Quote from: Zelen on February 24, 2023, 09:50:44 AM
Players losing agency is a big one. No one really wants to be playing Sir FearsNothing and then you have the dice tell you that your character runs away in fear at the sight of Magician GetHitsALot being seriously injured. Psychological effects on PC characters tend to be only represented by compulsion effects, which has its pros and cons.

You'd also lose the benefit I noted that players who are willing to accept greater risk can beat tougher opponents through sheer force of will. It would be Morale-lite while adopting heavier rules.

QuoteAnother issue is that older games generally don't tend have much explicit rules support for how to disengage combat without fighting to the death. If you're in a ruleset like D&D 3E with tactical combat this is actively discouraged because running away gets opportunity attacks and other such things. This is one area where D&D has taken a weird turn, because instead of creating a reasonable system for disengaging from combat, 5E+ now have a lot of complex rules for dying, whack-a-mole combat, that compensate for what could exist in a more sensible form as just disengaging from losing fights.

Old school D&D does have rules for this. 1E's rules are very detailed. And attacks of opportunity have always been part of D&D. They just weren't called that prior to 3E. If you flee from melee, opponents get a free attack. That's how it's always been. However, there was a distinction between fleeing and falling back. Though in 1E degree of failure on morale matters. If you fail by more than 15, falling back is off the table. It's better to consider a tactical retreat before morale breaks.

Quote from: Zelen on February 24, 2023, 09:50:44 AM
Players losing agency is a big one. No one really wants to be playing Sir FearsNothing and then you have the dice tell you that your character runs away in fear at the sight of Magician GetHitsALot being seriously injured. Psychological effects on PC characters tend to be only represented by compulsion effects, which has its pros and cons.
One possible approach is that players might have HP/Wounds model, whereas foes follow more abstract Morale model. However, this implies having essentially two coexisting systems so the mental load is going to be pretty high to do this.

One could model morale in a PC without taking away player agency. Simplistically: If you are less than 1/2 hp, you suffer -4 to all d20 rolls. Poor morale = poor fighting = more likely to decide to flee.

Twilight 2000 (new edition by Free League) models moral in PCs as stress and coolness under fire and it works pretty well. Yes, it ultimately takes away agency if you panic, but there are ways of mitigating loss of morale.

Quote from: Zelen on February 24, 2023, 09:50:44 AM
I think one of the tensions old-school games tend to have with this because of two factors:

• Players losing agency or different rules for players vs. opponents
  
• Lack of rules for disengaging combat

Players losing agency is a big one. No one really wants to be playing Sir FearsNothing and then you have the dice tell you that your character runs away in fear at the sight of Magician GetHitsALot being seriously injured. Psychological effects on PC characters tend to be only represented by compulsion effects, which has its pros and cons.
One possible approach is that players might have HP/Wounds model, whereas foes follow more abstract Morale model. However, this implies having essentially two coexisting systems so the mental load is going to be pretty high to do this.

Another issue is that older games generally don't tend have much explicit rules support for how to disengage combat without fighting to the death. If you're in a ruleset like D&D 3E with tactical combat this is actively discouraged because running away gets opportunity attacks and other such things. This is one area where D&D has taken a weird turn, because instead of creating a reasonable system for disengaging from combat, 5E+ now have a lot of complex rules for dying, whack-a-mole combat, that compensate for what could exist in a more sensible form as just disengaging from losing fights.

Those exact issues are what I was addressing in part of my system by how the morale rules work.  Note, I'm using a similar thing to advantage/disadvantage, but it is typically for situational things, and most of them aren't all that common.  In other words, it's a big deal.  One of the few common things it is used for is in the morale rules.

I have distinct rules and sometimes maneuvers for flee, dodge, fighting withdrawal, etc.  I think it's really important to have something in between run away or stay, for reasons you listed.  If you want players to sometimes retreat, then you have to give them options for how to do it, and make that clear one way or the other.  Just having a "Fighting Withdrawal" maneuver in the list prompts new players to ask me what it is, and gets them thinking along those lines.

I have everyone, including PC's, doing morale checks. The difference is that there is no forced flee or surrender for anyone.  If an NPC or enemy fails a morale check, I decide what they will do based on the situation and their personality.  Heck, if an enemy succeeds on their morale check, they might still do a fighting withdrawal or even run, if it's bleak enough.  I'm just assuming that making the check lets them evaluate the situation somewhat objectively. 

If anyone, including a PC, decides to stick it out when they fail a morale check, they have "disadvantage" on all attacks (and some other things) until they either successfully hit or succeed in rallying.  This takes agency out of the equation.  If you fail the check, your character is rattled, with consequences. What you decide to do about that as a player is still entirely in your hands.  If you corner an enemy and he fails a morale check, he might surrender, or he might keep fighting in desperation with wild swings, because he thinks that is his best option.

