Non-lethal combat

[JarlFrank]

Is a pretty good idea, I say, and I have some ideas on how to implement it.

One, arena fights. People don't usually fight to the death in the arena. That would lead to lots of dead gladiators and empty arenas after a few months. Either make fights be decided by first blood, or by wounding the enemy until he surrenders. If the game is HP-based, make fighters surrender at 20% of HP or something. If it's wound-based like DF, make them surrender at enough blood loss or at a heavy wound (that isn't letal though). Oh, and knocking out the enemy will lead to victory, too.

Then, bandits. They shouldn't mindlessly hack away at you, but offer you to give them all your valuables. If you don't agree, the fight will start. If it becomes apparent you're going to lose, they might repeat their offer. If they're going to lose, they might either try to retreat or willing to surrender. Some way to initiate dialogue during such a fight could be nice, in order to shout demands to the enemy. Would also be cool if severely wounded enemies with no chance to flee would just drop their weapon and lie down with hands behind their head. Most bandits aren't retarded suiciders.

What does the 'dex think? Yay or nay?

 

[Shemar]

What exactly would this complication accomplish?

For the potential developer I see an endless list of things that would need to be added to handle the consequences of any random fight being anything but to the death. For the player I see no real value added to the game from all this extra work.

For example, so the bandits surrendered. Now what? Carry them along as prisoners? You'd end up with a prisoner train after every extended mission. Kill them anyway? Magically teleport them to jail?

And I better not see the 'realism' thing. Because going through an area of 30, 50, 100 enemies and coming out the other end having defeated them all is all but realistic. It is just RPG.

Most games, when they want to have a 'surrender' option just have the NPC surrender instead of die, which works just fine for me. As for the player surrendering, well maybe a few might, but realistically reload would be the obvious choice over surrender. Unless it was pretty obvious that surrendering might be part of the plot with an interesting result and not a "you lose 100 gold - nothing else changes" outcome.

 

[JarlFrank]

Well yeah I'd pull the realism schtick here. Also I wouldn't let the player take prisoners - just loot the enemies without having to finish them off.

It's not that difficult, really, and it'd only be added when it makes sense. In arena fights, it's pretty much mandatory, in random encounters it'd just be an added gimmick (that wouldn't be too hard to add). In some quest encounters, it could offer interesting opportunities (slay all the bodyguards of the guy you were sent to kill and he might go all FFFUUUUU and make you an offer that might be more profitable than killing him).

 

[shihonage]

What exactly would this complication accomplish?

For the potential developer I see an endless list of things that would need to be added to handle the consequences of any random fight being anything but to the death. For the player I see no real value added to the game from all this extra work.

For example, so the bandits surrendered. Now what? Carry them along as prisoners? You'd end up with a prisoner train after every extended mission. Kill them anyway? Magically teleport them to jail?

And I better not see the 'realism' thing. Because going through an area of 30, 50, 100 enemies and coming out the other end having defeated them all is all but realistic. It is just RPG.

Most games, when they want to have a 'surrender' option just have the NPC surrender instead of die, which works just fine for me. As for the player surrendering, well maybe a few might, but realistically reload would be the obvious choice over surrender. Unless it was pretty obvious that surrendering might be part of the plot with an interesting result and not a "you lose 100 gold - nothing else changes" outcome.

All true.

Oh, this topic is close to my heart. Or rather, it is a spike in my side. Non-lethal combat is in my game, and it is a horrible pain.

Questions that have arisen during its design were as follows:

• How do you handle post-surrender NPC behavior in terms of further aggro?
• Same question but in terms of further dialogue with said NPC - requiring unique double-dialogue for every talking NPC in the game?
• What do they sacrifice?
• When you surrender to NPCs, how does that work at all?

Right now the system remains broken. The current state is as follows:

• NPCs give up to you when they have but a slither of health. Select NPCs will fight to the death (via override trigger).
• When they give up, a white flag starts blinking above their head, and you can take ALL items from them (yeah, it's fucking broken). After some time it stops blinking and you can't loot them anymore.
• "Player's BITCH" attribute is set permanently for them, and they can never attack you again. Also, this attribute can be used in dialogue checks to alter what they say now.
• When you surrender to NPCs, you are frozen. They come up to you and take your priciest item. Then you can go. They will not attack you until your flag stops blinking, so you have a bit of time to put distance between you.
• NPCs can also simply refuse to talk to you forever after you mangle them (an easy automated "solution").

