Pacifistic Protagonist

[kirbwarrior]

I've roleplayed a character a few times in the past that I've very much enjoyed and am now thinking about making a game based around. I happen to like traditional rpgs and I thought I'd shoot for making one (probably simplest idea considering the maker ). But I've run into two problems (one of which I can probably just ignore).

1) She doesn't deal with money. It just isn't something that is a part of her life. Being a wandering traveler with access to magic, this hasn't really ever been an issue in roleplaying and storytelling, but could be in an rpg. But I can drop using equipment and consumables easily enough, or just hand them out without cost.
2) She often avoids killing others and even looks for ways to defeat an encounter without harm (diplomacy, spells that distract with happiness, etc).

That step two goes pretty counter to how things work in rpgs. However, I know some games have taken steps towards this; Pokemon 'hides' death by making it so you merely knock other pokemon unconscious, and I hear Undertale can be one without killing anyone (no spoilers please).

Does anyone have ideas of how to preserve this? Has anyone had to deal with pacifists joining the main party? Any insight would be appreciated.

Thank you ahead of time.

 

[Andar]

Why should that point 2 be a problem for the game itself?

It is a problem due to the fact that the game developer needs to come up with non-violent solutions for everything, and that is more creative work than the simple "just let them fight enemy numbers" that is used in a lot of games, but that is not what "roleplay" originally stand for - to play a story instead of rolling dice.

But if a developer is willing to put in the work for alternative solutions than "kill everything that moves", then this should be no problem but a challenge to players to find the other solutions.

 

[kirbwarrior]

That is all absolutely true. I'm just not sure how to approach the problem. What kinds of options would be available? How do I implement alternate win options into a battle system like Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest? I know how she could solve these problems in roleplaying, but that was because the magic system she had was extremely open-ended and allowed for extreme creativity, something a closed system (video game) doesn't necessarily copy well. Are spells that instantly incapacitate too boring? Is effectively picking out the right option out of many fun? Would changing the meaning of HP and stats around be substantial enough? I have been toying around with some idea of making enemies 'docile' but nothing concrete yet.

I am also quite aware that this kind of thing might be much easier with a "visual novel" approach. I'm just avoiding it because I do want to emulate 'traditional' rpg combat ala the above games.

 

[Andar]

why do you assume she has to enter battle at all? give her options to evade battles
or skills that sleep enemies with the effect that sleeping enemies are removed from battle as well.

That is why I said that the developer needs to be creative to give those options - I didn't say that it would be easy to come up with them.

 

[kirbwarrior]

why do you assume she has to enter battle at all? give her options to evade battles

This works great with the idea that you get experience in other ways, from merely 'dealing' with the battle in anyway to getting exp for finishing quests instead of fights.

or skills that sleep enemies with the effect that sleeping enemies are removed from battle as well.

I do like the idea that incapacitation removes an enemy from battle, I'm just wondering the best way to deal with that. Luck-based success isn't fun, and neither is auto-success. Incorporating a stamina system (replacing MP) could let her tire enemies out, and maybe tiredness can affect hit rates (such as 50% + double the percent missing maybe).
Do you think it would be more fun for players to want to find ways to avoid killing, or find a way that no killing actually happens? I know these are pretty 'this is the developer's call' questions, I'm just not sure where to shoot (aka I can hit a target I can see).

 

[LaFlibuste]

Well to be fair we call it a "battle system" because it usually is what it represents, but really it's a thematic thing. I mean, change the name of "hit points" to something else ("antagonism"? I dunno) and change the name and animations of skills and commands so that "fight" becomes "parlay" and "ultimate inferno of death 3" becomes "heartfelt hug". Boom, it's not a "battle" anymore.

 

[Pine Towers]

As @LaFlibuste said, you can rework the battle system for a more "social combat" resolution mechanic, making HP more like willpower, MP as reasoning and so on, to allow a debate of ideas where the defeated one loses because he was convinced your opinion is the best one.

Games (and dare I say, every form of entertainment) focuses on the conflict aspect. There isn't any fun if there isn't conflict. So, either the pacifist uses stealth to avoid a direct confrontation, or something else.

