Combat: the spotlight of gaming.

   Okay, so originally, I was planning to simply talk about the focus on combat in Role-playing games (particularly D&D) and the lack of comparative effort put into such arenas as stealth and negotiation, but on further reflection, this issue proves endemic in the entire gaming genre. Let's look through the whole field of gaming first before we hone in on how RPGs fit in all of this.

   One of the biggest categories associated with gaming are video games(and I'll be using the term video games to refer to both PC games and console games), so I think it's probably the best place to illustrate my point.

   The truth is most video games have combat in them, and if combat is an option it is usually a vital game mechanic. While some genres are notably peaceful, for many more combat and violence is the main tool (the meat) of the game. Yes, you can brew potions in Skyrim, but why would you when you can just go kill dragons instead, and the controls for fighting those dragons are a whole heck of a lot clearer than the alchemy system. So if we really need those potions, we'll buy them from an uppity merchant OR (if you're one of those people) kill a merchant that no one will miss and steal the potions. Then get back to dragon-slaying. The reason? It's more fun!

Well why is that?

   We've just decided that it's more fun to either rob/kill an innocent civilian or to pay hard earned money for a product, than it is to do the work of creating the product ourselves. All so that we can get back to the main (usually violent) point of game. Why do we feel like this is a normal and okay thing to do?

The answer is found back in the very roots of gaming: sports.

   Sports are a conflict, one that we have attempted to organized so that the competitiveness of the athletes can be expended in a method that doesn't (usually) cause any serious injury. But for some reason, we prefer to be competitive physically more so than mentally, (there's certainly a lot more football players than chess players in the world) the only solution I can think for this is that it harkens back to our genetic heritage, and we have an instinctive affinity to overcoming physical challenges.
   Furthermore, sports key into another of our instinctual objectives: social dominance.
Humans are social, but we also like to be on top of the scene, in such a way that we can gain the respect of those around us. Sports are a prime way of doing this, because the competition provides us with a rubric for who deserves our respect. although one could argue that you are proving your dominance when you are victorious in a mental challenge, doing so does not have the same instinctive respect that physical dominance provides. If there's an angry bear trying to eat you and someone, would you rather that other person is strong enough to fight off the bear? or smart enough to hide from the bear so it chases you instead? mental dominance is not an admired trait in the distant past.

Okay, so we like sports because they let us show off to everyone, what does that have to do with everything?
well, combat games(particularly Multiplayer ones) are really virtual sports, a tool we can use to scale ourselves. We grind our way through countless hours of gameplay, just to get that shiny badge of recognition from the game. think back to your early days playing Call or Duty or another similar game weren't you impressed by that guy with all the stars on his profile? didn't you wish you could be as cool as he was?
And that's how this all ties back to RPGs. One the biggest parts of an RPG is watching your character grow, from fighting off pesky goblins to epic combats with the newest dark doomsday deity, we find it enjoyable to watch ourselves climb the rungs of the power ladder, both in the world the game is set in and with our own abilities.

But you can't really experience that same growth with talking. While it makes sense that a fight with a dragon is more difficult than fighting an orc, the difficulty of negotiations are often so dependent on variables that one cannot create an accurate "scale" with which to measure. Since there is no real scale, there's no feeling of progression, and you are left with a repetition that ends up being largely unfulfilling (yet if you beat 1000 slimes you can get this one secret.... but I digress) negotiation-based progession does not really work, because you can't really tell if you're making progress. That's the reason that games do not usually focus on negotiating or stealth. They aren't consistent enough.

Truth is: combat is fun because you can use math on it.

We find assigning numbers to your physical abilities a lot more realistic than assigning yourself values in Rebuttals or Evade Questions. Communication is such a fluid situation that stats for your abilities make little sense. You can (almost) always kill something by hitting it hard enough, but you can't always convince someone with the same techniques. Therefore you can't really use as complex of a system for negotiation or stealth as you would with combat. Without the sense of progression that is the backbone of every RPG, games that focus on negotiation or stealth make you feel like you're going in circles without really getting anywhere. This makes the gameplay itself less entertaining and requires a lot more comedy or story strength to get you to keep playing.

