What happens when you think everything is a level-appropriate encounter

[thirdkingdom]

Not for any specific reason. I'm just under the general impression that there have been pretty massive changes to the rules over the decades (that's why they're different editions, after all)... especially combat rules like AC and such.

If they are applicable (I don't exactly have the book on hand), cool.

Mechanically it's pretty simple. The two contestants charge each other and make to-hit rolls. If a contestant is hit they make an appropriate save (Wands, in this case) to avoid being unseated. First one to three hits win. So, it's possible that both contestants are unseated at the same time, only one is, or neither, but the important thing is to score a hit. Not complicated (there are additional rules for who can challenge who, etc.), but I was more looking to make the point that there *are* rules for jousting in D&D. I'm sure a game like Pendragon has more involved rules.

[Koo Rehtorb]

This is a total tangent, but it suddenly strikes me as odd that jousting would use initiative at all. It's not about reacting faster at all, really. Both people are going to hit each other at pretty much the same time.

Jousting should probably use simultaneous attacks.

[hamishspence]

For 3.5 ed, Complete Warrior had rules for jousting with blunted lances. A blunted lance always does nonlethal damage, and if it hits the jouster can choose to either make a trip attack to unseat the rider (normally lances don't get that) or a sunder attempt at the target's weapon or shield. The Ride By Attack feat granting a +4 bonus to attack rolls in a joust.

Neither the sunder attempt nor the trip attack will provoke an attack of opportunity, unlike in normal combat.

It's worth remembering that a DC5 Ride check to "stay in saddle" after being damaged (possibly including nonlethal) while mounted, may be necessary even without the intentional unseating attempt.

[goatmeal]

If I would think about it this way, I would be thinking wrong.

You seem to use "interact" as a synonym for "fight", or otherwise engage in numeric interplay, when side A compares its statistics to side B, with some random numbers added for a good measure, and an outcome is thus created.

If we take a slightly less narrow view of the word 'interact', we can immediately see that, indeed, they could interact with him in a variety of ways. They could ask for the latest court gossip. They could ask about his travels. They could flatter him on his victory, so that the next time he saw them, he would remember them and put a good word for them at court. They could share the story of their own travels, possibly pointing out places of interest. They could fed him with false information, hoping to lead him into a trap with the intent to loot his corpse later. Speaking of fighting, they could have attacked him all together (he was decidedly stronger than any individual party member, of course, but not decidedly stronger than all of them together, especially if taken by surprise). Or, they could have just ignored him and be on their way.

To say that the 'only thing it can do is bait a player into getting their character killed' is an extremely narrow view of the situation.

Very much agree with this.

Also, I think having a time to run away adds value to the story. This often occurs in the 2nd act of the story so the protagonist can come back victorious in the 3rd act. Many successful stories/movies/etc use this formula, why not do the same in an RPG? In fact, with leveling, it almost encourages this. The key is to be very clear to the players that this is a possibility for the game.

[Frozen_Feet]

I think the thread title is a bit odd, because a similar scenario could've happened even if the combatants were equal level, or even if the player character was higher level.

For example, the NPC might've rolled a critical hit, and the PC might've rolled 1 (an automatic fail) on their massive damage save, leading to the same result.

So the lesson is less "don't expect all encounters to be level-appropriate" and more "if you take risks, don't always expect to win".

[John Longarrow]

Traveling the wilderness, the PCs met with a certain knight and his retainers. One PC was proficient in Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty), and was told he remembers this knight as a winner of the King's Jousting Tournament. Another PC, upon hearing this, immediately decided to challenge the knight to a joust.

Knight: "I don't carry my tourney lance with me."
Player: "Excuses already?"
Knight: "No excuses, I'm just saying, my lance is a combat weapon. Not the blunted one I use for tourneys."
Player: "Haha, what a coincidence, so is mine!"
Knight: "If risk of fatality is to be accepted, I must have an incentive to fight. Winner takes loser's gear?"
Player: "Hell yeah!"

They get on their horses, charge each other, knight wins initiative and deals 85 damage. The PC only had 30-something hit points. The knight promptly proceeds to undress the dead PC, take all his gear and money as the rest of the party is too scared to intervene, and rides away, dropping a small purse with 10 gp.

"Funeral expenses."

Couple questions that should help explain exactly what happened in context:
1) What was the PC's build? ie. was their character a dedicated mounted charger build?
2) How well known is this kings tourney?
3) Did you explain the mechanics of how you'd run the joust to the player and give them an option to retract their challenge if they didn't like it?

