On Morale, or should enemies run away

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Joined
Jul 9, 2020
Messages
4,258
Reaction score
8,463
This might be true with groups that are comfortable routinely sidestepping the rules. Not everyone finds doing that regularly a virtue.
Adjudication is not sidestepping the rules. Thats just silly. Adjudication is bringing the full weight of the diegetic frame to bear on the rules, which usually results in all manner of options and opportunities.
 

xanther

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
1,533
Its not hard to find yourself against a lot of opponents that you really, really don't want to surrender to in a lot of games. And that's before even getting into the really high level hostility a very large number of players do being captured or imprisoned in the first place.
That really comes down to the GM bias if the opponents are sapient. Are certain sapiens hard wired evil, is the idea of surrender and ransom a cultural expectation and part of the "rules of war"? Even evil orcs need coin more than to eat a captive, value being given quarter when they lose the war, and often enthralled to their own brutish and gluttonous desires. Why inter-species relations and language, social type skills give life to encounters outside the mechanistic moves of the combat rules.

Sure add in hard wired evil and every creature is their own version of murder-hobo and none of this applies....but that be setting stuff...the GM decides the setting etc., and the mentality and culture of its denizens. The only reasons murder-hobo worlds exist is because GMs make them that way.

As to how hard or easy it is to get away, why of course that can be problematic or possible. It is not out of the players hands though to increase the odds dramatically. Aid another to disengage, slow down the retaliatory attack with delaying tactics, etc.

Generally maintain a clear path of retreat and the party members behind the engage party members help the engaged member disengage. Spears work well for a member to retreat back into, frankly should be rules that allow you to increase our defense by forgoing attack...so you can basically "fall back." Let alone magic which opens a world of possibility.

Build parties with intelligence gathering and yes, don't weight yourself down so you can't dash.
 

Black Vulmea

No. Appearing: 30-500
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Messages
804
Reaction score
2,676
A lot of which becomes progressively less doable as the size of the group involved shrinks.

Fighter and cleric in the front rank, magic-user with web memorized in the back rank.

Numbers may help, but planning ahead and being prepared? Anyone can do that.

They're also actively discouraged to actively forbidden in a lot of games.

Those don't sound like fun games. Let's not play those.

Adjudication is not sidestepping the rules. Thats just silly. Adjudication is bringing the full weight of the diegetic frame to bear on the rules, which usually results in all manner of options and opportunities.

I'm Black Vulmea, and I approve of this product or service. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
Unless you're in really certain footing "taking off backwards" is a big risk in and of itself. Its far too easy to trip unless you have time to check out your footing. Do that and you're probably done. It might be statistically a good idea, but its not individually one.
I wasn't suggesting backing up as a way to run away, but as the precursor to that which gets you out of any immediate threat from your opponent. In a fight one on one you are doing footwork all the time anyway. Nobody just stands there, that's the surest way to get killed. And all you need is a couple of steps backwards and you're out of reach of your enemy immediately going for your back as you turn and book it. If you're in a formation, different story, but then you can't back up without running into your comrades. On the other hand, they can then open up a hole for you to slip back through and have someone step up to take your place, if you are wounded.
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
Adjudication is not sidestepping the rules. Thats just silly. Adjudication is bringing the full weight of the diegetic frame to bear on the rules, which usually results in all manner of options and opportunities.
Yes, I am in agreement with this. The big problem for most people is knowing what makes sense (one person's realistic is another's grimdark, one person's slightly heroic is another's Looney Tunes). It's more important for the players and the GM to have a shared understanding of the game world than of the game rules. The latter should adjust to fit the former, but the former is what it is.
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
Sometimes the game rules let you make decisions about your ability to retreat before you go into combat, and that then becomes a part of your tactics, so breaking those rules later won't be fair to those who made a different tactical choice. An example is The Fantasy Trip. Wearing heavy armor protects you, but it also slows you down relative to unarmored people, and lowers your DX. In combat, movement happens first, then all other actions happen in DX order, with some exceptions (like receiving or making a charge with a pole arm, then the pole arm goes first regardless of DX). One of the actions you can take is to disengage from an enemy you are in a melee with. So, if an enemy charges you, and isn't wielding a pole arm, you have a chance to back away before they even get a chance to attack. This chance will be greater the less armor you're wearing (as you are more likely to have a better DX than them). So, someone who chooses to wear just a gambeson is going to be a lot better at running away than someone weighed down by a mail hauberk (they can disengage before their opponent can attack, and then can outpace them with regular movement). And the players (and characters) were aware of this when deciding what armor to wear. At that point, the rules should be followed in so far as the more lightly armored character has a better chance of getting away, as that was part of the deal when deciding to wear the heavier armor.
 

