Agback said:
Sure. But not all RP games need to be about people who live a violent, adventuring lifestyle.
True, but most are. Are they not? I mean, otherwise you're better off with a system other than d20.
The entire rules structure of D&D, from the DMG's statement that physical attributes are more important than mental ones right down to the fact that the vast majority of spells are combat related shows that the violence is central to 3e D&D.
There are lots of alternatives.
There are, but I think we all agree that most of those alternatives are boring.
For example, most of my fantasy campaigns tend to be urban,
Mine too. Ancient cities were VERY violent places.
and the PCs are very often elegant and even exquisite gentlemen of leisure.
Bor-ing.
Are you playing D&D or V:tM?
Even when my PC's are nobles, I make sure they're capable of being proactively violent (eg: Samurai and every other form of feudal aristocracy throughout history). You
do realise that the majority of people in the world are utterly
incapable of being violent without having their lives directly threatened, don't you?
I mean, what's more fun - hiring a group of thugs(adventurers) to eliminate the tribe of Orcs that are preying on the town or
being one of the hit-men?
Moreover my campaign are rarely about skirmishes in an open war between races: they are more often about detecting and foiling villains within the PCs' own society, and subtlety and perceptiveness are usually more important than the capacity to commit violent crimes.
Umm, do you think that people have varying degrees of the capacity for violence? Because if you do, you're wrong. People either
can or
cannot resort to violence to solve their problems. Other than their immediate survival. It's a pretty big distinction.
Dude, cloak-and-dagger are the meat and drink of my D&D games. However, when the stakes are high, violence is
always a factor. One element of villainy is seeing life as cheap. Even if the villain is unable to personally cut somebody's throat, he/she will almost always have the means of getting others to perpetrate violence on his/her behalf. And if a villain's not even capable of
that, then he/she's hardly a villain worthwhile of the attention of heroes.
I mean, I guess if there's not much of consequence riding on the outcome of a villain's plans, then your "heroic" PC Lady Penelope-Ann Margaret Fotheringham is unlikely to ever have to worry about being the victim of violence.
Though she might be shown up by her rival at a society ball.
...yawn...
Killing obvious enemies is not the only possible goal of characters in RPGs.
What about taking a course of action that would almost definitely make the character the target of real and violent retribution? You can prefer to solve your problems by other than violent means, like I hope my PC's do, but violent people are likely to be the most important in a fantasy campaign. Working for or against these kinds of people is likely to subject the PC's to violence.
And like I said, that's a risk
very few people would be willing to take.
Alternatives include building cases
...yawn...
Like the Famous Five?!?!?!? Or even Skippy??!!??!!??
Dude, do you think my games are "kick the door open and kill things" games? As if the only options for D&D are roleplay-heavy or hack-and-slash?
You're showing your naivety.
Mystery doesn't preclude violence, except on children's TV shows. And I hate both deep-immersion roleplaying
and hack-and-slash. IMO, the only thing sadder than wandering around looking for things to kill is trying to "become" your PC. Even for a couple of hours. But that's just my opinion.
IMC, mystery is the basis for all my major storylines, but that doesn't mean that the villain (or his thugs) won't attempt to kill or injure the PC's if he finds them prying into his business.
When life's cheap, violence is common. Simple. And if the villains are violent, then the PC's better either deal with it, or retire to a farm to grow turnips.
and foiling the plots of villains who are for various reasons untouchable.
But are your PC's untouchable? I'll bet they're not. If they don't want to deal with violence, then they'd better lay off that untouchable villain. Unless of course your villain doesn't care
that much about having his/her plans thwarted.
None of these need necessarily be wholly non-violent. But on the other hand they certainly permit characters who do not lead an adventuring lifestyle and who may be vastly less violent than typical dungeoncrawlers.
Being prepared to resort to violence doesn't necesarily mean having a deathwish. Dangerous things live in dungeons, and IMC, most treasure
doesn't. Therefore only the stupid or the totally desperate go down into them. So I make sure my PC's always have something to do so they don't have to resort to "dungeoncrawling" to pay the bills.
Of course, I often find reasons for them to have to enter caves/abandoned mines/ruins.
Lots of PCs sleep at night in their beds at home, and play out their adventures in their home towns.
And mine sleep in a 20'x20' room surrounded by Troglodyte carcasses?
Broaden your horizons - there's more than two types of roleplaying.
In the right campaign, yes. I remember, for example, a RuneQuest campaign in which my friend Dr Tony Purcell was playing a Chalana Arroy initiate who eventually rose to High Healer. Not only was this character very useful to our Humakti, Storm Bulls, and Orlanthi, but her interactions with the more violently inclined characters were a source of a great deal of amusement to all concerned.
/me nods in understanding...
In Champions campaigns it is very common for PCs to have codes against killing. This is generally reckoned to add interest both to the characters' stories and to their players' efforts to overcome problems.
Killing isn't the be-all and end-all of violence. What about beating someone up? What about throwing someone through a wall? What about cutting someone's finger off to remind him what happens to thieves?
Or do your super-heroes call the cops when they find out where the villains live?
In Vampire campaigns most characters have very strong reason not to kill unless they absolutely must, and a pervading issue of most campaigns is walking the knife-edge between sins of commission and sins of omission, of preventing evil without doing evil. Yet people manage to enjoy Vampire.
Some of them do...
One last thing. It is easy but inaccurate to misrepresent as mere squeamishness the moral courage of refraining from killing someone who frightens you. But it is the small-souled man, not the hero, who kills because he is scared.
Agreed, but what about the wimp who suffers
because he's scared?
It's the coward who doesn't consider violence as a solution until he's already been tied up and his daughter is being raped before his very eyes.
For a lot of people, role-playing games are an opportunity to escape from the wearisome constraints of real life. To a certain extent, various preferred styles of play reflect the different RL constraints that different players find chafing. Some of us bridle at the fact that in the real world we dare not kill. Others not.
Good point. Personally, my life would be far better if certain people were dead. However, my moral code says killing's not an option.
I've pictured my character as Sean Bean (aka Boromir), or maybe the guy from the Transporter.
