Is non-violence bad for Narrativism?

[John Kim]

I am taking this to a theory thread, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15450">Non-violent Roleplaying.  That thread is about how to support and encourage non-violent roleplaying.  This thread is about whether it is a good thing or not.  

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?

First of all, I said quite clearly that this is off-topic, so I'm taking it to another thread myself.  

As for your question, I would say yes.  If they want to express their character through violence, then they're free to pick a violent or violence-agnostic game.  By choosing a particular game system, setting, and other particulars, you are always affecting the players' address of premise.  If I choose to play My Life With Master, I am also clipping my ability to address premise.  There are lots of topics and issues which MLWM does not support addressing.

[Andrew Morris]

John, I'm with you on this one. Some of the most enjoyable games are those that say, "Right here is what is important. Everything else isn't worth looking at for this game. Keep your eye on the ball."

So, removing violence from a game that supports Narrativist play is just fine, so long as that removal helps focus play on addressing the premise.

[Andrew Cooper]

I can certainly agree with that.  With the caveat that the game in question does focus on some specific premise and thus rules out addressing others.  However, in other Narrative games that don't have that kind of narrow focus and are created to allow the players to address whatever premise they choose, the limitation of "non-violence" would hurt the game.  TSoY comes to mind.  Players are free to choose what they want to address.  Removing violence as an option for addressing it would hurt the game, I think.

[Mike Holmes]

It seems pretty controversial that system affects premise. I think we'll all agree on that. But there seems to be another question, the one about violence in particular. That I'm not getting. Are we saying that a game that has a built in theme about violence isn't good for addressing a violence premise? Or something else?

Sorry if I'm being dense.

Mike

[Callan S.]

For gamism I can see your point completely

Sorry again. In a round about way I meant to ask "Is it actually on (your own) topic to talk about this in relation to nar games?"

I agree, if you choose to play my life with master, you are clipping away some address of premise types. But that's clipping away 'what' premise you address, not 'how' you address it. Clipping 'how' you can address it, is another bird entirely.

[John Kim]

In a round about way I meant to ask "Is it actually on (your own) topic to talk about this in relation to nar games?"

I agree, if you choose to play my life with master, you are clipping away some address of premise types. But that's clipping away 'what' premise you address, not 'how' you address it. Clipping 'how' you can address it, is another bird entirely.

How is MLWM different than the case of non-violence restrictions?  MLWM also has hard limits on what the PCs can do.  They can't directly confront or attack the Master, and they frequently have to follow orders.  As I recall, they also aren't allowed to leave (which seems to me to be a pretty valid response to a dysfunctional relationship).

[Callan S.]

All those rules are about maintaing certain relationships. Which are part of the premise your pursuing.

Violence isn't something you have a relationship with, it's how you can have a relationship with someone. While those rules do in many ways restrict how you can address premise, their intent is to maintain certain relationships rather than control how you do so. While a rule which isn't about maintaing relationships and instead is only about controlling how you can make your address, is a different bird. For example, a rule which stops you being violent to the master maintains a relationship. A rule which stops you being violent at all, stops you being violent to everyone. That seems to be forcing a certain type of relationship with everyone. Is not being violent to everyone part of the games premise?

Unless you want to...whats the word? Humanise violence? Turn it into a character? Something like "My life with violence", changing the master into concept...actually, to be exact, changing a concept into a living, breathing master.

If that's what you mean...oops, I've been way off!

[John Kim]

While a rule which isn't about maintaing relationships and instead is only about controlling how you can make your address, is a different bird. For example, a rule which stops you being violent to the master maintains a relationship. A rule which stops you being violent at all, stops you being violent to everyone. That seems to be forcing a certain type of relationship with everyone. Is not being violent to everyone part of the games premise?

Hmm.  To me, this seems like just a difference in the amount of restriction.  Sure, preventing all violence is a more major restriction than preventing violence to the Master.  However, there is an enormous range of relationships all of which do not involve violence.  So I don't agree that it is "forcing a certain type of relationship".

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

So, removing violence from a game that supports Narrativist play is just fine, so long as that removal helps focus play on addressing the premise.

This is how I mainly see things.  If a game centers on non-violence or a premise that doesn't really involve violence, then it's a legitmate gamme for narrativism.

Hmm. To me, this seems like just a difference in the amount of restriction.

I'd suggest that it restricts only if the players want to move beyond the origonal premise of the game.  If the game's premise is non-violent in nature and the players want to be violent, then they are inserting house rules and perhaps drift which goes beyond the designers intent for the game.

Peace,

-Troy

[Callan S.]

Hmm.  To me, this seems like just a difference in the amount of restriction.  Sure, preventing all violence is a more major restriction than preventing violence to the Master.

This is seeing the rules intent as a restriction. No violence toward the master is not intended as a restriction, its intended to solve a problem with a certain type of relationship. The intent behind the rule isn't that 'violence to the master is bad'. It instead stops players knocking off the master during the first five minutes of play. This solves the problem in a game which is about exploring the PC's relationship with the master. The problem being they tend to hate him enough to kill him, and you as a designer want play to be longer than a minute or two.

