Always with the killing

[Dausuul]

Modern humans aren't so hot at doing that risk assessment, at least in respect to each other.

Actually I think we're pretty darn good at it. For every confrontation between humans that ends in somebody getting seriously hurt, how many end in just a few bumps and bruises? For every confrontation that ends in bumps and bruises, how many end with nothing more exchanged than angry words?

Homicide makes up only a fraction of a percent of total human deaths. We think it's more common than it is, because we only hear about the cases where it actually happens, not the cases where the potential was there but it never escalated that far.

Even war, from a societal point of view, tends toward the ritual. In most cases, the armies involved are a small percentage of the total population of the belligerents; and when one army has decisively trounced the other, the war usually ends with surrender and some form of negotiated settlement. Meanwhile, the soldiers who do the actual fighting have to be extensively trained and conditioned to ignore the instinct telling them "Dude, this is crazy and you're gonna get killed."

 

[S'mon]

By the time we get to modern humans we've lost the thickened foreheads, are totally soft-shelled, don't have any claws and avoid violence providing resources are plentiful. Unless we have authoritarian personalities or are driven by authoritarian personalities. There may be a genetic element to authoritarian personalities but there's strong evidence they develop through socialisation.

It seems like "authoritarian personalities" in your schema take the place of "Sin" or "The Devil" in the traditional approach to explaining why we're "Fallen".

Or you could look at all the cultures on Earth, see how their members routinely engage in violence against other animals, against other rival groups, and even against other members of that same group, and accept that humans are not naturally non-violent.

 

[Ariosto]

I'm not entirely convinced that making combat more deadly promotes less combat/more role play.

I for one do not believe that "role play" happens only in activities other than combat.

However, if you do not believe that making lots of combat a quick end to a character's career tends to lead to less combat, then either
(A) you are basically calling those of us who speak from experience something or other, or
(B) you are missing the point of your own statement that

For a game to break out of the kill and loot mentality, you have to completely rewrite the reward system. Not killing something shouldn't be an equal option, it has to be the better option, because, by and large, the most pragmatic answer to a lot of problems is putting a bullet in it.

Look: If players see killing and looting as its own sufficient reward, to the extent that they do not give a hill of beans about their characters surviving -- much less succeeding to attain more prestige -- then obviously getting their characters killed will not dissuade them.

Here's a really fundamental thing:
If you want a game that's not always with the killing, then you want players who want a game that''s not always with the killing.

Otherwise, the most that trying to pressure the fire-and-hackers to play something else is likely to accomplish is to make them unhappy enough with your "badwrongfun" attitude to say, "Hasta la vista, baby."

Players who don't care about "solving problems" are not the target!

On the other hand, if the problem is how to survive and succeed in a society that can fill you with bullets (or hang, electrocute, gas, inject with poison, incarcerate, enslave, anathematize, lobotomize, or otherwise interfere with your career plans), then the situation is different.

The most pragmatic solutions to a lot of problems do not involve acting like a sociopath. So, the question of what the problems are -- where the game is -- is very basic.

People who are game players, who have come to the affair to play a game well, are motivated to adopt whatever strategies are effective. The very first step is to learn the victory conditions. In most popular RPGs, as in many arcade games, there is no set end point. There is opportunity to score points (either literally, as in D&D, or not) until a character is removed from play. Avoiding that event is up to the player, and is a key element of skill that permits the attainment of high scores.

The effect of old D&D awarding few points (especially from Supp. I on) for killing, while the clear object is securing treasures, has been much remarked upon. I think AD&D's equation of treasure with literally "cashing in" has made for a lot of trouble among people who get stuck grinding an ax about "money grubbing".

Peace among nations can be a treasure, or a good marriage -- a great many things that may have a high "cash value" partly because people who have them are loathe to give them up.

In my experience, the single biggest contributing factor to pace of combat operations in D&D and similar games is hit points. Characters fight a lot because they can fight a lot. First-level characters in old D&D are likely to be dead after very few hits. A Fighter Lord has "nine lives" even before figuring in magical healing resources.

