Worlds of Design: Peaceful Solutions to Violent Problems

​

How can we provide non-violent means of resolving conflicts with monsters and NPCs in RPGs?

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

Recently I noticed a discussion online about the percentage of time spent in combat in RPGs. Many felt that in D&D, most of playing time is spent in combat. With war wracking the world, the great ugliness of civilian (and military) deaths may have reinforced the inclination of many people to want to avoid combat even in a game that’s normally about adventuring and conflict.

An Example​

My friend in a D&D game encountered a werewolf with a slave. I expected the normal reaction of an adventuring party: attack the werewolf both to save the slave and to despoil the werewolf of any treasure it may have. Or they would decide to walk away rather than fight. Instead, his character made disparaging remarks about the slave to drive down the price, then finally bought the slave and freed him. My friend has been a wargamer for more than 45 years, so doesn’t shy away from conflict in games. But he thought it was more interesting (and safer for the characters) to resolve the confrontation in a peaceful way.

So I asked myself, what tends to encourage nonviolent resolution of problems?

The Rules​

The rules themselves can have a lot to do with perceptions of how to resolve disagreements without violence. If there are lots of rules for nonviolent interaction then you’d expect players to be more likely to use nonviolent interaction. If there aren’t many rules for that, then naturally players are going to resort to violence. Conversely, if the rules are all about combat, how are the players going to solve problems?

I think of Fourth edition D&D, which emphasized co-operative combat. Removing a lot of the non-combat related rules in an attempt to balance the classes against each other stripped away a lot of strategic parts of early versions of D&D, removing a principal method of peaceful resolution (see below).

The GM​

The GM has a lot to do with the amount of violence in a game, whatever may or may not be in the ruleset. If the GM thinks that the game is all more like a competitive sport, he or she will probably be happy to have lots of combat as if it was some kind of football game. If the GM sees the whole thing as closer to war, he or she will let players resort to stratagems and other ways to “not fight fair”, or not fight at all.

The setting may also promote non-violent (or violent) methods of resolving disagreements. Say the player characters live in a city governed by rigid imperials who just do not tolerate violence.

The obvious idea from a game design point of view is to make combat so dangerous (debilitating or even lethal) that it’s much smarter to find other paths to success. There have been RPGs of that sort, just as there have been RPGs that are about combat and little else.

My guess is that the less precise the rules are, the more they leave to the negotiation between the players and the GM, then the more often the players will try to find nonviolent ways to resolve disagreement. I’ve not played FATE, for example, but it appears on reading to be the kind of game that encourages players to figure out clever, nonviolent ways to succeed.

Strategy vs. Tactics​

Strategic as opposed to tactical methods of finding success can also make a big difference. Keep in mind that tactics refers to what you do during a battle, while strategy is what you do aside from the actual battles. By strategic methods I mean actions like negotiation, politics, influencing the authorities, making money via business, finding allies, devising ways to intimidate on a large-scale, etc.

I’d speculate that the strategic methods are going to be more prevalent in a campaign that is primarily active in a city than one that is primarily about dungeon crawling and exploration. The former offers lots of opportunities for strategy. Dungeons and exploring are where violence is more likely to occur.

Some people might suggest that removing occasions for “useless” combat will help – useless in the sense of not achieving some mission or story goal. Because I think pacing is important, I am not bothered by such “useless” combats, as they provide a contrast with the really important combats, and even help players practice their tactics. You need both lows and highs, unimportant and important. If every combat is important (“not useless”) then they all become mediocre. Moreover, I like to see good players decide when a combat might be pointless, and (try to) avoid it.

Your Turn: What percentage of playing time is spent in combat in your RPGs (and which ruleset are you using?)

 

[Fandabidozi]

Set phasers to stun.

 

[Scott Christian]

One thing that sometimes gets overlooked is the openness of the DM. If the players trust the DM, they will explore the other branches. This goes for a lot of things: RP interactions, resolving traps, etc. Open-mindedness, or even perceived open-mindedness (because of massive prep) goes a very long way in encouraging alternate interactions.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Here is an idea. I'm not going to say it's a good idea, but it might work for certain groups, especially for younger players.

When a conversation breaks out, roll for initiative. Go around the group in initiative order asking each player what they want to say ("nothing" is fine).

