made Nocticulas (Queen of Succubi in Pathfinder) Midnight´s Blades aka Succubi Speznats.
These basically were the Kobold Commandoes, in terms of tactics, but on Succubi Chassis with some hero levels (the twins with kidnapper 3 where particularly effective) on top.

Despite being CR 10-14 non mythics individually, (vs Level 14-16 mythic 5-7 characters) the 6 of them performed hit and run tactics, took hostages,
laid ambushes and were nigh uncatchable in a "fair fight", and actually gave the party more problems then an actual full fledged demon lord.

[Stonehead]

My experience is that normalizing retreats can result in a situation were fights become too inconsequential, especially if the opponents also retreat.

My experience is usually the opposite, I think it comes down to why each DM puts combat in their game. Especially when you start thinking about why each side is fighting. Very rarely is both sides' goal "to kill all the people on the other side" (at least in my experience). Most often, one side is guarding something that the other side wants. Territorial dragons guarding their lair from adventurers, cultists protecting their cult leader/ritual, players protecting the town from attackers, or town guards protecting the town from players. In this type of combat, it makes a lot of sense for one side (the attacker) to retreat, and it doesn't make sense for the other side to give chase or flee themselves.

There's also fights where one side wants something the other has. The classic hungry monsters, bandits ambushing travelers, etc. In these fights, it makes a lot of sense for either side to flee if losing. The hungry monster wants to eat the adventurers only so that it can stay alive, so when the fight is more of a danger to survival than starvation, it'll probably bail.

That's why I said it comes down to why the combat is in the game. Everyone wants to stay alive over almost all else. The enemies usually don't care about dealing the most lasting damage to the party, they care about protecting their territory, putting food in their bellies, and staying alive. At least in the games I play, combat usually arises when it's the best way to achieve one of those three. Other groups probably use combat more as just obstacles, or even the main content. If you're putting encounters into your game for intrinsic reasons, that is there's no reason for the combat other than that the group likes it, it could make sense to not worry about the individual motivations of each goblin.

There's also the issue where the last few turns of most combats are pretty boring. There are sometimes very close encounters against bosses and the like that remain intense up to the end, but usually the fight is decided long before the last combatant is killed. Much like the last few rounds of Monopoly, everyone knows who's going to win, nothing particularly interesting happens, and it's only a matter of going through the motions to formally declare a victor. Having one side retreat is a great way to skip out on that dullness.

And that's why I don't think it trivializes combat. A side usually only retreats when it becomes apparent that they're going to lose the fight. So you have to be in a position where you're going to win (or lose, if you're the one retreating), before it can even affect the table.

[King of Nowhere]

Take a typical anti demon campaign. Nearly every Demon can teleport. As such, nearly all of them have mobility that clearly outdoes what mobility the players have (certainly at their level).
If a GM would play demons to their full abilities, it would be incredibly hard, even for a mid level party, to get much done at all.


My party alwas prepares dimensional anchor. Multiple times.
Because everyone buys single use teleportation. If you want to loot your enemiea, you need to pin them down