Why is violence a major part of traditional games?

>>47845351
When was the last time you saw a movie without conflict?

File: 1454028322159.jpg (96KB, 500x686px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 500x686px

>>47845351
Because adventuring is a major part of traditional games, and adventuring takes people places where violence is an inherent part of life.

>>47845363
Does streaming of a boat ride count?

>>47845351
because conflict is needed to make a goal and violence is the most universally understood conflict

>>47845351
It's just natural.

>>47845394
No. I require an example of something meant to entertain without violence, and it would help if it were popular.

>>47845363
Conflict != violence.

>>47845429
Violence = conflict tho.

>>47845422
Random video of kittens? Those are all over the internet.

Because conflict is a central part of storytelling.

>>47845363
Pretty much this. The vast majority of stories (and characters in them) are defined by conflict and change in response to it. While this doesn't mean physical violence out of hand, it's one of the most easily recognizable forms of conflict. That said, a Kafkaesque campaign where the party struggles to penetrate an incomprehensible bureaucracy to achieve their goals without getting physical would be interesting, if difficult to pull off effectively.

>>47845458

The subtext is there though.

>>47845351
>Why is violence a major part of traditional games?

Violence is natural and terribly abundant. Non-sapient animals are violent towards each other for a multitude of reasons outside of general carnivorism.

>>47845422
Thomas the tank engine.

Violence is one of the best and simplest ways to create conflict. It also implies danger, which is an integral part of an ADVENTURE. Not to mention that although a drama-based tabletop game would be fun, it would be very difficult to stat and work out all of the rules and mechanics, making sure it is actually a game and not just a bunch of neckbeards sitting around and pretending with no goal, danger, or rules holding the narrative together.

Violence is conflict. Conflict is what drives plots.

It's also simply the most easily understood method of conflict.

>KILL SHIT SO SHIT DON'T KILL YOU
or just
>BEAT SHIT UP SO SHIT DON'T BEAT YOU UP
is so simple even babies and animals instinctually understand it.

It's also a lot harder to plot and think of non-violent conflicts.

>>47845351
Violence is the most visible and straightforward of conflict.

It's one thing to have political intrigue, it's another entirely to smash some fuckers head in with a mace.

>>47845509
>TtTE
>no violence
Pretty sure there was an episode where a train falls off a bridge to his death.

>>47845509
http://imgur.com/gallery/Y4fxv

>>47845351
because violence death and suffering is very common in human history. many of our stories are shaped by this kind of conflict.

Because conflict is a major part of all cultures, it is something everyone understands on the basest of levels.

Well, except sheltered middle-class trash maybe.

File: for the love of god montressor!.jpg (24KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x360px

>>47845509
There was immurement.

>>47845351
Broadly defined, violence can be basically anything.

More specifically, I like role-playing escapist power fantasies, so it makes sense that I'd want to use violence as a form of effective institutional conflict resolution since I can't in real life.

>>47845535
Parks and Recreations?

Because violence is one of the few things that *has* to be simulated by dice rolls, so dice rolling systems expend a huge amount of rules and resources on them and direct all the crunchy/gamey players that way. Then people who don't know any better assume that if 95% of the book is about tactical violence, then 95% of the game should be about tactical violence.

File: the-discourse.jpg (59KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x500px

>>47845351
Because D&D evolved out of medieval wargames.

If Marc Miller had gotten Traveller out of the gate a few years sooner, y'all'd be complaining about gaming being nothing but "middle-aged dudes with mortgages" and "all this stupid economics shit".

>>47845422
Well, I just watched an episode of some moe animu the other day.

Research purposes. Didn't actually know what moe meant. Didn't like it.

>>47845351

Because a narrative requires some form of conflict and tension, and the easiest way to do that is with violence or the threat thereof.
Doing drama is hard at the table for several reasons, so instead we usually go for melodrama.

>>47845510
>Not to mention that although a drama-based tabletop game would be fun, it would be very difficult to stat and work out all of the rules and mechanics, making sure it is actually a game and not just a bunch of neckbeards sitting around and pretending with no goal, danger, or rules holding the narrative together.

It's been done, though. Primetime Adventures and Hillfolk both do it quite well.

There's more to it than just the rules for a drama game being hard to figure out, there's also the lowest common denominator problem, or Why Everyone Ends Up Playing D&D. If everyone in the group pulls in different directions, you end up settling for people's second or third choice of game and system to play.

>>47845351
Beats killing people in real life.

Why the fuck wouldn't it be? Violence and war is one of the most integral things to humans. Before humans, war was here, waiting for us.

File: 1422223527_extras_noticia_foton_7_1.jpg (17KB, 630x316px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 630x316px

>>47847281
>Before humans, war was here, waiting for us.
Fuck off you preachy wanksplat. You can say it's a part of the human condition but no more.

>ITT /tg/ justifies its violent fantasies

but this >>47847229

>>47847334
They're just fucking up a burrough's quote.

>>47847392
They can quote whomever they wish, it does not make them nor the original speak any less of a pretentious gobshite.

>>47845351

all entertainment boils down to things our animal side is wired for.

defend our territory
hunt out food
survive a catasrophe
reproduce

violence is the top 2.

the bottom 2 are thriller/disaster movies and porn/romance

>>47845351
It's easily quantifiable and definable conflict and resolution.

>>47847392
William S., or Edgar Rice?

>>47847470
>all entertainment boils down to things our animal side is wired for.

Hey look, pretentious college student has arrived. Hey, tell us the one about how there's only 6 plots in existence! Or is it 4? No wait, it was 8, right? It's always some round number that sounds deep at parties.

>>47845351
Because it's fun.

>>47847470
>violence is the top 2 and bottom 1
FIFY

>>47847334
You sound irrationally upset, you little faggot.

>>47847686

He's right, though. The quote as presented was some Deepak Chopra-level gibberish.

File: paddypitt.jpg (12KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x360px

I'm not mad friendbro. Purple prose is for fags to sound better than they really are.

File: iliad-1.gif (16KB, 374x547px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 374x547px

Cause it's awesome

>>47845351
Because eros and thanatos are the underpinnings of the entire human soul.

>>47847722
I bet you can't even bench 200 pounds, bro, let's not judge.

>>47847736

See, now that's deep, and not gibberish. It doesn't really address why tabletop RPGs and stuff are so much more tightly focused on violence than all our other forms of media, (outside rap music) but it's got philosophical credentials.

>>47847488

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2tgZCabTzs

>>47847469
yo tru

>>47847736
>"DUDE SIGMUND FREUD LMAO"

Besides his """"""""""""theory""""""""""""""" of unconscious brain (which he got wront anyway), everyhing he wrote was pseudo-scientific garbage that belongs in the trash bin that history has relegated it to.

>>47845351
An interesting, varied out combat system is a lot easier to make and you can do a lot more with it imagination wise compared to an interesting, varied social system, and doing so with stealth is even harder still.

>>47847830
You say that like you don't live in a society permeated at every level with sexual signalling or violence, be it ritualized or not.

So, yeah - violence IS the most easily recognizable (and most basic) conflict - but let's not pretend there aren't a shitton of others out there:

Basically, a conflict is anything that sets two sides against one another for the purpose of gaining (or not gaining) it. ANYTHING!

For example: (just off the top of my head, 'cause I'm hungry right now)
A Cookout!
Making the most delicious (and nutritious) meal for the judges at a (low) set price.
Roll vs INT to see how it tastes,
Dexterity to chop the veggies into artistic shapes,
Charisma for better score with judges,
Strenght to keep yourself from scarfing it down
and then (if failed) Constitution to keep yourself from barfing it back up.

>>47845351

Why is violence a major part of history, anon? Why does war determine so much?
Why are you such a faggot?

Some things are just part of human nature.

>>47847830

Whoa dude, calm your tits. The idea that sex and death are linchpins of human existence is far older than Freud. It's just one of the many things he stole from better thinkers than him and then pretended he'd invented all along.
Because Freud was a shit like that.

