Moral Dilemma: Killing and Deaths in RPGs

[kid america]

So I’m about to turn 50. As I approach this new life milestone I’ve started wrestling with killing and deaths in RPGs.

I don’t know if anyone else has experienced this dilemma.

I’ve withdrawn from one Pathfinder group this year that was more combat heavy. The group’s solution was kick asses, stockpile treasure and get information later. It was guys I used to really like to game with, but I have evolved into more of a subtle role-play my character and find interesting non-combat ways of overcoming situations and solving adventures.

I also stopped GMing a Pathfinder group recently after one of the younger players had their 5th level character die. The player failed their three death saves and then had an unexpected meltdown reaction to it. I talked to the player after the game and a subsequent conversation days later. But the character’s death just put them off gaming with the group any longer. Which led to an older player in the group quitting the group over the younger players reaction to their character’s death. Now I prefer to run a more role-play character driven exploration and information gathering style of play. But even then most players resort to violence as their first option for dealing with monsters, villains and NPCs.

Part of the draw of RPGs is walking that dangerous balance between life and death. The thrill of staring death in the face and vanquishing a foe or faction to be celebrated as a hero.

I have played various RPGs, most heavily Pathfinder and Dungeons & Dragons over 20 years. But it didn’t hit me until this incident the amount of killing we as RPG game masters and players do of humanoids, aliens, creatures, demons, devils, dragons, monsters and robots in various RPG games.

The incident struck a weird chord emotionally in me. I sat down and looked at all the RPGs on my bookshelves and tried to find something to run where the main solution to in-game encounters is not killing the adversary. I also did some searching on Drive Thru RPG for an RPG where exploration and out thinking adversaries is more the premise and focus of the game. It was hard to find RPG options like that.

Has anyone else experienced this dilemma?
Is it just time to put away my dice and RPG hobby?

Can you play and run Pathfinder or Dungeons & Dragons without all the violent encounters and killing?

What fantasy and sci fi RPGs would you recommend as an alternative to the traditional slay the adversary and take their loot model?

[Fergie]

Interesting topics!

While it might seem odd, I feel like PC's doing the killing, and PCs getting killed are two separate issues.

I feel like character death is kind of indispensable in a game with hit points, death effects, etc. Accepting an fair PC death is sort of like losing a game of chess or board game. It is essentially a test of sportsmanship*. (* Because of the role playing nature it is also a small taste of accepting the concept of death as it applies to real life) A player can be expected to feel some emotions, but I would also expect them to behave in an age appropriate manor. They can be upset by the loss, but should at least not take it out on GM or other players. If the player feels that his PCs death was unfair, then I could see how it could lead to darker reactions and resentment and such. That is part of the reason to discuss how death will be handled in some sort of session zero. I've been in games that featured almost no death through level 15, and others with deaths happening frequently. It is also important to explicitly express (in writing if possible) any "gentleman's agreements" about what type of spells, gear, tactics, etc are discouraged.

The PCs killing-all-the-time thing is a little tougher. I recall a few instances when I was GM when players killed (or harmed) NPCs who were innocent or at least no threat, and that was very distasteful to me. More so then I would have expected since we're all just pretending to be elves and wizards and stuff, and "it's just a game, man!"

In my games, I play alignment in a very fantasy, non-subjective way. Evil is super Evil and Good is super Good. I don't allow evil PCs, nor do I allow chaotic-stupid or chaotic-psycho PCs. The players don't need to feel bad about killing because the monsters are truly monstrous, and killing stops the harm that the monsters were causing. I also don't make the players deal with child monsters, injured monsters, or even many Neutral monsters. It does limit many kinds of scenarios, but it also opens up others and avoids many issues. It makes the game more escapist, and less about real world situations. There are positives and negatives.

If you want to REALLY reduce the killing, you probably need to go in the other direction, and kind of remove most of the Evil, and go for a more real world handling of morality. I think it could be done within Pathfinder, but you would need to homebrew adventures, and get players on board in advance.

[KJL]

I think a lot of players develop a "shoot first and ask questions - perhaps" attitude because many monsters are evil and are written as "shoot first from ambush, fight to the death and never ask questions" and most DMs play them as written. The rules don't require this in any game but you may have to modify modules and manage player expectations before starting a game. The orc's greeting has to be "hello human, how are you today?" rather than "12+2=AC14, does that hit?" My last character (D&D 3.0, petered out 2 yrs ago) was Ari1/Ranger12/Wiz1 with total modifiers of Diplomacy 18 and Bluff 17. Between the reactions of the NPCs/Monsters and the other players she almost never got a chance to try to use them - by the time it was her turn the fight was already well under way.

Do be aware, though, that this is going to be harder work emotionally for everyone. Dealing with "people" is different to bashing unimportant pixels. That is precisely why some monsters are intrinsically and irredeemably evil. That enemies can be so easily categorised is perhaps the biggest "fantasy" of the "F" in "FRPG", the biggest difference to the real world.

[Tender Tendrils]

The rules have a large focus on combat, but that is partially because combat lends itself to that level of mechanical detail, while out of combat stuff likes to be a bit looser.

Combat slows time down to millisecond by millisecond turns, while social interactions necessarily need to be in real time.

The thing is, the page space and amount of mechanics devoted to each of those things doesn't need to be a reflection of how important the two are in games. Combat gets more detail because that level of detail is useful for combat, while having pages and pages of rules and dice rolls for social interactions would be too constricting for natural conversation.

An unfortunate side effect of combat having more page space (and more time devoted to it, because encounter mode slows down time) is that a lot of GMs/players see it as the primary focus of the game, which it doesn't have to be.

As the GM, it is your job to set things up to encourage the kind of game you and your players want to play. If you want players to solve problems in ways other than violence, you need to work on presenting situations where that works, and where trying for nonviolent solutions feels natural.

