• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Growing older and RPG violence

ravells

SOC-14 1K
I'm not sure if it's just me, but as I've grown older (ripe old 42 now), I've found myself avoiding violent confrontations in rpgs (unless absolutely necessarry) than actively going out to look for them (which I did when I rpg'd in my teens). In real life I've always avoided violence (at any age), but I wondered whether others have found that they prefer less violent solutions in rpgs as they've got older?

Just curious

Ravs
 
I have actually found that I tend towards more violent confrontations than I did when I was younger. I am 42 also.

Perhaps it is my outlet for life's frustrations. After all, you can't kill those that piss you off IRL.
 
Depends on the game. I still go with the Thrud mentality (hack, slay, rend, tear, dismember) sometimes with D&D. It's very difficult to avoid combat in Cyberpunk. Generally though I try to run games where combat is an option, but not the only option.
 
Definitely less than before - which might be due to several factors. Slapping myself on the shoulders I would like to say that I have become wiser and that violence is not always the solution.
But it could as well be that the lethality of the firefights have grown and that the characters are less combat-optimized in skill and gear - and that the game system differs from the old negative-AC-and-enough-hitpoints-to-survive-atmospheric-reentry-D&D philosophy.
 
I'm definitely not rabidly anti-violence in rpgs or anything, and there's nothing so satisfying as rolling a critical hit or having a make or break roll and succeeding. It's just a slight shift in inclination that I've noticed.

I think it may be more to do with finding a more elegant solution to the problem. Not sure.

Ravs
 
I haven't played T20 or any of the "new d20" games. In the old days of D&D half the fun was building up levels + HP so you could stay alive, as combat whether via swords or spells could get nasty, especially with 12-20 hobgoblins coming at 4 party members. It was a given: as you rose in levels, so would the opponents.

One thing I've noticed about Traveller (especially GURPS) is that you can die from a single weapon wound, of almost any type. Which brings out the "hey this ain't D&D where you charge head-on into danger!!!" realization.

No magic armors, and with GURPS specific weapons designed to defeat certain types of armors can really change the odds and make PCs take stock of what they're doing or about to do.

None the less, I think the odd firefight is essential, especially if you're a mercenary character, but also the interaction of sophonts with the setting is complex that you also have to spend a significant time doing mundane things (like making sure you have enough money or getting from A to B) that you have to think about more than just shooting things up.

However as a GM I'd pace sessions depending on their frequency, meaning I'd introduce content of sessions based on the available gaming time, so that we might fast-forward thru certain mundane portions, touching on them in passing and reserve what I felt was the basis for the adventure for the focus of the session.

Sometimes people like haggling and shopping, sometimes they don't.
 
Last edited:
I think that Traveller is best played when the guns are taken away from the players and they are given a mystery to solve. That is not to say combat is entirely avoided but I think as players mature with the Referee they begin to see the importance of reputation...it is fine and dandy to blow Greedo away but Han paid the price in the second & third film. I always liked Hard Times because of the Bad Karma rule and always apply it to the games that I play.

True, Andrew, sometimes, you just got to kill someone, but the check against excessive killing is the players knowing their own mortality is always on the line. That is why I play with the CT cmbt rules, they are fast & deadly. However, most players who "graduate" from D&D cannot understand why they must die, as heroes don't die. Yet, the essence of Traveller is that it is a long hard slough for them to become heroes...and sometimes, it will be mean that they will be remembered as heroes only once they have left this mortal coil.
 
That was the one thing that drew me away from D&D in the late 70s and into TRAVELLER (yes, I'm that old...)--Realizing that I didn't have to focus solely on survival and could use my (limited) brains to solve a problem.

In fact, development of my now standard introductory scenario started when I first bought MT. It's got enough for everyone--fistfights, space travel and combat, exploration, and a BIG mystery. I don't even give any hints, either. just take note of good role play and use them as DMs for the big roll, which if their task succeeds, give them their ONLY outside clue. Devious of me...

When the mood strikes me for random acts of inappropriate violence, nothing beats pulling up the PS2 and playing GTA. I can get 4 stars in under a minute! (and the SWAT team, helicopters, shoot to kill attitudes etc.)
 
We're all 40-somethings here, and I haven't noticed our games getting any more violent, or any less violent, over the years. Guess it depends on mood and setting.

Best,
Will
 
I've noticed it too.

My PC have become totally adverse to killing. Everyone of my PCs are loaded up with non-lethals, subdual skills and so on.

GMs love it because their carefully crafted NPCs are kept alive for later use, and recurring enemies can recur after meating the PCs.
 
Okay, its official. Only old farts come here. I just turned 40 this year.

Anyway, the only game I am playing IN is my friend's Shadowrun game and I think I enjoy shooting things up a lot more than I did. Its the only time I can safely be a crazy bastage.

I've played a lot of D&D in my time, ran more of it, and the best thing about Shadowrun and similar games is there are no alignments.
 
I'm not sure if it's just me, but as I've grown older (ripe old 42 now), I've found myself avoiding violent confrontations in rpgs (unless absolutely necessarry) than actively going out to look for them (which I did when I rpg'd in my teens). In real life I've always avoided violence (at any age), but I wondered whether others have found that they prefer less violent solutions in rpgs as they've got older?

Just curious

Ravs

I'm about your age, but haven't noticed any change in my gaming style. It depends on the character or faction I'm playing. I tune my playing to what I'm expected to do as the leader of a nation in a wargame, or a character in an RPG.
 
I don't know if it is age.

Different settings imply different responses. So do different characters.

What is fun in a pseudo-pre-medieval setting isn't the same things as in a modern day game.

As I age I have noticed a tendency to more sedate settings, partly because the brute analysis of archetype build effectiveness does get a little boring.
 
Back
Top