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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Killing In The Name Of Advancement
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="Dragonmoose" data-source="post: 7743750" data-attributes="member: 6889380"><p>I hardly ever post-I lurk in the shadows and when time allows I read the virtual reams of posts on topics like this. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that some folks here seem to feel that non-violent resolutions and perhaps the mechanics and guidance that could go with it, need to be baked into a game system. The thing is...isn't that what "role playing" is for?</p><p></p><p>In any sort of adventure rpg: fantasy, sci-fi, pulp, super hero, etc. there's always a chance that physical violence may be necessary. It's really one of the few things that require some sort of ruleset to resolve it properly. We can't really solve these situations purely narratively as there will be some that will balk if their character somehow fails at something they are good at (" What do you mean my shot went wide? My character is a marksman. He tripped on a rock?! What rock?") so some mechanism must be in place. Plus with all the things that can happen in combat, they need to be laid out with the mechanics used to resolve them. Most of us probably never seen real combat so a rule set that covers the possibilities is necessary, IMO.</p><p></p><p>Now non violence? That's choice. It doesn't need to be spelled out (at least I hope it doesn't) that it's an option. RPG's aren't video games that are hard locked that you can't go from point A to point B without mowing something down. So if a player decides to smoke out the goblins from a cave rather than fight them, that's just a choice. A choice that could net extra XP for thinking of it and perhaps even using any skills need to make such a situation. But it doesn't need black and white text to say you CAN do this. </p><p></p><p>It's always been stated, at least in D&D (at least in the past-I haven't read 5E PHB in a while to recall), that the rules were guidelines. We're also told that our character's actions are up to our imaginations and we should communicate with our GM on what we want to happen. That's it. That's all that's needed (beyond any skill resoluyion of course). </p><p></p><p>As for advancement, don't GMs award for things characters do beyond defeating foes? Role playing bonuses? Using your character's abilities at strategic moments? </p><p></p><p>In the end it's how your GM and the players handle the game. If the theme is being a brigade of death dealing bad-acres out to cleanse your medieval neighborhood, then do it. If the theme is repelling the orcs from invading a town, but just run them out after a thrashing w ith a warning to never come back, you can do that too. But please leave the rules alone. They don't need more bulk.</p><p></p><p>(Edited: OP didn't mention anything about non-violence. Changed that.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dragonmoose, post: 7743750, member: 6889380"] I hardly ever post-I lurk in the shadows and when time allows I read the virtual reams of posts on topics like this. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that some folks here seem to feel that non-violent resolutions and perhaps the mechanics and guidance that could go with it, need to be baked into a game system. The thing is...isn't that what "role playing" is for? In any sort of adventure rpg: fantasy, sci-fi, pulp, super hero, etc. there's always a chance that physical violence may be necessary. It's really one of the few things that require some sort of ruleset to resolve it properly. We can't really solve these situations purely narratively as there will be some that will balk if their character somehow fails at something they are good at (" What do you mean my shot went wide? My character is a marksman. He tripped on a rock?! What rock?") so some mechanism must be in place. Plus with all the things that can happen in combat, they need to be laid out with the mechanics used to resolve them. Most of us probably never seen real combat so a rule set that covers the possibilities is necessary, IMO. Now non violence? That's choice. It doesn't need to be spelled out (at least I hope it doesn't) that it's an option. RPG's aren't video games that are hard locked that you can't go from point A to point B without mowing something down. So if a player decides to smoke out the goblins from a cave rather than fight them, that's just a choice. A choice that could net extra XP for thinking of it and perhaps even using any skills need to make such a situation. But it doesn't need black and white text to say you CAN do this. It's always been stated, at least in D&D (at least in the past-I haven't read 5E PHB in a while to recall), that the rules were guidelines. We're also told that our character's actions are up to our imaginations and we should communicate with our GM on what we want to happen. That's it. That's all that's needed (beyond any skill resoluyion of course). As for advancement, don't GMs award for things characters do beyond defeating foes? Role playing bonuses? Using your character's abilities at strategic moments? In the end it's how your GM and the players handle the game. If the theme is being a brigade of death dealing bad-acres out to cleanse your medieval neighborhood, then do it. If the theme is repelling the orcs from invading a town, but just run them out after a thrashing w ith a warning to never come back, you can do that too. But please leave the rules alone. They don't need more bulk. (Edited: OP didn't mention anything about non-violence. Changed that.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Killing In The Name Of Advancement
Top