The object of Dungeons and Dragons was never about combat.

The object of Dungeons and Dragons was about combat when it was necessary.

You did NOT just walk into a tavern, kill everyone there, and make off with the ale and womenfolk.

You DID plan an attack on the red dragon terrorizing the countryside, intelligently approach it, and then fight and kill it.

You DID stand firm against a hill giant invasion of a town, fighting them off.

The idea was not about mindless violence. That was the difference. I never DM'ed a game, I never was a player in a game, where the object was to just go around killing things. Especially if one was playing a good character.

Sorry, but no- since D&D was not about mindless violence there was no "damage to one's psyche." Maybe instead there was a sort of catharsis.

Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 08:28:43 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:17:05 PMIt's axiomatic. What you participate in trains you. Everything is propaganda for something.

So playing TTRPG trains you to roll dice and name spells or maneuvers as a way of resolving combat. That doesn't seem like something that translates well to the real world.

From games training players to roll dice to resolve in game conflict, you jump to the conclusion that rolling dice translates to hitting or shooting people in the real world. A conclusion wholly unsupported by your "axiom." 

If you really believed what you are saying, you'd be all up in arms over people tossing dice playing Yahtzee and Bunko. Those games foster, that dreaded competition along with gambling, drinking, and random chaos.

As I said, everything is propaganda. A case can be made against Yahtzee. But, let's not shortsell RPGs. They're primarily not dice-rolling exercises but imagination games, where visualizing the action is a large part of the fun. So, just as a snowball fight could be a murder simulator, so could a dice-rolling visualization game train the mind to associate violence with fun, etc.

Quote from: jhkim on October 19, 2021, 08:32:59 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 06:38:11 PM
If games can teach competition and cooperation, why can't they teach that violence is fun, free of psychological consequence, and a way to solve problems?

Tabletop RPGs and sports are implemented by living people, which limits the unintentional lessons that can come from them. Soccer coaches *intend* to teach both competition and cooperation - and they openly say this to parents and to players. The players willingly participate in this. It's a very different claim to say that unintended lessons are taught or instilled simply via fictional content.

It's conceivable that there could be such an effect, but psychological studies have not shown it. I documented a bunch of studies on tabletop RPGs years ago - the links are here:

https://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/whatis/psychology.html

None of them document any significant negative effects for RPG players as a whole. That said, I will grant a few things:

(1) Games can potentially promote negative behavior, but they can also promote positive behavior.
(2) Negative effects are most proven in the case of gambling, which has been shown to be addictive.
(3) Randomized rewards are a key part of motivation in game play.
(4) In the case of video games, the psychological studies are mixed about whether there is any change in aggression or desensitization. Some studies show a correlation, others do not.
(5) Even if there were a clear effect in video games, that doesn't inherently apply to other games like board games, card games, or tabletop RPGs.

You are implying that the fictional content inherently teaches what is done in the game. But that depends both there being real-world reinforcement, and also on ​how closely the fictional action maps to the real activity. It seems doubtful that playing Pacman promotes over-eating, because moving a joystick is nothing like eating. Likewise, rolling d20's is nothing like actually killing people.

Everyone who plays Pacman already has much experience eating. Someone who enjoys depictions of killing people in games, films, etc., probably has no experience actually killing people. So, their ability to think of what it means to kill people is going to be colored by the remembered depictions more than any practical experience. It doesn't make them into killers, and I never said it did, but, they have been trained by their pastime to imagine that such killing is fun, rational, and psychologically easy. Countering this is any indirect knowledge of real-world violence that they might have, including family life, schooling, religion, absorption of violent news media, reading, etc.

And, this is all the wokies need to have to condemn the entire hobby in order to bend it to their will. Remember that we're in the age of microaggressions, and the enemy uses salami tactics. The revision of Tolkien's orcs into a misunderstood minority group has already begun the process of using RPGs to train the mind to think in a different way about real-life socio-politics, a way that rubs many gamers the wrong way.

If noticing this makes me woke then I must be woke. I would call it devil's advocacy to call attention to how this woke business is not going to stop advancing and accelerating just because there is an Internet forum that preserves a measure of sanity.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 09:49:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 19, 2021, 08:32:59 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 06:38:11 PM
If games can teach competition and cooperation, why can't they teach that violence is fun, free of psychological consequence, and a way to solve problems?

