I guess I'm repeating that old thing about us being inherently blood-thirsty violent critters... strapped into civilized straight-jackets... so no wonder our entertainment choices tend towards explosions and murder.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;488100Am I crazy or is the same exact discussion happening on the swine thread. Sounds like the evil orc debate from a month or so ago.

Yeah there's definitely a Venn diagram with the "People who use the term Murder Hobos as a slight against D&D and it's players" and the "D&D is colonial and racist" crowd being an intersection.

Quote from: Simlasa;488080I guess the question is why does that 'support' just about always come in the form of killing and looting... vs. diplomacy, peacemaking, exploration without conquering? I can't think of any big campaigns where the goal was to make peace with the giants/orcs/Drow, rather than chopping them into bits and taking their stuff.
If RPGs had developed out of, say, the toy theaters of the 1800s... rather than wargames... would they still be so focused on combat?

In the game I'm running now, the party has:

rescued a bunch of people from a vampire blood doll basement

helped a keep on the boarder fight off a horde of skeletons

taken an archmage to the edge of the mountains so he could view a silver dragon, and then return

killed a bunch of thieves guild members who were plotting to kill the clerics of athena

rescued a persian ship wrecked crew, retrieved their gold from Hades, and are now returning that gold to the persian king

obtained a fire flower from a forbidden mountain for a wizard so he could repair his wand. They did so without fighting anything.

I could keep going, and they are fucking level 2.

You can't make peace with orcs and giants because the gods put them their to fuck with humans, at least in my game.

I'm in the 'Murder Hobos can be a fun way to play, even when it's racist and colonial' camp.

Quote from: Simlasa;488101I guess I'm repeating that old thing about us being inherently blood-thirsty violent critters... strapped into civilized straight-jackets... so no wonder our entertainment choices tend towards explosions and murder.

What I meant was that in video-games and movies there is a bit more diversity, even in the mainstream.  For as popular as Call of Duty and its ilk are, it will never be as popular as the Sims or Pokemon.  Not to mention the self-awareness a lot of video-games display at the ludicrous-ness of traditional RPG tropes like looting and whatnot.  

In terms of films good comedies/serious films tend to do just as well as action movies.  Plus, even in something like the Dark Knight, you have a hero who refuses to kill, and whose own actions are questioned by a supporting character because they're unethical.

That sort of diversity in desire for different types of content and self-reflection on said content I've found lacking in tabletop wargames and RPGs.  Pulp type action is definitely more popular and has marginalized a lot of other types of games.  Which I think is a shame beyond the whole "is this good?" question, since other games (like historical fiction) are pushed to the side along with the more lighthearted or non-violent games.

TTRPGs and Wargames are just another kind of board game. My fiance' likes the Sims and Scrabble. I like Call of Duty and D&D. They aren't any different. I'd argue that her and her friends get more engaged in Scrabble than some D&D people I know get engaged in the game.

There isn't much diversity in war games because they are war games. They are a part of the diversity of board games. I know plenty of war gamers that play Settlers of Catan and Scrabble.

You're asking a question along the lines of, "Why isn't their more to the game than killing between Call of Duty, Battle Field, and Quake?"

I have run entire campaigns with no combat at all, where everything was about intrigue and investigation. I've also run sitcom sessions of standard games. However I would argue that violent video games are by far the most popular. Sure you have the sims, but you also have grandtgeft auto, resident evil, and wow. RPGs tend to draw on action, adventure and fantasy , largely because those are much easier genres to emulate than romantic comedies or legal dramas. I don't think that makes RPGs shady or in need of adjustment. If people are so sensitive that Indiana Jones or Willow present a problem, oh well.

Quote from: Cranewings;488111TTRPGs and Wargames are just another kind of board game. My fiance' likes the Sims and Scrabble. I like Call of Duty and D&D. They aren't any different. I'd argue that her and her friends get more engaged in Scrabble than some D&D people I know get engaged in the game.

There isn't much diversity in war games because they are war games. They are a part of the diversity of board games. I know plenty of war gamers that play Settlers of Catan and Scrabble.

You're asking a question along the lines of, "Why isn't their more to the game than killing between Call of Duty, Battle Field, and Quake?"

Exclude wargames, I threw it in their without thinking, since the communities overlap so much.  Should've just said "tabletop hobby community."

