Re: Do LitRPGs necessitate violence?

#1
No. I think violence is optional, but it’s something we’ve allowed to be thoroughly baked into our assumptions.

When we are designing LitRPG systems many of the most common sources of inspiration are MMORPGs, cRPgs and tabletop RPGs. However it sometimes feels like we pull from a narrow subset of the genre. With occasional exceptions for things like crafting LitRPGs, it seems like the default assumption in a lot of worldbuilding is that things are dangerous and violence is crucial to survive. Often this assumption is built into the systems we design for our novels, requiring xp to be gained through killing progressively more dangerous creatures. Or in the case of crafting, paying someone else to kill those creatures to act as sources for materials. 

Coming predominately from the tabletop side of things I find this fascinating, because there has been such an explosion of tabletop RPGs that shake up our assumptions about what it means to play and what elements a system needs. Heck even in OD&D, which without a doubt had the assumption of violence, xp was earned not for slaying monsters but for collecting treasure.

If we’re interested in expanding what a LitRPG novel can be and the sort of stories we can tell with one. I think a fruitful option is to throw away the assumption of violence.

So what do you folks think, can we write compelling LitRPG stories where the MC doesn’t resort to violence. Or does so only in moments of extreme desperation.

Are there good example of compelling novels that you feel successfully question the assumption of violence?
How do they do so? Are they focused on characters who are seeking to work against the grain of the system, or does the author change the basic assumptions that underlie a lot of LitRPG world building and system building. Is one of these routes more satisfying than the other? How does each approach to questioning violence change the sort of stories we can tell in the LitRPG genre.

Perhaps most importantly. Would you even enjoy a LitRPG story that eschewed violence or would playing counter to the genre expectations in this way leave you disappointed? If you’re answer is yes, do you consider violence to be a necessary part of works in the genre. 

Thanks for reading, I look forward to a lively discussion.

-Vel

Re: Do LitRPGs necessitate violence?

#2
It all depends on the system that the author has created.

The Wandering Inn would be a good example. of LitRPG classes and skills being handled well. People don't level up only by killing stuff, they level up their classes by following the concept of their class. Erin doesn't become a better [Innkeeper] by punching things in the face, she does it by being the best [Innkeeper] she can be.

But at the same time, most authors base EXP around the difficulty of the monster/person that that someone has killed, while ignoring EXP from noncombat events. All level ups come from fighting, and it makes you start to wonder why everyone isn't a combat class by default.

Whether or not LitRPGs necessitate violence always comes down to the author, but a lot of LitRPG authors forget to pay attention to the world outside of their system, and that's the overall problem.

Re: Do LitRPGs necessitate violence?

#3
As someone who hardly even reads LitRPGs, I'm certain that no, they don't necessitate violence.
Velara Wrote: I think violence is optional, but it’s something we’ve allowed to be thoroughly baked into our assumptions.
That's exactly what I think as well. A good habit I try to get into is to question things about the genres I write. Why are things this way? Do they have to be that way? If I changed this, could I make a more unique experience? Etc.
Bizmatech said it well with the The Wandering Inn example. It's a matter of questioning "assumed" aspects of a genre and changing them to make something special. It's easy to follow a tried and true formula (e.g. fight monsters, level up, fight stronger monsters), but your story would definitely stand out more and be a memorable experience if you tweaked the formula to your own desire, in this case, changing it to something that doesn't default to violence (e.g. collect bugs, level up, find rarer bugs).

Unfortunately I don't know of any examples to share, but I can certainly say I wouldn't be disappointed to find a story like that that went against the grain. Thinking outside the box is A+.

Re: Do LitRPGs necessitate violence?

#5
I think it depends on the system is certainly one answer for sure. If an author does choose to create a system that rewards non-violent behaviour the way many systems reward monster hunting, you’d expect to see a major shift in character actions. 

However, you can just as easily tell a story about someone ordinary, living in a world where a system that predominately encourages violence exists. While their direct interactions with the system might be lower you could explore how its vary existence effects their society and day to day living condition.

Ultimately, the point I was attempting to make in the OP —perhaps badly— was that violence is often part and parcel to the default assumptions we make when were are planning on telling a LitRPG story, and this is as true for the readers as it is for the writers. When we contravene those expectations are we inadvertently treading out of the bounds of the LitRPGs by failing to meet reader expectations, or are we pushing the bounds of the genre. 

I ended up starting the same discussion on another site as well and have been intrigued to see the difference in opinions. On the later site there is a heavier bias towards looking at published LitRPG work and I got several people who found the very idea of a LitRPG that eschewed violence abhorrent. 

