The Grumpy Gnome‘s Fantasy Projects Blog (latest update on page 61)

[CookAndrewB]

I had a similar idea when I read John Wick. You really don't want to kill that guy's parrot.

Also... morality in pirate games? That seems like a bit of an oxymoron. Like honor among thieves.

[Grumpy Gnome]

7th Sea sets itself up as a game of Hollywood style swashbuckling with heroic pirate PCs rather than a more historical reality.

https://www.robjustice.net/games/7th-sea/7th-sea-morality/

https://www.7thsea2e.com/port/blog/absolute-morality-disfigured-7th-sea

As you can see, there are mixed opinions about the morality system in 7th Sea.

[mirjeki]

I think the morality of D&D and other roleplaying games is entirely down to the games master, RPGs - and miniature wargames as well - are often more sandbox rulesets which are meant to be tweaked. I know most editions of Warhammer often state that you should feel free to adjust rules as you wish to make it more entertaining for all players (and D&D 3E definitely states this too). As a result I've always gone for a 'theme is king' approach to my tabletop gaming.

If it makes sense to employ a solution outside of the norm then I definitely encourage it with the people I'm playing with. So in that sense you're imparting your own morality onto the game setting, rather than having the books dictate their morality to you. Diplomacy is something I always encourage in my wargaming and RPGs, and I love an unexpected resolution to a game.

Another example is how my wife, with no wargaming or D&D experience tried to find a non-violent role playing solution as her Elven party in our first serious game of MESBG Battle Companies.... because her experiences in DSA (a German game similar to D&D) as a teen taught her the value of non-violent conflict resolution that was missing from the original AD&D.

I think this is really interesting, and it would be great if a gamified non-violent option was available in such games. I've been making my own skirmish game as you're aware, Rick, and I really wanted there to be an option for diplomatic resolution to a situation, so it includes a stat which allows you to try to 'talk down' enemies. In terms of game mechanics it takes an action and is functionally very similar to just shooting an enemy (except they then hang around on the board as a neutral figure), but I think the thematic option it presents would be attractive to some players.

If a similar stat-based roll could be added to your Middle Earth games do you think it would add something? Perhaps missions could be constructed with multiple solutions (and differing rewards)? eg. If both sides agree not to fight, then they have to cooperate against a monstrous foe instead, which offers greater reward but also has a higher chance of permanent injury for your soldiers. Or you could have it where non-violent resolution of a battle triggers a morale test for some of your more hot-headed Battle Company members, and they might leave the company due to its 'loss of honour' for having a parley with the enemy, but as a counter point your less willful members gain more Influence than usual as they're filled with confidence for a hopeful future.

I think the best way to gamify a non-standard solution is to increase the risk/reward factor. If a player suggests something unusual then it should have a chance for a better than usual payoff, at the expense of being tougher to pull off, otherwise it will always be the optimal way to play and would be over-used. Combat is playing it cautious and keeping your guard up. Non-violent solutions are potentially letting your guard down, but have attractive benefits alongside the moral victory.

[Grumpy Gnome]

I agree with your points Mirjeki.

Morality in games should be a consensus between the players and GM/DM/Umpire.

There was a mod for Fallout 4 that operated similar to your diplomatic resolution, if I remember correctly it was a charisma stat based intimidate skill which used shooting mechanics “behind the scenes” to determine success.

[CookAndrewB]

I think it is easy enough to skew rewards (XP most specifically) towards non-combat actions. You could pretty easily award clever gameplay, or success using skills rather than kills. Even if killing were the order of the moment, you could employ some generous morale (not moral) tests for the opposing team to break ranks and flee. After all, I know of few groups of men who are truly willing to stand and die to the last when there are other options. Fleeing opponents could yield loot by way of dropping things and running.

It does seem silly to try and describe how being hacked at with a sword might result in "minor cuts and abrasions which leave you helpless."

[Mister Frau Blucher]

Here's the thing: in Advanced D&D - and even original D&D - you got more XP for treasure than you did killing foes. 1 XP for each gold piece. So if you were a first level fighter, you could kill 20 orcs in single combat, and still not be 25% of the way to second level. But if you acquired 2,000 gold pieces, you were now second level.

I was never crazy about that because it made more sense for a fighter to gain experience by actually fighting rather than stealing. And of course stealing is fairly low on the morality scale.

But from the earliest days of the hobby, finding alternative ways to acquiring treasure than fighting and killing all foes was encouraged, because combat could become deadly very fast. There were other ways to get the treasure, by guile or by trickery or negotiation.

[Grumpy Gnome]

Both of you make excellent points.

Of course you can easily give XP for non-combat achievements but other than the gold example Mister Frau Blucher pointed out the rules did not necessarily teach you to do this.

Now the gold example is something I had forgotten and yes, fair point. You could get more XP robbing someone and letting them live to be robbed again tomorrow. But I do not recall the rules pointing that out.

D&D and AD&D were my gateway formalized role playing experiences. Whilst I am unfamiliar with 5e AD&D it sounds like it now addresses this but my point was more about what D&D was not what is today.

[Mister Frau Blucher]

I didn't explain as well as I should have. I meant that there was always other reasons besides killing to give out XP. Story Awards were are around long before they became codified in the second edition. They were discussed often over the years in Dragon Magazine. In Original D&D, where you were encouraged to "make the game your own," before everything became codified in AD&D, many campaigns gave out xp for role playing and achieving campaign goals. You can see this from the APA magazines being published at the time, some of which are available online. The Wild Hunt was a good example, but I'm not sure if it's still available online. Alarams and Excursions was another that showed how differently people played with XP. There were dozens of these fan-made zines back in the day.