It's fucked up. I think the changes required are:

1) I should switch non-lethal combat off by default and only enable it for cases when I can provide alternate behavior for NPC.

2) I don't know what to do about player surrendering part. As was correctly pointed out, loading a saved game negates this entirely.

As I understand, Fallout had instance(s) of non-lethal combat, particularly when you wake up in a hotel and a Raider has a girl hostage. You CRIPPLE him but don't kill him. It was clearly hardcoded, but it seems to be the only way to go about these things...

... or is it?!?!

 

[deuxhero]

I have been playing SoC and would love non-lethal combat to be in it, even if it was just punching the enemy (i forget if pre-stalker complete SoC had punching as the knifes main fire or if that was a change in Complete), as every single NPC, even the bandits, has a name (randomly generated and thus silly, but a name).


Deus Ex had the solution that any KOed foe never woke up and was effectively dead (The Nameless Mod was similar, but some woke up between missions and were pissed as a result), but that only works in a linear "mission based" game like DX rather than a free world.

That said, Gothic did it pretty well. In civilization (there may be a few exception), if you got your ass kicked you lied on the floor KOed and the foe took all your money (and I think weapon), the same was true for the foes you attacked, except you could kill them if you wanted with a finisher. Outside of the towns you were just dead (but YOU still had the option to just take their weapons and loot and let them go). Gothic treated people you just beat up rather illogically (they will not change dialoge at all, allowing you to have them train you, then let you whack them and take your gold back, then have them train you more) though.


Oh! The Morrowind mod Vampire Embrace let you enslave opponents (provided they are a lower level than you and, for some reason, not a guard) if you managed to get them in a bite (it required you more or less knock them out with your fists, you could automaticlly kill them via drinking them dry or make them your, equally enslaved, vampire spawn by doing the same thng). They would have a very low disposition to you for it. This worked because it was supernatural abilityish and the method for raising their disposition back up (drink from them until they learn to like it, or be really masterfullly charming) was as well.

Oh, Jagged Alliance 2 also let you surrender if you were vastly out numbered. You could get the mercs back by liberating their prison, or, after some objectives were finished, you got a secret event where you could kill the queen right after an interogation session where the door is unlocked (Elliot! You idiiot!), but that was mostly an easter egg.

 

[SCO]

I think ToEE (i am playing it now) did what you want, but it gets no respect.

Some major Enemies surrendering (yes) you surrendering (once i think)
Enemies dying, with those that are just sleeping after a combat staying sleeping (yes)
Intermediate stage (dying) where the enemies or you could still be saved (yes).

In baldur's gate you could punch people into unconsciousness right? Gothic series too.

 

[Nael]

I think ToEE (i am playing it now) did what you want, but it gets no respect.

Yep. I remember that came in handy in the first dungeon when the elf/gnome prisoners attacked me before I killed the Ogre so I knocked em the fuck out. They were much more reasonable after I woke them up

Honestly, the best use of non-lethal combat in a game both from a perspective of implementation and AI reaction check out SWAT 4. If you haven't played it and you have any interest in tactical combat I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you.

 

[shihonage]

SWAT 4 is not an RPG, and the consequences and issues with implementing non-lethal combat in an RPG are very different.

After you subdue criminals in SWAT 4, you just move on to the next level, and don't have to face problems modeling their behavior as they continue to persist in the big world.

And the environment in which you subdue them in the first place, is very controlled and rigidly scripted.

Apples and oranges.

 

[spectre]

Didn't we have this talk, like last year?

If you're even considering this, there are two big issues imo (and one superior issue - make it so that it's an integral part of the game, not something that pops up in two or three quests).

First - making it worthwhile for the player to yield/surrender instead of reloading. Ironman aside, this means lots of additional content to be made.

Second - making it worthwile for the player to actually spare the npcs, makes no sense to do it, if you can just kill them, stay safe and take their phat lewt anyway.
Yeah, you can always make it break quests and assign bad karma points for killing, but that's meh when it comes to motivation.

Random thoughts:
(o) If an opponent yielded to you, s/he should be totally cooperative (for a limited time?) - you can push them around, take their stuff, intimidation checks should be easier.

(o) Let's look at Mount and Blade for a second - if you have enough prisoner management, you dont kill guys, you bash them in the head and sell for good money - makes sense, you don't kill a walking moneybag. And there's even an option to make them join you.

