Non-violent Roleplaying

[Marco]

Combat is, in fact, usually the highest mechanically-driven negative-consequence creation subsystem in any traditional RPG. The risk-factor of non-combat skill rolls is usually far, far lower than combat rolls.

However, the reward factor for combat actions tends to be proportionally higher than for non-combat, in my experience. I mean, if combat in a game always resulted in the instigators death, then few players would want to start a fight, now would they?

Since you mentioned Investigators, I'd almost think you were talking about Call of Cthulhu--but since combat there usually does result in the investigator's death and few players do want to start a fight, I think you've got to be talking about something else.

In GURPS there is no "reward" for combat that isn't situational (i.e. if it is the most expeident and least negative-consequence resolution to a problem then it's a good choice. If you are in a fancy ballroom with lots of wittnesses and security the combat is probably a poor choice). So the question is really "which games."

I'd say that D&D certainly does encourage combat in the sense that it's a mechanical road to riches.

Traveler, on the other hand, encouraged trade in that regard. Fighting meant you (and your ship) got shot up.

-Marco

[Eric Provost]

pst... Marco...

Nathan said 'instigators', not 'investigators'.

-Eric

[Marco]

pst... Marco...

Nathan said 'instigators', not 'investigators'.

-Eric

Knew I had to be missing something :)

Still: in CoC (certainly a classic) that's exactly the case.

-Marco

[J B Bell]

John, is this ["nonviolence" as used by Gandhi et al.] what you had in mind?  Or do you mean simply "less physically violent"?  At any rate, I think understanding nonviolence in the way I've described above could help to build a credible game that has both violence and nonviolence in it, where nonviolence could be built in as mechanically more advantageous for players.

No, I meant less physically violent primarily, though violence can be more than physical.  For example, I'm not interested in substituting a non-physical damage meter instead of hit points.  That is, I could make a game about wandering around the countryside, having social encounters with people and then forcing them to run out of "status points", and then taking their stuff.  This would be a sort of word substitution on a violent game.

I would prefer games which are not about winning interpersonal conflict.  i.e. Who beats who.  There are other sorts of action:  resolving internal conflict, winning the respect of others, learning, communicating, etc.

Under the definition of "violence" I use, especially when talking about nonviolence in a sort of peace-activist sense, the "word substitution" you are talking about also counts as violence--seeking to dominate another person so that they do what you want, regardless of what they want.  So, though it doesn't seem we use the words exactly the same way, your preference above is something I read as "nonviolence" the way I mean it.

In learning Nonviolent Communication(*), I've done a fair bit of "role-playing" in the therapeutic sense--that is, you pretend to be the guy who's pissed off at me because, say, my dog dug up your rose garden.  There is a "gamey" aspect to that role-play, though, in that I'm trying to observe clearly what's going on that you're reacting to, notice what emotions are going on with you, and what needs of yours this points to.  Yes, this is all very mushy, touchy-feely so far, I hope you'll bear with it for a bit.

Thing is, it's actually rather thrilling, in a whole different way from trying to figure out "how can I force this guy to shut up and leave me alone," or "how do I prove I'm right and he's an idiot for bitching at me, that wasn't even my damn dog."  Noticing what is up with someone on a human level beyond the nasty way they may be expressing themselves is very much a trainable and enjoyable skill.

I think this could be done in a more RPG-ish way, by assigning needs (which are often not very obvious) to the participants in a conflict; maybe some kind of sensitivity rating for characters in terms of noticing others' (and their own, this is very significant) feelings, and so on.  You could combine this with triggers, also not necessarily known, which could be put in after the fact if you're using FitM, or before if you want to do things the Fortune in the beginning.

This could scale from fairly low-grade interpersonal conflict (can I salvage the evening after my date has dropped a drink in his lap and is now grumpy), to high-intensity (can this marriage be saved after adultery); and up to very high-stakes stuff (can I gain release from imprisonment and torture by the terrorists without weapons or international aid).

I also like violence in my games, and would want that to be there myself, but presumably you could just leave it out entirely.  Then conflicts would be about, as you say, building respect, learning, communicating, and otherwise meeting human needs in positive ways.  "Losing" would happen if one is unable to negotiate around the human stuff of feelings, needs, and communicating clearly, while avoiding the triggers that get implanted by previous experiences of violence (physical or not).

