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.