Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?

lowkey13 · Jun 12, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Bagpuss · Jun 12, 2019

Umbran said:
Perhaps. But I would likely *position* it differently. See above - I was not going to run a game in which 13-year-olds end up on the wrong side of the moral argument. If I'm going to present the non-combatants as a challenge to kids, I'd position it clearly as a, "Well, nuts, you have to get around this without hurting anyone."

Heck, in games for my adults, if the PCs choose the wrong side of the moral argument, they are apt to be treated by the world like the monsters they have become - meaning that they have made it moral and ethical for others to kill the PCs and take their stuff!

I think kids could also handle consequences to their actions, if they make a questionable choice.

MGibster · Jun 12, 2019

As others have pointed out, role playing games evolved from war games and violence has remained a large part of most mainstream games over the past 45 years. So from the early days of gaming the audience have been made up of people who don't have a problem with the kinds of violence typically found in games. I wouldn't doubt it if some people from the 70s, 80s, and today decided RPGs weren't for them because of the violence. I can't think of any popular RPG that doesn't make the assumption that player characters will engage in violence.

But violence in most RPGs isn't all that realistic. And part of that is because of the abstract nature of combat in a game. Sanitized violence has been acceptable for a long time. Most parents don't have a problem with their kids watching hordes of Storm Troopers mowed down in Star Wars but they might have a problem with those same kids watching John Wick 3.

Bedrockgames · Jun 12, 2019

lowkey13 said:
So why did you assume this was the reason behind the discomfort? If it wasn't?

I assumed it was the reason behind Elfcrushers discomfort. But it was also a fairly throw-away comment on my part. Not something I am hellbent on defending.

Umbran · Jun 13, 2019

Bagpuss said:
I think kids could also handle consequences to their actions, if they make a questionable choice.

There's "questionable choice" and "end up on the wrong side of the moral argument". Splitting the party to chase down goblins in the woods is a questionable choice, and when they did that, they handled the consequences. Becoming villains is what happens when you are on the wrong side of the moral argument.

I think, on their first go ever at RPGs, having them hunted down and either executed or imprisoned for murder (a likely consequence for adventurers who have moral weaknesses) would not have had a salutary effect on their impression of RPGs. So, yes, I aimed my presentation to steer clear of certain pitfalls. They are young, and have time to get into those later.

Umbran · Jun 13, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
Makes me wonder if you actually understand the arguments in this thread, or in that other one that shall not be named. .

Bedrockgames said:
Also others on the thread brought up this topic so figured might as well weigh in on that point.

Talk about your questionable choices.

One reason why we are okay with violence, is that in the real world, some people have issues letting things go, and that tends to escalate....

Gentlemen, be warned - dragging around drama from closed threads is an astoundingly good way to get yourself a vacation from the site. Both of you drop it, now, please and thank you. I would, in fact, take this exchange as an indication that neither one of you should be responding to each other in this thread. It does not seem that either of you has cooled off well enough to resist the temptation to take pot-shots.

Riley37 · Jun 13, 2019

Immortal Sun said:
I think this question deserves some refining.

Yes. On the first page, I raised a distinction between colonialist and non-colonialist violence. AD&D has a colonialist endgame: at Name Level, a PC can build a keep and kill all monsters around it, with the result that peasants show up, build farms, and pay taxes to the PCs. Celebrim and I may disagree on whether that constitutes colonialism, and whether that's the default context for Keep on the Borderlands; well, we agree on many things and disagree on many things. There are D&D games with non-colonialist and possibly with anti-colonialist story arcs.

There's also, as you say, significant differences between collective and individual scales of violence. "Braunstein" was a Napoleonic war game, which considered significant individuals as factors in the progress of battles: if the battle happens in a town, then what happens if someone kills the mayor of the town? Arneson's "Blackmoor Bunch" (eg Sir Jenkins and the Bishop of Blackmoor) shifted the game from an overview of a battle (literally looking down onto the table-top diorama of a battlefield) to a zoom-in on named individuals; and that was a step from war-games towards D&D. (These steps happened *before* Arneson started using the "Chainmail" rules, if I understand correctly.)

Immortal Sun said:
Also, because DMs don't reward non-combat solutions or situations.

Hey now. You could make some points and arguments about how *often* DMs reward non-combat solutions. I'd take interest in well-researched assertions about changes in rewards, across the expansion and evolution of TRPG, and which game publishers introduced which mechanics in which editions.

Your categorical and unqualified statement has been counter-factual at least since 1981, when "Champions" was first published, since the Champions rules for XP are not specific to defeating enemies. (If the Big Bad Guy plots to poison the city's water supply, then *any* method of foiling his plot counts as success.) There are published 5E D&D "Adventurer's League" scenarios which include XP rewards which are *only* earned by non-violent resolution of problems. My PC got 50 XP, for example, when the party encountered a dire wolf, and my PC cast Speak with Animals, enabling us to get past the wolf without bloodshed. That's not some DM's house rule; that's direct from the scenario as published by WotC.

Riley37 · Jun 13, 2019

Celebrim said:
One other problem I encountered when running RPGs for 5 year olds, is that the players (my children) refused to make choices that would put them in danger. If a house in the neighborhood was said to be haunted, well that was more than sufficient reason not to go into a run down house. Besides, going into an abandoned house was dangerous in itself, and it was trespassing.

Perhaps you have taught your children that danger and morally questionable choices are best left to adults. IMO, this is good parenting of five-year-olds. If your children's off-the-cuff response to "you see something moving in the windows of an abandoned house" is "find Daddy and tell him", so much the better. Have you tried games written for young players, such as "No Thanks Evil"?

Riley37 · Jun 13, 2019

MGibster said:
Sanitized violence has been acceptable for a long time. Most parents don't have a problem with their kids watching hordes of Storm Troopers mowed down in Star Wars but they might have a problem with those same kids watching John Wick 3.

Most parents, yes. I am an oddball, or outlier, in feeling *less* comfort with sanitization. Years ago, I was watching a group of children, ages maybe 8 to 12, while their parents were having a meeting, and I played a VHS of "Star Wars". I hadn't planned this in advance, but right after the PCs escape the Death Star, on impulse, I hit PAUSE, and asked: What emotions Luke does Luke show, immediately after killing several people? (Troopers shot in the Death Star, plus Tie Fighter pilots: "I got him!".) Does he seem proud, sad, angry? I recognized that Luke killed in self-defense; but if I ever kill a fellow human, I *expect* to have strong, unpleasant feelings, as soon as the situation allows me to drop out of fight-or-flight mode. Even if I am simultaneously proud of my skills, and proud of my successful defense of myself and/or others.

Li Shenron · Jun 13, 2019

lowkey13 said:
I'm just ... curious ... as to what other people think. I mean, I understand WHY (IMO) violence is part of the scene (legacy of wargaming, advancement through XP, fantasy tropes, etc.), but I'm curious as to what people think of it now?

Just because violence is in the game, it doesn't mean that all possible violence has to be in the game.

In all my D&D games, certain kinds of violence will never be featured (rape is one, anything specifically against children is another), and other kinds can be mentioned but are not narrated in detail (torture).