VisionStorm

Legendary Member
Joined
May 4, 2020
Messages
196
Reaction score
424
I wasn't suggesting backing up as a way to run away, but as the precursor to that which gets you out of any immediate threat from your opponent. In a fight one on one you are doing footwork all the time anyway. Nobody just stands there, that's the surest way to get killed. And all you need is a couple of steps backwards and you're out of reach of your enemy immediately going for your back as you turn and book it. If you're in a formation, different story, but then you can't back up without running into your comrades. On the other hand, they can then open up a hole for you to slip back through and have someone step up to take your place, if you are wounded.

Pretty much. I used to practice martial arts (still train on my own occasionally) and get into sparring matches and you don't just stand there, you move all the time. Footwork is the first thing they teach you in every style, followed by blocks or evasive movement. Granted, you're not always going to be on the type of even ground you'd choose for sparing if you get into a real fight, but even then there's always footwork going on, and the possibility of tripping on something is more of a one-off chance.

I've also seen kids being attack by bullies back when I was a kid, and if the bullied kid got scared and bolted while being clobbered by bullies, the bullies didn't just clobber him into unconsciousness cuz "attacks of opportunity". The kid would actually get away and the bullies would have to run after him to get to him again. It's only when you're cornered or have to deal with obstructions that running becomes a problem.
 

Paragon

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
721
Reaction score
728
Pretty much. I used to practice martial arts (still train on my own occasionally) and get into sparring matches and you don't just stand there, you move all the time. Footwork is the first thing they teach you in every style, followed by blocks or evasive movement. Granted, you're not always going to be on the type of even ground you'd choose for sparing if you get into a real fight, but even then there's always footwork going on, and the possibility of tripping on something is more of a one-off chance.

I've also seen kids being attack by bullies back when I was a kid, and if the bullied kid got scared and bolted while being clobbered by bullies, the bullies didn't just clobber him into unconsciousness cuz "attacks of opportunity". The kid would actually get away and the bullies would have to run after him to get to him again. It's only when you're cornered or have to deal with obstructions that running becomes a problem.

I'm an ex-martial artist myself (as in, I haven't really done it in 30 years at this point) but I think I kind of stand by my opinion when on uncertain ground; I'd maneuver around but I'd not be backing up without a clear idea what was behind me. Naturally that wasn't true when sparring, as you don't normally chose a sparring location with anything in the immediate area to trip over, and.
 

Paragon

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
721
Reaction score
728
Fighter and cleric in the front rank, magic-user with web memorized in the back rank.
Numbers may help, but planning ahead and being prepared? Anyone can do that.

Some, but your three characters example still pretty much requires a chokepoint to work.

Those don't sound like fun games. Let's not play those.

They're plenty fun. They just, as I said, either have enough overhead that adding in extraneous characters is undesirable, or a situation where character grow beyond the capability for henchmen to be more than speedbumps. Heck, that wasn't that far from how it got in mid-level OD&D.
 

AsenRG

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
7,947
Reaction score
8,015
All that'd have done in a lot of groups I've seen is build up a big pile of resentment and perception that you'd now decided you were going to kill them no matter what.
...sorry, but either a) they would learn, or b) they're probably not the kind of people I want to play with, either.
Also, that's not the only didactic method I've used.
"Remember what I told you before the campaign, guys? This ain't a MMO, it ain't D&D, forget the bad habits. Think like your characters want to survive. If I chase you, how do you run to stop me?"
And some of them had seen me playing and dealing with similar events IC.
Sometimes I did ask for a roll on some strategy ability, then offered them a plan that might actually work - and then told them OOC the basic rules of retreating.
Sometimes I've probably done other stuff I don't remember now.
But if nothing helped? Well, then they'd be cannon fodder in my campaigns anyway - where you can win all the fights and lose. Best to split ways before I've grinded them to dust.
And I'm not going to deny that works, but it's rare that players are able to pull it off. And frankly, a lot of the time the bad guys have the means to make things go REALLY badly for players if they try.
Why? How do the bad guys prevent caltrops? And how would things go badly for trying?
Please note, I'm not playing 3e/5e, so anything hinging on the AoOs in those editions is, to me, "a problem you're creating for yourself by picking those specific rules":devil:.