 

[gamerprinter]

I've always treated encounters like D&D 1e, meaning you can have combat and kill and opponent, you can defeat an opponent leading to no death, you can resolve an encounter in a non combat manner - all earn the same amount of experience points. The point of the encounter is to overcome the obstacle - no matter how that obstacle is overcome... that encourages all kinds of problem resolution, on a case by case basis.

 

[payn]

I run a handful of different systems and genres. I find traditional D&D style fantasy is often framed in white hat and black hat morality. Many folks just dont want to think philosophical in terms of gameplay. They just wanted to be heroes pointed in the way of the nearest evil to be vanquished. Such simplicity is a vacation for real life and a power fantasy to be acted out. Can be very lethargic and entertaining.

I tend to want the opposite and to examine philosophical aspects of role playing, settings in particular. I thank many examples have been given already of coming up with unique answers such as buying a slave's freedom or paying bandits not to bandit. There is a certain acceptance of status quo and idea that if the situation changes, the free being will be re-enslaved or the bandits will begin robbing people again. The players may not care, they just want a quick bloodless solution, or they may be looking for a reprieve from the unwanted actions so they can find a bloodless new status quo.

A lot of modern campaign settings, modules, and adventure paths are designed to give tables the ley way they need to have the games they want. I dont have a lot to offer that has not already been covered in ways to pursue non-violent options. I do find in other genres it tends to be less popular to go black and white morality. In my Traveller games its rare for a party on either side of the fight to be wiped out. Combats are usually to the point one side cant continue or knows it is beat and must flee or surrender. Very much unlike D&D fantasy style games I have played in the past. I think setting and campaign implications have as much influence as do GM style and player style.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

over the years I have seen this a few times

I had players ask kobold bandits "How much money did you make last week robbing people" and when I said "50 gold" they just paid them 200 gold to take a month off.

I had a game hook where there was a town besieged by gobins that were attacking... but I made the mistake that when they asked "why?" I made up a story that they were thrown out of where they were by kobolds (orginally I was planing on them fighting the goblins but I figured I would switch to fight the kobolds... but oh boy) they ended up making a non aggression/ alliance pact between kobold/goblins/town...

Kobolds are a good choice to pull off these pacts. A lair of kobolds in 1e is worth under 5,000 xp on average. That's for 255 kobolds, including leaders, so you have a lot of mindless combat to get those xp, without much treasure in that, only about 2,500 gp. You can use those kobolds to get more gp and xp than that.

 

[jmartkdr2]

One element to this: if all of your rewards are "you get better at combat" - players are going to seek out combat in order to enjoy those rewards. It's not fun getting a cool new attack spell if you're not going to attack someone.

Put another way, if you don't want players looking at everything like nails, stop giving them shiny new hammers.

It's not just that combat gets rewarded, combat is the reward in 3e+ versions of dnd.

 

[MGibster]

One element to this: if all of your rewards are "you get better at combat" - players are going to seek out combat in order to enjoy those rewards. It's not fun getting a cool new attack spell if you're not going to attack someone.

Everyone gets better at combat when they level up in D&D. But a lot of characters don't really get any gooder (better?) at talking to other people as they level up. I do find that players these days, even some of us more mature (old) players, are more likely to try to at least attempt a little non-violence solutions. My players typically won't attack a goblin on sight unless they've already identified him as an enemy. Back in 1991, we'd be all over that goblin like white on rice.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Another option is to make your game lethal! If players fear death, they may fear combat. Then again, they may not like the game either.

 

[GMMichael]

​

The setting may also promote non-violent (or violent) methods of resolving disagreements. Say the player characters live in a city governed by rigid imperials who just do not tolerate violence.

Except, they probably use violence to enforce their non-violence. But I get the ifdea.

Your Turn: What percentage of playing time is spent in combat in your RPGs (and which ruleset are you using?)

I'm using Modos 2 to play a Final Fantasy game right now. FF is very combat oriented, but Modos 2 isn't. (The game sets out general, physical, mental, and metaphysical conflict rules, of which physical is the closest to combat.) So the group is getting into fights between 40-50% of the time. In another setting, combat might be closer to 20-30% of the time, given the amount of rules that don't directly require combat and my preference as GM for puzzles and problems.