Non-Violent Games

[luke]

Ok, so now I'm curious. We've talked a lot about character death lately. It seems to be the major cause for fudging.

And death seems to be understood as the ultimate consequence for violent conflict.

So what if we take out violent conflict? Shawn mentioned replaying warrior fantasies, which is cool. We've all done it will continue to do it. But what about the other side -- stories and conflicts in which there is no physical violence?

Have any of you played in such a game, session or campaign? What was it like? What system? What were the mechanics for resolution? What were the consequences? And, most importantly, did you fudge rolls and why did you fudge them?

feed me,
-L

[Yagathai]

Non... violent... games?

I understand what all the words mean separately, but when you put them all together it's just so much gobbledygook...

[foxandwarlock]

*crickets chirping*

Well, I guess that kind of says it all, huh?

[luke]

Very interesting.

The demo scenario, The Gift, has a number of non-violent outcomes. And players have surprised me more than once by using them.

So I suppose all that talk about social skills rules and craftsmanship rules is bull-cuckey? I should just publish the task resolution mechanics backed with the Melee, Weapons and Injury chapters and leave the rest up to your imaginations, huh?

heh.
-L

[foxandwarlock]

Social skills? Crafting skills? What the hell are those? Some kind of sissy skill chart? Why not have Sewing while you're- nevermind.

The point is that real men believe that anything can be made better by adding more guns, more violence or more mad kung-fu action. And mooks. LOTS OF MOOKS. YEAH!

Now, where's my shotgun?! I have stuff to kill. :twisted:

[Thor]

The Corso game run by Kublai has seen remarkably little player-initiated violence.

Two of us have no combat skills at all (although I do have one offensive spell), and Dro's character has a little bit of sword ability, but not very much.

The game has almost entirely revolved around social, investigative/research and resources tests. I'd say we test Persuasion more than any other skill combined, although Resources comes close.

The game is all about political maneuvering, as we try to retake ascendancy in our city from rival Houses.

[Viper]

Well, the first time I played the gift, we were actively trying to find a non-violent solution to the dilemma, and we did quite well- some bread was sliced, but no blood was spilled. The second time, I was playing the warden, so I felt it was more in character to push for a fight. One thing I did learn, though, never enter a battle of wills with an elf. It's just pointless.

I did have fun in both sessions, though, and even the second didn't devolve into bloodshed until the very end. I think the social mechanics (duel of wits) are very useful, especially in playaer-player arguments. It resolves annoying and potentially game-breaking situations where one person says "My character wouldn't do that.", and is so completely intractable about it you either have to split the group up or spend valuable time arguing.

[Thor]

One thing I did learn, though, never enter a battle of wills with an elf. It's just pointless.


Ahem. More to the point, I think you learned never to enter ANY sort of duel with an elf. It's just pointless. :lol:

[Viper]

Well, it's hard when you have to script against TWO people, one of whom's a veritable BW encyclopedia... :P :lol:

[Thor]

Well, it's hard when you have to script against TWO people, one of whom's a veritable BW encyclopedia... :P :lol:

Ha! Actually, Peter took over on his own about midway through, once he got the hang of it. I didn't want to coach him too much because I would have tried to get him to go easy on you. :lol:

[Viper]

Thing was,i got some pretty good hits in there, enough to kill him, but that damned mithril armor kept deflecting my blows. So I figured, get inside, lock him up, and knock him out. Then Luke had to go and let him use his sword on the inside, not to mention I didn't have nearly enough actions to block all of his strikes, and yeah, like you said... pointless.

[Thor]

Thing was,i got some pretty good hits in there, enough to kill him, but that damned mithril armor kept deflecting my blows. So I figured, get inside, lock him up, and knock him out. Then Luke had to go and let him use his sword on the inside, not to mention I didn't have nearly enough actions to block all of his strikes, and yeah, like you said... pointless.

As far as the Mithril armor goes, you have to blame Brand for that one. It was his idea to have his Prince lend the armor to Peter's Sword Singer. But hey, you'd been on the Sword Singer's side before. You knew what he was capable of. :P

[Judd]

I have played sessions where there was no combat but the threat of violence was always there, lurking around the corner.

Come to think of it, the games I've been in and run have always had violence in 'em.

Hm.

[Kaare Berg]

Not to break up a happy reminicense, but to reply to the Original question.

I've played a political game where I drew my sword once and that was to fight a duel for sport.

Bored my brains out.

But this was msotly beacuse we were playing a political game where the PCs had NO POWER WHATSOEVER. The only PC that had power was the balck sheep prince and he was paralysd by his Love:Family.

We were playing TROS and the game has since its collapse (due to GM power trip and unjust killing of the character he had built the plot around, said prine) been refered to as the whoring and drinking game.

IMO these are activities I'd rather do in real life than spending my fridays doing.

The lesson learned was as simple as this:

For a poitical game to work the player characters must have power, be it a position or the ear of someone with a position. And that people must come to them for favours and that they can grant such favours.

Otherwise it becomes boring.

And you'll need to kill something.