Traveller is, short of the "universal systems", about the most wide-open game around in the sense that it is up to players to choose whatever "scoring" system them may desire. That there are no built-in goals makes it a bit more like the "game" of real life. The whole field of science fiction is open, all its utopias and dystopias and everything in between. It may be best suited to those for whom exploration itself is the greatest reward.

However, there is also a strong military-SF and war-gaming element. Traveller characters tend not to get killed in one shot, but two hits often do it. The first shot might knock them out, which can actually be a saving grace as "nature's way of telling you" that it's time for Plan B.

In my experience, that is about perfect for a setup that involves
(A) long-term character development, and
(B) a fair amount of combat, but
(C) an attitude toward combat somewhere between a real soldier's and a comic-book character's, tending more toward the former than in games that make getting beaten, shot or stabbed trivial.

 

[S'mon]

Human beings, like most animals, are equipped to handle violent situations. That's why we have adrenal glands, plus a host of other adaptations. Evolution tends to whack animals that can't cope with violence one way or another.

However, evolution also tends to whack animals that are overly prone to violence. Predators look for prey that is sick or very young or very old, because it's less likely to put up a fight. Species that fight one another over mates or territory usually evolve elaborate rituals to avoid a real, life-or-death confrontation... because life-or-death confrontations by definition result in death for one participant, and if you're going to stake your life on a series of coin flips, you won't live very long. You may take a lot of other critters with you, but that doesn't do anything for your personal genes.

"Must spread some XP around..." I'm getting that a lot recently!

 

[S'mon]

Actually I think we're pretty darn good at it. For every confrontation between humans that ends in somebody getting seriously hurt, how many end in just a few bumps and bruises? For every confrontation that ends in bumps and bruises, how many end with nothing more exchanged than angry words?

Homicide makes up only a fraction of a percent of total human deaths. We think it's more common than it is, because we only hear about the cases where it actually happens, not the cases where the potential was there but it never escalated that far.

I agree that humans are generally good at threat assessment and avoiding conflict.

However, homicide does make up the majority of deaths in some cultures, especially among adult males. Nicholas Wade's Before the Dawn has a good discussion of this. Modern hunter-gatherer cultures which appear to closely resemble the global ancestral populations (ie the way all our ancestors used to be) typically have extremely high homicide rates compared to most of the populations in modern industrialised cultures, in the region of ca 1/30th population per year for adult males AIR (not evenly spread, as that includes wholesale extermination of the males in rival groups and absorption of the survivors).

So I guess our ancestors must have had very Authoritarian Personalities.

Or, to put it another way: Rousseau was wrong. We weren't born Good, or peaceful, or nice. Our current relative peaceableness and niceness was the end point on a long hard road, and may well be a transient condition.

 

[Umbran]

Actually I think we're pretty darn good at it. For every confrontation between humans that ends in somebody getting seriously hurt, how many end in just a few bumps and bruises?

I'm including wars in my assessment. Are you? Between direct casualties and socio-economic repercussions, the damage done is pretty hefty.

It is not enough to look at what fraction of human conflicts end in serious injury. One ought to compare that with the same sort of fraction for other species. I think you'll find most species are rather less violent among themselves than we.

When was the last time you heard of ducks doing anything worse than a drive-by quacking?

 

[Dausuul]

I agree that humans are generally good at threat assessment and avoiding conflict.

However, homicide does make up the majority of deaths in some cultures, especially among adult males. Nicholas Wade's Before the Dawn has a good discussion of this. Modern hunter-gatherer cultures which appear to closely resemble the global ancestral populations (ie the way all our ancestors used to be) typically have extremely high homicide rates compared to most of the populations in modern industrialised cultures, in the region of ca 1/30th population per year for adult males AIR (not evenly spread, as that includes wholesale extermination of the males in rival groups and absorption of the survivors).

