Over on RPG.net, the fashionistas are talking once again about how awesome rpgs that have "no violence" are, even though they can't really name many.  There are certainly some that discourage violence; and the one they are all head over heels for over its progressiveness is Doctor Who with its initiative system that basically rewards talking, running, or taking any other action besides fighting by letting those things go first.  They talk about it like it was the innovation of the century.

It isn't. I know because I basically invented that initiative system.  And my suggestion for it came out of the oldest source of inspiration in the books: D&D.  Far from "radical indie design" or shit like that, I was just following an emulation-specific iteration of the Basic/Expert D&D's initiative order.  My goal there wasn't do to it to send some kind of political or universal message of "violence is bad, m'kay", but simply to create a system of initiative that effectively emulates the TV show.

And that's why Dr.Who doesn't suck. Or at least, that mechanic doesn't.  Because its goal isn't to be preachy, or to punish you for wanting to kick ass.

Can anyone think of any other RPG where there's some kind of mechanical discouragement of violence, that doesn't completely suck as a result?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;443965Over on RPG.net, the fashionistas are talking once again about how awesome rpgs that have "no violence" are, even though they can't really name many.  There are certainly some that discourage violence; and the one they are all head over heels for over its progressiveness is Doctor Who with its initiative system that basically rewards talking, running, or taking any other action besides fighting by letting those things go first.  They talk about it like it was the innovation of the century.

It isn't. I know because I basically invented that initiative system.  And my suggestion for it came out of the oldest source of inspiration in the books: D&D.  Far from "radical indie design" or shit like that, I was just following an emulation-specific iteration of the Basic/Expert D&D's initiative order.  My goal there wasn't do to it to send some kind of political or universal message of "violence is bad, m'kay", but simply to create a system of initiative that effectively emulates the TV show.

And that's why Dr.Who doesn't suck. Or at least, that mechanic doesn't.  Because its goal isn't to be preachy, or to punish you for wanting to kick ass.

Can anyone think of any other RPG where there's some kind of mechanical discouragement of violence, that doesn't completely suck as a result?

RPGPundit

I have run a campaign or two where violence was not a good option because of the nature of the situation, but in all such campaigns, violence remained an option. My players enjoyed them very much, because there was a lot of conflict and player ability to deal with situations as they saw fit. The systems I used were traditional, and not story games. The players refrained from using violence, not because they couldn't use violence, but because violence would not have been the most useful response in that situation, and there were non-violent means at their disposal which would give more productive results.

-clash

From my own French perspective, it all started in France with a certain conception of Call of Cthulhu. Not that Call of Cthulhu is fundamentally non-violent, it certainly can be played in many different ways, but CoC in France immediately started to appeal to pseudo-historians and failed academicians who saw there a chance to show their scenaristic brilliance. CoC contrasted with D&D for them in the way it was making use of actual history. You were playing "normal people" faced with mysteries, it seemed more subtle, more "adult," more "mature." That's an optic that gained momentum and basically made the bed for later games, like Vampire: The Masquerade.

I ran a sci-fi game in which the characters all played news reporters and the scenarios were based on investigating (and getting enough proof to print) stories against a tight deadline. It worked well enough.

I'll be sure to send you a copy of Courtesans when it's released Pundit.

Though you can invest in beating up or murdering your Admirers there is no violence beyond a sharp slap to the face done by your Character personally.

Tough Justice has violence but it is never lethal it just hurts a lot!

Quote from: Benoist;443969From my own French perspective, it all started in France with a certain conception of Call of Cthulhu. Not that Call of Cthulhu is fundamentally non-violent, it certainly can be played in many different ways, but CoC in France immediately started to appeal to pseudo-historians and failed academicians who saw there a chance to show their scenaristic brilliance. CoC contrasted with D&D for them in the way it was making use of actual history. You were playing "normal people" faced with mysteries, it seemed more subtle, more "adult," more "mature." That's an optic that gained momentum and basically made the bed for later games, like Vampire: The Masquerade.

That only works until a ghoul shows up.

Quote from: RPGPunditCan anyone think of any other RPG where there's some kind of mechanical discouragement of violence, that doesn't completely suck as a result?

Classic Traveller's discouragement (the often long-term inconvenience of getting shot once, and the likelihood of a second shot being deadly), along with encouragement to pursue ambitions related to civilization (rather than realized in a monster-infested underworld or other war zone), has in my experience tended to put the emphasis on non-sucking activities other than firefights.

When violence figures, it is as a means to an end (e.g., helping the natives defeat the invaders so that one can use the invaders' radio set to call for a lift off the desert planet, furthering both one's career and one's nation's cold-war cause.)

Runequest and King Arthur Pendragon are centrally preoccupied with the warrior's pursuit of glory. While they do not "discourage violence", they do encourage choosing one's fights -- which necessitates attention to the context that gives fights significance.

