pawsplay
Hero
Football games are ritualized combat. Arguably, card games are sublimated combat.
Is D&D all about murder and pillaging?
- Thread starter Sadrik
- Start date
Football games are ritualized combat. Arguably, card games are sublimated combat.
To answer your question: If that is how you want to play it.
Now, there's no doubt that D&D IS becoming more and more focused on combat. Just look at the character sheet and how much of it is devoted just to fighting. But I'd still say that, as it's a tabletop game with human beings guiding it, your DM can easily make a campaign with little to no fighting if he or she so desired.
Just so long as they don't play any adventures
Now, there's no doubt that D&D IS becoming more and more focused on combat. Just look at the character sheet and how much of it is devoted just to fighting. But I'd still say that, as it's a tabletop game with human beings guiding it, your DM can easily make a campaign with little to no fighting if he or she so desired.
Just so long as they don't play any adventures
Silvercat Moonpaw
Adventurer
I'm kind of weak at the doing the separation. I'm not exactly a fan of the inherent lethality of D&D combat, I prefer systems that allow for an unrealistic amount of non-lethality because I can accept using that.
I also philosophically consider lethal combat a ludicrous way of going about life (I consider that it might be necessary, but that ideally we'd all like to avoid it). So what happens if I have to play a lethal game: I make it as ludicrous/crazy/funny as I believe it should be. I don't play to create a realistic world, I play to show off my ideals.
Oryan77
Adventurer
Here's a related story that just happened during our session last week...
The PCs kidnapped a known thief and wanted to get information from him. So my wife who plays the Sorceress told me she wanted to "subdue" him so he won't be much of a threat. So I'm thinking they wanted to start pummeling him with nonlethal damage until he goes unconscious. But instead, she attacks him with a new spell she has that deals 10d10 fire damage; her most powerful spell. And to top it off, she said she uses her smite ability that deals extra damage with a damaging spell.
I said, "So you want to murder the guy?" And she said that she just wanted to make sure he was hurt really bad so he wouldn't be a threat. I've always thought it was funny how people will choose to do lethal damage because it's easier instead of actually doing nonlethal damage which would be the safer thing to do (for the victim). I warned her (thinking she might not realize what she's doing) that using that spell might be too extreme, especially adding in smite to it. But she wasn't concerned, so I told her to roll the dice.
I failed the save, everyone laughed at me, & she rolled really good and did 74 points of damage. So I shrugged, let her know she just murdered a guy that only had 46 hitpoints, and then she got worried and said, "Well I thought he was really powerful and would have a lot of hitpoints". I felt bad for the NPC since he never did anything that deserved death in that way, and I was about to tell her that this action may have consequences on her alignment. But then I noticed on my NPC stats that he happened to have Improved Evasion!
It was a pretty funny session because I was rolling horribly for this NPC the entire time they were trying to capture him. I kept chuckling how this guy is having a really bad day. I guess at the end of the day, his luck finally changed and his life was spared from a single ability of his. The players were also relieved by this, but I think it was a good lesson for my wife. Players just don't thing about murder in D&D and what it actually means to harm a person. Stabbing a guy until he passes out from the pain is a much bigger deal than doing the Vulcan neck pinch to knock him out. Just cause it's easier doesn't mean that's the route to take
The PCs kidnapped a known thief and wanted to get information from him. So my wife who plays the Sorceress told me she wanted to "subdue" him so he won't be much of a threat. So I'm thinking they wanted to start pummeling him with nonlethal damage until he goes unconscious. But instead, she attacks him with a new spell she has that deals 10d10 fire damage; her most powerful spell. And to top it off, she said she uses her smite ability that deals extra damage with a damaging spell.
I said, "So you want to murder the guy?" And she said that she just wanted to make sure he was hurt really bad so he wouldn't be a threat. I've always thought it was funny how people will choose to do lethal damage because it's easier instead of actually doing nonlethal damage which would be the safer thing to do (for the victim). I warned her (thinking she might not realize what she's doing) that using that spell might be too extreme, especially adding in smite to it. But she wasn't concerned, so I told her to roll the dice.
