D&D 5E Less killing

[Cadence]

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.

Being better in combat makes one better at killing... does it also make one better at testing the morale of foes and pushing them towards wanting to surrender/run-away/bargain (assuming the world doesn't resort to mutual destruction all the time)?

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

Pardon me for asking, but how old are your kids?

Because PTSD and the murder effect seem to be pretty weighty topics to put on kids.

 

[Charlaquin]

Pardon me for asking, but how old are your kids?

Because PTSD and the murder effect seem to be pretty weighty topics to put on kids.

An argument could be made that it would be better to do that than to treat violence as trivial or even fun. But at that point I think it would be better still to avoid the subject. If you’re too young to engage with the tragic consequences of violence, you’re too young to engage with violence at all.

EDIT: Of course, this is all speaking very theoretically. The reality of the situation is, kids don’t grow up in a vacuum, and they’re going to be exposed to violent media no matter what. I was that kid who’s parents didn’t let them have any toy weapons or watch Power Rangers because it was too violent, and let me tell you, I took advantage of every opportunity I could to play with my friends’ toy weapons and watch all the shows I wasn’t allowed to at home.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Being better in combat makes one better at killing... does it also make one better at testing the morale of foes and pushing them towards wanting to surrender/run-away/bargain (assuming the world doesn't resort to mutual destruction all the time)?

If you've modified the rules to.make those viable mechanical options, then yes, absolutely.

 

[Vaalingrade]

An argument could be made that it would be better to do that than to treat violence as trivial or even fun. But at that point I think it would be better still to avoid the subject. If you’re too young to engage with the tragic consequences of violence, you’re too young to engage with violence at all.

Or the difference between simulated violence and the real thing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Or the difference between simulated violence and the real thing.

Simulacra have very real effects on the real world. It’s still important to consider what messages media sends, even as we recognize that it is artificial.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Simulacra have very real effects on the real world. It’s still important to consider what messages media sends, even as we recognize that it is artificial.

Of course, that allows the argument that violence shouldn't be shone in something meant for entertainment at all. Even so, I agree with the principle.

 

[Voadam]

If you want fun fantasy swords and magic action with your kids that avoids killing then I add my voice to those saying change the default 0 monster hp = dead body to 0 hp = defeated foe.

There are plenty of models to base your game on. I suggest childrens cartoons. Avatar the Last Airbender, Samurai Jack, He-Man, Thundarr the Barbarian, Herculoids, TMNT, all have plenty of fighting with swords and some magic but generally no body counts.

These are fun, these are fantasy, the heroes get to swing big swords. There are generally no piles of people corpses.

You have options like the Samurai Jack one where you are not having your kids kill people, but robot type stand-ins. Skeletons, constructs, magical outsider demons that go poof are good D&D ones.

You can have the kobolds be stand ins for street thugs and the heroes leave them knocked out at 0 hp, perhaps with a note from their friendly neighborhood spider-adventurers.

You can have 0 hp means the bad guys run away or surrender.

 

[Blue]

I'm going to point out here that it's not the combat rules so much as the XP system that's at fault here.

I completely agree with your points about the XP system, but think it shares the blame with the the character creation/advancement and monster rules. Even when you change to milestone levelling (which I have for years/editions), combat is still a all-characters-designed-to-participate option that has much more mechanical support than any other method of challenge resolution, which is mostly skills and some spells, though we have a few class features like the oft-maligned Favored Terrain of the Ranger. 5e doesn't have any frameworks for complex challenge resolution except combat. Something like 4e's skill challenges (a good concept with a somewhat flawed early execution) would give us at least a standardized method for other types of challenges.

 

[Charlaquin]

Of course, that allows the argument that violence shouldn't be shone in something meant for entertainment at all. Even so, I agree with the principle.

Not necessarily, just that it should be done in a responsible context.

 

[Cadence]

If you've modified the rules to.make those viable mechanical options, then yes, absolutely.

Are the rules explicit that NPCs and intelligent monsters fight to the death as the default?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Are the rules explicit that NPCs and intelligent monsters fight to the death as the default?

No, but morale really isnt a thing either; it's all DM fiat.

 

[Cadence]

No, but morale really isnt a thing either; it's all DM fiat.