How's that sketch sound?  Is this the like the direction you had in mind, John?  I'm just about ready to start working up something for Indie Game Design at this point, though I don't want to post a bare mechanic--I'll have to go off and find a suitable setting to plug this into.

--JB

(*) Nonviolent Communication is a fairly specific training method I may have pimped on here before.  It was systematized in the 1970s by Marshall Rosenberg, has a foundation and a book, and of course, a website, at www.cnvc.org.

[NN]

Rule to disourage violence:


If your character dies, thats it.

Game over for you.

[Russell Impagliazzo]

I think that people in this thread may be using the same words to mean very different things.  I'd like to make some distinctions between different ways that games could ``discourage violence.'  For these purposes, I will define a scene in a game as being violent if some characters are trying to or threatening to physically injure other charaters.  There may also be scenes (equally important) that are potentially violent, i.e., where a violent scene is a forseeable consequence of some decisions characters might make but not inevitable.

I'd like to distinguish between three types of games that do not encourage violence.  The first I'll call ``anti-violent''.   In an anti-violent game, the PCs are routinely put in potentially violent situations, but  the options that defuse violence  are  ``better'' (strategically or morally) than the options that ratchet up the violence.  These could be seen as the equivalent of anti-war war fiction and dramas such as Catch 22 or Platoon, where there is heavy fictional violence, but the point made is that such violence creates problems rather than solves them.  From what other posters have said, Dogs in the Vineyard may be such a game (I haven't played it myself).   An anti-violence game does not ``encourage'' violence, but it is in a deep sense about violence. An anti-violence game probably has detailed combat rules, even if the conclusion is that combat should be avoided if PCs want to stay alive and well.

What I think John originally meant is something else, what I'll call a ``non-violent'' game.  In a non-violent game, the expectation is that under normal play, even potentially violent scenes will be rare or non-existent.  Examples would be  John's Water Uphill game, Soap, or perhaps the Jane Austen game mentioned.  Since a non-violent game is not about violence, even indirectly by being about the costs of violence, a non-violent game needs to be about another form of conflict or tension.  In Water Uphill, the tension was that of the social and physical insecurity created by being placed in an alien environment where you don't know any of the rules and don't know who to trust.   (Was this intentionally a metaphor for adolescence?)   Other possibilities are romantic intrigue, professional rivalry, politics, and moral dillemas.  

People also seem to be discussing a third category, violence-agnostic games that treat violence as one of several possible sources of conflict within the game.

Russell

[Callan S.]

Using violence will say something about the character. While the game may seem a highly violent one, taking away violence from the game as a designer is saying 'No, your not allowed to say that about your character'. Which is a bit crap.

Well, this topic is about crap, then.  Again, I'm not saying anything bad about violent games, I'm just looking for alternatives.  Make another thread if you want to discuss whether non-violent games are a bad thing or not.

Sorry. What I mean is that if the players at a particular table are against violent stuff (in a nar game), they wont use it. But if it is important to them to express their character through violence, then that's what they want to do. How does mechanically clipping or penalising violence in the game, aid that narrativist agenda?

For gamism I can see your point completely...violence really is not needed at all and many other options should be discussed (verbal dueling for example). But for Nar, should you be trying to effect players address of premise like this?

[GB Steve]

Where's a game that has social interaction mechanics that function just like combat? Or romantic relationship mechanics?

Dying Earth has this. Social interaction is through a persuade and reduff mechanism as combat is through attack and defend. The mechanism is pretty much the same except for the adjunct of Health (i.e. hit points for combat). The outcome of social interaction is that one of the parties is persuaded and of combat that one of the parties is defeated. The game is a little unclear as to what this means for the protagonists, especially for combat.

In the game world, violence is seen as uncouth and so not promoted as a means of resolution.

[James Holloway]

However, the reward factor for combat actions tends to be proportionally higher than for non-combat, in my experience.

Additionally, in traditional RPG structure, initiating combat is frequently an option that is always within a player's power. Most skills in most RPGs are negotiated, like "should I roll Stealth?" No one asks "can I roll initiative?" And assuming that there are other PCs, there's always at least one person to fight.

