Anything is possible… but you should probably run…
I was recently ranting about some of the encounters I have run into in various RPG games where I or the whole party got killed and learned later from the DM that we had no hope of winning. Apparently the “correct answer” was to run away or avoided the encounter. My immediate reaction is often, “why would you give us that encounter?” But in retrospect those sort of encounters probably should happen occasionally. In a magical fantasy universe there will be the occasional big baddy that you just are not equipped to deal with. Running like a little girl is probably a good response.
D&D has levels and encounter ratings to give some guidance, but again nothing prevents the level 1 players from accidentally walking into the dragon’s lair. Alternatively, DW characters don’t change as much between level 1 and 10 and a lucky party might even slay the beast. Also different games have different tones. In one game you might narrate your character single handedly battling one thousand orcs. Another game might see you hiding from a couple guardsmen. I have occasionally played in games where a player stumbled or turned to fight the hopeless situation and then gets dealt a d6 damage. suddenly my cowering armored fighter looks up and says “oh is that it? I can take that.”
Unfortunately it’s not always easy to communicate certain ideas between players and DMs. Is this thing out of our league? Should we know that beating it requires certain prep? Is it bad DMing to allow a party to get up that particular creek without a paddle? How much warning should the DM give. what if the players just are not understanding the situation? Should the DM ever say “out of character, this thing is going to slaughter you and your characters would know this!” How much responsibility does the player have for gauging the situation or knowing the relative strength or requirements of various fantasy encounters?
Tell them the possible consequences (it’s hopeless, maybe one of you will live) of their actions, and ask “What do you do?”
Tell them the possible consequences (it’s hopeless, maybe one of you will live) of their actions, and ask “What do you do?”
TL;DR Never assume. 🙂 Just speak to your GM before the game starts and find out how they like to run their games.
Hey, Daniel. I think you stumbled onto one of the core assumptions that differentiates the OSR-type gameplay from the post 3.0 D&D gameplay.
Historically, pre-3.0 gameplay did not assume that every encounter was an ‘appropiate’ challenge for a group. It just was. You went in with the assumption that you might run into a room where the monster was unbeatable and that you had to go elsewhere, level up and then come back later to try to beat the monster.
Of course, many DMs began tailoring their dungeons and their encounters, to ensure that the PCs would be able to take on ALL the monsters. This is likely what led to the development of challenge ratings and XP budgets to ensure ‘balanced’ encounters.
(This is my recollection of what D&D was like over the last 35 years in my particular neck of the woods. YMMV)
Ultimately, I think you’re right and it boils down to what assumptions on encounter difficulty come with each system. Post-3.0 D&D assumes that a party can take on any encounter, because it’s supposed to be level-appropriate and balanced. Pre 3.0, you should probably safely assume that you can’t take every encounter on face on with an all-out attack.
Other systems may have different assumptions built in. I think FATE probably assumes that you can take anything on too…
I have too little experience with DW to speak to its core assumptions, but my limited experience is that combat can be quite deadly.
Having said that, I think the bottom line is that a GM can run encounters as balanced or unbalanced as they like, pretty much in any system (you can tweak hit points, damage output, etc to tailor each encounter).
So, the solution is to have a short conversation with your GM on how they want to run the game. More simulationist, with some deadly encounters it would be prudent to avoid, or more heroic, where you can engage anything in combat with a good chance of surviving.
TL;DR Never assume. 🙂 Just speak to your GM before the game starts and find out how they like to run their games.
Hey, Daniel. I think you stumbled onto one of the core assumptions that differentiates the OSR-type gameplay from the post 3.0 D&D gameplay.
Historically, pre-3.0 gameplay did not assume that every encounter was an ‘appropiate’ challenge for a group. It just was. You went in with the assumption that you might run into a room where the monster was unbeatable and that you had to go elsewhere, level up and then come back later to try to beat the monster.
Of course, many DMs began tailoring their dungeons and their encounters, to ensure that the PCs would be able to take on ALL the monsters. This is likely what led to the development of challenge ratings and XP budgets to ensure ‘balanced’ encounters.
(This is my recollection of what D&D was like over the last 35 years in my particular neck of the woods. YMMV)
Ultimately, I think you’re right and it boils down to what assumptions on encounter difficulty come with each system. Post-3.0 D&D assumes that a party can take on any encounter, because it’s supposed to be level-appropriate and balanced. Pre 3.0, you should probably safely assume that you can’t take every encounter on face on with an all-out attack.
Other systems may have different assumptions built in. I think FATE probably assumes that you can take anything on too…
I have too little experience with DW to speak to its core assumptions, but my limited experience is that combat can be quite deadly.
Having said that, I think the bottom line is that a GM can run encounters as balanced or unbalanced as they like, pretty much in any system (you can tweak hit points, damage output, etc to tailor each encounter).
So, the solution is to have a short conversation with your GM on how they want to run the game. More simulationist, with some deadly encounters it would be prudent to avoid, or more heroic, where you can engage anything in combat with a good chance of surviving.
There’s a GUMSHOE game (Night’s Blacks Agents, I think) that suggests GMs phrase their warnings in ways that compliment the Player Characters. E.g. “Your years of combat experience tell you that you need to get out of here before they can bring in reinforcements.”
There’s a GUMSHOE game (Night’s Blacks Agents, I think) that suggests GMs phrase their warnings in ways that compliment the Player Characters. E.g. “Your years of combat experience tell you that you need to get out of here before they can bring in reinforcements.”
Tom McGrenery That’s really good advice.
Tom McGrenery That’s really good advice.