Tabletop RPGs and sports are implemented by living people, which limits the unintentional lessons that can come from them. Soccer coaches *intend* to teach both competition and cooperation - and they openly say this to parents and to players. The players willingly participate in this. It's a very different claim to say that unintended lessons are taught or instilled simply via fictional content.

It's conceivable that there could be such an effect, but psychological studies have not shown it. I documented a bunch of studies on tabletop RPGs years ago - the links are here:

https://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/whatis/psychology.html

None of them document any significant negative effects for RPG players as a whole. That said, I will grant a few things:

(1) Games can potentially promote negative behavior, but they can also promote positive behavior.
(2) Negative effects are most proven in the case of gambling, which has been shown to be addictive.
(3) Randomized rewards are a key part of motivation in game play.
(4) In the case of video games, the psychological studies are mixed about whether there is any change in aggression or desensitization. Some studies show a correlation, others do not.
(5) Even if there were a clear effect in video games, that doesn't inherently apply to other games like board games, card games, or tabletop RPGs.

You are implying that the fictional content inherently teaches what is done in the game. But that depends both there being real-world reinforcement, and also on ​how closely the fictional action maps to the real activity. It seems doubtful that playing Pacman promotes over-eating, because moving a joystick is nothing like eating. Likewise, rolling d20's is nothing like actually killing people.

Everyone who plays Pacman already has much experience eating. Someone who enjoys depictions of killing people in games, films, etc., probably has no experience actually killing people. So, their ability to think of what it means to kill people is going to be colored by the remembered depictions more than any practical experience. It doesn't make them into killers, and I never said it did, but, they have been trained by their pastime to imagine that such killing is fun, rational, and psychologically easy. Countering this is any indirect knowledge of real-world violence that they might have, including family life, schooling, religion, absorption of violent news media, reading, etc.

And, this is all the wokies need to have to condemn the entire hobby in order to bend it to their will. Remember that we're in the age of microaggressions, and the enemy uses salami tactics. The revision of Tolkien's orcs into a misunderstood minority group has already begun the process of using RPGs to train the mind to think in a different way about real-life socio-politics, a way that rubs many gamers the wrong way.

If noticing this makes me woke then I must be woke. I would call it devil's advocacy to call attention to how this woke business is not going to stop advancing and accelerating just because there is an Internet forum that preserves a measure of sanity.

So, in order to "save the hobby" I a totally not woke infiltrator will say that TTRPGs make gamers violent and we need to change the hobby removing all combat, or inserting mechanics that I "know" will not make the game boring "for the greater good" before those damn wokies come a calling demanding we change the hobby by removing all combat or inserting mechanics that will make the game boring.

Because I'm totally on your side and totally not a woke infiltrator probing to see if I can convince some of you to bend to the woke demands that I foresee comming, before they even make such demands because that's the only way we can save the hobby you guys!

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 09:29:32 PMAs I said, everything is propaganda.

Well thanks for finally admitting everything you have been writing here is propaganda. I'd suspected it was either that or you were just trolling from the get go. Now that we know...

Nothing to see here...Move along.....Move along.

In a very late response to the OP.

No, I think it is just being expressed by a large group people have been fed the same shite entering the workforce. (And consequently influencing people that believe anything/nothing)

Combat is still cheap drama. Orcs are evil. I can make them irredeemable. Orcs are also Not Real. I will not feel (without my permission) sorry for imaginary people. I didn't feel sorry for the chicken embryos I ate for breakfast, nor did I mourn their mother when she was lunch. They (ostensibly) were real.

I don't think wokeness will remove combat. I do see the reducing of in-game consequences to combat as far as mechanics are concerned. (Stares in game balance*.*) That can be laid at the feet of designers expecting/desiring a story happening. Which is silly when you think about it. A story is told after the happening.

Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 11:11:07 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 09:29:32 PMAs I said, everything is propaganda.

Well thanks for finally admitting everything you have been writing here is propaganda. I'd suspected it was either that or you were just trolling from the get go. Now that we know...