Each little section of the game session is a scene, and how you present each scene has a huge influence on what solutions players think are possible. Something as simple as what details you describe (or don't describe) can convey expectations to the players that you may not be consciously aware of.

For example

"The room has an ornate door"
and
"The room has a door covered in carvings"

seem like more or less the same thing, but the latter is more likely to make players think they need to investigate the carvings.

On the morality side of things - that is hard to help with. I can talk about how to reduce violence in games, but I can't tell you if it is okay or not. The best I can do is to tell you that;

1. It's not real.
2. Having a fictional character do a bad thing isn't necessarily an endorsement of that bad thing - what really matters is how those bad things are presented, and how the text treats those bad things (for example, whether it condemns those things or shows the consequences of those things)
3. Most of the scientific evidence and literature on the subject of violence in games pretty consistently and overwhelmingly falls on the side of "playing games that simulate violence does not correlate to or cause a person to be violent in real life."
4. Writing or playing a character is separate (not 100% separate, but hopefully a healthy amount) to who you are. This is how people in movies can play a murderer or whatever without being a bad person.
5. It can actually be very healthy to play out these things in fiction. It lets people explore these things in a safe environment.

If all else fails, there are other rpgs you can try that are less violent. I haven't played it, but things like Mouseguard look like they can easily support a heroic story where things are a bit more fairytale and a bit less game of thrones.

I have found in my experience that TTRPGs are incredibly valuable socially and for letting people express themselves (and their identities), and for building empathy (putting yourself in the shoes of a different person and trying to think about what they would do and how they would react is a very useful way to learn empathy), so it would be a shame to just walk away from the entire concept of TTRPGs.

[Mark Hoover 330]

I find players in my games don't want moral dilemmas. They don't want to think that hard. For my players, foes are nothing more than sacks of XP and loot that want to kill them. To paraphrase one player a few months ago: if we subdue the kobolds, question them and let them go or ignore them, their threat still exists. If we kill them, the threat is over.

This is only part of a larger issue that's burning me out as a GM: my players don't want to think that hard... about anything. I've created rich settings with diverse, complex foes. There are metaphors and symbolism and nuance. Some foes I've specifically chosen to have Neutral as part of their alignment specifically because they COULD be enemies or they COULD be allies, depending on how my players interact with them.

No one cares that the statues in this area are similar to ones from before, but with different swords; if Perception doesn't reveal a hidden cache of treasure here, this area is worthless. Players think its funny to interrupt a villain's monologue and they choose violence first. Literally, after I get done narrating a scene, if there are ANY kind of beings or potential beings present my players will often pick up their dice and ask "should we roll initiative now?"

Now, what I find is heartbreakingly funny about this attitude is that, with 2 of the three campaigns I'm running, players left other games to join mine because they didn't want a linear "railroad" of a campaign. They claim they want the freedom to do whatever they want in the game world. The reality is they want to run around, murdering for incentives and be consequence free while the story happens TO them.

To inject morality into one's game, one has to engage with the narrative enough to care about said game and the characters within it. My players just don't do that. I've joked many times that I could just run Diablo and my players would be happy. I think this is honestly the case these days.

[Planpanther]

I think this is cross posted from EN World, but my reply is largely the same. D&D is the John Wick of RPGs. Hundreds of pages to combat its totally expected. I'd branch out to other RPGs and players to see whats out there and set aside the murderhobo tendency of D&D/PF for awhile.

Check out the Systems are a journey, not the destination thread for inspiration!

[Wei Ji the Learner]

I, for one, appreciate greatly when there are options that are not 'roll for initiative'.

One of the groups I'm in spent three rounds of combat trying to talk the opponents down despite our GM telling us they couldn't be--that would have been metagaming .

As far as character mortality -- when it's narratively ideal and not plot ex-machina. Incredibly unfair writer wankfest to make the worst middle finger encounter for a party sounds good on paper at FIRST. However, it gets abused so much that it should be avoided, imo.

[kid america]

Planpanther wrote:

I think this is cross posted from EN World, but my reply is largely the same. D&D is the John Wick of RPGs. Hundreds of pages to combat its totally expected. I'd branch out to other RPGs and players to see whats out there and set aside the murderhobo tendency of D&D/PF for awhile.

Check out the Systems are a journey, not the destination thread for inspiration!

Yes, Planpanther that was my post over on Enworld as well. I was looking to see what the advice and recommendations would be from two different RPG audiences.

And thank you for the Systems are a journey, not the destination thread for inspiration. Reading through it now.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

I, for one, appreciate greatly when there are options that are not 'roll for initiative'.

One of the groups I'm in spent three rounds of combat trying to talk the opponents down despite our GM telling us they couldn't be--that would have been metagaming .

PF1 has Redemption as an Inquisition and a Subdomain; in the default setting, the sun goddess has Redemption in her portfolio; there is an Archetype for the Inquisitor class called the Sin Eater that at high levels helps folks atone for sins. Like, there are mechanics IN THE GAME that backup the idea that Evil isn't always an absolute.

Regardless, I'll point back to the sentiments about the kobolds in my game above. If they're alive, the threat is still active; if they're dead, the threat is neutralized.

This is why, as soon as I can get one of my campaigns to a stopping point I'm digging out my old Advanced Marvel Super Heroes books and we're rolling up characters. It's a very simple game, but more importantly there's mechanical penalties for killing your enemies.

Heroes don't stoop to the level of their foes. Even Wolverine eventually came to see his berserker ways as something to rise above. Yeah, the Sinister Six is gonna break outta jail 50 times; that just means you gotta beat 'em 51 times.