Quote from: BedrockBrendanHowever I would argue that violent video games are by far the most popular. Sure you have the sims, but you also have grandtgeft auto, resident evil, and wow.

Traditionally, they're not the most popular, and the rise in their popularity also corresponded to PC developers moving to consoles, and they traditionally made games for the hobbyist gamer market, rather than everyday folk (esp. considering a lot of PC franchises were derived from tabletop games).  They're also largely Western developers, who have risen to prominence with the success of the Xbox, while Japanese devs have sort of faded out a bit.  But at that point you'd be getting into a discussion about the role of violence in entertainment in different cultures, and I'm not well versed in that at all.

QuoteI don't think that makes RPGs shady or in need of adjustment. If people are so sensitive that Indiana Jones or Willow present a problem, oh well.

I don't think the author of the essay would have a problem with those movies.  After all, we're talking about the guy who conceived the idea of Unknown Armies.

Yes, Tynes' point, if it has any validity at all, is found in the deeper fact that people crave the fictional depiction of violence--and even, in the case of some sports, watching and participating in actual violence which is constrained and regulated.

Therefore one could argue that much fictional violence exists not in the service of the "narrative", but that the narrative is structured in order to make the violence (which is the real goal) socially acceptable.

In this way, RPGs are similar to movies and other media, although I do think that violence is more common and more frequent in RPGs, even if you compare RPGs with action-oriented genres of books, movies, etc.

This suggests a subtext of the essay and related critiques, that violence in RPGs is just a matter of inertia and if it weren't for the hidebound traditions of the hobby, we would have games with less violence. Oh, and not only that, games with less violence (such as ) would be warmly welcomed by "the market".

But off the top of my head, I can think of a couple reasons that RPGs tend toward violence without conceding this subtext. One is that game-type mechanics involving manipulation of resources, spatial relationships, etc., are inherently fun, and the most obvious representational application of the above is: simulation of violence. Another is that narrative sophistication of the kind found in other media requires skills that aren't widespread, and which are particularly hard to couple with the improvisational nature of an RPG session, where revisions and rewrites aren't available. Therefore, the baseline of RPGs is: simple conflicts, resolved by simple means.

Quote from: Peregrin;488109What I meant was that in video-games and movies there is a bit more diversity, even in the mainstream.  For as popular as Call of Duty and its ilk are, it will never be as popular as the Sims or Pokemon.  Not to mention the self-awareness a lot of video-games display at the ludicrous-ness of traditional RPG tropes like looting and whatnot.  

In terms of films good comedies/serious films tend to do just as well as action movies.  Plus, even in something like the Dark Knight, you have a hero who refuses to kill, and whose own actions are questioned by a supporting character because they're unethical.

That sort of diversity in desire for different types of content and self-reflection on said content I've found lacking in tabletop wargames and RPGs.  Pulp type action is definitely more popular and has marginalized a lot of other types of games.  Which I think is a shame beyond the whole "is this good?" question, since other games (like historical fiction) are pushed to the side along with the more lighthearted or non-violent games.

This is about how I feel. I think another good example of a medium being pared down to a single genre (and the harmful effect this can have) is mainstream American comics. The medium can and should do more. Or rather publishers should recognize that the medium can do more, as comickers often skip the publishers and make more diverse work these days.

Quote from: Cranewings;488111TTRPGs and Wargames are just another kind of board game. My fiance' likes the Sims and Scrabble. I like Call of Duty and D&D. They aren't any different. I'd argue that her and her friends get more engaged in Scrabble than some D&D people I know get engaged in the game.

There isn't much diversity in war games because they are war games. They are a part of the diversity of board games. I know plenty of war gamers that play Settlers of Catan and Scrabble.

You're asking a question along the lines of, "Why isn't their more to the game than killing between Call of Duty, Battle Field, and Quake?"

Conversely, sometimes formats have arbitrary distinctions. When I first saw Starcraft I thought of it as SimCity2000 at war. SimCity games have similar resource gathering/attrition gameplay elements, even without an opponent. Likewise the first person format is used by sandbox RPGs like New Vegas. Ostensibly, pacifism was supposed to be viable in that game, though I haven't tried it myself. And hardcore got me excited for the possibility of a first person Oregon Trail type game (not that anyone's about to make that).