[MatrixGamer]

conflicts would be about, as you say, building respect, learning, communicating, and otherwise meeting human needs in positive ways.  "Losing" would happen if one is unable to negotiate around the human stuff of feelings, needs, and communicating clearly, while avoiding the triggers that get implanted by previous experiences of violence (physical or not).

When games doe this they really are "roll playing" rather than "role playing."  I know that games will always use abstractions to gloss over less important details. We use hit points rather than engage in a gross anatomy lesson for instance. When we do this though we are losing detail that might actually be important and/or fun. Certainly when we "roll to fast talk" we ignore the steps of actual fast talking. In a therapy game this would be viewed as a missed opportunity to learn.

If a game gets more into the role play nitty gritty of a social exchange (say haggling in a market place) we can't assume that people automatically know how to do this. Americans are remarkably bad at this process (12 year old Morrocan girls do it better than us! This based on first hand experience.) So a game aiming at abstracting behavior closer to the real life process will have to teach the players the steps of this social dance.

"Soul Force" was mentioned above as an alternative to non-violent. It is a very complicated concept. A flower child might put a daisy in a soldiers rifle and think it is non-violent and be dead wrong. At least in my understanding, the Satyagrahi (soul force worker) will not cooperate with something that hurts their dignity and is willing to die to prevent the soldier from hurting their dignity. The non-violent act then is an act of love. Swoosh! Right over the heads of most of us! This is a hard concept to teach at the best of times. Teaching it in a game would be a noble goal but very hard to do.

So what I'd ask us to think about is what are the actual stepd of the social dances we want to recreate? Then pick a level of abstraction that doesn't lose too much of the essence of what it is.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[John Kim]

For Noon's point, as I requested, I'm taking it out to a GNS thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15463">Is non-violence bad for Narrativism.  

Russell: I pretty much agree with your categories.  The topic is indeed non-violent games -- meaning games which in practice don't have a lot of violence.  The method of how that is accomplished is open.  As I said, it is fairly trivial to put in penalties for violence, but that doesn't make the game interesting.  

Furthermore, simply taking combat mechanics and putting non-violent labels onto it is not very compelling.  For example, several games push a model of interpersonal conflict.  i.e. One character rolls against another.  This may be fitting for cutthroat social climbing, but consider winning someone's respect or love.  Who is the conflict against?  I am often disturbed to see that such actions are handled as interpersonal conflict.  This makes it losing to respect someone or to fall in love.  

I would note that Breaking the Ice does model conflict at all per se.  You are rolling to increase the level of attraction, but there is no mechanically expressed opposition.  So you can fail to be attracted, but you are not 'beaten'.  

conflicts would be about, as you say, building respect, learning, communicating, and otherwise meeting human needs in positive ways.  "Losing" would happen if one is unable to negotiate around the human stuff of feelings, needs, and communicating clearly, while avoiding the triggers that get implanted by previous experiences of violence (physical or not).

So a game aiming at abstracting behavior closer to the real life process will have to teach the players the steps of this social dance.
[...]
So what I'd ask us to think about is what are the actual stepd of the social dances we want to recreate? Then pick a level of abstraction that doesn't lose too much of the essence of what it is.

It's a good question.  In Vinland, the most common social rolls were public performance -- Oratory, Lawspeaking, or Singing (which in the case of a poet was real, topical poetry rather than just entertainment).  There wasn't a formal tracking of status, but I could easily see putting that into the mechanics.  Interpersonal interactions were more commonly played through -- but I would often have a Human Lore roll at the start to learn about what the person was like and other useful information.

[Mike Holmes]

Are you looking for a specific solution, now, John? Or do you see that you've already discovered all of the options?

It's pretty easy - a game may

1. eliminate violence - this seems to solve your problem, no? Or do you dislike it for some reason?
2. disincentivize violence - apparently you say this doesn't make the game interesting. Well, probably not in a vaccuum. What's the rest of the game about? It seems that doing this is actually part of establishing some theme or premise in the game.
2. equalize incentive for violence with other incentive - This is standard "getting out of the way." This doesn't make non-violence more likely so much as it makes violence less likely.
4. incentivize non-violence - this is very similar to 2, but there can be cognative differences.