(o) If we have the Stop Right There Criminal Scum system in place for our game, let's make it so, that killing is not simply a matter of parting with 1000$, but an endeavour that's totally not worth it, especiallyif it wasn't self defense (like muggers etc.) - similarly to Fallout's childkiller, traders won't trade, honest folk won't socialize, guards will become trigger happy.
An example: if there's a bar brawl going on, you'd best put that sharp stuff away, or next thing in the morning, the guard will take you to the gallows instead of a simple 72h.

(o) The setting may work to encourage non lethal combat, not just on the gladiatorial arena, but let's say, duels of honor, fighting as a means of gaining social status (tribes etc.) - all these may be well to the death, but depending on the actual society, it may be frowned opon.

Awful lot of work, I think it's best when the game is designed from the ground up to incorporate that sort of stuff, let's not forget that the current trend is kill your way through quests, so it's important to set the ground rules - we do it differently hereaboutsl

 

[JarlFrank]

Well, it wouldn't be a main feature, but it'd be useful in some quests, with NPCs offering good terms for surrendering (maybe a reward, maybe some influence within their faction, etc... a crime boss might make you quite a good offer if you spare him - and then, later, betray you) and especially arena-fights being more realistic.

Bandits surrendering would just be for flavour - therefore it doesn't have to be implemented, but them asking you to give them all your valuables and they'd spare your life would definitely be in. It's a good way to avoid a random encounter that would otherwise kill you, if your party sucks at combat.

For most of the important named NPCs in towns, surrendering should be a valid option. Unarmed combat should also be non-lethal and just produce knockouts.

 

[denizsi]

It would be nice in a game with a duel culture in the game world where picking your fights carefully, winning over or losing to particular people or types of people and yielding had significant impact on your reputation and how various factions viewed you, enough to open or close doors, receive or miss quests. Imagine getting involved in fixed duels, to eliminate your opponent or a joint effort for a desired political outcome, or falling prey for or discovering one such attempt on yourself through skills, reputation and quest history.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

The non-lethal methods in Way of the Samurai are a nice touch.

 

[denizsi]

Please explain.

 

[zenbitz]

I think it can be done.

Let's take both sides seperatly:

NPCs surrendering to PC:
Actually, they don't have to surrender - they can run. Maybe you catch, them, maybe not. If there are 6 of them and you default the group "morale" (or whatever), they flee.. PC catches 1, dog catches another, other 4 get away. You would obviously have some "radius" at which point the PC "loses" them and has to roll tracking to find them or whatever...

Now, K/O and surrender: First off they are only going to surrender to PC if they have some reason to think PC won't just kill them, or leave them no reason to live. So PCs rep/game world matters there. If they do surrender, they presumably turn over their weapons to you. So they SHOULD (by AI) be ill-inclined to fight further. They are also your bitch, but this shoudl be temporary too. Eventually they might seek revenge etc.

K/O is not really much different than dead, except NPC wakes up. Now, in this case - he might realize that PC *could* have killed him, and actually might respect that (in addition to fearing the guy that defeated him, plus has no weapon, etc.).

The summary - the better you treat your prisoners/KOs - the less likely they or their friends will do ill to you.

Now, this won't work at all without some incentive for PC to keep people alive. This will never work in a game where PC is a leveled-up like archangel of death who fears nothing. I.e. most trite RPGs once you get passed the early low level game. One can have "law enforcement" (ie.e, NPC entity much more powerful than PC) treat "killer" PC bad. Now what this "enforcement" is depends on the game... it good be gods/alignments if they penalties are severe enough. This is also a reason to essentially "cap" player combat "level" such that he cannot trivially defeat the entire Vault City police force once he has power armor and a good weapon.

I think that even a simple karma system could do the trick as long as there were actually, you know, penalties, for having bad karma.

I think critical to this is a system where NPCs can more or less accurately *EVALUATE* their chance of winning a fight. Not only does this prevent suicide charges, it sort of prevents "PC rampages" because once everyone realizes that they are doomed, they just up and leave town (with most of their phat loot). And when they come back, it's with a heavily armed posse (see "effective combat level cap" above)

PC "surrendering" to NPC
Well again, the "normal" reaction to a fight that you seem unlikely to win would be to simply escape. This is actually my plan for handling "highly lethal" combat in PARPG. You get attacked at unfavorable odds, you click the "Flee" button. So it would actually be a small tactical puzzle (for either side) to force the other guy to fight. You either have to:
a) corner him (no escape)
b) threaten something he will fight for
c) surprise him (backstab)

Now, I don't have a good solution (other than ironman) for getting the PC to actually surrender. I suppose you could trick him by making a few cases where he actually has to surrender to advance the plot. Kinda evil though.

