Always with the killing

[S'mon]

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.

Very much so, and the research has been done - 'primitive' warfare that involves killing is almost 100% ambush/raid-based. There is also ritualised warfare that rarely involves death or serious injury, which can be a precursor to or accompany the ambushing/raiding. As I said, the Wade book has tons of interesting info and is very accessible, he's the science reporter for the New York Times.

 

[S'mon]

. As a species we are built to fight and kill, and we are very good at it. Nothing else in nature has a natural instinct to pick up a stick and hit things with it.

We use rocks and sticks because we're very weak for our size, so we need the help - we have a hard time killing other humans, or the larger mammals, without such aids. Chimps will use rocks and sticks in combat, but they're much stronger for their size and don't get the same force multiplier effect we do.

"Man the Supreme Killer" seems as off-base to me as "Man the Non-Violent (except for the Authoritarian Personalities)".

Animals are violent. Primates certainly are violent. Humans fall towards the less-violent end of the primate violence spectrum.

The human capacity for organised mass warfare is unusual, it's only found among a few species with a much greater capacity than normal for cooperation (eg ants), and is strongly inversely related to the tendency towards intra-group violence. Among humans it seems to have started with the first agricultural populations, and to be connected to an increased ability to live together in close proximity.

 

[Jhaelen]

I'm not entirely convinced that making combat more deadly promotes less combat/more role play. It might, but, I'm not convinced it does. There are plenty of games with pretty lethal combat rules, that do presume a rather lot of combat.

Yup. Or rather: I've often seen the negative effect of games that were too lethal - either because of the system or because of 'killer-DMs':

Pc backgrounds get shorter and are eventually not written down at all, ditto for personality traits. There may still be 'roleplaying' but it's lacking depth and consistency.

 

[nedjer]

I am in awe of the evening's discussion I was on blog duty on much the same topic, but on a more mundane level. As it's on topic:

A full range of RPG gameplay options can include stealth, investigation, mystery, construction, characterisation, planning, intrigue and all manner of on-going challenges, missions and quests. These options, (and the list is far from exhaustive), open up opportunities for a wide variety of open-ended tabletop roleplaying and design gaming. At the same time, sooner or later, even the most plot or challenge-focused adventures are likely to involve direct confrontation.

There are plenty of ways to roleplay conflict, but players and/ or plot will often call for raised shields and a handy longsword. The standard approach to varying RPG combat is through the many abilities of monsters, aliens and other lifeforms. However, the novelty wears off as soon as players become familiar with their own and most of the monsters’ abilities.

From there on it’s a pretty predictable business of matching players’ abilities to each monster’s weaknesses. Many RPGs end up trying to introduce greater excitement, if not variety, by making the player/ s and their opponents as closely matched as possible. This adds risk, but can make players feel they’re ‘under the cosh’. Which can bring with it the danger of being sucked into ‘rules courts’, as outcomes, (on many levels), may hang on interpreting a clause within the rule set.




Sure players want a sense of excitement and danger, but grinding away at ‘swingy’ combat after ‘swingy’ combat can get a bit wearing.

Adding a dramatic backdrop in terms of a combat’s place in the plot or novel circumstances offers a partial solution, as player characters’ motivations, (and meaningful ‘in-game’ consequences), can add tension and give a combat a wider resonance across the rest of the gameplay.

Fighting over different prizes, possessions and passions may vary the meaning of a combat within the game as a whole, but it seems necessary to go further to make the most of what combat can contribute to play. In particular, it seems worthwhile to go beyond the limits of static rules sets.
Rule sets usually take account of a selection of basic options, including fighting while wading, on horseback or in the dark. This can be extended in countless directions. For example fighting:

• at sea
• in a swamp
• on ice
• underwater
• amidst lava streams
• in a tar pit
• in quicksand
• in labyrinths
• in battle
• over bridges
• while becoming ill or poisoned
• in potentially explosive or destructive locations

These, and many more choices, can be varied again by deformation of the terrain and/ or events, i.e. conditions may deteriorate, (or emerge), as things ‘fall apart’. Modern and Sci Fi settings are all the better, with an endless array of readily available environmental hazards to choose from, ranging from planetary conditions to invasive nano-bots.



The choice of combat variants available to players is clearly far beyond knowing the difference between a Storm Giant and a Stone Giant. Except there’s a problem. How can even the largest rule sets provide combat mechanics for handling each and every possible situation. Fortunately, there appear to be a few possible approaches which might help:

1. Consider what the existing rules have to offer and what might be added in terms of simple combat modifiers that don’t unbalance play.
2. Extend the rules to provide fuller consideration of the situation and add tables to vary possible effects. Modifying magical or physical effects to suit the environment might well add authenticity.
3. Take account of knock-on effects and on-going events, including deformation and the emergent properties of the situation.
4. Populate the ‘combat zone’ with environmental combat options, e.g. items, physical features and other ‘solutions’, available to the observant and opportunist without highly specialised skills.
5. Use combat choreography aka stunt fighting and freeform GMing to mediate new conditions as they emerge during play. This is a tiring option, but it does allow the rules to move with ‘the territory’ and fade seamlessly into the background. That can, in turn, bring the plot and players’ characterisation into the foreground.

Overall, combat can deliver some of the most exciting gameplay available in videogame RPGs, Tabletop RPGs and design games. There’s not that much a player can do about videogame combat. You get the combat and combat settings which come in the box. More opened-ended, imaginative tabletop games can do better, as GMs and players are able to vary, shape and remix the design and play of combat encounters to much greater imaginative effect.

 

[danzig138]

Give your players in D&D the task to organize a harvest festival. They won't draw a sword and shed blood for that.

Thank you kindly for the laugh. I needed it.

 

[Wiseblood]

The solution is.... don't kill. Don't require killing.