[Knaight]

As you've demonstrated here, certainly no-one ever fought even one hundred fights which were a) to the death and b) against someone as competent as themselves and c) a 'fair fight'. There has to be a significant skill disparity involved and probably rules preventing automatic death to the loser (e.g. options to yield, fight to first blood etc.) plus likely just getting lucky sometimes.

For instance, in this particular context there's the matter of using blunted lances.

[RazorChain]

Just because you agree that dying is possible doesn't make killing someone and walking away legal. At best it could be considered a duel, but those weren't to the death often and when they were there were legal sanctions to be had (of course, depending on the setting it might differ). But even trials by combat had some sort of legal authority overseeing the duel.

The robbery of gear, on the other hand, sure. I'll grant that it was agreed upon beforehand, but killing someone is still killing someone, whether or not they agreed to it beforehand.

The appropriate response from the knight would be to decline the challenge since he's not a common murderer, and then proceed to go about his merry way because he's above such lunatics.

People died in medieval tournaments and there were no legal repercussions. In the 12th century the church tried to ban tournaments and threatened that those who died wouldnt get a christian burial.

So in essence if you died nobody did anything about it other than throwing you unceremoniously into a ditch.

I really dont think anyone would care about the PC's fate unless he was of higher nobility.

[Berenger]

So in essence if you died nobody did anything about it other than throwing you unceremoniously into a ditch.

Except that it is highly unlikely that a nobleman with any remaining relatives or retainers is "unceremoniously into a ditch" and it's also highly unlikely that there is no priest available that is willing to ignore that particular decision of the church.

[Yukitsu]

Very much agree with this.

Also, I think having a time to run away adds value to the story. This often occurs in the 2nd act of the story so the protagonist can come back victorious in the 3rd act. Many successful stories/movies/etc use this formula, why not do the same in an RPG? In fact, with leveling, it almost encourages this. The key is to be very clear to the players that this is a possibility for the game.

Because if an encounter is dangerous, it's usually faster than the party or it can kill them from longer range and if it can't, it can be killed from long range making it unnecessary to run from it. I never bother trying to run if we are already in a fight with something and it's clear that it's higher level than us because I have a higher chance to win the fight than I have of running away. If the DM is just letting players get away that needs to be directly stated out of character, otherwise our party is just gonna have to let their 20 move speed dwarf cleric get killed.

[goatmeal]

Because if an encounter is dangerous, it's usually faster than the party or it can kill them from longer range and if it can't, it can be killed from long range making it unnecessary to run from it. I never bother trying to run if we are already in a fight with something and it's clear that it's higher level than us because I have a higher chance to win the fight than I have of running away. If the DM is just letting players get away that needs to be directly stated out of character, otherwise our party is just gonna have to let their 20 move speed dwarf cleric get killed.

Of course it’s important to communicate this stuff OOC with the players. Especially these days when everyone expects they can just bash every challenge to death in order to win as opposed to finding other ways of overcoming a challenge.

It’s also important not to overdo it and provide escape mechanisms for them when designing the encounter. Maybe put the dragon in a chamber with an exit that it is too big to enter. Maybe the Ettin on the other side of the lake won’t chase them if they let it get the deer they just killed. Maybe the pirates won’t pursue if the PCs jump overboard during a mutiny. These are some things I’ve used in my games. Again, important not to use these things too much for the sake of avoiding railroading, but they can provide greater satisfaction when the PCs are able to come back later and fight something they once ran away from.

[Yukitsu]

Of course it’s important to communicate this stuff OOC with the players. Especially these days when everyone expects they can just bash every challenge to death in order to win as opposed to finding other ways of overcoming a challenge.

It’s also important not to overdo it and provide escape mechanisms for them when designing the encounter. Maybe put the dragon in a chamber with an exit that it is too big to enter. Maybe the Ettin on the other side of the lake won’t chase them if they let it get the deer they just killed. Maybe the pirates won’t pursue if the PCs jump overboard during a mutiny. These are some things I’ve used in my games. Again, important not to use these things too much for the sake of avoiding railroading, but they can provide greater satisfaction when the PCs are able to come back later and fight something they once ran away from.

I still find those encounters to be flat out boring since it's just then the DM telling us what to do, I might as well just go play a video game if the DM is just telling us "do X or die." up until the point where we can again do something meaningful.

I don't mind less combat encounters but running away from fights is never interesting since the only way you can come to that conclusion is either through deus ex machina or out of character the DM flat out telling you he'll let it work. Similarly, I don't particularly get excited coming back and beating a difficult encounter later in the game simply because it's no longer a difficult fight, it sort of tells me my numbers have gotten higher but because they have, it's become a less interesting fight. Certainly the game to me is more interesting when the DM expects the party to have to fight and win against odds that are heavily stacked against them.

