I very much agree. Not that long ago my gaming group discussed this very thing, and the conversation turned to how many RPGs don't encourage this. The thought is "If the GM put this encounter in front of us, it must be doable!" or "This foe can clearly be taken down, we just have to figure out how!".Valarian wrote:Sometimes, the decision of the PCs should be to run away if they feel they can't defeat the enemy. As a GM, the story may sometimes dictate an overwhelming enemy, either through numbers or through power. Running should always remain an option, if one that means an extended set of Travel, Athletics and Awareness rolls required to escape."This is foe beyond any of you .... Run!"
In our TOR game (warning: SPOILERS follow), my players nearly decided to fight to the death in the dreamlike encounter from "Those Who Tarry No Longer". For those not familiar, the players more or less know that they're in the equivalent of a dream, and are captives in Dol Gulder. My PCs orchestrated an ambush of their guards and started to flee. Many created a distraction while two of them bolted down a hall. They ran face-to-face with a whole bunch of Orcs and a Troll! The pair retreated and joined the others, and they decided to go down fighting. I pulled a few players away (one Elf with a strong connection to Irime, and two more with Shadow-lore) and straight-out told them that they felt that "going down fighting" was not a wise course of action; that doing so fed right into what the Enemy wanted them to do (i.e., there was a "real" battle going on outside their dreamworld, and dying in the dream world would not allow them to be there to help in the actual struggle against their Adversary, the GK). I then left it up to the players to decide, and those few that I'd informed (the ones I'd taken out of the room and explained the larger picture to) were able to persuade the others to stand down and not fight (an almost impossible task with the Dwarf with the 'Lesson in Revenge' background).
In our most recent session (just a few nights ago), we played "A Darkness in the Marshes", and the group was being chased by a (literal) Orc army. That same Dwarf was wounded and very weak (he'd nearly fallen to his death, losing 20 Endurance). The players probably realized that fighting an entire army was suicide, and were trying to flee. The Dwarf decided to go out heroically, and tried to turn and run back at the pursuers; he would have done it if not for the other PCs (who refused to abandon him, and one of them called in a favor from the Eagles). Still, everyone seemed aware that to engage that many enemies would be certain death.
I like it when it's not always balanced, though I understand the general desire to match foes that provide a challenge. I've run game systems that use both methods, and there's something to be said for each. Right now I'm really appreciating a more "open sandbox" feel to my games (both The One Ring and D6 Star Wars) where the players have to carefully gauge which oppenents they should fight, and which ones they should not.
