Combat: Holy Grail or Sick Obsession

[ADGBoss]

This essay has been in my head for sometime but was kind of brought to the forefront by http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15894">this thread over in Indie Game Design. - SMH

Combat: Holy Grail or Sick Obsession

Role Playing enjoys a rich history of physical conflict. Based on our own childhood make believe, which is often violent, and derived mechanically from tactical tabletop systems it is no wonder that we dedicate so much of our time to the rules or attitudes that govern the kicking of someone's ass.

Yet combat is at once bloody and bloodless when it relates to RPGs. Of the many illusions that RPGs create, the idea that violence is not only acceptable but in fact necessary is the most disturbing of all illusions.  Why do we need to kill people in RPGs? Yes many of the more indie games do eschew violence of any sort but many games still consider at least the threat of violence to be a necessary component of rules & mechanics.

Before I go on I just want to say that I do not think our current video game or entertainment culture is the blame for these attitudes. War has been romanticized throughout history and violence has lit a fire in many a boys' (and girls') eyes over the millennia. When RPGs started we had Pong and no one died in Pong. (Note: Because of Pong maybe, after all that lil ball getting trapped behind the net would drive me nuts...) In fact I would say that the opposite is more likely true: that our acceptance of violence in the cerebral world of RPGs has created a demand for more visual violence in our other forms of entertainment.

However, one of the most talked about aspects of RPGs is still, combat.  For I dare say the life of the industry we have been seeking out that perfect combat system. In many ways it has taken on the trappings of a Mystical Quest for the perfect combat engine. Everyone's idea of perfect is different of course, which may be one reason why we are still looking and probably will be forever. Like in real life, in RPGs there are hundreds of ways to end someone's life.

So I want talk a bit about the need for violent conflict in RPGs and see how people react to some of the thoughts. In some ways I will be playing Devil's Advocate, asking why we need such a plethora of killing engines.  It should be noted however, to avoid hypocrisy, that all of my game ideas also include violent conflict from one degree to another.

The Dispassion of Strategy

We push little pieces of cardboard or plastic or metal around the playing area, with no real thought as to how they feel about it or what might be happening to them. Of course if we stopped to wonder about how they feel, we might be more reluctant to use them the way we want. War games offer a bloodless and dispassionate way to create or recreate history and general combat scenarios. One gets to step into the shoes of Caesar, Napoleon, or Gustavus Adolphus (points for anyone who knows who he is and what war he fought in... and no Google dammit!) and re-fight their famous battles. Conversely we can strap on Space Marine armor or board the bridge of a starship to write some futuristic history in a few hours play. Almost invariably we sacrifice many of our units, like Pawns in Chess, to win the battles. Now I understand that in war such things happen.  You should understand however, that having studied military history (as an amateur) for most of my life as well as being a long time wargamer, I watch people do things to win that would be utterly unacceptable in a "real" environment. It is a grand illusion and always has been since the first war games were played out on the floors of a palace. There is no blood, no crying wounded, no amputated limbs, and no heroics.

Video war games are no different. Especially the badly misnamed RTS or Real Time Strategy games, which suck up generic units like a 80's hair band sucks up cocaine.  One could make a case that violence in our mainstream culture (all over the world) is taught as a means to an end through our play.  Now I will say that many of these games are created by people who have seen real combat and are honest attempts to convey some of that to us as opposed to some sinister plan to seduce us all into violence. In fact I dare say none (or few) of the game creators has any sinister intent. Still few if any of the games portray war in all its dirty and inglorious truth.

The Passion of Make Believe

When angered, Man often falls back on his more basic survival instincts. Well ok I am not sure we can consider some of our actions during make believe to survival instinct. Often it begins as nothing more then recreating battles we see or read about.  Cowboys and Indians is (or was) a favorite make believe pass time and in my experience it mimicked the golden age of the Cowboy in the cinema. Although we behaved like the Wild Bunch, we never took the violence to that extreme. (Note: At the time it was released it was extreme though is tame by today's standards.) Real fights often broke out during our make believe sessions though because Pee Wee would not fall down after I shot his ass.  And let's make no mistake: I did shoot first and he should have gone down, the fucker. In any case our passions were very much wrapped up in the make believe.