Should not-having-everything-be-suicidal appeal to those who like their DM fiat hewing to a bit of pseudo-realism?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Should not-having-everything-be-suicidal appeal to those who like their DM fiat hewing to a bit of pseudo-realism?

Yeah, I support the idea of monsters being played intelligently. Softening combat is a Spectrum from more realistic actions all the way to sword tag. All I was saying was that if you were intent on avoiding combat altogether, you're gutting a large portion of the 5e engine.

 

[iserith]

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

Combat is roleplaying and doesn't require less creativity in my view that engaging with other pillars of play, but otherwise agree that players tend to do what they're incentivized to do provided they understand the goals and incentives (and find them fun and memorable to pursue).

 

[Shiroiken]

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,

As one of the people who favor that style, it's not that the game can't do it, it's that we feel it doesn't do it particularly well. Having morale be an optional rule is good, as even back in the day a lot of DMs just ignored it. However, I've found from experience that the saving throw method doesn't work particularly well, and would prefer a better one from prior editions. I don't think another game is necessarily the best option, but some houserules are needed to make it work.

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 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.

IMO people overemphasis the downside of taking an opportunity attack. Yes, it "feels" bad, but there are a lot of times when it's tactically the best option. I've taken them both as a DM and player when the situation called for it, and only a handful of times have a felt it was the wrong decision afterwards (the most notable one was taking a crit that dropped me to 0 HP). As a DM, if a creature has only a handful of HP and their opponent isn't engaged with another enemy, taking disengage is stupid, since the PCs can just move up and kill them on their turn.

 

[iserith]

As to incentives, I should note that in my street level heroes/D&D mashup game, there are two ways for the PCs to earn XP:

• Capture villains and supervillains and take them to the asylum
• Donate gold to the local orphanage

Because the players want to optimize their ability to level up, what this looks like in practice is that they knock out villains and supervillains and kill mooks in hilarious and gruesome ways. Having to knock out villains and supervillains often means that they have to sometimes engage in unusual tactics in order to get the job done, and certain villains have traits that make it hard to capture them (like gaseous or oozy monsters). It also means that they have to now protect unconscious villains and transport them around in adventure locations which isn't very convenient, presenting an add-on challenge.

The gold donation is 1 GP : 1 XP and creates a trade-off between leveling up or buying gear (including magic items). So they have to choose how they want to get more powerful, essentially, and good works is one way.

Fiddling with how PCs earn XP absolutely works in my experience and drives play toward the campaign themes.

 

[Zaukrie]

Even as an adult, I struggle with the killing. Then I remember that it is a game largely about killing (for some groups).....

I think the key, for me, is to set up completely different kinds of adventures. I am not a fan of zero is defeated. If you live bad guys alive, they tend to come back over and over.....but you don't have to run your world that way. Maybe defeated never (almost) fight the same people again.

I'd want to run adventures that weren't about killing.....finding missing kids, or figuring out how to get a river flowing again. Sure, there could be a monster or two, but there can be a ton of other things to do besides fighting involving exploring.

As for leveling? Just don't use XP. Level when they complete a mission (or three).

All that said, it is largely a game built around fighting stuff (not that you have to, but those are the roots).

edit to add: I've been playing for 50 years, and for no group I ever played in was avoiding combat the goal. Finding the bad guys and making sure they never hurt anyone else ever again was (most of the time). So, I don't agree that was the only way the game used to be played. YMMV, as usual.

 

[Charlaquin]

IMO people overemphasis the downside of taking an opportunity attack. Yes, it "feels" bad, but there are a lot of times when it's tactically the best option. I've taken them both as a DM and player when the situation called for it, and only a handful of times have a felt it was the wrong decision afterwards (the most notable one was taking a crit that dropped me to 0 HP). As a DM, if a creature has only a handful of HP and their opponent isn't engaged with another enemy, taking disengage is stupid, since the PCs can just move up and kill them on their turn.

I agree! I think the fact that it feels wrong is why so many players work so hard to avoid provoking OAs, even when it is the best tactical option. But really it’s not that bad to take an OA most of the time.

 

[Ry]

Even though they’re quite taxing, my take is that exhaustion points have to be at least as far for real psychological trauma as hitpoints are from battlefield wounds. I’m still trying to point at and gamify a boundary, not take them through Apocalypse Now.