[keftiu]

I think a lot of d20 fantasy is the wrong system for this - classes exist almost entirely to give you a unique way to kill things - but there's definitely room for nonviolent tabletop roleplaying. Earlier this year, I was feeling really burned out on violence in gaming and storytelling, and wanted to see if I could do a short campaign that was still action-heavy, but wasn't about the heroes hurting people; I ended up running a Songs for the Dusk game about emergency first responders, and we had an absolute blast with it.

There's also plenty of games out there that exist more to tell stories about emotions and drama, or investigating mysteries, and there are also those that afford violence and killing the emotional weight they deserve; of this last category, I'm very fond of Dream Askew and Mobile Frame Zero: Firebrands, and I also think Unknown Armies has a lot of brilliant stuff to say on the subject. The indie scene in general has a lot of stuff that breaks the mold of slaying in the name of glory and loot, especially in the Belonging Outside Belonging movement, while there's a number of very good Hillfolk/Dramasystem pitches that offer different angles on play other than violent heroics.

It's also worth saying that the current Pathfinder 2e Adventure Path, Strength of Thousands, has a /ton/ of encounters where a nonviolent solution is not only on the table, but encouraged. It seems to have been a deliberate focus for the AP, and I think it works wonderfully - and no small few of the villains are those who think and act more like murderous 'adventurers'

Hope any of this helps!

[Kasoh]

On a lark, I started tracking enemy npc deaths in the games I play in. I try to have fun with it, keeping track of the party's K/D ratio and et al, but mostly I was interested in seeing what creatures the party killed and how long my character could go without killing another living humanoid. This was complicated by it being mummy's mask and the cultists have a tendency to self destruct, but that's not here nor there.

It was interesting to see that list grow and be able to incorporate it into the character's story.

[Planpanther]

Kasoh wrote:

On a lark, I started tracking enemy npc deaths in the games I play in. I try to have fun with it, keeping track of the party's K/D ratio and et al, but mostly I was interested in seeing what creatures the party killed and how long my character could go without killing another living humanoid. This was complicated by it being mummy's mask and the cultists have a tendency to self destruct, but that's not here nor there.

It was interesting to see that list grow and be able to incorporate it into the character's story.

That self destruct bit was so great in MM.

[Quark Blast]

I'll put a plug in for Wild Beyond the Witchlight - my cousin bought it based on this review(?), and let me look at it for an hour or so before the last game at his place. I'm going to assume nothing presented in there will be directly used to hook into his Eberron campaign, or like the more I know the worse it'll go for me. Anyway, it is replete with wild ideas for RP over combat for sure.

[Haladir]

kid america wrote:

So I’m about to turn 50. As I approach this new life milestone I’ve started wrestling with killing and deaths in RPGs...

I also stopped GMing a Pathfinder group recently after one of the younger players had their 5th level character die. The player failed their three death saves and then had an unexpected meltdown reaction to it. I talked to the player after the game and a subsequent conversation days later. But the character’s death just put them off gaming with the group any longer. Which led to an older player in the group quitting the group over the younger players reaction to their character’s death. Now I prefer to run a more role-play character driven exploration and information gathering style of play. But even then most players resort to violence as their first option for dealing with monsters, villains and NPCs...

The incident struck a weird chord emotionally in me. I sat down and looked at all the RPGs on my bookshelves and tried to find something to run where the main solution to in-game encounters is not killing the adversary. I also did some searching on Drive Thru RPG for an RPG where exploration and out thinking adversaries is more the premise and focus of the game. It was hard to find RPG options like that.

Has anyone else experienced this dilemma?

Can you play and run Pathfinder or Dungeons & Dragons without all the violent encounters and killing?

What fantasy and sci fi RPGs would you recommend as an alternative to the traditional slay the adversary and take their loot model?

I've been playing TTRPGs since 1981, and age 50 is firmly in my rearview mirror.

You're not wrong about Pathfinder and pretty much all of the games in the D&D family: The core gameplay loop is: Gear up, fight/kill monsters, take their stuff, and use the stuff you've taken to improve your own gear.

But that's not the only RPG model out there: There are other games with different core gameplay loops where finding yourself in a fight generally means you've done something wrong, and only the villains have the greed and callousness to loot the corpses of fallen enemies. Many of these RPGs don't even have a combat system at all: They're not about fighting.

And regarding PC death: There are also a lot of games out there where a PC can only die with the full consent of that PC's player.

Here are a few mainstream fantasy and scifi games that aren't about killing:

Wanderhome by Jay Dragon (Possum Creek Games)
Rule system: No Dice No Masters (NDNM)
PCs are anthropomorphic animals on a journey across a pastoral fantasy landscape. It's a game about exploration, experiencing the turning of seasons and passing of time, encountering other folk and helping them solve problems, and personal growth. The game has no combat system at all.

Epyllion by Marissa Kelly (Magpie Games)
Rule system: Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA)
PCs are young dragons coming of age in the magical land of Dragonia. This is a game about personal identity, coming of age, friendship, and cooperation. It's somewhat aimed at young players who may be new to RPGs, but there's a depth and richness to the game that also appeals to adults and experienced roleplayers. This game also has no combat system.

Blue Rose: The Game of Romantic Fantasy (Green Ronin Publishing)
Rule system: Adventure Game Engine (AGE)
An RPG of romantic fantasy where the PCs are the heroic envoys of the benevolent kingdom of Aldis who use their wits, charm, diplomacy, and (when absolutely necessary) strength at arms to defend the Realm from threats internal and external. This game has a combat system, but emphasizes diplomacy, negotiation, and compromise rather than battle... and when disputes come to blows, nearly all fights are to duels to first blood rather than death.

Star Trek Adventures (Modiphius Entertainment}
Rule system: 2d20
In this officially-licensed TTRPG, PCs are the crew of a Federation starship on a mission of exploration. The book supports play in three eras: Enterprise (i.e. the earliest days of the Federation), the Original Series, or Next Generation. And while fighting is a possibility, the most successful missions are solved without exchanging phaser fire. And because PCs nearly always have access to 24th century medicine, PC death pretty much only occurs when the player decides to make a heroic sacrifice of themself to protect others.