I failed the save, everyone laughed at me, & she rolled really good and did 74 points of damage. So I shrugged, let her know she just murdered a guy that only had 46 hitpoints, and then she got worried and said, "Well I thought he was really powerful and would have a lot of hitpoints". I felt bad for the NPC since he never did anything that deserved death in that way, and I was about to tell her that this action may have consequences on her alignment. But then I noticed on my NPC stats that he happened to have Improved Evasion!
It was a pretty funny session because I was rolling horribly for this NPC the entire time they were trying to capture him. I kept chuckling how this guy is having a really bad day. I guess at the end of the day, his luck finally changed and his life was spared from a single ability of his. The players were also relieved by this, but I think it was a good lesson for my wife. Players just don't thing about murder in D&D and what it actually means to harm a person. Stabbing a guy until he passes out from the pain is a much bigger deal than doing the Vulcan neck pinch to knock him out. Just cause it's easier doesn't mean that's the route to take
Vartan
First Post
The vast majority of RPGs are inherently geared towards violent imaginary combat. Even in, say, a World of Darkness rulebook there are a lot of pages devoted to combat resolution. D&D has always been among the most violence-centric RPGs: if you look at all of the core books from every edition/permutation then and take out all the pages describing what to kill, how to kill it and what you get for killing it then you would have a very small book.
I've always strived for a little bit more realism in my games than is supported out of the box--not too much, just a little--and I try to run ethical games. Players who slash first and ask questions later don't do well in my games. In a slightly rational fantasy world, the "PC as murderous sociopath" model (as lampooned in Knights of the Dinner Table) doesn't lend itself well to character survival. As a DM I design adventures that involve more negotiation than swordplay, but at some point we all want the swords to come out...just like they do in the films, video games and novels that inform the D&D fantasy genre.
A lot can be said about the influence of violence in art--especially simulations like video games and RPGs--but I don't know any gamer who has developed real-life violent impulses because of a game. There are a lot of contributing factors to violent behavior and I would be surprised if "played too much Call of Duty and beheaded the Orc King in his Rolemaster game" cracks the top 1000 list of violence inducers.
Graverobber: the original Prestige Class. I actually played a Rogue in a Ravenloft game built around this concept. I was new to the group and the DM dropped me in at a crypt which the other PCs were exploring. They kept making jokes about me being a graverobber, so I crafted an entire concept around "Liquidating the assets of evil undead, thus keeping them out of the hands of potentially dangerous entities, and leveraging those assets to overthrow Azalin via political or military action.
And to think, I've managed to play D&D for 20 years with no concussions.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Yup and I decided the greed motive was the fly in the ointment, removing it and allowing PC's to have some social standing even initially if they wanted allowed players to be "white knights"....with less desperation more idealism. When GURPS came along I was able to put that in the game instead of hand waving it but we still did it in D&D. I have character sheets featuring princesses and priestesses and their body guards, high councilors, knights and justiciars, and diplomatic emissaries... I did have one want to play a talanted apprentice wizard they designed a kid who stole a pie using cantrip like magics before leaving town hunting his lost master... this was using Dragon Quest if I recall.(very eratic spell casting)
When using GURPS, I had one player design a very physically powerful demon who was trying to convince his master that killing was at least sometimes ok ... the master was on the fast track to transcending and pretty close to pacifistic the role playing dynamic was interesting... wish that game had gone more than a couple sessions. The two players (the second playing a high priestess - not the pacifist) had a relationship that broke up (not gaming related) too quick to see exactly what was going to happen.
Anyway... D&D can do questionable ethics characters ...but it doesn't have to. The simplicity of solving issues with violence is the other part of the game. Easily defined good/bad ethics are possibly some of the appeal of fantasy and D&D too...
Remathilis
Legend
I'll probably be lynched for this...
RPGs, like books, comics, TV, movies, video games and other types of "heroic" media is a form of escapism. We (being people who engage in such endeavors) use the to escape the modern hum-drum world we live in day-in-day-out. Most of such media allows for different types of escapism (romance novels provide one type, Mario Party provides another, Porn provides a third type, you get the idea). D&D might be about a medieval warrior cleaving orcs with his sword and V:TR might be about angst-ridden monsters of the night, but at the end of the day, its about being something different than Bob the Accountant or Betty the Teacher.