It's always difficult. The same thing goes for running away and leaving a downed PC. That doesn't necessarily mean a dead PC, but players always treat it as if does.
A dead PC vs a dead party? Sure, be loyal to your friend! If you get TPK, you'd be a band of brothers dancing on the road to hell!
Epic enough.

It's a matter of agency I guess. Even if you surrender and don't get killed, it can feel somewhat arbritrary if you survive when you were expecting to be killed, as if the GM spared you just so the 'story' can continue.
If the players expect to get killed for surrendering, I question what experience they have with GMs.

And realistically, who are you surrendering to?
A key question, indeed. Hopefully not to wolves. (But for wolves you have swords).
You can't surrender to Chaos, usually...well, not to beastmen...but you can surrender to Lunars, in Glorantha. You can surrender even to the Uz.

Most rpgs are morally fairly black and white, and a consequence of that is you don't really expect mercy from the black hats.
If the game you play leads to stupid problems, play another game:shade:!

I'm an ex-martial artist myself (as in, I haven't really done it in 30 years at this point) but I think I kind of stand by my opinion when on uncertain ground; I'd maneuver around but I'd not be backing up without a clear idea what was behind me. Naturally that wasn't true when sparring, as you don't normally chose a sparring location with anything in the immediate area to trip over, and.

I've practiced quite a bit of swordfencing/reenactment in parks and the like, with uneven ground (sparring very much included, too). You can back up, and sometimes you have to when the enemy is pressing the attack.
Yes, sometimes you fall, but that's a very rare occasion, not something that happens in every sparring session...and we usually had at least half an hour of that.
Also, you usually learn to feel it after you experience it a few times. You also learn to fall, tumble and get up, or, as I did in one case, fall, drag the opponent with you, and get up first. Being motivated to avoid the blade is a great help. (Though I got chewed on for that trick, since my partner pointed out I had opened my defense during the tumbling:gunslinger:)!
 

Black Vulmea

No. Appearing: 30-500
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Messages
804
Reaction score
2,676
Some, but your three characters example still pretty much requires a chokepoint to work.

Have you not heard me bang on for three posts that withdrawing in the face of the enemy is one of the most challenging tactical situations combatants can face?

Can it be done with three characters in fantasy game? Yes. Do I still need to consider all of the things I listed above? Yes.

I'm not going to play a Seussian game of, "Could you do it in a boat? Could you do it with a goat?' with you, P Paragon.

They're plenty fun.

They don't sound fun.

Heck, that wasn't that far from how it got in mid-level OD&D.

A high-level player character's henchmen isn't likely to have the stones to be a frontline fighter, but last I checked, 'ultimate badass' is in the adventurer's job description, not her lieutenant's.

Henchmen give you options, and if you choose and outfit them with an eye to that, they can be effective support to higher-level characters.
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
It also depends on what exactly henchman/retainer means. Is it an NPC adventurer? Then they'll get better at similar rates to the PCs. In older editions of D&D henchmen were simply lower leveled characters. In AD&D 2e a 9th level Fighter can build a stronghold and attract followers. So let's say they've been made a Baron of someplace. They might have a 4th level Fighter as a squire, a 5th level Bard as their herald and chronicler, and a fighting force consisting of 20 light cavalry, 100 pikemen, 20 expert archers and a 6th level Fighter as their Lieutenant/Marshal. Sure, the army might no follow them everywhere, but the Squire and the Bard could certainly be useful against enemies even if they are of lower level than the PC, and the army will definitely be good to have at your back if you face a full scale invasion.
 

Bourbonjack

Treasure Type V & Y
Joined
Apr 12, 2019
Messages
193
Reaction score
362
That's a fair approach, but if you're going to bring most ranged weapons into useful play in the first place, the battlespace has to be relatively big.
It depends on the terrain. If visibility is limited due to terrain it cuts down on effective range.

