Okay, I'm not sure if Meta is the best place to post this, but, whatever... It's here now.
In a lot of games, the PCs solve problems through violence.
This is especially true in the game I'm currently running, as I'm using Iron Heroes, which is essentially a combat-specific variant of d20 3.5, so, in my game the character's primary skillset is combat, so their problem-solving "toolbox" is a very violent one.
While mindless hack and slash can be fun, I'm interested to hear how you all think it's best the handle the consequences of, oh my god, we just killed those guys, as in, actually killed them dead.
I mean, I'm running a game that's designed to be combat-heavy, and so it would bog the game and story and EVERYTHING down far too much if my PCs stopped to mourn every mook they chopped down, and got introspective after every killing.
However, I do want there to be some kind of an emotional reaction beyond just "oh yay we win"
Or, if there isn't, then there should be a pretty good reason why not.
So far most of the foes they have vanquished have been monstrous and undead - and when I say monstrous I mean monstrous of deed as well as just appearance - so they don't quite count for this debate. The one exception is a mercenary they chopped down for... essentially no reason. I mean, they were reasonably sure that the people the pair of mercenaries were guarding were up to no good, but they snuck up on them, and butchered one guy and captured and tortured the other.
I do plan on this... vile, for want of a better word, behaviour coming back to bite them. They since let the surviving merc go, and he is gonna be out for revenge and will certainly come back, with some nasty friends, to try and hurt them.
But, at some point down the line, they will fight and, presumably kill, other humans, innocent or otherwise, and while I don't plan to have every one of those have a friend or family-member come looking for revenge, I do want to somehow illustrate to them the fact that they have just killed someone and give them real consequences that, while poignant, will not stop them functioning or get in the way of the plot...
So... thoughts?
Family members are not necessarily alway capable of revenge. What if a NPC they kill has a kid, like a toddler? Or maybe they find a note on the characters body that says 'Thanks for donating all those toys to the orphans this week'. I'm not saying do those things specifically, but try to imagine the NPCs as more than just objects in the way of your PCs. They know people and probably care about things/places etc. When all else fails whip out the best puppy dog eye impression you can just as the PCs prepare to chop the guys head off.
Good luck.
If they do go around butchering people, they'll probably acquire a bad reputation at the very least. They roll into town and people lock their doors; they have difficulty getting anyone to trust them (leading to all sorts of plot opportunities); everyone's so scared of them that gathering information is difficult. They may also generally resent being thought of as "vile."
I think...I wish I'd thought of this for Friday Forum Philosophy!
If you want to run a hack-and-slash, you have to accept it engenders a certain mindset. Once players get into that action movie (or Dynasty Warriors) mindset, it's hard to break it.
The first step might be changing the play style--but make sure the players want to play a deeper game, rather than a free-for-all release. Don't kill a good campaign if your current players would hate the change.
The other ideas are good ways to change the player mindset, but my experience is you have to change your mindset first. You can't have times when it's okay to butcher and times when it's not--that's a double standard that will only frustrate PCs. (I don't see this applying to mindless undead, though.)
Quote from: SarisaFamily members are not necessarily alway capable of revenge. What if a NPC they kill has a kid, like a toddler? Or maybe they find a note on the characters body that says 'Thanks for donating all those toys to the orphans this week'. I'm not saying do those things specifically, but try to imagine the NPCs as more than just objects in the way of your PCs. They know people and probably care about things/places etc. When all else fails whip out the best puppy dog eye impression you can just as the PCs prepare to chop the guys head off.
Good luck.
I think the revenge thing was just one example, really, of the kind of thing I didn't feel was practical on a day-to-day basis in a campaign that is as combat-heavy as this one. My NPCs, even the mooks, certainly aren't stormtroopers, but I see what you're saying, and maybe I do need to take even a step further into realising them as multi-faceted people.
Quote from: SteerpikeIf they do go around butchering people, they'll probably acquire a bad reputation at the very least. They roll into town and people lock their doors; they have difficulty getting anyone to trust them (leading to all sorts of plot opportunities); everyone's so scared of them that gathering information is difficult. They may also generally resent being thought of as "vile."
I like this idea a lot. After all, I always think of NPC reactions as being the best "reward" in-game, so it follows that they should also be the best "punishment."
Quote from: PhoenixI think...I wish I'd thought of this for Friday Forum Philosophy!
