Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm currently playtesting a covert ops role-playing game that I designed to emphasize stealth and strategy over direct combat.

However, I've noticed that my new playtest group tends to resort to violence as their first option, often leading to shootouts that overshadow the stealth elements I intended to highlight.

While I understand that some level of conflict is necessary in any game, I want to encourage my players to think creatively and use stealth tactics instead of jumping straight into combat. I'm looking for advice on how to effectively disincentivize violence in my game without making players feel restricted or frustrated.

As an example:

The first mission has our team looking for a micro-cassette that was left by an asset in a hotel room. The only issue is that they don't have the assets real name or what hotel room he is staying in.

I have an in built system in the game that can randomly create unforseen incidents, such as the maid comes by to check on the room as the operatives are searching it. These unforseen encounters won't happen every time a mission is attempted, but I digress.

The maid walks in on them and one of the players shoots her. No questions asked. And then they go back to searching the room.

The Handler [GM] reminds them of the Discovery system and that this action could lead to their actions being traced back to them and their organization.

They were unphased by this. And 4 other times in the starter mission, where non-lethal approaches were the easiest ways to accomplish their goals, they still opted for the "kill em all" approach.

Do you have any recommendations on how to change the thinking of the players? Or am I overthinking this?


Any advice would be helpful.


PS. I was not an active participant in this game session. I watched it and took notes.

PPS. I took the recommendation and redacted all the sections that were not fit for play.

Make sure that your combat system is very lethal. That is, if they cross the violence threshold, the whole party could be killed in a single turn.

The problem will solve itself.

A lot of gamers see combat as the point, and want to do tactical take-downs, but if you strip off the plot armor, within the first few minutes of the game, when everyone is killed in a firefight with the cops, they get the idea that maybe not shooting is better.

Many RPG systems reward players for killing with experience and rewards.


So another option is to punish them.

As its a spy game introduce a post-game handler/spy master who is the one at the head of the spy organisation your players are working for. If players are briefed before a mission and then have a debrief after that can be just the time that they are punished.

If they lose experience (or gain no experience benefit) if innocents are killed suddenly killing that maid is less attractive.
You could use a ranking system rather than levelling system for this. Each "rank" they gain in the organisation gives them more perks - but equally if they do things they shouldn't - like random killing/blowing up half a block etc.... then suddenly they lose ranks with the real risk that they could be fired/internally arrested if they continue to fall in ranking.


Similarly saving innocents/not killing innocents and so forth might come with rewards. Not being detected by anyone could be a high bonus reward; not harming anyone even if you're detected etc... All things that could be boons.



This approach has the benefit that you can leave combat on the table and not make it super-insane lethal.
So you can have those epic fights - your players will just be more aware that they have to only fight their targets. Killing bystanders;blowing up huge areas and so on and so forth could see them lose ranking EVEN if they succeed in taking out their target.

Eg winning might give them 5 ranking points ;but killing an innocent might give them -3. Now they kill 2 innocents in the course of a fight and suddenly they are losing ranking points overall.




Of course you'd have to balance it out and so forth; but it creates a system that keeps the game flowing and teaches your players in the post/pre game about the boons and negatives toward their actions. It also means the DM is more free to play with that system if they wish and introduce their own boons and negatives or adjust the values of them during the game for their players.

In my experience subtlety and incentives just won't work on many people if they have hardened assumptions about how the game ought to be played. In this case that assumption is a D&D "balanced encounter" game where fighting every enemy is actually the safest thing to do because you're pre-scripted to win as long as you don't do anything unexpected.

So step #1 is just explicitly tell the players, in bold text at the start of the game, that it's a stealth/espionage game and that the system will reward that style of play. Without that a lot of people won't even think to try it. They'll just respond to failure with "we should have killed the SMG guy first", not with a re-assessment of whether the fight was needed to start with.

Aside from that I agree with Toussaint and Overread, make the system unbalanced and lethal and have the initial mission briefing reiterate that killing random people is bad for the organization. It will feel very hamfisted at first but once it "clicks" with the players things will go much smoother.

So maybe add something like this (this is a first draft, feel free to critique and improve!):


COLONEL WESTWOOD
Attention, operatives. As we embark on this new assignment, it's crucial to remember that while you are all seasoned military personnel, the nature of our mission demands a shift in mindset. This operation is not about conventional warfare; it’s about precision, discretion, and maintaining the element of surprise.

