Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?

Ovinomancer said:

You clearly said "acting" in your earlier posts.

Click to expand...

This claim so shocked me that I did a text search over the last 140 posts, just to see if I had misspoke or what I had written that had so mislead you. And you know what I found?

Despite being a wordy often overly verbose writer, I hadn't used the word "acting" except when quoting you. In fact, other than you, no one was regularly using the word "acting" in the same sense as you are until you introduced it. Whenever someone else was talking about it, they used in the sense of "doing" such as a GM "acting in the role of referee".

In particular, please start with post #200 where I began to outline my viewpoint with respect to why combat and social interaction needed different proposition declarations. When you initially quoted me in post #264, the entire post you quote doesn't contain the word "acting", yet you respond 4 times with the word "acting" in your brief refutation. Then when I replied and you started to develop your argument, you used "acting" 10 more times even though I still hadn't mentioned it once. Only in post #281 do I start using the word "acting", but the 5 occasions are either quotes of the dictionary or otherwise only in refutation of your claim that acting is unrelated to role-playing and only because I had to that point assumed you were using acting in a way synonymous with my earlier claims and not to specifically to mean mannerism. I still was unaware how far we were diverging in the conversation. When you respond, you use acting 13 more times, and now start insisting that acting includes mannerism and the like, which I don't refute, but never considered particularly important. Only at that point did it hit me that you considered the essential part of acting as you were using the word to be the performance aspects. Acting has always been your thing in this thread not mine, and it's very easy to go back and read the last 140 posts (or just our exchanges) and see how you have been from the start trying to hijack what I was saying with "acting", something I admit I never realized until you outlined a detailed counter-argument that depended on contrasting books with movies (!!!).

Yes, I concur. Fidelity through acting would be great when it can be achieved. Good acting would be superior to poor acting. But those statements, while true, don't address my point (which is why I'm happy to agree with them). Further, you continue to try to treat my argument as a binary qualitative one (either it's necessary or not, for example) and not a quantitative argument. So whenever you admit to "better", whether you know it or not, you agree with me. Nor does one counter-example in this case refute me, and if you go back to post #200 you'll see why when I explain for example why it's not a counter example to claim that my position would require RPers to be LARPers.

Again, what I am talking about and have always been talking about works pretty much the same way whether we are at a table together or playing a MUSH. So I can separate dialogue from acting. All your issues of mannerism and description and what have you can be addressed just as well in text as live performance, and pretty much anything that can be written can be stated in play to address gaps in the players ability to act - which again I consider largely irrelevant to the conversation but has, as I've demonstrated, been your thing.

Celebrim said:

This claim so shocked me that I did a text search over the last 140 posts, just to see if I had misspoke or what I had written that had so mislead you. And you know what I found?

Despite being a wordy often overly verbose writer, I hadn't used the word "acting" except when quoting you. In fact, other than you, no one was regularly using the word "acting" in the same sense as you are until you introduced it. Whenever someone else was talking about it, they used in the sense of "doing" such as a GM "acting in the role of referee".

In particular, please start with post #200 where I began to outline my viewpoint with respect to why combat and social interaction needed different proposition declarations. When you initially quoted me in post #264, the entire post you quote doesn't contain the word "acting", yet you respond 4 times with the word "acting" in your brief refutation. Then when I replied and you started to develop your argument, you used "acting" 10 more times even though I still hadn't mentioned it once. Only in post #281 do I start using the word "acting", but the 5 occasions are either quotes of the dictionary or otherwise only in refutation of your claim that acting is unrelated to role-playing and only because I had to that point assumed you were using acting in a way synonymous with my earlier claims and not to specifically to mean mannerism. I still was unaware how far we were diverging in the conversation. When you respond, you use acting 13 more times, and now start insisting that acting includes mannerism and the like, which I don't refute, but never considered particularly important. Only at that point did it hit me that you considered the essential part of acting as you were using the word to be the performance aspects. Acting has always been your thing in this thread not mine, and it's very easy to go back and read the last 140 posts (or just our exchanges) and see how you have been from the start trying to hijack what I was saying with "acting", something I admit I never realized until you outlined a detailed counter-argument that depended on contrasting books with movies (!!!).

