This essay has been in my head for sometime but was kind of brought to the forefront by 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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:).

Thor Olavsrud wrote: 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.

Thor Olavsrud wrote:
But there it is: choice, risk, consequence.

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

Vaxalon wrote:
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 wrote: 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Power grows from the barrel of a gun.

Power grows from the barrel of a gun.

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

komradebob wrote:

Power grows from the barrel of a gun.

Violence is a language the West understands ? ;)

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.

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?

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

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.

I think that is a very interesting distinction but for me it rases two questions:

1) If we are not all equipped to be Doctors and Lawyers, then why wouldn't there be interest in exploring something you are not? I would think it would be similar to playing a character of the opposite gender: exploring a life you could never have. As an example I would think a M.A.S.H. RPG might be pretty popular. I would buy it anyway :)

2) Are we equipped for Violence OR are we equipped to commit violence? Maybe I am splitting hairs here but let me explain. Basically everyone has the innate animal ability to crack someone else over the head with a lead pipe if provoked. So we all enjoy the feel of the RPG when we take up the mini-gun and explode some ganer boy's loins with it. However, as Players do we handle violence against us as well? Is it as fun to lose a nutsack to a chaingun weilding maniac? Clearly not.

In my own experience I have seen players who constantly eschew diplomacy or non-violent means of conflict resolution get rather upset when their bloodlust leads to their doom. I have literally witnessed those who started the fight bemoan how no one else stepped in to stop them or tried to talk to the enemy.

As I have said before, I am not advocating in any way getting rid of violence in RPGs but I do think it is worth the effor to re-evaluate it's central role, which some people are already doing in their games and designs, etc...

Sean

In RPGs, the rules that hold us all down are not present. Sure, there are (or should be) consequences in RPGs, but you don't have to negotiatiate everything or at all if you don't want to. There is a visceral thrill in directing your alter ego to take care of something in a way that would not be acceptable in the real world. I certainly would not even consider a game where I had to be a lawyer or an accountant. That's too much like real life, where you have to play by everyone else's rules. I play because I am the hero or villain, I decide my level of involvement, and I take the risk. I answer only to myself in an RPG. I am not like everyone else when I play, I am the champion. I don't want to be stuck in a court room or office just because I could be. I want to do what I can't do in my ordinary, every-day life. If I want to participate in talk-based entertainment, I'll turn on PBS. Just talk is not satisfying, there is no real commitmment, no real risk, no real threat, no real reward.

There are dynamics involved beyond just whether there is too much violence. These include what the GM chooses or does, what the players like to do, the setting, the plot.... I think it is too simplistic to say violence is a problem, when it is just a symptom, not a cause. I also think it is too simplistic to say games promote violence, because designers can't control what people do with them. The level of volence used is a personal choice and can't be blamed on any one thing. Some people will always take the more offensive path, some will take a defensive path, regardless of what a game designer or GM does.

Ever see the movie "Fall Down"? (Bruce Willis plays a nebbish who finally has had enough, snaps, and just starts beating up and shooting and bazooka-ing everyone who pisses him off).

Might have been "Falling Down"

It was a big hit.

I believe the Actor was Michael Douglas (sp?) at least in the version of Falling Down I saw.

Honestly I am not sure how that contributes to the discussion? Behind the Green Door was a big hit too, so we should make movies about kidnapping, bondage, and rape? Or About the Porn Industry in general?

Driving Miss Daisy was a bigt hit, should we make games about the relationships between Black Drivers and old White Women in the south? To answer Ria's example, since I doubt that we could be either Jessica Tandy or Morgan Freeman in real life, then this game would certianly meet your criteria.

Apollo 13, big hit, its something not everyone can do and it is fairly exciting. Where are all the games about Moon shots?

Where are all the games about being a Fisherman in Alaska? Dangerous, not necessarily violent, but a job that can be quite hazardous. How about the games about climbing Mount Everest? Thats thrill seeking and certianly not everyone is equipped to do it.