But we never get tired of pwning n00bs or ransacking villages, why? Because we're showing them who's boss: social dominance via gaming.

But anyway, I'm starting to ramble, so to sum it up:
We like combat in our RPGs because it lets us know that we're getting somewhere. Yes there are situations where diplomacy and stealth are required, but they are more often tied to story and advancing the plot than they are to your character. RPGers (and gamers in general) are self-centered, and getting an Axe of +10 damage is WAY cooler than an Axe of +10 to making smart remarks.

Communication is something that happens on an inspirational basis, trying to quantify it takes away some of what makes it special. So while I don't like the way that violence and destruction is sewn into the very core of RPGs, just consider for a moment running a pacifism D&D campaign? I would give you an hour before something gets lit on fire. violence keeps our interest, because we like to measure ourselves against the obstacles. I don't greatly like the way that violence is necessary in nearly every RPG, but I understand why it's there, and I can respect it for the role it has in the gaming industry. Because despite the gratuitous blood and gore, it keeps us involved enough to make stories. Who hasn't named their favorite sword? (not counting those times when you just got a new ability and you made a lame pun out of it) That's the sign of being connected and immersed in the game you are playing, the goal of every game company. (you know besides getting you to pay real money for virtual items and stuff. Thanks Diablo 3 and Candy Crush)

It's just plain awesome when you get that crit right when most needed. because you were invested in the fate of your character, and were concerned that this might be the end for them. But turns out their going to be around for a few more turns at least, and that makes you glad.
Natural 20. The answer to every problem.

NEXT TIME: it's a surprise!!!

The Villain: Part 2

There are however some stories that do well with their villain. Though these are fewer in number they are generally some of the best. There are a couple different approaches that can give you a good villain, and they vary widely between the two. interestingly, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of a bridge between different extremes. Perhaps the issue of time is more important to a good characterization then anything else.

I have found that more than anything these "success stories" could be grouped up into four categories, although there are other villains that work without being  any of these categories, most of the ones that do work are part of one of these four groups.

The Sympathetic/Admirable Villain: (ex: Magneto)
Perhaps the least memorable of the villain types, if only because in your mind they're not really villains. The sympathetic villain will be found opposing your main character, but not generally because they have some evil scheme in mind, generally their motives are benign enough, it is  most often their methods that put them into conflict with the hero. Sometimes the villain's goal is selfish, but nevertheless one that we sympathize with. (the best example for this being Barbosa in Pirates of the Caribbean. Tell me you didn't feel bad for him when the apple rolled out of his sleeve.)

The Unknowable Villain: (ex: Sauron)
The opposite of the sympathetic villain, the Unknowable villain is very much evil. They're just not in the picture. Their perspective is removed and relatively unimportant to the actual meat of the story. Often the characters will not directly interact with this kind of villain, they will encounter the villain's minions, or otherwise feel the villain's influence, but will be unlikely to actually meet the villain face to face. (WARNING: this type of villain only works if he remains removed for the entirety of the story. many villains of this category lose steam once they enter into the actual workings of the plot, as they turn out to be generic evil people.)

The Eccentric Villain: (ex: Cruella De Vil)
A little bit of a strange choice, but some of the best villains are completely crazy. This only works if the villain is overdone and really rather haywire. this kind of villain will not even attempt to be normal and is apt tor get sidetracked at least once during their villainous monologue (oh but that's a story for another time) and is really pretty bonkers. It's hard to have a villain like this in a serious story, but they work quite effectively as comedic villains, and can be if nothing else, Memorable, which is a key trait for determining where they stand.