Click to expand...

The below is the post of yours immediately before my enumerated argument. Emphasis mine:

Celebrim said:

Nor is it merely a preference and subjective just because you claim it is so.

Even the very definition of role-playing suggests a strong and natural connection between acting and the act of role-playing: "the acting out of the part of a particular person or character, for example as a technique in training or psychotherapy" To suggest therefore that this connection is therefore only a preference, and not in some way closely connected to the act of role-playing and in particular to the degree and quality of the role-playing requires a very high burden of proof on your part. At the very least, you have to address the argument I have developed showing why it was the "superior form of role-playing" (as you put it). And though I'm not one, I'm inclined to think that a therapist or an occupational trainer would agree and encourage the more immersive, more literal experience, for much the same reasons that I've outlined. For one thing, when you are applying role-play to train a person for some real life experience, you need that person to act as much as they would in real life as possible.

Likewise, "it's possible to strongly empathize with a character without acting in first person -- ie, a character may be fully and faithfully represented in the 3rd person.", may in fact be true, but it in no way is a counter claim to what I've said. Empathizing with a character isn't what is at stake in the argument. I can fully empathize with a character in a novel or a movie, and yet I think we both agree that no role-playing is going on while I watch a movie or read a novel. You can empathize all you want, but the more you actually act out the role, the more you are role-playing by definition. I'm not going to draw a hard line and say, "Oh, for this little amount of acting you are no longer roleplaying." But I am going to insist that the more you act, the more you are actually role-playing and that such a line where insufficient acting occurs to call it role-playing exists, otherwise everything is role-playing.



Agreed, but that statement doesn't demonstrate your claim, but mine.

"Well, that's just like your opinion, man.", is itself something you have to prove.

Look, I'm well aware that this argument makes people uncomfortable. You are correct that role-playing skill is not equally distributed, and everyone who plays is sensitive about their ability to role-play and no one likes to think that they are less of a role-player than someone else. Groups are in certain comfort zones and have ways of doing things, and that's fine so far as it goes. But we're adults in this room, and it's time to recognize that though we certainly shouldn't be judging anyone for lack of skill in role-play, we should always be nurturing and encouraging growth in skillful play just as actors want to be better actors, athletes want to be better athletes, and chess players want to be better chess players.



No it doesn't, and no it isn't. If you'll have read my argument up to this point, it ought to be especially obvious why neither statement is true.

Click to expand...

I hope this clears up your confusion on this matter.

Yes, I concur. Fidelity through acting would be great when it can be achieved. Good acting would be superior to poor acting. But those statements, while true, don't address my point (which is why I'm happy to agree with them). Further, you continue to try to treat my argument as a binary qualitative one (either it's necessary or not, for example) and not a quantitative argument. So whenever you admit to "better", whether you know it or not, you agree with me. Nor does one counter-example in this case refute me, and if you go back to post #200 you'll see why when I explain for example why it's not a counter example to claim that my position would require RPers to be LARPers.

Click to expand...

I actually do address why your argumeny is not quantitative but qualitative, you just keep ignoring it. Also, as I've been sayin that acting may be sufficient but is not necessary, I fail to understand hiw you could categorize that as "binary." You've made a clear absolute statement -- that "acting," however defined, is necessary for superior roleplay. I only have to show thus false in one particular to defeat it. This isn't a false binary, it's how you argue against absolute statements.
[Quite]
Again, what I am talking about and have always been talking about works pretty much the same way whether we are at a table together or playing a MUSH. So I can separate dialogue from acting. All your issues of mannerism and description and what have you can be addressed just as well in text as live performance, and pretty much anything that can be written can be stated in play to address gaps in the players ability to act - which again I consider largely irrelevant to the conversation but has, as I've demonstrated, been your thing.[/QUOTE]
I deny this is true. Again, take the text, "I believe you." Delivered in a sarcastic tone, the meaning conveyed is actually opposite of the literal meaning. It's also very different from the same text delivered in an awed tone, or a fearful one. You cannot claim that dialog alone conveys all necessary meaning. You have to include the performative aspects because, once you insist on performance, it's a package deal. You are declaring that you ignore performance when it is not sufficuent and then argue performance is necessary. Can't have it both ways.

