Combat: Holy Grail or Sick Obsession

[Larry L.]

There was a D&D campaign I ran years ago in which a cavalier and a druid were in the same rather large party. The druid felt that the

M.J.,

Well, I was specifically looking for examples of players continuing to favor violence even though the system doesn't give combat any special emphasis. D&D, of course, is the archtypal "a substantial subset of the system is combat" game. (Although your example IS a creative way of pressing the "combat system" into a non-violent purpose!)

My line of reasoning being basically the same as in your last paragraph: that system emphasis on combat would be the obvious explanation for the prevalence of violence in most games, but if players still routinely choose violence in a game where there are not specific rules for combat, then maybe Sean is on to some weird unquestioned quirk of "gamer" conditioning.

I once ran a spur-of-the-moment freeform game for some friends where they were normal dudes attenting a sci-fi convention. The first conflict that came up, one player stated he'd just punch some kid at the Magic table to get him to cooperate. They were so suprised when all the NPCs freaked the fuck out, called security, just like would happen in real life, that I let them go back and try again. Kinda strange.

[Justin Marx]

>> if players still routinely choose violence in a game where there are not specific rules for combat, then maybe Sean is on to some weird unquestioned quirk of "gamer" conditioning.

I think that Sean and Larry are dead on the money. Look at the majority of the mainstream gaming market - D20 fantasy. Combat, in my opinion, is an imperative of gamist play. Sure there are other forms of conflict, but violence seems the most popular by far, and we can psychoanalyse it down to the roots of our strange little subculture, but at its heart I percieve aggressive people who are unable to act physically aggressive in real life. There are thousands of reasons why and equally a lot of reasons what they want out of combat in games - a sense of power, sick cruelty (I've met plenty of players who enjoy narrating torture and enjoy the lack of moral constraints in the game), the heart-pounding thrill of it all - and probably the most common (in my play experience), those who want to act heroically - let's face it, who doesn't want to beat up the bad guy and win the girl and earn all the praise and goodies they can't ever have in real life. Why analyse why we enjoy violence? - may as well ask why we enjoy watching porno. I'll leave that to my anthropology proffessors who argued far more obscurely and circularly than this post about the very same thing. Find your personal rationale, not be ashamed of it (or stop indulging in virtual violence if you are), and be happy. I love violence in gameplay simply because in game (unlike everyday existence) my moral compass is frozen pointing to Bad and I enjoy that....

The trick is to ask why violence is so deeply embedded in gaming expectations overall, and hence why every man and his monkey writes a combat system into their game, or why they try to create the perfect combat system (read: the combat system that subconsciously evokes whatever kick they get out of violence, cruelty, gore, drama, victory etc etc. - which is as varied as the player as I have already said). I think most people were originally drawn into the hobby through gamist systems with gamist GMs and gamist expectations (this was my own experience and the experience of the many people I have played with). Can I ask how many people started playing RPGs, in their first infant stages of gameplay, which did not involve violence? Most people I know were starting in their adolescence with AD&D (then again, I may be quite young in this forum, so some of the 'veteran' players let me know). They became interested in the hobby because they liked violence, not the other way around. Hence, the hobby (I hesitate to use the word subculture, although I think it would be appropriate) becomes DEFINED by violent play. Roleplaying isn't exactly the only hobby to involve conflict - sports being the most obvious example. Those who found roleplaying not to their tastes satisfy their competitive urges, if they have them, in other ways. Those who are non-competitive and non-violently imaginative rarely joined play groups in these early stages, primarily because these playgroups had a stigma of imaginary violence, big guns and robots and sword weilding pirates. Not to everyone's tastes (non sequitor - has anyone ever wondered why men notoriously dominate this subculture.... no offense to the ladies, who are at any rate enlightened - I think the two trends may be related).

