Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5299480" data-attributes="member: 22779">I'm not entirely convinced that making combat more deadly promotes less combat/more role play.  It might, but, I'm not convinced it does.  There are plenty of games with pretty lethal combat rules, that do presume a rather lot of combat.For a game to break out of the kill and loot mentality, you have to completely rewrite the reward system.  Not killing something shouldn't be an equal option, it has to be the better option, because, by and large, the most pragmatic answer to a lot of problems is putting a bullet in it.Take superhero genre games.  In supers games, we're not supposed to kill stuff.  But, the most pragmatic, and probably the best solution is for Batman to let Joker go splat on the pavement after falling off a tall building twice.  Players are almost always more pragmatic than fictional characters.You have to speak to that pragmatism.  Finding a non-violent solution has to presented in the game in such a way that it becomes the best option most of the time.  That way, players will do it.  Because, really, why would I otherwise?  If I put the Joker in Arkham, he'll just escape and hurt more people.  Sure, I could try to convince that tribe of goblins that eating the townsfolk is bad, but, that plan might not  work, and blowing them all up with a fireball solves the problem faster and probably more finally.The scenarios have to be set up in such a way that "Blow them up" is not the solution.I'm really not sure how to achieve that.</blockquote>

Verification