Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Worlds of Design: Peaceful Solutions to Violent Problems
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lewpuls" data-source="post: 8620435" data-attributes="member: 30518"><p style="text-align: center"></p><p>How can we provide non-violent means of resolving conflicts with monsters and NPCs in RPGs?</p><p></p><p style="text-align: center">[ATTACH=full]156365[/ATTACH]</p> <p style="text-align: center"><a href="https://pixabay.com/illustrations/handshake-portal-fantasy-hands-6674572/" target="_blank">Picture courtesy of Pixabay.</a></p><p></p><p>Recently I noticed a discussion online about the percentage of time spent in combat in RPGs. Many felt that in D&D, most of playing time is spent in combat. With war wracking the world, the great ugliness of civilian (and military) deaths may have reinforced the inclination of many people to want to avoid combat even in a game that’s normally about adventuring and conflict.</p><h2>An Example</h2><p>My friend in a D&D game encountered a werewolf with a slave. I expected the normal reaction of an adventuring party: attack the werewolf both to save the slave and to despoil the werewolf of any treasure it may have. Or they would decide to walk away rather than fight. Instead, his character made disparaging remarks about the slave to drive down the price, then finally bought the slave and freed him. My friend has been a wargamer for more than 45 years, so doesn’t shy away from conflict in games. But he thought it was more interesting (and safer for the characters) to resolve the confrontation in a peaceful way.</p><p></p><p>So I asked myself, what tends to encourage nonviolent resolution of problems?</p><h2>The Rules</h2><p>The rules themselves can have a lot to do with perceptions of how to resolve disagreements without violence. If there are lots of rules for nonviolent interaction then you’d expect players to be more likely to use nonviolent interaction. If there aren’t many rules for that, then naturally players are going to resort to violence. Conversely, if the rules are all about combat, how are the players going to solve problems?</p><p></p><p>I think of Fourth edition D&D, which emphasized co-operative combat. Removing a lot of the non-combat related rules in an attempt to balance the classes against each other stripped away a lot of strategic parts of early versions of D&D, removing a principal method of peaceful resolution (see below).</p><h2>The GM</h2><p>The GM has a lot to do with the amount of violence in a game, whatever may or may not be in the ruleset. If the GM thinks that the game is <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4580-RPG-Combat-Sport-or-War" target="_blank">all more like a competitive sport</a>, he or she will probably be happy to have lots of combat as if it was some kind of football game. If the GM sees the whole thing as closer to war, <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/worlds-of-design-stratagems.682526/" target="_blank">he or she will let players resort to stratagems</a> and other ways to “not fight fair”, or not fight at all.</p><p></p><p>The setting may also promote non-violent (or violent) methods of resolving disagreements. Say the player characters live in a city governed by rigid imperials who just do not tolerate violence.</p><p></p><p>The obvious idea from a game design point of view is to make combat so dangerous (debilitating or even lethal) <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/worlds-of-design-the-lost-art-of-running-away.673677/" target="_blank">that it’s much smarter to find other paths to success</a>. There have been RPGs of that sort, just as there have been RPGs that are about combat and little else.</p><p></p><p>My guess is that the less precise the rules are, the more they leave to the negotiation between the players and the GM, then the more often the players will try to find nonviolent ways to resolve disagreement. I’ve not played FATE, for example, but it appears on reading to be the kind of game that encourages players to figure out clever, nonviolent ways to succeed.</p><h2>Strategy vs. Tactics</h2><p>Strategic as opposed to tactical methods of finding success can also make a big difference. Keep in mind that tactics refers to what you do during a battle, while strategy is what you do aside from the actual battles. By strategic methods I mean actions like negotiation, politics, influencing the authorities, making money via business, finding allies, devising ways to intimidate on a large-scale, etc.</p><p></p><p>I’d speculate that the strategic methods are going to be more prevalent in a campaign that is primarily active in a city than one that is primarily about dungeon crawling and exploration. The former offers lots of opportunities for strategy. Dungeons and exploring are where violence is more likely to occur.</p><p></p><p>Some people might suggest that removing occasions for “useless” combat will help – useless in the sense of not achieving some mission or story goal. <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4185-Let-s-Not-Save-The-World-Again" target="_blank">Because I think pacing is important</a>, I am not bothered by such “useless” combats, as they provide a contrast with the really important combats, and even help players practice their tactics. You need both lows and highs, unimportant and important. If every combat is important (“not useless”) then they all become mediocre. Moreover, I like to see good players decide when a combat might be pointless, and (try to) avoid it.