Rules that work great for units (morale breaks, the unit loses cohesion) don't necessarily translate well to individual characters, but there is nearly always a related thing that does translate, buried somewhere in the abstraction.

Greetings!

Taking Prisoners! Oh yeah. It's important, but also normal. Probably more profitable as well, than just killing everyone. As for "Fighting to the death!" that is generally pretty unusual. As Szun Tzu said, "It is better to leave an enemy a way of escape, so that the enemy forces do not fight even more fiercely" I'm paraphrasing. It's a good point though. Even when winning--the winner fighting against an enemy force that fights to the death, will also suffer more casualties and losses.

In one of my campaigns, the campaign too a surprising detour. The group had been developing a reputation for defending their local homeland, killing evil monsters, brigands, fighting wild animals, and such like. A solid foundation of defending a relatively peaceful and prosperous civilization from chaos and death.

They encountered a Viking raiding party, and were defeated in battle. The Viking barbarians took the Character Party prisoner. Four women, and four men. Three of the male characters are NPC's. So, one male Player Character and four female Player Characters. The Vikings carried the newly-captured booty to their waiting Dragonships, raised their oars, and sailed back to their homeland, in the north, across a dark and cold sea.

I had anticipated a daring escape from slavery, a mini-campaign proceeding where the party struggles to survive in a dark wilderness, fighting monsters, animals, and the elements, as well as Viking tribesmen. Eventually moving to the group leaving the area by land travel to the next area of adventure, or through stealing or perhaps building, their own Dragonship, and thereby escaping by sea.

Instead, the women players started fucking their Viking masters, and eventually, became romantically involved. With prominent and powerful Viking Warlords. The male player also developed a romance with a Volva, a mystical Witch. The group proceeded to also cultivate friends and allies amongst members of their new community, and also developing rivals and enemies. Over time, the group contributed their skills and talents, and became genuine assets to their Viking friends and masters. Things developed where the group helped to hunt, fight of savage animals, bands of monsters, as well as help in surviving the harsh and brutal winter season. Other prominent highlights occurred, where the group rescued the Chieftain's sister from a group of evil Hags living in a fortress by the seashore. Assassins from a rival kingdom attempted to kill two of the most prominent Jarls that were the group's masters. The adventuring group saved a group of tribal children from a tribe of fierce Goblins living in a hilltop stronghold. A band of wicked Hulda women had captured a Mystical Tree in the nearby forest that was sacred to the barbarian tribe, and the adventuring group had defeated the band of Hulda women, and rescued the Mystical Tree. The adventuring group had been rewarded with their freedom, but also with armbands of loyalty. They then proceeded to participate in the barbarian tribe's struggle against other enemy tribes, and a growing transition from a Chieftainship community, to a Kingdom.

Several years had passed, and the Vandar barbarian Kingdom raised warriors, and again set out on a raiding mission--against the Alben shore, which was the homeland of the adventuring group. During these adventures, three of the NPC's--a Paladin, a Cleric, and a Barbarian--departed from the Vandar Host, and their longtime companions and friends. The adventuring group had now broken apart, and changed. Through lots of drama and tears, that was an epic episode.

The Player Characters had changed. They had embraced new lovers, new friends, new family members. They had embraced a new community and a new culture. They had joined the Vandar--who had before been their hated enemies and terrifying oppressors. Now, ranks of mail-clad, bearded Vandar barbarians, well armed with axe, spear, and sword, hailed them as friends, and leaders. The great tribal drums sounded, and the halls of the Vandar welcomed them to take their place amongst the valiant, to take their places at the table of heroes.

The campaign itself had changed entirely.

Originally, the adventuring group had embraced a medieval environment and theme, defending and promoting a medieval, barbarian civilization on its way to becoming a more advanced culture. Cities, knights, tournaments, a High-Church society and ever-more sophisticated economy and opportunities awaited them.

Instead, however, the sound of tribal drums greeted them and the group was enticed by the deep call of the Vandar war horns, welcoming them into a savage and mystical world of fire, blood, and steel.

Indeed, taking prisoners can lead to wild and unexpected results!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK 

That sounds cool, SHARK.

From the other end of taking prisoners (rather than being prisoners), I was running a post-fantasy apocalypse campaign. I used the Sunless Citadel module, which had a conflict of goblins vs kobolds going on. They ended up siding against the kobolds - were betrayed by the goblin leader and defeated them, but capturing a bunch of goblins. Most of these they recruited into their force. So they ended up with a bunch of goblin henchmen who turned into very useful guides and negotiators as they later headed into the Underdark.

Some of those goblins became the most memorable NPCs of their group.