The gold piece XP rule in AD&D is found in the section of the DMG on experience, page 85, right beside the xp for monsters killed table.

[Grumpy Gnome]

You have a much better memory for the lore than me mate. I greatly respect that.

It would seem there were attempts to add incentives for non-combat that I do not remember. Maybe I am completely off base in my theory. I just do not remember non-combat XP rewards being highlighted in the original, despite a “make it your own game” sentiment.

Village of Hommlet, Keep on the Borderlands, Isle of Dread, Temple of Elemental Evil, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. The adventures I remember really focused on combat but that could have also been down to my DM’s. And it was a long time ago for a Gnome with a less than perfect memory.

[CookAndrewB]

I think that some games we played as youths did devolve into little more than tabletop wargames. Rifts was a good example of that. I wanted to shoot something with my Glitterboy Boom gun. Mostly because it seemed overpowered and I wanted to turn weak enemies into pink mist. It is a little like mowing the lawn with a nuke, but my teenage mind was pretty sure that would be awesome too.

As an adult, I often lament that there are character stats that never/seldom get used. Charisma-type stats are often present, but actual use in a pre-made scenario is almost nil. In this way, I can agree that gaming often goes in the direction of the creator of the scenario. You can hardly "make it your own" when every encounter pits you against a skeleton or wolf. No point in trying to seduce them (has anyone ever REALLY thought of seduction in terms of gameplay? I'd cringe pretty hard if someone tried to roleplay a seduction), or persuade them. Maybe you could persuade a wolf by giving up some food, but then that feels like a more likely option in a choose your own adventure book than a pre-written scenario. Also, tossing a biscuit hardly requires charisma.

Since I play solo games, primarily, I am often looking for a rule set that allows me to play something other than straight combat. Sneaking down a corridor to hack a computer should be a better option than "kill all the guards" when the player's team is small and guard presence could very well be endless (Luke Skywalker on the Death Star). Give me chances to toss a pebble to distract a guard, or let me put two characters into an argument to pull attention away from a third who is sneaking through a fence. Charisma in that context may simply mean a "convincing act" as opposed to guards watching two dummies throwing clearly fake punches at each other.

That really leads me to an outcome mechanism that I use when solo gaming (pertinent as outcomes are a good way to reward XP) which is a simple "Yes/no/and/but" mechanic. Rather than straight success/failures I sometimes add "and" (additional consequence)/"but" (mitigating consequence) modifiers. So trying to hack a computer terminal might result in:
Yes (success) AND you also notice that this terminal can control local security doors.
Yes, BUT the computer snaps a picture of all who access it which leaves incriminating evidence behind. (Hello Mandalorian!)
No, AND your tampering has activated local security doors trapping you in the room.
No, BUT a timer pops up indicating that you may attempt to log in again after 30 minutes.

So, you can start to give some variances in XP based on how the overall story develops, and it can give characters a new set of decision-making points which then lead to more XP depending on how the interaction develops. Again, because I play alone this type of mechanic really helps me not get stuck playing a linear game and allows me to hide some of my own Easter eggs

[Grumpy Gnome]

I hear you on that. And yes, I felt that way with RIFTs too, back in the day.

That is an elegant system you created mate.

[Grumpy Gnome]

It is that time again. Lots totally about but not a lot finished…

https://thegrumpygnome.home.blog/2021/05/06/forest-for-the-trees/

As always feedback is appreciated.

[mirjeki]

Your DH tiles are looking great! Really loving the improvements you've made to them.

Mrs GG's setups are good. I like the walled gardens a lot.

It's nice to see the interiors of the Hagglethorn Hollow buildings with some decorations in them too, they remind me a lot of fantasy sets from the 80s like Yoda's hut in ESB and Miracle Max's house from Princess Bride.

[Hobgoblin]

The trees look great!

On early D&D: I'd agree with MisterFrauBlucher that the original game encouraged non-combat solutions specifically through the gold-for-XP system. But there's something else too: combat in early D&D was so deadly for low-level characters that the combat system itself was a disincentive to avoid it - at least directly or without overwhelming odds.

I've been running a sporadic side-campaign for my kids and their friends (for when not all the group can make it), using Swords and Wizardry, which is a cleaned-up retroclone of the first (1974) edition. And the single-hit-die/death-at-negative-HP mechanic makes combat extraordinarily risky if played by the book. So the players are learning to avoid it at all costs. We've only had one session so far without PC deaths, but the players are now becoming much more cautious and canny.

Of course, being murderhobos to their hearts, they're trying to come up with fiendish schemes to denude dungeons and their denizens of their treasure. But the fragility of the characters is certainly a disincentive to fighting their way through.

[Grumpy Gnome]

Your DH tiles are looking great! Really loving the improvements you've made to them.

Mrs GG's setups are good. I like the walled gardens a lot.

It's nice to see the interiors of the Hagglethorn Hollow buildings with some decorations in them too, they remind me a lot of fantasy sets from the 80s like Yoda's hut in ESB and Miracle Max's house from Princess Bride.

Thanks mate!

Mrs. GG is having a blast with HH.

The HH aesthetic definitely reminds me of Dark Crystal and Labyrinth… but now that you mention it, yeah Miracle Max too. Good call.