But in the case of something like a flat plain where the enemy has archers, getting outside of the battle space is going to require a hood bit of distance.

And if the encounter is on a flat plain without concealment/cover and the enemy has hazy troops and effective archers it indeed may make retreat impossible.

In which case of the PCs are overmatched they make only have two options: surrender or die.

and if the PCs eont surrender, then they can enjoy a final stand.

But if instead of embracing this as a part of the game (adventuring is deadly) they get mad because the game wasn’t “fair”, that’s their problem for getting into that position in the first place.
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
I can count on one hand the number of times I've played an rpg and an encounter has taken place on a featureless flat plain with no cover. It's not a scenario worth spending any time thinking about, especially as a standard, as it pretty much never happens.
 

Bourbonjack

Treasure Type V & Y
Joined
Apr 12, 2019
Messages
193
Reaction score
362
I can count on one hand the number of times I've played an rpg and an encounter has taken place on a featureless flat plain with no cover. It's not a scenario worth spending any time thinking about, especially as a standard, as it pretty much never happens.
I agree. This conversation seems to be framed at times by extreme outliers, so I just carried it to the conclusion.
 

Paragon

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
721
Reaction score
728
It depends on the terrain. If visibility is limited due to terrain it cuts down on effective range.

To a point; other than dense forest or heavy-duty hills, most range impairment is not unitary. There can be a copse of trees that make it impossible to shoot through them, but won't do a thing to people approaching even a dozen yards over.
 

Paragon

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
721
Reaction score
728
Have you not heard me bang on for three posts that withdrawing in the face of the enemy is one of the most challenging tactical situations combatants can face?

Can it be done with three characters in fantasy game? Yes. Do I still need to consider all of the things I listed above? Yes.

I'm not going to play a Seussian game of, "Could you do it in a boat? Could you do it with a goat?' with you, P Paragon.

When your premise seems to only apply to a pretty limited subset of situations, I think I'm not going to be feeling bad that I point that out; not all combats take place in dense forests or dungeons, and to act like they do when talking about retreat scenarios is kind of useless.

They don't sound fun.

That's because you have a different set of priorities than those systems and the people who play them do.

A high-level player character's henchmen isn't likely to have the stones to be a frontline fighter, but last I checked, 'ultimate badass' is in the adventurer's job description, not her lieutenant's.

There's a difference between that and being, essentially useless in a fight because they're so brittle compared to the PCs. This is even more true in something like D&D where magic and paranormal abilities can cook them off en masse. A 9 hit point henchman hanging around with 40 hit point characters in most D&D derivatives is just a dead henchman looking for a place to happen.

Henchmen give you options, and if you choose and outfit them with an eye to that, they can be effective support to higher-level characters.
In a noncombat context I agree with you. Otherwise, not, unless you're just planning to use them as ablative armor.
 

Paragon

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
721
Reaction score
728
...sorry, but either a) they would learn, or b) they're probably not the kind of people I want to play with, either.

Not going to bother to respond to the rest of this because a lot of it comes down to "It's not a problem for me." Well good for you; but we're not all you.
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
Every situation is different (except the ones that are the same) and what's a fine tactic for retreat in one situation might be completely unworkable in another. I feel like this is more up to the specific situation, including terrain, forces/people involved (a Wizard who can summon a dense fog or a pillar of fire can change things a lot) etc. But the mindset of players and GM will remain the same. That's one reason I really like morale rules, as it takes the decision out of the GMs hands. I also like notes on tactics used by various creatures/forces or even random tables (like in James Raggi's Random Esoteric Creature Generator) for combat behavior. These are good tools a GM can use to avoid all the NPCs under his control from behaving in the same way during combat. Most people have some sort of standard behavior they fall back on in common situations. In rpg combats, that might be to always have the archers go for the least armored enemy, or concentrating fire on one target, or splitting fire, or always attacking the closest enemy or what have you. I wonder if something similar could be done up for players who find they play their characters similarly.
 