Whereas here we might have more experimental works that shape the way we think about the LitRPG genre. Things like The Wandering Inn which does explore, to some extent the lives or more ordinary people after transmigration. Who are not necessarily combat orientated, and feel squeamish about killing sentiment beings. Which may by default shift the boundaries of what we consider to be normal LitRPG content. 

Vel 

Re: Do LitRPGs necessitate violence?

#6
I've been a huge "advocate" for non-combat LitRPG stories for a while now, and I still haven't particularly found any that have piqued my interest. RPGs with zero violence exist in video games, and even in tabletop RPGs; surely they can exist in LitRPG fiction because there are just so many opportunities for interesting stories with RPG systems in genres that don't have fighting. A romantic comedy about a poor kid entering the world of high society dating; the cutthroat world of Hollywood film production; the adventure of a traveling salesman trying to hawk magazine subscriptions across a vast fantasy world; a sports drama about a struggling college football team. 

That's all just off the top of my head. Just think of the sheer number of stories you could do with LitRPG systems that involve zero fighting!

Re: Do LitRPGs necessitate violence?

#7

Thedude3445 Wrote: That's all just off the top of my head. Just think of the sheer number of stories you could do with LitRPG systems that involve zero fighting!


But that's kind of missing the whole point of the litrpg idea. You certainly could do every story with systems, stats and skills and so on, but if it doesn't add anything to it and it's there just for its own sake the story would be better off without it. In the worst case it would be a negative and the best case would be something extra that doesn't detract, but meaningless overall. That's why such stories are without it in the first place. While I've seen, liked and enjoyed some casual stories and slice of life, they would've been pretty much the same even without the litrpg bits and thus I don't really count them as such. The real kind would be a story where the litrpg elements are integral and the plot would just not work without them because the story is build with them in mind.

While violence is not necessary, it is hard to work around if you want to avoid it because it is combined with the genre itself in its origin. You can place your characters in peaceful environment, but still in a somewhat violent world where that peace will have to shatter, otherwise why being set in that world in the first place, and if the world is not as such then why is the system made for such a world. Some try to go that way, but not for long. If "No Epic Loot" went different direction and stayed the like the first chapters would be the best example I can think at the moment. The Wandering Inn is indeed like that. The MCs are not out to kill anything moving just for xp and it works for them, but the rest of the world is kill or be killed. A big part of that is because most litrpg are fantasy or sci-fi and that is what fantasy or sci-fi are also about. Not all of course, but when you slap litrpg ot top it kind of forces in that direction.

Non violence litrpg needs enterally different reason to be a litrpg. Crafting, puzzle, strategy, maybe, though I haven't seen a good one yet. It would have to break the mold of the genre itself. There is or was a boom of different rpgs and games in general and styles of playing, themes, goals, etc, yet it is very different to play something and write/read a story of it. Just think about it - almost all books made from games, or games made out of books are not rpgs... like WoW or Mass Effect for example. Not that they couldn't do it in a more meta way, but there is no point to it, one is meant to be read, the other meant to be played, that's why the system was created. It adds nothing to the story if told like that. But if you set out to do a story that you want to be litrpg you have to go back to what makes it litrpg in the first place and that's not really the system, the system is only what represents it (and for some reason we like the numbers). It's the progress of getting unnaturally stronger, better, smarter, importanter, but there has to be a way to become like that, a reason, means and it has to be in comparison to something or someone. Violence best encompases all of those and it is tried, true and prime for the genre. 

But I have no doubt is possible not to be, because for example believe it or not I have seen a love story that has zero love in it and I loved it (don't ask, it's impossible to describe how I see it exactly and I'm sure you'll not share the opinion it is a love story at all, but that is the feeling that gets across yet not even a hint of it in the story itself). The point I'm trying to make is that if you can twist it enough managing not to destroy it, it could be something more or just something else and the same simultaneously. A litrpg not is not a litrpg.

Violence is a broad term for me, any kind of forceful conflict and confrontation, but if you take it more literally than me, then I don't see why would not be possible to be just about a competition in a game (any kind of game, from virtual pro scene to kids chasing each other on a field or forest), computer systems and codes (like the life of an AI, the battle chronicles of a hacker, a programer designing or testing a game), through the eyes of aliens terraforming a planet and exploring a dead world. A lot of things could work as a base and then it's just a matter of making it interesting and connected or disconnected from the world or the characters and make it not about "violence". When it's done we can see if it's what we know a litrpg to be or what a litrpg could be. 

Re: Do LitRPGs necessitate violence?

#8

flssdd Wrote:
Thedude3445 Wrote: That's all just off the top of my head. Just think of the sheer number of stories you could do with LitRPG systems that involve zero fighting!