You can also do the PS:T route and make it so that surrendering is essentially zero cost to player. I played some console scroller that my little brother had many years ago where when you got "caught" (not killled) you were just thrown into what I dubbed "the easily escapable jail". This seems to break immmerszion, though.

Even so - why should NPC accept PCs surrender? Well, I guess what might work is that if PC has rep for non-lethality (see above) then NPC might not kill him. This could even be the default. But in order for this to avoid save scumming then surrender really must have esssentially zero cost.

 

[shihonage]

Oh yes, I forgot to mention that NPCs will not surrender if you have negative reputation with their faction.

And reputation decreases for each killed NPC, for an amount that is specific to that NPC. This was a needed enhancement, because, say, you're in a village where a no-good husband is beating his wife. Killing him should take a lot less out of your rep than killing, say, his wife.

And I'm making per-faction rep important as it serves to unlock certain things (and lock them back up when lost).

And yes, the whole "PC surrendering to NPC" mechanic seems not only useless in retrospect, but highly exploitable for getting past places you're not supposed to get past.

I guess the solution to those exploits would involve riddling the world with keycard doors, but that's kind of lame.

Oh well, time wasted on pointless feature, live and learn

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Please explain.

Basically, you can, at any time, choose use the blunt side of your weapon for non-lethal results. This way, you don't have to kill NPCs you end up in a fight with due to pissing them off in a dialogue or through your actions (ie, running around with a drawn weapon) and they don't accept your apology. This leaves the NPC alive (they don't drop loot though) and thus allows different paths to be chosen. It sometimes affects your relations with NPCs you beat. It can also lead to different immediate ending/normal cutscenes and progression path in the game, acting as a choice in itself. It can also affect your reputation with factions, and in some tasks it is required.

It's simplistic, but it works quite well. Then again, Way of the Samurai series is entirely about open-endedness, non-linearity and C&C.

 

[JarlFrank]

Oh well, time wasted on pointless feature, live and learn

Making a thread about it to check what others think before implementing it is a good way to not waste time on it, no?

 

[Excommunicator]

It is most certainly not a pointless feature. It just requires more effort and clever design than simply tacking it on.

I am a big fan of the idea of non-lethal combat. I have seen it attempted in a number of games, but I don't think I've seen it done in a way that contributes much to the end product. I agree with the other posters in that if you put it in at all, make sure it really matters and contributes to the experience.

Mount&Blade probably takes it further than I have seen in any other game, Spectre explained most of the details of it above, although it still has a lot of problems with it, and isn't especially significant. In a game like that there isn't much more flexibility for it aside from expanding the slave mechanic, since a single life is next to worthless in an empire management/war setting, with certain exceptions for high ranking individuals, but they aren't frequent enough to support the mechanic on their own.

There are far more opportunities available for purer RPGs though. The one which I think offers the most potential is as a foundation for a more robust crime & law system. If you have the law implemented mechanically (a theoretical system that works, obviously) then a whole other set of decisions await the player knowing the possible consequences of murder punishments, living prisoners, blackmail/corruption, and perhaps most importantly, bringing in moral/conscience considerations for the player. If you can make the player treat the lives of NPCs in the game with more consideration than currently in games, then you are on the right track.

However having the PC surrender won't be very compatible with the typical RPG combat system which throws countless enemies at the player with the expectation to have them all defeated/killed, every time. Not only will surrendering become a chore if the enemies themselves are generic, but the consequences will need to not destroy the game, and not be too small that it just becomes a nuisance. It also needs to have lasting effects so that it is not just an isolated decision in each combat encounter, otherwise it would be better off not there.

 

[JarlFrank]

Yeah, I'll probably re-think the PC being able to surrender. That's what might be pointless.

Non-lethal combat in itself certainly isn't, and quest-NPCs offering terms of peace instead of fighting to the death is also an interesting idea. And bandits definitely will run away when morale breaks, even if surrender of random encounters won't be implemented - it's just more immersive and realistic than them fighting to the death.

 

[spectre]

Yeah, I'll probably re-think the PC being able to surrender. That's what might be pointless.