Your primary objective is to gather intelligence and achieve our goals without drawing attention to our presence. This means adhering to strict weapon control protocols at all times. Lethal force is not an option unless absolutely necessary, and even then, it must be a last resort. Any unnecessary escalation could compromise our mission and lead to your discovery, which is something we cannot afford.

Remember, the success of this operation hinges on our ability to operate in the shadows. Your training has prepared you for this, but it’s your discipline and restraint that will ultimately determine our success. Stay vigilant, stay focused, and above all, stay covert.

Good luck, and may your actions remain unseen."

So that's fluff, but don't forget fluff has to be reinforced, either by the DM or by the mechanics of the game. Otherwise its just story and decoration around the game. Furthermore its up to interpretation - players might well justify their actions even if they are blowing half the city up to find one person.

Hence the suggestions to adjust how the combat mechanics work or my suggestion to have a reward/penalty scoring system attached to player actions/choices

Both of those approaches aim to create mechanical considerations for the players. These are things they can't "ignore" or fluff out of; they are baked into the structure of the game and adjusting them requires a more serious step from the dm in changing the focus of the game.



The trick with an RPG is to constrict and permit player actions; to encourage and discourage so that they play a certain way within the game whilst at the same time giving them a sense of freedom to roleplay and not be railroaded on the tracks too much

In *Disavowed*, missions are high-risk Black Ops, kept strictly off the books. Only a select few in NATO know about these operations, which must remain in the shadows. If the team’s covert activities become known to the Upper Echelons of NATO or major European entities, the team will be disavowed—cut loose with no protection or support. In this game, failure is not the only threat; discovery itself can end the mission for good.

### Exposure: The Hidden Threat
Exposure is a metric tracked in secret by the Handler, representing the team's operational "heat." As the team’s exposure level rises, so do the risks of detection and consequences, culminating in possible disavowal. The Handler reveals the team’s exposure status only when it crosses a threshold, adding tension as players operate under the constant threat of discovery.

Each Exposure Level threshold impacts gameplay by modifying the Tension Level at the start of each mission. Higher exposure makes missions more challenging, reflecting the growing pressure on operatives to remain undetected.

---[Tension is a game mechanic that is a psychological stress Meyer, and it's effects on your operatives]

### Exposure Levels and Effects

| **Exposure Level** | **Range** | **Code Name** | **Tension Modifier** | **Description** |
|--------------------|------------|-------------------------|------------------------|-----------------|
| **Level 1** | 0.01 - 1.00 | **Ghosts** | -1 to mission Tension | The team is a ghost story. No one suspects their existence. |
| **Level 2** | 1.01 - 2.00 | **Whispers** | No modifier | Faint whispers and rumors circulate, but nothing concrete. |
| **Level 3** | 2.01 - 3.00 | **Insinuations** | +1 to mission Tension | Hints and suspicions grow, but evidence is lacking. |
| **Level 4** | 3.01 - 4.00 | **Investigations** | +1 to mission Tension | Investigations into possible covert operations intensify. |
| **Level 5** | 4.01 - 5.00 | **Oversight Hearings** | +2 to mission Tension | High-level officials are scrutinizing NATO’s covert activities. |
| **Level 6** | 5.01 - 6.00 | **Shadow Cabinet** | +2 to mission Tension | Powerful individuals are actively tracking the team. |
| **Level 7** | 6.01+ | **Disavowed** | N/A | NATO severs all ties, abandoning the team and ending the game. |

### Starting Exposure and Increments
- **Starting Exposure**: The team begins their first mission with an Exposure of 0.01, operating under the radar as “Ghosts.”
- **Exposure Increases**: Exposure rises based on events during missions, such as:
- **Captured Operatives**: Any team member captured by enemy forces or authorities.
- **NATO or Law Enforcement Assistance**: Calling in support or involving outside agencies.
- **Media Coverage**: Any public exposure, such as journalists witnessing operations or television broadcasts of suspicious activity.
- **Physical Evidence**: Leaving behind shell casings, lost equipment, unaccounted bodies, etc.

Exposure becomes a constant shadow, forcing operatives to make tough calls between mission success and staying covert.