So, the MLWM keeps someone around who we can all hate, and really explore how much we hate him. Sounds like the rule is there to help avoid a problem with the games premise (in that you'd like to knock off the master in the first five minutes).

Rather than "Does non violence hurt nar" how about this question "Do all nar games have a problem that 'no violence to anybody' would solve?"

I don't think they have such a problem, or that such a rule would do anything but restrict players address of premise without any good reason (a good reason like solving a design problem). MLWM has a specific problem with its premise, and it uses the no violence to the master rule to fix that. It using such a rule doesn't justify adding a "no violence to anybody" rule to just any nar game. Any nar game thats premise doesn't cause a problem if violence is chosen, has no reason to have this "no violence" rule added.

[John Kim]

Hmm.  To me, this seems like just a difference in the amount of restriction.  Sure, preventing all violence is a more major restriction than preventing violence to the Master.

This is seeing the rules intent as a restriction. No violence toward the master is not intended as a restriction, its intended to solve a problem with a certain type of relationship. The intent behind the rule isn't that 'violence to the master is bad'. It instead stops players knocking off the master during the first five minutes of play. This solves the problem in a game which is about exploring the PC's relationship with the master. The problem being they tend to hate him enough to kill him, and you as a designer want play to be longer than a minute or two.

It's only a problem because you've predefined that the condition you want is that the Master survive.  But there's nothing inherent about that.  I could have a very rich and meaningful game -- say using The Pool -- where minions of an evil master fight and perhaps even kill him towards the start of the game.  "The Master's dead.  What do we do now?"  The answers that the minions find to this seem to be chock full of possibilities.  

This isn't saying that MLWM made a mistake.  Just that it is picking a focus.  All games have restrictions -- both hard ones (those which strictly outlaw things like killing the Master) or soft ones (those which discourage or overlook things).  

Rather than "Does non violence hurt nar" how about this question "Do all nar games have a problem that 'no violence to anybody' would solve?"

I don't think they have such a problem, or that such a rule would do anything but restrict players address of premise without any good reason (a good reason like solving a design problem). MLWM has a specific problem with its premise, and it uses the no violence to the master rule to fix that.

Hold on.  That's a bogus question.  The proper question is "Could some nar games have a problem that 'no violence to anybody' would solve?"  

I think it depends on the game.  If the focus of the game was such that violence would take it out of the focus (like how killing the Master early would go beyond MLWM's focus), then I think it's legitimate.  I can't give a lot of examples because tabletop RPGs overwhelmingly focus on violence.  But that doesn't make it a truth.  That just makes it a sacred cow that has to be knocked down.

[Victor Gijsbers]

The fact that this questions comes up at all shows that there are too little games which discourage or disallow violence, I believe. There are so many great books without violence - if we mean raw, physical violence - that it is somewhat surprising that many RPGs have a strong tendency to produce violent narratives. Though I could totally see, say, Primetime Adventures being played with a show that does not contain violence.

Now, I suppose there are at least three different cases in which addressing the Premise could be helped by disallowing violence.

1. The Premise itself has to do with non-violence. (Maybe something that has to with oppression, innocence or children?)
2. The situation in the game which allows the players to explore the Premise would be destroyed if violence were allowed as an action. (Breaking the Ice would not survive a violent outburst, I'd say. I don't know it it's a Nar game.)
3. The colour of the game cannot go together with violence. ("Asimov, the roleplaying game." "Jane Austen, the roleplaying game.")

I think any or all of the three could be instantiated by actual games.

[John Kim]

Now, I suppose there are at least three different cases in which addressing the Premise could be helped by disallowing violence.
1. The Premise itself has to do with non-violence. (Maybe something that has to with oppression, innocence or children?)
2. The situation in the game which allows the players to explore the Premise would be destroyed if violence were allowed as an action. (Breaking the Ice would not survive a violent outburst, I'd say. I don't know it it's a Nar game.)
3. The colour of the game cannot go together with violence. ("Asimov, the roleplaying game." "Jane Austen, the roleplaying game.")

I agree with #2 and #3.  A roleplaying game which tackled similar premises to Jane Austen would lose it's focus if violence were to break out.  It seems potentially useful to disallow it.  

Actually, I wouldn't agree with #1, though.  If I were doing a game which was about non-violence, I would want to allow violence and show the consequences of it.

[Victor Gijsbers]

John, I should have elaborated. When you do a game about pacifism - absolutely, violence needs to be there as the "other choice". There's no drama if there's no choice.

But what if the Premise presupposes the inability to do violence? "Can you have identity if you don't have power?" (Violence is always a manifestation of power.) I can really see this work as the premise of a game of childhood tragedy, say.

[John Kim]

But what if the Premise presupposes the inability to do violence? "Can you have identity if you don't have power?" (Violence is always a manifestation of power.) I can really see this work as the premise of a game of childhood tragedy, say.

Good point.  I can sort of see that.  But really, what it comes down to is that people need to design these games.  

For example, I'm started on one with my Game Chef contest entry, "Morpho Londinium".  But it still needs some work, and I plan to publish it once it's polished.