Non-Combat Adventures

[dragonfett]

What types of adventures would you recommend for a party that focuses less on combat and more on role play. Like diplomacy, find item x, or something else. Now not completely non-combat, but at least 65% of the encounters have to be solved through out of combat thinking.

[Severus Snape]

One that can be used in any setting - even in space - is diplomacy. PCs need to negotiate a treaty, or peace, or stop a war, or be diplomatic envoys to so-and-so. Combat could be involved, but being diplomats will test your players' abilities to actually role-play their characters.

Recon missions can be good for this too, but may get a little combat-heavy at times. Players have to scope out a base, or a transport route, or any other location and report back. Same can be said for infiltration. Players have to sneak into some place and retrieve something or impersonate somebody.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head.

[dragonfett]

Any ideas on how to run a diplomatic adventure? A recon adventure is easier because that is more skill roles, but I haven't seen any rules covering diplomacy in Palladium. I know that was intentional to force GM's and players alike to "role-play" more, but I am a GM for a group that tends more toward "roll-playing", not to mention that I really don't have all that much experience GMing. Heck, I'm pretty sure that I have never been in a group that had anything but combat type missions, so I have very little frame of reference to work off of, even with D&D and Werewolf: The Apocalypse.

[Noon]

You say your adventurers are focused more on roleplay - so I'm guessing the players say they are into RPG.

Have you asked them what's involved with a diplomatic adventure?

I mean, some people say they are into RP, but really they have no idea what anyone would do at the gaming table to make a session of that. In that case, they aren't into RPG - as much as you can't be into something you have no idea how to do.

Hopefully they have some ideas.

[dragonfett]

I had said they tended more towards the "roll-play" aspect of gaming.

[Killer Cyborg]

What types of adventures would you recommend for a party that focuses less on combat and more on role play. Like diplomacy, find item x, or something else. Now not completely non-combat, but at least 65% of the encounters have to be solved through out of combat thinking.

Well, you covered two of the general ideas: Diplomacy, and Find Item X.
There's also the old-fashioned whodunnit.
There's Andromeda Strain style threats, that require science more than guns.
(In fact, it would be pretty easy to set up a "House" or "Blackjack" style campaign in Rifts, with a party of Body Fixers and such).
You could even give Romance a try, if a PC wants to find true love, or if you have the PCs Cyrano their way through getting an NPC's true love to like him/her/it.

For reading, I'd suggest picking up the following books:
-The Enemy Papers (Enemy Mine)
-A Miracle of Rare Design, by Mike Resnick.
-Purgatory, by Mike Resnick
-Tuf Voyaging, by George RR Martin

[dragonfett]

Not to mention that I never said that I have run said types of adventures with the group, or any group for that matter, but I would like some ideas so that I can challenge my players even more. Thanks for the suggestions guys.

[Noon]

I had said they tended more towards the "roll-play" aspect of gaming.

I was working from your first post, which reads the other way.

Heck, I'm pretty sure that I have never been in a group that had anything but combat type missions, so I have very little frame of reference to work off of, even with D&D and Werewolf: The Apocalypse.

Why are you shooting for diplomacy type games?

It's different, sure, but I wouldn't say diplomacy is somehow superior to combat type missions?

[johnkretzer]

Well one of the non-combat encounters you could run is avioding a combat encounter...using prowl checks or for social interaction the things that MA and PB give you...

[dragonfett]

I am only wanting to do something different than "Hit this as hard as you can" or stuff like that.

[The Dark Elf]

something with stealth.

An old arch enemy of theirs kidnaps a friend or loved one and requests that they steal X from X as ransom for the release of their friend.
The PC's must plan and execute the heist (con their away into thraxus' Manor, maybe forge party invitations to a ball, sneak up to the upper floors to break into his safe etc.) Little bit of fighting perhaps but with mainly talking/convincing as well as skills and initiative.

Then when they have X they can battle their old foe at the RV point. (ok that last bit has a lot of fighting).


ooo - think the opening scenes to Mission Impossible or True Lies.

[Killer Cyborg]

I am only wanting to do something different than "Hit this as hard as you can" or stuff like that.