The Intriguing Villain: (ex: Darth Vader)
Lastly, the Intriguing villain is the most basic, but perhaps the most difficult villain to create. Yes, your villain is evil. Yes they are evil without real reasons. Yes they will treat all their allies like crap and Yes they are never happy.
But they sure are fun. If your villain has enough personality and general "coolness" that they can be a general jerk to everyone, and people will love it. Most Star Wars villains fall (or attempt to fall) into this category, as do the villains of Avatar: the last Airbender or BBC's Sherlock.

The villain is one of the most important parts of a story, and too often they are just another egomaniacal world conqueror. but if you can get it right, your story will often be greatly improved. (although you may get "the villain is more fun than the hero" syndrome, so shape up your main character too.) A Hero is defined by their Villain. and when a villain is special, the whole story benefits for it. a last parting bit of advice, if your ever find your villain saying:

"after I get ABCD, I will be UNSTOPPABLE! HA! HA! HA!" to a hero who may or may not actually be in danger.

You've missed your mark.

NEXT TIME: I actually don't know how long it'll be until I do another one of these posts, I leave for college tomorrow, and have really no idea how much free time I will or won't have. Also topic-wise nothing is currently jumping at me. I will continue to upload comics however (to the whole five people who read them.) so stay tuned!

the Villian: part 1

The Villain of a story is one of (if not THE) most integral parts to formulating a successful tale. Yet at the same time, the villain is also one of the most squandered opportunities that any story represents. Too often the villain of a story opposes the hero for very meaningless or even fake reasons (I'm looking at you pretty much every comic book villain ever.) and this is a prime example of the oversimplification that stories are so prone to doing. If the hero of the story can be a complex and three dimensional character with their own, why should their opposition be any less complex, any less thoughtful. In truth, the best villains are every bit as admirable as the heroes they oppose. some of the most satisfying conflicts occur when both sides have an admirable goal.

The idea of a villain who was still an admirable individual is not a new idea by any sense. even Homer, who's principle audience would have been the descendants of the Greek invaders, painted Hector, eldest son of Priam and the most powerful of the Trojan heroes as an honorable individual, who refuses to sell out his less-than-penitent younger brother, despite the fact that the odds are against both him and his city. Likewise pretty much every pantheon of gods has at least one "evil" deity who is associated with death or strife or mischief, but will still stand by the other gods at various points in the mythology

The other form of ancient story is the kind that has no villain. both The Odyssey and Beowulf, although featuring people and creatures that oppose the hero, do not really have villains. Yes there are foes, (Cersei, and Grendel, Polyphemus and the Dragon) but the actions of these foes do not dictate the course of the story, in the same way that The Joker orchestrates the occurrences of The Dark Knight  or how Darth Vader affects the course of the Star wars trilogy. Ancient stories were focused on the hero, and him alone.

Which is why everything is King Arthur's fault.

King Arthur is the one who started the trend of illogical villainy that plagues some other wise brilliant stories (such as Ronin in Guardians of the Galaxy, and numerous unnecessary characters in Game of Thrones) Morgan le Fay and her sisters will do anything in their power to ensnare and oppose Arthur and his knights, without Arthur himself having done anything to them. (they are venting their rather legitimate frustration at Arthur's father, by opposing his son.)

But King Arthur is not the only legend to have illogical villains. Robin hood also has to regularly deal with Prince John, Guy of Guisborne and the Sheriff of Nottingham, all of whom have really no redeeming characteristics and are just greedy brutes.

And that doesn't mean you can't have a greedy brute who likes hurting people as your villain. But it does mean that no one cares about your villain. If your villain is the generic vileness that is found in so many stories (which is really Disney's fault but...) then it should be the hero that drives the plot, not that villain. Because in truth, the hero of your story is really only as good as the villain(or obstacle) they overcome.

There has been a growing trend in modern stories to have chapters from the villain's perspective, both to change up the points of view AND to establish the villain as dangerous by having him be evil to either some unlucky nobody or an inept minion. this rather generic scene can be found in almost any movie (it even snuck it's way into The Hobbit) and will always end with the villain dispatching whoever is groveling before them.

Oh, aren't they so evil!!!

Next Time: The Villain, part two: the ones that got it right