⚔️Serberia

Consequently, this dissatisfaction led us to seek out battles in casual quests, even when it wasn't strictly necessary.

To some extent, yes. We wanted to complete at least one quest "correctly," and from my perspective (and, as I understand it, the perspective of some other players), eliminating the armed Inquisition detachment that wanted to oppose the Count's plans and intended to overthrow him felt like something we were hired by Rutger to do. It didn't help that the detachment was located in the deepest part of a mine filled with deadly (though avoidable) traps. I won't deny that Revan's hints played a role, but here, as with the quest itself, perception varies from person to person. I saw it as roleplaying by the Artherians, plus something like Yukina, that is, an unwillingness to wipe out players. The idea that simply leaving was the best option, with no negative consequences, didn't even occur to me, especially since Revan even clarified whether we were attacking. So, there was a certain misunderstanding, where the players saw everything in one light, while Revan had planned something completely different.

Philosophically, from the perspective of the game concept, I agree with Alex. The main reason I haven't considered another option until now is that in that case, the importance of decisions would be diminished, and there would be a risk of making many game situations very bland.

This may sound strange coming from the main tactician of the detachment, but although beautiful victories in difficult battles do give me pleasure, I can't say that this pleasure outweighs the loss of pleasant NPCs or interesting characters of other players. The main point of the experience, in terms of decisions, for me is the roleplaying and the consequences of these decisions on the surrounding world and the characters of the players. Battles are far from the most important thing here. Therefore, this love for hardcore gameplay in games that focus on character development is incomprehensible to me. Hardcore gameplay can be justified in games of a different focus, but in such games, the setting and the system are usually designed so that the characters either die during the game or have a not-so-pleasant ending.

And if players even in the current system make rash decisions and fight even where I didn't intend them to, then there would probably be complete chaos.

I think that in situations where it is not planned that players will fight, it is necessary to create conditions under which such a thought does not even occur to them. For example, in the case of Lorentia and Tyros, we could have met them behind a rubble/cliff/already at the top (while we are at the bottom), having the opportunity to have a dialogue, but not to take up arms. Or, although this is not ideal, we could directly state our intention. This may slightly disrupt the immersion, but it would not lead to the fact that both sides, the players and the GM, remain dissatisfied with the result and end up with a pile of negative emotions. And such a violation of immersion is preferable to me than arguments, resentment, and misunderstandings.