Nothing to see here...Move along.....Move along.

Yeah, "everything is political/propaganda" is one of the easiest to spot tells of the SJW crowd and has earned them a spot on my ignore list as they have nothing useful to say on the subject of gaming.

Even were I to labor under a leftists delusions about races and inherent evil and such to cater to them, I could preserve combat merely by making all my formerly inherently evil races now inherently white supremacist members of a religion that teaches them that they shall be reborn as alabaster gods once they exterminate the lesser races such as humans and dwarves and such. That, or someone's head would explode from a computational error.

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 19, 2021, 03:01:35 PM

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy on October 19, 2021, 12:35:11 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 18, 2021, 10:09:19 PMI think it's pretty weird that combat is typically the most detailed part of RPG rules, but there are never similarly complicated rules for non-violent conflict resolution (e.g. the much maligned social combat, mental combat, etc).

I've yet to see a version of either that made the game run smoother or make it more entertaining.  For me they slow things down and turn "roleplaying" into "gaming the system," take me out of the game, and ruin my sense of immersion.

Combat rules are extensive generally because they involve much higher stakes (death or serious injury are on the table) while also being far less familiar to most people (very few people have ever faced a life-or-death combat situation - this is a good thing) and thus harder to adjudicate in a manner that feels fair.

By contrast exploration and interaction are generally lower stakes and more familiar to most people and so the GM doesn't need all the mechanics to render results that feel realistic and fair.

And I think you'll find this carries across the board in rpg design; the more common and lower stakes the circumstance, the less rules you'll see for it. Magic, being completely alien to real life but of varying stakes is generally second only to combat in terms of rules density (with combat magic generally as detailed as general combat) with alien life forms and sophisticated technology (and combat supertech especially) also quite high on rules density.

I think this is exactly right. When I see rules for social interaction, I tend to think the author is not familiar with actual social interaction.

Quote from: S'mon on October 20, 2021, 02:51:16 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 19, 2021, 03:01:35 PM

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy on October 19, 2021, 12:35:11 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 18, 2021, 10:09:19 PMI think it's pretty weird that combat is typically the most detailed part of RPG rules, but there are never similarly complicated rules for non-violent conflict resolution (e.g. the much maligned social combat, mental combat, etc).

I've yet to see a version of either that made the game run smoother or make it more entertaining.  For me they slow things down and turn "roleplaying" into "gaming the system," take me out of the game, and ruin my sense of immersion.

Combat rules are extensive generally because they involve much higher stakes (death or serious injury are on the table) while also being far less familiar to most people (very few people have ever faced a life-or-death combat situation - this is a good thing) and thus harder to adjudicate in a manner that feels fair.

By contrast exploration and interaction are generally lower stakes and more familiar to most people and so the GM doesn't need all the mechanics to render results that feel realistic and fair.

And I think you'll find this carries across the board in rpg design; the more common and lower stakes the circumstance, the less rules you'll see for it. Magic, being completely alien to real life but of varying stakes is generally second only to combat in terms of rules density (with combat magic generally as detailed as general combat) with alien life forms and sophisticated technology (and combat supertech especially) also quite high on rules density.

I think this is exactly right. When I see rules for social interaction, I tend to think the author is not familiar with actual social interaction.

To be fair; I do have SOME social interaction mechanics, but they mostly boil down to equivalent of reaction rolls and then specific tasks where you might want to just move along rather than play it out (ex. haggling over prices in the market, interrogation when you're trying to keep your game PG/PG-13) or where the result is more about how well you sell something (ex. I have a fast talk action for deceit, but the best result is that the target believes that you believe what you're saying... i.e. "the king is secretly a dragon" convinces the king's guard you believe it and you so are clearly insane... it's still on the player to come up with something plausible if you want others to act on it.

The final category is combat or combat-adjacent actions that just happen to use the Deceit or Intimidation abilities, like feinting, creating a distraction to hide or cowing a target.

So there are some social mechanics; but nothing like the 3e Diplomancer.

