So, to kind of encompass what Im interested in discussing, in most rpgs, killing tends to be a very simple act. Nameless guard charges you, you cut him down, he suddenly fades into nothingness. But I guess the question is, for more experienced GMs and roleplayers, do you believe killing should be relatively simple to ease the player's ability to connect with the game, or should it a much heavier subject to kind of make players feel like they're in a deeper, more realistic world? As well, do you feel like sadistic acts of violence, like torture, or rape, should exist for the gritty sense of realism?

I have many thoughts on the subject but I'd love to hear some responses first.

In most of the roleplays I GM or participate in, the killing usually happens between monsters and humans. as a result there's a disconnect there. The predator does not feel sympathy for their prey. It's an entirely different story when both creatures are human, or identical in nature.

I find it's kind of hard to regulate how "gritty" killing someone should feel. This is mostly because each player and their characters deals with it in a different way. I know one guy who gives all of his characters personalities, even the "nameless guard," to help guide how you should feel. There are others who make killings look as simple as cutting a loaf of bread. I try to give a little bit of insight into the kind of characters that are being killed. If people are being killed by the truck full, it's not very convincing to make the characters feel anything anyway. That changes if the character is particularly important or close to the characters.

I'm not sure making death heavy makes things more realistic, but I do think it connects the reader to the world better in certain situations. It really depends on how dark you want things to be.

As for "sadistic acts of violence like torture or rape," it depends, but I feel it misses the mark most of the time. I find torture and rape are abused as a sort of shortcut to make things dark on the cheap. The problem is that torture and rape can only be committed by people with very specific mindsets. When people without these mindsets commit these kinds of crimes, it tends to make the world feel more contrived and artificial.

Death is a tool that can be used in RPs, just like violence, love, rape, etc. are tools. Some RPs put more value into each such tool, others put less.

We personally like having limits on how often each of these tools are used. If a tool is overused, it'll lose its value for that RP.

As a foundation for promoting action, few things are as powerful (and dangerous) to use as rape can be. Using it wrong can break both stories and characters.

Replying to BrokenPromise, its somewhat blurry with monsters. For me, I tend to emphasize that the players explore alternate routes to a solution. I want them to feel the weight of their actions, a life saved or spared. Monsters can be sentient and in games like pathfinder they often are. So a creature driven to try and kill the party has its motivations for doing so. Sometimes killing is unavoidable though. As a player Im kind of an asshole to myGM about this because I often want to spare a life rather than murderhobo over an intelligent creature.

You're very right, of course, about the grittiness varying by player. Some people want a lighthearted, strike down badguys disney style game. I dont tend to play with people who enjoy that gory, killing is as easy as slicing bread playstyle because it's kind of immature and doesnt lend to an immersive game.

Now, rape, and torture. Torture... it feels like sometimes its kinda necessary, depending on whats happening. Its a frequent part of a fantasy setting. Its just rough, you as a gm have to really draw a line between storytelling and sadism. As for rape, its actually happened in a game I was running, and it was a pc committing it. It was handled well, lent an appropriately dark touch to the game, and the character responsible for it was filled out a bit by the act. But... its a touchy subject. It can ruin an entire game, I think.

Maybe the amount of detail you put into the act of killing and its impact shows the maturity of the player and of the game.

While I wouldn't use those elements in excess, I'd consider a story bland if everyone simply killed and never gave it a second thought. As for the other bits, for a darker context, sure. It really depends, for me, how serious the universe is intended to be.

Could give a longer response if specific questions are asked, but since I'm pressed for time I'll keep this simple.

To be perfectly honest, my rule of thumb is usually to go with heavy realism in virtually everything I do involving writing. I'm not a fan of escapism in terms of the themes of a story or how they're presented on a psychological/characterization level. Now don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that I'd showcase a brutal torture or rape scene in a story or role-play that's meant to be viewed by kids, but I'll never try to detach people from what's happening unless there's a significant reason.

Regarding death, or specifically killing given the premise of this thread -- I personally feel that it's better not to water down the emotional and psychological weight that the taking of another's life can have. My attitudes towards this sort of detachment is that they're generally unhealthy, and if people are going to write a character taking another life then - unless this character is a psychopath or something - it's only realistic that the character would go through an ordeal from it. I dislike the notion of the escapist characters who can just cut down hordes of troops without batting an eye, especially if these characters in question are meant to be our protagonists.