/shrug

[Editeed for some spelling... but not all]

Sean

If someone wants to do a game about being a chauffeur or a porn star, they should. Just don't expect me to play it. Just like I don't think playing a lawyer would be fun and I wouldn't do that. In other words, do the game you want and have fun. It's a hobby. It's supposed to be fun. Let people play their characters how they want, with or without violence. People are going to play however they choose, not necessarily how the game developer or GM planned. And there's nothing wrong with that. If it bothers you, play with people who use less violence. Something for fun doesn't need to be so serious, and you always have choices of what you play and with whom. But you can't tell people what they like, and you can't tell people what to write. If you think the RPG industry needs a game without violence, make it.

Perhaps its for immersionist needs. You never feel so alive as when you face death. And your PC never feels so alive as when he faces death.

Your not going to get that playing a lawyer facing down a vile corporations CEO.

Though it might be interesting if you wrote a lawyer game where the mechanics of the game force the lawyer to face death at the start of each session (street crime or some such), to hit this immersion moment. That might interesting.

Ria wrote: ...If you think the RPG industry needs a game without violence, make it.

A porno RPG! Brilliant!

... and round and round the mulberry bush we go.

We default back the moral implications of violence, a stock and near Politically Correct condemnation of any and all violence (despite the fact our Western societies have armed police and a military occupation underway etc etc....).

The question of whether there is "too much violence" is pointless. Most of our games are built like action thrillers in which violence is the central activity. If we keep deviating into the morality of violence then we fail to discuss this feature.

The question keeps returning to "what do the players do?" With action-adventure RPG's, this is obvious. The trick then is to figure out exactly what you would do for games in which violence is intended to be secondary or absent.

There is a PC game based on the TV series CSI; the main interface is an image of a crime scene, and the main tool is a zoom facility with which the scene can be examined. I could imagine a similar process in RPG - the players are given a printed image of at least A4 size and a magnifying glass with which to examine it millimeter by millimeter; the GM has a key that says things like "If they ask about the small red sliver visible under the wardrobe, this will turn out to be a flyer for a club in the city centre - give the players Prop 3".

Even so, the total elimination of violence is not necessarily desirable, but we should surely be able to devise games in which violence is not central. And, not because "violence is bad", but because violence alone is ultimately repetitive and boring.

contracycle wrote: The trick then is to figure out exactly what you would do for games in which violence is intended to be secondary or absent.

contracycle wrote: .I could imagine a similar process in RPG - the players are given a printed image of at least A4 size and a magnifying glass with which to examine it millimeter by millimeter; the GM has a key that says things like "If they ask about the small red sliver visible under the wardrobe, this will turn out to be a flyer for a club in the city centre - give the players Prop 3".

Sean,

Obviously, since "traditional" designs concentrate to a large extent on combat rules, these will encourage combat. A competition-oriented player figures out that this is where all the "game" is at, and it's mechanically more interesting than, say, a simple skill roll. In these systems, sessions without combat play a lot like freeform games.

More telling, then: In your experience, have you seen players choose to engage in violence over other activities in systems with generic conflict resolution? If, say, a pie eating contest is handled mechanically identically to a duel to the death, and either is a valid way of settling a dispute in the game world, do we still choose violence?

Also, how much of this can be pinned on genre? Swordplay is central to a lot of fantasy. Clobberin' is central to a lot of superhero comics. Are RPGs unusually violence-focused by genre standards? Or perhaps what you're really taking issue with is that RPGs usually focus on violent genres?

Trying to nail this down before this thread goes horribly out of control.

BTW, I am now totally contemplating a M.A.S.H. game with Primetime Adventures.

More telling, then: In your experience, have you seen players choose to engage in violence over other activities in systems with generic conflict resolution? If, say, a pie eating contest is handled mechanically identically to a duel to the death, and either is a valid way of settling a dispute in the game world, do we still choose violence?

Whew stepped out for the weekend and suddenly got some great responses.