If you want to run a hack-and-slash, you have to accept it engenders a certain mindset. Once players get into that action movie (or Dynasty Warriors) mindset, it's hard to break it.
The first step might be changing the play style--but make sure the players want to play a deeper game, rather than a free-for-all release. Don't kill a good campaign if your current players would hate the change.
The other ideas are good ways to change the player mindset, but my experience is you have to change your mindset first. You can't have times when it's okay to butcher and times when it's not--that's a double standard that will only frustrate PCs. (I don't see this applying to mindless undead, though.)
As I said at the beginning of my post, hack and slash can be fun, but even in a deeper game, violence still happens, even if rarely. My campaign I think is in something of a grey area - by definition of the system, it's combat-oriented, and the plots I draw up for the characters to be involved with are violent ones, or at least ones that can easily lead to violence. Yet I would hesitate to deem it hack and slash as such, because there are also elements of survival and politics and so on that come up occasionally, not to mention the fact that my players, thankfully, think into the world and into their characters beyond what they're gonna get at the next level up or how to kill the next bad guy.
So I suppose what I'm really looking for is a solution that lets the killings that the PCs
will keep committing seem like they're not just... shooting aliens in Halo... but at the same time don't stop them from wanting to pursue plotlines that will lead to violence or from thinking that hey, the way to deal with it, even if it's not pretty, is to lop off some heads.
as far as metagame goes, there are two d20 variants that you could use to represent guilt/morality/vileness into your setting. the first is called "Taint" (which still makes me giggle.) it's basically a system to keep a record of good deeds and bad deeds, which in turn imparts penalties that range in strength to the characters - the penalties are actually fairly interesting considering WotC is concerned. here is a URL to hypertext of the rules - http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/taint.htm
the second is the Sanity mechanic, which forces to make the characters to make saves when they encounter something horrific, do something particularly nasty, learn something alien - etc. So, in your predicament, you could have the PCs make a Sanity save every time they kill a sentient being to keep them from turning into deranged killers. here's a URL for the Sanity rules - http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm
hope this gives some inspiration.
on a side note, is the campaign your running a brew?
Sanity could work, or you could run some sort of scar/injury system that makes damage in combat more serious. Just slowing down the healing rate might be enough, but I'm not certain.
Okay, I should have specified, sorry, I'm not looking for a "crunchy" solution. I don't want the thief in my game to get any worse at stabbing people in the back by doing it too often, at least not statistically.
I mean, obviously, feel free to discuss the topic as a whole, and maybe a stat-based thing, like taint or sanity, would work for others, but what I, personally, am interested in exploring, is how you role-play the consequences of combat and killings and so forth.
Consequences of combat and killings? I don't understand... there's only consequences if you get caught (serious note: I have my own thoughts but I need to go to work... will post them later).
Then killing has to be illegal, pure and simple. And wrong. Then people will think twice about it.
Wait, what? Okay, "wrong" I get, but illegal? Why? Are you basing this on the idea that "conscience is not the thought of God but fear of the police"? (as an aside, I completely forgot who that quote is from, so if anyone knows, please remind me :D )
EDIT: and even if you are, those repercussions of "oh but people will do bad things to me if I do that" can come from other places than the law.
SECOND EDIT: also, when you say "people" do you mean players or characters or both?
[blockquote=Xeviat]Then killing has to be illegal, pure and simple.[/blockquote]From what little I know of Kindling's campaign is set more or less in the dark ages, which essentially means no organized law enforcement, which complicates the illegality option. Blood-feuds and clannish vendettas would be much, much more common, as would holmgangs/trials by combat/duels to settle disputes. Cyclical violence and all that.
Quote from: KindlingOkay, I should have specified, sorry, I'm not looking for a "crunchy" solution. I don't want the thief in my game to get any worse at stabbing people in the back by doing it too often, at least not statistically.
I mean, obviously, feel free to discuss the topic as a whole, and maybe a stat-based thing, like taint or sanity, would work for others, but what I, personally, am interested in exploring, is how you role-play the consequences of combat and killings and so forth.
well, I think it is extremely difficult to force PCs to roleplay the after effects of violence, plus I'm not sure if it would be all that exciting.
-"Aren't you coming with us on our next jolly adventure, oh mighty Rothgar Head-Smasher?"
