Is there such a thing as a system where violence isn't the

Ryuutama?

Fate, though it can go either way

Many systems let you get by with just charming and mindbreaking people if you're playing the right character (Psion in D&D, Ventrue in WoD: Vampire, etc.).

But there's also Ruyat, Ryuta... whatever, the Japanese thing made in the spirit of Ghibli storytelling.

>>49598538
Any setting or game run by a DM that thinks their should be consequences for violence. It works better with systems that let you advance mechanically without murdering for exp.

>>49598538
>Is there such a thing as a system where violence isn't the main method of solving conflicts?

D&D does encourage the DM to reward players (e.g. with experience) for using diplomatic techniques to resolve conflicts rather than simply killing things. Some editions, at least.

An entirely diplomatic D&D campaign is very feasible. Characters' primarily combat-based stats like STR or CON might be used only in checks, like busting through doors or other obstacles, or surviving falls or traps. Weapons might be used for similar purposes - i.e. cutting down doors. So nothing in the game necessarily becomes obsolete.

>>49598538
But anon, killing is FUN
Come with is, enjoy the slaughter. Revel in the blood of your enemies.
Violence is a feast and hatred is its wine

Literally every fucking system that isn't explicitly about skullfucking everyone.
Yes, that includes D&D, because overcoming an encounter does not necessarily mean killing everyone.

>>49598641
>D&D does encourage the DM to reward players (e.g. with experience) for using diplomatic techniques to resolve conflicts rather than simply killing things. Some editions, at least.
The problem is that this is usually less of an exp reward than bypassing the encounter, unless the DM actively makes a point of rewarding non-violent solutions more than the violent ones. Also, this rule is entirely optional and usually not enforced. Unless you know beforehand what your DM's playstyle is, being a murderhobo is ironically the safest option.

Allowing D&D to be a (mostly) non-violent game says more about the skill of the DM than the quality of the system.

>>49598538
One of the nWoD vampire splats books has "social combat" and another had resource/economic conflict model for elder vampires with vast personal empires.

>>49598538
I've heard that Dogs in the Vineyard does this. Most conflicts start small and social, and only escalates to violence if the quarreling parties start throwing punches or pulling guns. I haven't played it yet because I can't get a group together. Which is unfortunate because I have intimate knowledge of the area it takes place in.

File: ha gay 2.gif (1MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x225px

>>49598538
>Is there such a thing as a system where violence isn't the main method of solving conflicts?

>>49598538
Golden Sky Stories?

>>49598679
>The problem is that this is usually less of an exp reward than bypassing the encounter

I don't think the manuals specified any hard value here. Wasn't the reward entirely up to the DM?

And let's consider a cost-benefit analysis: Do I try to talk my way out of this, or do I and my party risk suffering critical injuries that will be expensive to deal with or make it possible to go any further? It might be a long trek back to the nearest inn, and who knows what opportunistic creatures might want to make a meal out of a hobbled over party steadily limping through the wilderness.

Princess Pillowfighter (it's real)

File: choices.png (683KB, 537x955px) Image search: [Google]

683KB, 537x955px

the thing is that violence is an easy way to keep uncreative players engaged with the game. As a GM I often notice that many players, especially the new ones, do not understand the importance of social encounters. Many conflicts can be solved if you just talk to the right person, chose your words wisely or squeeze the correct information out of someone that might have something to say. With combat encounters you have two things, you have a clear cut solution AND your players feel like there is something at stake. There is also an easy way to get some loot. The only way you can run non-violent campaigns is if your players are super creative. Basically you need color players. Not stat-players or adventure players. Stat-players and adventure players just want to fight and loot and fight and loot and occasionally puzzle. They do not give a shit about social encounters.

File: beginning idol.jpg (69KB, 303x500px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 303x500px

>>49598538

>>49598538
Dogs in the Vineyard always gives you the option of violence, but it's usually not the best answer, and they are always serious consequences when the guns come out.

>>49598666

This. It's my ongoing conundrum when it comes to playing my current Shadowrun character (a troll face): every time we get into a fight, I feel l should have talked our way out of it; whenever I talk our way out of fights, I feel like we should have just fought them.

>>49598753
>>49599056
>Dogs in the Vineyard
Isn't that the super-realistic system with rules for infections, being crippled, bleeding out etc.? The one where even if you win a gunfight, your character will usually end up being so gimped he might as well be dead?

>>49599155
No idea, as I haven't played it. I can't even go glance over the PDF because I'm away from my PC. I've just been intrigued by the setting and keep hearing about it in threads.

>>49599155
No, that's not Dogs. DitV is very narrative-heavy, super-realistic isn't it's thing, but gunfights can kill players if they're pushed for.

>>49599155
That sounds like GURPS with the realism switches set to "on."