</p><p></p><p><strong>Your Turn: What percentage of playing time is spent in combat in your RPGs (and which ruleset are you using?)</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lewpuls, post: 8620435, member: 30518"] [CENTER][/CENTER] How can we provide non-violent means of resolving conflicts with monsters and NPCs in RPGs? [CENTER][ATTACH type="full" alt="handshake-6674572_960_720.jpg"]156365[/ATTACH] [URL='https://pixabay.com/illustrations/handshake-portal-fantasy-hands-6674572/']Picture courtesy of Pixabay.[/URL][/CENTER] Recently I noticed a discussion online about the percentage of time spent in combat in RPGs. Many felt that in D&D, most of playing time is spent in combat. With war wracking the world, the great ugliness of civilian (and military) deaths may have reinforced the inclination of many people to want to avoid combat even in a game that’s normally about adventuring and conflict. [HEADING=1]An Example[/HEADING] My friend in a D&D game encountered a werewolf with a slave. I expected the normal reaction of an adventuring party: attack the werewolf both to save the slave and to despoil the werewolf of any treasure it may have. Or they would decide to walk away rather than fight. Instead, his character made disparaging remarks about the slave to drive down the price, then finally bought the slave and freed him. My friend has been a wargamer for more than 45 years, so doesn’t shy away from conflict in games. But he thought it was more interesting (and safer for the characters) to resolve the confrontation in a peaceful way. So I asked myself, what tends to encourage nonviolent resolution of problems? [HEADING=1]The Rules[/HEADING] The rules themselves can have a lot to do with perceptions of how to resolve disagreements without violence. If there are lots of rules for nonviolent interaction then you’d expect players to be more likely to use nonviolent interaction. If there aren’t many rules for that, then naturally players are going to resort to violence. Conversely, if the rules are all about combat, how are the players going to solve problems? I think of Fourth edition D&D, which emphasized co-operative combat. Removing a lot of the non-combat related rules in an attempt to balance the classes against each other stripped away a lot of strategic parts of early versions of D&D, removing a principal method of peaceful resolution (see below). [HEADING=1]The GM[/HEADING] The GM has a lot to do with the amount of violence in a game, whatever may or may not be in the ruleset. If the GM thinks that the game is [URL='http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4580-RPG-Combat-Sport-or-War']all more like a competitive sport[/URL], he or she will probably be happy to have lots of combat as if it was some kind of football game. If the GM sees the whole thing as closer to war, [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/worlds-of-design-stratagems.682526/']he or she will let players resort to stratagems[/URL] and other ways to “not fight fair”, or not fight at all. The setting may also promote non-violent (or violent) methods of resolving disagreements. Say the player characters live in a city governed by rigid imperials who just do not tolerate violence. The obvious idea from a game design point of view is to make combat so dangerous (debilitating or even lethal) [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/worlds-of-design-the-lost-art-of-running-away.673677/']that it’s much smarter to find other paths to success[/URL]. There have been RPGs of that sort, just as there have been RPGs that are about combat and little else. My guess is that the less precise the rules are, the more they leave to the negotiation between the players and the GM, then the more often the players will try to find nonviolent ways to resolve disagreement. I’ve not played FATE, for example, but it appears on reading to be the kind of game that encourages players to figure out clever, nonviolent ways to succeed. [HEADING=1]Strategy vs. Tactics[/HEADING] Strategic as opposed to tactical methods of finding success can also make a big difference. Keep in mind that tactics refers to what you do during a battle, while strategy is what you do aside from the actual battles. By strategic methods I mean actions like negotiation, politics, influencing the authorities, making money via business, finding allies, devising ways to intimidate on a large-scale, etc. I’d speculate that the strategic methods are going to be more prevalent in a campaign that is primarily active in a city than one that is primarily about dungeon crawling and exploration. The former offers lots of opportunities for strategy. Dungeons and exploring are where violence is more likely to occur. Some people might suggest that removing occasions for “useless” combat will help – useless in the sense of not achieving some mission or story goal. [URL='http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4185-Let-s-Not-Save-The-World-Again']Because I think pacing is important[/URL], I am not bothered by such “useless” combats, as they provide a contrast with the really important combats, and even help players practice their tactics. You need both lows and highs, unimportant and important. If every combat is important (“not useless”) then they all become mediocre. Moreover, I like to see good players decide when a combat might be pointless, and (try to) avoid it. [B]Your Turn: What percentage of playing time is spent in combat in your RPGs (and which ruleset are you using?)[/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Worlds of Design: Peaceful Solutions to Violent Problems
Top