Well, that's as much up to your GM as the players, but in terms of you as a player:
Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, Intimidate, Perception, etc. are all great skills that when applied correctly can avoid, bypass, defuse or predict upcoming fights. Give them a read for some great ways to apply them.
Other than that, look into nonlethal weapons/rules for knocking enemies out by getting a stealthy jump on them, or possibly going a Disarm or Entangle type of route.
Finally, have a talk with your GM or the other players, if you feel comfortable doing so. Let them know that your character is a "Fight second, Ask Questions first" kinda person and that if possible you'd like the chance to do so when the situation seems to merit it.
It could just be that your GM and the other players enjoy running combat. If that's the case and they don't really want to change that, well, you either have to grin and bear it or maybe think about a new group.
Things can go like this sometimes depending on the GM and players.
Having experience with a lot of other game systems, I find this mentality is pretty prevalent amongst D&D players. I don't mean that as a slight against them, but just a casual observation of mine over the years. A lot of this stems from the mentality that in order to progress your character, you must kill monsters grab loot, ect.
Your best bet is almost always to speak with your GM about the tone of his game and the type of story he hopes to tell. He could very well be acting under the assumption that this is what his players want/enjoy so he could be pushing these combat heavy sessions on the group. He needs to realize what you enjoy in order to incorporate it into the game session, so always be vocal about what you enjoy!
Generally your best bet with any kind of conflict is to express your conflict both in and out of character. So long as everyone is reasonable, you should possibly start to see things get better.
*EDIT*
Heh, Lamontius and I seem to share the same feelings here, but I really believe it is your best way forward.
Without having seen your group in action, I can't say whether they are average or above average in the frequency with with they resort to violence. Clearly they aren't below average. The default for Pathfinder, for D&D before it, and for many other RPGs, is that conflicts are frequently settled with violence.
However, there is a big difference between the party that leaves city blocks in flames because the bar brawl got out of hand and the party that might take on a gang of bandits but attempt to stabilize the wounds of the unconscious and bring them back to town for trial.
It sounds as if your bard may be traveling with a group of murderhoboes, rather than a group of heroes. However, without more context it's hard to be sure. Regardless, different people enjoy different styles of play. It is possible that your preferred style and the preferred style of your group are incompatible. Sadly, that's not an easy problem to fix from the player side of the table. I strongly suggest talking to the GM about your concerns. He or she may be comfortable with the way things are and have no desire to make changes, but without GM buy-in, no changes are likely to be made.
Heh, Lamontius and I seem to share the same feelings here, but I really believe it is your best way forward.
Hi5!
It's okay, you just caught one of the rare instances where I actually make a coherent post, rather than simply type out a meme or something about AM BARBARIAN.
I was half expecting this to be out of play when I looked at the thread title.
Yet another sign I played too much CyberPunk 2013 with all the wrong people back in the day, I guess... :)
As indicated by posters above, a lot of it depends on both the DM & the other players. Some folks like playing mostly to roll dice and kill monsters, others not so much. I'd poll your fellow players and your DM and ask them about alternate encounter types than "kill, loot, repeat"...
-TimD
Just a post from the other side of this... the campaign I am currently running is one that our group agreed would have more focus on social interaction and less on just stomping things to death. So that's what it has been. We have been averaging about 1.5 combats per 3 hour session, with the combats being either boss level or mini-boss level. Negotiation, bargaining, diplomacy, bluffing and intimidation have been at least as important to the campaign so far as kicking down doors and beating NPCs to a pulp.
So far I would say there are mixed results. Two of the group seem to like it, two seem to be OK, but one has expressed a desire for more head-stomping already (we have just completed session 5).
Luckily, I suppose, they just accomplished one of the key diplomacy objectives and have been sent to retrieve an item that will result in a pretty typical dungeon crawl scenario for the next few sessions, so I hope that satisfies the one player who has expressed a desire for more gut-busting.
As the GM I have enjoyed the social interaction more than I thought I would. It is more challenging to set up, more difficult to role play and more rewarding when things work out. Plus it really lets every character shine. We have a bard, a sorcerer and a paladin, so there is plenty of charisma to spare...
Join the enemy! Only 3 more deaths required!
I agree with the previous posters. You're probably looking at a difference in play style, and it's worth talking to the group about whether they would be willing to leave you some space for roleplaying outside of combat. However, you stated that you are the new player in the group. If they've already got the game they want and don't want to add the roleplaying element you desire, you may find that changes to make you happy make everyone else unhappy. There are a few ways to address this:
1) Suck it up. They were there first, chose the game, and set the tone. You may want to make a more aggressive character or tweak your current concept to be more aggressive in order to feel like your character fits in.
2) Quit. If it's not the game for you, find or run a different game.
3) Roleplay on your own time. See if the GM is willing to start early, stay late, or meet at another time for roleplaying scenes.
(An old group of mine used this method extensively for World of Darkness games, and it was very useful. You want to have an in-depth conversation with your father about the circumstances surrounding your mother's death, and find out if he's still bitter that your sister wasn't there to save her? Fine, but if I'm another player in that game, I'm taking a nap!)
Just a post from the other side of this...
I recently had a similar experience. I started a roleplay-heavy Serenity campaign for my group. Two players jumped right in, one was indifferent, and two weren't sure what to do with themselves without head-stomping. After four sessions, I dropped that campaign and went back to Pathfinder for the head-stomping that they can all enjoy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of this stems from the mentality that in order to progress your character, you must kill monsters grab loot, ect.
As one who prefers to solve RPG challenges by brute force I can assure you it has nothing to do with the thought that killing levels my char. Talking does the same.