Paragon

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
721
Reaction score
728
It also depends on what exactly henchman/retainer means. Is it an NPC adventurer? Then they'll get better at similar rates to the PCs. In older editions of D&D henchmen were simply lower leveled characters. In AD&D 2e a 9th level Fighter can build a stronghold and attract followers. So let's say they've been made a Baron of someplace. They might have a 4th level Fighter as a squire, a 5th level Bard as their herald and chronicler, and a fighting force consisting of 20 light cavalry, 100 pikemen, 20 expert archers and a 6th level Fighter as their Lieutenant/Marshal. Sure, the army might no follow them everywhere, but the Squire and the Bard could certainly be useful against enemies even if they are of lower level than the PC, and the army will definitely be good to have at your back if you face a full scale invasion.

Yeah, the higher level types are a different story in terms of speed-bumpishness. Though even there I get pretty dubious in most D&D-oids when followers have half the hit points or less; one spell or breath attack and its easy enough for that to be all she wrote there (and notably the really big gap in hit points among classes was sometimes a problem for the same reason, but it was at least possible for an old-school MU to still do something halfway useful while still staying the hell away from everyone in some situations).
 

Paragon

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
721
Reaction score
728
Every situation is different (except the ones that are the same) and what's a fine tactic for retreat in one situation might be completely unworkable in another. I feel like this is more up to the specific situation, including terrain, forces/people involved (a Wizard who can summon a dense fog or a pillar of fire can change things a lot) etc. But the mindset of players and GM will remain the same. That's one reason I really like morale rules, as it takes the decision out of the GMs hands.

But that's also the problem; the morale tables by themselves can't account for the situation, either.

I also like notes on tactics used by various creatures/forces or even random tables (like in James Raggi's Random Esoteric Creature Generator) for combat behavior. These are good tools a GM can use to avoid all the NPCs under his control from behaving in the same way during combat. Most people have some sort of standard behavior they fall back on in common situations. In rpg combats, that might be to always have the archers go for the least armored enemy, or concentrating fire on one target, or splitting fire, or always attacking the closest enemy or what have you. I wonder if something similar could be done up for players who find they play their characters similarly.

Getting them to actually use it would be the issue.
 

xanther

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
1,533
...
There's a difference between that and being, essentially useless in a fight because they're so brittle compared to the PCs. This is even more true in something like D&D where magic and paranormal abilities can cook them off en masse. A 9 hit point henchman hanging around with 40 hit point characters in most D&D derivatives is just a dead henchman looking for a place to happen.
Well that is a problem with D&D, compounded by the fact that lower level henchmen have basically zero chance to hit the opponents a 40 HP character will encounter. That's a problem with D&D though...long recognized, some consider it a feature others...not.
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
Yeah, the higher level types are a different story in terms of speed-bumpishness. Though even there I get pretty dubious in most D&D-oids when followers have half the hit points or less; one spell or breath attack and its easy enough for that to be all she wrote there (and notably the really big gap in hit points among classes was sometimes a problem for the same reason, but it was at least possible for an old-school MU to still do something halfway useful while still staying the hell away from everyone in some situations).

Most of the time I'd say you're likelier, in old school D&D, to be encountering a lot of lower level foes than ones that can cast spells or use breath weapons that can take out half your hit points in one go. And against those foes, numbers are important. Old school D&D also drastically slows your hit point progression after level 9 or 10. A typical Wizard has 2-3 HP at level 1, 25 HP, at level 10 and 35 at level 20. A typical Fighter has 5-6 HP at level 1, 53 HP at level 10 and 83 HP at level 20 (If you have a Con bonus this gets even worse as the con bonus does not apply to the fixed HP amounts gained after level 9 or 10, depending on the class). The 5th level squire probably has around 28 HP, so better than the level 10 Wizard, and not really that far off from the 9th level Fighter. He probably has a better Armor Class as well. Yes, he's more likely to die to a dragon's breath, but how often are you facing a dragon? More bodies and more attacks are going to be crucial in a lot of situations.
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
Well that is a problem with D&D, compounded by the fact that lower level henchmen have basically zero chance to hit the opponents a 40 HP character will encounter. That's a problem with D&D though...long recognized, some consider it a feature others...not.
And not all D&D or D&D variants (or OSR variants with different names) either. D&D 5 significantly reduced the range of armor classes and attack bonuses, inflating HP instead. A 1st level character in D&D has a pretty good chance of landing a damaging hit on an adult red dragon, they're just not going to do an enormous amount of damage to it.
 

