Resolving conflict and achieving outcomes without combat

[pemerton]

Another thread has had me thinking about this topic. What sorts of things can be achieved via non-combat, social or near-social means?

In the film Battleship Potemkin (SPOILER ALERT for a nearly 100-year old film), at the climax the mutineers find themselves confronted by the Tsarist fleet. How do they survive this? They raise the red flag and sail between the lines of the other vessels - whose sailors refuse to fire, and who cheer in solidarity!

My impression is that this sort of thing is not all that common in RPGing. Am I correct?

 

[zarionofarabel]

Another thread has had me thinking about this topic. What sorts of things can be achieved via non-combat, social or near-social means?

Everything except physical combat!

My impression is that this sort of thing is not all that common in RPGing. Am I correct?

No.

 

[Esau Cairn]

Everything except physical combat!

No.

fpbp.

What sorts of things can be achieved via non-combat, social or near-social means?

Subterfuge. Persuasion. Spying. Impressing. Gathering information. Sneaking. Lying. Intimidation. Oratory. Bartering. Bargaining. Fast talking. Blending in to avoid conflict. And many, many other examples...

In the case of Battleship Potemkin, public display of solidarity (e.g. the thousands of salt of the earth folk who come by to view Vakulinchuk's sacrifice, as well as the sailing against the battleships, as you cited) could be considered an achievement of bravery and/or audacity without combat (albeit, on the Odessa steps, dodging--or more often--not dodging bullets).

My impression is that this sort of thing is not all that common in RPGing. Am I correct?

If your games on over-reliant on combat and you are dissatisfied with that, perhaps you might enjoy other rpgs. I've played in & run a half dozen different rpgs where entire sessions go on with, at most, only the threat of physical violence, and perhaps the stress of mental violence. Which, in context, is sometimes far worse than open combat.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Another thread has had me thinking about this topic. What sorts of things can be achieved via non-combat, social or near-social means?

In the film Battleship Potemkin (SPOILER ALERT for a nearly 100-year old film), at the climax the mutineers find themselves confronted by the Tsarist fleet. How do they survive this? They raise the red flag and sail between the lines of the other vessels - whose sailors refuse to fire, and who cheer in solidarity!

My impression is that this sort of thing is not all that common in RPGing. Am I correct?

Using daring and social maneuvering to turn a potential combat into a scene about something else is frowned on some, because it negates why some players come to the table, I guess?

Personally I encourage such improvisations.

fpbp.



Subterfuge. Persuasion. Spying. Impressing. Gathering information. Sneaking. Lying. Intimidation. Oratory. Bartering. Bargaining. Fast talking. Blending in to avoid conflict. And many, many other examples...

In the case of Battleship Potemkin, public display of solidarity (e.g. the thousands of salt of the earth folk who come by to view Vakulinchuk's sacrifice, as well as the sailing against the battleships, as you cited) could be considered an achievement of bravery and/or audacity without combat (albeit, on the Odessa steps, dodging--or more often--not dodging bullets).


If your games on over-reliant on combat and you are dissatisfied with that, perhaps you might enjoy other rpgs. I've played in a run a half dozen different rpgs where entire session go on with, at most, only the threat of physical violence, and perhaps the stress of mental violence. Which, in context, is sometimes far worse than open combat.

I’m 100% certain pemerton is not someone in need of that particular advice!

 

[pemerton]

If your games on over-reliant on combat and you are dissatisfied with that, perhaps you might enjoy other rpgs. I've played in a run a half dozen different rpgs where entire session go on with, at most, only the threat of physical violence, and perhaps the stress of mental violence. Which, in context, is sometimes far worse than open combat.

I’m not worried about too much combat. But am curious about expectations around outcomes of non-combat and especially social action declarations. In the thread linked to in the OP, I was surprised by the scepticism of other posters towards a “conversion” event that occurred in a session of The Green Knight that I GMed.