As for monsters -- I usually consider them to be a cop out so the writer doesn't have to take responsibility for the moral and psychological elements involved with killing another, but it's an acceptable route in specific types of stories that obviously need monsters or soulless opponents as the basis of their genre or lore. I've got plenty of examples of this in my own work actually, but I don't believe it's a justification to water down or neglect the realism whenever a human actually has to kill another of their own kind in the story and - unless a story is set in a very unrealistic world by default - it's highly unlikely that you won't encounter humans fighting or killing each other at some point.

Maybe the amount of detail you put into the act of killing and its impact shows the maturity of the player and of the game.

This, honestly. If people don't go into the psychological details, it says a lot about them. In particular, it says whether or not they've got a mature understanding of the weight of what their character's done. You're not going to find someone who's killed someone writing a role-play where killing's written off like it's nothing, unless they're trying to escape past experiences anyway.

Edit: This thread provides more discussion on the matter of writing about killing.

A truly monstrous monster is one the reader can associate with and to some degree understand.

That does not mean their code of morality needs to be human. In fact, it can be quite inhuman and still feel justified.

A monster's attack (and/or kill) can be explained from the mindset of the monster, the victim or a third party. Sometimes, it can feel even more monstrous if the one describing it doesn't have the full picture. Say the monster is some sort of human-snatching giant. What a bystander might see is only a huge, monstrous hand reaching through the window to snatch its prey. It glimpse a vague shadow for the body, or it might not. The act of not seeing anything distinct for the monster's body could fire up the imagination, and it could end up inventing an appearance based on its own fears mixed with its observations.

Seeing such a snatching from the perspective of a bird in flight would probably not be nearly as terrifying. At least not if the author is good at describing things in the above bystander example.

Yes, the idea for the example is kinda like Roald Dahl's classic BFG. We just had to pick something.

For monsters in general, focusing on the monster's non-human traits could also personify it.

EDIT: Got a challenge for you people:
Try writing an example of either a monster attack, or a killing.
Either from the perspective of the killer/monster, the victim or a bystander.

Given the whole premise of the opening post, and the opening poster's following post, I think it's fairly safe to presume that they're referring to whether or not killing should be watered down in a role-play for the sake of detachment -- no mention of monsters was given in the premise and I believe this is meant to regard humans taking each other's lives, such as the example given of cutting down guards.

My responses were based around that premise and - frankly - the mentality of monsters isn't relevant to answering that point since monsters are by their definition fictitious in nature so there's obviously going to be detachment and escapism written in their portrayal. Monsters can be written well, but they're not going to touch on these psychological matters maturely in a way that's relateable to humans besides perhaps - as stated previously - psychopaths.

On the subject of the challenge involving writing a killing involving a monster, I've actually done this plenty of times before; however, the monsters in my work are far from conventional. If I get some free time (read: not likely at the present time) I'd be willing to write up another.

Maybe the amount of detail you put into the act of killing and its impact shows the maturity of the player and of the game.

Not necessarily. Sometimes I think the most effective method for showing how detached a character is from the world or the people they kill is by not making it particularly gruesome. I remember someone called me a twisted bastard OOC just because one of my characters derived pleasure out of eating sweets and watching two friends fight. Of course, it needs to be a mindfully made decision. if all of your characters behave the same way when someone dies, you (by you I mean anyone) may have to rethink how you do things.

I also feel that the act of killing, like the bearing of sins, becomes easier as it is repeated. You could become tormented for weeks after taking your first life, but taking your thousandth won't feel like anything.

I don't think I've ever seen rape done well in RPs. It never feels like it suits the character, and is just kind of there for shock value. Rapists tend to feel like they've lost control of their lives, so they use rape as a tool to get some of that control back. The only exception is if you're some kind of serial rapist, at which point you probably aren't even a fully functioning human being anyway. Torture is also very trait specific, but not as much as rape. There has to be a lot of hate or a complete lack of empathy. Of course if anyone can think of other reasons for people to commit these acts, I'm all ears. And no, "She's hot" doesn't count.

Death is no different than any other facet of storytelling. It can be done poorly or well, with great gravity or levity, to ill or grand effect.

There is an inevitable Human tendency to romanticize or otherwise aggrandize the death of particular individuals. This inevitably invites inspiration to aggrandize lesser entities to victory (Martyrdom), to illustrate the particular tragedy of a struggle, to construct a poetic moral, or simply to bring a final close to an individual arc.

