How often is a fight to the death? Probably too often is my guess.
In our games we only took prisoners when the fight is boring and it's a forgone conclusion. Then, as a GM I will make my NPCs surrender or flee just to get it over with sooner rather than later.
However, when it's my PCs getting whooped badly, then I'll offer my PCs an out by having the enemy commander offer a choice of death or surrender. It's just a GM ploy to avoid party wipeouts. Yeah, it's not altruism. It's stalling for time, and a detour into a jailbreak trope. Eh, but it works.
Obviously there are enemies that are suicidal. Undead, for example.
Is it just easier to make enemies fight to the death? Or do you not even kill unless it's a truly evil monster like a skeleton, demon, or tax collector?
Fighting to the death is easier. You don't have to manage prisoners. A player may argue that leaving enemies alive isn't a practical decision. (They may come back for revenge)
I usually reciprocate and take surrender off the table for the enemies attitude, as the PCs get a reputation for ruthlessness.
Far more often, the enemies will simply retreat. Then too, I reciprocate if the PCs run them down and slaughter them. They gain a rep for ruthlessness, and enemies will be more likely to fight to the death, which is a vicious cycle in itself.
Combat is just a form of dispute resolution. Once the dispute is settled, continuing the fight is pointless for both sides.
I always give monsters an objective: defend the lair, protect the artifact, steal the wotsit. Once it's clear they have obtained the objective or the objective has been denied by the PCs, the monsters will disengage, which might mean flight, surrender, or just standing there.
I had one recent random encounter where the monsters utterly stomped the party. They literally broke the spine of one PC. But the other PCs were still standing, so I had the monster say "See. This is what you get if you don't turn back." Not because I felt sorry for the PCs, but because the monsters felt they had made their point of denying the party access and continued risk in fighting might have cost them one or two of their side. The PCs, not being total idiots, turned back and had to find another way.
Edit: I often have monsters flee if it's going bad for them. This gives the party some interesting choices. Chase them down, track them (which helps explore an area), leave them (they may come back or alert their friends, which makes the world feel alive). A fleeing monster might trigger a trap. It might run into another monster that attacks it. A lot of interesting things can happen.
So to answer the question: rarely are fights to the death. Mindless monsters is about the only time, or a monster defending lair with young. Not only are there more interesting options, combat does not become a slog.
My Ley Line Walker in Rifts caused quite the bit of annoyance with their non-lethal disabling (by mutual agreement Carpet of Adhesion was not used, but Magic Net and certain other spells was nearly as good) of opponents that the rest of the party's good alignments prohibited from then executing (lots of human mercs and bandits). It was a lot of prisoners to move in some situations.
They changed their minds however when the time came to sell the loot however, because my targets were incapacitated with their body armor fully intact, which we stripped off when taking them prisoner. Fully intact MD body armor in Rifts goes for quite the pretty penny.
As a general rule I tend to pick less lethal options for my PCs... it just feels a bit more realistic to have any PC who isn't a grizzled military veteran actually be somewhat ill-at-ease at the prospect of killing others... particularly if you're the one going out looking for trouble.
Taking prisoners can work if you're in a game/context where you're expected to showcase Chivalry (e.g. Pendragon) or some other code of conduct that would encourage you to not be a murderhobo. Personally I'm in favor of this as I prefer games where players are more-or-less heroic, so having some benevolence to human-type foes is good.
Historically taking prisoners was a really good way of getting treasure. Even non-wealthy NPCs might have knowledge or skills that make them useful. Even a lowly mook-guard could surrender and promise his fealty to a gracious victor. That's a common story trope and is pretty cool way to develop a new relationship for a character.
Normalizing surrender is also good for the game because it establishes that the PCs can lose some fights and expect that surrender is a viable option. That's important for telling certain stories, so it's good in that respect too.
I try to have some of both, and also a wide gray area, in most of my games. That becomes another bit of setting information that the players would be wise to absorb.
There are monsters (and not just mindless undead) that will generally not take prisoners. You engage with them, it's no quarter asked, given, or even considered. I've used gnolls that way before, and I'm using "feral goblins" that way now. Most animals and some "giant" versions or even magical versions of the same will run off if you intimidate them properly--fire, loud noises, not backing them into a corner, etc. Some of it is might be tribal. These orcs generally don't take prisoners, or if they do it is for sacrifice almost immediately, while this other tribe is all about protecting their territory and will certainly negotiate other issues. Different civilized cultures draw the lines in different places.
