Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MGibster" data-source="post: 8446188" data-attributes="member: 4534">A lot of people think I'm joking when I say this but I'm serious.  One of the problems I have with the way violence is portrayed for young people is that it's not realistic enough.  As a wee mgibster, shows like Knight Rider, The A-Team, The Transformers, and GI Joe were staples.  On these shows, there were copious amounts of violent acts but rarely were there any meaningful consequences attached to them.  The A-Team was particularly egregious with multiple people firing fully automatic weapons at one another and nobody being hurt.  What I'm getting at is that violence has a cost.  When you shoot someone they don't just slump over quietly they very often take a few minutes to die.  So maybe violence as entertainment for younger people should be a bit more realistic.  When someone is shot or stabbed they don't just keel over a die quietly.  They die over the course of a few moments with the rattle of their breathing growing louder as their lungs fill with blood and the hole in their chest makes a weird wheezing noise.  Or perhaps they bleed out while crying for their mothers.  Maybe players would be less apt to opt for violence in D&D if that dying elf prayed for his god to watch over his son who would now no longer have a father.  Like I said earlier, maybe I was a weird kid.  I do know there were some shows I watched aimed at children that did show the consequences of violence.  In the original Robotech series, I remember quite clearly the deaths of Roy Fokker and Ben Dixon.  Admittedly I had to look up the name of Ben Dixon because it's been a long time.  But it was one of the few cartoons I watched that actually showed the consequences of war.  I'm also a proponent of characters being at risk of dying partially on the grounds that violence isn't safe.</blockquote>

Verification