That is not to say that some people who play war games don't lose their temper or cry. (I only cried once dammit.)  I think though that our own passions and emotions are more wrapped up in the Cowboys & Indians then they were in risk.  This has continued through to today. Now however, with the advent of the FPS or First Person Shooter, it has taken on a bit of a sinister feel. We earn money now for playing Counter-Strike. Hell we get corporate sponsorship to play the game and kill other teams in the make believe environment. What's worse, in multiplayer we often kill members of our own team who displease us. Even in single player we often kill our own side. A friend of mine's first action in any Wing Commander mission was to kill his wingman. In Halo & Halo2, I here "Fucking Marine" or "I am getting low on ammo, better kill a marine" very often.

In many RPG sessions, violence is the first option. Many players say they are bored without "Action" but it is not action that they want but violent collision ending in the bad guys deaths. In my experience combat is the most talked about and rebuilt mechanic of any game, even ones where violent conflict is not supposed to be the mainstay of the game.

Mythical Quest or Descent Into Darkness?

So what is it that we are really seeking. What are we trying to model? Do we want a realistic FEEL to combat or do we want muzzle velocity and calculated blood loss? The debate rages back and forth but I seriously doubt that we will ever answer the question. The idea is not about one mechanic vs. another mechanic. It is about our pursuit of the perfect engine that will allow us to feel like we have killed someone without actually killing someone.  It is a need that we seek to be fulfilled.

In fact the only way we will ever know what it is like to kill someone, is to kill someone. A game is not going to do that for us. Yet I think it is hypocritical to go on with the belief that because it is make believe and bloodless, that it is ok. Case in point, during a recent forum discussion on a completely different topic (on a Living Greyhawk Yahoo group board) more then one player said they did not mind violence, as long as it was not graphic but they were against more mature sexual ideas. So gutting the goblin is ok, as long as we do not see the blood, but hot Satyr on Nymph action (or Nymph on Nymph) is not.  Heaven forbid some of these people play Runequest, where your arm being torn off is a pretty common occurrence.

We want violence yet we are squeamish? It honestly makes very little sense to me but then I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist. I am just a Human who likes to study other Humans and make observations about their behavior. I am certainly no expert on Human behavior (nor on much of anything really) but it seems to me that there could be something cathartic to come out of our obsession with Combat.

What if we were to embrace violence in RPGs as a teaching tool? Ask the hard moral questions "Ok you are going to wipe out these Goblins. Why?" It is obvious that we as Humans, not simply males or Americans, do enjoy violent and combat laden fantasies. It is not necessarily a bad thing if we could understand it and learn to make use of it.

I welcome all thoughts on the subject.

Sean

[Nogusielkt]

I think the reason why combat is the most focused element of games is because it's the most contested.  In your [funny] example, you claimed to have shot Pee Wee first.  Pee Wee didn't want to get hit.  Likewise all the players who play games don't like to get hit.  That's where everything starts.  Some games include defense rolls, some games don't.  Some games give you choices of what to do, others don't.  The reason we keep building systems (apart from money, for some people) is that we haven't gotten a system that seems right.  Even if we did, it might be confined to a certain genre.  

The simpler the game, the easier it is to find a flaw; the more complex the game, the more of a burden it becomes.

[Vaxalon]

IMO, if this is how you feel about combat in games, you're playing the wrong games.

In Nobilis, for example, the way the game is set up, it's often impossible to prevail by violence; the best you can do is take the other guy down with you.

[Ian Charvill]

This probably isn't the whole story but I think the following is very important:

Violence is uncontrolled and uncontrollable; violence is scary.

People have violence in roleplaying games for the same reason they have violence in movies, or watch boxing, or do taekwondo, or paintball.  They want to experience a safe, controlled analogue to violence.  It helps them to deal, psychologically, with the idea of violence and may help them to deal with violence in real life (I don't know whether they do, but psychologically it feels like they might).

Look at the typical combat system: rules for who goes first, who can do what when, for deciding when it's over.  Things that just don't exist with real violence.   Anybody who just thought, when the other guy's dead or unconscious, then we know it's over -- which I did for a few seconds, I'll admit -- is emphasizing how distant they are from the social realities of physical violence.

That's not violence, it's dice, and it's comforting.

[TonyLB]

Well, I'll step in for the unspoken, probably unpopular, view.