I mean, when it comes down to it, how you get non-violence is to make a game that supports non-violence in some ways. That's tautological, but how to make a game support something is, well, about all we talk about here. So where's the confusion?

Mike

[John Kim]

Are you looking for a specific solution, now, John? Or do you see that you've already discovered all of the options?

I'm not looking for a single solution, but I am looking to examine and discuss a variety of practical solutions.  Again, I'm not looking for hypothetical methods for reducing violence.  That's trivial.  I am looking for actual solutions which produce playable, fun games.  

It's pretty easy - a game may
1. eliminate violence - this seems to solve your problem, no? Or do you dislike it for some reason?
2. disincentivize violence - apparently you say this doesn't make the game interesting. Well, probably not in a vaccuum. What's the rest of the game about? It seems that doing this is actually part of establishing some theme or premise in the game.
3. equalize incentive for violence with other incentive - This is standard "getting out of the way." This doesn't make non-violence more likely so much as it makes violence less likely.
4. incentivize non-violence - this is very similar to 2, but there can be cognative differences.

None of these address the issue of what to actually do in the game, as you yourself observe.  It's like saying "To get theme in a game, just throw in rewards for theme and/or penalize non-thematic actions."  I don't consider that to be a functional answer.  For example, I can slap on a "no violence" rule to D&D, but it doesn't produce a playable game.  Slapping on mechanical penalties or rules against violence doesn't positively address what does happen in the game.  

I mean, when it comes down to it, how you get non-violence is to make a game that supports non-violence in some ways. That's tautological, but how to make a game support something is, well, about all we talk about here. So where's the confusion?

Just to topic check again.  There isn't (or shouldn't be) confusion here.  I'm hoping we don't have to debate the definition of non-violent and/or whether or not it is a good idea.  Non-violent means a general lack of violence, i.e. genres like social drama rather than action-adventure.  The point of the thread was supposed to be practical techniques and ideas for promoting non-violent roleplay.

[chadu]

Furthermore, simply taking combat mechanics and putting non-violent labels onto it is not very compelling.  For example, several games push a model of interpersonal conflict.  i.e. One character rolls against another.  This may be fitting for cutthroat social climbing, but consider winning someone's respect or love.  Who is the conflict against?  I am often disturbed to see that such actions are handled as interpersonal conflict.  This makes it losing to respect someone or to fall in love.

Interesting angle, John. Gave me pause for a moment to think about it.

In Dead Inside, all forms of conflict (physical, social, mental, etc.) use the same mechanics, which are -- yes -- two characters rolling against one another.

Quick rundown: the PDQ-foundation of DI recognizes 3 sorts of situations:
1. Simple: No opposition or risk, no rolling, just compare Ranks.
2. Complicated: Mild opposition or chance, roll plus Modifier vs. Target Number
3. Conflict: Strong opposition or risk, roll plus Modifier vs. roll plus Modifier.

I think the question here, in that you're talking also about winning respect or falling in love, is "what is the situation?" What are the goals of the characters involved?

A. If two characters are amenable and interested in to falling in love, they do.
B. If there is some minor hurdle to overcome, one or both of them can treat it as a complicated situation.
C. If one of the characters is actually fighting his/her desire to fall in love (or fighting his/her desire to stay out of love), that's conflict.

I can likewise see attempting to earn respect as either a simple, complicated, or conflict situation, determined by who the characters are. (An example of a conflict here would be, say, Archie Andrews and Mr. Lodge.)

But that's just the way I see it.

CU

[greyorm]

Heya John,

There are any number of computer games which are not focused around violence: such as romance/dating simulators, psychological thrillers, text-based adventures, etc. This is where my earlier contention that the rules beg to be played comes from.

When the option is present, chances are greater that it will be utilized. Even moreso when the option is rewarded. If the player gets something out of it, they will tend to do it more often.

Conversely, when the rules fail to cover a situation, that situation tends not to arise. Consider Monopoly: how often do you have the pieces fight each other? (Well, assuming you're a reasonably normal group of people playing Monopoly and not a bunch of twitching D&D geeks)

Hrm, which makes me wonder: is the problem games, or is the problem gamers?