 

[kirbwarrior]

"heartfelt hug"

"social combat"

Okay, I think I'm seeing how this can be fun and directions to go with this. "Heartfelt Hug" is completely something she would do.

There isn't any fun if there isn't conflict.

That was one of my biggest concerns. Luckily, the character in question isn't afraid of conflict, just prefers to avoid killing others. It does absolutely get in the way of some major conflicts (being able to kill the main antagonist would be a much easier out, but she doesn't see it as an allowed option because of the main conflict in personalities).
I've heard some thoughts (in other places) about removing random encounters and having them be replaced with 'mini-bosses', where every conflict in the game is meaningful and any loss sucks (but isn't necessarily a game over or death), as opposed to a dungeon full of random encounters being thought as "one" conflict. Would that work better with a system like this? I like the idea of games where you enter combat fully healed and I can see that working with this.

 

[Pine Towers]

I've heard some thoughts (in other places) about removing random encounters and having them be replaced with 'mini-bosses', where every conflict in the game is meaningful and any loss sucks (but isn't necessarily a game over or death), as opposed to a dungeon full of random encounters being thought as "one" conflict. Would that work better with a system like this? I like the idea of games where you enter combat fully healed and I can see that working with this.

I've meant conflict in a broad spectre. Taking for example the social combat that I mentioned before, let's say the protag wants to enter a building. He could try to convince the security in a battle of wits ("default" combat), or look for the secret entrance at the sewers, or disguise as a delivery boy to use a side-entrance, or steal a worker ID. This is much, much better than just random encounters, specially if we take your idea of pacifist protagonist. By making each conflict matter, the maker can craft it to perfection.

And improving on the social combat (battle), let's say that each argument (skill, like "Yo Momma" or "Researches say...") can be of any rethoric (element, like fire/ice/earth/dark...): Intimidation, Diplomacy, Seduction, Deception, Fallacy, Compliment... So the security guard may be very resistant to Intimidation arguments, but may be Seduced easily. With lots of rethorics, this allows for a more detailed encounter building. Maybe be protag discovered the security guard is looking for romance after talking to a worker at the bar. So, the player have means to discover the weak points of enemies much like seeing a Fire Elemental means you should use ice/water instead of fire.

You have a whole new world to explore in a "combat without battle" design, @kirbwarrior . Good luck.

 

[gstv87]

Has anyone had to deal with pacifists joining the main party?

kinda?.... (ish?)

I mean, character' character is a story-level feature.
it can be separated from the game itself without issue, unless you intend to make the feature part of a gameplay mechanic.
Say, the character is afraid of darkness, then you need a lighting system for it to be noticeable, gameplay-wise.

You need to see the game as the means to the end, and the story as the actual guiding basis.
If there's a pacifist character in the party, whatever they say or do has to be contemplated in the game's script (story directive, not program code), and the program has to allow you to pull that off.

I don't have pacifists per se in my game, but there are a few characters who focus on disruption rather than damage, and I'm working on character interactions with the player, based on the played events..... but I don't see how I would have to modify the engine code to account for those interactions, aside from adding a conditional to check if the character in question is in play during X event.
IF, THEN I'll play out whatever reaction I had written for them.
I could still wipe the character from the game, and the game itself wouldn't be affected.

 

[Wavelength]

For #1 - if it's important to you or to this character that money isn't part of the game experience, or you think that this could create cool gameplay hooks, then remove money from the gameplay experience entirely. Have her forage and/or craft the things that she needs, or occasionally receive them from NPCs/Quests. Note that this also sets up a situation where the player can't easily stock up on consumables they think they'll need, so be careful before going this route. It's possible it will be better for you to just introduce gold into the gameplay systems and just have the character point out that she doesn't care about money much - it's just kind of a tool that happens to make things easier.

For #2, you can go one of two routes - you can make it so that the peaceful solutions she prefers avert battle, or you can make the peaceful solutions she prefers can win battles. (You could also do both, in theory.)

