Moral Dilemma: Killing and Deaths in RPGs
- Thread starter Victor Spieles
- Start date
It's something I notice, yes. I generally prefer RPGing where the incentivised violence can be seen as defensive (eg the PCs are soldiers) or consensual (eg the fighting is duels, jousts etc). In my last long-running D&D campaign my players noticed my preference for using undead, demons, and other non-mortal, non-"people" as foes.
You've had lots of suggestions in this thread. My recommendations are games that I play:
* Classic Traveller - many PCs will end up with weapon skills, but it's feasible to run the game without a lot of combat: the action can focus on manoeuvring through space, hacking computer systems, dealing with officialdom, etc.
* Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic - tends to incentivise fisticuffs, but the default is that they're 4-colour-ish rather than lethal. I've also used this system for a LotR/MERP game.
* Agon - Homeric Greek heroics - so while not free of violence and killing, it doesn't have the unrelenting and somewhat amoral character of slay-and-loot D&D.
* Burning Wheel - a FRPG that is a bit like RuneQuest or Rolemaster in complexity of PC build (lengthy skill lists, etc) but with more of a player-driven story focus, with lots of scope for non-violent resolution and for fighting that does not end with death but rather morale failures, hors-de-combat, etc.
* Prince Valiant - Arthurian fantasy with resolution for both violent and non-violent conflicts (including jousting of course!), and with the default being no PC deaths. I think this system is Greg Stafford's masterpiece.
* The Dying Earth - rather cynical, and not free of violence, but the default arena of conflict is persuasion and rebuttal, not fighting.
BrokenTwin
Biological Disaster
I definitely still enjoy violence-heavy games, but I've also had a yearning for fun non-violent gameplay as well. If a video game RPG gives me mechanical support for a pacifist run, I'm going to try for it.
For tabletop, I find running/playing non-violent RPGs significantly harder. Part of that is just that my D&D upbringing was on kill-em-all dungeon crawling, another part is that my current groups prefer systems where violence is a primary option (D&D), and a third part is just that violence is a really easy conflict to gamify. Heck, there's literally thousands of threads across the internet where people will advocate that social conflict shouldn't have any mechanical weight at all, relying entirely on the player's mental and social skills, but I've never seen anybody advocate the same for physical conflict.
D&D has never provided strong mechanical support for non-violent resolution. Sure, you've got the social skills (Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate/Insight), but they doesn't provide nearly the same level of engagement that multiple interlocking systems provide for combat (hit points, armor class, feats, equipment, saves, spells, and class features are all primarily about improving your combat viability).
But, like others have said, there's plenty of tabletop RPGs out there nowadays that provide strong support for non-violent resolution. Currently on my to-try list is Ryuutama and Mouse Guard. Both assume SOME combat, but it's a much smaller part of the system, with plenty of crunch for other areas of gameplay.
For tabletop, I find running/playing non-violent RPGs significantly harder. Part of that is just that my D&D upbringing was on kill-em-all dungeon crawling, another part is that my current groups prefer systems where violence is a primary option (D&D), and a third part is just that violence is a really easy conflict to gamify. Heck, there's literally thousands of threads across the internet where people will advocate that social conflict shouldn't have any mechanical weight at all, relying entirely on the player's mental and social skills, but I've never seen anybody advocate the same for physical conflict.
D&D has never provided strong mechanical support for non-violent resolution. Sure, you've got the social skills (Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate/Insight), but they doesn't provide nearly the same level of engagement that multiple interlocking systems provide for combat (hit points, armor class, feats, equipment, saves, spells, and class features are all primarily about improving your combat viability).
But, like others have said, there's plenty of tabletop RPGs out there nowadays that provide strong support for non-violent resolution. Currently on my to-try list is Ryuutama and Mouse Guard. Both assume SOME combat, but it's a much smaller part of the system, with plenty of crunch for other areas of gameplay.
Yora
Legend
The issue is not so much about mechanical support, and more about concrete incentives. 3rd edition onward do not provide any gains from finding alternative solutions, while at the same time providing a very low risk to PCs for getting into fights. The games even provide mechanics for GMs to help them plan their adventures in a way that makes sure the risk to the PCs is minimized.
Mechanical support certainly is a thing, but it's not about having a more complex way to make Charisma rolls.
Going all the way back to the earliest D&D editions, those games had mechanics that incentivize players to minimize the amount of time they spend in the wilderness and dungeon, because the longer the adventure takes, the higher the chance to have random encounters that could very well kill PCs but won't get them meaningful XP even if they fight off attackers successfully, since wandering monsters don't carry treasure. And once you have a robust random encounter system in place, you can use it for way more randomized events than just hostile creatures.
Since the games give XP primarily for treasure, and treasure is really heavy (you don't just buy 10 bags of holding at a village store), players have to consider pack animals to shorten the return journey (and avoid random encounters by being outside for too long), but then they also need to get trustworthy people to guard the animals while they are exploring inside the dungeon. And all of that is stuff that on the player facing side includes no numbers or character stats. The rules give the GM tools to randomize disruptions and free them from having to make arbitrary choices when to help or hinder the players, which avoids the players having to figure out what the GM wants to happen before they make any choices.
Interestingly, the whole interconnected system of XP for treasure, encumbrance, movement speed, and wandering monsters would still work on the basic rulesset of 3rd or 5th edition. But the designers have chosen to put the game full with spells and special abilities that let the players easily ignore all these constraints that are meant to mechanically support creative roleplaying and looking for nonviolent solutions.
Mechanical support certainly is a thing, but it's not about having a more complex way to make Charisma rolls.