I once tossed my players up against a rampaging villain with the HU powers of Giant Growth and Invulnerability.
I expected the PCs to come up with any number of solutions for fighting the guy (the old Empire Strikes Back trick with grapple cables would work, for example, since this specific villain couldn't shrink on his own; he was stuck giant).

But once the party found out that their weapons didn't seem to hurt the bad guy, they just hightailed it out of there and never came back.

So I feel your pain.

[Killer Cyborg]

I also tried to run an adventure once where the CS was holding a kind of Olympics to find the absolute best pure humans and mutant animals that they could, so they could put forth a kind of CS "Dream Team" to run special missions and to promote PR.
The winners would get high-paying jobs and special equipment as part of this team.

Never really got off the ground, though. I figured out the mechanics for characters competing with each other and NPCs in foot races, hurtles, wrestling, shot put, or whatever other events I had in mind, and I had some intrigue built in as well, since some people/factions were cheating.
But nobody ever really cared, because they weren't shooting things (except in the sharpshooting challenges, which were apparently boring because nobody was shooting back).

[Noon]

I am only wanting to do something different than "Hit this as hard as you can" or stuff like that.

Well, who said you get to have what you want?

Your groups basically set in its ways with the hit things hard play, as far as I can tell. Who said you get to decide on another direction?

I'm not saying that's a great situation to be in - I'm just describing it as how it likely is. If someone gave you the impression you can just steer them all into another direction like diplomacy, like they are a car and your at the steering wheel, that person missinformed you. Can someone just steer you into liking punch stuff hard play? No? Well in the same way you can't steer them into liking diplomacy play.

Punch things hard is like checkers. Diplomacy is like chess. Some people only like playing one game or the other.

A few people are happy to play either - if none of these people are in your group, your stuck. Sorry for the non happy ending - but think of it this way, you could have spent months trying to get them to play another way. If things are as I say (I might be entirely wrong - your the guy there, I'm just guessing from info), then I'm saving you months of wasted effort by saying this. And don't shoot the messenger

If most or all of them are happy to play either, we could shoot some ideas around. Do you think they are happy to play either?

[dragonfett]

Of course the fact that one of my players chose to play a Mystic made me think that he too was interested in for than combat from the game.

[Shorty Lickens]

Most of my same adventures but make the antagonists less likely to attack and more likely to do other confrontational things. This is especially good with intelligent NPC's. For monsters they can still be threatening without violence.

[Killer Cyborg]

I am only wanting to do something different than "Hit this as hard as you can" or stuff like that.

Well, who said you get to have what you want?

Your groups basically set in its ways with the hit things hard play, as far as I can tell. Who said you get to decide on another direction?

I'm not saying that's a great situation to be in - I'm just describing it as how it likely is. If someone gave you the impression you can just steer them all into another direction like diplomacy, like they are a car and your at the steering wheel, that person missinformed you. Can someone just steer you into liking punch stuff hard play? No? Well in the same way you can't steer them into liking diplomacy play.

Punch things hard is like checkers. Diplomacy is like chess. Some people only like playing one game or the other.

A few people are happy to play either - if none of these people are in your group, your stuck. Sorry for the non happy ending - but think of it this way, you could have spent months trying to get them to play another way. If things are as I say (I might be entirely wrong - your the guy there, I'm just guessing from info), then I'm saving you months of wasted effort by saying this. And don't shoot the messenger

If most or all of them are happy to play either, we could shoot some ideas around. Do you think they are happy to play either?

I'm not going to argue back and forth about this, just say that I have an opposing view.

There's a Mr. Boffo strip that has Earl talking about beer.
He starts off with, "I used to think that there was only one way to drink beer...."
It had to be x brand, chilled to y temperature, served in a specific way from a certain glass.
He goes on for a bit on that, then finishes up:
(Paraphrasing)
"One day my son decided to play a joke on me, so he took a can of cheap, warm beer, and put it in a paint shaker for about 10 minutes, then brought that to me.
And y'know what?
That was pretty good too."

