Always with the killing

[Neonchameleon]

Yeah, I could use different systems. I'm making my own system which is far less combat centered. I can deal with the combat, but what I don't want to deal with are my players, honestly.

I've has about three different groups so far in my DMing time. All of them had the same thing in common: they loved killing things. It wasn't just, "let kill the monsters and take the loot." It really became killing just to kill things.

Maybe I'm just a little crazy. I've considered this many times. And i know the game isn't real, but I still don't like having the things that I create be brutally murdered just because, even if they are imaginary, and i do make the NPC's of my world...and all the other stuff.

One time, it was an NPC i had a story for. He had a wife and a daughter, who was key to the story i had in mind. Players go in and I, speaking as the innkeeper, say something that pisses off the player. So he cuts his head off, mounts it on a stick and parades around town scaring everyone off. The rest of the player thought it was funny. I was very sad. I rather liked that innkeeper...

OK. Simple solution to that. What was the town watch doing? Rough frontier town, well liked inkeeper. Town watch supported by the rest of the town. Adventurers don't stand a chance against a 20+ crossbow volley. Murderous PC killed while resisting arrest (I don't care if he was on his knees with his hands behind his head and begging to surrender before he took a crossbow bolt through the back of the skull from point blank range. Everyone will swear he was killed resisting arrest after he paraded round the town with the head on a stick.) Other PCs arrested, beaten, and sentenced to hard labour if they have the sense to surrender. After all, these are dangerous lunatics who hang round with someone who casually kills beloved inkeepers (or even Thenardier type inkeepers).

Next adventure for new PCs: chase down a certain bunch of wanted maniacs who have their likenesses posted to every town. Yes, the surviving PCs from the last game who have now escaped. Or keep playing with the PCs having to run and hide to stay alive. Every time they try a new village in a hundred miles, there's a poster up for them - Wanted, Dead or Alive. Danger, do not approach. Actions have consequences. And just because the PCs are strong doesn't mean they can deal with everyone else at once.

For more general advice see S'mon's posts above. Also try playing as well as DMing, and with a new group. (I'd refuse to play with a group that casually murdered like that - but wouldn't use D&D rules if I wanted a pacifist game).

 

[humble minion]

I'd argue that one possible reason for all the combat-focusedness is that it adds an element of risk from a player point of view. A PC is something that belongs to a player. If there is a danger of the player losing this possession of theirs permanently though bad judgement/luck, then it adds an extra couple of tablespoons of adrenaline to the roleplaying stew. It's probably a lot easier for a casual player with a casual GM who games for a few hours once every couple of weeks and, to get emotionally involved with the death of their character, than it is for them to get emotionally involved in character development. It adds an element of the thrill of gambling to the whole business - and people get addicted to gambling.

(Having said that, I'll put up as a counterpoint the whole traditional superhero game genre, which while it admittedly is stuffed full of combat, there's less actual killing than there is 'beating bad guys up and throwing them in a jail from which they will doubtless escape in relatively short order')

 

[Nagol]

It all depends on the genre.

Superheroes, detectives, political intrigue, and a subset of covert agents (like the Mission: Impossible series) generally have very little death.

Other genres punish combat by making protagonist death extremely likely like Zombie apocalyse and other survival oriented genres.

 

[Psion]

Games like D&D and many others revolve around conflict.

Other games may have fairly detailed rules for conflict, but combat is deadly enough that you don't want to seek it out. Two rather well heeled games in this vein are Traveller and Call of Cthulhu. (I say the last one wincing, as in the last session of CoC, I fought when I should have ran, and now my PC is deceased. )

The trick is that even if there is no combat, conflict is important, and you need means of doing so. I'm finding that Fantasy Craft is scratching my itch for a more investigative game and has some less combat focused classes than D&D.

 

[frankthedm]

Players go in and I, speaking as the innkeeper, say something that pisses off the player. So he cuts his head off,

Just what was said?

mounts it on a stick and parades around town scaring everyone off. The rest of the player thought it was funny. I was very sad. I rather liked that innkeeper...

