Combat: Holy Grail or Sick Obsession

[ewilen]

This point has been touched on: RPG violence comes from the same place as violence in fiction. We're fascinated by it. Some of the violence is imported from fictional genres, but I think that many or most RPG's have as much or more violence than most fiction with the exception of certain television shows and comic books. (Why? Because episodic adventure fiction has to give its audience a "dose" of violence every episode, while an adventure novel or movie can reserve violence for climactic moments in the overall story.)

But there's someting more that Thor brought up which I think is very true, and you can also see it in boardgaming. A major portion of the fun in games is the manipulation of the game mechanics, generally with a particular goal in mind or at least to observe the effect of your manipulation. It happens that, as with board wargames, combat is among the easiest things to represent (fashioning a mechanical model which allegedly reproduces the structure of an imagined reality). As well, in roleplaying games, combat is one thing you have to represent (outside of very unusual circumstances) if you're going to have it at all, while, say, an attempt to persuade an NPC bouncer to let you into a bar is something that can be roleplayed.

So it's not surprising that game design tends to focus on combat, and having been provided all kinds of nifty mechanics for resolving combat, it's not very surprising that game players are going to focus on manipulating those mechanics for fun. As Thor suggests, if you want to de-emphasize combat, you need to provide a alternate context for manipulation--which could be mechanical rules or "in-game" social or economic structures that the player-characters can act on and through. However note that

a) Whatever rules or structure you offer, manipulating them has to be fun. That could mean strategic depth (divergent strategies and counterstrategies), purely mechanical enjoyment (rolling lots of dice, watching balls fall through a pachinko machine, whatever), color (a large variety of interesting outcomes, described in amusing language) etc.

b) If strategic depth is a goal, the rules/structure must be intelligible. You can't strategize without at least partially understanding the consequences of the various options available to the players.

[Adam Dray]

Elliot:

As well, in roleplaying games, combat is one thing you have to represent (outside of very unusual circumstances) if you're going to have it at all, while, say, an attempt to persuade an NPC bouncer to let you into a bar is something that can be roleplayed.

Welcome to the Forge, Elliot (well, 12 posts doesn't require a welcome, but what the heck).

I don't agree. There's no reason you can't "roleplay" combat just as you can "roleplay" persuading a bouncer. I put "roleplay" in quotes, because you're really just saying "do stuff without the aid of rules."

How do you "roleplay" persuading a bouncer to let you into a bar? You describe the actions of your character (persuasive language, the right posture, sexual favors, whatever) and presumably the GM describes the responses of the bartender. At some point, someone -- again, probably the GM -- decides whether your character succeeds or fails.

How do you "roleplay" combat? You describe the actions of your character (feints, parries, lunges, kicks) and the GM describes the reactions of opponents. At some point, the GM decides if your character succeeds or fails.

We're conditioned by gaming tradition to think that the bouncer scene doesn't need rules and the combat scene does need rules, but that's messed up. Really, any conflict of importance probably needs some explicit rule for resolving it, even if the rules just say, "the GM decides."

But where System really gets interesting is when it converges with a certain type of play that the game was designed to be good at. If the game is about traveling pacifist monks solving crimes, then you'll really want rules that allow your character to solve problems without combat. Really, at that point, you could as a game designer say, "And if you get your character into a combat, he loses and takes X damage, so don't look for any complicated rules for playing it out."

We put combat in our games because it's instant intensity, and because a lot of players think that it's cool not to be constrained by the things that normally keep us from just kicking the ass of the annoying bouncer (like laws, and morals, and the fact that he's bigger than us).

We can get intensity in other ways though. Constrain characters adequately so they can't escalate to violence and force players to be creative in resolving conflicts. Write interesting rules that make bouncer persuasion fun and exciting. It can be done.

[Bill Cook]

Re: Elliot's post.

I find this telling. Leave violence out it. Fine. But give us something fun to play with.

Starfarers of Catan simulates very little violence. (e.g. You discover and defeat a pirates' nest to colonize a planet; you have a space battle and rescue a merchant princess.) It's mostly about resource management, trading with aliens, space exploration and colonization of new worlds. Of course, it's very competitive. And very fun. Lots of paths to victory and lots of colorful, cool feeling implements to win and arrange.

So, for RPG's, it'd have to be about that utter whiz-bang cool to mess with if it weren't violent. One cool idea I can think of is one modern man's struggle to overcome depression. Start him out with health problems, money problems, relationship problems, addictions. Have the GM screw him to the wall. And the player can have him get therapy, find real friends, stand up for himself, send out ten resumes, clean and straighten his bedroom, give a prayer of gratitude, etc.

Adam:

Elliot isn't saying that there aren't rules at work when they aren't explicit. He's saying that there's got to be support of complex, engaging gameplay in treating material, violent or otherwise. And in the end of your post, you're saying the same thing.

[ewilen]

Yes, to both of you. (And thanks for the welcome, Adam.)

I can see your point, Adam, yet I still feel that combat is harder to handle in a non-systematic fashion than other forms of interaction. The stakes tend to be higher, which makes it difficult for people to accept what might appear to be arbitrary resolution. You also claim that the lack of detailed rules for non-combat activity is more a matter of tradition than ease. Interesting--I'm not sure I agree, but certainly a possibility. And either way, we get to the same point.