There are players that are never going to change their ways; they have their specific fetish, and can't break out of it to get turned on by anything else.
I don't think that's healthy, and I don't think it's the GM's job to cater to people's game fetishes.
Quite the opposite, I think that it's part of a GM's job to try to get players to branch out a bit and widen their horizons.
You can't just yank the rug completely out from under them and shove a new one into place, though. Not usually.
You have to wean them into the change slowly.
And you DO have to pay attention to what they like, because some of them just might not be open to change (or to the change you want).

But by all means, toss in some diplomacy, mystery, or other factors.
If all people want is hack and slash, they can go play WoW or Evercrack.
The advantage of face-to-face rpgs is that the only limits are your imagination.

Just don't rush things, and do it carefully.

[Killer Cyborg]

Some of the best stories I have read, and some of the best shows I have watched were always about political intrigue. A plot to overthrow the existing ruling power is always full of great paranoia and false accusations. The trick is to create a very complex plot, and always have a lot of false rumors to keep the players on their toes.

Agreed.
But at the same time, keep things simple enough for the players to keep track of things and maintain interest.
If you only meet once a week, it can be tough to remember all the details of an elaborate plot after a 7 day break.
And it gets worse if your group has to miss a week or two in a row.

Then again, if the players have good memories and/or note-taking skills, that's not as big of a problem.

[Noon]

Of course the fact that one of my players chose to play a Mystic made me think that he too was interested in for than combat from the game.

Well okay, I'm serious on this - just set up a seperate game that you play with him. Still play with the other guys in another campaign. But if you want to do more diplomacy stuff, just run a seperate campaign with the guy who made a mystic and anyone else you can recruit that seems that way as well. If you include anyone who likes to hit things real hard, it'll start to become a hit real hard game.

I think if you do that you have good odds of getting pretty much the game you want! It's good to hear

And come back and tell us how the game went - it's good to hear how game sessions have gone

[Noon]

Quite the opposite, I think that it's part of a GM's job to try to get players to branch out a bit and widen their horizons.

You have to wean them into the change slowly.

This doesn't work. If you could do that to them, then just as much they could wean you into "punch real hard and that's all you do" play. Can they? If they can't wean you, you can't wean them. They can dig in their heals as much as you can. Unless they happen to be really spineless. Then I'd acknowledge your method as workable.

If both sides are ready to compromise to some degree, it can work out. But an encounter that is 100% diplomacy has 0% compromise in it.

The advantage of face-to-face rpgs is that the only limits are your imagination.

In a group activity, it's not your imagination, the limit is the groups overall imagination. So no, given a group activity, your own individual imagination does not set the limit.

[dragonfett]

Quote:
The advantage of face-to-face rpgs is that the only limits are your imagination.

In a group activity, it's not your imagination, the limit is the groups overall imagination. So no, given a group activity, your own individual imagination does not set the limit.

While it may be a your limits may be the limits of the group that you are in, it is still far less limited than that of MMORPG's.

[Killer Cyborg]

Quite the opposite, I think that it's part of a GM's job to try to get players to branch out a bit and widen their horizons.

You have to wean them into the change slowly.

This doesn't work.

Yeah, it does. I've seen it quite a few times.

If you could do that to them, then just as much they could wean you into "punch real hard and that's all you do" play. Can they?

Yes. That's why I've been playing 4th Edition D&D since it came out.

If they can't wean you, you can't wean them. They can dig in their heals as much as you can. Unless they happen to be really spineless. Then I'd acknowledge your method as workable.

It's not a matter of "spine," it's a matter of cost vs. benefit.
If the game becomes more unpleasant than it is pleasant, then people will quit.
Or, for some people, if the ratio is anywhere close.

As long as you keep the benefits for the players (gm included) higher than the costs to the players, then they're likely to stick around.
If they like combat, but dislike diplomacy, then they'll usually stick around for a game that's 90% combat, with 10% diplomacy.
Or 80%/20%.
And for many of the players who have only really tried one gaming style (and that's a lot of them), as they try new things they learn to appreciate them; they expand their horizons and learn to enjoy new things.
Because (believe it or not), sometimes if you can get people to try something new, they end up enjoying it.

