Just for fun: How would PoE play if there was no killing?

[Falkon Swiftblade]

We've probably all played the old IE games at some point, and it's pretty much a gimmie in any D&D type of game there's going to be many a smashing of toes and boots to the faces of baddies everywhere. So here's the design challenge I'm creating. It's the entire PoE game experience, only the main game play mechanic that would change is death and killing is no longer a system in the game. The question is how would you play? How would that affect your party make up, and what would you do? Feel free to invent your entire scenario or game play idea. You can choose one system or game play mechanic to replace killing with from another game, or choose to use the info already known about PoE or similar IE games to describe your play through in this alternative reality game. For extra credit what fictitious character outside of the fantasy genre would you bring into the PoE universe and what would they do or how would they help your party?

[Silent Winter]

No killing or no combat?  If we could accept the surrender of an enemy, but still need to beat them in combat first, then it wouldn't change my party makeup.

If we're replacing combat entirely then is combat not even a danger? In which case I don't need to sneak anywhere either.  Or could we make it a stealth-game with 'game-over' if caught?

 

Personally, I'm happy with a combat-centric game that has other possible resolutions for many quests.  But if we had to replace it with something, then I'd take the stealth approach and thus compose a party of thieves (or rogues/rangers in PoE).

This would, of course, have a knock-on effect for quests - they would need to be designed with stealth in mind, so it becomes less an open-rpg and more a stealth-rpg - only one or 2 viable classes.  Mage would become viable if there were invisibility spells, I guess.

 

For a non-fantasy genre, fictitious character add-in, I'd say Solid-Snake (he's stealthy ) but give him a PoE-world outfit and weapons.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

This would, of course, have a knock-on effect for quests - they would need to be designed with stealth in mind, so it becomes less an open-rpg and more a stealth-rpg - only one or 2 viable classes.  Mage would become viable if there were invisibility spells, I guess.

 

 

I doubt there will be invisibility spells (and even if I'm wrong, they'll probably be rogue talents), but every class can pump Stealth and be effective at it.

[PrimeJunta]

Interesting challenge. I've played lots of low-combat D&D, including many sessions with no combat at all, but the game would be drastically different if killing wasn't in at all. But I'll try. I'll try to keep as much of the IE/PoE style intact, to sketch out something that you could do by modding one of the existing games, rather than something completely different (like an adventure game for example).

 

My game is set in Khumbu-Lo, a great island in the middle of an ocean. It is peopled by immortals, sustained by ancient magic they no longer understand. This magic is powerful enough to restore any amount of damage: even an individual who is completely disintegrated will re-form the next day, completely intact, including memories, skills, and personality. There is no disease. Hunger and thirst are present, but once past a certain point, starvation simply stops. If you stop eating and drinking, you'll be weakened and end up looking like an Indian ascetic, but will continue to survive in that state indefinitely. This magic affects all animal life. It also makes all of it completely sterile. Nobody and nothing ever dies, nobody and nothing is ever born. Other than plants. Needless to say, everybody's vegetarian.

 

Khumbu-Lo is an extremely violent society, precisely because the cost of losing a fight is so low. Since it has all of the problems other societies have -- poverty, tyranny, slavery, oppression -- conflict is common. There are wars, oh yes. Because nobody ever dies or is permanently physically harmed, violence against people is not a very useful way of resolving these conflicts. Instead, those on the losing side are dispossessed, exiled to barren, unwanted areas, or enslaved. Wars, vendettas, and battles for territory are about material goods: destroying fortresses, depriving the enemy of vital resources, or physically pushing them out of an area.

 

Slave rebellions have the rebels take up arms en masse and fight their way out to set up an enclave of their own. These are not that common because the slave population is relatively low and slavery is a temporary state. Since slaves don't have much to lose, the potential for rebellion is much higher than in mortal societies. Consequently slaveowners keep their slave populations down to manageable numbers and, lacking the sticks of owners of mortal slaves, provide them with sufficient carrots to keep them from rebelling. Most of the time.