I will note that in those "political" board games with which I have experience, there is almost always a large degree of "freeform" when it comes to the actual politics. That is, if you want to ally with another player, extract a concession, or obtain a favor, you have to do it via jawboning and persuasion. The attraction of these games tends to be freeform negotiation in the context of highly-structured representation of other interactions. Games that restrict this tend to be more abstract, with the so-called "German games" often lying somewhere in the middle, with little room for jawboning (instead you have to manipulate the system) yet a moderate degree of representation.

I'd also observe that while you can apply a semi-objective mechanistic system to the persuasion of an NPC, it has also been harder in practice to apply it in reverse with the persuasion, seduction, etc. of PC's. I'm referring to historical resistance to personality mechanics. But, importantly, a lot of indie games seem to have found ways to implement personality mechanics in ways that are both interesting and acceptable to players. Just as you say, Adam.

Bill, in your example of someone fighting addiction, how would you create a manipulable system of interest? Let me suggest one option, although it's a bit crude--think of it as a card game along the lines of Mille Bornes (call it "Path to Recovery"), then find a way to move the card dynamic back into a roleplaying game.

Oh, by the way, I don't want to de-emphasize the non-strategic approaches. Some people get a kick out of sitting in front of a nickel slot machine for hours. Meanwhile there are games such as Illuminati and Nuclear War where, whatever the strategic opportunities, a great deal of entertainment derives simply from the descriptions of the elements and their juxtaposition.

[contracycle]

As it happens there is a Devils Advocate column in PCGamer addressing some of this question in regards war games.  I'm not going to type the whole thing given it is not on their website, but this extract is interesting:

"Nobody need explain to a gamer what Churchill (a Boer War veteran) meant by "the exhiliration of being shot at without effect".  Similarly, deepdown we are probably less surprised than most  when we read that level headed Scots Guard Robert Lawrence shouted "Isn't this fun!" during the bloody assault of Mount Tumbledown.  The fact that Geoffrey Wellum - a strikingly sane, sensitive WWII RAF pilot - experienced feelings of "savage delight" during a particular dogfight is not shocking to the afficionado of Pacific Fighters.  We understand because the recreations we revel in trigger similar feelings."

The thrust of the article is that in many ways movies and books have mainly addressed the moral implications of violence, while games tend to address the experiential and procedural.  The propensity for violence is a human property, and it is not surprising that depictions of violence are so commonplace in our culture - indeed, in large part it appears under the heading of "entertainment" even if a savage indictment of the brutality of war.  Hearking back to earlier posts, we do indeed have the wiring that makes violence FUN; and a large part of our fictional entertainments feature characters who exercise violence.

Let me point out that this observation does not detract from criticism of proper violence in the real world.  We must recall that there is a distinction between the use of violence, and the use of violence against humans, even if the latter is the dominating modern concern.  The pursuit of a "perfect" combat system in RPG can be seen, IMO, as directly realted to the other appearances of violence in entertainment, with a tip o' the propeller beany to the procedural and experiential elements discussed by Devils Advocate.

[Kaltros]

Violence in RPGs is nearly universal, and while there have been interesting and fun games at my place with zero combat (and almost no rolls) there is something quite gratifying about a good melee.

The best fights are, however, those that occur with a reason. It's one thing to defeat a bazillion goblins in the dark woods because they attack you. You fight to keep your character alive, and if you're fortunate, there's a solid reason behind why you were attacked in the first place.

But the most gratifying combats have come when a PC was able to focus on a single enemy and pour all of their aggression, hatred and frustration into the fight. Wincing when they take a hit, putting their head down and willing their dice to give them just one more awesome roll, jumping up and roaring when they won or hanging their heads and grousing when defeated...

The enemies in the games seem to represent the enemies we have in life but cannot confront so directly. I know, I know, this sounds pathetically like armchair psychoanalysis at best and projection at worst, but I've seen a lot of people get into the games to get away from... whatever ailed them.

Give a person a puzzle and they'll fiddle with it. Give a gamer a puzzle and s/he will probably take it a personal challenge, dedicating hours of thought and effort into resolving the thing.
Give an unsolvable (ie, rigged) puzzle to a gaming friend and you've pretty much earned a beating.

But when life throws things at you that you just can't beat, that have no simple solutions or even achievable goals, it helps to move into the realm of fantasy. Lest we forget, gaming is about imagination, and in the realm of imagination anything can be accomplished if one only tries hard enough.

So that guy that cut us off in traffic? He is our enemy. The critical boss/teacher who is condescending and yet dumber than we are? They become the enemy. That [insert personal problem here]? That transforms into an enemy that you can not only confront openly, but hack at and hurt. You can punish it for the pain it caused you and should you defeat it, there are not only no consequences, but even accolades and awards.

We earn the praise of our allies and the good will of the townspeople for cutting the head off of that evil troll. We also get a cathartic effect by blowing off steam in a way that is not only rarely allowable but is generally frowned upon in American society.