Bourbonjack

Treasure Type V & Y
Joined
Apr 12, 2019
Messages
193
Reaction score
362
To a point; other than dense forest or heavy-duty hills, most range impairment is not unitary. There can be a copse of trees that make it impossible to shoot through them, but won't do a thing to people approaching even a dozen yards over.
Sure. Stuff varies. Nothing is absolute. The success probability any plan of action will be influenced by the circumstances.

What’s the point you’re trying to make in this thread? I’m not really understanding where you’re coming from. Maybe I missed the foundation of your position.
 

Paragon

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
721
Reaction score
728
Well that is a problem with D&D, compounded by the fact that lower level henchmen have basically zero chance to hit the opponents a 40 HP character will encounter. That's a problem with D&D though...long recognized, some consider it a feature others...not.

Its not nonexistent elsewhere, though; the henchmen the PCs had in my Mythras campaign were not advancing at the same rate they did, nor did they have the magical augmentations and quality of armor they had, and by the end of the campaign, most opposition that would be a challenge to the PCs would go through them at a pretty good rate. The degree may not be as severe, but the problem is still there as long as there's any notable gap between, say, a routine man-at-arms and an advanced PC.
 

Paragon

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
721
Reaction score
728
Most of the time I'd say you're likelier, in old school D&D, to be encountering a lot of lower level foes than ones that can cast spells or use breath weapons that can take out half your hit points in one go.

Not my experience once you were getting PCs in the 8-10th level range. While you might sometime get the Horde O' Orcs, it was just as likely to be a dragon or a spellcaster with backup (that was about the point where a lich or a beholder wasn't exactly an unknown thing).

And against those foes, numbers are important. Old school D&D also drastically slows your hit point progression after level 9 or 10. A typical Wizard has 2-3 HP at level 1, 25 HP, at level 10 and 35 at level 20. A typical Fighter has 5-6 HP at level 1, 53 HP at level 10 and 83 HP at level 20 (If you have a Con bonus this gets even worse as the con bonus does not apply to the fixed HP amounts gained after level 9 or 10, depending on the class). The 5th level squire probably has around 28 HP, so better than the level 10 Wizard, and not really that far off from the 9th level Fighter. He probably has a better Armor Class as well. Yes, he's more likely to die to a dragon's breath, but how often are you facing a dragon? More bodies and more attacks are going to be crucial in a lot of situations.

To answer your rhetorical question, at those higher levels, quite often IME.
 

Paragon

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
721
Reaction score
728
Sure. Stuff varies. Nothing is absolute. The success probability any plan of action will be influenced by the circumstances.

What’s the point you’re trying to make in this thread? I’m not really understanding where you’re coming from. Maybe I missed the foundation of your position.

That most game systems have really poor support for retreating successfully. Its hardly been just my point, either. And at least some of the responses seem dependent on fairly specific situations to be successful in those same systems.

My argument with most people has been about the presumed frequency of the situations that permit their argument in-games.
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
Its not nonexistent elsewhere, though; the henchmen the PCs had in my Mythras campaign were not advancing at the same rate they did, nor did they have the magical augmentations and quality of armor they had, and by the end of the campaign, most opposition that would be a challenge to the PCs would go through them at a pretty good rate. The degree may not be as severe, but the problem is still there as long as there's any notable gap between, say, a routine man-at-arms and an advanced PC.
The thing is that with henchmen/retainers/followers you can do a lot more varied encounters. If the PCs are walking around with a small army, you can actually confront them with a small army. It doesn't have to be small groups of foes on the same rough power level as the PCs, or one really tough boss. And their utility may vary. Sometimes "swords are no more use here" and maybe the army may as well stay back. But sometimes, a large group of soldiers may be more useful than one lone hero.
 

