>Players are contemplacing a peaceful solution, that will greatly benefit them and many others
>They actually aknowledge out loud that this is probably the best option
>But they choose to fight and kill people instead, because they're itching for combat and want a boss fight instead of talking it over.
Do you do this, Veeky Forums? Do your players do this? What are your thoughts on this problem?
>Players are contemplacing a peaceful solution, that will greatly benefit them and many others
>They actually acknowledge out loud that this is probably the best option
>But they have to fight and kill people instead, because the DM is prepared for combat and wants a boss fight instead of talking it over.
FTFY.
>I decided to play a colective game, knowing fully that my players will take the decitions they want even if it's not what i want
>They actually do that
>Why do they do that!! i didn't want them to take those decitions RREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I think that your autism can only be accepted in vidya
That's probably because most systems have combat. If you have an RPG system without combat, you might not have this problem...
Then again, I played freeform and we had combat, so there's that...
Maybe don't play RPGs if you don't want to play with Murderhobos.
I've seen both of these happen in different circumstances.
Why didn't you have a boss prepared if your players like fighting bosses?
Why did you put in front of them a half-boss willing to talk?
Why couldn't you put a big demon in front of the friendly people making everyone happy?
Nope. They're murderhobos through and through, and while it can be a pain, I've never seen a group actively consciously look at a peaceful, mutually beneficial solution, then say "fuck it" and go back to killing. They normally skip all that forethought and just stick to killing forever, which may actually be less frustrating than your scenario.
You have to incentivise your players user.
When DMing, I always make sure that a peaceful solution will always give a reward appropriate to the situation.
The best example of this is when my players stopped a minor necromancer trying to kill himself in a blaze of glory while fighting the party. Quite confused, the necromancer asked why they stopped fighting. To which the party basically said, "honestly, we're just mercs, and you haven't really attacked the kingdom we were employed by."
Intrigued, the necromancer offered them a bargain; let him continue his research in peace, and in return, he would owe them a favor. Everyone agreed.
Much later, when shit hit the fan and when the party was facing down ancient vampire and his unholy army, one of his Commanders, a Lich, suddenly blasted him in the face and effectively split the army in two.
The defector lich only cackled maniacly and shouted to the party, "A debt repaid!" before leading the charge and basically saving the kingdom from total destruction.
How does one interestingly mechanically resolve peaceful solutions in your game ?
If it comes down to a persuasion roll that maybe one member of the group can make well then the incentive is always to use all the cool combat abilities instead.
That's not the problem. The problem OP ids having is that, while the players acknowledge that a peaceful solution will probably net them the best possible outcome, they consciously forego those rewards because they prefer combat.
And there's nothing wrong with that. OP should just give them more straight up combat encounters.
Please lern to read
Solving issues diplomatically should give some kind of exp or leveling bonus. It should be a high risk but high pay off option.
Mechanically...?
You do it by knowing how to calm people
down and de-escalate situations, by careful thinking about what their motivations and circumstances are, by making good arguments and backing them with solid evidence, by using social norms or customs in your favor, by deceiving your opponents, or by simply outsmarting them. There isn't really a mechanical solution, which is half the fun.
Give the people what they want.
But I have far more experience trying to solve things reasonably and having the GM nigh-on force us to fight.
>And there's nothing wrong with that.
Unless you play in a high-lethality campaign, murderhoboing is just playing a wargame where the other side is letting you win by stacking the odds in your favour and fudging dice to help you. I think it's contemptible.
>b-b-b-but muh subjective tastes!
Sure, but I don't give a shit. It's still contemptible, in the same way as someone who only plays the tutorial levels in vidya because they get butthurt if they ever die in the game.
Playing meatgrinder dungeon crawls is respectable. Being a murderhobo while whining about appropriate CR, WbL, 'expected magical items' and all the other shit like that, is pretty pathetic.
I just don't level up players based on combat.
And I make sure to have combat be extremely challenging without much of a reward and lasting consequences, or I make it so easy as to not even be worth the time.
You don't want them to be comfortable enough to make those decisions.
>Reddit spacing
>Do you do this, Veeky Forums?
I do, I ONLY play for the combat
>Players play to have fun
>lern to spell
I've done it before with minor encounters
>Yeah, we could stealth through the Orc camp or we could just kill them all.
>I have nothing to contribute so I'll just comment on how he types.
Dude's 100% correct. I never really thought of it that way. If your players want to murder-hobo, they should be playing a game designed around and facilitating that end. Like D&D, but with no house-rules, no home-brewing, no dice fudging and only random encounter/loot tables.
>Players come up with well reasoned, rational plan
>abandon it because IRL charismatic player wants to do something retarded and dangerous "because it'll be hilarious guiz!"
>fucking despair