File: 51wTZ5cV9HL._SX357_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (47KB, 359x499px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 359x499px

>>47847728

>>47847334

Ants have been warring long before humans evolved, anon. Suck it.

>>47847334
>>47847469
>>47847721
>>47847722
Wow you guys sperged out super hard over that, huh

>>47845351
Why not?

>>47847882

Its more that he tried to link sex and death to an unconscious/soul/inner-truth which is unified and decryptable via dream interpretation that's bullshit. Lot of sex and death going on though.

>>47847852
I know that you think what you just said was super deep, but it's not. Really. You can likely get away with impressing the 90 IQs regulars on 4chan with excerpts from Beyond the Pleasure Principle but Freud never did an a single scientific thing in his entire life.

Hate to shatter the almost century-old bubble you've been living in but human cognition isn't an endless series of emasculation avoidance and repression. Nothing he claimed is the least bit scientific. It's the same reason why psychoanalysis isn't taken seriously anywhere in the world, besides like Argentina.

Multiple reasons.

1.) Early RPGs evolved out of wargames. Of course, violence is central to those.

2.) Conflict is key to an exciting narrative. Violence is one of the simplest forms of conflict.

3.) The stakes are easily-understood and very high, therefore exciting through empathetic thinking.

>>47847830
Nope, Freud's views are still taught in present day psychology classes. Even if most of his ideas were surpassed, he is still the foundation others build on.

>>47845716
This is the real reason, not "muh human nature". Same reason as why most modern board games are about trade and/or infrastructure; Catan did it that way and influenced the whole genre.

>>47847957
The only one talking about Freud here is you, Anonymous. Consider: are you projecting?

>>47847897
That's actually a good cover, I like what they were going for with it

>>47847897
>>47847980
>"War... war never changes."

>>47847995
DEEPEST LORE

File: Strangelove.jpg (29KB, 762x449px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 762x449px

>>47847918

>guy posts gibberish
>say "nah that's gibberish"

>wow i sperged out super hard

File: 9780872204843_p0_v2_s1200x630.jpg (22KB, 408x630px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 408x630px

>>47847980

inorite? I bought it even though I already had a copy. I just saw it on the shelf and started getting all kinds of weird feelings.

The Odysses' cover is pretty cool too. Doesn't quite do it as well, but I partially blame the Apollo 13 movie for making it impossible to imagine tom hanks as Odysseus.

>>47847728
Most of the interesting things in the Iliad don't involving the fighting itself.

I can't shake the feeling you're a barely functioning autist that takes things too seriously, anon

>>47847532
It's actually three.

>searching for treasure
>assaulting the castle
>returning home

>>47848044
Not literally, no.

But the work is a painful celebration of war, in all of its parts: the terrors, the glory, the honour, the devastation, the anger and even the futility of it. So no, the most of the interesting parts aren't about a guy being literally hacked to death but the thrill of reverent violence permeates everything in it

>>47848141

No, it's actually just two plots in existence:

>Shit happens
>Shit doesn't happen

99% of all stories can be oversimplified understood as the first one. The second isn't widely used outside of arthouse movies.

>>47845351
violence without transcendant purpose is brutish belligerence.

violence with transcendant purpose is martial struggle.

>>47848043
Achillies is the original Male Human Fighter

>>47845351
You ever read any classical or medieval epics? They're drenched in blood.

Waltharius, the Song of Roland, the Tain, Nibelungenlied, and pretty much every classical epic, is the story of a guy who was especially good at killing dudes, and a pretty significant portion of the text is made up of descriptions of gory and gruesome murder.

>>47848357
Wouldn't that be Gilgamesh?

>>47848438
Yeah, actually you're right. Enkidu is the original Male Human Barbarian

>>47845351
Because that's how things get done.

>>47848159
>Iliad
>celebration of war

lmao ok. That's why everyone important loses in the end.

You know I'm not usually one to be in a position to accuse like this but jesus you sound like a pseudo-intellectual try hard.

You like wargames. Okay, good for you, but it's not ever going to be as profound as you pretend. Most good compelling literary conflict is psychological not "I hit it with a stick".

>>47848707
>"Dude isn't it funny how for 2,000 years, everyone got it wrong about the Illiad?! It's totally a post-modern, subversive critique of war! Funny how that interpretation agrees with my precise 21st century sensibilities!"

The Greeks very much celebrated war. They even had two major deities who embodied it. Fucking retard, now go scamper back to the "Interpretations" section of the Illiad's wikipedia page.

>>47848707
> Most good compelling literary conflict is psychological not "I hit it with a stick".
So much this. Violence as a major part of the story is a crutch for the lazy or mentally deficient.

>>47848851
>They even had two major deities who embodied it.

One of which was noble and motherly, and represented war for defense, and the other was a thuggish monster who was the embodiment of war at its bloody worst.

>>47849016
Ares was widely celebrated by the Spartans. Only Athens, Corinth and Thebes "reviled" him.

Athena also, embodies defense in so much as foriegn armies invading Greek towns - not passive self defense as a universal principle. As a matter of fact she also favoured courageous, bold assault.

Stay mad and retarded pleb

>>47849246
>Only Athens, Corinth and Thebes "reviled" him.

That doesn't help your earlier simplistic post that the Greeks "very much celebrated war."

>>47845351
Because violence without the actual consequences or risks thereof is fun.

When I was a kid, I used to play pretend that I was a teacher, a doctor, a lawyer, and obviously a cop. Only the cop will deal with physical violence, and not on a daily-basis. All of those roles are interesting to engage in.

I know a good deal of games that don't have physical violence in them and are awesome. Better : most sessions of my D&D game don't include people murdering the shit out of each other for no reason. Most of the time, people are talking, planning, negotiating, sneaking, et cetera. But fighting? That's a last resort, so no, it doesn't happen each session, because my players are efficient at treasure hunting and adventuring.

>>47849365
Yes... it does? I put "reviled" because hoplites from every city, no matter what, performed rites before battles regardless of who their patron deity was. Athens had a massive temple dedicated to him before the Romans disassembled it and built it again for themselves.

What are you evem arguing about at this point? Just doing it for the sake of it?

>>47847392
>>47847469
>They

>>47845429
see
>>47845510
Campaign needs conflict, excitement. Violence is the easiest way to do it. Everything else gets boring quick, mostly because of the increasing complexity.

Violence portrayed in a fantastical manner is fun. Especially if the things you are hitting are morally reprehensible.

>>47849535

>I have no attention span.

>When NPCs start talking to me, I just stab them.

>Coming this Fall on HBO: Confessions of a Murderhobo

File: giphy-facebook_s.gif (89KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 480x270px

>"Haha, these boorish simians are still entertained by primitive fantasies of violence. Such barbaric savagery like violent tabletop games and urinating while standing up must be done away."

>>47845351
because violence was a major part of history?
I mean, violence is a thing that happens.

>>47845351 >>47845363 >>47845380 >>47845400 >>47845418 >>47845467
>>47845469 >>47845482 >>47845510 >>47845528 >>47845531 >>47845553
>>47845567 >>47847470 >>47847482 >>47847578 >>47847736 >>47847873
>>47848259 >>47848385 >>47848572 >>47849535
Why violence? Because we're all victims of the digital age and can't into anything else. I wish I could sit down and write a good campaign but I cannot bring myself to sit still for that long.

>>47849456
YOU deserve a gold star. There was a time when RPG's involved more than being a group of murderhobos, when the plot was more than a string of battles, when there were puzzles and intrique and complexity. There was a time when role-playing was fun for its own sake: to act out situations from another point of view, to be something or someone you could never be.

Star Trek: TNG, The Witcher (first one at least), these are prime examples of the role-playing spirit in other media. Not every problem needs to be solved at the point of a sword nor is there always an obvious solution. Watch TNG and compare the pacing of episodes to ANYTHING on TV today... it's so much slower and more deliberate.

