It doesn't have to be about combat

Saw a post on FaceBook today, by a GM asking other GMs how to get the PCs to actually engage in combat -- the GM was upset that the players were going for non-combat solutions to their encounters.

Personally? Let them have their non-combat solutions. If the PCs are anti-murder hobo, why not let them? Another GM wondered at hearing the players drive the story, and responded with, "what, I should just suck it up? My desires don't matter?"

That's a pretty raw take of the situation, so here's my thoughts:
1) The GM's desires matter at the table.
However...
2) The players drive the story. And their desires matter to.

And what you need is equilibrium.
You want combat? Sure, put in combat. There's some people who just don't listen to reason - they're there to have a fight, and trying to talk them out of it pisses them off more. Go for it.

But if the players don't want combat? Then hold back on the combat -- let them have their roleplay. This is a roleplaying game, after all. Make the combat rare, and make it so each and every combat is there for a reason beyond 'well, I want combat'.

It's like in Star Wars. Each lightsaber duel in the first trilogy had a point behind it. No lightsaber duel was superfluous. Even the big duel in Episode 1 served a point. The lightsaber duels told a story.

If your players are the non-combat sort, then make each fight important - in that it tells a story to further the plot. If it doesn't, then don't make the encounter a combat and let the players guide how the scene works out.

In my Pathfinder GM's game, our group prefers to negotiate, work out angles and try to find middle ground, or tries to win by intimidation. If it comes to combat, the combats are brutal -- our characters won't hold back -- but it's not our first or even our second choice.

Our characters see no reason to take a life, or risk their lives, if it isn't necessary.

And yes, D&D, and by extension Pathfinder and all the other d20 games, were built on a wargame. So what? That doesn't mean you can't put combat aside to have roleplaying sessions, negotiations, stealth missions, and politics. The game might not be built for some of this -- but that doesn't make it impossible.

The fun thing about roleplaying games is that they're multifaceted. Players have a lot of options to deal with the world around them. And it's my believe that the game master should be the neutral arbiter of the world. They create the world, they run the NPCs, but ego should be left behind when coming into the game -- sure, your desires matter, but if the PCs don't follow up on it, let it be. Don't punish the players for not playing the way you want them to play.

This doesn't mean being a pushover -- I strongly believe in ICA=ICC (In Character Actions have In Character Consequences).  Play the world straight, have the NPCs act in a consistent manner which makes sense, and things will fall where they may.

If the PCs go full murderhobo and you wanted a more peaceful game? Well, okay, it sucks, but how would the NPCs react to the PCs going murderhobo? How about the powers that be? Townsfolk? Nobles? NPC Adventurers?

If you want combat -- there's town drunks, bullies, unintelligent monsters, undead, constructs, and more that the PCs can deal with -- drop the hooks and see which ones they take. Just give them more to do than fight. As I said, each fight should tell a story and further the plot.

Anyway, just because a game has combat rules, and just because that takes up 80% of the game, doesn't mean combat has to be 80% of the game. It really depends on the player group.