A Mechanic I Like: Conceding
In FATE, a player may decide to concede a conflict. This means that their character, though defeated, avoids the worst consequences of a loss. This can manifest in a variety of ways: say a knight named Magnus Dongzer is being swarmed by evil fish hungry for flesh, Magnus's player concedes, and instead of dying—which is the only fate to one subjected to the merciless evil fishes of the Yellow Jungle—is saved by a strong river current that sees him born away and lost in the jungle. Against humanoid foes capture is a common consequence.
The difference between conceding and being defeated is one of narrative control. If a character is defeated, then the opposing side has full control over their fate; this means the referee can decide that, in fact, the evil fish are going to eat Magnus, or that his rival Kneef Flysk embarrasses him in front of his crush. Concessions mean a compromise between referee and player.
The value of this is that it avoids some of the main problems of zero sum combat by giving a release valve outside of death. In the linked article I discuss how upping the stakes of violence, compared to, say, D&D, makes players more willing to negotiate. This is great, but for a pulpy game you want players to feel willing to fight without death being the only stakes. Conceding enables this directly through a mechanic rather than play culture or the particular tuning of a game's combat.
In my experience, this mechanic particularly shines when employed for NPCs as well as players. I love recurring rivals or villains, and while you can make tactical retreats work in D&D it can be very hard in practice. Players tend to purse fleeing rivals like mad rabbits after living cabbage boys: there is no mercy in their hearts. Conceding means you can have some motherfucker like Goldar show up multiple times. If you want to play a pulpy game that emphasizes relationships, rivalries, etc, then this is extremely useful.
In order to maximize the value of concessions as a mechanic it is best to clarify the stakes of any given combat before hand. For instance, are the encountered Headless Men merely attempting to drive off the players, or trying to capture them and roast them over a fire? What do the players want out of the conflict? Where the characters are more deeply embroiled in the social milieu the stakes become more complex and more important to clarify.
FATE has a lot of meta mechanics that I find somewhat cumbersome in practice. Conceding, however, is excellent. I think it works because players are not bartering a meta-currency, instead they are folding like it's a game of poker. What's being given up is their ability to participate in that particular conflict. It's one of my favourite mechanics in one of my favourite RPGs! Thanks so much for reading everybody, you are all so special and lovely at RPGs.