Quote from: RPGPunditNothing, except that many players won't really listen and will remain internally convinced that they MUST defeat the enemy before them right now, and not let accept cutting their losses and living to fight another day; or they will be convinced that there's no way a villain can or should escape their grasp.

RPGPundit

Which says a lot about your players and not d20 - unless your players don't behave this way with other systems. They are plenty of tips in the recurring villain thread, which means precious little if the folks you game believe that the only option in a fight is well a fight to the death - preferbly the bad guys'

The solution is simple. Forget about slavishly following the combat/challenge ratings and do what you did before.

Regards,
David R

I've seen this outside of 3e and before 3e was a twinkle in WotC's eye.

As for CRs, they're not something I would use but they are a tool.  A few times I have in various games inadvertently presented a threat which was much deadlier than I realised.  CRs are just a tool to help avoid that error, so that if you have a massively deadly foe you know you do, it's not just because you made a mistake statting up the enemy.

Equally, I've sometimes statted up supposedly deadly foes who due to an error on my part were in fact rather wimpy, CR is a mechanism for helping avoid that problem too.  If you use CR to make every encounter balanced, that's a GM fault, not a CR fault.

Just to clarify, I do not and have not EVER followed the CR ratings.

But the thing is my players do not just play in my games; they have experienced D&D and obviously been affected by the "game challenges must be balanced" meme.

So my complaint isn't specifically about D&D, its about a mentality that has seeped into RPGs.

The last two occasions where it really struck me that this happened with trying to take down an opponent who was way out of their league was one in a True20 game and one in a WFRP.  And the last where players would simply refuse to accept an opponent getting away from them was in a WFRP game, a supers game being played with the Star Wars D20 rules, and a True20 game.

Or, in other words, my recent campaigns.  And note that while I have many players that play two of my campaigns at once, none of the three campaigns mentioned are actually the same group, they are all varied groups that ended up having the same phenomenon happening.

RPGPundit

I think this problem actually goes back to the situation we discussed a while back about how D&D gameplay seems to have shifted from strategic to tactical thinking.

Also, as character generation has become a bigger and bigger investment over several editions it now becomes much more work to generate a replacement character.  This leads to some players presuming that DMs aren't supposed to wantonly kill their characters.

Another piece of the puzzle comes from the relatively linear nature of dungeons. The DM generally spoonfeeds the senario, and being in an environment that was purposely choosen for issolation from a wide player driven selection you tend to get that powerband.

Now turn those people loose in environments like cities. That's a totally different vibe. If you try to run it like a dungeon the players are likely to feel like they are mounted on steelrails rolling through some crappy carnival "funhouse". But turn them loose and they should find things that are both below their power or could kick their ass. So you have a lack of player experience with running into things that could kick their ass. I've seen this more than once with players that have never played outside of a scripted dungeon. There are some people that just have a really, really, really hard time wrapping their head around it. Sometimes because they don't want to put the effort into it, they just want to be able to smashie smash whatever is put in front of them. *shrug*

"...the light and space of Vietnam really put the zap on his head." - Cpt. Willard

Another reason I believe is that it requires better communication between the GM and players. PC dies because of a GM-player communication fuckup? Especially in those longrunning campaigns with longlived (in RL terms) PCs? Well that can lead to some really hard feelings. So the path of least effort becomes to make it all fightable, especially with a combat orientated game like D&D.

Quote from: jrientsAlso, as character generation has become a bigger and bigger investment over several editions it now becomes much more work to generate a replacement character.

I don't really get that?  I suppose if you are openning up all the bazillion supplement books to try tweak out that way. Mostly the Feats. But generally I find it just as easy, if not easier to put together a 3e/3.5 character than an AD&D one.

Oh, and to answer the initial question I would, depending on how good of terms you are with your players and how much they have invested in the characters, just let the dice fall where they may and snuff a few PCs if it comes to that.  Just make sure you are on a good communication terms with them so they don't get that screwed with feeling. *shrug*

Quote from: blakkieI don't really get that?  I suppose if you are openning up all the bazillion supplement books to try tweak out that way. Mostly the Feats. But generally I find it just as easy, if not easier to put together a 3e/3.5 character than an AD&D one.

What decisions do you have to make with a 1st edition fighter?  You pick your race.  Maybe you get to rearrange your stats rolls, if the DM is kind.  You get to pick four weapon proficiencies.  Possibly you get one or more bonus languages.  And you buy equipment.