For me, this is just another key way to get to the heart of roleplaying, which is the players making decisions and then the world reacting to their actions. You can't have meaningful decisions if every fight ends in a negotiated settlement anymore than you can if they are all fight to the death.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 23, 2023, 11:36:37 PM
I try to have some of both, and also a wide gray area, in most of my games. That becomes another bit of setting information that the players would be wise to absorb.
There are monsters (and not just mindless undead) that will generally not take prisoners. You engage with them, it's no quarter asked, given, or even considered. I've used gnolls that way before, and I'm using "feral goblins" that way now. Most animals and some "giant" versions or even magical versions of the same will run off if you intimidate them properly--fire, loud noises, not backing them into a corner, etc. Some of it is might be tribal. These orcs generally don't take prisoners, or if they do it is for sacrifice almost immediately, while this other tribe is all about protecting their territory and will certainly negotiate other issues. Different civilized cultures draw the lines in different places.
For me, this is just another key way to get to the heart of roleplaying, which is the players making decisions and then the world reacting to their actions. You can't have meaningful decisions if every fight ends in a negotiated settlement anymore than you can if they are all fight to the death.
Yeah. Context is important too. Cultists may take prisoners for sacrifice. Monsters might fight until someone is disabled and then drag them off to eat them. A ruthless warlord may have a Take No Prisoners! attitude, and goblins might want to take prisoners hoping to ransom them. Etc, etc, etc...
One of the things I love about Keep on the Borderlands is the orcs will attempt to capture the party for ransom. That means players can lose without having to lose their character. It only ends up costing a bunch of gold pieces. It also makes meaningful the distinction from the creatures that will capture you from the ones that will just try to kill you. It makes the latter more dangerous even if they are statistically weaker.
I also use the Morale rules. Enemies likewise may surrender to PCs or otherwise retreat or flee. The morale rules call for checks at a 25% loss and a 50% loss. With the average base morale being 50%, something like 75% of battles should actually be ending at the half way mark. Here again, the nature of some creatures might be they do fight to the death. And that can make them more dangerous and harder to beat without having to jack up the stats.
A really neat thing about this is if PCs are willing to fight until they are at only 20% or even 10% of their hit points or other resources, while their opponent retreats at 50%, that means they can beat more powerful opponents through sheer force of will.
As for taking prisoners, that can be anywhere from impractical to a pain in the ass. But if you don't, and you gain a reputation for not taking prisoners, and your opponents know you don't take prisoners, you may be making every fight twice as difficult as it needs to be. You may just be best off chasing them off or letting them go with a stern warning.
Morale is such a simple concept that allows the game to be more challenging without TPKs and without fudging, and opens up the field to more interesting stories with recurring villains, again, without fudging. In my experience, the vast majority of DMs treat morale as an optional appendage and regard it as extra work or bookkeeping. And so they then instead get burnt out pulling ridiculous twists out of their ass to keep the story and the PCs alive. So much for saving themselves the oh so burdensome work or making like two extra dice rolls each combat. And they never learn.
If my monsters are losing, they normally attempt to flee. Likewise if my PC is losing, he/she will likely flee, or possibly surrender. I sometimes have monsters surrender, but they generally expect to be killed if they do, so it's sub-optimal.
One thing: make sure the players are aware of in-universe cultural norms. In my Damara campaign the PCs had killed a mercenary commander, Gurzun Half-Orc, his men were holed up in a manor house the PCs wanted. A direct assault would be very risky. A dwarf PC wanted to cut off the merc commander's head and throw it over the wall to intimidate them. I gave an Insight check - success - I explained that these veteran mercs expected honourable treatment, degrading their leader's corpse like that would really piss them off. The PCs re-evaluated, returned the body intact, and negotiated the departure of the mercs with their weapons and gold. Everybody won.
Conversely if the PCs had been dealing with Orcs rather than human mercenaries, mutilation & intimidation might be good tactics.
Edit: I find that when my monsters flee and I say "OK, they're out of the fight", PCs rarely pursue. Exception would be a lair assault where the monsters are just retreating deeper to join up with allies. Out in the wilderness PCs rarely chase monsters. One exception from ca 2010 was a much loathed hobgoblin captain, the PCs hated him enough to chase him down & kill him. Likewise in many cases monsters don't pursue retreating PCs, but it depends on various factors. Nocturnal monsters are unlikely to pursue in daytime. A dusk assault on a goblin fortress turned out very bad as the monsters chased the fleeing PCs, killing several.
I think this can be a tough call. First, if combats feel like they're dragging, that's one issue to address. I would work on making my combats more interesting, possibly by doing the unexpected or trying new tactics.