[goatmeal]

Obviously we have different perspectives. Good thing there is more than 1 way to play the game.

[Noje]

I still find those encounters to be flat out boring since it's just then the DM telling us what to do, I might as well just go play a video game if the DM is just telling us "do X or die." up until the point where we can again do something meaningful.

I don't mind less combat encounters but running away from fights is never interesting since the only way you can come to that conclusion is either through deus ex machina or out of character the DM flat out telling you he'll let it work. Similarly, I don't particularly get excited coming back and beating a difficult encounter later in the game simply because it's no longer a difficult fight, it sort of tells me my numbers have gotten higher but because they have, it's become a less interesting fight. Certainly the game to me is more interesting when the DM expects the party to have to fight and win against odds that are heavily stacked against them.

Wait, your first statement was that you do not like binary decisions in TTRPGs, which is totally fair. But then you go on to say any fight that you have to run away from is not interesting, which is literally "defeat your opponent or die," which uses the formula that you said yourself negates the point of an rpg. Just saying, it's a tad contradictory

Running away or avoiding combat is a totally legitimate strategy (and sometimes strategically superior to fighting) for players to take in many situations. Especially at low levels, where a few bad dice rolls can completely change the tides of a battle, it is perfectly acceptable to run. When going through long dungeon crawls, it is smart to avoid enemies when you can to conserve your HP, which is a limited resource. The DM is not at fault if his players decide to run. Honestly I find it more exciting on both fronts. A game where all combats have to end in one side subduing the other sounds more videogamey to me.

You can run the game however you want two, and if you're having fun with it that's great. But some ways of running the game are better than others. Yours is functional, but seems very restrictive on what kind of encounters the DM can produce and what actions the players can make.

[Yukitsu]

Wait, your first statement was that you do not like binary decisions in TTRPGs, which is totally fair. But then you go on to say any fight that you have to run away from is not interesting, which is literally "defeat your opponent or die," which uses the formula that you said yourself negates the point of an rpg. Just saying, it's a tad contradictory

Running away or avoiding combat is a totally legitimate strategy (and sometimes strategically superior to fighting) for players to take in many situations. Especially at low levels, where a few bad dice rolls can completely change the tides of a battle, it is perfectly acceptable to run. When going through long dungeon crawls, it is smart to avoid enemies when you can to conserve your HP, which is a limited resource. The DM is not at fault if his players decide to run. Honestly I find it more exciting on both fronts. A game where all combats have to end in one side subduing the other sounds more videogamey to me.

You can run the game however you want two, and if you're having fun with it that's great. But some ways of running the game are better than others. Yours is functional, but seems very restrictive on what kind of encounters the DM can produce and what actions the players can make.

I don't like that, but it's a consequence of a system where generally you have 3 scenarios.

1: You are faster than your opponent and they do not have longer range than you or equal range to you (this includes range because of terrain constraints).
This encounter is never above your ability to beat. You move to beyond their range and use your superior ranged attacks to kill your opponent.

2: You are faster than your opponent but have inferior range.
This encounter you lose as combat in most RPGs favour attacks enough that you are more likely to die running. If you would survive enough rounds to escape the superior range of your opponent, you can most often beat them anyway. Sometimes it's valid to run in this scenario but it's often not clear that it is since the offense of your opponent that you are fleeing from clearly isn't enough to kill you too quickly, it simply is a question of how many rounds you would take to kill it. Beholders are a prime example of this in my groups I've played in and I personally favour fighting them, even if we're really low level compared to it.

3: You are slower than your opponent.
This is self explanatory.

The biggest problem I have is that more difficult encounters often take point 1 as a given and grant higher level encounters more options for speed and range making it less likely for me to think I can escape from an encounter that's more difficult. Running should be a valid option but I find in practice it's often a more dangerous one than simply fighting. Some DMs however seem willing to allow players easier escapes than I feel is reasonable since they sort of just completely disregard any abilities the enemy may have to chase down a fleeing opponent.

In other words, you're generally setting players up for a binary scenario if you are putting them into combat situations against more powerful opponents. I don't necessarily think that powerful beings are always a problem, the knight in the OP isn't really a problem. The problem is asking yourself what you've put them in the world for. Most DMs simply put them in because they add to some sense of it being a living world so they're largely a form of set dressing, they aren't really meant to be fully interacted with. This makes them fine if sometimes put in but I honestly don't think they should be used very often. To me, it's less of a living world and more an MMO if there's loads of high powered people around and I would bet a lot of players start to question why they're bothering doing any of the quests if so many others are that much better than them.