File: download.jpg (4KB, 177x240px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 177x240px

>>47849843
Shut up you whiney pretentious bitch, if you get triggered by violence don't watch it. Nobodys forcing you too. There is plenty of contemporary film and literature available that doesn't involve a single act of physical violence. There also plenty of campaign books, independent and official, for various systems that focus on non-violent conflict like court politics and governmental management.

Hate this holier-than-thou attitude. It's cool that you're a whiny fucking retard who only watches violent media seemingly to complain but don't pretend you're doing it as an ironic statement.

>>47845351
Because conflict is a universal concept and violence is a convenient means to explore it anon.

>>47849953
>Shut up you whiney pretentious bitch, if you get triggered by violence don't watch it.
>but don't pretend you're doing it as an ironic statement.

Did you mean to reply to my post...?

>>47849843
>"victims of the digital age"

We live in the most peaceful era of mankind. This is neither a weighty philosophical statement or accurate assessment of modern geopolitics.

Regardless, I can tell by the way that you write that you do not belong here and should immediately go back to R eddit.

>>47849843
RPGs literally grew out of wargames. Gygax vehemently opposed the concept of roleplaying.

>>47850028
>Gygax vehemently opposed the concept of roleplaying.
[citation needed]

>>47849843
>There was a time when RPG's involved more than being a group of murderhobos
No there wasn't. Murderhobos have always existed.

File: 1465413308043.jpg (648KB, 819x1157px) Image search: [Google]

648KB, 819x1157px

>>47847967
Where did deck building come from? And can it fuck off back to there? Everything and it's mother is coming out with a coop deck building spin off and they're all mediocre as fuck.

>>47850016
>We live in the most peaceful era of mankind. This is neither a weighty philosophical statement or accurate assessment of modern geopolitics.
I don't know what about "digital" made you infer that I meant "peaceful" but that's not what I was implying.
>Regardless, I can tell by the way that you write that you do not belong here and should immediately go back to R eddit.
Yes, the way you pull things out of your ass that doesn't surprise me.

We have the internet now. We have videogames now. We are inundated with fun and exciting things to do, and society's collective patience has grown thinner. People don't want to sit around and twiddle their thumbs trying to figure out the DM's special little puzzle anymore, that just isn't socially acceptable. Instead, the DM throws a bunch of monsters in a dungeon and adds a few details so you have a reason to fight them because it's faster, easier, and keeps everyone at the table engaged. But it's lazy.

>>47850028
> Gygax vehemently opposed the concept of roleplaying.
>The guy who came up with the detailed world of Greyhawk was opposed to roleplaying.
Even if it wasn't Gygax himself who came up with that stuff, his group did. How much depth is there to your group's campaign setting?

>>47847967
Humans do like violence though. We are most closely related to chimps and they love the fuck out of some violence unlike other primates.

>>47845351
Because it's also a major part of a lot of stories. Also most of the major turning points in history revolve around violent activities, usually wars but sometimes the odd plague, disaster of famine can turn the world upside down.

Open a history book sometime. The world is a violent place. Humanity is a violent species. We all have experience with violence at some point in our lives. Either at the hands of schoolyard bullies, strangers, or gods forbid, abusive parents or spouses.

I'm sorry if this offends your delicate sensibilities but there's this thing you might not have been taught about in school called "objective truth."

The Truth doesn't give two fucks if it offends you, if it's inconvenient for your preferred worldview or if it's politically incorrect. It just is.

The Truth is often unpleasant and the Truth has victims.

The Truth is that we have been and always will be a violent species. Deal with it.

>>47850044
I don't have a quote but basically after D&D became a big hit and other games started coming out Gygax's opinion of rules-light story focused systems was not very high.

>>47850163
Pretty detailed actually.

>>47850208
I dunno about us being a VIOLENT species.
I mean, we're about middle of the road when it comes to pure violence.
Lots of things in nature will do genocide war a lot faster than we will.
Wheras we're more of the end where inflicting significant casualties on our soldier caste sometimes makes us give up, which is actually relatively moderate compared to the ALL IN strategies some creatures use.

>>47845351
Because the whole point of gaming is to act out things that you can't do in real life. Sex and violence are at the top of the list of things that people want to do but don't. It makes sense that (violent) roleplaying and ERP are popular.

>>47850163
Okay and...? People like a hundred years ago were conquering other countries and dropping atomic bombs on each other and you're mega upset with the way things are now because someone doesn't like your shitty adventure? Cry more dude, write better adventures

>>47850163
>We are inundated with fun and exciting things to do, and society's collective patience has grown thinner.
does "society" in this sentence stand for you personally, or what

in any case, maybe you should just git gud and find people who want to roleplay at your desired pace, instead of whining on the internet about people having fun the wrong way. Tabletop RPGs started as murderhobo simulations, and that shit isn't going away.

>>47850238
Nah, we're violent as shit. In fact we are the most violent primate in existence. We are most closely related to chimps genetically speaking and likely a share a not too distant at all evolutionary relative like I mentioned here. Chimps are highly aggressive and violent as shit. It's a highly controversial subject, but some primatologists claim that chimps are the only other species besides humans to engage in organised, directed intergroup violence - i.e. war

Even without that though we are leaps and bounds far more violent and aggressive than any other primate in existence.

>>47850251
>Atomic bombs
>1916
You can't really claim that one as a bygone era, anon.

>>47850297
>We are most closely related to chimps genetically speaking and likely a share a not too distant at all evolutionary relative like I mentioned here
We're more closely related to bonobos, which solve all of their differences by fucking until they've forgotten what they were arguing about.

>>47850347
Literally no, we aren't. You got that way backwards.

http://www.livescience.com/7929-human-evolution-closest-living-relatives-chimps.html

>>47850163
>the detailed world of Greyhawk
>Greyhawk
>detailed
You know how I can tell you've never opened the World of Greyhawk boxed set?

>>47850297
anon, chimps aren't as likely to perform full genocidal cleansings as most of the hive based creatures. At most they get up to tribal warfare and systemic murder when pressed for resources.

>>47850469
most hive-based creatures are barely sentient as is, and life-forms that low on the totem pole experience pain in a manner that may as well not exist.

>>47850490
anon, when you say a species is violent, of course I am going to compare it to other violent species to decide where on the violence spectrum it lays.
I mean, fuck, humans don't even go into rut and try to trample everything they see that doesn't give them a fuck once a year.

File: Hornets.png (142KB, 970x750px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 970x750px

>>47850469

Ssh! You're ruining his "devil apes" meme!

Also, hornets are total bros.

>>47850504
>humans don't even go into rut and try to trample everything they see that doesn't give them a fuck once a year.
that's because human rut is spread evenly through the whole year

>>47850469
>ants
>war

You know entomologists hate this kind of anthropomorphising shit, right? Ants, termites, and bees don't live in hierarchies and do coordinate attacks or raids on other hives. They just eat other due to differing scents. They aren't cognitively thinking "DUDE FROM ANOTHER HIVE TRESPASSING ON MY BELOVED QUEEN'S COUNTRY"

Also, the Queen isn't "in charge" of the hive. She just gives birth and has sex while some other ants bring her food.

>>47850538
yeah. Much less intensely murderous.
Which is what I'm trying to get at. Humans aren't at one of the extremes of the violence spectrum. They're closer to the middle.

>>47850556
anon, that doesn't, uh, make them any less violent or make their genocidal wars any less genocidal war-y.

>>47850251
>you're mega upset with the way things are now because someone doesn't like your shitty adventure?
I'm pointing out how society is lazier today than it was of yesteryear. The fact that you misinterpreted my post is really evidence for my position.

