Violence in games

Howdy ya'll. I've been toying with game ideas and have come across an odd predicament: I don't feel comfortable with violence anymore.

Video games get a pass unless it's realistic or graphic. I think this is because in ttrpgs, I feel more a part of it - like it's actually me doing these things.

How much in the minority am I? How do others feel about this?

If I wrote a game that made violence less appealing, would the whole game be discounted by potential players?

Anyway, just had to get some other thoughts, if you'll share.

Thanks.

So be it. I don't see that as a problem. At some point, you either get fed up with it or become so numb to it that you don't even notice it anymore.

I would write something simple, with little or no violence. Anyone can add more violence themselves, according to their own taste.

So, maybe some people won't like it because of that, but others will like it all the more.

There are many non-violent campaign premises which are totally fine. A cosy mystery usually has all the violence happen off-screen before the adventure starts. Golden Sky Stories are meant to be entirely nonviolent. Then there are other mostly nonviolent campaign premises - consider something loosely inspired by relational dramas like Gossip Girl, professional dramas like Shirobako, the Crazy Ones, or Century City, afterlife bureaucratic dramas like Tomorrow, life buraucratic dramedies like Yes Minister, sports RPGs like Fight with Spirit (for nonviolent sports anyway). All of those look like promising bases onto which an entirely nonviolent campaign can be built.

So I don't think lack of violence is a reason for a campaign premise to be discounted.

OTOH, the argument that that TTRPGs feel more like you doing stuff . . . I think if I follow that logic, then I would not have much issue with violence in RPGs, because, like in real life, violence is acceptable for things like self-defence or defence of others. And in RPGs, violence seems to be predominately used in contexts such as rebelling against galactic empires, fighting off invaders, destroying rampaging demons and the like, which seem like acceptable-to-use contexts.

How do you feel about the threat of violence? A really tense story could be told, with a horrible outcome to be avoided at all costs. Gothic horror just lurking in the shadows.

Like burlesque, all tease, no sleaze.

Generally, I feel the same way. I am so fed up with violence and hatred in the real world, I want to escape into a fantasy one. Obviously, I don't expect NPCs in a game to be any different from humans in the real world, but I'd like to have the means to make them non-violent for a change. Just to say "chill" to a goblin swinging his pathetic short sword.

Still, there are foes I'd like to sadistically murder in a game, but most of the foes aren't those foes, and if they never wronged me personally, never wronged anyone I'd care about, then why in the world would I want to be violent towards them? Live and let live… or eradicate everyone equally, like the Black Death, to fight climate change.

Agreed! In addition to having a campaign with no violence in a game that has rules for combat, there are plenty of RPG's that don't have any combat at all.
Just like some of the most popular video games don't feature combat or violence.

There are non-violent games, such as Wanderhome by Jay Dragon. Other games like Gumshoe need no violence to resolve the central tension of the game.

After all, violence is just one form of dramatic tension that drives the plot of a story.

Thank you everyone, for all the feedback. There seem to be a lot of things that I wasn't considering. And as usual there are games I'm unaware of.

In my current game, players are in the final stage. There’s no killing, though there was in earlier stages. I think I’ve lost my appetite for blood and gore.

My next game will *probably* be something campy that will involve nonlethal combat. I still like action and fight scenes… but they don’t have to end with rolling heads and pools of blood.

I'm comfortable with different levels of violence as long as the group I'm playing with is also.

I wouldn't want to bring violence into a non-violent game or ban it from a Inherently violent game.

As mentioned above there's lot of options for games which focus on non-violence, and generic systems like Fate can focus on non-violence as easy as violence.

I think it's important for a game and the participants to establish what a game is about including the level of violence, if that could be an issue.

Ages ago there was quite the argument about whether RPGs could be "any good" without violence. You can imagine where that discussion went, as it was spelled out by many of us just how many games aren't violent at all. Now conflict -- I will admit that's what I'm personally looking for in many (most?) of my gaming experiences. Interesting conflict and resolution.

(And okay fine, many of my own games have moments of intense violence, but those scenes are intended to hit hard rather than be something that just eventually desensitizes everyone at the table. Constant fights with no / low stakes? Pass.)

I use a 'Red Line' system for my game. Players are asked when they apply to join the group whether there are any aspects of gameplay that they explicitly don't want to witness in my game narrative.

* violence,
* gnomes,
* elves,
* dwarfs with Scottish Accents,
etc.