[Zombimode]

Because if an encounter is dangerous, it's usually faster than the party or it can kill them from longer range and if it can't, it can be killed from long range making it unnecessary to run from it. I never bother trying to run if we are already in a fight with something and it's clear that it's higher level than us because I have a higher chance to win the fight than I have of running away. If the DM is just letting players get away that needs to be directly stated out of character, otherwise our party is just gonna have to let their 20 move speed dwarf cleric get killed.

I think your assumption on what constitutes a dangerous Encounter and what possibilities there are for escape are wrong.

Having higher Speed and/or longer range doesn't mean you can win (Terrain constrains, resistance to the parties ranged attacks, good enough Regeneration/fast heal).
Also, in D&D, move and attacking at range will get you one move Action away from the target, while a Charge can cover two move Actions.

Being slower then your opponents doesn't mean that you can't escape. You can used the Terrain or abilities to slow the enemy down. You can use means of escape that don't depend on Speed, like Teleportation, Invisibility, Fly etc. Or you can disengage because you think that the enemy will not pursue you.
Especially in D&D which you seem to Play there are many Encounter Setups where escaping is both possible and a useful tactical Option.

[Yukitsu]

I think your assumption on what constitutes a dangerous Encounter and what possibilities there are for escape are wrong.

Having higher Speed and/or longer range doesn't mean you can win (Terrain constrains, resistance to the parties ranged attacks, good enough Regeneration/fast heal).
Also, in D&D, move and attacking at range will get you one move Action away from the target, while a Charge can cover two move Actions.

Being slower then your opponents doesn't mean that you can't escape. You can used the Terrain or abilities to slow the enemy down. You can use means of escape that don't depend on Speed, like Teleportation, Invisibility, Fly etc. Or you can disengage because you think that the enemy will not pursue you.
Especially in D&D which you seem to Play there are many Encounter Setups where escaping is both possible and a useful tactical Option.

I can't honestly think of any encounter in D&D that is slow, doesn't have ranged attacks yet has enough DR, regen and fast heal to out pace a typical adventuring party's long range damage. Even at the extreme end of things, you're going to need to do just over 20 damage a round.

If I'm faster, I can opt to full run a round, then move/fire. If I'm faster, there will be some ratio of full run to move fire or full run then full attack which will work. Also, if the party start running in slightly different directions, then several can simply opt to full attack every round.

Most of my characters and most characters I've seen played are not immune to terrain, hence if I'm using it to slow an enemy, I will be slowed as well.

Teleportation does work some of the time but the others only really help yourself or a few others. I basically don't consider it a good tactical option to lose 3-4 party members, escape invisibly by myself or through the air and leave the entire remaining party behind. Also, if you have someone that flies and that's enough of an excuse to escape, you can often also use flight to win the encounter. I don't think it's a great idea to rely on teleport as your only option for the party as a DM however.

It's not too hard to get 1-2 players in a group of 4 to escape, but I think it's a bit awful to cut the party in half and then have those players sitting out of things just because you think it's fair to kill half the party just so the other half can retreat.

[Volthawk]

A thought I had looking at this: It's kinda hard to judge a lot of encounters from a PC's perspective as regards to whether they're fair/appropriate or not. I mean, a lot of monsters are fairly easy - bigger and more savage-looking is worse - but even then when you've got some levels it's hard to guess where you are. This is especially worse with more humanoid enemies, whether people with class levels or stuff like undead.

One part of dealing with this is knowing the kind of class level range of the world - this is especially relevant here. I mean, sticking with D&D for ease, I know of settings where people at level 5 or 6 are the bigshots, and other settings where you get stuff like a level 20 commoner. Depending on that, these PCs who I guess are level 4 could be either fairly up there or still basically peons. In the former setting, the PC would expect to perhaps be outclassed, but still not annihilated, while in the latter setting what did they expect.

The issue really is that this issue is the kind of thing where mitigating it can fall on everyone involved, on both sides of the table. Yes, it's fairly a part of the DM's role to make sure the PCs are enjoying themselves and aren't gonna feel screwed over due to miscommunication, but at the same time most systems give PCs tools to learn - lore skills, some kind of assessment skill, stuff like that. There's also the issue that different system have different degrees you can punch above your weight - I mean, compare a system like D&D where a high level guy can be a pincushion for a level 1 dude's bow to a more lethal one like standard GURPS, where humans don't get too much more robust and Mr spec ops badass still goes down after a few bullets to the brain.