Paragon

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
721
Reaction score
728
The thing is that with henchmen/retainers/followers you can do a lot more varied encounters. If the PCs are walking around with a small army, you can actually confront them with a small army. It doesn't have to be small groups of foes on the same rough power level as the PCs, or one really tough boss. And their utility may vary. Sometimes "swords are no more use here" and maybe the army may as well stay back. But sometimes, a large group of soldiers may be more useful than one lone hero.That t

That tends to run into a number of issues, though:

1. Does anyone involved want to actually play out those kind of encounters?
2. Does their in-character situation make that likely?
3. Does the game system make it practical? (a lot of games that make small-group combats interesting would make large ones, at best, tedious; the five PCs plus five henchmen I referenced above was about the most I was going to want to deal with in Mythras without pulling out the mass combat rules from Ships and Shieldwalls).
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJS

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
That tends to run into a number of issues, though:

1. Does anyone involved want to actually play out those kind of encounters?
2. Does their in-character situation make that likely?
3. Does the game system make it practical? (a lot of games that make small-group combats interesting would make large ones, at best, tedious; the five PCs plus five henchmen I referenced above was about the most I was going to want to deal with in Mythras without pulling out the mass combat rules from Ships and Shieldwalls).
1: That holds true for every scenario though, so I fail to see how it's relevant.
2: That holds true for every scenario though, so I fail to see how it's relevant.
3: Yeah, then you pull out the mass combat rules. Or you do something like the computer game Banner Saga where your small section of the fight determines the general way the overall fight goes and how well your army performs. Or you're using a system which is simpler and where this kind of thing is more practicable.
 

Paragon

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
721
Reaction score
728
1: That holds true for every scenario though, so I fail to see how it's relevant.
2: That holds true for every scenario though, so I fail to see how it's relevant.

Its kind of relevant to how often you see it, and thus how relevant it is to the general retreating question.

3: Yeah, then you pull out the mass combat rules. Or you do something like the computer game Banner Saga where your small section of the fight determines the general way the overall fight goes and how well your army performs. Or you're using a system which is simpler and where this kind of thing is more practicable.

Sure. I was just noting that, again, that's only likely to be relevant to retreats under a limited subset of events. Frankly, a decent mass combat rules set ought to have that built in (I'm pretty sure S&S does, though I've only used it once), and if you're doing the "smaller fight represents bigger fight" you're either going to have to abstract a retreat anyway, or the problems discussed are still present.
 

AsenRG

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
7,947
Reaction score
8,015
Not going to bother to respond to the rest of this because a lot of it comes down to "It's not a problem for me." Well good for you; but we're not all you.
If you rea my post, including the suggestions how to get the players to use more sensible tactics, and all you got from it is "it's not a problem for AsenRG an' he's a big meanie who Laughs At us and thinks we should Fear him", then all I can say is writing it was wasted effort in the first place:thumbsup:.
 

Paragon

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
721
Reaction score
728
If you rea my post, including the suggestions how to get the players to use more sensible tactics, and all you got from it is "it's not a problem for AsenRG an' he's a big meanie who Laughs At us and thinks we should Fear him", then all I can say is writing it was wasted effort in the first place:thumbsup:.

Some of it was useful. A lot was just "Well, if you handled things my way it wouldn't be a problem, and if anyone had a problem with how I framed things, too bad for them."
 

AsenRG

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
7,947
Reaction score
8,015
Some of it was useful. A lot was just "Well, if you handled things my way it wouldn't be a problem, and if anyone had a problem with how I framed things, too bad for them."
Wasted effort, then:thumbsup:.
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
Its kind of relevant to how often you see it, and thus how relevant it is to the general retreating question.



Sure. I was just noting that, again, that's only likely to be relevant to retreats under a limited subset of events. Frankly, a decent mass combat rules set ought to have that built in (I'm pretty sure S&S does, though I've only used it once), and if you're doing the "smaller fight represents bigger fight" you're either going to have to abstract a retreat anyway, or the problems discussed are still present.
Yeah, but "the henchmen might be killed by a dragon" also doesn't pertain to the problem of retreating. This isn't a thread about just problems retreating either, but about morale in general (where henchmen fit in rather nicely in the discussion). And the tangent about henchmen had shifted more to a "are they useful to have along" thing than anything specifically about retreats several posts back.
 

Paragon

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
721
Reaction score
728
Yeah, but "the henchmen might be killed by a dragon" also doesn't pertain to the problem of retreating. This isn't a thread about just problems retreating either, but about morale in general (where henchmen fit in rather nicely in the discussion). And the tangent about henchmen had shifted more to a "are they useful to have along" thing than anything specifically about retreats several posts back.

All fair.
 
Cthulhu Mythos - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Top