There are a thousand exceptions of course, without which there would not be people who set up this website devoted to analysis (we would all presumably be too focussed on the next lametable waste-of-money Exalted-Creatures-of-the-Igloo supplement by WotC), but the simple fact is that the people who write on The Forge rarely represent the attitudes of the majority of players and GMs who keep WoTC a happy subsidiary of Hasbro and who perpetuate the gamist stereotype. There are plenty of other forums devoted to that level of discussion and analysis (namely, I am deriding munchkin bantering on other RPG-sites, as in which is the better Sword+1 BS). If people want roleplaying to lose its stigma of imagined violence, the one that drives us to constant episodic genocide, then this indie RPG community, which is trying to invent new forms of the RPG, or to redefine the way we see it, must work to redefine the way OTHER people see it. Because it is my suspicion that to divert the inertia of violence in the gaming community requires diluting the player pool with current non-gamers who are drawn in due to interest from other areas - fortunately, due to the internet, PBEM, and new developments in gameplay, this is changing. The fact is though, that most people here started playing D&D (or something very much like it) for this particular emphasis on combat, and the imaginative form that roleplaying presents it in. Some may have moved beyond that style of play, but only a few have transcended it.

Or you can write the Holy Grail of violence - for those people who like combat in game for similar reasons to your own. For like it or not, the D20 system, and the clones of stats, skills and encumbrance character design works damn well to satisfy the desires of most players out there today. I'm attempting to write a combat system which focusses on the elements of violence I enjoy. If other people like it, cool, I have a player base. As long as you know why and to what ends you have a combat system, if it is important for your type of play, then that is fine. If not then think some more and rewrite it (I never understood Aria's need for its lame combat system anyway.... seemed out of touch with the rest of the material presented).

My 2 mao. Perhaps a little general, and nothing more than my anecdotal experiences condensed. I am interested in the exceptions to this pattern of gameplay-socialisation and whether combat was still a prerogative for those who were not drawn in by the violent or competitive element.

[Ria]

>> I am interested in the exceptions to this pattern of gameplay-socialisation and whether combat was still a prerogative for those who were not drawn in by the violent or competitive element.

I usually use combat as a last recourse, because I'm just wired that way, using every other means possible to resolve something as player. If I do use violence as a PC, I try to manipulate the situation to my favor so I can take the bad guy alive, or use a called shot to take a threat out of the picture all together. I may not start a fight as PC, but I will finish it.

As GM, I try to make as many possible ways to deal with the situation as might be thought up by the player. I don't punish for the use of violence, nor do I insist upon it. I do feel it is viable for resolution however, whether of feelings, intent or actions. Also, I employ escalating violence, i.e., taunts/threats, fisticuffs, then lethal. I try to give PCs as much rope to hang themselves as they want, and let the dice roll. I am not afraid to have characters die, whether PCs or NPCs.

Personally, I have never played in a game with an agenda of violence, but I have run people who do and they are out of control. But these people are agro in real life, so it's no real surprise. Needless to say, these PCs usually died badly and very very VERY violently - but then, they asked for it, and I just signed sealed and delivered it. With a kiss and a smile.

In real life, I can't watch the news because of all the horror stories about violence, and I have stayed up late, sometimes in tears, because a child was abducted, someone was disfigured, or a dog has gone missing. So I am the last person who feels violence is either mandatory or an acceptable resolution for problems in real life. But in a role-playing game, violence can step-up the tension or finish something in a way that is final, irrefutable and irrevocable. It is a powerful means for conflict resolution that nothing else can quite beat. Yes, you can go through all kinds of hell, but if you never get your own, what was it all for? Just accomplishing an act is not enough to be engaging. Surviving against an enemy you can reach out and touch is. I don't know why, that's just how it breaks down. You can't punish a mountain, or some inanimate object, but you can make a bad guy pay in a role-playing game, and overcome the badness for instance. You didn't just accomplish something, you became the champion. This is why action movies are so popular, and why some of us like to play action characters in games. Thus, unless we're climbing the mountain to catch the bad guy, just climbing the mountain will leave us wanting and unsatisfied.