There are many, many other TTRPGs that aren't about killing.

[dirtypool]

First, Haladir I’m glad to see you’ve stuck around.

Second, the new Stargate RPG is a reworked 5e that has an interesting “Tension” system that determines what the current stakes of an encounter are. The GM sets the base tension level and that lets the players know the current expectations, low tension sessions assume that all damage is non lethal so that enemies are knocked out, stunned, or otherwise disengaged so that they can come back later. Higher tension encounters ratchet up the lethality. It’s built to model a televised narrative structure, but I think it does give some clear guidance on running a less lethal game of Dungeons and Dragons that still allows for robust combat. It’s also simple enough that it could be bolted onto any system without much modification and onto a D20 system pretty much as is.

[Albatoonoe]

I'd say that, as far as d20 based systems go, PF2 is in a better place for non-combat stuff. There are a lot of options and subsystems that allow fun new ways of solving things. In Extinction Curse, My Liberator of Kurgess has had a lot of negotiations and social challenges.

For other RPGs, I'll plug Monster of the Week for good combat alternatives.

[Quark Blast]

Wanderhome looks brilliant if aimed at a younger audience. Alas the problem with niche games is finding players, or worse, finding a GM if you like to be a player. Between work and school the last thing I want to do is Zoom to another meeting/class a game. If I only spend 50 hours a week on a computer it's noteworthy.

While I agree the d20 systems seem mostly geared toward "aggressive negotiations", the other systems require a more active role from players.... are less escapist. That's why FPSs dominate in their respective market. At the very least the group can just house-rule that defeating an enemy isn't about killing them and leave everything else the same.

[Planpanther]

Albatoonoe wrote:

For other RPGs, I'll plug Monster of the Week for good combat alternatives.

I'll second monster of the week!

[keftiu]

FWIW, Wanderhome is not aimed at kids. It was inspired by the author’s experiences with homelessness, and Jay has repeatedly gone on record talking about how the game is mostly about picking up the pieces in the aftermath of war and the societal trauma that carries.

Just because it has talking animals and is nonviolent doesn’t make it for babies.

[Quark Blast]

keftiu wrote:

FWIW, Wanderhome is not aimed at kids. It was inspired by the author’s experiences with homelessness, and Jay has repeatedly gone on record talking about how the game is mostly about picking up the pieces in the aftermath of war and the societal trauma that carries.

Just because it has talking animals and is nonviolent doesn’t make it for babies.

Didn't say "babies". Didn't even say "kids". Looks like participants need to be very imaginative and atypically verbal though.

Product Blurb wrote:

Wanderhome is a pastoral fantasy role-playing game about traveling animal-folk, the world they inhabit, and the way the seasons change. It is a game filled with grassy fields, mossy shrines, herds of chubby bumblebees, opossums in sundresses, salamanders with suspenders, starry night skies, and the most beautiful sunsets you can imagine.

Sounds pretty young at heart to me.

;D

I'll also note - the artwork is tight!

[kid america]

Thank you Keftiu your advice and suggestions are a big help to where I'm looking for a change in my RPG gaming.

[keftiu]

kid america wrote:

Thank you Keftiu your advice and suggestions are a big help to where I'm looking for a change in my RPG gaming.

Happy to help! I’m big on emotional indie games, and pretty sick of gaming’s obsession with violence, so I’m glad to put both to some use.

[Albatoonoe]

Wanderhome sounds pretty neat. I guess I'm gonna add a third RPG to my collections about animal people (joining Root and Humblewood)

[feelsbradman]

@keftiu this is off topic per se, but Fiasco (by Bully Pulpit Games) is also a great non-violent game

[keftiu]

feelsbradman wrote:

@keftiu this is off topic per se, but Fiasco (by Bully Pulpit Games) is also a great non-violent game

Fiasco is great! Bully Pulpit also made Night Witches, which is one of my favorite games ever.

[feelsbradman]

I love Night Witches too! I'm from the Carolinas so I've also played Carolina Death Crawl!

[Planpanther]

feelsbradman wrote:

@keftiu this is off topic per se, but Fiasco (by Bully Pulpit Games) is also a great non-violent game

I dont think this is universal. Our Fiasco games have been like Blood Simple by Cohen Bros. Violent AF!

[Haladir]

Planpanther wrote:

feelsbradman wrote:

@keftiu this is off topic per se, but Fiasco (by Bully Pulpit Games) is also a great non-violent game

I dont think this is universal. Our Fiasco games have been like Blood Simple by Cohen Bros. Violent AF!

Agreed 100%. Depending on the playset you're running, a Fiasco game could be a comedic farce like A Fish Called Wanda or Office Space, or it could end in a bloodbath like A Simple Plan or Fargo. (All of those films are in the game's "Appendix N".)

Oh... if you haven't played it yet, the card-based second edition is a HUGE improvement for ease-of-play, and also makes the game appeal to people who don't self-identify as role-playing gamers!

[Fumarole]

kid america wrote:

But it didn’t hit me until this incident the amount of killing we as RPG game masters and players do of humanoids, aliens, creatures, demons, devils, dragons, monsters and robots in various RPG games.

I too am approaching the half-century mark and recently had a similar revelation regarding the video games I play. I went through the list of games I was playing at the time and realized that only one did not require killing something, and that was a motocross game. It was a very sobering moment.

[thejeff]

I don't have a real problem with killing in RPGs - it's a staple of the fantasy genre, which I enjoy in and out of gaming. I do prefer when slaughter isn't the only approach available. I'm always happy when we can talk our way around obstacles or negotiate reasonable solutions.

