D&D 5E Less killing

[Charlaquin]

This.
Players kill because that's usually the easiest, most straightforward way to achieve their goals. Put a XP reward on top of that and the decision to kill becomes a no brainer.

If you really have a problem with all the killing, you just have to offer alternative ways for the party to handle obstacles.

That said, I would also like to point that there are systems better suited to that play style than D&D.

It’s true, but this advice is only helpful if the group actually uses XP, which it seems so few do nowadays.

 

[Charlaquin]

IT's really weird how the 'real' way to play D&D as per the Old Ways was to avoid fighting the monsters at all and people are cosntantly lamenting the lack of morale stats, but if someone asks about reducing the killing, they should find a new game.

It can seem that way, but I suspect it’s different people saying these things.

 

[overgeeked]

It's really weird how the 'real' way to play D&D as per the Old Ways was to avoid fighting the monsters at all and people are cosntantly lamenting the lack of morale stats, but if someone asks about reducing the killing, they should find a new game.

It's truly bizarre. Back in the day the smart play was to go as combat as war as you could make it, thus avoiding unnecessary risk of death...because combat was brutal, hit points low, damage high, and death was easy to come by. Now it's so combat as sport the mantra seems to be "don't think, just charge and attack everything...the system will protect you from any consequences...and what little consequences there are have been trivialized, including death".

 

[Sword of Spirit]

If you want to use a makeshift morale system with attribute checks, I would definitely use Charisma rather than Wisdom. Wisdom should help you figure out that it‘s a good idea to run away—not make you stay and die like an idiot. Charisma is a better choice for someone just staying to fight because they are confident (or overconfident).

Of course it‘s the same I have with using a characters Wisdom to oppose you when you are trying to persuade them to something that‘s actually to their own benefit? Wouldn‘t a character with higher Wisdom be more likely to realize this is a good idea, not less? Just treating Wisdom as the stubbornness stat is really off to me.

Personally, I just decide what it makes sense for them to do, and only roll when in doubt. I do say that everything is happening so fast in the first round that characters haven’t had time to process that they are losing, so nobody that was actually planning on being in the fight (as opposed to someone who bolts at the first sign of drawn blades) is going to run on the first turn. That makes it easier for the players to not have to constantly chase down creatures they don’t want to let get away. If you want to minimize killing, you could do the opposite—decide that anyone who isn't super committed to the fight automatically surrenders or flees on their first turn if it looks like the fight isn’t going their way.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's truly bizarre. Back in the day the smart play was to go as combat as war as you could make it, thus avoiding unnecessary risk of death...because combat was brutal, hit points low, damage high, and death was easy to come by. Now it's so combat as sport the mantra seems to be "don't think, just charge and attack everything...the system will protect you from any consequences...and what little consequences there are have been trivialized, including death".

I think it’s an understandable evolution. D&D developed from war gaming, so naturally combat-as-war was the default, and also naturally, the majority of the game mechanics were focused on combat. As more people picked up the game, they understandably wanted to utilize the game’s mechanics more, which meant going into combat more. But that desire to actively pursue combat clashed with the inherent lethality of combat-as-war. D&D is a game with a heavy mechanical focus on combat, so making combat more fun as a game (or a sport) is the obvious trajectory.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's truly bizarre. Back in the day the smart play was to go as combat as war as you could make it, thus avoiding unnecessary risk of death...because combat was brutal, hit points low, damage high, and death was easy to come by. Now it's so combat as sport the mantra seems to be "don't think, just charge and attack everything...the system will protect you from any consequences...and what little consequences there are have been trivialized, including death".

Well yeah, no doubt the game has vastly improved from that era, but it's weird that people who favor that style tell people avoiding killing is something the game can't do.

It can seem that way, but I suspect it’s different people saying these things.

Not all.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you want to use a makeshift morale system with attribute checks, I would definitely use Charisma rather than Wisdom. Wisdom should help you figure out that it‘s a good idea to run away—not make you stay and die like an idiot. Charisma is a better choice for someone just staying to fight because they are confident (or overconfident).

Of course it‘s the same I have with using a characters Wisdom to oppose you when you are trying to persuade them to something that‘s actually to their own benefit? Wouldn‘t a character with higher Wisdom be more likely to realize this is a good idea, not less? Just treating Wisdom as the stubbornness stat is really off to me.

None of the attributes really fit, but 5e uses Wisdom as the go-to stat to save against fear effects. That said, I do quite like the idea that passing a Wisdom save would be what causes a creature to recognize it’s in over its head and retreat. I have this with some enemies, where a successful Morale save causes them to make a tactical retreat and a failed one causes them to panic and flee. Maybe a good option would be if failure instead triggered fight-or-flight, with which option an enemy goes with determined by a follow-up roll of some sort.

EDIT: Oh, here’s an idea! Maybe instead of a secondary roll, enemies Flee if they fail by less than 5 and Fight if they fail by 5 or more.

 

[overgeeked]

Well yeah, no doubt the game has vastly improved from that era...

That's a subjective opinion I disagree with vehemently.

but it's weird that people who favor that style tell people avoiding killing is something the game can't do.

I favor that style of play. I'm here in this thread telling people that you can absolutely avoid killing in any version of D&D.

 

[Malmuria]

Minor point, but the attacks of opportunity/disengage rules are something of a barrier to enemies (or PCs) fleeing. You could even imagine enemies fleeing not just to run away, but to establish a better position, but the stickiness of combat makes that less tactically effective

 

[Charlaquin]

Minor point, but the attacks of opportunity/disengage rules are something of a barrier to enemies (or PCs) fleeing. You could even imagine enemies fleeing not just to run away, but to establish a better position, but the stickiness of combat makes that less tactically effective

This is why I distinguish between tactical retreat and flight. A retreating creature disengages and moves away by the safest route it can find, avoiding attacks of opportunity if possible and attacking enemies that block its escape if necessary. A fleeing creature dashes and moves away by the most direct route possible, risking as many attacks of opportunity as necessary to escape.