I think this question has several layers which for me make it very interesting. I want to kind of comment on each one and maybe if people feel like we can take it to new threads? If not that’s cool too.  I think some of the feedback so far has been pretty darn good.

1). Game Mechanics. I get this vision of new game designers (myself included) who sit down at the table (or computer or whatever) and make a list of needs for their game. The list looks like this:

A. Figure out which dice to use! D6, D10, or D20 (or maybe get radical with a D4 or D8 or D12…)
B. Figure out 4 to 8 Stats
C. Figure out Alternative to Hit Points which does the same thing, based on Stats
D. MAKE AWESOME COMBAT MECHANIC WHICH SUCKS OFF THE HIT POINT ALTERNATIVE!!!!
E. Oh skills, yeah…. I will need melee skills, and firearm skills, and oh yeah something about science maybe?
F. Make Armor and Weapon Charts
G. Include Paladin ‘cause even godless commies need one…

It’s inertia, plain and simple. Games HAVE been designed like that (more or less) for decades (yes decades now) and they will unfortunately continue along this trend for some time to come.  I do not even buy the argument that violent conflict resolution (i.e. Combat) is the easiest thing to design in a game, because obviously it is not. I would wager that most people never question the inclusion of some role for combat in their game.

As a side note, Mike Holmes said this very well in his standard Rant #3 which for some reason I cannot find to link but will as soon as I can.

2) Violence as Thrilling and Interesting. Well there is not doubt that violent conflict is entertaining from a Movie, TV, Book, spectator point of view. We play games to get that thrill of life & death. So I ask what thrill of life and death struggle are you talking about? For the console and computer games you can save and start over. For RPGs you can just make a new one or get rezz’ed. Thrill comes from story not from mindless violence. When life & death have meaning, as much meaning as you can fit into an RPG without taking yourself too seriously, that provides Thrills in my opinion. Stress relief comes from mindless violence . That I will agree with and it is fun. No doubt.

However, I think there are dozens of possible ways to have life and death struggle or even non life and death struggle and still have thrills. Climbing Mount Everest comes to mind and others mentioned being a lawyer or stock broker. Sure some people are bored by such things because you can do them in real life. Well some people can. Some people can kill folks with a sword too. It just happens to be illegal in most societies. I would also add that climbing Everest would be beyond the skills of most of us and thus would provide an exciting RPG. That is just one example.

3) Morality. There was on some people’s parts this idea that I wanted to make games without violence or wanted to censor (my word) violence in RPGs. Folks trust me, I want to do no such thing.  I can think of only one of my own designs which does not have the low hum of possible violent conflict. I also could care less what and how other people play except that as a designer, I am seeking to understand Players and my fellow designers.

However, the way we design games and how we design them and what we design into them can have an effect on people. I think we should all be conscious of this. At times it is an affected fact that in a game the Players will be required to commit virtual genocide to achieve their goals. That’s not normal except in some fantasy novels and rare occasions in real life. The violence becomes mindless and if this not the point of the game, then it probably does not need to be included.  It just seems superfluous.

Final comments. I know that a game without any violence can be created and there are some good examples already out there. I was not seeking out how to design them per se as much as I was trying to understand our need for violence in RPGs. I do think genre does have something to do with it and I think tradition (read inertia) has a great deal to do with it.  I am not sure I fully understand it all yet but I am closer.

As far as censoring violence or indeed anything, I am dead against it. However, that does not mean that we as designers should not be aware of what we design and to be sure that when we include violent resolution in our games, that there is a point to it and that it adds to the design, instead of relying solely on tradition or “just because.”

Sean

Larry wrote: More telling, then: In your experience, have you seen players choose to engage in violence over other activities in systems with generic conflict resolution? If, say, a pie eating contest is handled mechanically identically to a duel to the death, and either is a valid way of settling a dispute in the game world, do we still choose violence?

M. wrote:
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

Larry wrote:
>> 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.

Justin wrote:

Larry wrote:
>> 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.