Hmm, fair enough, and it's worth keeping in mind that the instinct to avoid violence is really an instinct to avoid violent confrontation. After all, predators do kill other animals to survive--they just pick targets that don't pose a threat. I suspect you'd find those high homicide rates often involve ambushes and other tactics designed to minimize risk to the attacker.

That's just a guess though, and I'd want to do more research before stating it for a certainty.

 

[jonesy]

Now this is getting into the Hawk-Dove argument of evolutionary biology, game theory, political science and economics.

There are two extreme methods of survival. You are either someone who excells at conflict and doesn't avoid it, or you are someone who avoids conflict at all costs. Everything else falls between the two.

The problem here from a human standpoint is not whether we are good at surviving conflict, it's that we have a hard enough time staying away from it to begin with.

 

[Banshee16]

So far as I know, it is not possible to apprehend, restrain, and confine an unwilling person without resorting to some sort of violence. I further note that its not possible to avoid using violence to restrain and confine someone who is unwilling even if they themselves are non-violent, a fact that pacifist recognize and loudly point out when they are arrested but which seems to escape their attention at other times.

Well, I think you can do it with the *threat* of violence. People surrender when faced with the fact that if they don't, they're going to get tasered or shot. The police don't have to actually *do* those things. Then you get the moron who decides to have a shootout in the middle of a crowded street. I wonder how many of those instances are in actuality "suicide by cop" though?

The human survival instinct is very strong. People will give in when faced with the threat of overwhelming force, if they think it will mean they live.

Most people don't see themselves as evil. I'm sure even Hitler didn't wake up in the morning, look in the mirror, and say "I'm going to be a bad boy today". However...even if they don't see themselves as bad, they might be subjectively perceived as such by people on the outside, based on the decisions that person makes, and how those decisions adhere to or conflict with the rules of the society in which they live.

I think it's relatively possible to have pacifism where someone is nonviolent in most circumstances. You can be in a position where you avoid instigating violent conflict, and always choose to get yourself out of it if an option for retreat presents itself. If you're in a bar, and somebody challenges you, you have a choice.....you can respond to the challenge, and end up in a fight, or you can walk away. Whether or not walking away works depends on how badly the other guys wants to fight. If he's determined to fight, then you're faced with the next level of decision. Let yourself be pummeled, and adhere to nonviolence, or defend yourself. But there's usually a choice. Most people I know won't just say "I'm nonviolent" and let themselves be pummeled.....but they'll also try to extricate themselves from a situation without it getting to the extent of violence.

Banshee

 

[Ariosto]

Games in which the obstacles cannot be removed by stabbing or shooting tend to feature activities other than stabbing or shooting.

Ignorance, for instance, tends to call for less twitchy methods.

Detective Mystery: There has been a stabbing or shooting, and the objective is to figure out who did it and gather evidence to prove it. There are crimes other than murder.

There are also mysteries other than crimes.

Espionage: Where are the secret plans? How can you get access to and copy them? How can you get them to your contact, and receive payments and equipment? How can you do all this, and extricate yourself, covertly enough so as not to get caught or compromise your own side's strategic assets?

Exploration: Science may better fit the usual "adventure" bill when it's conducted in the field. Star Trek's famous split-infinitive mission has inspired many adventurers through history. Sir Richard Francis Burton was one famous example. The missionary David Livingstone was an even more eminent Victorian.

Journalism: The New York Herald sent Henry Morton Stanley to Africa to find Livingstone. Investigative reporting or "muckraking" can be more like Detective or Espionage scenarios.

Diplomacy: Espionage is a means to ends that may require making strategic use of the fruits of spying. Sometimes the biggest obstacle may be one's own government! Keith Laumer's Retief of the CDT is one example of a hero who uses his wits more than his trigger finger.

Heist: Sure, shooting the clerk at a liquor store is one way to commit a robbery. It's not the most lucrative way, though, and far from the most interesting. Scamming, hacking, burglary, misdirection -- there's plenty to do before the double crossing turns into literal back stabbing!