Slashdot Mirror
Dungeons & Dragons and the Ethics of Imaginary Violence (hopesandfears.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Are people just naturally inclined to be destructive when there aren't any real consequences? Should we be worried about people who imagine such violence? Writer Clem Bastow spoke to D&D experts, psychologists and others to answer these questions. It turns out that playing out violent fantasies in D&D is not only healthy, but could even teach players how to be a better person. “Rather than playing an extension of who you or I are within the game, I see it more as playing a fantasy character who can do whatever they want, and who doesn’t feel inhibited by social anxiety or fear of punishment or rejection. It’s an exaggerated version of how [the player] would like to be, but can’t. The game is a safe way to be this other person,” says Clinical psychologist and games designer Dr. Owen Spear.
Will still get parroted by the press - whether it's D&D or GTA or Halo.
I know some people who would say, word for word, the exact same thing about marriage. So perhaps the problem isn't the game, but how you play it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Dungeons & Dragons...
Cool - hopefully it'll be...
Oh shit - here we go again.
I've certainly had those types of campaigns. The simplest answer is that being a good Game Master can be a lot more work than people realize. Managing players with different concepts, playstyles, and expectations is a skill that a GM has to develop. But it's one that even a mediocre GM like myself can find useful, especially when dealing with office politics as an adult.
This wasn't especially news in the 80s during the "Satanic Panic" years, and it's far less news now. Peer reviewed studies were done then, showing that roleplaying games build social and problem solving skills. There's nothing new or obscure here.
If you ever encounter someone who insists on banning some form of media because it supposedly causes those who consume it to become violent/sexist/etc., say that you wholeheartedly agree with them and ask when they will be banning the Bible (or better yet Quran) as that's been responsible for all sorts of violence/sexism/etc. It seems that most of the people who try to make an argument in favor of banning media for such reasons are either religious-hardliner nut-jobs from the Christian conservative camp that will flip shit at the thought of any attack on their Jeebus or wacko authoritarian cultural-Marxist leftists who would never want to appear to say anything bad about Islam.
The mental contortions that follow are spectacular to watch.
I enjoyed playing D&D during undergrad. My wife wasn't much for it so it has fallen by the wayside. Her family is super into sports and I've picked up enjoying the games of a particular college team. You know what I've found out from her family: enjoying watching sports is almost exactly the same thing as playing a tabletop RPG. You get together with people you know. You learn a lot of statistics and rules. You argue or discuss different decisions with them and complain about the officiant. You snack and probably drink together. You pick up a lot of obscure trivia as you go along. Everyone enjoys themselves enough to do it on a regular basis.
His problem wasn't gaming. His problem was that he was a psychopath.
Because he's a moral fraud. And gun control has nothing to do with D&D or violence prevention for that matter.
As a life-long tabletop gamer, I've found that Shadowrun tends to reward players who do not resort to violence. In D&D, your rewards generally come from killing monsters in the form of experience points and loot. Shadowrun on the other hand, rewards players for completing the mission. How the mission is completed is largely up to the team. In fact, sometimes violent actions in organized play can adversely affect your reward. The game actually has a reward called karma that can be spent on upgrading.
This difference between D&D and SR was made clear to me after completing a long-slog of a mission with a ton of combat. The GM said the previous group burned through the mission pretty quickly, had slightly better rewards at the end, and they never fired a shot. Incredulous, I asked how they accomplished this. The GM said the previous group simply negotiated with the hostiles...who in fact, weren't really hostile. They were just reacting to our aggression. I didn't expect that to be written into the module. If you want an RPG that teaches you violence isn't always the best solution, Shadowrun is a good one.
That said, the flaw my D&D Goliath Fighter exhibits is, "Violence is my answer to almost any challenge." and charisma is my dump stat. Peace is overrated!
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.