No fight in RPG

[Jorian Drake]

I think that Planescape: Torment was an excellent example of a game that had many, many non-combat solutions to problems. I think a lot of inspiration can be had just going through that game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The problem is: all my friends played it, so they just have no suprise from it

[Lancer]

I think that Planescape: Torment was an excellent example of a game that had many, many non-combat solutions to problems. I think a lot of inspiration can be had just going through that game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The problem is: all my friends played it, so they just have no suprise from it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I am not saying coping verbatim what was in the game.. But use the examples from the game as inspiration for your own devious plot hooks.

[Lancer]

Another thing you might try that would be fun and interesting yet be non-combat related.. Would be like going undercover and secretly penetrate a base through sneaking around, camouflage, using your surroundings..etc ala a covert operative. With 3.x rules, this would work best with a rogue-type character but you can have your party or thief character penetrate an enemy base and stealthily attempt to recover the enemy plans, hostage, thing-of-a-jiggy or whatever. The price for blowing your cover would be your death, the hostage's death, loss of the plans ..etc

 

The above scenario can easily be forced if the PCs know ahead of time that the forces inside the castle either far outnumber them or are far more powerful, sending the message home that making a head-on assault would be futile.

[Lancer]

If the PCs have "loved ones" or any prized possession the villains can use those as blackmail material. Even Superman would be hesistant to act against a villain, if that villain has Lois Lane's life in his hands. This would lead the hero to either strike a deal with the villain, or try to trick the villain into doing something stupid. Both options are non-combat related.

 

Hey..It works well in the movies, it could work in tabletop.

Edited January 26, 2006 by Lancer

[Jorian Drake]

Hmm...thats nice, somekind of special agent style...hmm

[Jediphile]

Another thing you might try that would be fun and interesting yet be non-combat related.. Would be like going undercover and secretly penetrate a base through sneaking around, camouflage, using your surroundings..etc ala a covert operative. With 3.x rules, this would work best with a rogue-type character but you can have your party or thief character penetrate an enemy base and stealthily attempt to recover the enemy plans, hostage, thing-of-a-jiggy or whatever. The price for blowing your cover would be your death, the hostage's death, loss of the plans ..etc

 

The above scenario can easily be forced if the PCs know ahead of time that the forces inside the castle either far outnumber them or are far more powerful, sending the message home that making a head-on assault would be futile.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Building on that, you could design a plot, where the only way to harm the bad guys is to plant the evidence among their possessions before you call in the city guard to "discover" it. That would be in a situation where the PCs know who the bad guys are and what they have done, but have no proof against them at all. The bad guys might even admit it to them, secure that there is no proof. That means, ahem, 'creating' the proof (the word "forgery" comes to mind for some reason) and then sneaking into the enemy's abode, leave it there, then escape unnoticed. Once that is done, you just let a hint drop to the authorities, who then search the premises, which the bad guys lets them do (they know there is no proof...), and...

 

The thing about that plot is that stealth is essential - if the PCs are caught even on their way out, the whole plot fails, because the bad guys will realise what they were trying to do.

Edited January 26, 2006 by Jediphile

[Jorian Drake]

Whoa (w00t)

LOL :D

Usable ideas, hurray!

[Lancer]

Building on that, you could design a plot, where the only way to harm the bad guys is to plant the evidence among their possessions before you call in the city guard to "discover" it. That would be in a situation where the PCs know who the bad guys are and what they have done, but have no proof against them at all. The bad guys might even admit it to them, secure that there is no proof. That means, ahem, 'creating' the proof (the word "forgery" comes to mind for some reason) and then sneaking into the enemy's abode, leave it there, then escape unnoticed. Once that is done, you just let a hint drop to the authorities, who then search the premises, which the bad guys lets them do (they know there is no proof...), and...

 

The thing about that plot is that stealth is essential - if the PCs are caught even on their way out, the whole plot fails, because the bad guys will realise what they were trying to do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

This would be particularly effective if somehow the bad guys are highly respected, revered individuals in their community whom everyone believes are these awesome heroes that could never do anything bad. If the "REAL" heroes (aka the PCs) were to expose them somehow by planting evidence that would put a significant stigma on the reputation of the revered villains and earn much deserved respect for the PCs.

 

To add to this, maybe the PCs could start off as being disliked by the community or even framed by the aforementioned respected "bad guys" for a crime they never committed. The PCs could effectively give the villains a taste of their own medicine and frame them back.

Edited January 26, 2006 by Lancer

[Jorian Drake]

Building on that, you could design a plot, where the only way to harm the bad guys is to plant the evidence among their possessions before you call in the city guard to "discover" it. That would be in a situation where the PCs know who the bad guys are and what they have done, but have no proof against them at all. The bad guys might even admit it to them, secure that there is no proof. That means, ahem, 'creating' the proof (the word "forgery" comes to mind for some reason) and then sneaking into the enemy's abode, leave it there, then escape unnoticed. Once that is done, you just let a hint drop to the authorities, who then search the premises, which the bad guys lets them do (they know there is no proof...), and...