>>47850259
>does "society" in this sentence stand for you personally
Out of 15+ Anons that responded directly to OP, only ONE of them actually protested that their games don't involve a lot of violence. Do you really think it's always been the case that <6% of Anonymous make an attempt to solve problems in games without violence?
>Tabletop RPGs started as murderhobo simulations, and that shit isn't going away.
(from GreyHawk setting wikipedia page)
>Gygax was also aware that different players would be using his world for different reasons.
>Gygax immersed his own characters in politics and large-scale battles.
>Gygax tried to include as much detail as possible about each region, including a short description of the region and its people, the title of its ruler, the racial makeup of its people, its resources and major cities, and its allies and enemies.
Sure, murderhobo simulation has been with RPGs from the start. But so have detailed settings and political intrigue.
Anyone can roll the dice, look on a table, and determine what happened to the badguy-- and if that's all you're interested in you might as well be playing 40K and fluffing descriptions for your combat. The beauty of role-playing games is that they allow for so much more complexity of outcomes; isn't it more creative to solve a conflict without violence than by going the obvious route?

>>47850575
>Humans aren't at one of the extremes of the violence spectrum. They're closer to the middle.
True. However, we're made far more terrifying by having concept of malice. Spontaneous violence will never be as terrifying as purposeful one.

>>47850635
I am sort of more terrified by spontaneous violence.

Or, more technically, unthinking violence. A horrible ant monster or gun that has legs and also makes more guns is more terrifying to me than men.

>>47850625
>But so have detailed settings and political intrigue.
and that's still present

all the plebeians are high on political intrigue in fantasy settings. Now is literally the easiest time in decades to set up some kind of noble feud plot in a tabletop.

maybe if you actually played RPGs, you'd realize that

>>47850575
Except that simply isn't true. Humans wipe out each other in the tens of millions at times in conflicts. No other species does this.

Again, you're anthropomorphizing insects. They are just eating things that don't share the same scent as them. It's not coordinated or organised. That's not war or "genocide".

Again you are perhaps willfully misunderstanding the behaviour of insects. Humans also have gigantic slaughterhouses for their prey. It's not the same.

File: Brown_Hare444.jpg (3MB, 1622x1250px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1622x1250px

Amusingly, it's the herbivore species the most likely ones to kill each other.

Carnivorous species have powerful weapons that allows them to kill each other rather easily. To solve that predatory species have powerful psychological inhibitors and rituals that allows them to stop before some of the two gets killed.

Meanwhile, a fight between two herbivore animals is most likely to be nasty, bloody and even lethal.

>>47850575
>anon, that doesn't [...] make their genocidal wars any less genocidal war-y
Try a uh, dictionary, bud.
>Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination of...
>deliberate and systematic

>>47850625
Greyhawk's got shit detail on its various regions.

>>47850686
>just because it's bugs killing each other, it doesn't count as violent
Anon, I fully understand that bugs aren't intelligently deciding to shank that guy because they don't like them. That doesn't actually make them less violent.
>>47850699
oh, sorry. What's the manslaughter version of genocide, then? That.

There are no species like us, because we killed them all.

File: WatershipDown.jpg (83KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 750x600px

Could you handle it?

Ducks are serial rapists.

>>47845585
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cask_of_Amontillado

>>47845351

Because we can't have rape without triggering someone.

>>47850718
I never said it wasn't violence, I said it wasn't war or genocide which you kept claiming for no other reason that I imagine you think it would be cool if ants did stuff like humans

Still, ant colonies preying on each other doesn't reach casualties in the millions. Humans are still objectively violent.

>>47850745

I hear B&B was a great game, actually.

>>47850625

It's boring. Violence, however, is exciting.

Our society's ultimately based on the threat of violence anyway.

>>47850809
given basic google fu, it says that non-super ant colonies can have around 7 million ants?

And I am calling it genocide because QUICK WHAT IS THE MANSLAUGHTER VERSION OF GENOCIDE?

WHAT IS THE ACTUAL WORD FOR IT?

Yeah, I thought so.

>>47850347
>>47850372
Neither of you understand how evolution works. We're equally related to both. We share infinitesimally more DNA in common with the chimpanzee compared to the bonobo.

>>47850676
>Now is literally the easiest time in decades to set up some kind of noble feud plot in a tabletop.
And yet where is Anonymous showing my ass up with a description of the intricate political mess that is their current campaign??
>maybe if you actually played RPGs, you'd realize that
that what? That most people are interested in cheap murderhobo one-offs over persistent campaign settings with political consequences? Prove me wrong Anon, show me your wonderful campaign that's more complex than everybody's favorite Game of Thrones!

>>47850703
Uh-huh, sure. How about Forgotten Realms? Entire novels, entire games based solely within the city of Neverwinter. My argument was that detailed settings have been a part of RPGs since their inception. Where is your counter-argument?

I'd join previous orators and say that's it's not violence but conflict and struggle that makes a good story.
And conflict as "Orcs want to rob, rape and kill you and your mum, not necessarily in that order, but you have an axe" is pretty easy to come with and comparatively fun to play.

>>47850865
>And yet where is Anonymous showing my ass up with a description of the intricate political mess that is their current campaign??
why should people bow to your lazy whining

File: We shall take away your rails and leave you here for always and always and always.jpg (141KB, 667x889px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 667x889px

>>47845585

>>47850745
I'd play it. Those rabbits are fukken batshit crazy.

And here i thought that /tg/ went apeshit when the physical or spiritual aspects of humanity were being discussed.

When you guys brought psychology into this thread it was brutal. Like, it has been a while since i've seen a discussion turn so violent so fast

>>47850556
>Also, the Queen isn't "in charge" of the hive.
Weren't the queens able to control the hive to an extent with pheromones?
Then again, this is not my area of expertise but i agree with you that the common ant probably has not enough "brainpower" to understand hierarchies as we know them.

>>47850809
anon, you are confounding capacity for violence with general violence.
Wheras the other guy is going by willingness to commit violence.
If you are going by raw capacity, then I guess humans and bacteria are the most violent creatures, as the ones most likely to disrupt the biosphere and kill all life, followed by meteors and volcanos. But "caused the death of the planet by economical mishap or overbreeding and eating/making too much oxygen" doesn't really give you a satisfying answer for "most violent".

File: metro_2033_redux__path_of_ranger_by_dp_films-d7xmihc.jpg (2MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1440px

>>47845351
Because /tg/ is all about adventure and violence is a prominent aspect of adventuring.

Adventures are supposed to be dangerous, but it only stays interesting so long if you're just making saves against rock slides and bad weather. There's gotta be something else.

>>47850860
Okay so I'm right? How does that mean I don't understand evolution if I'm still right in the end

>>47850949
stopped clocks and all that

>>47845351
Can you please remove this image? It pushes the patriarchal belief that violence against women is ok.

>>47850893
>I can't be assed to prove u wrong or offer any rebuttal
>but I'm still going to say ur wrong bcuz I like shitposting
Do you even have a reason for existing? Is there a human being on the other side of this board, or are you some kind of sentient lump that relays the first sentence that comes to mind after reading a post?

>>47850919
>followed by meteors and volcanos
I'd argue that to be able to commit violence you have to be alive yourself.
I mean, i could build a killer robot that tears people apart in extremely painful ways.
I could call it's actions "violent" but i couldn't say that the robot is commiting violence itself.
It is just following its programming and has no way to change, it is as much a "force of nature" as a volcano or a giant rock that is rolling down a slope.

Then again, the same could be said about any non-sapient creature.
Dolphins are assholes, tho'

>>47849843
mankind has been violent since we were living in trees.
It is our inherent nature, and throughout history we've proven it many times. Fighting for survival and bringing violence to others is quite literally one of the most exhilarating things you can do while alive.
The digital age can finally satiate these impulses by showing fictional violence, that's why action movies are so popular. And in doing that, in my opinion, it reduces the actual levels of real violence. We live in the most peaceful period of our history right now, and i think it's greatly in part due to having other avenues of venting our impulses, like vidya gaems

>>47851039
I dunno, I would totally say that the robot is committing violence.
Especially if it's programmed to go KILL KILL KILL while doing it.