If players are losing I hope they've learned to flee when appropriate. If players are beaten but not killed in the process then I wouldn't kill them outright. I'd switch gears and have them held for ransom (a la Runequest) or enslaved or interrogated or sold or imprisoned for some other fate such as dinner. Then I'd give them plenty of chances to escape or overcome or influence their fates, building from their own efforts.
Not all NPCs or monsters will fight "to the death." Some will run, some will surrender, some will fake a surrender and then attack again. Some will bargain for their lives. Then the party gets to decide whether to keep their end of the bargain.
But. I like there to be a decent number of "bad guy" opponents that can be killed outright, according to the settings morals. IE, "Tolkien" orcs don't come in various alignments, they are evil monsters and must be exterminated. Morally ambiguous opponents are a different type of encounter, and there should be some, but not exclusively. Finally, there can be opponents who are more like competitors, with whom truces can be made. The rival adventuring party, to use a trope.
Fleeing/surrendering is exactly what the Morale rules were modeling. Monsters with a Morale of 2 (the lowest possible) would never flee and always fight to the death. These were usually mindless or highly aggressive creatures. Otherwise, their actions were determined by die roll.
Other games that don't explicitly have "morale" rules still imply that characters/foes act logically. Savage Worlds has the Bloodthirsty Hindrance, which imparts a sort of social-stigma on the character because they have a reputation of not taking prisoners, or perhaps even torturing the prisoners they do take. Game Masters are therefore encouraged to make things like surrender/clemancy a part of the game. If the PCs act heroically and show mercy to their foes, they can expect equal treatment when the tables are turned. It can be the difference between a TPK and a transition to an escape mission.
So, yes, I've used fleeing/surrendering in the games I ran. I've felt it makes for a better player experience.
Note that those of us talking context have been assuming morale as part of that, and those of you talking morale have been assuming context. That's not an accident, as they work together. Among other things, using morale rules reminds the GM to consider the context, for example.
Just pointing this out for any inexperienced lurker who might miss that nuance.
I think it depends on the situation.
Usually I will fight to the death unless we need to keep someone alive to get information.
Otherwise, as my Elf Ranger used to say "I don't do alive"
I do Morale checks when 50% or more losses happen with the first round.
Yes, I've had combat where that has happened.
So there is a chance the enemy may surrender.
Quote from: Lunamancer on February 24, 2023, 12:41:45 AM
I also use the Morale rules. Enemies likewise may surrender to PCs or otherwise retreat or flee. The morale rules call for checks at a 25% loss and a 50% loss. With the average base morale being 50%, something like 75% of battles should actually be ending at the half way mark. Here again, the nature of some creatures might be they do fight to the death. And that can make them more dangerous and harder to beat without having to jack up the stats.
A really neat thing about this is if PCs are willing to fight until they are at only 20% or even 10% of their hit points or other resources, while their opponent retreats at 50%, that means they can beat more powerful opponents through sheer force of will.
As for taking prisoners, that can be anywhere from impractical to a pain in the ass. But if you don't, and you gain a reputation for not taking prisoners, and your opponents know you don't take prisoners, you may be making every fight twice as difficult as it needs to be. You may just be best off chasing them off or letting them go with a stern warning.
Morale is such a simple concept that allows the game to be more challenging without TPKs and without fudging, and opens up the field to more interesting stories with recurring villains, again, without fudging. In my experience, the vast majority of DMs treat morale as an optional appendage and regard it as extra work or bookkeeping. And so they then instead get burnt out pulling ridiculous twists out of their ass to keep the story and the PCs alive. So much for saving themselves the oh so burdensome work or making like two extra dice rolls each combat. And they never learn.
Totally agree with this. I just wanted to chime in to add some more points and context. In large scale historical battles, it's rare to see casualties exceeding ~10% of a given force. That says a lot about the impact of morale in battle. This is even more important in small-scale squad level combat where you're likely to be able to see your squad and a single member going down presents a major psychological (and tactical) problem. So if the intent of your game is to have a reasonable approximation of reality then it's quite important to emphasize morale as a significant factor.
Although I haven't seen a game that does it, I think it'd be totally valid to have a game (or encounter-style) where "HitPoints" or "Wounds" are mostly abstracted and you
only track enemy morale. Landing a major blow that incapacitates an opponent typically has major effects on the psychology of the opponent's group -- When bandits attack the party, and Levi the Bandit goes down with a serious injury, his 7 buddies are not going to fight to the death like bags of HP, they're going to scatter (most of the time).
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.
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.