Quote from: David Johansen;765770But 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

That's an important strength of TTRPGs for me.
Video games seldom give you a non-violent option... bots are either friendly or hostile and you have no way to alter that condition. You can't talk them out of it . Usually even just stunning/knocking them out isn't on the menu. I've always been way more interested in the exploration/lore and crafting aspects of World of Warcraft than I've been the chase after 'gear'... but killing stuff is the only effective way to advance.

I do like wargames... but that makes it all the more important for me that TTRPGs allow me to play without killing things.
I've had GMs apologize for sessions that didn't feature any combat, but to me that's usually the sign of a pretty good game.
It's also ties into part of what I like about systems such as BRP/Runequest... where the combats tend to be deadly enough that Players are wise to find other (more interesting) paths to their goals.

Quote from: Ravenswing;765826And 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.

It's bothering me more and more as well... and I'm finding that when I describe RPGs to non-Players I increasingly leave out the combat stuff, because I don't think it's the real selling point.
Tonight I was telling an old friend of mine, who likes fantasy and has been sniffing around about me maybe running a game for her, about last week's session. She seemed quite charmed by the description of the ettin, arguing with itself over which of us to eat first.
It seemed besides the point to tell her how right after that we killed it and took its stuff.

Depends on the player. My daughter considers the violence a necessary evil. Even then, when she DMs, she presents us with monsters rather than humanoids to fight. Bugs, bats, wolves... Nothing that can talk.

I try to give the players an option to bypass combat even if t comes up on the fly. The old 2d6 reaction table is your friend.

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?

Have asked myself the same questions.

This is why I prefer running Sci Fi type RPG settings like TRAVELLER or "Star Trek" - the options and choices or much more interesting than in the typical 'Fantasy'-setting RPG.


- Ed C.

Role-playing doesn't have to be all about violence (although I really dislike the cutesy 'murder hobo' term I've only seen on the net, and that in the past year or so). It's supposed to be about playing out the novels we like to read.

I guess if you read violent books, you'll be looking at violent rpg-ing.

Of course, a lot of video games -- and for that matter, a lot of movies / TV these days -- are all about violence. So we train people into thinking that's entertainment.

I usually try to have thinking/acting/resolve-the-situation games, myself.

I love combat, especially crazy blood filled gore combat. I don't like PG violence, except in the comic book genre. But the potential of a TTRPG allows for much more than bloodshed and its important to explore those non-combat aspects - otherwise it session can devolve into die rolling competitions.

Would I play in a no-killing RPG? With the right GM and right game, hell yeah. I played Champions for many years with maybe a handful deaths at most in the entire campaign. A no-killing Pendragon or Mage could work, a no-killing Gamma World or D&D or Warhammer would not work for me.

The problem with most Fantasy or Historical settings is that Law tends to be rather limited.  As a result, it's quite easy for people through the influence that comes with money to set themselves up as kings of an area.

Sometimes the only answer is a revolution, a bullet in the head, or a dagger in the night.  Genres like the Old West or Sword & Sorcery are full of this type of thing.

That's always been the tragic element of a "defender of civilization" whether a soldier or lawkeeper, they defend civilization through uncivilized means.  They're never really a part of the safe life they create for everyone else, until they retire, still possibly scarred from the experience.

While the strategies are immensely interesting to me, I've never really gotten into Civil War or WWII gaming that much.  I remember Sophomore Year in High School our history teacher gave us a little exercise trying to come up with a plan for Antietam. It was really more stepping into the shoes of a historical figure then it was a wargame.  The sheer amount of casualties was just sickening.

Then again being a 40k Inquisitor who can condemn an entire planet to ash isn't an easy mantle to wear either, neither is a Federation Captain whose diplomatic mission, if unsuccessful, could throw the Federation into another Klingon War.  Conan loses entire armies multiple times in his career, with increased responsibility comes increased stakes of failure, no matter the setting really.

Quote from: Simlasa;765833It's bothering me more and more as well... and I'm finding that when I describe RPGs to non-Players I increasingly leave out the combat stuff, because I don't think it's the real selling point.

And really, why would it be, these days?  If you want wall-to-wall, console games have it all over RPGs in presentation and adrenaline rush, and don't confront players with the mathematics so many of them want no part of.  This is sheer prudence on your part.

the trouble is though that its still a huge part of the game (the game being RPGs not any particualr game)

My Singapore players are all new to RPGs , well 1 year in now. I have thrown all sorts of challenges at them from exploration, puzzles, heavy roleplay, court cases, investigations, everythign I can think of which is quite a lot of stuff but its the combat they love. They love the excitement of taking down impossibly difficult odds and defeating unbeatable foes through a mix of tactics, equipment, and a dash of luck.
If you asked them to name highlights of the last year they would point to three of them taking out a terrorist land train with D-grenades, chasing a lone agent through a passenger starship filled with zombies and him handing their arses to them and doing a runner or capturing a gang of bankrobbers through constructive use of precognition and a good plan.
The fights are the things you talk about in the pub 10 years later right. No one tells the story about how they prized the gem out of the statue's eye and it was worth 3000gp and so they made 4th level. They talk about how they were down to a handful of hit points armed with just a dagger and they charged the dragon and 5 rounds and 8 crits later it was dead and somehow they were still alive....

Thus are legends made.

Not knowing how old you are (although you speak of being in your "old age"), it's taken you this long before seriously thinking about it?

How about another thought then. Warning, down the rabbit hole we go.

