To which Gronk the warrior responds: “I hit the smallest one with my flail as hard as I can.”

So, Gronk and comrades got to work as slaves in the mushroom farms untill they managed to escape rather than recruit the help of the myconoids.

I certainly read Martin’s initial article as complaining about the situation that “just hit it” is so often the response.

I still lay MOST of the blame on the system. But a new thought arose, and I’ll dish out some blame in another arena. That arena is the GMs who have decided “I don’t do hack ‘n slash, I tell a story.” The problem being that they are intent on telling their story, and no matter what the players do, the story is going to come out the way the GM intended. And guess what, “just hitting them” is one of the few ways the players have to try and get input. Of course eventually they realize that even though they keep killing key NPCs, the plot STILL winds up the way the GM planned. But by then, they’ve been trained to hit everything in sight.

The only way to get out of the mudhole is to actually make the players actions matter. No matter what those actions are. If you smack the players any time they dare raise their weapons, that isn’t any good (especially when using D&D or some other “combat heavy” game).

But that’s back to blaming the system. If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Combat heavy games typically don’t have many tools other than killing things. One problem is that even if they have a social resolution system, there’s nothing in the system that forces finality of resolution, other than killing things. This means two things, first, a social resolution is always subject to being countered by murder and mayhem, second, without anything forcing finality of resolution by social means, if you really want someone out of the picture, you kill them.

If you have Dogs in the Vinyard, look at how the rules talk about finality of resolution. Sure, you can come back with a buddy, in the haybar, and with guns blazing, to try and replay the same stakes, but otherwise, them stakes is settled.

Frank

I prefer the “When in doubt, grab anything that’s valuable and run.” approach myself. Still gets you in trouble, but at least you can live comfortably while waiting for them to catch up to you.

I typed out a detailed response to try and clarify what I was getting at again, but realized I was just saying what I’d already said in the post. So let’s try a different angle.

The examples I picked are (based on my experience):

1) All situations in which “hitting it” is the safest, most paranoid response. Since PC death — which is rarely any fun — is always on the line in most RPGs, safe choices are often more attractive than they should be.

Whose fault is this? Often, a mix of the GM, the players and — as has been brought up in the comments — the game rules.

2) Situations in which there is probably a more interesting, more fitting and all around better response than “just hit it.” But player and GM experience — the vicious circle — conspire to make just hitting it the more attractive option for many groups.

This is a weird issue, and one with many facets. This post scratched the surface, and it’s interesting to me to see what readers pick to respond to here. (That’s half the fun. )

As for my personal in-game behavior, I’m not sure what situation you have in mind. I’d be happy to discuss it here if it’s relevant to the original post (which it sounds like it would be), or via email if it’s off-topic.

I’m not a great player, but I’m always happy to hear how I can improve.

As prisoners, those orcs will just slow you down…”

These examples, among others, seem to make it pretty clear that “hit it first” is the default response and that the article advocates doing so.

Also, you state “experience…conspired to teach me this lesson: When in doubt, hit it.” That doesn’t denote that it’s part of a vicious cycle, instead that experience has shown this to be a superior and preferred playstyle. One that I’ve personally seen you employ with negative effects on a game.

Don’t care for that NPC that the GM has put several hours into fleshing out and crafting a role-playing experience around? Hit it!

I don’t mean to argue semantics, but the article is stating one thing while your position appears to be another (via comments).

As people we don’t hit strange persons whose motivations we don’t understand because we’re confused. If we presume in a role playing game that the foundation of our actions are derived from what is “traditionally” acceptable behavior in the Real World (TM), then when is “hit it” really a desirable first response?

I’d say rarely, if ever.

I’m not advising that players (or GMs) make it their default response. I’m saying that for many groups, it is the default response, and that when I look at that situation I see a vicious circle: it keeps working (GM’s fault?), so players keep doing it (players’ fault?), etc.

Suddenly it’s all become clear to me what’s happening in Trinity.

Players shouldn’t try this tactic in my games, as it won’t get you very far. If you’d like to hit stuff, I’d recommend finding a D&D game or playing some WoW online. I get little enjoyment — and have little patience — for this playstyle.

Hitting stuff is an acceptable resolution to some situations, but it should not be the default response as this article advises.

It’s called a role playing game for a reason.

As a GM, think about the ways you reward players. You reward them with in-game items like treasure and experience, but for many groups, a great story is its own reward. If players have been betrayed, tricked, or backstabbed one too many times by encounters that they tried to “role play” through, then sure… expect them to start hitting anything that moves.

But if you keep your mind open as a GM, and let them try to solve problems in new and unique ways, they’ll keep trying new things to get through them. Show them there’s more than one way to solve problems. Make it so that they need information, advice, leadership, and guidance from these NPCs they are mercilessly slaying. When they’ve destroyed the very answer to their quest, and have to go the long way around (so to speak) to get the job done, let them know.

Award experience for “quest completion” instead of how many monsters are slain. That way, when they do all this extra work that wasn’t needed because they unrealistically fought everything that moved, they realize it wasn’t worth it.

Be fair. Part of the fun of the game is tossing around the dice and beating things up. Just think reasonably about how your world works. Don’t try to find ways to take that fun from your players.

I find this issue interesting, partly because (as Jeff mentioned) it’s not actually an issue in all cases, or for all groups.

Great comments so far.

Your “responsibility” is exactly 1/N, N being the number of people in the group.

Few games have clear rules and procedures the players can turn to and know what to do with, that won’t either be “Guess what’s in my pocket?” problem-solving (aka, pixelbitching), or praying the GM doesn’t Fiat away.

My solution? 1) play games that have alternative means of solving problems, and 2) show that in action, often. Use scenarios where violence isn’t the focus.

One of the ways I’ve found to stop the vicious circle is to make sure that the players find about the consequences of whatever action they took–even if I have to be blatant, or even tell them after the relevant events are resolved.

It’s easy for players to miss consequences in the game. Sure, if the party kills the town guard, the guard’s sister may find out and not be very helpful with that important piece of info she knows. If all she does is get mad, the party encountering her may decide that’s just the way she is. Instead, I’ll make sure that it comes out that she is the sister of someone they killed, even if she blurts it out to them somewhat out of character. Or a mutual friend will tell a PC later. Or something. Worst case, after the adventure is over, I’ll mention it OOC, as something they picked up through the rumor mill.

Of course, I also reinforce this by doing it for those times when the party doesn’t take the easy way. I make sure they find out that they got “B” only because they did “A” and made “X” pleased with them.