Players want to be powerful. End the fight. Let them kick but and have the other team (not necesarily bad guys) run away or surrender. Do not punish them for sparing a life reward them for it. There is plenty of room for enemies to be non-evil or at least non-psychotic.

For example if they accept the surrender of the antagonist don't have him doublecross them and set an ambush. They probably wouldn't be suprised anyway.

Reducing the enemy to 0 HP doesn't need to be a death sentence. Losing a fight might also not be tied to HP totals. This is where you need to have a reason to fight a military objective to fight. If the players just want to blow off some steam by beating someone in a fight (or at least starting a fight) they will find a way and that's a fact.

An example in this situation.
The players are fighting a band of orc trying to set fire to a grain storage building do not have much reason to fight if the orcs succeed and then try to flee. In that case the fight may have been going well but the players still lost.

 

[Umbran]

Hmm.....I think I get what you're trying to say.....but the difference here isn't whether other species are violent among themselves, compared to humans, but whether other species have organized warfare like humans.

The two are not unrelated. You cannot have war if the individuals are unwilling to commit violence.

In the animal kingdom, there is all kinds of violence among members of the same species.....whether it's wolves driving off a member of the pack who's no longer welcome, a male lion coming in, and fighting the resident male in an existing pride, in order to take his position and females, mountain sheep smashing each other in order to determine who gets to mate with whom, or whatever, violence *within* species does occur.

If you look carefully, you'll find that most of those are accomplished not with actual physical conflict, but mostly with posturing, or with force limited such that lasting harm isn't usually done.

I have two cats. They occasionally tussle. While they are both equipped with teeth and claws such that they could literally shred each other, they never so much as draw blood.

When driving off a rival male, a lion is generally out to show he's tougher and stronger, but without engaging in actual deadly combat - if he becomes injured fighting off his rival, he likely destroys his ability to breed just as much as if he surrendered. He uses limited force, so as to not drive the conflict to "kill or be killed". That's the risk assessment - measured response.

Yes, some do get injured nonetheless, but those are exceptions, not the rule.

Now, if you're talking about organized conflict.....I don't think there's many....humans, chimps, and ants, perhaps? I can't think of others that do it on a large scale.

Humans, chimps, and social insects are the only ones I can think of at the moment. And social insects have such limited mental capacity that one has to wonder if their behavior should be considered in the same way.

Well, first, it's not clear at all to me (or the law for that matter), that the threat of violence isn't itself violence. The threat of violence is assault.

Threat of violence can be assault, certainly, but I'm not sure it always is. I expect it is context-dependent, or dependent upon how you define "assault".

Nope, modern 'civillised' humans are far less violent than almost any comparable species (excluding eg most plants and some single-celled organisms). Have you never watched ducks? They fight! They're nasty!

Ducks are not nasty. Geese and swans are nasty.

We both seem to lack anything other than anecdotal evidence here, so I think I'll just agree to disagree.

 

[Hussar]

There's another point about why we're always in with the hack - genre conventions. Fantasy is pretty full of "Solve the problem by beating it with heavy metal objects". I don't recall any of the Fellowship trying to discuss the relative benefits of peaceful co-exitence with the Nazgul, for example. Nor do I recall, off hand, any instances where Conan brought the two warring factions together and, in a brilliant bit of diplomacy, defused the situation to everyone's satisfaction.

Ok, I'm poking a bit of fun, but I do think there's a point in there somewhere. Fantasy lit, by and large (and yes, in the back, sit down, I KNOW exceptions exist, I'm painting with a broad brush here ok?) solves a lot of problems at the point of a sword. China Mieville actually makes a pretty good commentary on this in Perdito Street Station, where all the "adventurers" are nasty, backstabbing bastards who are only in it for what they can grab.

Because, well, really, that's a pretty easily supportable view of "heroes" in fantasy lit. Mass murderers (Gimli keeping a score count with Legolas in the movies for example) gleefully puttin' down evil, just cos it needs killin'.

 

[nedjer]

There's another point about why we're always in with the hack - genre conventions. Fantasy is pretty full of "Solve the problem by beating it with heavy metal objects". I don't recall any of the Fellowship trying to discuss the relative benefits of peaceful co-exitence with the Nazgul, for example. Nor do I recall, off hand, any instances where Conan brought the two warring factions together and, in a brilliant bit of diplomacy, defused the situation to everyone's satisfaction.

Ok, I'm poking a bit of fun, but I do think there's a point in there somewhere. Fantasy lit, by and large (and yes, in the back, sit down, I KNOW exceptions exist, I'm painting with a broad brush here ok?) solves a lot of problems at the point of a sword. China Mieville actually makes a pretty good commentary on this in Perdito Street Station, where all the "adventurers" are nasty, backstabbing bastards who are only in it for what they can grab.

Because, well, really, that's a pretty easily supportable view of "heroes" in fantasy lit. Mass murderers (Gimli keeping a score count with Legolas in the movies for example) gleefully puttin' down evil, just cos it needs killin'.

Orc's have feelings too What about all those poor widowed orc wives and the little baby orcs. That Gimli thug and his smug elf mate should be had up in front of a war crimes tribunal

 

[jonesy]

Orc's have feelings too What about all those poor widowed orc wives and the little baby orcs. That Gimli thug and his smug elf mate should be had up in front of a war crimes tribunal

Heroes of the winning side rarely end up in those.

Did they ever actually commit any? War crimes are mostly those you do against defenseless opponents. Civilians, surrendering or captured soldiers, population centers, faking a surrender and then attacking, targeted genocide (I guess accidental isn't a crime per se), turning a blind eye to war crimes of soldiers below you in rank..

But like in everything it again falls on the definitions we grant things. Which were the parts of LoTR that you consider war, and which were not?