-"Naw, I think I'm going to go to the temple and repent for my smashed heads." ;)
Your group would have to be very very into roleplaying, which seems like it's not particularly the case considering your campaign is hack n slash (but I could be wrong.) and while I'm not pushing the 2 mechanics I put up, I think mechanics themselves can make characters roleplay better. If there is a
tangible effect to their actions, they will be much more likely to think about other possible solutions. but that's just what I think.
I think you need to consider stepping back and talking to the players about the tone of the game, rather than trying to change players' attitudes by hitting their characters with consequences.
If you're not going to do that, work with in-game tools to stop unsavory before it happens, not after it happens. Frankly, a lot of players are accustomed to games where violence is the primary, obvious solution to most problems-- it's a pretty long-established and well-known convention of the hobby. If you introduce a situation that looks like it might possibly be solved with violence, and players choose to solve it with violence, and then you punish them for choosing the obvious solution, your players would be right to consider that a suckerpunch.
for something poignant, if they have killed someone, but not buried them and return/passes by the area at some later point.
let them see a humble grave, or just a simple tombstone, the bodies buried by a random person that had arrived after they have left and decided to honout the unknown dead.
no consequens, heck, the people killed could very well had deserved it, but it might just make them pause abit.
It's also fun to throw em for a loop when it turns out the local tavern owner is friends with several orcs and takes offense at your hunting of their kind (and similar such things).
Ah, if you're set in pre-legal times, then you're going to need to focus on the vengeance, feuds, and fear that would surround a character or a party known for egregious acts of violence. Then again, in some circles, such acts could earn them fame and respect.
I'm not sure what you're looking for then. If you do not want them to always turn to violence as a solution, you're going to have to stop rewarding them for violence. If you simply want them to consider what they have done, you might need to hand out some sort of bonus for good roleplaying, or possibly have NPCs comment on how heartless and cold certain PCs are.
Kindling: Morality is a difficult thing to convey in a game if you are trying to avoid mechanical solutions to roleplaying problems. A Good aligned character will probably feel bad for killing a mortal (an evil outsider or dragon or other creature that is "Always Evil" is another story), even if it was in self defense or for the greater good. A Neutral character, though, might have these pangs of morality, but it is quite possible that they wouldn't. An Evil character almost definitely wouldn't. I do not know your players or their characters, so I figured that having murder be illegal (even in medieval times I would assume killing someone who has favor with the rulers will warrant some type of trial that the murderers have little chance of surviving) would be a good way to have them consider other options; or at least some crazy planning to implicate one of their enemies.
Quote from: Leetzwell, I think it is extremely difficult to force PCs to roleplay the after effects of violence, plus I'm not sure if it would be all that exciting.
*snip*
Your group would have to be very very into roleplaying, which seems like it's not particularly the case considering your campaign is hack n slash
First of all, I really really don't want to "force" my players to do anything! :P Secondly, as I think I've stated above, my game is combat-heavy but not, to my mind, pure hack-and-slash. Even if it was, I think you seem to be imagining a more extreme consequence than the kind I'm looking for. Steerpike's suggestion is almost perfect for what I want, as it lets them know that their actions are "real" violent rather than "computer-game" violent, without actually making them think that combat should necessarily be avoided. It's something subtle like that that I'm imagining rather than trying to, I dunno, get the players to read ten-minute eulogies for their victims after every fight.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonIf you're not going to do that, work with in-game tools to stop unsavory before it happens, not after it happens. Frankly, a lot of players are accustomed to games where violence is the primary, obvious solution to most problems-- it's a pretty long-established and well-known convention of the hobby. If you introduce a situation that looks like it might possibly be solved with violence, and players choose to solve it with violence, and then you punish them for choosing the obvious solution, your players would be right to consider that a suckerpunch.
Again, it seems from your reply, I haven't been clear enough. I don't want to stop them resorting to violence, or even really discourage them, what I'd like is for there to be some kind of a negative result as well as the positive "oh we win the battle now we can progress with the story/rescue the kids/escape with our lives" result. I don't think the negative should outweigh the positive, at least not most of the time, otherwise the PCs simply won't be able to function in the action-driven plotlines I have drawn up.
Quote from: Tillumnifor something poignant, if they have killed someone, but not buried them and return/passes by the area at some later point.
let them see a humble grave, or just a simple tombstone, the bodies buried by a random person that had arrived after they have left and decided to honout the unknown dead.
no consequens, heck, the people killed could very well had deserved it, but it might just make them pause abit.