 

The thing about that plot is that stealth is essential - if the PCs are caught even on their way out, the whole plot fails, because the bad guys will realise what they were trying to do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

This would be particularly effective if somehow the bad guys are highly respected, revered individuals in their community whom everyone believes are these awesome heroes that could never do anything bad. If the "REAL" heroes (aka the PCs) were to expose them somehow by planting evidence that would put a significant stigma on the reputation of the revered villains and earn much deserved respect for the PCs.

 

To add to this, maybe the PCs could start off as being disliked by the community or even framed by the aforementioned respected "bad guys" for a crime they never committed. The PCs could effectively give the villains a taste of their own medicine and frame them back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Would this work if more than one char in LG alignment?

[Lancer]

Building on that, you could design a plot, where the only way to harm the bad guys is to plant the evidence among their possessions before you call in the city guard to "discover" it. That would be in a situation where the PCs know who the bad guys are and what they have done, but have no proof against them at all. The bad guys might even admit it to them, secure that there is no proof. That means, ahem, 'creating' the proof (the word "forgery" comes to mind for some reason) and then sneaking into the enemy's abode, leave it there, then escape unnoticed. Once that is done, you just let a hint drop to the authorities, who then search the premises, which the bad guys lets them do (they know there is no proof...), and...

 

The thing about that plot is that stealth is essential - if the PCs are caught even on their way out, the whole plot fails, because the bad guys will realise what they were trying to do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

This would be particularly effective if somehow the bad guys are highly respected, revered individuals in their community whom everyone believes are these awesome heroes that could never do anything bad. If the "REAL" heroes (aka the PCs) were to expose them somehow by planting evidence that would put a significant stigma on the reputation of the revered villains and earn much deserved respect for the PCs.

 

To add to this, maybe the PCs could start off as being disliked by the community or even framed by the aforementioned respected "bad guys" for a crime they never committed. The PCs could effectively give the villains a taste of their own medicine and frame them back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Would this work if more than one char in LG alignment?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If the PCs are "forging" evidence to plant against the villains then LGs may have a problem with it. If it is "real" evidence, however, I don't see why it would be a big deal.

Especially, if the authorities just won't listen to reason (and/or brainwashed) and the PCs need some more substantial proof in order for everyone to realize that the villains really aren't so good after all.

Edited January 27, 2006 by Lancer

[Jorian Drake]

OK, thanx.

 

PS: anyone interested in a 'forum RPG'? "

[Lancer]

OK, thanx. 

 

PS: anyone interested in a 'forum RPG'? "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I am always interested in a forum RPG what did you have in mind?

 

What a lot of people like to do nowadays is play through IRC or even better.. through some "virtual tabletop" game. This is nothing more than just an online electronic tabletop with chatting capabilities not unlike a chat service. The point of these is to recreate the tabletop experience as closely as possible but on the computer.

 

I love these because you even get an electronic gaming board with the ability to position miniatures in combat, die rollers (in the case of open rpg, they have die rollers for various rulesets), and because you play online it has the big advantage over tabletop in that you don't have to worry about finding a way to get everyone to show up at the GM's house to play. You can effectively play with anyone in the country through its network.

 

Finally, the boundary between players and GM are clearly delineated, which makes running games easy. They are a lot of free utilities online to design your own dungeons, maps, and miniatures (or even just download existing ones from fanbases) and import them into your online game.

 

Here are some that I know of:

 

www.webrpg.com

www.openrpg.com

www.fantasygrounds.com

www.kloogeinc.com

www.ghostorb.com

www.travellerrpg.com/Catalog/software.html

Edited January 27, 2006 by Lancer

[Jediphile]

If the PCs are "forging" evidence to plant against the villains then LGs may have a problem with it. If it is "real" evidence, however, I don't see why it would be a big deal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If the evidence is forged, the GM can also make a point of some of the PCs having it made and then keeping from more LG PCs how they came into possession of this evidence - the PCs behind the forgery know this is the only way to bring the bad guys down, but they also know that LGs would never go along with it, and so they keep quiet about it. A basis for a little inter-group dissent is always good...

[Jorian Drake]

Something like this: http://legendaryfrog.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=20

 

(roleplaying central)

Edited January 27, 2006 by jorian

[Walsingham]

In my experience the best disincentive for violence is to make it realistic. That is, it is potentially very dangerous for the players, the immediate effects are revolting, and the long term consequences are unpleasant in lots of fun ways. Of course, having them understand this before they kill the first person who looks at them funny may be tricky. Perhaps you could have them witness some violence right at the outset? Maybe as kids?