Even without the use of a half-dozen or more supplements, a 3.x character involves more work.  Stat tweaking becomes a fine art, especially as it ties into feat-planning.  The sharper players tend to plan out 20 levels in advance so they don't screw up a feat tree or prestige class pre-reqs.  Simply picking one or two or three feats can be a pain.  Skills need to be bought.  the equipment list is longer and even selecting you weapon of choice involves more considerations.

And when you compare building 3.x PCs to something like the RC or its predecessors the contrast become even starker.

I think the key is letting the players fail without actually *killing* all the characters.  There are some higher level spells that take characters out of commission without killing them that can be useful in this regard:  Binding, Irresistable Dance, Power Word Stun...

Quickly taking characters out of commission (without killing them) will let the players know they're out of their league -- and if they don't get the lesson you can ramp up the lethality until they DO.

If you just want the villain to escape, both the Teleport spell and Boots of Teleportation make this fairly straight forward.

QuoteLet's say the party decides to run away. If the rogue and fighter are between the troll and the sorcerer, what do they do? They can stand and fight for another round, or delay, but the troll might eat them. If they run, the troll goes next and attacks the sorcerer.

I think the CR system does contribute to situations where the party doesn't run, but I also think the system does things to make running away hard to do. On top of that, it falls to the DM to give the player enough information to make an informed decision before the party commits to the fight.

I'm very happy with the way following and fleeing work in my game.  It handles this situation fairly nicely.  Hopefully everything will be wrapped up by Christmas and you can let me know what you think yourselves.

Quote from: mearlsI think the CR system does contribute to situations where the party doesn't run, but I also think the system does things to make running away hard to do.

I think that's a really good point, and it's something that I've noticed in my group, too.

Another factor is, for instance, when one character gets killed early on.  The other players won't want to leave that character's corpse behind for a few reasons.  First, if they're high-level enough, they might want to raise him or her.  Second, let's face it, there's a lot of loot on that guy!  That may seriously tilt the risk/reward balance.

I let my players know in my current game that there won't be anything balanced towards them.  At all.  It's up to them to figure out which challenges they can or can't stand up to.

-O

Last character death was last session, he was playing a wizard and got too close to the action. Player rolls up a new wizard that is a bit hardier than his last one and he's happy. They don't run away because frankly (and I really mean this) I think they just like rolling up new PC's.

Quote from: fonkaygarryThen maybe, just maybe, that's the kind of game your players want to have: one where they have a shot at killing every enemy they run across.

There are worse fates than Monster of the Week; Ultraman does pretty well with it.

I've got to agree with this.  The premise of this thread is "My players don't behave the way I want to -- how do I change them?"  That's a tricky premise in the first place.  

I think a better approach is to consider a compromise.  You don't like the present situation, but you should look at it as coming to a compromise between what you want and what they want.  For example, are there changes which would make the PCs never running away more fun for you?  What are you looking for exactly?

As a player who has often made the mistake of going after too-powerful foes, I can say there is a point where it becomes more frustrating to let the villain get away than it will be when your character dies...

That said, I've gone out in some rather glorious kamikaze explosions. Chief among them destroying the train with both myself and the villain on it. In the first session.

Quote from: mearlsI wonder how much of the issue is in an encounter's set up.

One of the hard things about the fight that the PCs can't win is that when the players realize they can't win, it's too late for them to run. Or, they at least feel that way.

The problem here is that CR is a behind the scenes benchmark, not a "visual" one. So player have no way of knowing, especially if a creature is of a sort that is not typically easy to benchmark (classed creatures).

I think the solution here is to consciously give examples of what they are dealing with. As star trek used to... by (as in TOS) slagging anyone other than scotty wearing a red shirt or (in TNG) beating up the toughest guy to show something that is tougher.

There are some built in benchmarks players will recognize, like the effects of certain spells or certain well known creatures. But lacking that, you have to communicate they are in over their head.

Kill/beat the PCs mentor, or a former or current adversary they knew to be tough. Leave behind corspes of creatures the players know to be a challenge for them ("whatdya mean they carved a path through the beholder enclave?")

QuoteI think this problem actually goes back to the situation we discussed a while back about how D&D gameplay seems to have shifted from strategic to tactical thinking.

That nails it. That´s what it´s all about. Still I think 3.5 is versatile enough for strategic gameplay, albeit published adventures are not.