I've also played various super-hero genre games which were easily as combat focused as D&D/PF, but were almost entirely free of killing, so it is possible to keep the basic gameplay, but not have the death.

It looks like most of the suggestions here for non-combat/killing games are narrative ones, which aren't really my cup of tea. I wonder if there's anything out there that takes a less narrative approach to non-action role-playing. It seems like you should be able to build a mechanical game around other things than combat. Character builds and mechanical manuevers aimed at diplomacy, for example, that don't just boil down to bonuses to a single die roll.

[Haladir]

thejeff wrote:

It looks like most of the suggestions here for non-combat/killing games are narrative ones, which aren't really my cup of tea. I wonder if there's anything out there that takes a less narrative approach to non-action role-playing. It seems like you should be able to build a mechanical game around other things than combat. Character builds and mechanical manuevers aimed at diplomacy, for example, that don't just boil down to bonuses to a single die roll.

Definitely take a look at Blue Rose 2e.

It uses the Adventure Game Engine (AGE) from Green Ronin, and is very much a traditional RPG. AGE is a d6-based system that uses a 3d6 resolution mechanic (2d6 + "drama die"). As for rules complexity (I'm not fond of the term "crunch" for that)... I'd say on on a par with 5e, or Cortex, or Cypher System.

Other AGE-based games by Green Ronin include the officially-licensed Dragon Age RPG and The Expanse RPRG.

Also: Modiphius' 2d20 System is very much a traditional RPG that's on about the same level of rules complexity. The 2d20 System is what fuels many of their licensed RPGs, including Star Trek Adventures, John Carter of Mars: Adventures on the Dying World of Barsoom, and the new Dune: Adventures in the Imperium.

[Planpanther]

thejeff wrote:

I don't have a real problem with killing in RPGs - it's a staple of the fantasy genre, which I enjoy in and out of gaming. I do prefer when slaughter isn't the only approach available. I'm always happy when we can talk our way around obstacles or negotiate reasonable solutions.

I've also played various super-hero genre games which were easily as combat focused as D&D/PF, but were almost entirely free of killing, so it is possible to keep the basic gameplay, but not have the death.

It looks like most of the suggestions here for non-combat/killing games are narrative ones, which aren't really my cup of tea. I wonder if there's anything out there that takes a less narrative approach to non-action role-playing. It seems like you should be able to build a mechanical game around other things than combat. Character builds and mechanical manuevers aimed at diplomacy, for example, that don't just boil down to bonuses to a single die roll.

I'm a Traveller fan. It is a skill based game that leads to more exploration based adventures. There is a basic combat system and death and killing are real possibilities. Unlike D&D type games though, most enemies are intelligent and don't "fight to the the death". Combat in my games so far is usually who gets the upper-hand and forces the other to surrender.

[Haladir]

Planpanther wrote:

Combat in my games so far is usually who gets the upper-hand and forces the other to surrender.

I am playing in a "Shattered Star" game using the PF1e rules. We generally do the same thing when we're fighting intelligent opponents: We fight until one side has the upper hand and then the losing side either flees or surrenders. Even in PF, you don't have to make every fight to the death (even if the rules seem to encourage it.)

[Planpanther]

Haladir wrote:

Planpanther wrote:

Combat in my games so far is usually who gets the upper-hand and forces the other to surrender.

I am playing in a "Shattered Star" game using the PF1e rules. We generally do the same thing when we're fighting intelligent opponents: We fight until one side has the upper hand and then the losing side either flees or surrenders. Even in PF, you don't have to make every fight to the death (even if the rules seem to encourage it.)

Right a few things seem to really drive the murderhobo elements of D&D/PF. First is awarding XP for killing stuff. I know, I know, its supposed to be for engaging and succeeding at the encounter, but its been ingrained in many in the gaming community that success is murder. Video games and their piles and piles of dead bodies help reinforce this. Also, magic stuff is often held by enemies and they are not likely to fork it over, "from my dead cold hands..." As mentioned, the rules cover combat in hundreds of pages and morale, fleeing, and surrender topics are not given much, if any, attention.

Lastly, the rules usually leave moral judgements completely up to the players. There is little discussion about repercussions for rampant murder in game settings and campaigns. Alignment has largely had its teeth removed from the game and is more of a passing notion these days. Maybe for the best since arguing about murder being good or not can get tedious. Especially, with gamers who try and logic puzzle everything into the good box.

Lot of folks have been developing convoluted systems to allow non-lethal combat and morale systems for fleeing and even fleeing systems themselves. I have come to the idea that the most expedient way to handle this is to just have folks reach a point they simple took too much damage to continue instead of death. Once a character hits that point, no magic can revive them until the encounter is over. This way you can just lay waste as best as your abilities allow and just enjoy combats as they were intended. You can deal with the unconscious defeated foes however afterwards.

[thejeff]

Planpanther wrote:

Lot of folks have been developing convoluted systems to allow non-lethal combat and morale systems for fleeing and even fleeing systems themselves. I have come to the idea that the most expedient way to handle this is to just have folks reach a point they simple took too much damage to continue instead of death. Once a character hits that point, no magic can revive them until the encounter is over. This way you can just lay waste as best as your abilities allow and just enjoy...

Even that really just complicates and brings the moral issues to the forefront. Now rather than killing people in the heat of combat while they're trying to kill you, you're explicitly murdering helpless people after the fact. Or letting them go, often in circumstances where they'll just go right back to being a threat to you or to others.

Sometimes they'll just be obstacles that won't ever be a threat again regardless and in some circumstances you'll be able to deliver them to some kind of formal justice, but very often that's not realistic - in a premodern world, often on urgent quests far from any legitimate authority.

[thejeff]

Haladir wrote:

Planpanther wrote:

Combat in my games so far is usually who gets the upper-hand and forces the other to surrender.