Quote from: NomadicIt's also fun to throw em for a loop when it turns out the local tavern owner is friends with several orcs and takes offense at your hunting of their kind (and similar such things).
These two ideas are both great in their quick-and-easy subtlety. They won't disrupt my game too much, but they will still show very real consequences. Exactly the sort of thing I was after :)
Quote from: XeviatKindling: Morality is a difficult thing to convey in a game if you are trying to avoid mechanical solutions to roleplaying problems. A Good aligned character will probably feel bad for killing a mortal (an evil outsider or dragon or other creature that is "Always Evil" is another story), even if it was in self defense or for the greater good. A Neutral character, though, might have these pangs of morality, but it is quite possible that they wouldn't. An Evil character almost definitely wouldn't. I do not know your players or their characters, so I figured that having murder be illegal (even in medieval times I would assume killing someone who has favor with the rulers will warrant some type of trial that the murderers have little chance of surviving) would be a good way to have them consider other options; or at least some crazy planning to implicate one of their enemies.
I'm sorry, but I don't quite see the point you're trying to make with the alignment stuff. I understand everything you're saying about the D&D alignment system, but, I'm not using it, and even if I was, what is it you're actually suggesting?
As to the idea of legal repercussions, it's a good idea, of course, I was just a bit shocked by the vehemence of your earlier statement, and wanted to see you go into a little more detail :)
QuoteAgain, it seems from your reply, I haven't been clear enough. I don't want to stop them resorting to violence, or even really discourage them, what I'd like is for there to be some kind of a negative result as well as the positive "oh we win the battle now we can progress with the story/rescue the kids/escape with our lives" result. I don't think the negative should outweigh the positive, at least not most of the time, otherwise the PCs simply won't be able to function in the action-driven plotlines I have drawn up.
Do you actually want to encourage your players to change their behavior, or are you just looking for ways to complicate the story, so that killing your problems doesn't necessarily make them go away?
If the former, are you trying to encourage a game where enemies might be defeated but are not usually destroyed?
I am honestly a little bit confused about your goals here.
Haha, yes, I think maybe I am too! Throughout the course of this thread so far I think I've come to realise that what I'm after is not as simple as I imagined it was when I first posted.
Maybe a list-type format would help me get it straight...
What I don't want:
- The PCs to stop using violence
- The PCs to be completely unfazed by violence
- The mechanism for showing the consequences of violence to be a statistical one
- The mechanism to be one that will distract from or derail my action-driven plot
I understand that this is a tall order :)
I also see that so far I have dismissed a lot of good suggestions! This is a shame because they really are, as usual on the CBG, great ideas, they're just not what I'm after in this instance.
Maybe we should widen the subject of the thread to apply to the topic in general rather than just my, slightly difficult, needs?
How do you all, in your various games, handle the consequences of violent PC actions? How would you implement this in, say, a game with a very different tone to mine, where politicking and intrigue are more important than a strong sword-arm? In such a game, when killings do occur, assassination by more impersonal methods such as poison might be more common than direct combat. How should the impact on the characters differ between those two types of killing?
In a more intrigue-heavy game the big consequence to emphasize is the political one that emerges after someone`s death. Kill a major leader, and a power vacuum will emerge in which sons or rivals bicker over inheritances or try to seize power to fill the gap. Kill even a minor vassal and (in a feudal world) the network of connections will result in ramifications. Killing a commander will result in battles being lost, etc.
I am getting a handle on this.
Sorry I have not been around.
Whwnever a campaign is created, the laws and actual moralities of the areas played must be considered carefully. Sounds like you are trying to take a gAME AND BRING SOMETHING BACK INTO IT.
I had a similar situation years ago. One of things I did to change it was to humanize a lot of my monsters, such as the orcash and gartier races, taking some tribal, normal-game slaughter-fodder, and started integrating these races into civilization, so that for the last 20 years of so, no one just attacks a band of tribal humanoids when they see one. Even having peaceful relations with some races that are normally racially profiled as evil will help change automatic violence into situational violence.
The players have to be routed into having a good idea when to use violence or not. In Celtricia, organized violence in town is very rare, as their are normally serious legal and social ramifications. While there are fights in the docks, etc, Dueling (which is still illegal but common, see above, laws vs morality)or assassination are the violence while in a settled area.