Violence without consequence is fun.  It's a visceral thrill, supported by the human need to have clear-cut resolution to conflicts.  Ain't much that's more clear-cut than "He's dead, I'm alive... I WIN."

I love it, and I won't give it up.  You can take my imaginary violence over my character's cold, dead, body.

[Bill Cook]

I've had issues with systems that can only settle things through violence. Not because I'm morally opposed to that path--just that I've done it, and I see something else I might want to try. (e.g. Sneaking around and spreading dissension.) I love games where the point is to change the way things are--accomplish some large societal or cultural shift. Something that's a little too subtle for the "let's kill the bastards" approach. So it's mainly the feeling of being locked into something that I've already had my fill of that I don't like. And it has been violence, on occasion.

Other times, I want a zombie bash. Enough with the thoughtful approach. Give me limited resources and apply pressure!

[Larry L.]

Has anybody ever seen a fist fight break out at a gaming convention? I'm suddenly really curious about this.

[Vaxalon]

Nope.  In fact, I've never seen actual physical violence break out among RPGers, ever.

The only example that comes to mind is the time a group of toughs tried to disrupt our DND game in high school by getting rough.  We kicked their butts and went back to gaming.

[ADGBoss]

Has anybody ever seen a fist fight break out at a gaming convention? I'm suddenly really curious about this.

Yes I have actually, at a RPGA table I was at. At another time I understand a player basically drop kicked a judge. Maybe its because it was the RPGA who knows :)

It does happen though and for various reasons. We gamers tend to be a rather contentious and often vicious lot.  I imagine similar scenes have taken place at War & Board gaming conventions and CCG tourneys.

Sean

[Thor Olavsrud]

I'm sure there are many reasons that players enjoy combat in their games. I suspect that one of the most common is that, in many games, combat is one of the few events that explicitly grants players a lot of decision-making power and the ability to alter the SIS through significant consequences.

In other words, it is not the violence in and of itself that makes combat so interesting and exciting (in my opinion, in most cases, yadda yadda). I would contend that what makes combat interesting is the way it makes the player feel. Assuming play that isn't totally dysfunctional, the player gets choices as to what he will do, risks life and limb while doing it, and when the dice come to a rest, things have changed dramatically.

Rules that give players new and different ways to get that same feeling will start to alter the composition of play. Climactic combats are rare in our Burning Wheel games these days, since we've introduced the Duel of Wits  mechanics.

The Duel of Wits offers even greater control over the SIS than combat does, while maintaining the same level of choice and roughly comparable risk. These days, our combats are used to position us for the climactic DoW that REALLY gets us what we want.

All the really good mechanics that I see these days take the same ideas into account. They give a player choice, risk and consequences. Dogs in the Vineyard is a perfect example.

And speaking of which, if you want a game that uses violence as a teaching tool, you need look no further than Dogs. Escalating to violence  in Dogs  is almost never a good idea. It is difficult to do it without paying a serious price. But there it is: choice, risk, consequence.

[Andrew Cooper]

I contend that combat is interesting because of the Stakes involved.  There isn't much more serious than life and death.  Sure you can have interesting intrigue and neato subterfuge but failure or success in those endeavors don't generally carry the same consequences as actually pulling a sword on someone or something putting your character's life on the line.  So, I like combat because it's risky in ways that other things aren't and I don't think that is a totally unique view.

[Callan S.]

This seems to be mostly a rant against gamists, first from a sim perspective ("I watch people do things to win that would be utterly unacceptable in a "real" environment.") then from an understandably resentful narrativist viewpoint, where the gamist agenda (kill to win) essentially typhoid Mary's the nar player who wants to make a choice about whether they kill to win ("Yet I think it is hypocritical to go on with the belief that because it is make believe and bloodless, that it is ok.")

As a gamist, I say this:

"I SHOT YOU FIRST! AND NOW I TAKE YOUR STUFF! What are you gunna do now, eh? Resort to complaining about the realism of how I shot you? I still gots your stuff! Are you going to complain about nar choice being surgically removed? I still gots your stuff!"

Violence poses many questions. One is, will you resort to violence to get what you want? Another is, what is the true fallout of violence? But dude, those are the questions of two other agendas. There is one final question: What are you gunna do about it? And that is gamisms question to explore.