You have different tastes than the rest of the group. Just tell them you are not interested in running Slashers & Psychopaths and someone else will need to run if they want murderous steam venting.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

One time, it was an NPC i had a story for. He had a wife and a daughter, who was key to the story i had in mind. Players go in and I, speaking as the innkeeper, say something that pisses off the player. So he cuts his head off, mounts it on a stick and parades around town scaring everyone off. The rest of the player thought it was funny. I was very sad. I rather liked that innkeeper...

Sounds like your players just want to kill things. If that's the case you'll have a hard time converting them to another style of play.

The sandbox-solution offered by other posters (show them where their behavior leads to) may just lead to an arms race and put you in the shoes of B.A. Felton.

You might try to write up a short piece on Campaign Basics where you outline the style of campaign you want to run which makes assumptions on the characters' behavior. If your players don't agree to these Campaign Basics you just know that it won't work. Time to look for new players.

Or you could try to work out a compromise and write this compromise down to lend it some authority.

After all, if your players and you can't agree on the kind of stories the group wants to tell, the problems will turn up again and again.

 

[amerigoV]

Re:combat/violence

I'll split this into two areas - rules and gameplay.

Rules tend to be combat focused to prevent a fight in the real world. Players want to know the resolution system for their PC in a dangerous situation is fair. Thus, most of a rules book will center around combat rules.

Gameplay: How many GMs are good at doing anything else in a game? The conduit to the world is sitting in one chair - the GM. Running a good horror game (not just a zombie mash) requires a lot of thought, prep and mood building. A GM needs to be very good at description (meaningful, not just a bunch of words) and leaving multiple layers of clues if you are going to run an investigation game.

So I'll ask the question - have you developed the skills to make a less combat oriented game exciting to play? If your game consists of PCs walking around talking to the baker and the blacksmith, then I guarantee a fight will break out if you wanted one or not. I can do that in RL, I am not wasting my gaming time doing it.

Also, have you tried different genres? Fantasy is almost defined by "kill monsters and take their stuff."

Finally - combat is fun and it involves everyone at the table. If you are going to do something less combat oriented, you need to ensure the spotlight gets moved around to everyone.

 

[Hand of Evil]

what was the Star Trek (NG) quote:

Worf - lets go defeat our foe!
Riker - It's a game, it is not about winning or losing it's teamwork, fun and sportmanship.
Worf - then why keep score.

It comes down to what you are being reward for, I have had WFRP games that have not had combat in them, because that was not what I as a DM wanted, plus the players feared for the deaths of their characters, so the games became ones of problem solving.

Ask yourself, what are you being reward for? That is why most games are combat!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think it's the system, expectations and the game world setup making the players violent. In the real world, most people aren't violent because they like it, they are violent because they think it will get results. It will achieve their ends faster and better than any other means.

In the real world, I don't have to deal with zombies. I don't have to deal with cultists that want to summon unspeakable horrors to Earth. I don't have to deal with magicians that want to enslave humanity for their purposes.
I don't get jobs that ask me to extract a scientist from a guarded facility.

It's not the system, it's the kind of settings and stories that are used to tell in RPGs. They are about high stakes. High stakes that might make most people consider the option of violence and murder if they were faced them, even if they normally reject violence.

Don't use such stakes, and you don't get violence.

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

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

yers go in and I, speaking as the innkeeper, say something that pisses off the player. So he cuts his head off, mounts it on a stick and parades around town scaring everyone off. The rest of the player thought it was funny. I was very sad. I rather liked that innkeeper...

Of course, for this example, I would "change my tune" and say and say it is about the players. They want murder and mayhem. System or stakes clearly don't matter here!

Maybe if they were aware that you can't just cut off someone's head of just because he said something they didn't like... This is something that has to do with the mentality of players - maybe it can be changed and they haven't gotten the hang of it, maybe it's just that they are, after a week of work (or school?) they just want to kill monsters and take their stuff.