Pointless, I don't think so.
It's just pretty intensive on the additional content you'd have to create for it.
Another challenge is to make it seem as an acceptable choice for the player who just screwed up (in a broad sense), instead of just a reload.
Yeah, it _may_ turn out as not worth it eventually.

What I would do with it?
First, let's not forget quest specific situations - an easy way to to gain access to a heavily guarded/secret location is by getting caught and imprisoned.
Then comes, of course the problem of getting out and/or informing your associates about your whereabouts, fantasy settings offer quite a few options here, with a bit of creativity - divination magic etc.

Now, if it's just there for a few specific quests, it still doesn't make it worth it, for my tastes. How about stuff you regularly do in in the game?
(o) Actually comply with the bandits and give them all your money for once - never gona happen imo. The player will just exploit save/reload to get out of teh encounter. And will feel bad about it if you force it upon them.
(o) Oblibians iirc used the 'yield' mechanics to appease npcs and companions if they came under friendly fire. Even if it's a stupid fix for ai glitches, it still takes us somewhere.

This leads us to duels of honor I mentioned earlier, but unless it happens very often, we may file it under quest-specific one-off solution.

Unfortunately, at the moment I cannot think of anything more in-depth than just making surrender something other than a plot device and a means to fix player's screwups. Adimit it, you do it everytime - save then attack a dude just to see if you can beat him, only this time instead of reload you yield and he demands that you show him your honor.
This will most likely appeal to hardcore ironman players, unless there's some sort of anti-savescumming mechanism in place, which I am not too fond of.

This leaves us with quests, if you design enough of them, plus one wpic one involving infiltrating and bringing down a powerful organization from within, it may just be enough to justify it.

And bandits definitely will run away when morale breaks, even if surrender of random encounters won't be implemented - it's just more immersive and realistic than them fighting to the death.

This asks for doing away with the EXP for kills only syndrome that seems to plague rpgs since the dawn of time. There is also a question of phat lewt, because should you deny the player either, they'll reload until they kill them all.
Although it is a tempting picture - the player sees the bandit leader has a magical weapon, screams "mine", then proceeds to kill his way towards the guy.

Hmm.
I may actually get something productive out of this, let's have the usual run-of-the-mill bandits - they attack, get their assess kicked then retreat.
Now, if the player let's at least some of them go, there is a chance to stumble upon them again sometime later, but this time with more experience and phater lewt,
and if they escape this time, repeat until...
The trick is to make the player feel happy that some of the dudes actually escaped.
Now, you just have to balance this shit out...

 

[shihonage]

Oh well, time wasted on pointless feature, live and learn

Making a thread about it to check what others think before implementing it is a good way to not waste time on it, no?

No, I meant in my game the PC-->NPC surrender is already in, and it seems pointless... at least, without explicit quest hardwiring as described above.

It is most certainly not a pointless feature. It just requires more effort and clever design than simply tacking it on.

I am a big fan of the idea of non-lethal combat. I have seen it attempted in a number of games, but I don't think I've seen it done in a way that contributes much to the end product. I agree with the other posters in that if you put it in at all, make sure it really matters and contributes to the experience.

Mount&Blade probably takes it further than I have seen in any other game, Spectre explained most of the details of it above, although it still has a lot of problems with it, and isn't especially significant. In a game like that there isn't much more flexibility for it aside from expanding the slave mechanic, since a single life is next to worthless in an empire management/war setting, with certain exceptions for high ranking individuals, but they aren't frequent enough to support the mechanic on their own.

There are far more opportunities available for purer RPGs though. The one which I think offers the most potential is as a foundation for a more robust crime & law system. If you have the law implemented mechanically (a theoretical system that works, obviously) then a whole other set of decisions await the player knowing the possible consequences of murder punishments, living prisoners, blackmail/corruption, and perhaps most importantly, bringing in moral/conscience considerations for the player. If you can make the player treat the lives of NPCs in the game with more consideration than currently in games, then you are on the right track.

However having the PC surrender won't be very compatible with the typical RPG combat system which throws countless enemies at the player with the expectation to have them all defeated/killed, every time. Not only will surrendering become a chore if the enemies themselves are generic, but the consequences will need to not destroy the game, and not be too small that it just becomes a nuisance. It also needs to have lasting effects so that it is not just an isolated decision in each combat encounter, otherwise it would be better off not there.

