Following a discussion on a once nice-ish medieval fantastic LARP with Roleplay turned into a large game of risk where the only point of the game is to battle other group for their territory, some friends and I discussed making our own. We'd like to make it steampunk. We talked about combat and how we'd integrate it into the game without the game being about it. Until I realize that we didn't have to put any kind of combat in the game. Let's build a steampunk utopia where violence is a thing of the past.

As far as I know (and Googled), there's no RPG without combat. Some rules-lite RPG will say you just have to perform the exact same kind of roll as a regular action but we don't have that leisure since we build an immersive LARP.

Small aside for those not familiar with the immersive / imaginative dichotomy: immersive = I have to see for it to exists (for instance fireballs could be red stress balls that you really have to throw) while in imaginative you can rely on people's imagination to make up things that aren't there (I'm a Lasombra and there are shadow tentacles that come out of the ground and try to hit you).

Are you aware of any RPG that does away with combat? Do you think it can work?

RPGs without conflict are rather dull, because then there would be nothing meaningful to do. So you probably want conflicts. Physical combat is trying to resolve a conflict with violence. You can resolve conflicts in unlimited other ways though. So sure, play without violence is possible.

So you don't like violence as a means of resolution. You can flat out deny it as an option, with whatever justification you can imagine. Then people are forced to look for alternatives. You could also allow it, but provide more appealing ways of conflict resolution as well. Then people would favor the alternatives and look down on violence, even if it's still an option. Kind of like real life, actually.

Hey, why not go for it? If it's a world that's gone beyond violence, you can still, of course, have conflict, and everything from Chinese courtiers to Victorian businessmen can provide examples.
Sex, bribery, maybe even sabotage (that might be pushing it, though) could all be ways of creating or dealing with conflicts of interest, without actually resorting to violence.
I'm wondering if this steampunk world might have any representative governments - politics is ripe with conflict that doesn't inherently lead to violence. Machines breaking, people starving, natural disasters, and so on, are all non-violent situations to be solved/endured.

Yes conflicts must happen, you can't have a story without it.

Since I want to do it LARP with lots of players around, I have to encourage conflicts between characters. My idea was to divide the characters into different ideologies. There are those who are stuck in the past, for instance those who believe alchemy still is the way forward or even lunatics who believe we are forgetting the lessons from the pagan traditions. Then among the technologically minded, there are different views, those who follow Charles Babbage and his analytical engine might not agree with those who wish we'd rather create more practical machines.

There would probably be a developed political system and a judicial one too (too large sources of conflicts).

Wow, if you have neo-paganists rubbing elbows with proto-computational scientists, how would there not be a bit of the ultra-violence now and again? I daresay the temptation for Luddite destruction might be too strong for a setting without violence.

I could see some possibilities for conflict without combat.

1) Players are politicians, and conflict is resolved via public support. Perhaps dice or cards are used to determine how many 'votes' you get.
2) Players are businessmen, and conflict is resolved via the "invisible hand of the market". Conflicts are settled by comparing proffit. Whoever generates the most wealth wins.
3) Conflict is resolved via seduction.

Non-combat is pretty common in theater LARP, from what I've seen.  I always just used a "if two players get into a conflict they can't roleplay out just RPS it" rule, which included resolutions for fist-fights and so on.  It seems completely reasonable to just say "you can't kill each other, period", though, too.  It really depends on what kind of story you're setting up.

In Australia we've been running a style of game called a freeform (or a freeform LARP), I don't know what they call it in other parts of the world, but I know that freeform seems to have a negative identity as a term (according to many of the glossaries of roleplaying terminology).

The closest I've seen to this style of play in lists of roleplaying terms for other countries is "theatre-form", "parlour-style" or "jeep-form" roleplaying.

The point is that in this part of the world we've been playing large scale LARP style games without conflict resolution mechanisms for over 25 years. You probably won't read about them on the internet, except fro a few scattered pages here and there where people are indicating their enjoymeny or memories of a specific event. You certainly won't find a downloadable pdf with rules, because these games don't have rules.

They just give characters a bunch of motivations to achieve over the course of the session, maybe a bunch of agendas that they'd like to avoid coming to fruition, and then a range of in-character friends and enemies that character already knows among the group they are interacting with.

Over the course of the session, certain events will occur that bring different motivations and agendas to the surface.

Many of these seem to be Renaissance era games, the most recent I've played was at Gencon Oz last year, it was based around the Scarlet Pimpernel. But I've played Sci-fi games of this nature, games about ancient Olympian gods, the set up works for pretty much any setting where direct physical conflict either doesn't work or is a very bad social faux pas (...which is probably one of the reasons why Renaissance and regency era games are so popular for this style of play).

The few games I've played of this type where conflict did happen, the GM's had a specific guide of relative strengths for the players and it was a straight comparison of levels. No randomising factors at all. If players managed to garner support from others around them, they might increase their respective conflict levels. It should be noted that I've heard quite a few players in this style of game share the opinion that if a situation degenerates into stats and character sheets then they've already lost the challenge. The aim is to stay in character as long as possible and really immerse yourself in the situation.

Such games are often written as one-offs, or perhaps as a part of a limited series of events.

V

This may be obvious, but I'll throw it in anyhow.

Steampunk is associated with the Victorian Era. Look at the social and political issues that make up a great deal of conflcit in the 1800s. You have the trend away from aristocratic power, and more towards democracy. Changes in the kinds of classism that exists. The challanges of science and religion and spirituality. The trials and tragedies of empires ruling huge numbers of people. Runing along with all this is the change wrought by advancing technology and science, communications and transport, causing as well as addressing so many concerns.

These are excellent sources of ideological conflict, where the final resolution isn't about one character, but about the course set by the wealthy, the populace, the companies, the churches, the government, the oppressed, the military, the colonized, and so on.

It's my favorite kind of science fiction, all about what if, where new technology allows for situations that are new, or expressions of common human behaviors in new ways, or with new levels of scope.

For an example of a Jeepform LARP with rules, see The Upgrade. For some other information about Jeepform, see http://jeepen.org/

Many other forms of LARPs without combat also exist, from Murder Parties to political intrigue scenarios, but almost always they are not replayable. Frat Jeepform add is replayability and (sometimes) narrativism (yes, in a LARP...)

For some tabletop game without combat, see Bacchanal, It was a Mutual Decision, Breaking the Ice and Under My skin (also available in Jeepform version). I am sure I am forgetting a lot of titles, too.

I'm sorry for the mess I made in my previous post. I should have previewed it. To the moderators: please cancel it or send it to the inactive file.  I am reposting it below with the correct text and links:
--------------------------------------

For an example of a Jeepform LARP with rules, see The Upgrade. For some other information about Jeepform, see http://jeepen.org/

Many other forms of LARPs without combat also exist, from Murder Parties to political intrigue scenarios, but almost always they are not replayable. What Jeepform add is replayability and (sometimes) narrativism (yes, in a LARP...), a good example of this is Doubt, that is for only 4 players and a GM, though.

For some tabletop game without combat, see Bacchanal, It was a Mutual Decision, Breaking the Ice and Under My skin (also available in Jeepform version). I am sure I am forgetting a lot of titles, too.

There was this (commercial) French fantasy game called Animonde, created by Croc in the late 80's. It was not strictly combat-less but violent actions lowered the morale of the victim, and particularily violent actions (more than a slap) lowered the morale of everybody. Combat was then discouraged and not even described ruleswise, the rules focused on characters' relationships (including symbiosis with animals) and peace of mind.
The game is not published anymore but I think there are fan sites around the net. Personally I'm not into it, I find peace of mind by murdering hobgoblins...