Going all the way back to the earliest D&D editions, those games had mechanics that incentivize players to minimize the amount of time they spend in the wilderness and dungeon, because the longer the adventure takes, the higher the chance to have random encounters that could very well kill PCs but won't get them meaningful XP even if they fight off attackers successfully, since wandering monsters don't carry treasure. And once you have a robust random encounter system in place, you can use it for way more randomized events than just hostile creatures.
Since the games give XP primarily for treasure, and treasure is really heavy (you don't just buy 10 bags of holding at a village store), players have to consider pack animals to shorten the return journey (and avoid random encounters by being outside for too long), but then they also need to get trustworthy people to guard the animals while they are exploring inside the dungeon. And all of that is stuff that on the player facing side includes no numbers or character stats. The rules give the GM tools to randomize disruptions and free them from having to make arbitrary choices when to help or hinder the players, which avoids the players having to figure out what the GM wants to happen before they make any choices.
Interestingly, the whole interconnected system of XP for treasure, encumbrance, movement speed, and wandering monsters would still work on the basic rulesset of 3rd or 5th edition. But the designers have chosen to put the game full with spells and special abilities that let the players easily ignore all these constraints that are meant to mechanically support creative roleplaying and looking for nonviolent solutions.
LongTimeLurker
Explorer
Your experience is so far removed from mine that I really have nothing to offer. Except that I agree with the guy who quit the group after the kid started crying about their dead character. I simply cannot abide that level of emotional immaturity.
BrokenTwin
Biological Disaster
I would argue that concrete incentives are part of mechanical support, but that's splitting hairs. And I have zero disagreement that early editions of D&D were better at disincentivizing combat.
But D&D 5E's incentive structure is strictly about getting better at fighting things. Heck, outside of specific class features for Rogues and Bards and a handful of feats, your character CAN'T learn new non-combat proficiencies RAW. There's no mechanical support for improving or tracking your social standing with various groups, or owning land/dwellings, or rewards for your characters achieving their personal goals. I'm not saying that D&D 5E is a bad game for not providing this support, it was build to support a certain style of play, and there's nothing wrong with that. But if you're finding yourself at odds with some of the core conceits of the system (combat as a primary option, combat as sport, little mechanical support for social/exploration/survival gameplay, character progression through combat capability), then there's other systems that do focus on supporting those various foci better in different ways.
Can you play D&D 5E without all the violent encounters and killing, as asked in the OP? Of course you can. You'll need to tweak a lot of things and reduce emphasis on large amounts of the rules, but it can be done. I personally wouldn't enjoy it though. There's a lot of systems out there that can handle that style of play better, up to and including the early editions of D&D.
But D&D 5E's incentive structure is strictly about getting better at fighting things. Heck, outside of specific class features for Rogues and Bards and a handful of feats, your character CAN'T learn new non-combat proficiencies RAW. There's no mechanical support for improving or tracking your social standing with various groups, or owning land/dwellings, or rewards for your characters achieving their personal goals. I'm not saying that D&D 5E is a bad game for not providing this support, it was build to support a certain style of play, and there's nothing wrong with that. But if you're finding yourself at odds with some of the core conceits of the system (combat as a primary option, combat as sport, little mechanical support for social/exploration/survival gameplay, character progression through combat capability), then there's other systems that do focus on supporting those various foci better in different ways.
Can you play D&D 5E without all the violent encounters and killing, as asked in the OP? Of course you can. You'll need to tweak a lot of things and reduce emphasis on large amounts of the rules, but it can be done. I personally wouldn't enjoy it though. There's a lot of systems out there that can handle that style of play better, up to and including the early editions of D&D.
This rings true for me, too. As a middle-school teacher who sponsors the school RPG club and runs an RPG summer camp, I introduce a lot of young people to the joys of this hobby. But, I was weaned on D&D and have absorbed many of its tropes, so my default style of play includes a fair amount of combat. I've often been surprised by the young folks who start playing for the first time. Some of them, having played tons of CRPGs, enter the game world expecting to battle their way to glory. Others are bemused or even put off by this approach. They're much more interested in finding clever solutions, creative compromises, and non-violent options. They often want to learn about the monsters' cultures and find out what they want out of the world. They expect the game to support and encourage that sort of fiction.
As I've evolved with running the club and summer camp, I've de-centered violence as much as possible. It's there for those who want it, but we don't present it as a necessary component of an RPG. This has gone over pretty well, though plenty of groups retain a murder-hobo aesthetic.
The game I am most familiar with these days is GURPS. Although it includes a potentially intricate combat system, the default system is deadly, so there is a disincentive to be casual about it. It is also a skill-based system that covers a wide array of genres, so it's easy to focus on social conflict and other subsystems. I've played in games with little or no violence. I, myself, have been most comfortable running the dungeon fantasy flavor of GURPS, which tunes things to encourage more battle (and makes it relatively difficult for PCs to die). I'd like to move my own campaigns away from this, but I often fall back on familiar tropes.
Based on @Grendel_Khan's suggestion above, I picked up a copy of Scum and Villainy and started reading it last night. It reads well and I look forward to trying it out for a change of pace.
Grendel_Khan
Hero
This makes me very happy, but also nervous!
I hope you and your players like it at the table, and if you have questions (I know I had tons, and still do) I'm going to go ahead and rudely volunteer @hawkeyefan @Malmuria @Manbearcat and @Ovinomancer as recipients. They have way more experience with Forged in the Dark than I do, and were super patient and helpful to me in another thread. The FitD learning curve, at least for people like you and me who are coming directly from more traditional games, can be really steep. But I think it's worth the effort, even if it just winds up being an experiment that might tweak or inform the way you play other games.
@uzirath Unfortunately I've only been playing for about half a year! But I would recommend the Blades in the Dark discord; people there have been very helpful. John Harper also has a Blades actual play, and it's useful to see the creator playing the game (but Scum and Villainy might work differently than blades)
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (181) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027
