D&D General A History of Violence: Killing in D&D

[Warpiglet-7]

As recently as 2020, the APA reaffirmed their stance that there is no causal link between violent video games and violent behavior.

APA reaffirms position on violent video games and violent behavior

There is insufficient scientific evidence to support a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior, according to an updated resolution adopted by the American Psychological Association.

www.apa.org

"There is insufficient scientific evidence to support a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior, according to an updated resolution (PDF, 60KB) adopted by the American Psychological Association."

Violence in tabletop RPGs is in every way imaginable less impactful than violence in video games. If there's no causal link between the immersive violence of video games and violent behavior, there's even less chance of a link between abstract violence in tabletop RPGs and violent behavior.

That is what I am saying!

There was a not a big literature on D&D generally but I have ready some very modest correlation with some desirable behaviors. Not big effect sizes…not causal…

I have no problem
Playing it with my kids. Then again my youngest has played gears of war with me (father of the year material right here).

My kids are very kind and nurturing of animals and kids younger than them…

My example matters but d20s and putting orcs to the sword? A nothing burger

 

[CreamCloud0]

This game could have (and benefit) from social rules as diverse and extensive to cover as many situations as it’s combat rules, but wizards isn’t going to ever do that, unfortunately, they claim the game is built on three pillars but those pillars clearly aren’t equal in worth if the rules are anything to judge by.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

For example, I think that complicating the idea of acceptable targets by making humanoids less of a monolithic, alignment-coded group is a natural evolution. But ... it also doesn't fundamentally change the game- from the beginning of the game until now, humans (aka, "Bandits" or "Brigands" or "Baddies") have always been fair game as well. If you can kill a human bandit, you can kill an orc bandit. After all, if you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.

But ... I also think that there has been some evolution in the approach. I know that I was uncomfortable reading B2 again (specifically, the women and children parts) because it did make me think about the unfortunate nits making lice comment, and while I could have edited it out (DM POWER, @Randomly Generated Name !!!!) I just couldn't run it for a group of younger teens.

Yeah even from the start I've been completely against the 'you can slaughter orc babies as they're inherently evil' approach to violence in DnD. I've always preferred depicting them as a nuanced civilization and species fully capable of free will and everything which goes with that.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah even from the start I've been completely against the 'you can slaughter orc babies as they're inherently evil' approach to violence in DnD. I've always preferred depicting them as a nuanced civilization and species fully capable of free will and everything which goes with that.

Are we talking about combat, or are we talking about behavior, because those are different things. The OP is talking about violence in the combat.

 

[MarkB]

Are we talking about combat, or are we talking about behavior, because those are different things. The OP is talking about violence in the combat.

As I read it, it's talking about the idea that because the system's most robust and comprehensive rules are all combat-related, that leads to players tending to apply combat as the primary solution a disproportionate amount of the time.

So, it's not about how violent the combat is, it's about how prevalent it is - whether the nature of the system leads its players towards a more combative approach. Are we seeing the violence inherent in the system?

 

[Remathilis]

It does no such thing. Even old D&D didn't: hunting down every goblin for XP was a good way to get killed, since the real XP came from treasure. And now, killing isn't required at all.

But again, combat in D&D isn't violence, it is play. It is chess. Violence requires victims, and there aren't any in D&D combat, only participants.

Ever since the World Wars, we have had rules about engagement in conflict that supposedly stop things like the slaughter of enemy combatants in non-hostile situations (such as surrendered or retreating foes), the claiming of spoils of war, and the use of violence on non-combatant civilian populations.

And D&D, in its most famous form, is a group of mercenaries entering an enemy camp, slaughtering every man, woman and child, and claiming their treasure. In the real world, any group who did this would be in the Hague. (Well, should be. Without getting into RW politics, the enforcement of war crime laws is not exactly stellar). Then again, there is probably a reason why WotC has updated two dozen different classic modules to 5e but KotB isn't among them.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This game could have (and benefit) from social rules as diverse and extensive to cover as many situations as it’s combat rules, but wizards isn’t going to ever do that, unfortunately, they claim the game is built on three pillars but those pillars clearly aren’t equal in worth if the rules are anything to judge by.

I liked your comment, but I'd also push back on this a little.

I agree that the exploration pillar has been ... well, marginalized. The increased number of, and access to, spells (along with 'always on' cantrips) is part of this. And part of it is that D&D is no longer that interested in the minutiae of tracking survival resources. Admittedly, many people can tell you about the Two weeks iron rations that they wrote on their character sheet at first level, never to edit again, in OD&D and 1e, but at least it had more interest in the exploration pillar, especially in terms of wilderness and dungeon exploration.

Social rules are a little more difficult. I think that there is a reason that social rules are traditionally minimalized in D&D in favor of a more "free play" approach to social encounters. I think that it's partly because of the norms of play. But I also think that it has to do with the division of authority in D&D.

In D&D, the idea is that the DM controls the world, but players control the PCs, and any thing that a DM does to encroach on a player's control of their PC is anathema. A robust system skill rules, especially one that is reciprocal (as we see in many amazing indie games!) would seem wrong to many D&D players.

In short, the tradeoff being made is that while players don't have a lot of ability to leverage rules in social situations (persuasion, intimidation, deception), they also don't have to worry about their characters being "forced" to act in a way that the player doesn't want.

At least, that's what I've tended to think in terms of that issue. Or maybe it's just path dependency. Who knows?

 

[Guest 85555]

This game could have (and benefit) from social rules as diverse and extensive to cover as many situations as it’s combat rules, but wizards isn’t going to ever do that, unfortunately, they claim the game is built on three pillars but those pillars clearly aren’t equal in worth if the rules are anything to judge by.

Not every pillar requires the same amount of mechanics

 

[Reynard]

And D&D, in its most famous form, is a group of mercenaries entering an enemy camp, slaughtering every man, woman and child, and claiming their treasure.

In its most stereotypical mode, you mean. Most adventures dont actually look like this, though. Even dungeons crawls aren't usually "an enemy camp" -- they are a weird and wild place full of traps, tricks, magic and monsters. The trope of adventurers attacking the orc village and killing every member of the tribe, noncobatants included, is hyperbole used in arguments to make points like this one:

In the real world, any group who did this would be in the Hague.

 

[Scribe]

Not every pillar requires the same amount of mechanics

It doesnt require it, but if 75% of the rules center on combat (% made up) and the final 25% have to cover social and exploration, can the players be blamed for thinking combat is the focus of the game?

Not at all. The game has wargame roots, its going to have heaps of violence that 99% of the players of said game will never really have to engage with in real life.

Which is fine, would we really want kids to come out of a session with PTSD because they killed an Orc which "oops" had a family back home?