When should the fantasy adventuring party fight? When should they negotiate? Parley?
This dilemma is an old one in my gaming experience, having been a burden through countless groups over the last 35 years.
As a Gamemaster, however, I find it more than a little irritating when players blame me for their own playing style.
This post arises from player responses to the rather useful Negotiating With Monsters: Common PC Errors. In short, the problem for my group is that they rarely negotiate or talk to any foes, potential or actual; this fact gives rise to a collective sense of disappointment because they instinctively reach for their weapons and ask questions later… and then wonder whether they shouldn’t interact more with NPCs.
To me, it’s just the outcome of a bunch of assumptions:
- Your chosen game system sets out simple expectations.
- The game’s rewards are geared towards simple combat.
- The group’s ethical assumptions lock you into simple decisions.
What Do You Expect From The Game?
My group meets on a Friday night and expects to play an easy game, with lots of heroic action. Should a Gamemaster present something that requires detailed investigation or thoughtful problem-solving, the group generally complains that they are tired after a tough week at work. And there is NOTHING wrong with this.
That said, they don’t come expecting to invest in detailed investigation, thoughtful problem-solving, or intense negotiation. They come to play a simpler game… which is why they ask me to run D&D for them. Anything else is too difficult on a Friday night. I know because I’ve tried.
My first point is, therefore, that you have to understand that the expectations you bring to the table will colour your experience. If nobody really expects there to be a curious mystery, devious problem, or tough bargain to be resolved… well, you’ll not be doing it.
When players ask for D&D, my assumption is that they want a high-fantasy game with a focus on exploration and combat. When I look at the characters they create, my assumptions are confirmed: the “heroes” will be combat-orientated and bear only superficial skills in other areas. And that’s a function of the game we chose to play.
The Game Sets The Assumptions
On page 8 of the D&D Player’s Handbook, the three pillars of adventure are laid out for players to behold: Exploration; Social Interaction; Combat. On the surface, it seems, there should be a balance between these three things. Yet, given the design of the game, the exploration and the combat are the primary elements that leave social interaction in third place… and, at least most of the time, as an annoying sideshow.
Someone will complain here that D&D can be played with social interaction front and centre. This is undoubtedly true… but I doubt it happens as often as exploration and combat at most other tables. This is because, as a style of play, D&D rewards the “action camp”.
D&D encourages players to progress through a rising sequence of levels through the acquisition of Experience Points (XP). While the Dungeon Master’s Guide certainly suggests other ways to handle levelling-up and/or awarding XP, the default is to receive the most Experience Points from defeating creatures in combat.
In addition, the route to greatest power involves the acquisition of both monetary wealth (with which to buy powerful tools) and magical items (which grant cool powers). The usual way to acquire these items is to explore musty “dungeons” and take them from the depths… often from the dead hands of the aforementioned monsters.
And there is nothing wrong with this, by the way: if you like this style of play, more power to you! That said, you cannot set up a game with the above structure and goals and then complain that players go hacking and slaying their way up levels. I would wager that the tables around which the most negotiation and interaction is found are those which eschew the XP system and “level-up” characters periodically through other means.
Binary Ethics Emphasises Combat
There are a set of binary ethical assumptions that traditional fantasy encourages. It has to do with Good versus Evil, or (sometimes) Law versus Chaos. It has to do with “alignment” and all that goes with it.
Binary ethical assumptions lead to killing:
- Evil / Chaos exists and is the opposite of Good / Law.
- Evil / Chaos must be destroyed so that it doesn’t threaten the Good / Law.
- Therefore, we should destroy Evil / Chaotic beings, people, or things.
Also consider the usual party assumptions:
- We are Good.
- Anyone or anything that opposes us is Evil.
- See above on what to do with Evil.
Negotiation would seem to appease Evil, and raise doubts about your own Goodness. Thus, you don’t tend to bother to talk to beings you consider Evil… unless you are desperate.
Other ethical assumptions are possible. Players (and Gamemasters) who want more nuanced interaction should avoid binary ethical positions: introduce more granular distinctions for starters; consider defining evil in a different way too.
How can change be made?
If you want more negotiation, problem-solving, and detailed investigation then you need to set up those kinds of scenarios. That said, you also have to shift the players away from the above expectations and assumptions towards some new ones.
The change is a large one… but here are a few suggestions to begin with (assuming you want to keep playing D&D):
- Ditch XP accumulation and award a “level-up” for resolving each major negotiation, problem situation, or difficult investigation.
- Award treasure as in-game rewards from grateful patrons and agents in addition to the above levelling-up, not just from dank dungeon hoards.
- Ditch alignment and instead ask players to create moral codes that reflect more nuanced distinctions. (For more on this, see Gamemastering by Brian Jamison – it’s free to download!)
- Introduce sentient opposition with their own complex goals and moral outlooks that are also nuanced.
- Understand what your NPCs want: what will they trade, and what will they do to get their goals?
Clearly, one can avoid a lot of the “baggage” of D&D by altogether changing system. But it’s not necessary if everyone is willing to try something a little different.
And there’s the rub: are your players really wanting to change? Or do they simply want a light-hearted evening of dungeon bashing because it’s easy? There’s nothing wrong with either!
Game on!