In all the time you've been entertaining yourself in a completely pointless activity, and spending money on it, millions of poor human beings have suffered and died (e.g., 9 million children under the age of 5 die every year). Most of these due to a lack of wealth, that others in the world hold on to and spend on their entertainment and other completely pointless and self-indulgent activities. If you were truly humanely compassionate, you'd sell all your RPG frivolities, stop wasting time on Internet forums, etc. and dedicate your life to helping others for whom your money and effort would mean the difference between life and death. It's not the past dead who you should be worrying about (it wasn't your fault nor is there anything you can do about it), it's the now living.

That's the issue that keeps me awake at night. Am I alone?

Oh, and you should also become a vegetarian if you aren't already.

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?

I understand you. Even if my games often show plenty of action, I try to make it meaningful. By this I mean: hurting or killing other people is a grave act, full of consequences. No one in my games is a trigger-happy psychopath. Even criminals and the like will resort to other means before killing.

And the combats are lethal, and have consequences, and I don't wave away any of them. Will there be combats? Sure. In fantasy, a part of the exploration may involve clashing with the wild. But ot's not something they engage mindlessly.

Quote from: Stainless;765933Not knowing how old you are (although you speak of being in your "old age"), it's taken you this long before seriously thinking about it?

How about another thought then. Warning, down the rabbit hole we go.

In all the time you've been entertaining yourself in a completely pointless activity, and spending money on it, millions of poor human beings have suffered and died (e.g., 9 million children under the age of 5 die every year). Most of these due to a lack of wealth, that others in the world hold on to and spend on their entertainment and other completely pointless and self-indulgent activities. If you were truly humanely compassionate, you'd sell all your RPG frivolities, stop wasting time on Internet forums, etc. and dedicate your life to helping others for whom your money and effort would mean the difference between life and death. It's not the past dead who you should be worrying about (it wasn't your fault nor is there anything you can do about it), it's the now living.

That's the issue that keeps me awake at night. Am I alone?

Oh, and you should also become a vegetarian if you aren't already.

My head has caved in, my life is a meaningless lie. All hope is lost.

Quote from: Stainless;765933Not knowing how old you are (although you speak of being in your "old age"), it's taken you this long before seriously thinking about it?

How about another thought then. Warning, down the rabbit hole we go.

In all the time you've been entertaining yourself in a completely pointless activity, and spending money on it, millions of poor human beings have suffered and died (e.g., 9 million children under the age of 5 die every year). Most of these due to a lack of wealth, that others in the world hold on to and spend on their entertainment and other completely pointless and self-indulgent activities. If you were truly humanely compassionate, you'd sell all your RPG frivolities, stop wasting time on Internet forums, etc. and dedicate your life to helping others for whom your money and effort would mean the difference between life and death. It's not the past dead who you should be worrying about (it wasn't your fault nor is there anything you can do about it), it's the now living.

That's the issue that keeps me awake at night. Am I alone?

Oh, and you should also become a vegetarian if you aren't already.

Nope. I have these questions, too.

One observation I have made: The crimes committed against children in our world are the greatest evil in the world. So, it's interesting how, in our RPG worlds, this evil is never present. Instead ... dragons. Yeah, we avoid confronting the truly horrific evils perpetrated against children (evils that would be present in any fantasy world, actually, just as they are in our world), and instead focus on lesser evils. Escapism, I guess.

Quote from: Stainless;765933In all the time you've been entertaining yourself in a completely pointless activity, and spending money on it, millions of poor human beings have suffered and died (e.g., 9 million children under the age of 5 die every year). Most of these due to a lack of wealth, that others in the world hold on to and spend on their entertainment and other completely pointless and self-indulgent activities. If you were truly humanely compassionate, you'd sell all your RPG frivolities, stop wasting time on Internet forums, etc. and dedicate your life to helping others for whom your money and effort would mean the difference between life and death. It's not the past dead who you should be worrying about (it wasn't your fault nor is there anything you can do about it), it's the now living.

If only that were true. But we don't live in a zero-sum world where some people are poor because others are rich. The persistent poverty many in the world suffer under is due to extremely weak social infrastructures that are almost impossible for outsiders to fix. Traipsing off to Chad or the slums of Kuala Lampur and handing out money will achieve nothing. Even more coordinated aid efforts achieve little long-term good, and are frankly resented by the locals.

If you're a doctor or dentist you might be able to do some good for the poor of world. Or if you're a Bill Gates who can manufacture and distribute hundreds of thousands of water purifiers. For the rest of us, the best thing we have to offer is jobs making things for us to buy, but there's a lot of resistance to that in the West.

Of course, there's much more you can do locally. Volunteer at a homeless shelter or food bank. Lobby for public infrastructure like schools and transit in poor neighbourhoods. Or just shovel the sidewalk of the elderly couple down the street.

Quote from: Haffrung;765958If only that were true. But we don't live in a zero-sum world where some people are poor because others are rich. The persistent poverty many in the world suffer under is due to extremely weak social infrastructures that are almost impossible for outsiders to fix. Traipsing off to Chad or the slums of Kuala Lampur and handing out money will achieve nothing. Even more coordinated aid efforts achieve little long-term good, and are frankly resented by the locals.

If you're a doctor or dentist you might be able to do some good for the poor of world. Or if you're a Bill Gates who can manufacture and distribute hundreds of thousands of water purifiers. For the rest of us, the best thing we have to offer is jobs making things for us to buy, but there's a lot of resistance to that in the West.

Of course, there's much more you can do locally. Volunteer at a homeless shelter or food bank. Lobby for public infrastructure like schools and transit in poor neighbourhoods. Or just shovel the sidewalk of the elderly couple down the street.

If you want to help in Chad I totally agree that going there yourself unless you are an engineer a medic or similar is pointless but you could give a chunk of change to Medecins sans Frontiers and they do excellent work there http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/country-region/chad and you can assuage some of your 1st world guilt.