 

[aramis erak]

Another thread has had me thinking about this topic. What sorts of things can be achieved via non-combat, social or near-social means?

In the film Battleship Potemkin (SPOILER ALERT for a nearly 100-year old film), at the climax the mutineers find themselves confronted by the Tsarist fleet. How do they survive this? They raise the red flag and sail between the lines of the other vessels - whose sailors refuse to fire, and who cheer in solidarity!

My impression is that this sort of thing is not all that common in RPGing. Am I correct?

Given sufficient character time, sufficient character money, the correct skills, and player willingness, almost anything the physics of the gameworld will support.

Most games don't much define that "physics" - some games did, tho'. Especially the Science fiction settings of the early 80's to early 90's. Traveller. Star Frontiers. Space Opera. Other Suns. Mechwarrior. Even Mekton, Cyberpunk and Shadowrun.

But those games tended to be written from a simulationist point of view.
Time to go write up my session...

 

[Marc_C]

Another thread has had me thinking about this topic. What sorts of things can be achieved via non-combat, social or near-social means?

In the film Battleship Potemkin (SPOILER ALERT for a nearly 100-year old film), at the climax the mutineers find themselves confronted by the Tsarist fleet. How do they survive this? They raise the red flag and sail between the lines of the other vessels - whose sailors refuse to fire, and who cheer in solidarity!

My impression is that this sort of thing is not all that common in RPGing. Am I correct?

Basic D&D has a thing called 'Parley' happens before initiative and combat. You talk, negotiate and maybe avoid a fight. Happening at my table since 1980. ;-)

 

[pemerton]

Everything except physical combat!

That seems tautological.

But I don't think it's that common for a Battleship Potemkin-like event to occur - ie the declared action against antagonists is one that engenders peace through solidarity. In the other thread I mentioned, a lot of posters seemed doubtful about allowing a check to determine whether an attempt to convert a hunter to vegetarianism might succeed.

 

[pemerton]

Given sufficient character time, sufficient character money, the correct skills, and player willingness, almost anything the physics of the gameworld will support.

In Battleship Potemkin, the time is a few minutes. The money is we're in possession of a battleship. I'm not sure what the skill is. No talking takes place.

 

[Cadence]

I’m not worried about too much combat. But am curious about expectations around outcomes of non-combat and especially social action declarations. In the thread linked to in the OP, I was surprised by the scepticism of other posters towards a “conversion” event that occurred in a session of The Green Knight that I GMed.

I think non-combat ways to skirt or co-opt an encounter have come.up fairly regularly in the games I've played. (Most commonly trying to talk or bargain instead of fighting, sometimes trying disguise or subterfuge).

The big thing feels like how the difficulty level is assigned. In D&D it's what the DM thinks is reasonable. So if the PCs say they're raising the flag to capitalize on the sense of relief the other ships would feel at not needing to fight (or whatever, like the fleet of the dead in LotR's affect on the morale... but fake), the DM might think it's brilliant and set a low difficulty or auto success. Trying to convince a life long meat eater to go vegetarian after a five minute talk might be viewed as vastly improbable and assigned a high or impossible difficulty. Maybe if the character knew about the farmer or the local religion - or DMs views - they could splice some compelling justification into the story to change that though. Part of that case feels like it depends on how the DM views high charisma and persuasion in D&D, if it's essentially comic book or pulp serial level of power then it (and lots of other things) would have a much better chance of succeeding. Or if quick changes of belief and revelation are a part of the theme of the world then that would be a lot more reasonable. If a big theme in the world at large is infiltrators and disguise and looking for it, then would it be really hard to not have the Potemkin be boarded instead of just sailing through?

It's felt helpful sometimes when the DM telegraphs that something seems doubtful to succeed when they've pretty much decided it's ludicrous (to avoid the party spending a lot of time making an elaborate plan that just won't work based on their conception of the game world - the social equivalent of doing something physically impossible).