D&D General Violent Solutions to Peaceful Problems

[overgeeked]

One thing i want from my players (any players, not just one particular group) that I rarely if ever get is PCs acting like living people, including (importantly) a desire to continue living. Not in a refusal of the call to action, or a fear of facing danger kind of way -- after all, the real world is full of soldiers and firefighters and mountain climbers and all sorts of folks who presumably want to live but choose danger for one reason or another -- but just a "make decisions that are likely to prolong their lives kind of way. Surrendering in the face of overwhelming odds is one of those kinds of choices.

Exactly. There’s often a disconnect between what the players choose for their characters to do and what any reasonable, thinking, non-insane person would do in any given situation. The players are most often there for escapist power fantasy, where they are the stars and they face no consequences for their actions. This is how 5E is designed. The rules enforce this by making there be no lasting consequences and only what the DM can think of that the players will care about as motivation. Characters are superheroes who can survive swimming through lava and swan diving off towers. So the players act accordingly. Players play to the rules, not the world or what would make sense for a real person. If you want them to behave like real people, you either need a rule set that enforces that mindset, a willingness to change the rules you use to enforce that mindset, or use a rule set much lighter that allows for far more rulings than rules. It’s one reason I love FKR games. They push players toward RPing their characters like real people in a real world.

 

[iserith]

I want my players to have fun and, together, create an exciting, memorable tale by playing. I really don't care if they have their characters act like "real people." That's not really any of my business as DM in my opinion. They can justify their actions however they want. It's not going to affect my enjoyment of the game or the adventure or campaign since there's really no plot to be disrupted in my games.

 

[Reynard]

I want my players to have fun and, together, create an exciting, memorable tale by playing. I really don't care if they have their characters act like "real people." That's not really any of my business as DM in my opinion. They can justify their actions however they want. It's not going to affect my enjoyment of the game or the adventure or campaign since there's really no plot to be disrupted in my games.

It's not about disruption. it's because stories about realistic facsimile's of people are more enjoyable than those that are about mondimensional carboard cutouts -- regardless of the medium. And since in RPGs we are creating stories together, those stories are better if we can have well developed (psychologically) human characters in them.
I mean, there's nothing wrong with dumb action beer and pretzels games, but I still think emotionally realistic human characters are preferable to flat tropes.

 

[Ancalagon]

Yes, or even intentionally. I can't tell you how many merchants I wanted to murder because the DM was playing them as if they just didn't want to sell us something. Your role is to sell things to people and you don't seem to want to do that? Guess we'll just have to rob you. punch

blink

Are you not aware that you can tell the merchant "do you want to sell us stuff or not?" and if they keep giving you guff, leave? (bonus edit: this works pretty well in the real world too)

 

[iserith]

It's not about disruption. it's because stories about realistic facsimile's of people are more enjoyable than those that are about mondimensional carboard cutouts -- regardless of the medium. And since in RPGs we are creating stories together, those stories are better if we can have well developed (psychologically) human characters in them.
I mean, there's nothing wrong with dumb action beer and pretzels games, but I still think emotionally realistic human characters are preferable to flat tropes.

Do you imagine there's some kind of range between "realistic facsimile of people" and "nondimensional cardboard cutouts" or "dumb action beer and pretzels game" and a game with "emotionally realistic human characters?" Maybe even instances where in some cases the player, and thus the character, could make either choice in any given instance? Or perhaps that creating a fictional justification that satisfies someone's need for realism is trivially easy in a game based on make-believe?

 

[iserith]

blink

Are you not aware that you can tell the merchant "do you want to sell us stuff or not?" and if they keep giving you guff, leave? (bonus edit: this works pretty well in the real world too)

I had no idea one could do that - thanks!

 

[beancounter]

Inspired by another thread on this forum, I wondered how the experienced hive mind of this forum deals with players who choose violence when a peaceful solution would be possible or even obvious?

Should every action have a consequence? What if it's just shenanigans and a strong response from the DM would derail the campaign, would you say that consequences are consequences, and just rewrite your campaign, which now becomes e.g. a jailbreak? Or do you look the other way do you don't have to toss out the entire plot? Does it do anything beyond changing the PCs alignment(s)? Do you even actively seek some sort of revenge to teach those roguish players to do better roleplay?

And what about XP? Do the PCs gain any XP for an encounter that serves no purpose to the storyline, and which might even change the entire plot of the campaign?

Actions should always have consequences. The consequences should depend on the severity and circumstances.

I always ask my players "are you sure you want to do that"...

(As a side note, there is a big difference between people who always want to fight the monster instead of talk vs. those who want to kill everything in their path including shopkeepers and town guards). IMHO, the latter are being intentionally disruptive, and should be asked to leave.)

 

[Dausuul]

Surrendering in the face of overwhelming odds is one of those kinds of choices.

Just to point out, this is 100% incompatible with the common plot device of "a band of plucky adventurers taking on the Evil Overlord."

Maybe you don't run those kinds of adventures, of course. But even so, D&D is more or less built around the PCs being pathological risk-seekers--far beyond real-world firefighters or police, or even special forces. Anyone with PC capabilities could make a perfectly good living with far less risk by swearing fealty to some noble or joining the local wizards' guild.

 

[overgeeked]

Just to point out, this is 100% incompatible with the common plot device of "a band of plucky adventurers taking on the Evil Overlord."

Maybe you don't run those kinds of adventures, of course. But even so, D&D is more or less built around the PCs being pathological risk-seekers--far beyond real-world firefighters or police, or even special forces. Anyone with PC capabilities could make a perfectly good living with far less risk by swearing fealty to some noble or joining the local wizards' guild.

Someone should tell all the writers out there who use the "100% incompatible" "we surrender" trope in their "a band of plucky adventurers taking on the Evil Overlord" stories. For just one example, see Doctor Who.

 

[Reynard]

Just to point out, this is 100% incompatible with the common plot device of "a band of plucky adventurers taking on the Evil Overlord."

How? I can't count the number of time we have seen the plucky heroes drop their weapons and raise their hands when surrounded by an overwhelming force, or because innocents were put in peril if they did not stop, or because they ran out of steam from the long slog against the Evil overlord.

I don't think there is any conflict at all and I'm not sure where you are getting the incompatibility.