On the other hand, there can be the more logical depiction of death meaning absolutely nothing beyond mere practical concerns, with people dropping dead at random like flies regardless of who they are and their importance. This can invite the inception of a higher cause, or create a web of rippling effects that converge at a central point, or might even in fact be truly random.

The thing to keep in mind is that death is a character condition. Its occurrence, at least in metafictional terms, is no different from any other kind of development that might occur or be imposed. Even in a nonfiction setting, the condition of death imposed upon a character is not necessarily their final end (the obvious if played out example being Hamlet).

The question I like to ask myself when contemplating the death of characters, for that last reason, is not what might come of or else be achieved by a death. It is all the same, after a fashion. I would like to think the character being contemplated is nuanced enough, and the contextual reality of the roleplay developed enough, that any particular death might be equal - at the right time, place, and fashion. I like to think that if given freedom, the reality of a roleplay will create its own meaning and atmosphere without writers having to impose their own thoughts forcefully.

The question I ask is whether they would die or would kill. To permit the spirit of the roleplay, as a narrator who does not impose upon the wills of the characters or the order of the world - a being who merely conveys occurrence to a third party - the only question I should be asking is whether I am interpreting events correctly. Thus, the only real question to ask is whether or not a particular individual dying or else killing another makes sense and does not contradict the contextual reality of the roleplay.

As an extension of that, a death is always precisely as grisly, as awful, as silent, as traumatic as it needs to be at the moment it occurs. The same is true of other actions such as torture, rape, etcetera. Concern yourself not with the singular action. If it troubles you, turn instead to the world that created the problem - and then get better at worldbuilding to accommodate your distaste.

Optimally that would be how it is done, except not many writers are of a like mind with me. So occasionally go and talk to the other roleplayers instead to see what it is they are trying to do, and attempt to reconcile your perceptions.

Death is a tool I utilize a LOT in RP. Thing is for me, it isn't so much the death of the character but that characters impact once they are gone. What it does to the dynamic of the group as a whole. Granted, I leave death in RP up to the gods per-say - in other words - the dice. Most of my Rp's are set with some form of slice-of-life realism to them and in real life sometimes death just happens. There is no reason behind it other than death decided that day you are going to die. If your number comes up, it comes up. There is nothing around it.

Sure certain circumstances will raise the chance that someone dies, so it is more likely to happen. For example in my Walking Dead and Darker Than Black Rp's - These Rp's are set up in such a setting that death is EVERYWHERE. They have racked up high death tolls. It's just part of it. (And the Rpers are very aware of that, most have multiple characters and back up characters ready to go) Getting killed is kind of just expected but it doesn't mean it hits any less hard than in an RP where death rarely happens. I actually have found that the long term effects for many in those Rp's becomes a pivotal part of the development of the story for those that survive. Sometimes everyone surviving is much less impact-full and believable than everyone dying.

Now with other devices such as torture, rape, and so forth - it is a different story; to a point. I find that you don't have to do into grave detail about these types of things. You can Hitchcock it. (It happens behind the scenes, no one sees it or very little is seen.) Then again, it goes back to how that one moment play out in the long term. How does the characters mind change, how do they cope, over come it, succumb to it? How do their changes change those around them.

In the end, these things can all be very effective tools for both character and RP development. Everyone is going to go about it differently, just as everyone goes about Rping differently. For me, it is more about finding like minds. Seeking out Rpers that are on the same page as you. If you can do that, then the skies the limits and tools are most effectively utilized.

do you believe killing should be relatively simple to ease the player's ability to connect with the game, or should it a much heavier subject to kind of make players feel like they're in a deeper, more realistic world?

The more important questions address the external consequences, not the internal ones, if your greatest concerns are literary realism and worldbuilding. That is to say: when you kill a guy, what happens to his family? His friends and community? Did you just deprive a son of his father and a wife of her husband? Is anyone coming to you to claim vengeance? Will someone starve this winter because there's no longer a strong, able-bodied man to tend to the fields and harvest the crops?

Are you the monster of this world, despite being the "protagonist," or is the death truly justified? He's not unimportant just because he's an NPC whose name you don't know. If your world truly is believable, and truly feels like real people live in it, then someone, somewhere, cared about this person's welfare, even if he only got two or three lines of characterization as another faceless mook mowed down by a player-character's blade.