Look, wanting performance at your table is a perfectly valid preference. I have no idea why you're insisting your preference defines GoodRightFun for roleplaying. I quite often find my game is sometimes improved be my not acting out parts and instead just describing, on both sides of the screen.

Michele said:

We have no problems with violence in RPGs for the same reason why we have no problems with violence in fiction. In other games. And especially in sports.
Mind you, either it's not real violence (in fiction and games), or it's a strictly codified, limited form of violence (in boxing or football). Those are ways to vent the tendency, or at least the capability, for real violence that we have.

...[snip]...

Why is it better to kill monsters in RPGs? Because it's easier to kill enemies and non-humans. Killing humans goes against the last of the commandments of survival because it attacks the species; but it is acceptable if they are enemies threathening you survival, your offspring's survival, or your community's survival.
But if they are no threat to any of the above, if they just mind their business in their cave, killing them and taking their stuff is more difficult... unless, well, they actually are not human. Then there is no attack on your own species. If they actually aren't humans, or if you can at least convince yourself that they are not humans, then they are fair targets.

Click to expand...

I wonder how much western childhood education (education here means parents teaching their kids as well, not just formal education) comes into this? My wife is a primary school teacher and takes an absolute approach of "violence is wrong". This is line with most education systems I have come across. They leave no wiggle room for self defense, self preservation, mutual consent or other justification.

Then as the child grows up he is exposed to violent sports, such as rugby or american football (where mutual consent to limited violence is key to this not being a crime), then bloodsports, such as boxing (again mutual consent and fewer limitations), then TV and film (fictional volence), where violence steadily increases with age limits (even My Little Pony has fight scenes) with the violence having almost no consequences for young audiences (the attacked usually suffers very little ill effect) to violence simply being a solution to the hero's problem. The mooks are entirely dehumanised, they are merely an obstruction that disappears after a punch or kick.

All the while they are told, "Violence is Bad!"

So we are left with a simple moral question of "Is he bad? Yes. Kill him." But the definition of bad is essentially "not the same as me." and many adults are ill equipped to actually deal with the moral question of, "When is violence acceptable?" because the only answer they can give is, "When is not against a person." and this allows all kinds of media to perpetuate violence by labeling the victims of violence as monsters.

Now compare that to something where morality is not so complex. Sexual violence is always wrong and IMX very, very few groups will accept it in a game and even then usually only in the vaguest of terms and usually as a way to dehumanise the bad guys. There is even a thread on this forum (I think, it might be GitP) about a DM getting thrown out of a convention for having it in his game. Because everyone is well equipped to deal with this particular moral question, even if it is simpler.

I limit my theory here to western cultures because African (I speak from close - though thankfully not eyewitness - experience, having grown up there); Middle Eastern (Second hand experience from friends in the army) and Oriental (from a medium term work placement away from tourist areas) Cultures have a different (IMO a much more callous) view of human life or violence.

Violence can be bad, but it can also be very necessary. In D&D its usually very necessary to get those GP and XP.

TallIan said:

All the while they are told, "Violence is Bad!"

Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong in providing fictional bad examples of bad things.

So we are left with a simple moral question of "Is he bad? Yes. Kill him." But the definition of bad is essentially "not the same as me." and many adults are ill equipped to actually deal with the moral question of, "When is violence acceptable?" because the only answer they can give is, "When is not against a person."

Click to expand...

Well, no. I disagree. It is entirely possible to say "bad = enemy", and as I mentioned above, staying with the basics, an enemy may well be another human, if he threatens your survival, the survival of your offspring, or the survival of your community. And I disagree this is not a thing in the West. Self-defense, legitimate defense, are very strong in the public opinion in the West, and will not be absent in the life of the mind of a kid as he grows. And not all fiction portrays the victim of violence as an innocent pedestrian who's just crossing the street as the protagonist speeds away on his stolen car; pretty often, the plot makes it clear that the opponent of the protagonist is a legitimate enemy.

and this allows all kinds of media to perpetuate violence by labeling the victims of violence as monsters.

