D&D 5E Less killing

[Ry]

I really appreciate the suggestions so far. I am aware of the exhaustion death spiral and that's... that's kind of my feelings coming through about

• violence
• situations that risk violent death
• the toll both the above takes on soldiers and survivors

In my mind, that's more than the binary where 0 = knockout or 0 hp = kill, and the experience of people in war almost stand in direct opposition to the concept of combat experience.

 

[overgeeked]

I really appreciate the suggestions so far. I am aware of the exhaustion death spiral and that's... that's kind of my feelings coming through about

• violence
• situations that risk violent death
• the toll both the above takes on soldiers and survivors

In my mind, that's more than the binary where 0 = knockout or 0 hp = kill, and the experience of people in war almost stand in direct opposition to the concept of combat experience.

Respectfully, if you want a game that emulates real-world combat experience, D&D is absolutely not the game to use.

 

[Ry]

Separately, As for other systems, I'm open to suggestions but I'd like suggestions that have a lot of support. I'm a big fan of limiting down from many options to a small set, to customize the rules to a campaign (e.g. imagine a game where only artificers, rogues, rangers, and eldritch knights do magic, and monsters are natural animals or aberrations. Wouldn't that be interesting?)

As much as I'm interested in Avatar Legends or PbTA I'm not as confident I can mix and match the way I want in order to do my own thing, and know what I'm getting (on behalf of my players of course).

 

[Charlaquin]

I really appreciate the suggestions so far. I am aware of the exhaustion death spiral and that's... that's kind of my feelings coming through about

• violence
• situations that risk violent death
• the toll both the above takes on soldiers and survivors

In my mind, that's more than the binary where 0 = knockout or 0 hp = kill, and the experience of people in war almost stand in direct opposition to the concept of combat experience.

Gotcha. I mean, I definitely agree with you that D&D doesn’t reflect the brutal reality of violence and the physical and psychological toll it takes on both the victims and the perpetrators. However, I don’t think that’s something D&D has ever really aimed to reflect. While I usually dislike the “if you don’t like it, play something else” argument, I think that you will find that it’s a lot more work to make D&D do what you’re trying to do here than it would be to play a game that is actually designed to do it, and for all that extra work, you’ll still likely end up with a result that’s worse at it than another game would be.

 

[overgeeked]

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.

One morale system I like using is the old 2d6 method. If I don't know what their morale is at the start of a fight, I'll roll 2d6. That's their morale. At the start of every round everyone (NPCs and monsters) make morale checks. If they roll over their morale on 2d6, they run. But morale decreases when: first hit on your side, first death on your side, your leader dies, and every time you make a morale check. So the longer and worse the fight is for one side, the quicker their morale breaks and they run. When there's more than a few opponents, I batch them up to make the record keeping easier.

 

[Rune]

Respectfully, if you want a game that emulates real-world combat experience, D&D is absolutely not the game to use.

It seems more like the goal is a game that emulates the real-world psychological aftermath of combat. D&D seems a poor fit for that, as well, though.

There might be some indie games out there that explore it.

I have to wonder though: are their any kids that would actually enjoy this experience? Even for a one-shot, let alone a full campaign?

 

[overgeeked]

Separately, As for other systems, I'm open to suggestions but I'd like suggestions that have a lot of support. I'm a big fan of limiting down from many options to a small set, to customize the rules to a campaign (e.g. imagine a game where only artificers, rogues, rangers, and eldritch knights do magic, and monsters are natural animals or aberrations. Wouldn't that be interesting?)

As much as I'm interested in Avatar Legends or PbTA I'm not as confident I can mix and match the way I want in order to do my own thing, and know what I'm getting (on behalf of my players of course).

If you're looking for something that "more accurately" reflects the experience of combat vets, check out Delta Green. Several actual combat vets have said positive things about how it handles the aftermath of combat and the emotional toll combat takes.

 

[Charlaquin]

One morale system I like using is the old 2d6 method. If I don't know what their morale is at the start of a fight, I'll roll 2d6. That's their morale. At the start of every round everyone (NPCs and monsters) make morale checks. If they roll over their morale on 2d6, they run. But morale decreases when: first hit on your side, first death on your side, your leader dies, and every time you make a morale check. So the longer and worse the fight is for one side, the quicker their morale breaks and they run. When there's more than a few opponents, I batch them up to make the record keeping easier.

Yeah, that’s a fine system, but it’s more mechanization of the process than I personally need or want. I prefer a simple mechanic like a Wis save, with some dials I can adjust based on my own judgment, such as when to trigger it, what DC to set for it, and what the results of success and failure are. Keeps it simple, easy to remember, while still being versatile enough to cover a wide range of situations.

 

[Charlaquin]

It seems more like the goal is a game that emulates the real-world psychological aftermath of combat. D&D seems a poor fit for that, as well, though.

There might be some indie games out there that explore it.

I have to wonder though: are their any kids that would actually enjoy this experience? Even for a one-shot, let alone a full campaign?

Yeah, I’m all for a game that delves into the physical and psychological trauma of war… but I don’t think that would be a great game for kids. Young adults and mature teens, maybe.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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

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.

As a DM, I have been mostly unconcerned with triggering Opportunity Attacks. It gives one or more players a chance to do something cool and progress the encounter.

I do like both @Charlaquin's creature-appropriate morale check idea as well as @iserith's morale trait idea - I'll likely try out both in our current campaign instead of winging it like I've been doing. One less thing to think about in the heat of battle!

 

[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.