"Violence never settles anything" people say with a haughty sniff. And yet the truth is quite different.
"Might makes right" is an older saying, and is far more true. In our imaginary worlds, we strip back the veneer of civilization and attack our enemies directly. We have a GM in place to make sure that the match is relatively fair, and that's a better deal than people usually get.

So is the violence a sick and twisted thing? Possibly, in that it can keep a person from exploring their feelings and addressing the issue of what is truly bothering them. By the same token, any hobby that distracts a person from coping with their life issues is probably harmful, and so the violence within gaming is not standing alone. Beside it walks philately and doodling and angsty poetry and whatever else people use to purge themselves of toxic feelings.

Then again, as interpersonal interaction is a necessary component to gaming, maybe there is some benefit after all? Perhaps with this imaginary confrontation our worries are soothed by the assurance that, yes, this can be beaten. There is a way, there's always a way, and if we ourselves fight hard enough to find it, perhaps we can discover a solution. Maybe with all this practice at communicating with people, of asking questions to gather information and of thinking about what's happening around us, a gamer can actually grow and learn from their imaginary experiences and apply this knowledge to their lives. Perhaps the exhultation of confrontation, battle and victory has a healing effect on the mind?

Or, hey, I could be wrong.

Regards,
Kaltros

[Ria]

Fights in RPGs can be great because they are both escalation and resolution. This is very satisfying. A game without risk is not that fun or challenging.

[NN]

Power grows from the barrel of a gun.

[komradebob]

Power grows from the barrel of a gun.

Violence is a language the West understands ? ;)

[Resonantg]

Violence is the language all animals understand.  Obey or die. ;c)  Thankfully, most humans get the hint before this needs to be done, but sometimes, it's the only means of resolution.

That being said, combat is a main focus of games because of many reasons, but the largest being it is the most contested issue out there in gaming.  Remember the days as a kid (before PC shocktroops stopped kids from playing cowboys and indians or cops and robbers because it taught violence) when you went "Bang, I shot you." and they said "No you missed!"  Essentially, that's why combat is so emphasised.  To prevent the "yes I did, no you didn't" arguments.  Over time, gamers have desired more and more realism and desire to imitate their favorite movies or real life sparring matches.

Then there is another big reason for combat being a central part of games.  Games rarely give this level of immedeacy and attention to non combat interactions.  Not many games treat social interaction this way, and most gamers would see that as silly.  Nothing else in a game really raises the tension as fast or powerfully, or has the threat of destruction and failure as well as the thrill of success as kicking someone's ass and putting them in a hurt locker.

Welcome to the human condition and its gaming equivilant.  Roll initiative, Monkey boy. ;cD

[Vaxalon]

Power grows from the barrel of a gun.

Violence is a language the West understands ? ;)

The quote above comes from a famous EASTERN leader.

[Callan S.]

Violence probably kills off drift as well. For example, if you were playing gamist, but then feel like a bit of drift to nar you might find it personally hard to address premise on a particular topic, when you killed all those living, thinking kobolds five minutes ago. Or if you wanted to drift to sim, did you initiatially intend your PC to be so blood thirsty?

Drift restriction is probably the bigger of the concerns players have with violence. It tends to lock off the other two creative agendas.

[Larry L.]

Man, if the question is just "Why do you have violence in your RPG?" you're gonna get as many justifications as you would with "Why do you play RPGs?" Primal thrill. Tactical competition. Crackerbarrel Joseph Cambell such-and-such. Whatever. We likes our violence; it is fun. Forgive me if I'm reading too much into it, but I don't think that's quite what Sean was getting at.

Perhaps the better question is "Why violence instead of something else?" For example, wanton sex with strangers is something that is also exciting and dangerous, but nobody ever conducts a statistical simulation, with meticulous pseudo-historic detail, of a Roman orgy. (Or perhaps I'm just gaming with the wrong people.) How about a game where you tell your boss to go fuck himself? Also potentially life threatening, in a certain sense, but completely absent from the gaming scene. Why the double standard? Wargamer baggage? Curious moral standards of culture at large? Discomfort at moving outside the status quo?

Am I following you, Sean, or totally hijacking your thread?

[ADGBoss]

Larry

I think you cut to the meat of it in a way my convoluted style was not. Yes exactly. Why violence as opposed to...

I do not believe its Wargmaer baggage.

My opinion is that we rely on violent conflict resolution because of the Inertia that typically grips many RPG designs. As you mention there are tons of justifications for violence and some of them valid justifications. Yet I see it as mostly a case of people making excuses for the inertia.

Violence has always been there. Always has, always will. I hear the same thing about dice, heck I SAY the same thing about Dice! I am just as bad as the next guy and am caught up in the inertia of the old days. Obviously there is an allure considering today's popular culture and historically we have preffered such stories.  

However, as much as people do not like to admit it, our early games were about Heroic fantasy violence and that tradition is still alive and strong.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing but it can be limiting.

Just more food for thought

Sean

[contracycle]

Perhaps a distinction is that all of us are equipped for violence, in our skins as it were, but we are not similarly equipped to be doctors or lawyers.