>>47845351
Either accept the fact that violence is a natural thing that happens when someone is trying to do literally anything to progress a giant plot of any sort, or just go back to playing fucking undertale you fucking weeb.
gg ez, fuckin hippie.

>>47851062
>It is our inherent nature, and throughout history we've proven it many times
Yes, all those studies we've done raising humans in total cultural seclusion, only to have them grow up to be murderous bastards!
>Fighting for survival and bringing violence to others is quite literally one of the most exhilarating things you can do while alive.
You must be speaking from personal experience, is that why violence is such a popular pasttime?
>We live in the most peaceful period of our history right now, and i think it's greatly in part due to having other avenues of venting our impulses, like vidya gaems
Or perhaps, (and this is just a suggestion) it's because people are more educated than every before and society does a better job of teaching people that violence is unacceptable in modern society?

>The digital age can finally satiate these impulses by showing fictional violence, that's why action movies are so popular
Is it? Wowzers, sounds like we're trending towards movies that are non-stop scenes of gore!

Violence in-and-of-itself is worthless. The reason it's popular is because it is a quick and dirty story-telling tool to show the most basic and ancient of stories:
>We, the good guys, are right and they, the bad guys, are wrong.

>>47851181
>of teaching people that violence is unacceptable in modern society?
>modern society is unilaterally right or better compared to previous societies.

because violence is universal

there has always been a shit ton of violence everywhere throughout time

>>47851069
>the robot is committing violence.
No, well, yes. But no.

The robot is committing violent acts.
The robot also lacks violent intent. Or any kind of intent for that matter.

It would be like saying that an Indiana-Jones-Grade boulder that is rolling down a sloped street splatting everyone in its way is committing violence.

The boulder is killing people because of physics.
The robot is not going "Kill. Kill. Kill", it is going
>00 scan "enviroment"
>10 identify object "human"
>20 grab object "human"
>30 if "human"=="living" go to 50
>40 go to 00
>50 call function "spin pincers"
>60 go to 00

See? No intent whatsoever
Yes, i know this does not comform to any kind of programming language whatsoever, but i am not going to whip out a diagram at 4:30 am

>>47851252
Not when women are in charge. Females are much less aggressive. :^)

>>47851268

But they are much more vicious and prone to revenge. Men sees it as part of the game. Woman take it personally.

>>47851268

Ha! Woman are more likely to take a knife than men during a fight.

>>47851319
>>47851345
you lads miss the :^)

>>47851250
>>modern society is unilaterally right or better compared to previous societies.
Read my post again, I made no such argument, nor did I reference "good" or "right".

I put forth the notion that society is effective at teaching citizens that violence is unacceptable. There is obvious evidence for this like duelling being illegal and physical discipline of children falling out of favor.

"right" and "wrong" was entirely your fabrication, my argument only concerned levels of violence.

>>47851448
:^) is a friendly face, letting others know you have entered the discussion with an open mind and honest opinion.

:^)

>>47851448

Don't underestimate women. They will castrate you, murder your children, your sister, and your mother for not buying her a purse.

>>47851486
That's because we're bitch princesses from hell who deserve to be treated like amazoness warrioress goddesses.

:^)

>>47850625
>I'm pointing out how society is lazier today than it was of yesteryear. The fact that you misinterpreted my post is really evidence for my position.

Do you have any proof of this?

Or are you playing the exact same card every generation plays about the newest generation?

You're falling victim to being a stupid shithead, and the solution is to stop being one. Step one: realize your argument is making the world worse, and knock it off.

Violence isn't new. If you read Homer's Odyssey you will find it is packed with violence. Violence is a part of who we are as a species. It will always be with us.

>>47845351
Because modern RPGs come from tabletop wargaming neckbeards who wanted to tell the backstory of their commanders.

>>47851525
>Do you have any proof of this?
If I had proof I'd be writing a thesis and getting published, m8. I'm presenting an opinion and supporting it with evidence, feel free to add to the discussion.

>Or are you playing the exact same card every generation plays about the newest generation?
A valid concern, but that doesn't add evidence one way or the other. If you think I'm full of shit then you can try pointing out examples of where I'm wrong.

>You're falling victim to being a stupid shithead, and the solution is to stop being one.
An excellent diagnosis, doctor. Tell us again how you defended your dissertation with such ravishing one-liners as this!
>Step one: realize your argument is making the world worse, and knock it off.
Making the world worse? Are you at risk of losing something by considering an opinion that differs from your own? Afraid your fragile ego might be bruised?

I think it's a great thing for people to re-evaluate how they play their games and for them to consider mixing it up with more plot and less murder-hobo. If someone tries a different style and doesn't like it, that's still a win for me because they tried something new.

>>47851508
>That's because we're bitch princesses from hell who deserve to be treated like amazoness warrioress goddesses.

>:^)

And the meme is dead already. Was nice while it lasted.

>>47851623
>If you think I'm full of shit then you can try pointing out examples of where I'm wrong.

I point to everything you've posted

My evidence is everything you've posted.

My counterpoint is that you go find a fire and die in it.

>>47850625
> Implying violence isn't an integral part of politics.

File: BA2adder.jpg (25KB, 288x269px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 288x269px

>>47851649
What a stunning display of intellectual prowess.

>>47851692
>> Implying violence isn't an integral part of politics.
That's like saying spontaneous combustion is an integral part of engineering-- politics is trying to get what you want WITHOUT violence. If you could use violence to get what you wanted you wouldn't damn well need politics, would you?

>Your wife will never throw boiling water at you when angry.

>>47851623
>supporting it with evidence
No, you haven't. You're just some guy who goes "people don't read books anymore!" while failing to acknowledge that people have never read as much as they do now, at any level of granularity.

>>47851744
I see you are completely unaware of the violence inherent in the system. Murder, assassination, oppression, war itself is violence done for political and capital gain. Your position is always, always backed up by the threat of violence and your capabilities are shown through the exercise of violence.

Do you think America has all those military bases or protects world shipping out of altruism?

If this was a face to face conversation I could just beat you until you shut the fuck up. Or not, because if I did so police would come and shoot me or forcibly confine me.

You're a bitch niggah protected from the violence because of the sacrifice sacrifice of others.

>>47851744
All authority, and thus all politics, are secured through might.

>>47851821
And if you believe otherwise I'll kill you.

>>47851835
Yes, trying to enforce your own laws without men-with-guns to back them up will likely have men-with-guns beat you up.

>>47851181
Go slap some faggot intelectual around. He'll hit you back the second he realizes he could also get away with it.
We are taught that violence is something frowned upon, but not something bad or wrong.

>>47851709
I tailor my responses to best suit the person I'm talking too.

File: 1461588469567.jpg (162KB, 816x525px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 816x525px

>>47845351
Because violence is fucking awesome.

Look, let me get this shit straight - there are two kinds of violence.

One of them, well, let's call it "child-like" violence. This one is the shitty kind of violence. It involves toying with your prey for your personal satisfaction, when you yourself aren't risking anything.
The "child-like" violence includes torture, bullying, strong humiliating the weak etc. This is the shitty kind of violence and one that I personally frown upon.

And then there's the second kind of violence, let's call it "animalistic" violence. It involves fighting with conviction, fighting with all you've got, fighting for your survival or things that are important for you. And this kind of violence is fucking awesome.
"Animalistic" violence includes wars, gladiator fights etc., and, in my opinion, it's the best kind of violence.

This is why we love war - because wars aren't a sport. There are no take-backs, and it's anyone's game. Everyone is risking it all to be the one emerges victorious. Wars are brutal, and that's why we love them.

This is why we love rooting for the underdog - because he's risking it all to overcome the overwhelming odds. There is something inherently attractive in seeing a man fight against odds, to see the violence commited for the sake of it - after all, there is nothing more professional and polite than taking your opponent seriously.

The grotesque and repugnant violence of the strong beating up on the weak should not be accepted, it is the violence against odds that should be celebrated.