If both sides are ready to compromise to some degree, it can work out. But an encounter that is 100% diplomacy has 0% compromise in it.

No shirt, Shylock.
Hence "wean," instead of "smack them in the face with a complete game-change, all at once."

The advantage of face-to-face rpgs is that the only limits are your imagination.

In a group activity, it's not your imagination, the limit is the groups overall imagination. So no, given a group activity, your own individual imagination does not set the limit.

"Your" referring to the collective group, not any one individual.
Because yeah, if there's a few unimaginative people in the group, they can really drop the average and bog things down.

[Killer Cyborg]

Of course the fact that one of my players chose to play a Mystic made me think that he too was interested in for than combat from the game.

Well okay, I'm serious on this - just set up a seperate game that you play with him. Still play with the other guys in another campaign. But if you want to do more diplomacy stuff, just run a seperate campaign with the guy who made a mystic and anyone else you can recruit that seems that way as well. If you include anyone who likes to hit things real hard, it'll start to become a hit real hard game.

So... if one player has a different playing style from the rest of the group, instead of modifying the game to make everybody happy even if it means compromise, just cut the one guy out of the group?

[Noon]

Of course the fact that one of my players chose to play a Mystic made me think that he too was interested in for than combat from the game.

Well okay, I'm serious on this - just set up a seperate game that you play with him. Still play with the other guys in another campaign. But if you want to do more diplomacy stuff, just run a seperate campaign with the guy who made a mystic and anyone else you can recruit that seems that way as well. If you include anyone who likes to hit things real hard, it'll start to become a hit real hard game.

So... if one player has a different playing style from the rest of the group, instead of modifying the game to make everybody happy even if it means compromise, just cut the one guy out of the group?

If you want to, I guess. What I said was play another campaign with him that's all diplomacy focused - that doesn't require him being cut out of the original campaign. But if you want to, whatever.

No shirt, Shylock.
Hence "wean," instead of "smack them in the face with a complete game-change, all at once."

If both parties are genuinely willing to compromise, it's not weaning anybody. Or I wouldn't call it weaning, anyway.

Maybe you mean something else by 'wean' than what it raises to my mind.

[Killer Cyborg]

If you want to, I guess. What I said was play another campaign with him that's all diplomacy focused - that doesn't require him being cut out of the original campaign. But if you want to, whatever.

It's not so much a matter of "want" as a matter of "not many have the time to run two simultaneous campaigns (more, if another player has yet another play style)."

Hence "wean," instead of "smack them in the face with a complete game-change, all at once."

If both parties are genuinely willing to compromise, it's not weaning anybody. Or I wouldn't call it weaning, anyway.

Maybe you mean something else by 'wean' than what it raises to my mind.

If you care about this, we can keep talking about it, and I can elaborate, define, and explain things.
But if not, I'm willing to let this one drop.

[Noon]

If you want to, I guess. What I said was play another campaign with him that's all diplomacy focused - that doesn't require him being cut out of the original campaign. But if you want to, whatever.

It's not so much a matter of "want" as a matter of "not many have the time to run two simultaneous campaigns (more, if another player has yet another play style)."

I know you've got your pitch that there's a way to a happy ending with this. With my pitch, I don't promise a happy ending - if you don't have time, then it's time to make a hard choice.

Maybe the group will turn out to be okay with compromise. But if not I'm not acting as if there definately will be an all happy ending.

[t0m]

i like to run a lot of non-combat stuff in my games. i tend to break things down to really simple levels/elements so i dont have to work as hard as gm. the players usually complicate things enough/more than i would have any way...one key thing imo, is consequences. in combat, if you lose, you die. thats a pretty good reason to pay attention and try to win. people sometimes forget that losing an important debate can be just as bad as losing that battle. always come up with a failure scenario and make sure the players dont want that to happen. dont be an impossible jerk about it, but let them fail just enough that it stings a little...then remind them of it later having to walk out with your tail between your legs is often worse than being dragged out, bloody and unconscious...

