Tabletop Roleplaying Games (D&D, Pathfinder, CoC, ETC.)

[Ghostse]

I feel there is a difference between "Module can be completed without combat" and "Module has a pacifist run option"; by which I mean, combat optional means there are ways to complete an encounter - by doing prep work, by scouting, by thinking ahead. But even if you do that, you might want to kill those kobolds anyway. Maybe you have to kill a few NPCs to serve as an example.

But I think the biggest difference is "combat optional" tends to mean the module designer was smart and gave multiple ways to surmount challenges while also providing character motivations to the NPCs so that creative parties have guidance to the GM about how the NPCs would react without breaking the module. And I guess almost as importantly, it means you might be able to convince some of your potential foes that they should fight along side you instead of against you. Maybe the Goblins are tired of being mistreated by the Orcs, and if you demonstrate you are the better option, they might work with you.
Maybe the orcs only follow the evil sorceror because he has the Eye of Grummsh, and if the rogue steals it from his innersanctum, his orcs are now your orcs.

When I see "pacifist run" this just makes me think that someone is will trying (and failing badly) to make deep, insightful commentary and to try to penalize combat runs because violence isn't the answer. It also means that instead of "Well, if they don't want to fight, here's how a party might be able to complete this challenge" you're going to have "Here is how you telegraph to your players this is how you bypass the challenge. Also, fuck making them use their brains and come up with out-of-the-box solutions to problems and how they might talk to the orcs, they will have a tantrum that their diplomacy check was good enough the Orcs are now their best friends."

 

[Judge Dredd]

D&D’s Next Adventure Has A Pacifist Route

Even outside of pacifism, if violence isn't your thing, you can easily tone it down to a level similar to a JRPG just via descriptions, world building, or power levels.

So right now I’m wondering. Has anyone ever tried to pit their party against a party of evil counterparts?

I have, although it was likely different than what you're asking. It was a modern horror game with a Zelda style light world dark world theme, instead of a way of hard countering an OP party.

The success of that adventure was due to my players being great sports, playing along with a "which one is the real one?" type scenes, choosing to fail checks for dramatic effect, and all round carrying the game.

 

[Snekposter]

Let's all think about the fun converse to this: a party based largely around non-combat solutions to problems forced to engage in overt violence. Have that in one of my games, and its been interesting. You haven't seen fun until a magic user with zero damage spells, not even cantrips, is forced to whack a thug in the head with their quarterstaff when the inevitable tavern violence happens.

 

[Corn Flakes]

Let's all think about the fun converse to this: a party based largely around non-combat solutions to problems forced to engage in overt violence. Have that in one of my games, and its been interesting. You haven't seen fun until a magic user with zero damage spells, not even cantrips, is forced to whack a thug in the head with their quarterstaff when the inevitable tavern violence happens.

If your GM is reasonable with the commoners at the tavern, even a level 3 Wizard should be able to pull a Gandalf and klonk some heads with their walking stick when the bar brawl starts. A +2 proficiency bonus will give you better than average odds to hit your average AC 10 dummy, and a 1d6 damage quarterstaff will KO a 4 HP commoner 50% of the time. And with at least 6 + 2d6 HP they'll outlast most commoners, too. Sure, the Wizard won't be styling on everybody but they'll be able to hold their own against everyone except trained guards and/or the inevitable retired adventurer/innkeeper multiclass behind the counter.

That's how my Orc wizard did it, anyway. She wasn't kicking ass the same as the Barbarian, but she wasn't cowering in the corner either. Hell, she started most bar brawls that campaign.

 

[Snekposter]

If your GM is reasonable with the commoners at the tavern, even a level 3 Wizard should be able to pull a Gandalf and klonk some heads with their walking stick when the bar brawl starts. A +2 proficiency bonus will give you better than average odds to hit your average AC 10 dummy, and a 1d6 damage quarterstaff will KO a 4 HP commoner 50% of the time. And with at least 6 + 2d6 HP they'll outlast most commoners, too. Sure, the Wizard won't be styling on everybody but they'll be able to hold their own against everyone except trained guards and/or the inevitable retired adventurer/innkeeper multiclass behind the counter.