 

The aristocracy uses heavily ritualized combat -- duels or between groups -- to resolve matters of honor. These are public spectacles, much enjoyed by everyone. There are also professional gladiators reknowned for their skill at fighting entertainingly. The lower classes simply fight amongst each other, or attend brutal prizefights.

 

So, you could have pretty much the whole gamut of classes, races, mechanics, items etc. from any of the IE-style games, and write in a fantasy story suited to the setting. The removal of death would change your quests in material ways; for example there would be no "bring me the head of X" or "kill be N rorgwulfs" simply because you couldn't, they'd never be dead. Instead, you would be, I dunno, stealing valuable objects, destroying dangerous artifacts, collecting bits and pieces to create a dangerous artifact, discovering forgotten corners of Khumbu-Lo, perhaps eventually talking to strange beings from outside time that know something of the nature of the curse, or blessing, lying over Khumbu-Lo.

 

Another twist would be that because combat is always survivable and the biggest risk you're running when engaging in it is losing all your stuff, there should be more scope for avoiding it altogether. I would take care to design in a pacifist solution to every conflict in this game, and I would use a class system where not every character is necessarily awesome in combat. If you want to, you could build a cloaked catburglar type who's adept at avoiding or getting out of fights with all his stuff intact and of relieving others of their belongings without fighting them. Or someone who accomplishes her goals through gathering information and knowledge and using these effectively to manipulate events to her wishes.

 

Your extra credit? I'd introduce an explorer. Call him Dr. Breathingrock. He's the first outsider to arrive in Khumbu-Lo in thousands of years, shipwrecked on the coast, all alone, with nothing but a journal, a compass, and a revolver with six bullets. He's no good at fighting, doesn't speak the language, doesn't (to start with) even realize that nobody (including himself, as long as he's there) won't ever die.

[Osvir]

I'm chiming in with Silent Winter. No killing or no combat?

No killing, non-PC-combat & non-lethal:
A pacifist explorer or adventurer could be a fun little adventure I guess, not involving him or herself in combat or in the killing, but must get escorts, sneak around places and generally find others to help him/her with many tasks forward. Perhaps being able to subdue and paralyze some opposers on the way in a non-lethal way. Combat would mostly take place around the Player, without the Player being directly involved in it, it'd still be a threat (but the Player wouldn't be able to fight back, only run away).

Little PC-combat, little PC-killing:
Another way would be to be, as in the movie "Lord of War", the supplier or the leader of a pack, but never engages in combat him or herself but instead orders henchmen or soldiers around to complete objectives for you. The Player wouldn't be in control of the combat, so there wouldn't be any combat, but there would probably be killing involved. Of course, some times combat could be a "thing" (duels against other lords, assassins in the night). Someone who mostly let's others do the fighting for him or her.

*shrug*

[teknoman2]

it would probably play like a point and click adventure game

[Falkon Swiftblade]

Good job guys, to clarify I'm only taking out killing. Though combat likely would change to some degree. 

[Walsingham]

If you can't kill, then you next step would be immobilisation followed by isolation. Because people will still be d***s. And they will need to be neutralised.

 

So you would disagree with someone, wrestle them to the floor, cuff them, bag them, throw them into the river to be washed out to sea. The end.

[Jobby]

I would play a very charismatic and persistent Jehova Witness and go door to door convincing people eternal damnation awaited them unless they refused blood transfusions... or something.

[Silent Winter]

 

This would, of course, have a knock-on effect for quests - they would need to be designed with stealth in mind, so it becomes less an open-rpg and more a stealth-rpg - only one or 2 viable classes.  Mage would become viable if there were invisibility spells, I guess.

 

 

I doubt there will be invisibility spells (and even if I'm wrong, they'll probably be rogue talents), but every class can pump Stealth and be effective at it.

Oh yeah, good point.

Though if the quests were based on stealth then why take a class that has no advantage in it?  So we'd need to make the quests involve stealth but have other requirements too (like setting fire to the map-room or persuading Mr X. to join your cause, through charm or intmidation) - that way, all the classes come back into it.