---

The Discovery mechanic should provide that “invisible clock” effect, where players feel the pressure without knowing exactly how close they are to crossing the line.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is supposed to be a Major part of the game, as this mechanic has a way to lose the campaign, without the standard "Everybody's dead, The End" of traditional RPGs.

If you are Disavowed you are done... until I write Book 2: Rogue Ops.

Yeah, you have to make Exposure the failure state, and combat a very high risk of exposure in the mechanics. Death is not the failure state, getting the operation exposed is.

This will naturally lead players to the right focus of play. However, it never hurts to spell it out in the text either.

The other important thing is creating a series of prompts and tools for the DM to optionally use during the early first few games to help the players along. If they are used to solving every situation with combat then they might not have many ideas on how to resolve situations outside of that.

This could make them hit dead-ends where they can't see a solution other than combat and feel like the game is just unbalanced/unfair.

So having a bunch of suggestions/ideas and ways for the DM to directly guide the players during the first game or two and present alternative roleplay ideas for how they can solve things is a good move. It could be something as simple as them having a life-line communication to head-office during those first few missions and if they hit trouble/slow down or such they can reach out to head office for help.

Basically like having a "phone a friend".

That way you can introduce ideas and concepts and alternative solutions for them to try and hopefully get them thinking, get their minds going etc...

Ok, I can figure out how to incorporate more of their CO's presence in the starter missions.

Then I can use radio silence as a method of increasing game tension....

Back to work. Thanks for the assistance!

Yep - and if the guiding is optional then the Dm can drop it in as the party needs it to keep the game going and so forth.

Things like that let you have optional guiding tools so that plays don't feel like they are being rail-roaded. That's always the tricky thing - striking that balance where you constrict players focus so that they play the game intended; but also give them enough freedom that they feel they are making real actual choices.

Another option that no one brought up: weapons restrictions.

One of the reason James Bond carried a Walther PPK was that they were ubiquitous in Cold War Europe and .32 ACP was extremely common.

So having a team that is basically limited to mouse guns is a great way to ensure they don't mix it up will guys carrying AKs.

If you really want to dig into the stealth aspect, work through the team's choices in this regard. For example, revolvers don't leave casings behind, but you get small magazine restrictions/slower reloads. You can't use a silencers unless there's a gas seal, but this can be managed (A character might have a heavily modified Nagant with a much-improved trigger).

A lot of RPG playing is about equipment selection, so you can have some fun here with having your team choose their weapons, maybe emphasizing saps, knives, or Welrod-style one-shot weapons.

I guarantee you a party that is carrying a mix of .32 long and .25 ACP will be much less eager to start a firefight.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Another option that no one brought up: weapons restrictions.

One of the reason James Bond carried a Walther PPK was that they were ubiquitous in Cold War Europe and .32 ACP was extremely common.

So having a team that is basically limited to mouse guns is a great way to ensure they don't mix it up will guys carrying AKs.

If you really want to dig into the stealth aspect, work through the team's choices in this regard. For example, revolvers don't leave casings behind, but you get small magazine restrictions/slower reloads. You can't use a silencers unless there's a gas seal, but this can be managed (A character might have a heavily modified Nagant with a much-improved trigger).

A lot of RPG playing is about equipment selection, so you can have some fun here with having your team choose their weapons, maybe emphasizing saps, knives, or Welrod-style one-shot weapons.

I guarantee you a party that is carrying a mix of .32 long and .25 ACP will be much less eager to start a firefight.

Your knowledge base in this arena is vastly above mine.

The setting centers around Berlin '87 (Just in time for Reagan's famous Brandenburg Gate speech).

I was going to use the Beretta 92FS due to its links to NATO in the 1980s and the heaviest weapon was going to be the Uzi.

With a combat blade of some sort, from Gerber Mk II or a KA-BAR.

But any information or weapon advice would help me a lot.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Your knowledge base in this arena is vastly above mine.

The setting centers around Berlin '87 (Just in time for Reagan's famous Brandenburg Gate speech).

I was going to use the Beretta 92FS due to its links to NATO in the 1980s and the heaviest weapon was going to be the Uzi.

With a combat blade of some sort, from Gerber Mk II or a KA-BAR.

But any information or weapon advice would help me a lot.

It depends on the focus of your campaign and the cover of your agents. If they are behind the Iron Curtain, give them Warsaw Pact weapons.