Its not D&D, but a homebrew system heavily inspired by Storyteller. So things aren't quite so simple. The only one in the party with any armor proficiency is my char, and that only happened well after game start. Our monk has violence issues caused by childhood PTSD and as a result is much better tossing rocks with a sling than punching people. Damn good doctor though since they did grow up in a monastery.

He was quite reasonable with the NPC's, yes, but doesn't change the fact a caster with only 2 Dots in Strength isn't going to be doing a lot of damage, even if he's got 3 in Staff. And I misremembered their spell book, so they do have the Magic Missile equivalent. But its a third level spell and they can only cast it twice before they lose all their mana. And since its a relatively low-magic setting nailing a thug with a third level spell like that has the authorities start asking questions on just where and how you learned it and if you can be trusted with such abilities. Even if everything's perfectly legit its still not a good idea. Much better to do the magical equivalent of pocket sand and then whack them in the noggin when they're flailing about blind.

 

[Starscreams Cape]

When I see "pacifist run" this just makes me think that someone is will trying (and failing badly) to make deep, insightful commentary and to try to penalize combat runs because violence isn't the answer. It also means that instead of "Well, if they don't want to fight, here's how a party might be able to complete this challenge" you're going to have "Here is how you telegraph to your players this is how you bypass the challenge. Also, fuck making them use their brains and come up with out-of-the-box solutions to problems and how they might talk to the orcs, they will have a tantrum that their diplomacy check was good enough the Orcs are now their best friends."

Exactly. If this was done pre-2016 it'd be no big thing. As you say it would get points for giving players more options.

But these people never get the benefit of the doubt. They will tell you to your face they have an agenda, so people are right to question every thing that comes out from them.

Not that it matters, 5e is the last version of D&D I'll have bought. I have such a backlog of 5e, 4e, 3e and 2e stuff I'm good until I'm in the ground. WotC and Paizo won't get another dime from me as long as troons and mincing little faggots are running the show.

 

[Pentex]

lol this image sums up the book perfectly.

View attachment 2359487

Hey how about we have a fucking gay prom night campaign instead of one where you raid dungeons and go on adventures?

The fucking mages school quest in Skyrim at least bothered to put a being of ethereal evil in there.

This is Gossip Girl with cantrips.

I don't play MtG and I have no desire to ever, but are Magic fans really this big of a bunch of faggots?

 

[LTO Data Cartridge]

I'm not at all opposed to non combat focused games, they're just as valid as any other sort of roleplaying. What I don't get is using the Dungeons and Dragons system for it, a system which is extremely narrowly focused on combat at the expense of having detailed mechanics for other things. Hell, it's not just focused on combat, it's focused on an extremely narrow type of combat that only exists in specific genres and campaign types. You couldn't pay me to run a primarily social game with that shit. Meanwhile my system of choice, GURPS, has several whole books for social mechanics. And that's just my preferred system, there are loads of systems for all sorts of games and trying to shove those other sorts of games into DnD mechanics is just going to lead to a watered down experience. tl;dr have you tried not playing DnD?

 

[Judge Dredd]

What I don't get is using the Dungeons and Dragons system for it, a system which is extremely narrowly focused on combat at the expense of having detailed mechanics for other things.

Now that you mention it, I think that might be part of why people don't like Savage Worlds as much. It's a skill focused game, and combat is usually one of many solutions to a problem. Those from DnD just pump "fighting" to max and neglect every other skill.

 

[LTO Data Cartridge]

Now that you mention it, I think that might be part of why people don't like Savage Worlds as much. It's a skill focused game, and combat is usually one of many solutions to a problem. Those from DnD just pump "fighting" to max and neglect every other skill.

There's a big issue among players of traditional games of not being honest about what system fits their preferred style of play, or simply not knowing what options exist. You have people who'd be perfectly satisfied with DnD statblock crunching playing some random other shit they heard about because they want to be a cool kid who plays obscure games and people heavily unsatisfied with DnD who would enjoy something else but just don't know what's out there. Both problems are basically a result of DnD having such an excessive market share, to the point where the entire hobby might as well just be "Dungeons and Dragons and some other stuff".