The real reason is much simpler: In real life I have to use diplomacy if something/someone ticks me off. So while I often wished I could just kick people in the groin for being a-holes IRL I don't do it because I don't want to go to jail. But in Pathfinder it is ok to kill the baddies so why should I have to suck it up and talk it over there, too?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of this stems from the mentality that in order to progress your character, you must kill monsters grab loot, ect.
As one who prefers to solve RPG challenges by brute force I can assure you it has nothing to do with the thought that killing levels my char. Talking does the same.
The real reason is much simpler: In real life I have to use diplomacy if something/someone ticks me off. So while I often wished I could just kick people in the groin for being a-holes IRL I don't do it because I don't want to go to jail. But in Pathfinder it is ok to kill the baddies so why should I have to suck it up and talk it over there, too?
On the flip side, some people like the idea of finding peaceful solutions to fantastic conflicts. Or subduing enemies non-lethally, Batman-style. Or being shining examples of mercy and guiding villains towards redemption and actually having it work. Or being the clever wordsmith that overcomes challenges through guile. Or being able to meet fantastic beings and explore fantastic locations and interact with them without having it default to "kill it and take its stuff".
Most of us don't get to experience that in the real world either.
A lot of this stems from the mentality that in order to progress your character, you must kill monsters grab loot, ect.
As one who prefers to solve RPG challenges by brute force I can assure you it has nothing to do with the thought that killing levels my char. Talking does the same.
The real reason is much simpler: In real life I have to use diplomacy if something/someone ticks me off. So while I often wished I could just kick people in the groin for being a-holes IRL I don't do it because I don't want to go to jail. But in Pathfinder it is ok to kill the baddies so why should I have to suck it up and talk it over there, too?
Looks like my statement was a bit too black and white there. Appending "I think" to the start of that statement should fix it well enough. My generalization does not apply to all players obviously, and of course you gain exp for solving encounters in any number of ways. I've just encountered my share of old school gamers who are 'shocked', when I award exp for skillfully negotiating an encounter, or sneaking past a patrol. :)
The only 'wrong' way to play, is to not enjoy yourself. Oftentimes people have a differing opinions of what they enjoy. A GM needs to know his players and even more importantly deliver to those players something they will enjoy, which is why "I think" keeping lines of communication open about your game is really important to keeping people engaged. Which is what I was hoping to convey.
A lot of this stems from the mentality that in order to progress your character, you must kill monsters grab loot, ect.
As one who prefers to solve RPG challenges by brute force I can assure you it has nothing to do with the thought that killing levels my char. Talking does the same.
The real reason is much simpler: In real life I have to use diplomacy if something/someone ticks me off. So while I often wished I could just kick people in the groin for being a-holes IRL I don't do it because I don't want to go to jail. But in Pathfinder it is ok to kill the baddies so why should I have to suck it up and talk it over there, too?
On the flip side, some people like the idea of finding peaceful solutions to fantastic conflicts. Or subduing enemies non-lethally, Batman-style. Or being shining examples of mercy and guiding villains towards redemption and actually having it work. Or being the clever wordsmith that overcomes challenges through guile. Or being able to meet fantastic beings and explore fantastic locations and interact with them without having it default to "kill it and take its stuff".
Most of us don't get to experience that in the real world either.
Sure you are right.
I just wanted to give an example of why some players (or perhaps only I) like it better when we don't have to be Mr. nice guy all the time in RPG sessions.And that aside, I sometimes enjoy peaceful exploration as well. Or "even" peaceful interaction. But if some NPC/monster/whatever starts to annoy me I like to follow my gut reaction and bash it. Brute force DOES solve most problems, after all. But again this doesn't exclude taking prisoners or redeeming bad guys.
A lot of this issue stems from the "kill monsters and take their stuff" mentality that is quite prevalent in many fantasy-based RP games (and isn't helped by MMORPGs).
As a GM, the way I attempt to handle this is that I make a point of mentioning that full XP is earned for overcoming the encounter, whatever means are used. If that means killing the Grand Vizier and the Imperial Guardsmen, then so be it. If, on the other hand, the Bard gives a stirring speech and the Guardsmen arrest the Vizier, then the party still earns the same amount of XP as if they'd killed them all - with the added bonus that the "enemy" are all still alive to earn more XP from in the future.
It doesn't always work - sometimes the plot requires killing everything. But I've never had a party upset about choosing the roleplay option.
The only downside to this approach is that if the party has a particularly effective "face" character, loot may be a bit short, but I try to make that up in the "absolutely must be killed" encounters, particularly with monsters that have treasure in their lairs that they won't or can't personally use.
Thank you all so much for the advice and different perspectives. I've talked to some of the other players and the ironic part is that they're not all into the kill & loot, but in some of the situations, we have nothing else we can really do. I think the best thing for me is to do both talking to potential enemies as well as fighting when the situation calls for it. Then, it's the best of both worlds!
Great! I'm happy to hear it seems like it's going to work out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1 ...i think talking to the other players and GM is really the best approach...
i think a game that includes BOTH can be the best type of game,
but it's important that everybody especially the GM is on board for that...
i think ideally, the 'violence' may happen more in 'spurts' or within a certain context,
so dialogue/etc will prevail largely but you will encounter certain ongoing scenarios
where you know that violence will likely prevail... your characters may not seek that out, but it may be necessary to confront sometimes.
but having a context so that the game doesn't feel like a game of 'murderhoboes',
but rather, heroic, dashing, but ultimately 'human' characters who probably don't kill, or seek out violent conflict, unless necessary, gives the game more depth and realism.
on top of ongoing violence-prone conflicts, there can also be 'random' encounters which may be animals or animalistic monsters, which are hazards of wilderness areas, and there can also be plenty of encounters which could be resolved non-violently or violently, depending on the way things go... some of them can perhaps be BETTER resolved violently, but your group can assess each one as they come.
good luck, and enjoy the game!