And now to answer your question, why violence is a major part of traditional games?
Well, if you examine it, you will see that violence in RPGs is all about overcoming the odds, and people love it.
The "child-like" violence, which encompasses torture and strong toying with the weak without any potential consequences, is usually a role relegated to BBEGs, someone to defeat and hate, not to admire.

Conflict is gaming (competition, typically), it's engaging, different to our regular lives (an outlet), it's cool, and it has risks, reward, and finality.

It's quite possibly over represented, but it's stupid to not realise why it's there.

Me am roll-player. Me am throw hit dice and smash!

>>47845351
Probably for two reasons, maybe more.

1. Play is natural practice for hunting, and hunting involves violence. This is part of the natural impulse for engaging in games, particularly competitive ones. Whether besting a rival or downing prey, it frequently requires violence.

2. Many "traditional" games (we're not talking about hoop trundling here) are actually based on military concepts. From chess to Kriegspiel and even Dungeons and Dragons (invented by TSR whose acronym stood for Tactical Studies Rules and who brought the concept of miniatures wargaming from a primarily military enthusiast's genre into the public realm), the military has long used games for training, and above all others, the military is violent.

I'm sure a lot of people are aware of military involvement in game design and promotion, but I'm not sure people realize just how pervasive it's always been.

>because genres
RPGs emulate other forms of fiction in "collaborative storytelling" form. Usually it's genre fiction. Violence is inherent to typical fantasy world, and fantasy is most prevalent genre in RPG, it isn't also a strange thing to types of sci-fi that is most often employed in RPGs. (Pseudo)historical RPGs also tend to pick periods full of strife and violence, and suggest players to have positions in the world that make them part of it. Exactly like historical novels do. Now, the choice of genres may be dictated by the need of violence, and not the other way, and that's how it was at the beginning, when RPGs evolved from wargames, but now it's more like circuit feedback.
>because shit GMs not being able to fill their games with anything other than massive amounts of combat
Self explanatory.
>because big chunk of the TTRPG community rollplayers endorsing combat-centric playstyle
Also self explanatory. Fact that the most popular RPG on the market is still one strongly suggesting using minis and grid speaks for itself

Now, violence in fiction, especially in genre fiction of specific kinds isn't bad thing. Killing shit is often the most believable and practical solution. Thing is, violence should mean somenthing, be a climactic element of the story, not repeatable filler. And that it isn't, is 50/50 fault of bad DMing and gamist attitudes among players brought up on vidya.

>>47845351
>Why is violence a major part of traditional games?
It has to do with a direct threat. Aside from point-scoring, like matrix-running in the net, attacks to let's say your bank account don't really cause a threat to you. They'll impoverish you, but we as a society have fraud investigation. And you'll just have to go back to work longer. No, you need something permanent. And painful. Immediate and life-changing for the worse. Therefore violence. You might buy a pizza, but you aren't going to let someone bash your face in.

>>47845351
Because conflict is what defines us.

>>47851456
Dueling is legal where I live. As long as it's not to the death.

>>47845422
WILSOOOOOOOOON!!!!!

cast away

>>47845351
>Why is violence a major part of traditional games?

Why is [thing people general can't do freely/safely in real life] a major part of [whimsical pastime]?

>>47845351
I ran plenty of CWOD VtM without violence. Many sessions were intrigue and players conducting investigations, socializing or doing heists.

Because ever since the invention of written word, humanity learned that the most intetesting things one can describe or picture are sex and violence

Sex and violence are fun, they are two of the most basic instincts humanity has, if not THE most basic.

>>47850163
>People don't want to sit around and twiddle their thumbs trying to figure out the DM's special little puzzle a
do you play with monkeys? Honest question.

File: 2149zbb.jpg (25KB, 315x365px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 315x365px

>someone tries to kill you
>kill them
>"yes, that sounds reasonable"

>someone tries to kill you
>rape them
>"YOU'RE A MONSTER"

>>47849843
Oh, hey, I woke up and someone didn't actually read my post, but instead used it in a mass response in order to lend weight to a facile point. Neat.

>>47845351
Because physical violence is the most prominent and easily understood form of conflict?

>>47845351

Because you have a reaction to it.

>>47849843
> there was a time when RPGs involved more than being a group of murder hobos

Are you daft?
A. No there wasn't. The crawl has been a part of RPGs since game one.
B. How murder-hobo your party may be is like 99% dependent on the players at the table, not the game in question. I dare say half of the group's I've been in have each had at least one session that was basically sitting around and faffing about/discussing plans in-character, if not five or ten. The idea that all players and GMs are reckless "Kill everything, next room," style RPG-players is a gross misconception, and it has been my displeasure to find myself among such a group perhaps a dozen times at most.
Instead of arguing if they're wrong to do so, my point more so is that very few RPGs restrict you to being violent brigands and tomb raiders; that's the choice of the players at hand; a conscious decision or otherwise.

>>47851787
he was wrong, but now you are too.
politics can include violence, but it certainly isnt ONLY backed by violence, it can be backed by mutual gain and all sorts of other things.

>>47845351
Players need a release for their sexual frustration.

>>47852820
Modern culture mentality etc.
The problem is that the modern people are divorced from the horrors of wars, murders etc., but rape is proselytized as the worst thing ever.

In general, people don't think much when it comes to murder.
For example, "I cut off his tongue, dick and fingers and let him go" usually elicits a stronger emotional response than "I kill him by stabbing his heart", and when you advocate murder, no one thinks much about it, but when you advocate dismemberment, you suddenly get branded as a cruel and brutal person.

>>47845351
Depends on what games you play, you stupid mong. You can role-play for ages in non-violence game, you sperg.

>>47845422
>I am American and I demand gore and tits or my brain won't stand it

>>47847170
>so instead we usually go for B-movie violence and action
Here, FTFY

>>47848385
>Walthurius

Mah African American. BTW got a link to an english translation of it? Haven't read it since University.

>>47845351

'Cause nobody wants to roleplay a bunch of jerks sitting around and talking.

>>47853438
>You can role-play for ages in non-violence game, you sperg.

In practice nobody ever does that, though.

>Have interesting encounter planned for the pseudo first session
>First thing the players do is kill first NPC they met who wasn't even hostile towards them
Something similar has happened in EVERY SINGLE GAME I've ever hosted. Jesus fucking christ I wish I had some better players.

>>47853988
Sorry to hear that. well my players were ignoring skills like persuasion, intimidation all the time, and were literally giving away useful/almost necessary stuff to hobos hoping they'll give them information in return

>>47851254
technically, the boulder is committing violence.
Just because it's an accident or it doesn't mean to doesn't mean it's not violent.

>>47852593
What kind of duel is that?

>>47845351
My 1700's pirate/merchant campaign hasn't had any real combat in a long time. The only violence we've had in maybe 5 sessions has been some fairly minor stuff (one person died) when we overthrew a local nobleman, but all things considered it was actually surprisingly un-bloody if you consider that he had a dozen guards and a bunch of "dr jeckyll" style alchemy behemoths at his estate at the time.
Although I guess the monsters did have to be put down afterwards.

>>47852145
Been a while since I've seen somebody lay out his retardation for all to bear.

>>47850163
Please stop projecting your own shitty opinions and experience on the rest of us. Some of us aren't autistic.

>>47849843
You are legitimately mentally deficient.

>>47850217
>Gygax's opinion of rules-light story focused systems was not very high.
There's a huge leap from "low opinion of certain rules-light story-focused systems" to "vehemently opposes roleplaying."

You're bad and should feel bad.

>>47850395
Greyhawk has plenty of detail. It's got some of the weirder D&D lore out there.

>>47845351
>Prepackaged objective, win condition, and loss condition
>Why is this a common encounter in a game with nebulous objectives, win conditions, and loss conditions?

Basically combat is common for the same reason mysteries are common. It gives you an actual fucking game to play for a bit, beyond playing pretend.