In this particular situation, I can see some differences in perception/uncertainty over the threat presented by the knight, and at least in my opinion the knight talking about the combat being potentially lethal doesn't automatically imply that the PCs gonna get rapidly murderised. I mean, I can see that being just as valid a statement in any version of the fight. If it was a fair fight, then it's saying "this is the kind of fight that can go both ways so you have a chance of getting hurt badly", or if the situation was perfectly reversed, it's saying "you have a good chance of killing a knight, can you seal with the circumstances?". It's a messy kind of thing, really, that ultimately just boils down into a mismatch in communication and expectations.

[Knaight]

Because if an encounter is dangerous, it's usually faster than the party or it can kill them from longer range and if it can't, it can be killed from long range making it unnecessary to run from it. I never bother trying to run if we are already in a fight with something and it's clear that it's higher level than us because I have a higher chance to win the fight than I have of running away. If the DM is just letting players get away that needs to be directly stated out of character, otherwise our party is just gonna have to let their 20 move speed dwarf cleric get killed.

That's not an issue with running away in general, it's an issue with how chases are implemented in D&D specifically. Even within that context though, there's potentially a lot more variety than this. If someone is generally slower but capable of extreme jumps, they might be able to escape by going up on top of something (a ledge on a mountain, a building in a city, whatever); similar things apply to swimming, climbing, etc. Pursuers may only be willing to go so far. I would argue that pursuit is often neglected in RPGs, but that doesn't mean it's not a viable option.

This is all besides the point in this particular example - the knight was dangerous, they weren't hostile.

[Zombimode]

I can't honestly think of any encounter in D&D that is slow, doesn't have ranged attacks yet has enough DR, regen and fast heal to out pace a typical adventuring party's long range damage. Even at the extreme end of things, you're going to need to do just over 20 damage a round.

Any Encounter where one side can simply block Line of Sight or Line of Effect to nullify the other side's ranged attacks. And this is not a contrivance. Any enclosed space will do, which is pretty much every Terrain besides a flat huge featureless plain.

If I'm faster, I can opt to full run a round, then move/fire. If I'm faster, there will be some ratio of full run to move fire or full run then full attack which will work. Also, if the party start running in slightly different directions, then several can simply opt to full attack every round.

Are we fighting on a featureless plain again?

Most of my characters and most characters I've seen played are not immune to terrain, hence if I'm using it to slow an enemy, I will be slowed as well.

Blocking a passage. Using passage that is large enough for your Party, but not large enough for the enemy. Creating hindering effects (like Web).
Also, yes, abilities that let you ignore harmful Terrain effects are usefull in part because they create new Avenues for escape.

Teleportation does work some of the time but the others only really help yourself or a few others. I basically don't consider it a good tactical option to lose 3-4 party members, escape invisibly by myself or through the air and leave the entire remaining party behind. Also, if you have someone that flies and that's enough of an excuse to escape, you can often also use flight to win the encounter. I don't think it's a great idea to rely on teleport as your only option for the party as a DM however.

I don't know what Kind of teleportation you are thinking of, but the usual spells and powers all teleport the whole Group.
Also, escapes can be coordinated. There might be a particularly fast Party member. There are Party members with invisbility powers. Also, there are potions. 2nd Level potions are cheap. There is no reason not to give one Invisibility Potion to every Party member.

The bottom line is: D&D is a Group effort. Planing for different tactical situations in advance, and that include plans for escape, is something both possible and important.
I agree that if your Group never talks about the possibility of escape and makes no plans whatsoever, then an escape with the whole Group is not likely to succeed. But thats a fault of the Group, not a lack of Option in the game.


Edit: You know, in Addition of talking about escape in General Terms I will provide a recent example from my latest session:

Spoiler: The Great Escape

Show

Eberron, Sharn. The Mission was to Infiltrate the headquaters of an upstart business with suspected crime activities. We went in, found what we needed and bailed out. Sadly this "bailing out" didn't went as smoothly and we set of the Alarm.
As we passed the Exit, the following were on our tails, in various distances: a very angry hobgoblin artificer, several squads of goblin and hobgoblin guards and a Minotaur. My 3rd Level Hexbalde and the 4th Level Rogue would have been hoplessly outmatched in a fight.

Since we were not faster then our pursuers and our pursuers had some ranged weapons, we should be dead by your Standards. And yet we are well alive and kicking. Because this is Sharn and not a featureless plain.

We only needed to get as far as to the next Sky Coach. In order to slow down our pursuers I used Intimidate to control the crowd on the street (moving through a crowds slows you down by half; with an Intimidate DC 20 check as a free Action you can Control the crowd to a limited degree, for instance to let you pass through unhindered). Our pursuers failed to do the same and we reached the Sky Coach which lifted of with us to safety.

