This is a great thread.
Can't believe nobody's sticking up for hostage-taking monsters, though.
Now, in practice, it still plays out with different enemies taking different approaches. Some might take the opportunity of a downed enemy to say, "Stop this madness! If you let us retreat safely, we will allow you to tend to your wounded!" A bear will probably focus on whatever is moving. Regardless, I think the idea that outright killing unconscious PCs should be saved for the most savage and depraved attackers (an idea that I feel like is common) is not a good one. Players should assume that their opponents are fighting to kill, and be relieved to find out that they are not.
Reminds me of some death penalty arguments: how do you take the ultimate deterrent off the table without reducing your deterrent, especially for the worst crimes? Don't you encourage escalation of violent crime if you use the ultimate penalty too often, because criminals will more often find themselves already on the hook for the death penalty, and figure killing all the witnesses is just good policy? (don't mean to be political here at all, just think it's relevant to game design).
In game terms, intelligent monsters might want to avoid killing dangerous PCs because they have dangerous PC friends. Much easier to negotiate a surrender or flee without reprisals if you haven't killed a PC yet. If you want to play intelligent races realistically, they should be fleeing or surrendering a lot, absent some serious countervailing pressure. Which reminds me, I've never liked the conceit that adventuring parties are a common thing in my campaigns. I prefer the monsters finding out the hard way that the PCs are trouble. After some of that, I like them to wisen up and change tactics to something more like what's described in the OP.
As a result of the above dynamic (monsters attacking only when they think they can win), I use larger monster bands than some DMs do, but enemies also usually break at around the 50% casualty mark, at which point the PCs are often able to kill them while they're running away. Intelligent enemies may surrender instead of running, depending on their reasons for initiating combat in the first place. So my combats are both harder and easier than vanilla combats.
I fully endorse this method.
Now, sure, if there is the possibility for some sort of prisoner exchange, some groups will attempt that. Unfortunately, a prisoner exchange depends on strong communication between parties and a certain degree of trust.
If monsters are really going to have any insight into PC behavior, they're going to see that knocking out a PC, taking him hostage, and using him for leverage is the way to go.
I do like the possibility of a mechanic where some sort of mechanic is earned after a certain amount of time in combat. Might be too gamist for some
I dunno, I've never liked barbarian's rage mechanics much, but that sounds like the place for them; you're covered in blood, your own and your enemies, your friends are dying around you, anderrrraaaarghrrrraaaaaaaarooooooo. Sounds pretty realistic to me. Second wind, and all that.
I think a little dose of reality is good for players from time to time. Pen & Paper is good for exactly the reason that the story can develop in context, e.g. if it seems appropriate that every guard in the castle is alerted because you launched a frontal attack so be it. They can always get their invincible, level-appropriate fix from an MMO if they need it.
This. If a player's play style isn't already crafty and devious because that's how he likes to play, why should he play crafty and devious until he's had a few PCs get cacked out from under him?
I think there are very few monsters that would kill you when you're down. Strategically its the best move
Again, I have to disagree. I think threatening to kill the hostage unless the PCs back off is the best move.
In the game I've been playing there's been a lot of retreat. We're not a very strategic party, several players blatantly don't know their class and we're easily swayed by the lure of big treasure.
They sound like a blast to DM for (seriously).
This is true even when you're talking about hungry monsters, who want to drag an enemy back to their lair. During those three rounds of dragging, there's a good chance that a living PC is going to cut you down. The greatest chance of you getting out of any situation alive, short of fleeing immediately upon seeing the party, is to engage the living PCs and ignore the fallen ones. (In the presence of healing magic, treat "fallen" characters as "potentially living, and highly vulnerable".) Stopping to dispatch the non-combatants will do nothing for you if you end up dead.
Right...until they stop thinking as individuals, and start thinking of the group (which makes sense, since as their own life expectancies start dropping rapidly, their thoughts turn to friends, family, tribe). Any intelligent species is going to start using attrition/suicide tactics.
If you're going to start offing unconscious PCs on the regular, my advice is to make sure you have a plan for what happens after a character dies. One of the crummy parts of Monopoly is that when a player goes bankrupt, he or she is no longer really participating in the game. So for however long the game lasts (and boy can it last), you've got your friend twiddling his or her thumbs watching everyone else play. That's not very fun. A lot of modern games end when the first person is "out" or are set up where nobody can be forced out of play before it ends.
I figure you just let the player drop in another character (his 2nd character, one of your pre-gens, an NPC henchman or local from the adventure, etc.) after a scene change or two, if not sooner. A few hail fellow well mets and you're back to it.