For example, in the vein of allowing her to avert battles, you say that she tries to use diplomacy, distractions, etc. rather than brute force to get what she wants, but it sounds like that's not always possible. So it would make sense for you to have ways to stun, disrupt, or distract the Visible Encounters on the map so you can sneak around them without fighting, or to give the player choices before a fight and if they pass a "Diplomacy Check" they don't have to fight the battle. Remember that if you want to encourage players to avert battles, you should either offer good rewards for successfully doing so, or make the attrition experienced from battling high enough that it's rarely worthwhile to fight a battle that can be avoided.

In the vein of allowing her to win battles using nonviolent methods, Undertale and Persona 5 are pretty good examples of how to do it in a traditional JRPG setup. In Undertale, each enemy can be "Act"ed on instead of attacked, and under the right conditions the enemy will be Pacified which will either cause it to immediately leave the battle, or stop attacking so you can "Show Mercy" to end the fight without killing it. If you remove the thorns from a certain dog's body, you can pacify it. If you listen to a disgruntled monster instead of attacking it, it will start to tell jokes, and if you respond well to those, it will thank you and become pacified. If you flex at a muscular horse (named Aaron for some reason), it will try to have a flex-off with you, flexing so hard that its muscles lift it into the sky and out of the battle. I think you can also stop Aaron from attacking by flirting with him. Don't ask. In Persona 5, you can activate a "Hold Up!" by hitting each enemy's weakness (you could come up with a more nonviolent way for your character to do it). During the Hold Up, you negotiate with one of the monsters. It will talk about itself or its thoughts, and then ask you a few questions (specific to the monster) that you have to respond to. If you give really good answers, it will lend you its power forever (and the battle ends). If you give okay answers, it will give you an item or some money and then run off (ending the battle as well). If it hates your answers, it will attack you while you're vulnerable(!) and then the battle will continue. As in real life, there's always some risk involved in trying to talk a violent enemy down from the ledge!

 

[SwiftSign]

Could you make it so that enemy HP reduces to 1, rather than zero, and they scurry off from battle after that? That would be a fairly easy way to keep a battle element in the game.

You can also have some enemies that you can end the battle by giving them items/requests.

Orrrr you could make MP an affection meter, where your NPC's attack slowly fill it up when attacking the enemy and eventually they become placid :3.

 

[kirbwarrior]

I've meant conflict in a broad spectre.

I do like all the ideas you posted here. And the player will be rewarded for dealing with conflicts regardless of if a "fight" happens, is avoided, or any other solution, with certain solutions probably giving different rewards.

can be of any rethoric (element, like fire/ice/earth/dark...)

I've coming up with a list recently similar to this. It can also help define characters based on which 'elements' they have access to.

Note that this also sets up a situation where the player can't easily stock up on consumables they think they'll need,

This is the one issue I saw with the design. Nonconsumables aren't a worry because they can just be received for doing quests (even something as little as talking to someone). I was thinking that I could have 'minimum' consumables show up; sleeping at an inn might give you up to 5 food as a random example.

can be "Act"ed on instead of attacked, and under the right conditions the enemy will be Pacified

Most battles will have multiple sets of victory conditions and enemies will have multiple ways of 'losing'.

You can also have some enemies that you can end the battle by giving them items/requests.

I like this idea! It can be very interesting to try out.

an affection meter

Right now I'm thinking of having Health (HP) for characters that join that are willing (or wanting) to kill, Stamina (SP) so you might win just by tiring out the enemy, and Determination (DP) that will be the actual health for most intents and purposes, where you use social skills to 'deplete' and get them to go along with things. However, HP and SP are not something I've fully decided on yet, they are just ideas I have in the air.

 

[fireflyege]

Why do you guys think demanding perfection and that is me telling you as a perfectionist. The world is not a place where you can just evade battles, but you can weaken your enemies and reason with them. You can make your character a psychic mage or a summoner and convert the monsters to your side.

I am a pacifist and there was a moment in high school where I could not hold myself and slapped a guy I hated too hard that he would not come to his senses the whole midday break. I am still a perfectionist and I would still do the same.