Exchange of Realities

On Monday, I presented my opinion that the problem with combat is the rather binary nature of its outcomes.  DocBadwrench requested some sample alternatives:  here’s what I’ve got, from about a day of thinking.  While his original request was for mechanical solutions, these don’t exactly qualify; spicing up battle is at least as much a matter of story as mechanics.

So here we go:  Possible battles that aren’t issues of 0 and 1 alone.

• Flight/surrender.  As Mike Lemmer pointed out on Monday, this can end the battle, but then it leaves the question of whether the group really wants their enemies still breathing.  Morals vs. expediency?  Right here.  Best of all, it’s realistic; really, who’s going to keep fighting until killed when they can run off and regroup, then come back and utilize what they’ve learned from this fight?
• Recruitable enemies.  Really, not everyone is going to be completely, irrevocably opposed to the group’s actions.  They might be functionally on the same side and misguided.  Or they can be bought.  Or perhaps someone in the group has that certain bit of leverage…
• Time-dependent events.  If the battlefield is known not to be a static place, they’ll have to figure out how to adapt to it.  What if there’s a storm coming?  Depending on the group’s strengths or weaknesses, they might try to prolong the battle until the weather turns, end the fight before the downpour begins, or just get under cover.  It doesn’t have to be battlefield-altering events, either; what if for some reason the group needs a third party to see (or to not see, for that matter) part of the fight against their enemies, and this third party isn’t there at the beginning?
• Collateral damage.  This is particularly relevant in systems like Exalted, where the characters are being thrown every which way, and where beating a foe with his own pillars is perfectly feasible and even encouraged.  That does not, however, mean that it can necessarily be ignored in other systems:  between area of effect attacks in D&D, high explosives and firearms in modern settings, and any of a number of other destructive effects, most systems will allow for some form of this issue.  The group’s goal might include causing as much damage in the location in which they’re fighting as possible; conversely (usually in places that have a mystic significance or in ones that are described as particularly aesthetically pleasing), they might make an effort to avoid marring the decorations where possible.

Then there’s the question of how the way in which the group wins or loses affects their reputation.  This can make even a foregone conclusion battle interesting again, as the group has to figure out what sorts of effects their tactics are going to have on how people view them and act accordingly.  Trying to look noble, or avoid coming across as utterly ruthless?  The opposite?

Or there’s making the fight over something other than whether each side lives or dies.  Just because video games allow for grand, epic battles in front of the McGuffin without anyone trying to steal it doesn’t mean that either side in your fights won’t take advantage of the confusion to steal it.  They have minds, after all.  This can also apply to when one group has something the other wants, or is protecting someone the other wants to kill; protecting a vulnerable character or an important item can lead to some extreme shifts in tactics.

And then there’s what happens when information crops up in mid-fight that changes the situation.  The key to solving a problem the group has devoted themselves to is a demon, but just happens to be the one the group’s fighting.  One of their allies is possessed.  Reinforcements for one side or another are en route.  One of the pieces of information on which the rationale for the battle was founded is a lie.  The possibilities are pretty much endless.

These are most of the major ones I can think of; any of you know of any more?