[Yagathai]

In all seriousness, some of the most fun I've ever had in a game was in the 7th Sea game I've been playing in, on and off, for the last three years. Several long months of realtime were dedicated to our fearless and intrepid crew of blackguards and scu-- er, adventurers brave and true decided to stage an old-fashioned play in an effort to gain the ear of a powerful and influential noble. Who would have thought that it was so hard to put on a production? Hell, costume-making alone took up the better part of a session. And I don't want to even talk about what we went through to hire musicians.

(no, I'm not kidding)

[Thor]

In all seriousness, some of the most fun I've ever had in a game was in the 7th Sea game I've been playing in, on and off, for the last three years. Several long months of realtime were dedicated to our fearless and intrepid crew of blackguards and scu-- er, adventurers brave and true decided to stage an old-fashioned play in an effort to gain the ear of a powerful and influential noble. Who would have thought that it was so hard to put on a production? Hell, costume-making alone took up the better part of a session. And I don't want to even talk about what we went through to hire musicians.

(no, I'm not kidding)

Oh, man! You guys are going to LOVE the new Resources, Circles, and Duel of Wits mechanics! :D

[ShawnLStroud]

So what if we take out violent conflict? ... But what about the other side -- stories and conflicts in which there is no physical violence?

Have any of you played in such a game, session or campaign? -L



I've run non-violent sessions, some that worked and some that didn't, and have come away with some observations:

There has to be some kind of conflict -- non violent doesn't imply non-conflict.
There has to be a good reason why violence isn't the appropriate resolution to the conflict
It still needs to be cool because nobody wants to play a nebbish

So -- some situations. In DnD (a Forgotten Realms campaign), I had a character who was a really good cook. No, seriously, the player maxxed out the cooking skill with every new level. Which was good, since the character was a twisted assassin/poisoner type. Now, due to events in the campaign, this character was normally in contact with dragon meat... which I arbitrarily decided would be really difficult to cook well (you know, dragon has a real gamey taste with a nasty liver-like aftertaste). So in 5 different sessions in a 6-month period, finding a good recipe for dragon, finding techniques for dealing with the carcass, selling said meat for a profit, etc. was a major piece of the action.

The conflict/situation defined, the resolutions became personality and role-play centered. Dain the cook had to schmooze a succession of Master Cooks, each who had a piece of the Dragon Cooking puzzle, to discover the Way of Dragon Cookery. He then needed to make the dishes a number of times... in situations where success meant meeting group goals and failure meant falling short of group goals.

We all had a blast, and not a sword was swung... but the stakes were high and the interest was there (from the players)... and the situation/conflict/solutions were cool; and fun to play.

And no, I didn't fudge -- not once. There was no need, and it was fun to roleplay out the ramifications of the "failure" (which, at that point was me mostly adding complications to the situation on each failure ; said complications standing as additional challenges to overcome before the end goal could be accomplished).

I'm running a TROS game in a fantastic Venice of the 1630s; a game designed to be a mix of fantasy/horror/historical intrigue -- where the stakes are REALLY high for the group. We often have sessions where a blade doesn't get drawn -- and the tension is still high for the group. In this game, the challenge for me is coming up with situations and conflicts that speak to the characters' Spritual Attributes (Sort of like the BITS from BW -- but who am I to explain that to you?), while at the same time moving the plot/storyline forward.

And again... I don't fudge. I don't see the need. I've taken the stance that failure (just as happens some times in real life) doesn't have to be absolute -- so fudging shouldn't be necessary.

Which brings up a point I know that you, Abzu, have spoken about before and would be worth it's own thread: How do you deal with PC failure? Is it absolute? Is it merely a new complication? And, aside from combat, how does failure modify your game?

[Thor]

Hey Shawn,

Both those campaigns sound like a lot of fun! And I think you nailed it. As long as the conflict is powerful and the stakes are high, it doesn't matter whether death is on the line or not. As long as the players are heavily invested in one particular outcome, and you present complications and conflict that is in the way of that outcome, they will have a blast.

[rafial]

The Tarshish campaign I ran last year, which was also my first BW experience turned out to be fairly non-violent, except for the final session. PCs snuck about in back alleys, they made desperate appeals to powerful men, they consorted with scum, they went on hazardous diving expeditions, they sailed dangerous waters and slogged miles through terrible storms, but with the exception of one rather vicious punch, up until the last episode there was no combat.

We had no intention of having it come out that way, it's just what happened. I will say that the serious nature of combat in BW may have contributed to the players (and characters) desires to advance their goals by "other means" when possible.

[foxandwarlock]

PCs snuck about in back alleys, they made desperate appeals to powerful men, they consorted with scum, they went on hazardous diving expeditions, they sailed dangerous waters and slogged miles through terrible storms

That's so cool. Diving expeditions and dangerous sailing. Awesome.

What's Tarshish, by the way?

[Kaare Berg]

What's Tarshish, by the way?

a game run by rafial posted at The Forge here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8985&highlight=burning+wheel). Good read and a great look at how BW can shine.

Do a topic seach on Burning Wheel authored by Rafial at the Forge. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/index.php)

It got me thinking.

And I used to be a bouncer so that comes hard. :oops:

K