Any Good Games Where Running Away Can Be A Victory?

[R_J_K75]

I am pretty certain that idea did not appear until 2nd Edition.

You are probably correct and thought of that after I posted and saw you said 1E. I think the 2E version led to a more dynamic game though and believe. I've made an effort in recent years to create adventures that aren't necessarily combat based.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You need a system that allows for non-combat mechanics to be as robust and engaging as the combat mechanics of D&D are.

It starts with the PCs’ goal. What are they trying to accomplish? Then you have to consider the method of accomplishing that goal. Then you have to look at it from two perspectives; how does the chosen method suit the characters in the fiction, and also how does the chosen method play as a game for the players.

So if the goal is to infiltrate a stronghold and steal a maguffin, then you need to make sure that it doesn’t make a lot of sense for the PCs to simply storm the place and kill everyone inside and walk out with the maguffin. So if things come to a fight, then that means things have likely gone poorly, or else the fight needs to be shut down quickly and quietly to maintain the infiltration.

To allow for this, you need mechanics that support a team stealth mission or similar, and also mechanics on how to deploy suitable challenges for this type of mission. It has to be fun for the players and a lot of games have a forced kind of expertise system where one or two PCs might be experts at stealth or deception, and then the rest of the group watches them do their thing. That may work for an occasional challenge or two (“This door is locked…thief, get up here”, etc.) but not when the entire scenario is based on something other than combat.

Combat is the one thing to which all D&D characters can meaningfully contribute (this is more true of later editions, but it comes into play pretty early in the game’s history such that I’ll generalize). So it makes sense that the game’s default expectation is combat. If the game was about intrigue, and every character class was designed around how they handled intrigue and each class had abilities or skills related to that, then that could be the default expectation.

So I do think that the system is a huge part of this. You need more robust mechanics for non-combat plans and non-combat challenges. Or, if you don’t want to eliminate combat entirely, then those mechanics need to be as robust and present as combat mechanics.

There are definitely games that do this, or at the very least attempt to do so. Apocalypse World and many PbtA games come to mind. I think FATE does this, although I’m not personally very familiar with that system. The Leverage RPG which uses the Cortex+ system does it. Blades in the Dark does it. The Alien RPG and Call of Cthulhu both lean toward combat being a bad idea that can really go poorly quickly. The Gumshoe system leans on investigation as its foundation, rather than combat, although there are versions that tweak things for more fighting.

I’m sure there are others that I’m not thinking of or of which I’m not even aware, but those are the ones I can think off the top of my head.

 

[GMMichael]

If you have achieved that dynamic in your traditional games, how did you do it? . . . I mean actually making the win state of a scenario with a problem that is dangerous be things other than “one side is violently defeated”.

Modos RPG doesn't award level-ups for killing things - that's up to the GM. PCs have their own Goals, although the more baked-in rewards are for role-playing your Flaw (which could be Cowardice!), versus pursuing your Goal (which could be Killin' Stuff or Spreading Peace) which tends to have inherent rewards.

I'll let you decide how "Good" it is.

 

[AtomicPope]

Okay, that sounds pretty interesting. Is it difficult in that system to make characters who are useful whether the situation calls for punching or for non-violent resolution?

I haven't run a Sentinels RPG game but I'm playing in my third campaign. The current DM modified it to make it DnD, and so far it's working great. The last campaign was a standard Sentinels superheroes game. One of the players, my arch enemy (I played a retired villain and he a retired super hero) no longer had the resources for a super suit so instead he used his mind, and annoyance, to talk or problem solve situations. The game system is unique in that the characters can always choose to succeed. However, the worse they failed their roll the worse the tradeoff, officially called a Twist. If you wanted to have a "talker" like he did then you just create a character whose powers might be things like "Presence" or maybe "Intuition" to read the crowds. Then you could build your character around being a talker, where your abilities (unique actions) give your allies Boosts, or maybe extra actions, Overcome situations, and Hinder the enemies.