 

[Ghostse]

There's a big issue among players of traditional games of not being honest about what system fits their preferred style of play, or simply not knowing what options exist. You have people who'd be perfectly satisfied with DnD statblock crunching playing some random other shit they heard about because they want to be a cool kid who plays obscure games and people heavily unsatisfied with DnD who would enjoy something else but just don't know what's out there. Both problems are basically a result of DnD having such an excessive market share, to the point where the entire hobby might as well just be "Dungeons and Dragons and some other stuff".

D&D is very clearly "Combat with the flexibility to do non-combat things in the service of wider range of combat options"; You aren't supposed to be doing diplomacy to fix the town's social ills, you are supposed to be doing diplomacy to get the King to send some knights to help you, or to try to have those bandits decide you're not worth the trouble.
Opposed bluff checks don't work except at a pure mechanical level, because player brains are going to do what they'll do and know something is up.

That flexibility is good because when you have a moment something off the beaten path comes up, you have the tools at your disposal to be "Eh, good enough, roll". A D20 is easy enough for the average human to probability shift without thinking too hard about it.
But as you said, to paraphrase a fictional character, this leads to people thinking about if they COULD and not if they SHOULD. Just because the system is flexible enough to allow you have a game where the fighter attend classes at Gay Wizard College doesn't mean that D&D is right system.

Going through the B/X and having toedtipped on 1/2eAD&D, you can see a definite progression happening. Earlier D&D was not about your character's story, but a story your characters played a part in. The goal wasn't about have a story about Sneauxflueak the Elf Wizard who was the heir to the Elf throne and fought a necromancer at lvl 10, it was about the 6-8 wizards who died to Orange Mold while trying to dispatch the necromancer. Eventually the design seem to become less about "Holy shit, I had one character who managed to actually max level somefucking how" and more about the individual characters and keeping them alive beyond what even legendary mortals could survive.
(Which wasn't all bad; it shifted away from random "save or die instantly. lol j/k there's no save" and shifted a bit of narrative impetus from the GM, making it easier to spot That One GM early on.)

Also I will say that while its easier with some editions than others, you can pick up a D&D splat book from 1974 to 2021 and be able to convert it with out too much issue to whatever edition you're playing. That's a lot of content (of varying quality, granted) but there is a reason D&D is still Lord of the nerd keep that isn't just Matt Mercer convincing faggots they too can be special and get to inject their personal drama into the game.

 

[Corn Flakes]

I don't play MtG and I have no desire to ever, but are Magic fans really this big of a bunch of faggots?

By and large, no. The majority of MtG players I know (me included) think Strixhaven a completely idiotic idea that doesn't fit thematically or mechanically with the rest of the game, but they put up with it because more cards = more content, and the competitive players have to play it or else they can't play Standard tournaments.

The only people I found who were excited for it were people who were already way too much into Harry Potter to begin with.

That flexibility is good because when you have a moment something off the beaten path comes up, you have the tools at your disposal to be "Eh, good enough, roll". A D20 is easy enough for the average human to probability shift without thinking too hard about it.
But as you said, to paraphrase a fictional character, this leads to people thinking about if they COULD and not if they SHOULD. Just because the system is flexible enough to allow you have a game where the fighter attend classes at Gay Wizard College doesn't mean that D&D is right system.
[...]
Also I will say that while its easier with some editions than others, you can pick up a D&D splat book from 1974 to 2021 and be able to convert it with out too much issue to whatever edition you're playing. That's a lot of content (of varying quality, granted) but there is a reason D&D is still Lord of the nerd keep that isn't just Matt Mercer convincing faggots they too can be special and get to inject their personal drama into the game.

D&D is successful because believable social interactions are very difficult to accurately simulate with rules, but combat is at the same time a simple concept ("take their HP to 0 before they do it to you") but the execution can have a lot of nuance to it. Plus it's exotic (most people don't swing swords for a living) and cathartic (defeating your enemies in a straight fight).