D&D (in specific) focuses on the concept of power-acquisition. Typically, D&D has involved overcoming challenges to gain increased power. The challenges typically are combat-based; its roots are still in war-games. The power increase comes from gold, magic, and experience points. Its a game of tangible goals (stopping the orc-horde, reaching the next level of dungeons) and tangible rewards (+X swords, new levels with increased statistics).
Not all RPGs are built around such endeavors; Vampire seems much more interested in the introspection of being the monster; while a game like Dogs in the Vineyard actively seek to make combat a non-starter.
Certainly, the combat aspect of D&D can be reduced (though as long as a "fighter" class remains, I doubt it could be eliminated) and various editions have over/under-emphasized it. Still, the main focus of the game is to do things you couldn't do (easily) in the real world (such as exploring old ruins, fighting monsters, and acquiring treasure). Its escapism, and there's nothing wrong with that!
RPGs, like books, comics, TV, movies, video games and other types of "heroic" media is a form of escapism. We (being people who engage in such endeavors) use the to escape the modern hum-drum world we live in day-in-day-out. Most of such media allows for different types of escapism (romance novels provide one type, Mario Party provides another, Porn provides a third type, you get the idea). D&D might be about a medieval warrior cleaving orcs with his sword and V:TR might be about angst-ridden monsters of the night, but at the end of the day, its about being something different than Bob the Accountant or Betty the Teacher.
D&D (in specific) focuses on the concept of power-acquisition. Typically, D&D has involved overcoming challenges to gain increased power. The challenges typically are combat-based; its roots are still in war-games. The power increase comes from gold, magic, and experience points. Its a game of tangible goals (stopping the orc-horde, reaching the next level of dungeons) and tangible rewards (+X swords, new levels with increased statistics).
Not all RPGs are built around such endeavors; Vampire seems much more interested in the introspection of being the monster; while a game like Dogs in the Vineyard actively seek to make combat a non-starter.
Certainly, the combat aspect of D&D can be reduced (though as long as a "fighter" class remains, I doubt it could be eliminated) and various editions have over/under-emphasized it. Still, the main focus of the game is to do things you couldn't do (easily) in the real world (such as exploring old ruins, fighting monsters, and acquiring treasure). Its escapism, and there's nothing wrong with that!
Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I gave the matter some serious thought. In the very religious context in which I had been raised, the issue of violence was much more significant than the magical elements that got so much attention in certain quarters.
The "killing things and taking their stuff" line is of more recent vintage, as is the emphasis on the former in experience-point awards. Back when it would have taken beating 200 orcs to gain second level ... and a hit had almost a 60% chance of killing a character ... well, successful players could do the math.
Nonetheless, D&D -- and the vast majority of other commercially successful RPGs -- emulates the kind of "action adventure" fiction in which the main action is combat. It has plenty of company in comic books, movies and television shows.
Conflict is drama, and violence is conflict in easily appreciated -- unsubtle, visceral, instinctive -- form.
A 'Euro game' designer could take the mathematical abstractions of D&D and repackage them as a game about farming yams, or managing a bicycle racing team, or being a 'Euro game' designer, or ... pretty much anything at all.
The trappings of slashing swords, blazing guns, and so on just happen to be more appealing to the target demographic.
The "killing things and taking their stuff" line is of more recent vintage, as is the emphasis on the former in experience-point awards. Back when it would have taken beating 200 orcs to gain second level ... and a hit had almost a 60% chance of killing a character ... well, successful players could do the math.
Nonetheless, D&D -- and the vast majority of other commercially successful RPGs -- emulates the kind of "action adventure" fiction in which the main action is combat. It has plenty of company in comic books, movies and television shows.
Conflict is drama, and violence is conflict in easily appreciated -- unsubtle, visceral, instinctive -- form.
A 'Euro game' designer could take the mathematical abstractions of D&D and repackage them as a game about farming yams, or managing a bicycle racing team, or being a 'Euro game' designer, or ... pretty much anything at all.
The trappings of slashing swords, blazing guns, and so on just happen to be more appealing to the target demographic.
Truth Seeker
Adventurer
Similar Threads