Some options you can look up on the internet:

Makarov pistol, weaker than a 9mm parabellum, beefier than a .380. NATO could probably secure some for this, but it may also be too obvious.

Hungary actually exported Walther PP clones to the west, and these came in .380 and .32. Go with .32, because it will seem strange and odd to your players. Standard issue one had aluminimum frames in the white, but there were examples where the frame was coated, to make it less bright (and conspicuous).

Yugolavia produced a .32 ACP starting in 1970 that was quite compact, though heavy. Zastava M70 (not the rifle, the pistol.) The Czechs had a CZ 50/70 and an 83 that were slick and compact. Not sure export status.

My point is that if your guys are in deep cover, give them some exotic stuff, small, easy to hide, but not nearly enough for a firefight. Maybe even challenge them giving the clues I've provided.

Beretta 1934/5s would also be some neat options.

If you're in deep cover, you use the enemy's weapons or stuff common on the black market, and it should be small enough to fit in a flask while going through a checkpoint.

This my intro. Essentially I stole the concept from an incident which I love because of how bizarre it is.

So, there is a potential Soviet defector (and not some low level line crosser). They tell him that when he wants to leave, he is to walk past a certain store holding a certain grocery bag in his left hand.
He will know the message is received when he sees a man eat a certain candy bar as a response.

The problem. They don't have those candy bars in Moscow... or the Soviet Union... whoops. But it's too late, the message has been sent. So the Brits send in a team of debadged SAS illegally into the USSR to drop off a box of candy bars.

After reading that and selections from Bromhead's unpublished memoirs, I knew I needed to write a game about my new favorite type of agent: the Fireman.

I swapped out the British only element of the stories, relocated a lot of the actual events to Berlin, shifted the timeline to the end of the Cold War, and made NATO the star (so I can use a multinational team).

You Are Not a Spy.

You are a fireman. A covert operative. Your job is simple: you operate in the shadows, where official channels are either compromised or irrelevant. When NATO requires action but cannot afford exposure, you’re the one called in.

Your missions are classified, and your presence must remain invisible. Whether retrieving sensitive material or ensuring a covert operation proceeds without detection, you will leave no trace—no sign that NATO ever existed in the area.

As a NOC (Non-Official Cover), you are completely off the books. There will be no official recognition if you’re caught. No embassy to protect you. No apologies. You are expendable, and there will be no one to come to your aid if you fail.

If your actions threaten to expose NATO, you will be disavowed. We’ve learned the consequences of rogue operations the hard way, as demonstrated by the disaster in Italy during Operation Gladio. The costs of failure are too high, and NATO will cut its ties to you without hesitation.

Remember: This is the life you chose. It’s not about glory or recognition. It’s about doing the job—no matter the consequences.

Good luck. You’ll need it.

COLONEL WESTWOOD

I have an idea, if you have rewards, like.. experience points, give more XP for keeping to stealth or for not resorting to violence.

Kinda like.. in metal gear solid 5 you need to be stealthy and fast to get an S rank in a mission.

BanjoJohn wrote:
I have an idea, if you have rewards, like.. experience points, give more XP for keeping to stealth or for not resorting to violence.

Kinda like.. in metal gear solid 5 you need to be stealthy and fast to get an S rank in a mission.

Maybe hand out certain perks (like special items and whatnot) if the team completes missions without detection.

A bit late to the discussion but an reference that hasn't been mentioned yet (skimming the thread and searching for the name) is Invisible Inc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible,_Inc.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/243970/Invisible_Inc/

It's a grid and turn based tactics game heavily focusing on stealth. Ideas like weapons being not that effective (thus not being the first/best option, at least for the player side) have already been mentioned but the game itself might also give you ideas for how to make stealth into a fun game mechanic for a table top (RP)Game. It's a neat game and its name is punny too.

Mario wrote:
A bit late to the discussion but an reference that hasn't been mentioned yet (skimming the thread and searching for the name) is Invisible Inc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible,_Inc.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/243970/Invisible_Inc/

It's a grid and turn based tactics game heavily focusing on stealth. Ideas like weapons being not that effective (thus not being the first/best option, at least for the player side) have already been mentioned but the game itself might also give you ideas for how to make stealth into a fun game mechanic for a table top (RP)Game. It's a neat game and its name is punny too.

That is super helpful. I appreciate the Intel.