In D&D, once folks have a few normal-men's-lives worth of hit points, violence can, in my view, more easily become the first recourse in addressing any problem. The cost is just not so great, especially when the victims are uncontroversially inhuman and inimical.

In Call of Cthulhu, only minor monsters tend to be much inconvenienced by physical assault. "But, Your Honor, those people were devil worshipers who nearly brought on the end of the world," tends not to go far when the perpetrators of a bloodbath get caught. Again, it is not so much a blanket discouragement of violence as an encouragement of strategy.

Similarly, in the late 1980s I ran an "American Gothic" game with a premise that (IIRC) was partly inspired by an Alan Moore Swamp Thing story arc by that title. It also came from a tongue in cheek response -- "The Twilight Zone plus Route 66" -- to musings about what old TV shows might be good grist for the fad of turning everything from Cyberpunk and Outer Space to Victoriana and Napoleonics into yet another game with Orks 'n' Elves plugged in.

Anyhow, the central game objective was one of misinformation. The players were like the opponents of Mulder and Scully in "The X Files", tasked with covering up the weirdness of the world -- because belief itself was the power source for sorcery advancing the nefarious ends of a conspiracy the PCs opposed.

Even very nice magic was thus a problem, which in turn made sometimes for hard choices (or at least hard puzzles to resolve to full satisfaction).

Quote from: Phillip;443991Classic Traveller's discouragement (the often long-term inconvenience of getting shot once, and the likelihood of a second shot being deadly), along with encouragement to pursue ambitions related to civilization (rather than realized in a monster-infested underworld or other war zone), has in my experience tended to put the emphasis on non-sucking activities other than firefights.

That's where I was about to go. The only non-sucky non-violent games I have seen are non sucky because they are realistic in the consequences of violence. Once things escalate to violence in such a game, PCs get dead quick.

Take such a system and add suitably daunting situations and motivations for the PCs, pretty soon you have a bit of awesome.

Contrast to the typical mainstream game today in which killing PCs is designed to be rare at least, then violence becomes a more common option. Heck, some games even exclude rules for PC death except as a GM option.

Quote from: RPGPundit;443965Can anyone think of any other RPG where there's some kind of mechanical discouragement of violence, that doesn't completely suck as a result?

Hmmmmn. Amber?

Seanchai

Unknown Armies discourages violence by preventing PCs from knowing their current Body score (your current HP) and describing the injuries they take narratively. It also has incredibly deadly combat rules that allow one-shot-kills, and taking automatic damage from knives. If you roll a 01 in hand to hand, you kill the person - even if you don't want to.

The madness metres prevent you from murdering people cold-bloodedly. Your first few fights, you're likely to freeze up or run, and killing enough people will turn you into a stone-cold sociopath. You've got to go through psychological counseling and treatment to resensitise yourself, and this involves giving up the very notches on the metre that allowed you to do all that horrible shit remorselessly.

Quote from: PunditCan anyone think of any other RPG where there's some kind of mechanical discouragement of violence, that doesn't completely suck as a result?

Well, Guildschool equally reinfrces other parts of the game.  I've used it to run a few games that involved little to no violence.  One was a mechant campaign that I never planned to non-violent.  It was a 2 player that ran for about 6 months until the semester ended for the 2 players who moved away from Boston.  The deadly nature of combat (mentioned by others before), the viable options, and most importantly, the reward mechanics allowed the 2 to avoid combat and still progress in the artisan, mercantile, social, and spell casting skills.

Our CoC games are usually non-violent, well up until the last bit where everyone dies.
As has been said any game where violence has 'realistic' consequences tends to discourage it. So I played a police procedural game which I based on the oWoD ruleset and there was no violence just like in Seven which has one violent moment.
I have done investigation games in a range of systems, from D&D right through to James Bond and they all tend away from violence.

So rather than systems I think its a mode of play thing and investigation games tend to be less violent.

Quote from: flyingmice;443968I have run a campaign or two where violence was not a good option because of the nature of the situation, but in all such campaigns, violence remained an option. My players enjoyed them very much, because there was a lot of conflict and player ability to deal with situations as they saw fit. The systems I used were traditional, and not story games. The players refrained from using violence, not because they couldn't use violence, but because violence would not have been the most useful response in that situation, and there were non-violent means at their disposal which would give more productive results.

-clash

One of my VtM games was like this. I played up the Camarilla coming down hard on vampires duking it out so there was a lot of social conflict and PCs destroying the lives of npcs through creative use of contacts and retainers. It lasted a few months before the pot boiled over and the fighting finally started but they picked up a different approach to dealing with enemies I think.

Pete

Any game where combat is truly deadly qualifies, surely?

As such, i suggest CoC, Runequest and other Basic Roleplaying games.

I could easily see a Dying Earth type game where any danger was addressed by either pure bullshit, or failing that, headlong flight.