 

 

---

grrr, forum swallowed my post - had to retype it

Edited February 2, 2014 by Silent Winter

[AGX-17]

It wouldn't.

 

I guess there should be some bookend to that statement, but...

[Silent Winter]

It wouldn't.

but surely we could reprogram it as 'PoE-Run', an infinite runner game?  Or 'Angry-Orlans', fire those guys from a catapult at a castle of Aumaua?  No?  Ok then

[Nonek]

Dancers at the End of Time.

[magicwallis]

Got to be a gritty noir crime thriller. Involving ridiculously complex plots intertwined with crime solving. Sort of a fantasy 'Altered Carbon'. I think PoE's concept of disconnected body and souls matches with Altered Carbons notion of disconnected consciousness. Also means you could chuck in 'super badass' Takeshi  Kovacs as a companion.

[Ieo]

Planescape: Torment.

 

There were, what.... 3-4 required battles in the whole game? So basically I'd play similarly to PS:T, assuming PE has anywhere near the textual depth; the "replacement mechanic" for me would simply be more dialogue and faction options, probably making it more of a solve-mysteries/problems-and-deal-with-politics thing.

[Failion]

Non lethal combat I would make a option for a player that wants different outcomes when combat is forced upon them. Say for example the party is wanted by the town guard after a corrupted knights in a knight order accused them of villainy. And now they find themselves in a scenario where they can kill and murder the town guards if they evil and want to be feared in the town. Flee the town and have their reputation stay the same but be outlawed temporarily from the town. Or fight the guards and use non lethal but more difficult combat to KO the guards to prove their innocence through might and have their reputation liked as being merciful good guys in the town. Whatever option the player chooses they'll eventually get to pursue the corrupted knights but this lets them roleplay how they want to be in the game world. Non lethal combat doesn't have to be inherently used for good could be used to beat someone up to torture for information and sell them.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Failion

[TrashMan]

Minimal killing? that would be interesting.

 

I always tought that there is often too much filler fighting and too little actual roleplaying in many RPG's.

I wouldn't remove combat compeltely - it makes little sense in any world - but I wouldn't throw opponents on the player and I would make enemies behave intelligently, thus making fight something you want to avoid.

 

Storming an enemy castle would no longer allow kiting. The enemy wouldn't be beaf or blind. If the alarm is raised, sounds of battle heard, then you'd be swarmed.

[Lephys]

Now I'm just thinking of a world in which things can't really die because their souls just come back as themselves, but in a different physical vessel, complete with memories and everything. But "dying" is still a huge disadvantage, and/or people can control, to some degree, the cycle of souls to their advantage. So there's still conflict over resources and the like, with a lot of value placed on vessels.

[Grand_Commander13]

Storming an enemy castle would no longer allow kiting. The enemy wouldn't be beaf or blind. If the alarm is raised, sounds of battle heard, then you'd be swarmed.

 

That's the thing, isn't it? Typical RPGs (both cRPG and tabletop) simultaneously deliver too much and too little combat. Small things, like walking down the street at night, are fraught with peril which should not reasonably happen (oh no, six guys with dirty looks and knives are going to attack me and my five friends, all of whom are packing plate armor and broadswords) while things that should be very difficult, like storming the castle, are made ridiculously easy due to enemy ineptitude.

 

It's maybe not so immersion breaking in an isometric game where you can't see the enemy spawns idling, but it's terrible in an MMO like The Old Republic to see five groups of enemies in one big hall ignoring you while you kill their friends because you didn't come within six meters of them.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Grand_Commander13

[Shadowmant]

Bob:   Hey John?

John:  Ya Bob?  

Bob:   Look over there.

John:  What is it?

Bob:   Some guy with a flaming lightsaber just flew through the door and stabbed Benny in the throat.  

John:  Dammit Bob, that's way over on the other side of the room, could you please focus and get back to work?

Bob:   Yah.... yah I guess so.

[rjshae]

It would fail to fulfill its claim to be the spiritual successor to the IE games, so it would flop. I think it would be better to play a game designed around the concept of "not killing", rather than trying to funnel a combat-centric game into a pacifist adventure.