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

[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.



That's weird lack of imagination on your part. Basing a campaign on combat sports doesn't mean lack of those other things. 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.

[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".