Click to expand...

As mentioned above, that's the way out when you can't credibly portray them as enemies.

TallIan said:

... Cultures have a different (IMO a much more callous) view of human life or violence.

Click to expand...

[video=youtube;dMeZCPbM6bA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMeZCPbM6bA[/video]

One country stands out in being the most violent and warlike.

Maxperson said:

I disagree. Modules were largely created for tournaments and conventions. They are also not presumed by the game to be used. They were completely optional.

Click to expand...

In theory, yes. In practice, not so much: after about 1978 did anyone anywhere run a D&D campaign (or nigh any other RPG campaign, for that matter) without using at least one published module?

Yeah, didn't think there were all that many.

Which means, there's a whole lot of DMs - and, by extension, players - who cut their teeth on the published modules and were thus informed on a few general expectations of play: big* parties and some level variance within those parties.

* - by today's standards.

It's also easier to tone down a module to make it fit a smaller group, than it is to ramp it up for a larger one.

Click to expand...

I've always found either conversion to be about the same amount of work, that being not much.

These are reasons why modules are at the high end of the number of players the game expects. They don't contradict the 3+ expectation at all.

Click to expand...

Many games give a range for number of players, but fail to note where in that range the game works best. Monopoly says "from 2 to 8 players" but doesn't say that a game with just 2 players doesn't work very well nor that a game with 8 players can be pure hell.

D&D can be played with just 2 people, for all that: a DM and a solo player. The game recommends 3+ so as to have 2+ players and thus allow for PC interaction, which is great. But what's not made clear until one looks at the modules is that, although it says 3+ on the box, the expectation (and thus, design assumption) is that there will either be several more players or that players will be running more than one PC each.

It's a truism of internet discussion that if you make a general statement about what people have done, someone will pipe up with a testimonial to the exact opposite.

This time, it's me.

Lanefan said:

In theory, yes. In practice, not so much: after about 1978 did anyone anywhere run a D&D campaign (or nigh any other RPG campaign, for that matter) without using at least one published module?

Click to expand...

My longest-running AD&D campaign went from '85 through '95, and used not a single published module. But then, I never ran modules after the first year or two with the game.
I played in enough - and in a campaign that was essentially an endless random dungeon, for crying out loud, talk about desperation - in the early years, but I was always more intent on creating something of my own when I ran.

Lanefan said:

In theory, yes. In practice, not so much: after about 1978 did anyone anywhere run a D&D campaign (or nigh any other RPG campaign, for that matter) without using at least one published module?

Yeah, didn't think there were all that many.

Which means, there's a whole lot of DMs - and, by extension, players - who cut their teeth on the published modules and were thus informed on a few general expectations of play: big* parties and some level variance within those parties.

Click to expand...

We ran modules once in a while, but not as part of campaigns usually. The vast majority of our campaigns were with adventures we created in worlds we invented.

D&D can be played with just 2 people, for all that: a DM and a solo player. The game recommends 3+ so as to have 2+ players and thus allow for PC interaction, which is great. But what's not made clear until one looks at the modules is that, although it says 3+ on the box, the expectation (and thus, design assumption) is that there will either be several more players or that players will be running more than one PC each.

Click to expand...

It doesn't say "can be played with 3+" It says, "Ideal with 3+" Games like Monopoly are not ideal with 2 players.

Maxperson said:

We ran modules once in a while, but not as part of campaigns usually. The vast majority of our campaigns were with adventures we created in worlds we invented.

Click to expand...

We played most of the modules, in the World of Greyhawk setting as a campaign, adding stuff too; we also war gamed the little states using the rules and counters from TSR's Battle of Five Armies. Played MERP, converted it first to AD&D then to RuneQuest. I still think that the D1-3/Q1 were pretty great series of modules.