I used and ability (Intimidate) in combination with a Feature of the Scene (typical crowed Sharn streets) to slow down our opponents but not us and reached a Point where we could Change our means for escape to put distance and Elevation to effectively escape our landbound pursuers.
This is, like always, a combination of personal abilities, planing and context.

This is why the *where* is important. This why looking for escape routes is a worthwhile Thing to do, and also why blocking said escape routes is a Sound strategic move.

[Yukitsu]

Any Encounter where one side can simply block Line of Sight or Line of Effect to nullify the other side's ranged attacks. And this is not a contrivance. Any enclosed space will do, which is pretty much every Terrain besides a flat huge featureless plain.

Not any terrain, it would largely need to be indoors for this to be true.

Are we fighting on a featureless plain again?

This still applies largely to anywhere that isn't a small narrow tunnel.

Blocking a passage. Using passage that is large enough for your Party, but not large enough for the enemy. Creating hindering effects (like Web).
Also, yes, abilities that let you ignore harmful Terrain effects are usefull in part because they create new Avenues for escape.

This is half true, it relies on it being in narrow areas without many alternate paths. I've had groups attempt this in larger cities and fail because there are other paths that you can take.

I don't know what Kind of teleportation you are thinking of, but the usual spells and powers all teleport the whole Group.

I said teleport works. I'm saying none of your other solutions do. I would maintain that teleport working is no reason to balance encounters in a manner where the party "can run." since the realization that the party is in over their head may be the wizard getting incapacitated in one go, or it may not be prepared or they may have already used teleport for travel and didn't have enough additional ones prepared.

Also, escapes can be coordinated. There might be a particularly fast Party member. There are Party members with invisbility powers. Also, there are potions. 2nd Level potions are cheap. There is no reason not to give one Invisibility Potion to every Party member.

That may be true but not only do my players not buy them, I also don't see them as standard gear perusing through many other campaigns and in any event, by the time they are cheap enough to simply have on hand, it isn't a guarantee against a higher level enemy. That artificer that you mention in your example could easily have had an item allowing him to see invisible creatures for a short time and direct people to stick to you for the duration. And even then, flat out running while invisible practically negates the hide bonus. Invisibility powers can allow players to easily bypass encounters, though in many cases I can use an uncountered invisibility power to win an encounter instead.

The bottom line is: D&D is a Group effort. Planing for different tactical situations in advance, and that include plans for escape, is something both possible and important.
I agree that if your Group never talks about the possibility of escape and makes no plans whatsoever, then an escape with the whole Group is not likely to succeed. But thats a fault of the Group, not a lack of Option in the game.

Planning an escape only works in the context of knowing approximately what you're getting into. Any sort of encounter that happens to you, such as the encounter with the knight, isn't one that is planned in a familiar area and it's not reasonable for the party to spend time every time someone walks up to them to come up with a specific escape plan. Having a general plan on how to escape makes sense but because each encounter is dangerous for very different reasons having one isn't going to guarantee many successes.

Edit: You know, in Addition of talking about escape in General Terms I will provide a recent example from my latest session:

Spoiler: The Great Escape

Show

Eberron, Sharn. The Mission was to Infiltrate the headquaters of an upstart business with suspected crime activities. We went in, found what we needed and bailed out. Sadly this "bailing out" didn't went as smoothly and we set of the Alarm.
As we passed the Exit, the following were on our tails, in various distances: a very angry hobgoblin artificer, several squads of goblin and hobgoblin guards and a Minotaur. My 3rd Level Hexbalde and the 4th Level Rogue would have been hoplessly outmatched in a fight.

Since we were not faster then our pursuers and our pursuers had some ranged weapons, we should be dead by your Standards. And yet we are well alive and kicking. Because this is Sharn and not a featureless plain.

We only needed to get as far as to the next Sky Coach. In order to slow down our pursuers I used Intimidate to control the crowd on the street (moving through a crowds slows you down by half; with an Intimidate DC 20 check as a free Action you can Control the crowd to a limited degree, for instance to let you pass through unhindered). Our pursuers failed to do the same and we reached the Sky Coach which lifted of with us to safety.

I used and ability (Intimidate) in combination with a Feature of the Scene (typical crowed Sharn streets) to slow down our opponents but not us and reached a Point where we could Change our means for escape to put distance and Elevation to effectively escape our landbound pursuers.
This is, like always, a combination of personal abilities, planing and context.

This is why the *where* is important. This why looking for escape routes is a worthwhile Thing to do, and also why blocking said escape routes is a Sound strategic move.