I am playing in a "Shattered Star" game using the PF1e rules. We generally do the same thing when we're fighting intelligent opponents: We fight until one side has the upper hand and then the losing side either flees or surrenders. Even in PF, you don't have to make every fight to the death (even if the rules seem to encourage it.)

While I've been able to pull that off a few times, PF combat often swings very quickly from "we've got the upper hand" to "they're all dead". I've definitely had cases recently where the players went from "We're getting slaughtered, maybe we should run" to "we just won" in less than a round. Much of that is perception - knowing more about how hurt you are and what little you have left for resources than what the other side has left, but some of it just the quick nature of PF combat itself.

[Planpanther]

thejeff wrote:

Planpanther wrote:

Lot of folks have been developing convoluted systems to allow non-lethal combat and morale systems for fleeing and even fleeing systems themselves. I have come to the idea that the most expedient way to handle this is to just have folks reach a point they simple took too much damage to continue instead of death. Once a character hits that point, no magic can revive them until the encounter is over. This way you can just lay waste as best as your abilities allow and just enjoy...

Even that really just complicates and brings the moral issues to the forefront. Now rather than killing people in the heat of combat while they're trying to kill you, you're explicitly murdering helpless people after the fact. Or letting them go, often in circumstances where they'll just go right back to being a threat to you or to others.

Sometimes they'll just be obstacles that won't ever be a threat again regardless and in some circumstances you'll be able to deliver them to some kind of formal justice, but very often that's not realistic - in a premodern world, often on urgent quests far from any legitimate authority.

I hear you, but often these convoluted systems bring you to the same place and you might as well make it easier on yourself.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

To defeat the 'NPCs are crunchy and full of phat lewtz and expees' idea, most non-Organized Play games I'm in have completely dumped experience points, and the GM can then pace the difficulty of encounters and player power level a bit better using 'milestone' advancement.

When you can recruit a formerly hostile hobgoblin army Not Ironfang Invasion, was a home campaign by defeating the nastiest parts of their leadership and showing the rest of the army humane and respectful treatment, that's a milestone.

Especially when you tell said army "We understand you get looked down upon, everyone treats you as a joke but you have honor, you have integrity, and you have discipline. Our forming nation-state lacks some of this, and we want to learn from you as much as you're learning from us."

[Haladir]

In our "Shattered Star" game, we captured every Tower Girl in Shards of Sin, brought them back to town, but hid them from the cops. We then offered to find them all legit jobs. We had a full session of the PCs going around the working- and middle-class districts of Magnimar finding employment for about a dozen former thieves.

And we ended up doing more-or-less the same thing with the Gray Maidens we'd captured over the course of Curse of the Lady's Light: We made introductions to some friendly NPCs in Magnimar and got most of them jobs as body-guards of important people in town or as new recruits for the city's military.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

There are a wealth of games where killing and looting aren't the primary focus. Some of these are even D&D. You can easily play courtly intrigue and slimy merchants and whatnot in many D&D settings without killing anything.

There are plenty of settings where combat and death may well occur but are not necessarily the core aspect of the game.
Legend of the Five Rings is samurai drama with magic and looting is right out unless you want to be a social pariah. Clan politics, duty vs feelings, and intrigue are major components of the game and violence is often a bad solution to a situation (the Crab Clan and major supernatural incidents aside).

In games like Kult you can morally be fine with killing most of your opponents but combat is dangerous and you want to avoid it if possible.

Nibiru fairly recent game, is all about exploring the massive space station you live and and the cultures that have developed there. Intrigue and exploration and survival, with minimal combat.

You can dig up games like The Dying Earth where it explicitly says that if the PCs get into combat something has gone horribly wrong. True to Vance's stories, using your brain and quick tongue or simply running away is the preferred method of resolving conflict.

And of course there are games where killing and looting are just not a thing or strongly discouraged by the game's assumptions, like the MLP game or Maid or High School Harem Comedy.

The core of the issue is, as always, players. It doesn't matter if you play D&D or not, if they just want to kill and loot they will do so and be unhappy if the setting and/or system punish this approach. If players want to avoid combat and looting, they will avoid it almost no matter what game you play.

[Shifty]

There is certainly a tendency for players to shoot first and ask questions later, but equally, there is a tendency for bad-faith GMs who ensure that no good deed ever goes unpunished - any time the players show clemency it is rewarded with treachery.

Definite two way street.

[Pan]

Shifty wrote:

There is certainly a tendency for players to shoot first and ask questions later, but equally, there is a tendency for bad-faith GMs who ensure that no good deed ever goes unpunished - any time the players show clemency it is rewarded with treachery.

Definite two way street.

I had an old school GM for a bit that always punished the PCs for making hard choices. Though, in Kingmaker we let a couple of Bandits go. My character talked the group into it. Since in the ambush we killed a number of bandits before the others surrender. Sort of a message that the new lords are here and capable of kicking ass and mercy kind of thing. One bandit, of course, went back to the bandits, the other went back to town and became a blacksmith. The blacksmith thanked the PCs for sparing him and giving him a new opportunity he never had (which was why he was a bandit.) Was very rewarding specifically to this AP, but just in general to see good things come from the PCs being good people.

[DeathQuaker]

IIRC (and I may not RC) some earlier versions of D&D, you could only get XP by killing monsters and collecting treasure (yes, treasure itself gave you XP). Earning XP for resolving quests, creative problem solving. So this quickly created a paradigm of the kill-n-loot story genre. RPG-inspired video games mimicked this and then reinforced this practice, because it's easier, especially in earlier days when programming/memory capacity meant ways through things had limitations and if you were already going to program in combat then combat was going to be the primary problem solving method. Nethack is an incredible game in its own way, but you will never be able to talk down the Wizard of Yendor.

