D&D 5E Less killing

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

I do agree that incentives can certainly drive behavior.

Although, in our current campaign where players earn session-based XP, I haven't seen them pull back from fighting perceived baddies to the death. Granted, it's a Curse of Strahd/Ravenloft West Marches game so, yeah, the undead are not letting up. But we (multiple DMs) have introduced new factions of potential enemies that are not undead - and the players more often than not opt to wipe them out anyway. Even the poor lone ratfolk scout who wasn't even supposed to be working that day!

 

[embee]

You could make it so killing monsters doesn't earn XP. Perhaps adventurers earn XP by finding and spending gold. Then just hide the gold in places you have to find or as part of the rewards for overcoming a social interaction challenge. It's not a new idea, but it works.

I tend to award more HP for resolving an encounter without killing. Smashy-smashy and stabby-stabby require less creativity than RP.

 

[Cadence]

My (now) 12yo and his friends didn't really know where experience points came from, and I've been making them story/achievement based.

They regularly try to bargain with, capture, or escape from the bad guys instead of killing them. It doesn't feel like it's hard to put running away, surrender, and bargaining into D&D to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I tend to award more HP for resolving an encounter without killing. Smashy-smashy and stabby-stabby require less creativity than RP.

And yet, leveling up demonstrably makes you better at fighting. Seems pretty clear what the game is learned toward.

 

[embee]

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

Feinting is a well-known tactic from military history. The Magyars and Hunns used it extensively, as did the Seljuk Turks. WIlliam the Conqueror used multiple feints at Hastings, as did Genghis Khan in his conquest of Samarkand.

Perhaps there is a more war-gamey system than 5e that could either be used or adapted.

 

[Cadence]

And yet, leveling up demonstrably makes you better at fighting. Seems pretty clear what the game is learned toward.

Is the improvement in fighting with the proficiency bonus equal to the improvement in everything else?

 

[Micah Sweet]

My (now) 12yo and his friends didn't really know where experience points came from, and I've been making them story/achievement based.

They regularly try to bargain with, capture, or escape from the bad guys instead of killing them. It doesn't feel like it's hard to put running away, surrender, and bargaining into D&D to me.

It absolutely isn't, as long as you and players want it that way, and you're ok with an expected smaller engagement with the game's .mechanics.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’ve found players are particularly worried - perhaps even irrationally so - about Opportunity Attacks. Even when they have no hesitation about stepping up into melee range in the first place. Even when it is an enemy whose melee attack doesn't do much damage. Maybe it has something to do with giving the enemy a free attack. IDK.

I think it’s 100% because of the “free” attack. Even though using your action to disengage instead of attack is actually a bad proposition for the players, especially if they have Extra Attack, it just feels wrong to just let the enemy get an attack in on your turn because you moved. Like you’re handing them something for nothing.

 

[Cadence]

It absolutely isn't, as long as you and players want it that way, and you're ok with an expected smaller engagement with the game's .mechanics.

They still have plenty of things die... but also cast spells for non-combat things and make a lot of various other ability/skill checks. So I wonder if they hit some more of some of the other mechanics to balance it out a bit.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is the improvement in fighting with the proficiency bonus equal to the improvement in everything else?

Not just proficiency bonus. Hit points, class abilities, feats; all of these things have a potential (sometimes very heavy potential) of making you better at combat.