Note: The attitude of this post is supposed to be in fun. Ignore it if it's too over the top.

[Asen G]

Now, I don't like what I'm going to say. It's just a fact...
Violence has been part of life for centuries (I won't argue whether it still is or not). Most of us are using settings, situated in the same time-frame (fantasy). So your characters have to find a way to deal with this problem, at least (or chnage the world, if they can and will)... whether they choose to become proficient in violence themselves or are looking for other ways-it depends on the character, I guess. Remember, in a "fantasy/ medieval setting" any "able-bodied, free-born" man would be expected to be able to use violence to some degree (holding his own in a fist-brawl at the very least). Well, not in all fantasy/ medieval settings, just the ones labeled "historically accurate". I like them:).

I'm sure there are many reasons that players enjoy combat in their games. I suspect that one of the most common is that, in many games, combat is one of the few events that explicitly grants players a lot of decision-making power and the ability to alter the SIS through significant consequences.

In other words, it is not the violence in and of itself that makes combat so interesting and exciting (in my opinion, in most cases, yadda yadda). I would contend that what makes combat interesting is the way it makes the player feel. Assuming play that isn't totally dysfunctional, the player gets choices as to what he will do, risks life and limb while doing it, and when the dice come to a rest, things have changed dramatically.

Excellent! Are you a Narrativist?:)

But there it is: choice, risk, consequence.

Excellent again! And by the way-that's why the more your players know about violence, the less their characters are likely to fight without good reason. Very good reason! They know more about the risk and consequence... so they will weigh carefully the choice. From what  I have read, "The Riddle of Steel RPG" looks like a fine example of this mindset (altough I must admit I have never played it).

Has anybody ever seen a fist fight break out at a gaming convention? I'm suddenly really curious about this.

Does sparring count? Then I have been actively participating:).

The only example that comes to mind is the time a group of toughs tried to disrupt our DND game in high school by getting rough.  We kicked their butts and went back to gaming.

Congratulations! RPG-players are the champions!..:D

[John Kim]

In fact the only way we will ever know what it is like to kill someone, is to kill someone. A game is not going to do that for us. Yet I think it is hypocritical to go on with the belief that because it is make believe and bloodless, that it is ok. Case in point, during a recent forum discussion on a completely different topic (on a Living Greyhawk Yahoo group board) more then one player said they did not mind violence, as long as it was not graphic but they were against more mature sexual ideas.

I'm not sure where your charge of hypocrisy figures.  Given that it is make-believe and bloodless, what are you saying is wrong here?  You seem to be implying that it is somehow morally wrong to even portray violence, implying a "thought-crime" mentality.  

Personally, I enjoy violent fiction.  I have seen no convincing evidence that engaging in violent fiction or games leads to real-life violence.  In short, I don't agree with your charge of hypocrisy.  There is nothing inherently wrong with playing make-believe violence where no one is actually hurt.  There are a few particular cases that I am ambivalent about -- in particular portrayals of guns and cars in television and film for children.  However, that doesn't lead to a general case that any fictional violence is bad.

As for real-life gamer violence, I'm not at all convinced that the violence portrayed bears any relation to fights that occurred.  You have to compare the case with RPGs to how often fights break out in bowling or other non-violence-portaying pastimes.  In my experience, violence in RPGs is if anything less.

[ADGBoss]

First of all I do enjoy violent fiction and combat and conflict in all sorts of gaming. I always have and always will. I find it to be Cathartic in many ways but just like occasionally spanking your wife is "harmless" and cathartic, doing it all the time might cause people to pause and wonder why. Why DO you spank your wife or GF or boyfriend all the time? Cause I like to and its fun is the answer we're getting here.

As I said I was going to play a bit of a devil's advocate here. I personally wonder why we (and that includes me) are still looking for that perfect combat system when so much thought has gone into stream lining mechanics so that jumping a bridge uses the same kind of rules as shooting someone.

My impressions of many arguments so far is that violence has been a part of RPGs and shold continue to be. Again htis is just my impression but if that IS the case, then why don't we define RPGs as including violence? I think a clever person could make an argument that an RPG without the implied threat of a possible violent outcome is not in fact an RPG in the classic sense.

Again just thoughts and impressions. Thanks for the responses so far.

Sean