This said of course early video games also introduced problem- and puzzle-solving adventures... so even early on game designers considered other ways to challenge players. In the Zork series you can play through a fantasy world and your survival more often depends on your ability to know to PLACE WHATSIT on the correct WHOSIT than combat, even though combat exists in the franchise (but you can also screw up by killing something you were supposed to help/transform/aid/scare away/etc). But reliance on puzzle solving for a real life, people around the table sort of game also has issues in that you have to create or find adventures that are good at dropping the right amount of clues and the players have to be good at picking them up. If there's one player really good at puzzle solving and the rest need to be handheld, it's only going to be fun for the one player. So you have to find a balance of different kinds of challenges. Further it relies on player intelligence rather than character intelligence, which can ironically create less immersive gameplay than a combat scene (if done well).

Social gameplay also provides both possibility and limitations--and mind you, I say this as someone who loves having the option to RP and talk my way through things rather than fight. While games like Pathfinder provide mechanics for resolving issues socially, finding a balance between when to RP it out and when to roll dice is not always crystal clear. Do you as a GM want the player to perform their speech to the NPC and hope they hit on the key issues you know are important for the NPC to hear, or do you want them to roll the Diplomacy check? If both, how do you incorporate in the PCs' roleplay into the roll-play. For example, if the PC says something that I think would really be convincing, but it's a critical plot point so I also want them to roll, I might give the PC a circumstance bonus to their Diplomacy check (or lower the DC, which is the same thing mathematically) because of what they said. If the PC really says something offensive then I may increase the DC. But this is how I as a GM handle it; there are no guidelines in the (1e, I don't know 2e) rules for how to do it. And I have played with plenty of GMs who either ignore your roleplay completely and only pay attention to your die rolls (and then there's the a+~$*~+ GM who claimed he encouraged plenty of talking and roleplay, but when my PC made what I felt was a really moving speech to inspire nearby NPCs to battle AND I rolled a Nat 20 to back it up, he said, "You know I just want to move on from this scene, let's just handwave what happens next"). Other GMs just say you can't talk your way through it because the module says so. But if you more deeply codified how to adjudicate roleplay scenes this could also be limiting, still, upon how to handle such scenarios. So it's a but hard to do.

But CAN you play Pathfinder and keep it low on combat? Absolutely. The systems are there. And there's great things like chases and hazards and other ways to negotiate danger or suspense without fighting.

But you need to make it clear with the players: "I want to run a low-combat, intrigue, roleplay, and puzzle solving focused game," and be sure they are buying in. I have had BOTH the experience of declaring I am running a city intrigue game where the players were then constantly being like "So where's the goblins to kill?" and alternately being clear we're in a murderhobo dungeon crawl to result in them trying to negotiate with every giant spider and gelatinous cube they come across (and these different groups of players so it isn't just the same people messing with me). (As an aside is why after many years I've decided to stop GMing for awhile. Whatever I try to do, I just can't adapt to the players constantly derailing everything, and yes, I know that's what players do; I just can't handle it anymore. I'm looking for some other systems to play around with and take a break.) (Okay, no one has ever tried to negotiate with a spider or gelatinous cube, but someone was desperate to get into a conversation with a darkmantle once.) So getting players who are on board with the idea is critical--and is understandably a huge challenge. But it shouldn't be a reason to give up on gaming; it may mean seeking out new groups online however.

For some particular examples of low-combat play in this kind of RPG: the 1e module Plunder and Peril has some great examples of non-combat focused adventuring, even if there is also a lot of combat in some sections (I want to be clear it is not a low-combat module overall, but has some good examples for low-combat encounters). Its first section, which can work as a standalone adventure, has the party engaging in challenges in a festival---there's a race that uses the chase rules, a drinking contest, and some gambling opportunities. There's one organized brawl that could be creatively be turned into a negotiation. In the second section the party needs to get something on an island belonging to a very powerful dragon (CR well above the party's APL) and it outlines clear ways the party can find a way to deal with the dragon peacefully. I could see adventures organized around crime investigations, scavenger hunts, races, and diplomatic issues (I need to reread it but IIRC War for the Crown has a lot of diplomatic scenarios).

So it CAN be done and there are players who enjoy that kind of thing. It may require some custom adventure design and mashing together peaceful sections of various other adventures.

And other systems are also definitely an options; others have made some excellent suggestions. I believe some of the games possible with the FATE system also can veer toward low or no combat, though it depends on the specific adventure; and combat or no the system is focused more on storytelling and scene manipulation than a lot of number crunching and power levels, which may feel refreshing.

I'm not going to say much on the morality issue but I am a pacifist based on religious beliefs, and I enjoy fantasy violence in gaming as a safe, healthy way to let off steam. But for it to remain a healthy outlet, maintaining, respectful, supportive environments with one another at the table as well as a clear reminder that pretendy funtime games are not real life and the two should remain separated is critical.

[Andostre]

I just want to state how much I appreciate how much a thread about non- or less-violent encounters in TTRPGs exists.

Also, I want to state that while there are systems that definitely encourage and reward the sort of play style being talked about here, more importantly is for a GM and their players to be on the same page. I recall starting up a new campaign with an ex-military guy playing with us, and he got upset when the rest of the party started to try and loot the bodies of defeated enemies. And in-character, he was willing to fight the other PCs about it. And this stemmed from his real-life perspective of treating dead bodies with respect. He obviously wasn't the only one who felt this way, but he didn't want to have the conceit that the PCs didn't necessarily feel the same way.

And the game just sort of stalled. The GM hadn't planned any other significant way of passing out loot, and the rest of the players were unprepared for this one player's desire to change how the game was played.

But if he had talked about beforehand, I think we all would have been very receptive to the idea! We could have shared ideas for how we could balance the adventures, and also set boundaries for when looting was acceptable to this player. He was a friend, after all.