I guess what I'm saying is that the core of what makes RPGs work can still work for more genres/situations than people give it credit for.

I think that is undoubtedly true and has been proven to be so many times over in actual play at the game tables of real RPGers.

However, the audience as a whole is less interested than many a designer/evangelist would like. Especially when they think they deserve to make a living out of their art.

Therefore you get whine/screeds (scrines?) like Powerkill, Violence, most essays by Ron Edwards, etc., etc.

Peregin I really have to question your claim that violent video games havent been the most popular. I'm no video game expert but I grew up playing console, arcade and computer games from the early 80s to the end of the 90s (havent played a v game since 2003). Pretty much most of the popular games were violent: double dragon, street fighter, akari warriors, phantasy star, zelda, castlevania, mortal combat. Computer games were pretty darn violent too as I recall. Definitely think the violence has increased, but its popularity in the medium is nothing new.

I think we're using different definitions of the term "violent video games."  I'm using it to refer to games with explicit killing and violent behavior as primary themes, so I wouldn't include Zelda in there (most of it is a dressed up puzzle game).

Also, none of those games you list are anywhere near as popular as Mario, Tetris, or Pac Man.  Popular, yes.  In the top lists?  Yes.  But not "most popular."  The most popular games are generally puzzlers, platformers, and mini-strategy games.  This is being proven again by the success of casual video-games and more contemporary titles (like Rock Band and other rhythm/music games).

I mean, let's take a look at the best-selling games from back then:

QuoteAtari 2600
Atari 2600

Atari 2600 games that have sold or shipped at least one million copies.

    Pac-Man (7 million)[1][2]
    Pitfall! (4 million)[3][4]
    Missile Command (2.5 million)[5]
    Demon Attack (2 million)[5]
    E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1.5 million)[6]
    Adventure (1 million)[4]
    Atlantis (1 million)[3]
    Cosmic Ark (1 million)[5]
    Kaboom! (1 million)[7]
    Megamania (1 million)[3]
    River Raid (1 million)[7]
    Space Invaders (1 million)[4]

Nintendo Entertainment System
Nintendo Entertainment System
Main article: List of best-selling Nintendo Entertainment System games

Nintendo Entertainment System (NES)/Family Computer (Famicom) video games that have sold or shipped at least two million copies.

    Super Mario Bros. (40.24 million)[45][46]
    Super Mario Bros. 3 (18 million)[47]
    Super Mario Bros. 2 (10 million)[48]
    The Legend of Zelda (6.51 million)[49]
    Zelda II: The Adventure of Link (4.38 million)[49]
    Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (4 million)[50]
    Dragon Warrior III (3.8 million in Japan)[51]
    Dragon Warrior IV (3.1 million in Japan)[51]
    Golf (2.46 million in Japan)[51]
    Dragon Warrior II (2.4 million in Japan)[51][52]
    Baseball (2.35 million in Japan)[51]
    R.C. Pro-Am (2.3 million)[53]
    Mahjong (2.13 million in Japan)[51]
    Family Stadium (2.05 million in Japan)[51]
    Punch-Out!! (2 million)[54]

Super Nintendo Entertainment System
Main article: List of best-selling Super Nintendo Entertainment System video games
North American Super Nintendo Entertainment System

Super Nintendo Entertainment System video games that have sold or shipped at least four million copies.

    Super Mario World (20.60 million)[56][46]
    Donkey Kong Country (8 million)[57]
    Super Mario Kart (8 million)[58]
    Street Fighter II: The World Warrior (6.3 million)[59]
    The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (4.61 million)[49]
    Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest (4.37 million approximately: 2.21 million in Japan,[51] 2.16 million in US)[19]
    Street Fighter II Turbo (4.1 million)[59]
    Star Fox (4 million)[60]
    Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island (4 million)[56]

Nintendo 64
Nintendo 64
Main article: List of best-selling Nintendo 64 video games

Nintendo 64 video games that have sold or shipped at least three million copies.