>All this shit about violence being conflict
Conflict is one method of generating audience interest. You give an audience a character to give a shit about and see if that guy fares well or poorly. Enigmas can drive stories too, by directly appealing to the audience's curiosity. Common shit in literary hard scifi, travelogues, or mystery. Think Susan Calvin stories or Encyclopedia Brown or a few of Lovecraft's or Dunsany's stories for some really basic versions of this. RPGs can play to both pretty well.

Inb4 somebody claims that because you experience a mystery through a protagonist, caring how they handle the conflict is the driving factor. Protagonists are very often cardboard non-entities in this genre, since they're sort of besides the point. They can occasionally be eschewed entirely, though it's more common in film/TV/commercials.

>>47845429
Oh yes, we definitely need a new D&D system where we can engage in passive aggressive conflicts with other people and emotionally manipulate others into doing our shit for us.

>>47853433

>when you advocate murder, no one thinks much about it, but when you advocate dismemberment, you suddenly get branded as a cruel and brutal person.

Of course they do, because one of those is over quickly, the other leads to a great deal of prolonged suffering.
This is just a civilized desire to prevent unnecessary suffering. Killing an enemy is fine, because sometimes an enemy has to be eliminated. Hacking important pieces off him and letting him go to be a useless cripple for the rest of his life actually IS cruel and brutal, you mong.

>>47849456
>When I was a kid, I used to play pretend that I was a teacher, a doctor, a lawyer, and obviously a cop

Anon, I'm pretty sure we ALL pretended we were doctors when we were kids.

File: Well shit.png (9KB, 600x695px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 600x695px

This thread shows a depressing lack of imagination, a lack of exposure to media that isn't capes or hobbits, and a lack of exposure to non-murderhobo RPGs. As well as a lot of pseudoscientific horseshit about human nature.

I mean, there's a dude upthread who actually says that you can't possibly "progress a giant plot of any sort" without using violence. Read a fucking book already!

OP's on to something, tabletop nerds are obsessed with violence to an unusually high degree.

File: 1452824788769.webm (3MB, 640x440px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x440px

>>47845351
same reason it's a major part of media in general.

the thing about violence is that the stakes are typically high, often the highest possible. this makes it very dramatic, which makes it a good engine for plot and character development, if you're into that kind of thing. it also makes it fun to watch or play. done properly, combat is tense and unpredictable, and keeps people on the edge of their seats wondering how it will turn out. it helps that combat is often visually exciting too, and has a lot of variety in how you can approach it - even in an RPG, which isn't a visual medium, it's something that can inspire the imagination. combat is also challenging, since both sides are naturally pretty worked up about winning. that's important for games, where the player themselves is directly being challenged, but it's also important for any kind of media - people like seeing the protagonist pushed to their limits, and forced to adapt and grow.

there are other situations that can fill the same niche, but i don't know if they would hit all the same buttons, and it's harder to convert them into gameplay terms.

>>47845351
Their origins are based in war games.

File: Happy Girl smile.png (600KB, 605x720px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 605x720px

>>47845351

You can have a good plot without violence.

You cannot have a good plot without CONFLICT, be it arguments between people, a rivalry of some kind, or some way to measure progress between two or more people.

Without conflict, all you have is Slice of Life.

>>47849004
>Every major author before the Modern period was a retard guize!
>I'm not a pretentious English major at all!

How's that Great American Novel coming along, barista?

>>47852596

I dunno, Castaway had Tom Hanks bust a tooth out of his mouth with an ice skate, didn't it? That could be considered violent, I would think.

>>47857726

That's really stretching, anon. Violence is something that happens between people.

>>47851254
Intent has literally nothing to do with anything.

A tornado can be violent. A hurricane can be violent. Ants can be violent. Wolves can be violent.

The world itself is host to a bevy of violence, and the life within it has merely adapted to this fact to be able to visit violence upon each other in order to achieve a goal.

>>47857823
>Violence is something that happens between people.
Uh, no. Sorry.

>>47845351
Because it's part of human nature, RPGs are an extension of anthropological urges.

>>47858194

"Being violent" does not constitute violence. Storms can be described as "violent" but they don't commit violence. That's an act, and requires intent.

>>47858296

Sorry for what? That you're retarded?

>>47853433
El Chapo, pls go.

>>47847785
I think that the reason why RPGs tend to be more violent than movies has lots to do with many RPGs making combat as the way to gain experience which probably is becaus they evolved from wargaming. When you discard filler combat (which is common way to level up players in D&D) even D&D isn't usually that violent. Also, many non-D&D are actually less combat based and I have been in many RPG sessions (Vampire for example) where no combat occurred at all.

>>47859181

I tend to agree, though a majority of the folks posting here seem to think violence is the be-all, end-all of storytelling or something.
There are systems that are designed for interpersonal drama instead of just FIGHTAN DOODZ, but hardly anyone plays them, though.

>>47852145
war fucks people up, our brains cant handle it. war sucks big time.

it's only 'awesome' if it's distant and doesn't effect you personally, like if you read about it in a history book or a cheesy fantasy novel.

Like being caught in a wildfire, circled by a pack of rabid mountain lions or being lost in the arctic wilderness, being shot at is NOT fun, or good for your overall well being.

In violence goal is clear and how elements interact is usually also clear making for transparent rules.

It is also one thing that is hard to participate in for real without repercussion (You might stab hookers in dark alleys, but where's fun in it, and actual fight hurts). You want a cook-off, why not just learn to cook? You want to be medieval wizard or power-armoured supersoldier? This isn't going to happen.

File: f0a229be9b5af2ca2676980f708d2362[1].jpg (38KB, 504x617px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 504x617px

>>47859750
>war fucks people up, our brains cant handle it. war sucks big time.
t. pussy nigger

>>47859750
There have been some war veterans who think war is awesome though, but like you said they're completely fucked up and as result can't function outside war anymore.

>>47852145
Heroes torturing enemy prisoners (of course only to gain information, not for sadistic pleasure) or toying with weaker enemies happens very commonly RPGs though.

>>47845422
Love Actually.

>>47858459
>"Being violent" does not constitute violence.
Yes it does, you absolute mong. Something can be violence and visit violence upon things without having the intent to do so or even the capability to HAVE intent.

A drunk driver that kills a family of four by accident has brought violence upon them, despite not having any intent to do so.

A wolf that eats a deer has brought violence upon the deer despite not having the option of choosing otherwise.

A storm that kills fifteen people brings violence upon those people, despite not being sentient.

Violence is part and parcel of life in this world, which is why it plays such a huge role in our stories.

File: Arthur and Mordred.jpg (122KB, 600x516px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 600x516px

As this thread has demonstrated the whole "storytelling needs conflict" point in extensive value, I'll add onto "why violence in particular tho" point.
It's because Man against Man is the easiest conflict to write. They oppose each other for reasons they can both understand. Their conflict is obvious, visible, and easily demonstrated.
The other three major conflicts of dramatic storytelling are a lot harder to parse. Man against Society requires a consistent and complicated world to be built for the protagonists to rebel against--a lot of work and can end up very confusing. Man against Nature lacks any sort of true antagonist, and is the primitive contest of survival--good for a short story, maybe, but not an epic. You can never truly defeat Nature, only merely overcome its trials for the moment. Man against Self is only good for individual scenes. One cannot oppose himself for an entire story arc without seeming insane.
So violence is explicit, dramatic, simple, and cathartic, and therefore supreme among conflicts to write about.

>>47860072
>You can never truly defeat Nature, only merely overcome its trials for the moment.
Sounds like quitter talk, famalam

>>47854813
It really doesn't. Not when compared to all the other setting lines.

>>47860358

I think it depends on whether you only count the pubished setting books, or all the stories and lore that came out of game sessions.

>>47856527
The only correct person got buried uptrend under all this shitty pseudo-intellectual circle-jerking. Most RPGs focus on violence because the grew out war gaming. This continues to be the most popular mode, but has never been the only one.