[Jorian Drake]

In my experience the best disincentive for violence is to make it realistic. That is, it is potentially very dangerous for the players, the immediate effects are revolting, and the long term consequences are unpleasant in lots of fun ways. Of course, having them understand this before they kill the first person who looks at them funny may be tricky. Perhaps you could have them witness some violence right at the outset? Maybe as kids?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

RPG with children chars...nice idea but we have already a game like that.

(but a good idea anyway )

[Jorian Drake]

Hmm....what would they do if I just simply don't allow them to fight? Like no weapons,classes,ect.. what would allow it to them?

Then it would really be like an adventure game (they r also RPG-s anyway)

 

...what do you think of this?

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Why not create a campaign where the divine powers of the setting are involved in some cosmical disputes, and thus cause a bit of havok in the gameworld... Thus disrupting certain things like the existence of death? Death could be one of the involved entities, and by some reason its existence was jeopardized in a cosmic way to the point that death stopped existing for all mortal races.

 

If you want you could even have the PCs directly get themselves involved with that cosmic situation and try to restore death. Maybe the powers that be require the willing sacrifice of an intelligent mortal to become the next one to hold the position of Death, and one of the PCs needs to sacrifice itself while the rest of the group restore the original Death, or find a new replacement.

[Jorian Drake]

Why does this recall in me memories of Discworld 2? "

[Jediphile]

Denying players to take certain actions is akin to forcing actions upon them whether they like it or not, aka "railroading".

 

I hate it myself as a player and go to great lengths to avoid it in my own campaign. Even if the players cannot alter the outcome of a certain situation for various reasons, I do go out of my way to give them the impression that they might have been able to influence the situation.

 

It's not something I would advice, since control over the PC's action is about the only measure of control and influence a player has in an RPG. So if you begin messing with that, then you risk having the players see themselves as spectators rather than participants in the plot, and once that happens the illusion of interaction is gone, which is fatal to any RPG experience. I've run D&D games where the players were helpless simply on the basis of how the various spells used against them were described in the rules - they couldn't argue against my rulings, but they sure didn't enjoy the experience...

 

I'd say you should rather introduce really good reasons why they shouldn't resort to violence.

 

There are several ways to do that. One is the alter the battleground so that a physical confrontation is really undesirable (edge of a cliff, trolls standing in a puddle of oil (= no fire or Ka-Boom!), or similar) or by introducing innocent bystanders (crowds of common people who would be killed or the bad guys holding a knife to the throat of a hostage, so that there is no way to fight without them killing the hostage first).

[Jorian Drake]

hmm...thats true , i have to think of another way..

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Why does this recall in me memories of Discworld 2?  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Haven't played Discworld 2, so I can't comment. However I don't think that it should be terribly important. Sometimes a cliche or convention can be used in a way that it manages to rise above what has been done before.

[Walsingham]

On further reflection I must agree with my learned friend and say that no violence, if instigated by the ref is a bad plan. If they can sharpen a stick and stick it into a beef patty they can be violent to people. And the harder you make it, the harder they will try. The only possible exception I can think of would be to involve them in some contest between Gods where they are literally incapable of causing harm by violence. Possibly as part of a debate on the relative merits of the god Bhaal (yay!) and some peacenik god. They get chosen to be the peacenik's champions, and the god puts a curse on them so they can't hurt anyone.

[Jorian Drake]

On further reflection I must agree with my learned friend and say that no violence, if instigated by the ref is a bad plan. If they can sharpen a stick and stick it into a beef patty they can be violent to people. And the harder you make it, the harder they will try. The only possible exception I can think of would be to involve them in some contest between Gods where they are literally incapable of causing harm by violence. Possibly as part of a debate on the relative merits of the god Bhaal (yay!) and some peacenik god. They get chosen to be the peacenik's champions, and the god puts a curse on them so they can't hurt anyone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmm...maybe they lost a piece of their Soul if they kill someone?

Would this work?

OR they are in a dream-plane, and there they simply can't kill anyone?

 

 

Now? what do you think? (you all i mean)

Edited January 30, 2006 by jorian

[Jediphile]

Well, you don't actually need gods to make the PCs think twice (though it does make violence on their part irrelevant - they gods are not going to care either way... In fact, they'd probably care less if the PCs are violent).

 

To make the PCs think twice, give them a mission, where they have to protect some lowly 0-level character (in D&D terms) who is the daughter of some important family or who is significant to stopped a conflict for some reason. That way even the encounter with a group of orcs because lethal, because while the PCs will undoubtedly survive and win the battle, they can fail in their mission if the person they are to protect comes under attack even once.

 

I once ran a scenario where the PCs had to defend and organize a small walled human village during an orcish attack. The PCs decided to make it a straight fight with the result that they won, but with all but a handful of the villagers (of 150+) were killed. They might have won the battle, but the players sure didn't feel much sense of victory...