    Super Mario 64 (11.62 million)[61][46]
    Mario Kart 64 (9 million)[62]
    GoldenEye 007 (8 million)[63][64]
    The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (7.6 million)[49]
    Super Smash Bros. (5 million)[65]
    Diddy Kong Racing (4.434 million approximately: 3.78 million in US and PAL,[66] 653,928 in Japan)[67]
    Pokémon Stadium (3.871 million approximately: 3.16 million in US,[19] 710,765 in Japan)[67]
    Donkey Kong 64 (3.77 million approximately: 2.67 million in US,[19] 1.1 million in Japan)[51]
    The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (3.36 million)[49]
    Star Fox 64 (3.325 million approximately: 2.76 million in US,[19] 565,222 in Japan)[67]
    Banjo-Tooie (3 million)[68]

Sega Mega Drive/Genesis games that have sold or shipped at least one million copies.

    Sonic the Hedgehog (15 million as pack-in;[98] over 4 million separately)[99]
    Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (6 million)[100]
    Aladdin (4 million)[101]
    NBA Jam (1.93 million in US)[19]
    Mortal Kombat II (1.78 million in US)[19]
    Street Fighter II: Special Champion Edition (1.65 million)[59]
    Altered Beast (at least 1.4 million in the US)[102]
    Sonic & Knuckles (1.24 million in US)[19]
    Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (1.02 million in US)[19]
    Mortal Kombat 3 (1.02 million in US)[19]
    Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (1 million in US)[103][104]
    Ms. Pac-Man (more than 1 million in US)[105]
    NFL 98 (more than 1 million in US)[106]
    Sonic Spinball ("each selling over one million units in 1993")[107]
    Jurassic Park ("each selling over one million units in 1993")[107]
    NFL Football '94 Starring Joe Montana ("each selling over one million units in 1993")[107]
    Marvel Comic's X-Men ("each selling over one million units in 1993")[107]

And even when violent titles are in the top lists, sales are often dwarfed.  The only platform where this wasn't true up through N64 was the PC, which again, drew most of its creative inspiration from tabletop games, or was influenced by them (Carmack's father played D&D, Sandy Petersen worked on DOOM, etc. -- a lot more crossover).  Western developers during the heyday of the PC were extremely obsessed with titles revolving around war or violence as themes.  Even then, titles like Myst, The Sims, Sim City, Civilization, and Minecraft are far more recognizable in the mainstream than something like Half-Life, because they were able to break outside of the hobbyist market.

The violent stuff is mostly gobbled up by us hobbyists ("gamers", or whatever), not the mainstream.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;488136I think that is undoubtedly true and has been proven to be so many times over in actual play at the game tables of real RPGers.

However, the audience as a whole is less interested than many a designer/evangelist would like. Especially when they think they deserve to make a living out of their art.

Therefore you get whine/screeds (scrines?) like Powerkill, Violence, most essays by Ron Edwards, etc., etc.

I tend to agree with some of what you're saying here. The RPG "middle" may skew a little violent in the same way that the American "middle" skews right. I just think that as with comics, the skew was recognized and became exaggerated at some point.

I also think that part of the reason non-combat elements lose focus is the frequency with which they are poorly recognized and implemented. RPGs also have huge potential for mechanical strength in exploration, power-mongering, stealth, chase scenes, etc. All perfectly useful in the (still potentially violent) adventure genre.

And as others will point out, when death is on the line, the rules must be clear. Social rules can be handwaved much more easily than combat can be. And things with rules may get more attention at the table.

So there may be a cumulative resistance to risk-taking in other aspects of the rules (or even including such things), a need for combat rules, and a perception of play that develops from the rules available and makes people think "this is all they do with those games."

Quote from: Peregrin;488138I think we're using different definitions of the term "violent video games."  I'm using it to refer to games with explicit killing and violent behavior as primary themes, so I wouldn't include Zelda in there (most of it is a dressed up puzzle game).

Also, none of those games you list are anywhere near as popular as Mario, Tetris, or Pac Man.  Popular, yes.  In the top lists?  Yes.  But not "most popular."  The most popular games are generally puzzlers, platformers, and mini-strategy games.  This is being proven again by the success of casual video-games and more contemporary titles (like Rock Band and other rhythm/music games).

The violent stuff is mostly gobbled up by us hobbyists ("gamers", or whatever), not the mainstream.

Again, I don't think that is true. Mario was popular but then so was shinobi or space invaders. Do you have numbers to support your claim?

Puzzlers were and remain popular. Angry birds and any number of similar games are big on smart phones. I just don't see these as being anywhere near as prevalent as the violent ones.