Anything else is just folks spouting bullshit because they don't know the answer. The first roleplayers were war gamers and the most popular RPG has had that at its core since the beginning. Simple.

>>47860391
>all the stories and lore that came out of game sessions.
If that wasn't published, then you can't really count it because comparatively few people have heard of it. Gary's Greyhawk may have been much more detailed than what was published, but all we really have to go off is the core box and whatever snippets you can gleam from the various modules.

all /tg/ questions can be answered if one of those answers, pick the one that apply
1-Myths
2-Lord of the Rings
3-D&d
3-Gurps
4-Fatal
5-Hybrid
6-Depends on the setting/system

>>47860466

There's tons of stuff about it in various magazines and stuff, though. Published, but not officially packaged.

i think it would be borderline impossible to have one completely without one, especially with multiple people

how ever, i can see how trade or management focused games could stray from that formula, but these are ofcourse only exeptions to the rule

>>47845422
House of Cards (British and American)
House M.D.
The Imitation Game
Every soap opera ever
Sports films

>>47860498
>magazines
I should probably get around to reading Dragon.

some fedoras are being tipped very hard itt
its because violence is an easy way to write conflict and people like it in fiction

>>47845351
Depends on setting. . .but then again if your setting is non violent entirely I don't think your working with life but rather construct society specifically created w/ set purposes and tasks in an ordered universe removed of entrophy and chance

>>47860440
>Most RPGs focus on violence because the grew out war gaming.

that's a lame non-answer. why did RPGs grow out of war gaming in particular and not something less violent? why did a violence-based game like D&D become popular? why has a violence-based RPG like D&D remained popular all these years even though many alternatives have been released? do you believe that being violent is literally just a coincidence and that if the first RPG had been about running a bakery, it would have been equally popular and long-lasting? if not, OPs question still stands.

Love this entire thread ignoring that founding systems were based around party vs dm in a dungeon. The rest of the world outside the dungeon didn't exist

>>47860669
>The rest of the world outside the dungeon didn't exist
Thanks for revealing your blinding ignorance.

>>47850521
Yellow Jackets on the other hand are fucking assholes. They're like tsundere murderhobos and they show their dere side by still stinging the shit out of you for no reason.

>>47860512

Aren´t there some murder in House of cards ?

>>47850028

Good thing roleplaying games have evolved into countless varieties by this point, with multiple systems for every common genre and playstyle. Also a good thing that no one has to care what Gary Gygax thought, except as a historical curiosity.

>>47861985
Yes, but it still shows in non-murder based episodes that entertainment is possible without violence.

>>47860709

No, you're totally wrong. Go read B2 Keep on the Borderlands. It just has a straight dungeon crawl, and nothing outside the dungeon is defined or matters.

It definitely doesn't explicitly include instructions for having the dungeon change over time based on outside events, or having it affect the people in the Keep.

>>47862021
And yet the one intimately connected with stabbing monsters is still the most popular.

>>47845351
There are two major forms of power in human history. The power of violence, whether personal in the form of martial skill or collective in the form of an army, and the power of wealth, whether personal in the form of your own assets or collective in the form of a business.

The former can be sought after, obtained, and wielded by fair and just folk who have good intentions, the interest of others and the spine to get their own hands dirty and be a man, and this is known throughout history. The latter cannot now, nor has it ever been, anything short of a crutch for the sort of people that, by their existence and ability to thrive alone, disprove the existence of a just, loving, and present God in this world.

>>47862079

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. The appeal to the origins of RPGs doesn't mean they intrinsically have to be about anything, regardless of which ones are popular. And that's ignoring the argument that D&D isn't the most popular because it's inherently the best, rather that it established an early dominance over a very niche market.

>>47845351
You want an honest, simple answer, anon? It's because violence, especially violence without restraint, is something that is rarely part of our lives in the civilized world. If I wanted to solve problems by arguing or filling out paperwork, then I would put in for more overtime, because that's what I do for money.

It's the same reason kids will play cops and robbers or tag rather than spelling bee or math wizards.

>>47845351
Because there's literally nothing wrong with fantasy violence.

>>47850745
>Watership Down
>not violent

Blackavar didn't deserve that shit.

Easiest way to convey conflict. Easiest form of conflict to boil down to 1s and 0s for dice rolling.

>>47862120
Well aren't you just a little ray of sunshine?

>>47849456
>>47856508
hmmm about this: i wonder if kids of medieval times played doctor, lawyer or anything else besides being a knight and slaying dragons for fame and glory
and if they did, i wonder if our modernist post-victorian POV will allow us to see a more humanized view of those "dark (but romantic) ages", or we'll just pretend that boys cared more about swooshing swords around instead of playing ball or dolls
in the end it's about power. men of power come in much more flavors than paladin or murderhobo adventurer, but very few epic-fantasy related media acknowledge it. doesn't mean there isn't epic stories with non violence, but they all involve action somehow (surviving some danger, flipping tables and shouting, racing on some vehicle, etc.)

File: 11.png (7KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x250px

>>47845351
It's kinda on topic and I didn't want to take up the board with a topic for one question, but this goes out to RuneQuest 6 players.

What the fuck are the combat styles in this game? Is there not a chart of them or something or is it something your DM just determines/you pick yourself?

>>47845351
Because violence is fun.

>>47848186
So the universal meta-plot is just "shit"?

>>47864124
>DM just determines
generally, yes.
or if you have a specific fighting style in mind you work with them on describing what weapons are commonly used for it, and which trait it may get

>>47864348

Yeah, totally!

>>47845351
Its fun.

I reckon people enjoy it because of evolutionary reasons but thats just my personal theory.

>>47864409
Arigatou, anon-sama

>>47864490
np. the main reason that they don't provide a list outside of a couple of examples is fighting styles are supposed to be culturally contextual, and the core rulebook is pretty devoid of a specific setting other than the very vaguely hellenic one suggested between the lines.

>>47864563
I understand, but as someone learning RQ6 for the first time I'd love to have a line that says "the DM will make them or you make one up" a little more blatantly. Spent a good ten minutes searching for a table of some kind

>>47850625
>I'm pointing out how society is lazier today than it was of yesteryear.
The glasses you wear when gazing upon the past are so rose-tinted that they're giving you pinkeye.

File: The gayest baby in the thread.png (119KB, 296x339px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 296x339px

>>47845351
I think it has to do with this:
Making rules for the abstraction of a shield or armor or some sword is more intuitive than developing methodologies for tense conversations where players can access psychological profiles and utilize rhetoric... among so many other approaches to getting under someone's skin.
I mean, it's absolutely possible to do this, but you notice a paltry or absent "social conflict" ruleset in most games.

Physical conflict/combat is also more visceral and is by extension easier to impose a sense of danger and drama than the aforementioned social conflict.

>>47859805
Patton was assassinated for his incompetence.

>>47845351
Well for starters, violence is one of modes of interaction that you can't just get up and do in meatspace.

>Ctrl-F 'Wargames'

>>47845716
>>47847958
>>47850028

Can we /thread now?

File: I burn a fate point.jpg (38KB, 810x543px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 810x543px

>>47845351
because it is a major part of humanity

when you see that the first mass entertainment made in history was about men killing each other as gladiators you learn that humans fucking love violence, and that violence isn't intrinsically evil and is, ultimately, inseparable from the human condition

>>47849706
>giphy-facebook _s.gif
Haha yeah bro.

>>47849004
There are plenty of brilliant novels that have incorporated violence as a major theme. The Red Badge of Courage, Black Boy, Bridge over the River Kwai, Catch 22. Violence is integral to the plot of these stories. Are they brilliant because they also explore the effects this violence has on the characters? Absolutely. But dismissing violence as a crutch rather than a fascinating, complex part of the human experience is absurd.

Depending on the system you use it's the only sane way to get gold or EXP theses days since the beginning