I don't want.

The cycle of going somewhere, attacking/being attacked/defending. It is a bit played out.

I suppose it started when I got some WW2 6mm minis. I have been painting and researching them and it slowly began to dawn on me that these were real people who fought a real battle, a real nasty one too.

Linked to that is one friend saying he prefers to play other sci-fi war-games and not historical. This made me think "why does this happen? Is it me? What is going on?"

Is it because (like in the movies and on TV) the further away from real life something is, the easier it is to "kill it and take its stuff"? Is that why people can happily play sci-fi generals, murder hobos and heroes? Or am I just a bit of a pussy in my old age? I'm not sure I want to go around killing things, historical or otherwise. Not stopping anyone else! Go nuts! But the immediacy and historicity of the WW2 stuff brought this right up in my face and made me think about it.


There are plenty of other aspects to RPGs I can engage with so it is not all bad.

But: Am I alone?

Sometimes, I feel bad about loosing units, yes, but oddly enough this is more in single player. When I am fighting an actual person, I just want to win. If it means there's one figure of mine and 0 standing of his - so be it.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;765727I don't want.

The cycle of going somewhere, attacking/being attacked/defending. It is a bit played out.

I suppose it started when I got some WW2 6mm minis. I have been painting and researching them and it slowly began to dawn on me that these were real people who fought a real battle, a real nasty one too.

Linked to that is one friend saying he prefers to play other sci-fi war-games and not historical. This made me think "why does this happen?"

Is it because (like in the movies and on TV) the further away from real life something is, the easier it is to "kill it and take its stuff"?

I'm not sure I want to go around killing things, historical or otherwise. There are plenty of other aspects to RPGs I can engage with so it is not all bad.

But: Am I alone?

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;765727Is it because (like in the movies and on TV) the further away from real life something is, the easier it is to "kill it and take its stuff"? Is that why people can happily play sci-fi generals, murder hobos and heroes? Or am I just a bit of a pussy in my old age? I'm not sure I want to go around killing things, historical or otherwise. Not stopping anyone else! Go nuts! But the immediacy and historicity of the WW2 stuff brought this right up in my face and made me think about it.


There are plenty of other aspects to RPGs I can engage with so it is not all bad.

But: Am I alone?

Nope. I can't play WW2-era stuff for the same reason; actual living people, some of whom I have met, did this stuff, laid down their lives doing this stuff. If I try playing, say, Company of Heroes, I'm effectively sending real people off to die.

I'll pass, thanks. Other games for me.

Oddly, I don't have the same issue with anything historical or modern (Although I don't play modern-day manshooters because, well, I've played Call of Duty and Spec Ops : The Line, everything else looks like the same thing redone), despite the same being true.

You could run Doctor Who, most of the conflict in that tends not be resolved with violence (mainly because the bad guys are often immune).

Or there was that Trans-humanism RPG were everyone was a immortal robot on a space station, and you could only die if you got so many dislikes from other people that you got kicked of the station. That looked really interesting, although how long you could sustain a campaign I have no idea.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;765727But: Am I alone?

Nope, in the current Traveller campaign I'm GM of, nobody has been killed or killed anything else, and there is discussion about how the aliens should be approached. It is a search and rescue looking for a disappeared science expedition, so the object isn't to kill them.

I can relate to what you're saying. There's an inherent ridiculousness in the way PCs fight, get injured and recover in many games. A real melee to the death with swords and clubs is a horrible thing of crushed bones, severed arteries, exposed entrails and people shitting themselves one last time before they die.

D&D perhaps handles it best by being so abstracted and cartoony, but ironically it's the more "realistic" games like Runequest and Rolemaster which come out poorly here. Much as they try to account for individual wounds, "criticals" and long healing times, it's still inadequate.


I have no moral problem with the treatment of violence in games though, it's a matter of suspension of disbelief. After all, i haven't noticed gamers being particularly violent people despite heartlessly moving the bloody chits around on the hexmap, the reverse actually.

There are RPGs where killing/dying is minimized or non-existent. Star Trek, Toon and Ghostbusters are the first ones that comes to mind. Of course, you can go years in a superhero RPG without any killing/death.

Just stay away from games with Pointy Things & Shooty Things.

You can even do CoC/Horror RPGs with no death. Monsters are incorporeal and cause madness, not wounds.

There was a GM at KublaCon in the SF Bay Area who always used CoC to tell ghost stories - and he was freaking awesome and the games were damn scary and we were never in danger of losing a hit point and certainly never used any weapons.