So, step 1 is to make sure everyone at the table is on the same page. There's a lot of preconceived notions about the acceptable levels of violence in most games, and changing those notions requires a conversation.

[keftiu]

I would say that a lot of the issues around this topic are solved by having a good session 0 where everyone establishes what they want and expect out of play. If the players think they’re in for a blood-soaked lootfest and the GM wants something more thoughtful, that’s a failure to communicate the foundation of your game, which should happen before play starts.

[Pan]

DeathQuaker wrote:

IIRC (and I may not RC) some earlier versions of D&D, you could only get XP by killing monsters and collecting treasure (yes, treasure itself gave you XP). Earning XP for resolving quests, creative problem solving. So this quickly created a paradigm of the kill-n-loot story genre.

Early on you got XP for getting gold and treasure not from killing things. There was a lot of creative dungeons that tested players to try and get the loot without having to actually fight the monsters. It was considered a bit of a fail state if you did. This style is often referred to as skill play.

I do agree with you that videogames did up the carnage and bloodlust expectations. 3E went with an xp awarded for "defeating" encounters along with a major magic item expectation that could only be paid for in piles of bodies. Diablo influence was pretty obvious.

DeathQuaker wrote:

I'm not going to say much on the morality issue but I am a pacifist based on religious beliefs, and I enjoy fantasy violence in gaming as a safe, healthy way to let off steam. But for it to remain a healthy outlet, maintaining, respectful, supportive environments with one another at the table as well as a clear reminder that pretendy funtime games are not real life and the two should remain separated is critical.

Sound advice.

[thejeff]

Pan wrote:

DeathQuaker wrote:

IIRC (and I may not RC) some earlier versions of D&D, you could only get XP by killing monsters and collecting treasure (yes, treasure itself gave you XP). Earning XP for resolving quests, creative problem solving. So this quickly created a paradigm of the kill-n-loot story genre.

Early on you got XP for getting gold and treasure not from killing things. There was a lot of creative dungeons that tested players to try and get the loot without having to actually fight the monsters. It was considered a bit of a fail state if you did. This style is often referred to as skill play.

I do agree with you that videogames did up the carnage and bloodlust expectations. 3E went with an xp awarded for "defeating" encounters along with a major magic item expectation that could only be paid for in piles of bodies. Diablo influence was pretty obvious.

Of course, just getting xp for gold and treasure isn't really much better, even if it encouraged theft more than murder.

AD&D gave xp for both monsters and gold, though the bulk was likely in gold. In AD&D 2E, xp for gold became an optional rule and other optional rules for specific xp for class based actions and for story goals appeared. The changes in 3E weren't a new video game based idea, but the next step in the direction things were already going. Probably mostly due to the increasing shift towards adventures with actual stories rather than just mercenaries wanting loot. Even though the need for loot was still there, the emphasis shifted to stopping the bad guys rather than just breaking into random creatures lairs and taking their stuff.

[Mark Hoover 330]

So a couple weekends ago I went back to IL for a memorial. One of my best friends from HS passed from ALS. While I was in town I met up for an impromptu "wake" with many of the old "gang" from those days.

What's funny to me is that we all reminisced the most about Marvel games or D&D sessions that were more about escapes, epic tricks and such. We weren't like "remember that time you SLAUGHTERED an entire warband of orcs?" It was more like "Do you remember the 'tablet' campaign, where we tried lashing the indestructible artifact tablets together to make armor out of 'em?"

There was a big emphasis on my old Marvel games, in part b/c they focused on stories. They were ridiculous, over-the-top comic book stories, but they matured with us. In HS it was all ninjas taking over Chicago and the evils of The Mad Golfer (The Tick inspired). By college it was interdimensional wars and characters struggling with alcoholism.

The morality and tenor of the games isn't necessarily housed in the systems used but in that compact between players and game runner. Same goes for whether or not XP for murder is used (didn't get used in most of my AD&D games even when I was a kid), resolving gray areas in rules and so on.

Its funny; my buddy who passed used to run "dark" world games where things were always Pyrrhic victories and the characters were always the underdogs, yet even those were notably murder-free. His games were an exercise in outsmarting him and the foes he presented us more often than confronting foes in combat. It used to frustrate me no end since I am NOT gifted in logic and strategy.

I'm really going to miss him.

[Set]

keftiu wrote:

I would say that a lot of the issues around this topic are solved by having a good session 0 where everyone establishes what they want and expect out of play. If the players think they’re in for a blood-soaked lootfest and the GM wants something more thoughtful, that’s a failure to communicate the foundation of your game, which should happen before play starts.

Yeah, that's key. Manage those expectations.

That said, I've played at least four Vampire games that started out with the promise, 'No really, I want this to be a really political game, not just some combat-fest with dragonsbreath and diablerie everywhere. Build up city contacts and get districts or areas of concern under your thumb, stuff like that.' and I go and make a political Toreador art maven or Ventrue motivational speaker, and BAM! Werewolves attack and kill half the elders and it's a running war scenario, and I voluntarily kill off my political character and replace them with a Brujah combat-monkey with 5 dots in Potence.

It got to the point where I had a combat-twink on hot standby, for when Lucy yanked the football away and it devolved into a Sabbat attack or Infernalist attack or Mages-take-over-the-city or a freaking Nictuku moves in and starts killing entire clans of vampires...

I've had the most success at no-kill games playing, naturally, superhero games like Villains & Vigilantes, Mutants & Masterminds and GURPS Supers, where that sort of thing was just totally against the genre. But even then, there was sure plenty of violence!

(V&V even had rules for property damage, and the more big destructive attacks you missed, the greater the fines you accrued. There were monetary rewards for capturing various high-profile villains, or stopping certain robberies or whatever, but you could end up in debt if you kept throwing energy blasts around willy nilly in town!)