Conflict not Combat

Think about your favorite movie that isn't a documentary.  I don't care what genre it is, whether it's an action movie or a romantic comedy, I am about to tell you what it's about with 100% accuracy.  Your favorite move is about conflict.  If it's an action movie, it's about physical conflict.  If it's a romantic comedy, it's either about conflict between people (the love triangle) or about a conflict of values (the will they-won't they).  Movies and role-playing games have a common thread, there has to be a conflict or there's no peg to hang the story on.

My issue is that most game's take the term "conflict" too literally.  The conflicts are always physical, and resolution of those conflicts is always synonymous with violence.  That's unfortunate, because movies, television, and books, (all important inspirations to gaming genres) all see resolution as possible in different ways.


I'm not saying that issues in these media are never solved with violence.  But, sometimes they're resolved with a chase; sometimes they're resolved by negotiation; and sometimes they're resolved because the stakes are too high for one or both parties.  My favorite television series of the last five years was Burn Notice.  It was an action series.  Yet, most episodes don't end with a big fight between the good-guys and the bad guys.  Why must the vast majority of Role-Playing Games do so?

The reason why most games come down to fighting is an issue about modelling.  Most games model combat well.  Combat feels high stakes and players are invested in it.  Further, the vast majority of most character's resources are invested in combat capabilities.  The typical party's wizard will have two-plus combat spells for every non-combat useful spell.

Unfortunately, identifying a problem is the easiest and often least important tool to solving one.  In fact, solving this problem requires work from game designers, people who run games, and people who play them.

Game designers need to design games that have systems for things besides fighting.  If the system for chases is as robust as the combat mechanic, then a foot chase across the rooftops becomes every bit as viable as a fight.  If the system for stealth is equally robust, then you can run a game where the goal is to get in and out like a ghost, and fighting can be another form of failure. 

People who run games need to look at encounters as problems to be overcome or conflicts to be resolved, not beasts to be slain.  When you put guards in front of a door, consider how much more interesting solutions become if the guards won't die to protect their employer's home.  When you put a villain in charge, give that villain things they care about.  Then PC's can deal with that villain by undermining those values, threatening those people, or otherwise challenging the villain's base.

Players, then, need to look at encounters as more than opportunities to kill things and hurt people.  Think about what you want.  Think about what gets it.  Think about what resolutions are most efficient.  Work to solve problems, not to fight fights.

Games give you the chance to have a part in a movie or television series.  There's no reason the movie must be Shoot Em Up, or the TV series must be Professional Wrestling.