Players who state a specific 'Red Line' are then advised either to look elsewhere for a game, or the 'Red Line' is adopted by the groups as a condition of play.

So far, nobody has expressed opposition to 'Violence'. The only 'Red Line' agreed by my last group was a ban on 'Explicit Sexual Roleplay'.

Stories don't need to involve violence at all. Pride & Prejudice is generally considered an essential part of the literary canon in English, and there`s not even the hint that violence could be a possibility in that story.

I think violence is an easy way to capture plot progression through conflict/confrontation, and so it's very convenient to throw a brawl or three into a story.

It's certainly not an essential component for storytelling, though, and seeking other types of stories doesn't speak negatively of you at all. If you're looking for people to play a game not built around violent confrontation, I'm sure you'll find players.

When I GM I've tended to try not to let violence be glorified - never make it something 'fun' but always sort of horrid and grotesque and lightly upsetting. A grim necessity of conflict taken to impasse. And I tend to have badly injured parties try to escape rather than just throw their lives away on nothing. I don't think it solves your particular problem, but it's how I confronted the sort of violence-as-fun aspect of the hobby which is the bit I found a bit distasteful, and players tend to adapt without really realising. Mine tend to avoid fights, and I try to empower that (whilst throwing in the odd unavoidable one because they did invest character resources in their combat abilities.)

Most conventional stories are, at their hearts, conflicts of some kind. So you can replace violence with any other medium of confrontation without changing the core mechanics of a lot of systems. Or you could make most violent confrontations non-lethal, or unrealistic and slap-stick. Plenty of video games can tell a tonal range of stories within cartoony worlds, and many cartoons maintain a semi-serious tone without rating themselves out of a younger audience (Adventure Time?). Perhaps when the villain drops to 0 hp that's the point where you get to tie them up and foil their evil plan?

I think if you set the expectation clearly and you don't use a system that's too crunchy (and thus necessitate the removal of its built-in perception of violent confrontation with heavy mechanical adaptation - looking at you D&D/Pathfinder) you won't find many players who're put off. The ones who are are probably exactly the people you wouldn't want to play with anyway, who enjoy revelling in their graphic and splattery victories.

That said, if you try to remove or reduce the presence of all conflict in general I think you'll struggle to tell a compelling story.

So... dwarves? Just: no dwarves.

...

...

I keed I keed

I have no issue with violence at any level. A game must have some kind of conflict with consequences, or what is the point of playing? Could that conflict be something other than violence? Sure, but it is highly unlikely that I would play such a game. FWIW, I tell my players upfront that there will be violence in my games. To each their own, but I want to play Savage Worlds, not Happy Happy Friendly Worlds. The violence doesn't have to be gratuitous, unless it fits the game. In a horror game, violence is expected. Same with a Conan-esque game. I would expect blood to flow by the gallon. In a fantasy game, it doesn't have to be the focus, but I still want there to be the occasional murder or threat of violence.

There have been games that I played or PbPs that I read in which a player or two did something cruel and bizarre to a much weaker NPC. In each case, I found myself detesting the PC.

I don’t even think (at the time) it was violence itself that bothered me, but there’s a line. I can’t define it until it’s been crossed, so it’s probably best I stick to campy, cartoonish RPGs with non-lethal combat going forward.

My players do their level best to avoid unnecessary violence. They are very good at violence, when necessary, but they prefer to talk, as opposed to running in with blades flashing. And they will not hesitate to take prisoners when they can. We're playing the Kingmaker AP from Paizo and they have allied with more foes than they have killed.

Personally, I think the violence in games is therapeutic. Not unlike the manikins of the boss, some Japanese corporations allow their workers to whale upon in order to relieve their frustrations. In RPGs, players get to identify the bad guys and kill the bastards instead of having to grovel on their knees at their feet like they do in their real lives.

As GMs, we just feed them suitable representations of the people they would really like to kill in real life and let them enjoy themselves doing it.

Wanderhome, The Quiet Year, Ion Heart, Echo, these off the top of my head, do not rely on violence as a resolution for conflict. These games aim to achieve other goals.

Alternatively, there are games for which the violence is presented in less realistic forms, such as cartoony, or without lasting effects (ie knocked out, or removed from the scene, rather than killed or physically/mentally damaged). While such games could still have mechanics that resolve physical altercations, they may not suggest harm as we know it in the real world.