Always with the killing

[Jhaelen]

In 20+ years of gaming, I've never seen a game that ties character background and motivation so concretely to the character's abilities in the game. It's absolutely brilliant and quite possibly my favorite RPG ever. I heartily encourage you to give it a look.

I've had little luck getting D&D players to try Wraith, partially for the perception that their character has already "lost" on the basis of being dead to begin with. I don't understand that, but I've heard it several times. Many people also don't enjoy actually designing characters (from a narrative standpoint, that is), asking people to describe a character's emotional complexities usually elicits blank stares or derisive statements about "artsy" games.

Yes, absolutely, on both counts!

The game's premise is brilliant. Alas, I've never met enough players who were interested in giving it a try.

At least I got to play Ars Magica for a while - another one of my favorites, though for slightly different reasons (Mythic Europe, troupe-style play, seasons, and the Convenant as the central character ...).

Myself, I'm happiest if I can alternate between combat-heavy games like D&D and games focusing more on everything else. Taken together this satisfies my craving. If I only get one but not the other for a longer period I'm getting discontent.


Regarding the OPs dilemma, I have to chime in with the majority of the posters. Your main problem will be that you need a group of players that want the same things out of the game that you do. Otherwise, you, they, or all of you will be unhappy about the game.

 

[Fifth Element]

Seems like a pretty obvious solution to ditch the players here.

But assuming you cant do that, you could take a single powerful NPC and go Oceans Twelve on their ass. Demand that they accomplish some really hard mission or be destroyed.

Or, you know, discuss the issue with the players like adults and see if a mutually-agreeably middle ground can be found. The DM and players in this case seem to have different goals in playing the game. They might be able to reconcile those goals.

 

[jonesy]

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.

This is a much better point on why there is so much killing than all the 'boys like hurting stuff' arguments.

D&D is a world of monsters. There actually are trolls under the bridges, a boogyman in your closet, armies of ogres trying to slay or slave everyone you know. The witch in the woods really does have a pact with demons and is kidnapping local children. The sheriff is a secret mass murderer, the town crier likes the taste of your liver, and that nice lady you met is an evil dragon.

Trying to make stories where you don't end up killing them is really really hard.

Notice I'm not saying it's not an interesting goal to try and reach.

 

[Umbran]

Violence is strongly linked in people's minds to the scale of the conflict. If the matter isn't worth risking violence over, then chances are people percieve the matter as being petty or trivial.

I think this has a large amount of truth in it, especially when you connect it to the strong facet of escapism found in most RPGs.

I don't need a game to walk me through basic human interactions. I have those all the time, every day, walking down the street. Most of us are playing the game, in part, to muck about with things we'd otherwise never see (or never actually want to see) in our lives - many of which are at least potentially violent.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

what I don't want to deal with are my players, honestly.

Life is too short to play with people you don't like. Go find people you like, and introduce them to gaming!

 

[Verdande]

If you want a less combat-oriented game, may I suggest Labyrinth Lord? At first level, your characters have anywhere from 1 to 8 hit points, if they're lucky. That has the effect of strongly discouraging combat and strongly encouraging avoiding monsters, running away, tricks, and tactics. Going headfirst into some enemies is a sure path to death, especially since you don't earn hardly anything compared to what you'd earn if you ignored all the monsters and went straight for the XP-laden treasure.

That said, you should try a different game. Most games of D&D that don't have treasure-for-experience are focused heavily around combat, and most fantasy games are essentially houseruled D&D. Check out games like Sorcerer and Dogs in the Vinyard and Dread and other indie fare- they tend to play less like D&D and more like something absolutely different. In a good way, of course.

 

[DragonLancer]

This has been bugging me for years not. It seems every game is focused around one thing: killing things. Every RPG that I can think either revolves around war and killing, or at least involves killing. In D&D its pretty much the same way. Always going around killing monsters and stuff and stealing their loot. Most fantasy books are the same way. It usually revolves around a war.

I’m just curious what your thoughts are on this. As I began to notice this, I thought, I'll build a campaign where they don't have to do that. Still give them the option if they want, but the story can be done doing skill checks, building things. Something other than just combat. Tried it many times now and it always ends up in them killing stuff. They'll just walk down a street and stab hobo's or something.