Quote from: S'mon on October 20, 2021, 02:51:16 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 19, 2021, 03:01:35 PM

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy on October 19, 2021, 12:35:11 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 18, 2021, 10:09:19 PMI think it's pretty weird that combat is typically the most detailed part of RPG rules, but there are never similarly complicated rules for non-violent conflict resolution (e.g. the much maligned social combat, mental combat, etc).

I've yet to see a version of either that made the game run smoother or make it more entertaining.  For me they slow things down and turn "roleplaying" into "gaming the system," take me out of the game, and ruin my sense of immersion.

Combat rules are extensive generally because they involve much higher stakes (death or serious injury are on the table) while also being far less familiar to most people (very few people have ever faced a life-or-death combat situation - this is a good thing) and thus harder to adjudicate in a manner that feels fair.

By contrast exploration and interaction are generally lower stakes and more familiar to most people and so the GM doesn't need all the mechanics to render results that feel realistic and fair.

And I think you'll find this carries across the board in rpg design; the more common and lower stakes the circumstance, the less rules you'll see for it. Magic, being completely alien to real life but of varying stakes is generally second only to combat in terms of rules density (with combat magic generally as detailed as general combat) with alien life forms and sophisticated technology (and combat supertech especially) also quite high on rules density.

I think this is exactly right. When I see rules for social interaction, I tend to think the author is not familiar with actual social interaction.

The same could often be said of the combat rules of many (most/all...possibly) systems.

Quote from: HappyDaze on October 20, 2021, 09:25:40 AM
The same could often be said of the combat rules of many (most/all...possibly) systems.

That was my point - most normal people (designers, players) aren't familiar with combat. Most normal people are familiar with social interaction. A designer who writes similar rules for both, I feel is most likely unfamiliar with either.

I saw a great slap down recently from a dating/relationship youtuber, Courtney Ryan:
"They say women can't give men good dating advice. 'Don't ask a fish how to catch a fish'. But a fish doesn't want to be caught."

Fishing = combat, inherently adversarial.
Dating = social interaction, inhererently cooperative.

Systems that treat social interaction like combat are falling for the same fallacy Ryan criticises.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 09:29:32 PM

Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 08:28:43 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:17:05 PMIt's axiomatic. What you participate in trains you. Everything is propaganda for something.

So playing TTRPG trains you to roll dice and name spells or maneuvers as a way of resolving combat. That doesn't seem like something that translates well to the real world.

From games training players to roll dice to resolve in game conflict, you jump to the conclusion that rolling dice translates to hitting or shooting people in the real world. A conclusion wholly unsupported by your "axiom." 

If you really believed what you are saying, you'd be all up in arms over people tossing dice playing Yahtzee and Bunko. Those games foster, that dreaded competition along with gambling, drinking, and random chaos.

As I said, everything is propaganda.

To a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Quote from: S'mon on October 20, 2021, 01:00:53 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on October 20, 2021, 09:25:40 AM
The same could often be said of the combat rules of many (most/all...possibly) systems.

That was my point - most normal people (designers, players) aren't familiar with combat. Most normal people are familiar with social interaction. A designer who writes similar rules for both, I feel is most likely unfamiliar with either.

I saw a great slap down recently from a dating/relationship youtuber, Courtney Ryan:
"They say women can't give men good dating advice. 'Don't ask a fish how to catch a fish'. But a fish doesn't want to be caught."

Fishing = combat, inherently adversarial.
Dating = social interaction, inhererently cooperative.

Systems that treat social interaction like combat are falling for the same fallacy Ryan criticises.

Good post. I like the example.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 09:29:32 PMAs I said, everything is propaganda.

Ah I know this game. True, everything is something that changes something else, which means that yes everything exists as a form of persuasion or propaganda.

But if a trait can be applied to everything all the time, it is useless as a descriptive trait. We don't prefise descriptors about material objects with 'Exists in the universe', because thats redundant and pointless.
So we reserve words for when something is MEANINGFUL. Is it MEANINGFUL propaganda? Is it a tier of propaganda significant enough to count as the specific persuasion as propaganda? Thats what we reserve the word for. To use it otherwise is a really shitty thing to do.

So Im not sure what your point is. Congratulations, you found an exploitable point in language. What next?