As DM, I would have had the artificer who was as you say, very angry, use spells which doesn't seem to have been the case here. You escaped because the goblins used the least effective means at their disposal to try and keep up. The Minotaur certainly could have tried to intimidate past the crowd but at the same time, others should have been attempting their own way to get towards you. Not only that, but it seems that the hideout alarm only caught on to you after you had left the compound and gotten past all the security, and it lead very directly it seems to the crowded rail station where no security seems to have acted on you despite you setting off an alarm right beside them? I'm absolutely certain the details are different from what you're saying here but I can't help but feel the DM was allowing you to escape rather than playing it out as the NPCs would act.

[Koo Rehtorb]

There's always the good old "pour oil on the ground, set it on fire, and then run".

[goatmeal]

Wait, your first statement was that you do not like binary decisions in TTRPGs, which is totally fair. But then you go on to say any fight that you have to run away from is not interesting, which is literally "defeat your opponent or die," which uses the formula that you said yourself negates the point of an rpg. Just saying, it's a tad contradictory

Running away or avoiding combat is a totally legitimate strategy (and sometimes strategically superior to fighting) for players to take in many situations. Especially at low levels, where a few bad dice rolls can completely change the tides of a battle, it is perfectly acceptable to run. When going through long dungeon crawls, it is smart to avoid enemies when you can to conserve your HP, which is a limited resource. The DM is not at fault if his players decide to run. Honestly I find it more exciting on both fronts. A game where all combats have to end in one side subduing the other sounds more videogamey to me.

You can run the game however you want two, and if you're having fun with it that's great. But some ways of running the game are better than others. Yours is functional, but seems very restrictive on what kind of encounters the DM can produce and what actions the players can make.

Some other things level 1 characters can do to avoid fighting:
obscuring mist
silent image to make a wall
grease spell on the floor.
expeditious retreat
caltrops
wild empathy if it's an animal.
diplomacy if its a humanoid.
Maybe just not drawing your damn sword every time you meet someone if it's a humanoid.
Deciding that if something is territorial that perhaps it might not be worth your life to enter its territory.
Stealth checks to pass through an area without resulting in a fight if it is important to pass through the territory.

So many options besides just fighting.

15+ years ago I was playing an underpowered bard in 2e that got separated from the party and ended up in the barracks of the orcs. Everyone thought I was dead for sure, but I just had the bard sing them a song. There were no rules for that at the time (or if there were, the DM didn't know it), so the DM let it work until the fighters and paladins showed up and killed all the orcs. It was the highlight of that gaming session, if not the entire campaign.

[Noje]

Some other things level 1 characters can do to avoid fighting:
obscuring mist
silent image to make a wall
grease spell on the floor.
expeditious retreat
caltrops
wild empathy if it's an animal.
diplomacy if its a humanoid.
Maybe just not drawing your damn sword every time you meet someone if it's a humanoid.
Deciding that if something is territorial that perhaps it might not be worth your life to enter its territory.
Stealth checks to pass through an area without resulting in a fight if it is important to pass through the territory.

So many options besides just fighting.

15+ years ago I was playing an underpowered bard in 2e that got separated from the party and ended up in the barracks of the orcs. Everyone thought I was dead for sure, but I just had the bard sing them a song. There were no rules for that at the time (or if there were, the DM didn't know it), so the DM let it work until the fighters and paladins showed up and killed all the orcs. It was the highlight of that gaming session, if not the entire campaign.

This list brings up some fond memories for me. My first big campaign that I ran was in first edition. Every session we had ended in the players running away from something. Palace guards, hordes of rats... Man, I miss that group.

[Yukitsu]

Some other things level 1 characters can do to avoid fighting:
obscuring mist
silent image to make a wall
grease spell on the floor.
expeditious retreat
caltrops
wild empathy if it's an animal.
diplomacy if its a humanoid.
Maybe just not drawing your damn sword every time you meet someone if it's a humanoid.
Deciding that if something is territorial that perhaps it might not be worth your life to enter its territory.
Stealth checks to pass through an area without resulting in a fight if it is important to pass through the territory.

So many options besides just fighting.

15+ years ago I was playing an underpowered bard in 2e that got separated from the party and ended up in the barracks of the orcs. Everyone thought I was dead for sure, but I just had the bard sing them a song. There were no rules for that at the time (or if there were, the DM didn't know it), so the DM let it work until the fighters and paladins showed up and killed all the orcs. It was the highlight of that gaming session, if not the entire campaign.

Avoiding fighting is usually pretty possible in D&D. It's being in a fight and then getting away from it that is not easily modelled in the system. For example, obscuring mist only works if you can cast it and get far enough away that they can't just walk through the mist to get at you anyway, silent image only works if they don't know illusions exist and thus don't attempt to walk through the wall seeing as they may as well, expeditious retreat only works if the encounter isn't deadly enough to kill you during that round you spent casting it instead of running and lets all your allies die, caltrops are stopped by shoes as well as a myriad other things like the jump skill, diplomacy takes a full minute without running or attacking back, wild empathy is just a diplomacy check used on animals and also takes a full minute.