OK, maybe I am reading this differently...
But I got away from games where killing things was the major means of advancement a while ago.  Rincewind can back me, he's played in our games.
The first thing is to make growth as a Character tied to other things.  The second is to remove the role balance away from combat, into where you want it.  The third is to make sure the rules are not written primarily for combat, but for where you want the other foci to be
At a dinner, so more later.  Good OP, as I read it.

Yeah, I know how you feel.  I much prefer games that encourage diplomacy and cleverness over brute violence.  Generally I feel games with long character creation and deadly combat accomplish this more.  But sometimes the players just decide that the solution is to always strike first.  As a GM I tend to reward civilized behavior and penalize pointless violence but enough people find that offensive that I do it rather than preaching about it.

But it's not that I hate a good fight.  I war game, heck I run a miniatures gaming oriented store.  My preference has always been rpgs because there's the potential for non-violent solutions, but I think wargames can teach valuable lessons about war.  See that soldier in that squad there?  He just caught a bullet and died.  He's not a hero, he's just a guy who hopes to go home in one piece when the craziness stops.  He's just a nobody, just like you little general at your wargame table.  And just like him, when you go away to war, you'll just as likely catch a bullet and die.

See, that's a useful lesson.  I believe that as human beings we have to understand our capacity for hate and violence to control them.  To try to hide from them or sweep them under the table is to be unprepared when difficult circumstances try our capacity.  I think rpgs and wargames can teach these lessons well.

I'm not particularly enthused about Warhammer or WotC's D&D for some reason.  Can't imagine why.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;765727But: Am I alone?

I go through phases. When I want to back away from violent games I have a shelf full of euro boardgames to play. I still get to engage my mind, compete, and, in some cases, immerse myself in another place without cutting anyone down or blowing anything up. A train empire or medieval merchant game scratches that itch.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;765727I don't want.

The cycle of going somewhere, attacking/being attacked/defending. It is a bit played out.

I suppose it started when I got some WW2 6mm minis. I have been painting and researching them and it slowly began to dawn on me that these were real people who fought a real battle, a real nasty one too.

Linked to that is one friend saying he prefers to play other sci-fi war-games and not historical. This made me think "why does this happen? Is it me? What is going on?"

Is it because (like in the movies and on TV) the further away from real life something is, the easier it is to "kill it and take its stuff"? Is that why people can happily play sci-fi generals, murder hobos and heroes? Or am I just a bit of a pussy in my old age? I'm not sure I want to go around killing things, historical or otherwise. Not stopping anyone else! Go nuts! But the immediacy and historicity of the WW2 stuff brought this right up in my face and made me think about it.


There are plenty of other aspects to RPGs I can engage with so it is not all bad.

But: Am I alone?

Nope, you're not alone.
I am partially past it though, but I do prefer expressions like KOs over Kills.
I also extends it to practically all humanoid beings, which may explain my seemingly extreme views on orcs ... (My orcs are different!)

My answer to keep the violence was partially the KO - not Kill sentiment, but also the "Minion/Soldier" definition:
They are ready to lay down their lives if need be, and also knows that enemy soldiers are the same ... or assumes they are, ... and normally, they are correct.

Sure, it is more utopian than realistic, but without that possibility, ... well, let's say I have silly high levels of empathy that would make me unable to play the games I like to play.

I think in the modern world, it's easy to feel safe.

But the only reason you are, is that our ancestors or or less exterminated all the dangerous animals.

Except other people. And again, that you are safe is largely due to the efforts of others.

QuoteA man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself

John Stuart Mill

"A Tale in the Desert"
Has a lot of conflict but no killing. It has been running/rerunning for years and so the idea of no violence does work.
=

Quote from: JeremyR;765785I think in the modern world, it's easy to feel safe.

But the only reason you are, is that our ancestors or or less exterminated all the dangerous animals.

You're not crazy.  In my wife's private runs -- and mind you, her character is the most formidable combat wizard in the campaign's history -- she gets into a fight maybe one session in ten.

And really, the Gaming Is About Combat paradigm has served both to pigeonhole our hobby and drive a lot of potential players away.  I remember one of my players bringing in her fantasy-loving best friend, who was a pacifist who just couldn't wrap her head around the pervasive violence of the sessions and the all-but-requirement that her own character be combat-capable: she lasted a single session.

That was over thirty years ago, and I wished I'd had the scope and the maturity as a GM back then to contemplate different ways of doing things.  I'd like to think that Debbie would have a better time of it now.