 

[Groovy Commander]

Runequest. You can surrender in Runequest and your clan or temple will pay a hefty ransom. Its a good reason for enemies not to kill you or for you not to kill enemies, since you can get a hefty cash reward. One of the best incentives against murderhoboism I have ever seen.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The problem is there are too many objectives where that's going to be a negative tautology. The best I can think of is games focused on theft, assassination and sabotage, where for the most part, getting in a fight has nothing to do with your purpose--and I don't think there's too many of those. I can think of games where driving the opponents off can be (honestly, a lot of scenarios in most superhero games can play out like that), but the truth is, actually running away isn't exactly heroic, and the kinds of things it serves (as I mention above) aren't very either, so few games focus on them.

(You can have some modern period games where rescues could land that way as long as the opposition can't pursue, but its hard to make that work in a fantasy milieu).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Runequest. You can surrender in Runequest and your clan or temple will pay a hefty ransom. Its a good reason for enemies not to kill you or for you not to kill enemies, since you can get a hefty cash reward. One of the best incentives against murderhoboism I have ever seen.

But that's more a mitigated lose, not a victory. You didn't get what you wanted done, you just prevented it turning into a massive disaster.

 

[aramis erak]

Think this largely depended on the class you were playing as certain classes were awarded XP on different criteria.

Class Based XP: Not in OE, and not in BX, BECMI, nor Cyclopedia. I don't recall it being in AD&D 1e, either. The only edition I recall it in is AD&D 2E. I checked BX, BECMI, and Cyclopedia.

Cyclopedia does add a 5% of width of current level as a bonus for good RP and a few other things... but that's not class-based. THe only class based XP in OE, BX, BECMI, Cyclopedia are for Prime Requisites being high... but all classes have bonuses for prime requisites.

I'm not bothering to check AD&D 1E, since others here know it better.

BX gives XP for defeating foes and acquiring treasure.
BECMI gives XP for monsters defeated, treasure acquired, landholding, leading wars, leading trade expeditions. Cyclopedia adds a number of "5% of the width of your current level" bonuses, but again, not class based

 

[R_J_K75]

Class Based XP: Not in OE, and not in BX, BECMI, nor Cyclopedia. I don't recall it being in AD&D 1e, either. The only edition I recall it in is AD&D 2E. I checked BX, BECMI, and Cyclopedia.

Cyclopedia does add a 5% of width of current level as a bonus for good RP and a few other things... but that's not class-based. THe only class based XP in OE, BX, BECMI, Cyclopedia are for Prime Requisites being high... but all classes have bonuses for prime requisites.

I'm not bothering to check AD&D 1E, since others here know it better.

BX gives XP for defeating foes and acquiring treasure.
BECMI gives XP for monsters defeated, treasure acquired, landholding, leading wars, leading trade expeditions. Cyclopedia adds a number of "5% of the width of your current level" bonuses, but again, not class based

Never realised it was a 2E thing and just assumed it was always that way

 

[Neonchameleon]

You are probably correct and thought of that after I posted and saw you said 1E. I think the 2E version led to a more dynamic game though and believe. I've made an effort in recent years to create adventures that aren't necessarily combat based.

Meanwhile I think the 2e version with its enforced stereotypes lead to a less dynamic and more stereotypical game.

The two editions that rewarded diverse play were 1e (and oD&D) and 4e. In 1e you get 1XP for each GP of treasure you manage to escape with, and treasure is worth roughly four times the XP of the base monster. So if you can evade and rob a monster you get 80% of the XP while minimising risk. 4e had the skill challenge structure which provided defined XP rewards for ridiculous plans (again lower risk than combat). 4e worked best when combat was like desert rather than everything (and was at least as strong out of combat as any other edition).

You need a system that allows for non-combat mechanics to be as robust and engaging as the combat mechanics of D&D are.

No you don't. What you need is a system where combat is actually dangerous and has consequences therefore is something to be avoided.

In D&D (any edition) there are basically no long term consequences other than death. If you're on 1hp you are still just as physically competent as if you are on full hp - and you will always recover given sufficient time. Which means that unless you die (very unlikely) there is basically no risk. In games with death spirals or long term wounds you want to avoid combat because it's possible that you will always have lost a finger - and because you are a lot less competent even after winning a fight if you've taken a few wounds.