It's down to conflict ultimately. Without some kind of conflict the game (or movie/novel) is dull. Even period romances have the conflict of a young lady and two suitors who desire her. Conflict can come in differing ways, from the more usual combat to intrique and diplomacy and maybe even a romance. Fantasy is very much in keeping with the sword and spell conflict, fantasy RPG's especially though I don't see that as a bad thing. One thing that makes roleplaying enjoyable is taking out the stresses of real life out on imaginary goblins and villains for many players.

 

[Celebrim]

D&D is a world of monsters.

The real world is filled with monsters in it too. In my opinion, we tend to prefer to fight trolls under bridges, witches, werewolves, and over the top funny little killers like Hannibal Lector because its easier to deal with those concepts at an abstract level than it is to deal with the reality of where those fears come from.

Seriously, moving the setting from a fantasy world to the real world will not tone down the level of violence, inhumanity, and evil present in the game one bit. If anything, it will just make the violence and evil all that much more graphic and disturbing to the point that your players probably won't want to deal with it. The fantasy world is a great deal cleaner than its real world counterpart.

As an aside one of the things I always like to do as a DM is play on that player perception of the fantasy worlds percieved cleanliness with respect to evil and violence, and then at some point in the campaign force them to shift perspectives and start seeing whats going on the way they would see it in real world terms. If you play in my campaign, you are likely to play 10 or 20 sessions where you are fighting goblins, and only after treating them as playing peices to be disposed of for that long, come to the back of a dungeon and find a room filled with elderly goblins, pregnant goblin females, crying goblin whelps, and wounded goblin soldiery. Ok, now what?

What's more to the point as far as I'm concerned is that in our day to day affairs, or moral or social conflicts - whether they are truly petty or not - are likely to feel to us as if they are petty and mundane and in our imaginations we are likely to want to delve into situations where we feel there is some clear meaning, value, and importance at stake that isn't present in our daily choices. I would argue that that is partly an illusion, but it's a game - of course its about illusion.

 

[jonesy]

The real world is filled with monsters in it too.

True, but not really the same thing.

The fantasy world is a great deal cleaner than its real world counterpart.

Depends on what RPG you look at.

And it doesn't have to be in any, but the time it takes to describe and deal with this takes up time from the rest of the game. If you make a campaign designed around this, it tends to get really slow, dark, and depressing. Which can work, but not all of the time.

Kult for example is a great game, but you can't play it full steam without significant breaks. Otherwise everybody loses interest. And then it's no longer what it's supposed to be.

If you play in my campaign, you are likely to play 10 or 20 sessions where you are fighting goblins, and only after treating them as playing peices to be disposed of for that long, come to the back of a dungeon and find a room filled with elderly goblins, pregnant goblin females, crying goblin whelps, and wounded goblin soldiery. Ok, now what?

Now the players are in a difficult situation. I didn't say it wasn't possible to make stories which subverted the topic, I said that they were hard.


I have to mention the novel The Player of Games by Iain "the M. stands for sci-fi" Banks. It takes the protagonist and the reader into a seemingly avarage alien society

Spoiler

, but midway in the book the curtain is suddenly lifted and.. it's evil. Really evil. And the protagonist, who up to this point has only been thinking he's on a grand adventure suddenly realizes that his mission is much more important than he thought. He gets a purpose beyond just the adventure.

 

[Umbran]

What's more to the point as far as I'm concerned is that in our day to day affairs, or moral or social conflicts - whether they are truly petty or not - are likely to feel to us as if they are petty and mundane and in our imaginations we are likely to want to delve into situations where we feel there is some clear meaning, value, and importance at stake that isn't present in our daily choices. I would argue that that is partly an illusion, but it's a game - of course its about illusion.

(Repeating a bit of my point from before, but you've given me a different way to phrase it)

And, even if it isn't a matter of importance, there's the matter of sameness - we already get a healthy does of our own day-to-day affairs, moral, and social conflicts. We don't need a game for those. In our amusements, one should expect us to seek out affairs, moral, and social conflicts different from the ones we do in our actual day to day lives. Or, even if we seek out the same sorts of situations, one can expect us to seek out different forms of resolution.