And this will discourage them from further acts of mayhem... how, exactly?
Always with the killing
- Thread starter Clarabell
- Start date
And this will discourage them from further acts of mayhem... how, exactly?
RPGs for the most part keep imitating the original, D&D.
D&D originated as an adaptation of war game rules to a "dungeon adventure" scenario inspired largely by monster movies and action-adventure and horror stories.
All the early publishers of FRP ("fantasy role playing") games also had lines of war games, historical and fantastic. Role-playing games started as a subset of the pre-existing hobby and industry. As an indication of the demographic, note that The Dragon magazine published a series of Squad Leader scenarios.
Not every game, even then, was so combat oriented. For instance:
En Garde! (Game Designers Workshop, 1975) had sprung from a simple fencing game (essentially "Scissors Paper Stone" made a bit more complicated). However, the rules for creating situations that would provide excuses for duels came to make up most of the game. It ended up being primarily about securing status and rising through the ranks of Parisian society. Apart from the fencing (which is also very formalized), it does not really have the "tactical" scale and focus elements that many gamers seem now to consider partly definitive of RPGs. The process of play, which has been widely adapted to postal (and later internet) games, is thus distinctively different from most RPGs.
Bunnies & Burrows (Fantasy Games Unlimited, 1976) was inspired by an adventure fantasy -- Watership Down by Richard Adams -- that certainly involved violence. However, the characters are rabbits! Bunnies don't do much killing, being rather more concerned with not getting killed by predators. The game brings in a dose of natural history along with a fair bit of anthropomorphism. Exploring, finding valued foods and medicinal herbs, contending for status and mating, telling stories, and more, figure prominently and have rules systems as developed as those for combat.
Star Trek (FASA, 1982) struck me as representing the original TV series very well. Killing is so easy with phasers set to "disintegrate" (or with anti-matter warheads for mass murder) that it tends not to be a very interesting solution to problems. (Neither is "beaming up", but the troubles with communicators seem a bit less contrived now that little cell phones have been around for a while.) Among star-faring peoples, it can lead to inexorable mutual destruction until they annoy one of the godlike elder species. I don't know much about FASA's later scenarios, but I don't recall the two in the original boxed set being about killing. For my part, I took the classic TV show as my model.
D&D originated as an adaptation of war game rules to a "dungeon adventure" scenario inspired largely by monster movies and action-adventure and horror stories.
All the early publishers of FRP ("fantasy role playing") games also had lines of war games, historical and fantastic. Role-playing games started as a subset of the pre-existing hobby and industry. As an indication of the demographic, note that The Dragon magazine published a series of Squad Leader scenarios.
Not every game, even then, was so combat oriented. For instance:
En Garde! (Game Designers Workshop, 1975) had sprung from a simple fencing game (essentially "Scissors Paper Stone" made a bit more complicated). However, the rules for creating situations that would provide excuses for duels came to make up most of the game. It ended up being primarily about securing status and rising through the ranks of Parisian society. Apart from the fencing (which is also very formalized), it does not really have the "tactical" scale and focus elements that many gamers seem now to consider partly definitive of RPGs. The process of play, which has been widely adapted to postal (and later internet) games, is thus distinctively different from most RPGs.
Bunnies & Burrows (Fantasy Games Unlimited, 1976) was inspired by an adventure fantasy -- Watership Down by Richard Adams -- that certainly involved violence. However, the characters are rabbits! Bunnies don't do much killing, being rather more concerned with not getting killed by predators. The game brings in a dose of natural history along with a fair bit of anthropomorphism. Exploring, finding valued foods and medicinal herbs, contending for status and mating, telling stories, and more, figure prominently and have rules systems as developed as those for combat.
Star Trek (FASA, 1982) struck me as representing the original TV series very well. Killing is so easy with phasers set to "disintegrate" (or with anti-matter warheads for mass murder) that it tends not to be a very interesting solution to problems. (Neither is "beaming up", but the troubles with communicators seem a bit less contrived now that little cell phones have been around for a while.) Among star-faring peoples, it can lead to inexorable mutual destruction until they annoy one of the godlike elder species. I don't know much about FASA's later scenarios, but I don't recall the two in the original boxed set being about killing. For my part, I took the classic TV show as my model.
Last edited:
Aldarc
Legend
It depends on the players. I pulled this on a group of players once and it shook them up once they realized that they had been played for fools, and all because of the actions of their own doing. They were not exactly thrilled that they were villains, and so their allegiances shifted and their approach to conflict changed.
Sylrae
First Post
Suicide missions and using the players as disposable pawns may make them play something less irritating next time? (at the very least it'll make for an interesting violent story where the players pay attention to their goals and are less likely to reveal themselves, therefore less mindless violence).
Henry
Autoexreginated
Oh, those are absolutely fun moments, but I feel it a bit of a failure if I have more than one session go by and something hasn't needed to be sword-bashed at least once. I've had plenty of roleplaying and intense negotiation experiences, but as I said, if I want to wrangle with important political issues or negotiate tense situations, I'll head to the voting booth or go to a weekly business meeting and do it for real. In real life, I can't change the unjust politics of my local city by putting sword to the evil ruler, freeing the slaves and burning down the slave-pens.
In Star Wars, it would have been a snooze-fest if the answer for the Death Star was to blackmail Grand Moff Tarkin into leaving the rebels alone, or the solution to the Emperor was to enter into diplomatic negotiations to broker a secession from the Empire.
"I'm sorry, Imperial Officers, but I feel I must issue a greivance with the Imperial Judicial System for your mistreatment of these poor Ewok natives."
Last edited:
vonmolkew
Explorer
Never in my almost 30 years of doing this have I been in a group either as a player or DM have I had anything like killing the innkeeper as they did. The only time I remember that was similar was when we got the first Village of Hommlet module.....the party went to the first farmhouse, killed the family and took their money. Then someone said "you know, I don't think this is supposed to be about killing everything that moves" They actually (as real people) felt bad about what they had done. It never happened again. The killing -- at least for us -- has always been about removing an evil plaguing someone. I honestly can't recall any killing just for killings sake.....
I did....once. We had a CN fighter/mage, and a paladin. The party was fleeing a dungeon after taking a beating facing Skeleton Warriors serving a Death Knight. The fighter/mage, who didn't like the paladin, was second last guy, and the paladin was defending the rear, giving the others time to flee. The fighter/mage shut and barred the door, locking the paladin inside, in the dark (he wasn't the one with the torch), and about 4 angry skeleton warriors.
Needless to say, it caused a lot of inter-player conflict.
Banshee
Yes, but - it could just as well be interpreted that the natural tendency to violence is most easily expressed when given the sanction of authority.
Well, the latter sounds like a pretty cool plot to me.
Maybe some radical Imperials try to disrupt the negotiations with the 'secessionists'*? Assassination attempt on the ambassadors? I think Star Wars can handle political intrigue plots - as long as there is the occasional burst of action, like you say.*Funny how being a mere secessionist from the Galactic Republic in eps I-III makes you Evil, but trying to overthrow the entire Galactic (Imperial) government in eps IV-VI makes you Good.
Edit: I typically aim to have at least one probably-violent encounter per 4-5 hour session. In particular 4e pretty much requires it, or the players look at their character sheets' vast list of combat options with sadness in their eyes...
It's less vital with eg 1e, but I did get a complaint in my 1e campaign recently from a player who turned up late and missed the one fight of the session.
Hella_Tellah
Explorer
I guess it depends on the story you hope to see come out of the game. Twelve Angry Men would've been a snooze-fest if Henry Fonda had punched the other 11 men until they voted not guilty.