to me, diplomacy boils down to an npc diplomat with a few important non-combat 'stats'. alignment/disposition set the 'mood' of the conversation (ie - can the players suggest a solution that goes around the law? etc). the desire/requirement of the npc party, and how flexible they are in reaching an acceptable outcome. once you know those things, you can pretty much 'wing' the role-play part off the top of your head. just react to the players by 'channeling' the npc based on the 'stats' you gave him...with some experience (on your side, and your players) this can get pretty interesting. my players tend to dig themselves into holes by over complicating these proceedings and 'out thinking' themselves. ('did we really agree to do that?' 'it was the only way i could think of to get him to agree')

another non-combat option is research. some things can only be fought with the right intel, or even the right object. imagine a government conspiracy. you cant fight the whole country and win, so you need evidence of the conspiracy, which will likely require more thinking than fighting to acquire, then you have to figure out who to show it to/who you can trust to help unravel the conspiracy and maybe even negotiate with neutral/hostile parties to find/create new allies. giant monsters can be set up the same way. im thinking back to my call of cthulhu days here, where the giant monsters weakness was the cultists trying to summon him, or an artifact they need etc...still some option for fighting, but there is a reason for it, and some other 'stuff' required before the fists fly.

stealth missions are good too. infiltration/exfiltration/collecting intel/double agent work are all good places to start. the key here (imo at least) is to make combat a bad option. like mission failure bad...if the mission at hand means anything to them, they wont want to fail and you can create some nice tension. if they dont care, they will just get bored and fight their way out though, so trying to create a mission they care about is important here (and requires players who honestly role-play, instead of just playing for xp and loot). also, on that last note, make sure you give them roughly equal xp and loot for non-combat stuff so they dont feel ripped off. even good role-players who enjoy just being 'in character' want progress. rewarding them equally for combat and non-combat seems to work pretty good for me and my players.

anyway, that was a bit longer post than i thought it would be. hope some of it helps a little.

[dragonfett]

It does, thanks.

[Killer Cyborg]

If you want to, I guess. What I said was play another campaign with him that's all diplomacy focused - that doesn't require him being cut out of the original campaign. But if you want to, whatever.

It's not so much a matter of "want" as a matter of "not many have the time to run two simultaneous campaigns (more, if another player has yet another play style)."

I know you've got your pitch that there's a way to a happy ending with this. With my pitch, I don't promise a happy ending - if you don't have time, then it's time to make a hard choice.

Maybe the group will turn out to be okay with compromise. But if not I'm not acting as if there definately will be an all happy ending.

Okay... I have absolutely zero clue what you're talking about with the "Happy Ending" thing.

My best guess is that you, after getting so upset that a GM might want players to play a certain way, are saying that if somebody doesn't play your way they're out of luck...?
But that doesn't seem right somehow.

[Killer Cyborg]

Well, one time outside of any palladium setting I had my players involved in a non-combat based game.

The were simply hired into a company (a Las Vegas casino) that was doing very poorly. Their job was to put their casino on the map, and make expand their control elsewhere. The only thorn in their side, was competing against other casinos. So alot of their antogonists were their competitors.

You happen to read a lot of Robert Asprin?

[dragonfett]

Phule's Company! Hell Yeah!

[Killer Cyborg]

Phule's Company! Hell Yeah!

The Myth books are pretty good too.
Oh, and check out The Bug Wars, if you haven't already!

His death was a big loss to the world.

[Noon]

My best guess is that you, after getting so upset that a GM might want players to play a certain way, are saying that if somebody doesn't play your way they're out of luck...?
But that doesn't seem right somehow.

Your guess is based on you having gotten upset to begin with. Your notion is like trying to argue 1+1 doesn't equal 2 because the person who said it is upset. It's irrelevant and if you can't see that, your not seeing clearly at all. If you want to see clearly, you need to move past this and question the math/the logic. Or if this comes from some nastyness in you rather than a simple mistake on your part, you need to grow out of it. Barring scary levels of MRI technology, I do not know whether it's the former or latter so I cannot judge which your doing.

[kogwar]

Theft with insumountable odds if you get caught or reasurch maybe like " Find out where creature x lives and what it's habits are with creature b?"