I can't help but notice that your posts are always on target.

About the law&ordersvu) system, Fallout had the most primitive version of that - you attack someone, and the whole settlement is after you. But it kind of worked, until you got powerful enough to wipe entire settlements.

A counter to this would involve putting "endgame-stat'ed" guards in every settlement to maintain order, but that reduces the player's power.

Or, just make the game jail the player automatically - that would be pretty terrible, though.

And yes, it contradicts the idea of combat being the major time-spender in an RPG - I keep trying to think of ways in which the player may find it beneficial to spare the lives of those he defeated in a random encounter.

Maybe tying random encounter enemies to existing factions, so that your rep with them is affected? That may be realistic. There's gonna be at least one faction you'll end up ruining your reputation with anyway...

Basically, if you KILL an average member of any faction, you lose a nearly irreparable amount of reputation with them, that isn't likely to be raised back to neutral by doing their quests.

But if you just MAIM them, you lose FAR LESS reputation.

If you MAIM and ROB them, you lose MORE reputation, but still reparable.

 

[JarlFrank]

Well, leaving people alive in random encounters, especially if it's just raiders, wouldn't have many lasting consequences, except maybe some slight faction relation improvement.

What could be of consequence, though, is that you can make them give you all their valuable items - which makes you get more loot than if some of them manage to run away.

 

[shihonage]

I see you're approaching this from the "greed" perspective

A lot of this "run away" talk sounds fine in theory but it simply may not work with non-lethal combat, or introduce a stimula for weird exploits where player treats the game, once again, as a vending machine.

A "greed" idea I had along similar lines, is to make most of their items unusable (irreparably "damaged in combat") if you kill them, but not so if you let them surrender...

... but then you take their shit and kill them anyway, so this is moot.

Same problem as with your idea.

Yeah, I think I'll be going the reputation damage route.

 

[DraQ]

What exactly would this complication accomplish?

For the potential developer I see an endless list of things that would need to be added to handle the consequences of any random fight being anything but to the death. For the player I see no real value added to the game from all this extra work.

I have grown accustomed to you considering every single feature that could benefit an RPG an extra work adding no value.

Non-lethal combat would do a great job changing the usual genocide squad gameplay of cRPGs into something actually interesting. It would offer opportunities for meaningful failure, it could make difference in civilized regions of the gameworld, while killing or not initially hostile NPCs could be tracked as changes to PCs reputation and alter NPCs reaction. Enemy surrender (if you don't have reputation of someone who will just slaughter them anyway) can yield you extra loot or information. Then, there is flight, lack of implementation of which just doesn't make sense in 99% of combat encounters - neither bandits, nor wildlife doesn't want to murderize PC/party at all costs, they want loot and meal respectively, but most importantly they want to survive.

Additionally, NPC flight, surrender, and ability to handle enemy surrender provides useful framework freeing you from having to script this kind of stuff on case-by-case basis if it's going to be used in quests, and in large, procedural sandboxes allows for fairly realistic combat and law-enforcement dynamics - see oblivious' law enforcement and thieving NPCs for glaring counterexample.

Well, leaving people alive in random encounters, especially if it's just raiders, wouldn't have many lasting consequences, except maybe some slight faction relation improvement.

What could be of consequence, though, is that you can make them give you all their valuable items - which makes you get more loot than if some of them manage to run away.

How about some of them spreading the word, boosting your reputation as a badass and making things easier and more profitable in the future (people will be less inclined to attempt to exploit or cheat a badass; dead people in the middle of nowhere don't spread word), rising other hostiles inclination to surrender and making them more likely to give away important information if they know that you won't slaughter them the moment they will be of no further use and so on?

 

[denizsi]

Please explain.

Basically, you can, at any time, choose use the blunt side of your weapon for non-lethal results. This way, you don't have to kill NPCs you end up in a fight with due to pissing them off in a dialogue or through your actions (ie, running around with a drawn weapon) and they don't accept your apology. This leaves the NPC alive (they don't drop loot though) and thus allows different paths to be chosen. It sometimes affects your relations with NPCs you beat. It can also lead to different immediate ending/normal cutscenes and progression path in the game, acting as a choice in itself. It can also affect your reputation with factions, and in some tasks it is required.

It's simplistic, but it works quite well. Then again, Way of the Samurai series is entirely about open-endedness, non-linearity and C&C.

Sounds elegant. Thanks for explaining.