Even in your example, your DM flat out let you succeed at delaying combat despite the mechanics not backing that up. That's fine. DMs can let their players win encounters if it's more fun for them. But if your DM isn't going to just allow you to succeed where you don't have the mechanics backing up what you're doing, then those examples don't work.

[John Longarrow]

Avoiding fighting is usually pretty possible in D&D. It's being in a fight and then getting away from it that is not easily modelled in the system. For example, obscuring mist only works if you can cast it and get far enough away that they can't just walk through the mist to get at you anyway, silent image only works if they don't know illusions exist and thus don't attempt to walk through the wall seeing as they may as well, expeditious retreat only works if the encounter isn't deadly enough to kill you during that round you spent casting it instead of running and lets all your allies die, caltrops are stopped by shoes as well as a myriad other things like the jump skill, diplomacy takes a full minute without running or attacking back, wild empathy is just a diplomacy check used on animals and also takes a full minute.

Even in your example, your DM flat out let you succeed at delaying combat despite the mechanics not backing that up. That's fine. DMs can let their players win encounters if it's more fun for them. But if your DM isn't going to just allow you to succeed where you don't have the mechanics backing up what you're doing, then those examples don't work.

So to extract what you are saying, if the DM doesn't set up an encounter where you can escape, you can't escape. If the DM doesn't set up an encounter you can avoid, you can't avoid it. If the DM doesn't set up an encounter you can win, you can't win.

Everything is based off of what the DM puts into the encounter.

So far you've only stated that the DMs you play with set up encounters that discourage retreat as an option. Nothing in the rules say they HAVE to set up encounters like this though.

[Yukitsu]

So to extract what you are saying, if the DM doesn't set up an encounter where you can escape, you can't escape. If the DM doesn't set up an encounter you can avoid, you can't avoid it. If the DM doesn't set up an encounter you can win, you can't win.

Everything is based off of what the DM puts into the encounter.

So far you've only stated that the DMs you play with set up encounters that discourage retreat as an option. Nothing in the rules say they HAVE to set up encounters like this though.

Just the escape one. D&D actually has really great mechanics in place to prevent combat if you don't want to fight. It's just that as in the very example that came up of retreating, it happened not because it followed the mechanics, it happened because the mechanics weren't followed. Every time I have DMed and my players tried to run, I didn't specifically try to set the encounter up so they could not run from it but in most cases they were incapable of running from the encounter. By contrast my players have no problem in avoiding combat if they are playing well and not making really dumb choices. Same when I'm not DM, it's not too hard to avoid a combat situation if we really want to avoid it since the in game options that let you, including just not picking fights are much more reliable than the fleeing from combat options.

[John Longarrow]

Every time I have DMed and my players tried to run, I didn't specifically try to set the encounter up so they could not run from it but in most cases they were incapable of running from the encounter.

So your encounters make it so that running is not viable. Regardless of this being intentional or not, you set the party up to fail if they tried to run. This is something you may want to take into account the next time you set up an encounter. If you don't take it into account you are reinforcing a "Win or Die" mentality.

I'd talk to your players also. If they are fine with it, don't worry about it. If they say "Yea, we'd really like it if not every fight was to the death since we can't retreat", then take it into account.

[Yukitsu]

So your encounters make it so that running is not viable. Regardless of this being intentional or not, you set the party up to fail if they tried to run. This is something you may want to take into account the next time you set up an encounter. If you don't take it into account you are reinforcing a "Win or Die" mentality.

I'd talk to your players also. If they are fine with it, don't worry about it. If they say "Yea, we'd really like it if not every fight was to the death since we can't retreat", then take it into account.

What's happened in my group is that players have a "pick your fights" mentality. Like I said, most RPG systems are fine at letting you not fight at all. It's just that once you are in a fight, many seem to be better at resolving the combat rather than having the entire group flee safely.

The other problem with my group is inconsistency. Sometimes they beat a CR 16 dragon at level 10. Sometimes they get killed by a CR 4 rogue at level 6. Guess which of the two they decided to try and run from.

[RazorChain]

Except that it is highly unlikely that a nobleman with any remaining relatives or retainers is "unceremoniously into a ditch" and it's also highly unlikely that there is no priest available that is willing to ignore that particular decision of the church.

Well might have happened if you are a no name knight from Poland competing in a tourney in France.