The problem is, the people pushing for proms and pacifist runs in D&D don't want catharsis or exoticism. They actually want to hold on to their anxieties. Their power fantasy isn't swords and spells, it's getting revenge on Becky and Todd from high school.

 

[40 Year Old Boomer]

All I’m going to say is it was a full vampire and our party was only level 5. Long story short Galder’s Tower isn’t restrictive enough.

Good times. On one occasion our DM wanted to run a 1 shot where we all made level 20 characters to fight against his homebrewed Nicol Bolas from some MtG thing or whatever. The encounter got derailed horribly thanks to a dinner plate, some sovereign glue, a Daern's Instant Fortress, and a Mystic able to shrink himself to an incredibly small size. I still say we got lowballed on damage for causing a two story tower to appear inside the anal cavity of a dragon god.

 

[Captain Hastings Official]

Or play Ars Magica and get the good kind of autism where you argue for hours about how inertia works under Aristotelian physics.

You can do that in Mage, too. Imagine a Hermetic mage watching an Etherite spaceship reentry: "See! It must pass through the Sphere of Fire before entering that of Air! Eh? Friction? Don't be absurd, fire is far too subtle a body to hinder the passing of a gross Earthly body like my colleague's invention. It's all there in the Physics, what do they teach young people these days..."

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

The module with "a pacifist route." Congratulations, you are regressing the depths of tabletop games to video games. And in doing so removing agency from the NPCs because if every single one of them can be talked down that suggests they are probably sufficiently lacking in commitment to their goals that they should not be doing them anyway. Why do I suspect as well as being too much of an Undertale fan the author also thinks social workers will work as a perfect replacement to police.

The Strixhaven setting book from what I hear their Ravnica setting book, which I considered a more interesting baseline to work off, was pretty naff so I fail to see how the Harry Potter rip off will be better.

On a different subject anyone know much about the background behind the bunch doing the new run of Paranoia? From what I can see they've kept the gleefully malicious tone and clear incitement to make the player's lives miserable so it seems they're still in line with the norm for the game but I am not sure if this is hiding some massive madness.

 

[40 Year Old Boomer]

No pacifist module will survive first contact with the average group of PCs.

 

[Corn Flakes]

No pacifist module will survive first contact with the average group of PCs.

It will if the entire area has a "you make any attack rolls here because the fae king said so, lul" rule attached to it. And I would not put it past current Wizards of the Coast to completely break the system in such a way. I don't think there's any monster or spell that completely prevents someone from attacking without any sort of save against it, or at least a consequence for insisting in attacking.

 

[Adamska]

It will if the entire area has a "you make any attack rolls here because the fae king said so, lul" rule attached to it. And I would not put it past current Wizards of the Coast to completely break the system in such a way. I don't think there's any monster or spell that completely prevents someone from attacking without any sort of save against it, or at least a consequence for insisting in attacking.

That just results in the players either mutinying and telling the DM to fuck off/hijack the encounter and ignore what they say, or trainwrecking the game in other ways via character acts that go hardcore though.

All sides have push and pull, but a DM that tries that will likely lose their whole group.

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

It will if the entire area has a "you make any attack rolls here because the fae king said so, lul" rule attached to it. And I would not put it past current Wizards of the Coast to completely break the system in such a way. I don't think there's any monster or spell that completely prevents someone from attacking without any sort of save against it, or at least a consequence for insisting in attacking.

It'd be tempting to see a module that was the diplomatic equivalent of the Tomb of Horrors. Where all the traps are social ones and unless you avoid specific approaches and show awareness of the just barely there clues the GM is free to declare a TPK.

Personally though I'd rather just play an L5R court session because there at least suicide is potentially a socially acceptable way out and most of the ways to fuck the players are setting specific rather than module specific.

 

[Shokaract]

So with 5e version of Draconomicon coming out, besides 5 gems, we are getting some new dragon species. Two already hinted at are Gleamstone, a feywild dragon, and apparently an elder brain thats hitched a ride on a dragon, reminiscent of the Brainstealer dragon. If they bring back anything, it would be cool for some of the catastrophic dragons to come back.