To make violence more real, you need to change the ramifications of violence. In the IRC game, Toden, an NPC, lost an arm to a were. Hamish was greviously wounded in the shoulder and nearly suffered a major scarring. If you have PCs that use violence heavily, violence should leave a mark. Are your fighters scarred and gnarled, perhaps suffering some permanent debilitating conditions from all their time in the trenches? Or do they somehow end up fighting 20 major fights over 2 weeks and after being healed, are they fresh as a daisy.
show PC's the other side of violence. wandering through a village of dead goblins and hobgoblins, after an intramural squabble, with dead children and mothers and elderly who were slain trying to protect their loved ones might re-sensitize. Also, having someone close to the PC's suffer from violence is important to this resensitizing.
In terms of larger institutions, is there any non-violent options? is there anyone preaching peace? Any large social group that looks askance at the PCs for thier direct methods? In Miston, a huge metropolis, there are huge swaths of the population and religion that consider the violence of Celtricia a remnant of the bygone days, and unless a country is in open war, they will look down at overly violent PC's as thugs and treasure hunters, if not out-and out murderers. You don't need to have everyone see them this way, but by having an opposing , popular view, it gives the PC another view.
Am at work. Hope that was helpful. More later.
I agree with the reputation suggestion made by Steerpike. Many players will want to use violence, but as one of the "heroes". Eventually, if they keep being nasty towards too many people, let cities close the gates on them, send bounty hunters after them, offer them no hospitality and no jobs. They will then either have to redeem themselves or go into exile.
Another thing you should keep in mind is the difference between aggressor and defender. Defending yourself, or someone else, is almost always honourable. Attacking somebody outside of a formal battle is considerably less accepted.
You could have people or young teenagers charge up to them in a street and challenge them to duels or something like that.
Also, you could have them employed by some young idealistic lord who wants them to perform some deed but without harming any of the guards fatally. Just to let them know that other characters still see their victims as people.
Someone mentioned it previously, but I suggest talking to the players if you want to change the tone of the game. It's usually a more effective solution than trying to fix a mindset problem in game.
Also, if the problem is that the players are not taking violence seriously, I see two possibilities:
1) The players don't take it seriously because they are not used to that kind of game. They expect to be shooting aliens in Halo, as you put it.
2) The players are aware, and are choosing to play amoral characters or even sociopaths. This is the Dark Ages right. Many people did not see violence the same way we see it now. Maybe they want to play their characters as seriously jaded, even twisted bastards.
Either way, you need to find out which, and find out whether the players are willing to change, before you alter a campaign which is working. Drastic changes in a campaign can kill it--if the players are not a part of the decision to change.
Are the NPCs actually behaving like they value their lives and take the prospect of death and injury seriously? Do they run away or beg for mercy when it looks like they're about to be overcome by the PCs? Do they react with much emotion when they see their comrades fall?
Quote from: KindlingI'm sorry, but I don't quite see the point you're trying to make with the alignment stuff. I understand everything you're saying about the D&D alignment system, but, I'm not using it, and even if I was, what is it you're actually suggesting?
As to the idea of legal repercussions, it's a good idea, of course, I was just a bit shocked by the vehemence of your earlier statement, and wanted to see you go into a little more detail :)
I'm not entirely sure what point I was trying to make really. I'm on a lot of pain killers right now so it's very possible that I interpreted something incorrectly and went off on a pointless rant.
What I think I was saying was in reaction to your mentioning of moral relativism and the issues of legality over conscious. I was saying that not all characters are good or even neutral, especially in a game without alignment. In a game without alignment, players can often slide into the habit of doing what is the most convenient, rather than doing "what their character would do". Without a "LG" or "CN" on their character sheet, some players (obviously not all) can forget what they intended to do with their character. Thus, murder (actual murder and not simple killing) can become an acceptable solution to problems if players become disconnected. Heck, their characters could simply be evil murderers; I'm trying to explain myself in as broad as terms possible. I've seen a few players do this, even in games that were rather character driven. I have seen most of my players do this when we run combat heavy games. I've seen all of my players do this in video games, taking not only the easier paths but also doing out of character things just for the rewards offered.
I'm not saying that your characters would. I was trying to broaden the discussion, since you said this could be a broader discussion. So, to cover all bases, if morality doesn't make characters at least take a second to consider their options rather than simply stabbing their problems away, then laws could.
Maybe I've been analyzing Cartman from "South Park" too much lately. =)