D&D 5E Less killing

[Ry]

The body count in D&D really bums me out, especially when it comes to my players (my kids).

The kill count of an adventurer who makes it to level 20 is only one seen by a small number of machine gun operators in modern times. Soldiers who kill in war have high incidence of PTSD and other mental illness. I have a hard time getting away from that idea that this Robocop II level bodycount really makes the game bleak and sad.

What if

• most enemies stopped attacking after half damage, and tried to reach safety instead
• when you take half your hit points worth of damage you get a level of exhaustion
• when you come back from zero hit points you have a level of exhaustion
• most opponents swoon or cower after 3/4 damage
• if you have killed a person, on a long rest you had to make a flat d20 roll and beat 10+ the number of people you killed or your rest doesn't clear any exhaustion

?

question: does that just ruin D&D or could it still be fun?

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Why not state that 0 HP isn't death but simply "enemy decides not to fight any more"?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don’t know if it would actually ruin D&D, but I suspect the gang over at TSR3 would take it as another sign of the impending demise of RPGs and blow their collective gaskets. Which is the exact reason we should try it.

Purely as a psychology experiment of course. No malice intended. All in the name of science.

 

[Morrus]

Why not state that 0 HP isn't death but simply "enemy decides not to fight any more"?

Yeah, make it mean “defeated” instead.

 

[iserith]

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.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

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.

While this is a good idea from earlier editions that should be revived, it means less engagement with the combat system. And with some editions of D&D that's most of the game.

 

[overgeeked]

Give fights alternate win conditions that don’t involve murder. Give the characters time limited goals that can’t be completed if they take the time to kill everything. Make killing things detrimental to successfully completing the mission. As mentioned above, make 0 hp defeated instead of dead and stop awarding XP for killing monsters. Most players go where the XP is. Reward whatever style of play you want to encourage.

 

[iserith]

While this is a good idea from earlier editions that should be revived, it means less engagement with the combat system. And with some editions of D&D that's most of the game.

It works fine in D&D 5e in my experience. It's not like combat goes to zero. It just incentivizes getting paid in other ways.

 

[Charlaquin]

The body count in D&D really bums me out, especially when it comes to my players (my kids).

The kill count of an adventurer who makes it to level 20 is only one seen by a small number of machine gun operators in modern times. Soldiers who kill in war have high incidence of PTSD and other mental illness. I have a hard time getting away from that idea that this Robocop II level bodycount really makes the game bleak and sad.

I agree that the body counts in D&D often get too high for my liking, especially when fighting people and animals - I don’t mind so much when it’s things like demons, devils, mind flayers, beholders, etc. I think the best way to deal with this is to insure that killing is usually not the optimal way to resolve a conflict.

What if

• most enemies stopped attacking after half damage, and tried to reach safety instead

I think this should be the case anyway. In fact, I have most intelligent enemies roll a Wisdom save when they get below half health. Depending on the enemy, they might stand and fight on a success and flee on a failure, or they might make a tactical retreat on a success and flee on a failure. With ravenous monsters, they might go berserk on a failure and maintain their composure on a success. And with animals, I have them roll the first time they take damage, unless they’re specifically trained for combat or under some kind of magical compulsion.

• when you take half your hit points worth of damage you get a level of exhaustion
• when you come back from zero hit points you have a level of exhaustion
• if you have killed a person, on a long rest you had to make a flat d20 roll and beat 10+ the number of people you killed or your rest doesn't clear any exhaustion

I don’t think these are a good idea. Exhaustion is brutal, and any one of thes would lead to a death spiral effect very quickly.

• most opponents swoon or cower after 3/4 damage

I like that one though. That’s a good addition to the half health one.

 

[aco175]

does that just ruin D&D or could it still be fun?

Basically, yes it ruins D&D.

The whole reason the game was made is to kill bad guys, gain XP and treasure, and then kill bigger monsters to gain bigger items and XP.

If playing with children, you could have them run away and throw down their weapons, sort of like the old G.I.Joe cartoon where the plane or tank would blow up and you see the pilot get out before it does. You could also have dungeons with ghosts that burst like balloons.