But that's kind of missing the whole point of the litrpg idea. You certainly could do every story with systems, stats and skills and so on, but if it doesn't add anything to it and it's there just for its own sake the story would be better off without it. In the worst case it would be a negative and the best case would be something extra that doesn't detract, but meaningless overall. That's why such stories are without it in the first place. While I've seen, liked and enjoyed some casual stories and slice of life, they would've been pretty much the same even without the litrpg bits and thus I don't really count them as such. The real kind would be a story where the litrpg elements are integral and the plot would just not work without them because the story is build with them in mind.


You'd have to design an RPG system with non-combat elements in mind and one that still engages the readers that like that kind of stuff... Which is not at all difficult. Wandering Inn, but remove the fighting, and you have a quite interesting world with a lot of interesting things going on. 

RPG video games with no combat exist in large number too. Harvest Moon and Animal Crossing are huge franchises and both excellent examples of how you could do a LitRPG story that has an exciting system but also doesn't have battles and violent stuff. They don't HAVE to be slice-of-life like those would suggest, though; as you say, Puzzle game systems, simulation elements, and more can work. And you can always design a more traditional system to remove the combat elements--Elder Scrolls's leveling system for example seems like a great template for a non-fighting-oriented LitRPG series.

You can set these stories in peaceful worlds that also don't have killing. They don't even have to be set in a fantasy world or anything--the litRPG genre could even work as a ridiculously silly magical realism element in a modern fiction story. It's very rare to see this, but I think that is just because of the baked-in stereotype that all RPGs have to be about killing and fighting or battles and grinding. 

Re: Do LitRPGs necessitate violence?

#9
In my opinion, the main problem with LitRPGs is that the system serves no purpose other than to provide a crutch for lazy authors. Some use it to support their lack of prose. Others use it to skip over their worldbuilding. Other's just use it because it's a trope that they enjoy, while not understanding how to use it as a tool.

Is the Story set in a VRMMO? Then sure! A system is pretty much fucking necessary! Is it set in a world where the video game has become real? Then no. It's shouldn't be included at all. Unless The System was part of the lore of the game, it shouldn't be part of the reality. Systems are ways that we use to interface with fictional realities. If that system is a reality, it should have ramifications.

Take a look at all of the D&D or Warhammer novels. You'll notice pretty quickly that none of the tabletop rules are mentioned even once. This isn't because the rules change. It's because The System is completely unnecessary to the story being told.

Delve would be a good example of an RR fiction that doesn't use The System as a prop, but it still doesn't go far enough into anyone actually questioning why The System itself actually exists. The MC spends half his time figuring out how to min-max the thing, but never questions why it is.

In most fictions, The System is just "a thing" that exists. In any normal reality there would be entire religions or branches of philosophy dedicated to it. People would be studying that shit the same way we study physics or ontology! We don't see much of that in most LitRPGs.

So I'm a Spider, So What? is a good example of LitRPG done right, but even then I'm confident that the author dropped most of the LitRPG elements because they got tired of writing out the MCs status screen so often. At least there the System was an actual part of the world and setting that had a noticeable effect. The system itself is one of the primary elements of the story!

Most of the time, any LitRPG elements simply aren't needed. Most of the time, LitRPG elements don't even matter. And that's the problem. All tropes are tools, but Systems are a tool that is rarely used correctly.

If a System necessitates violence, that's fine. But the world should reflect that. If a System exists, the world should reflect that, and shouldn't ignore it. Whether or non Systems necessitate violence only matters if the world is build around a System that requires violence.

Re: Do LitRPGs necessitate violence?

#10
Sure. "There is no epic loot here, only puns" would fit. It's not a pure PRG (it's a dungeon core story) but it's basically about a pacifist dungeon core who is trying VERY HARD to wear big enough kiddie gloves to protect everybody who shows up for loot, death traps and monsters. 

I see no reason the pacifist concept can't be applied to a more traditional LitRPG. 

Re: Do LitRPGs necessitate violence?

#12
Well, ok. Designing a game system isn't about combat. and in a tabletop game, combat turns into a large part only because a major part of the genre is about exploration and conquest. DnD grew up out of war strategy games. That's at the very core of the game. for noncombat, exploration, games like Myst and Zork come to mind, where compat situations are so rare because you are a very squishy person and the focus is on riddles, exploration, and storyline.

violence is a catharsis precicely because we can't use it in a social setting in real life without extreme consequences and in life ther are not many opportunities to be blatantly predatory. Mid you, the opportunities are there, but usually more political in nature.

And I avoid violence in my tabletop RP whenever possible because it is actually legit horror to make a character that has no choice but to kill to survive. It trains a character to be sociopathic.

SO, I play a lot more social games that violence is an option, but denying that urge or finding diplomatic solutions is a better and more fulfilling way to go. Like with Vampire the masquerade where violence is every bit part of the setting but the characters, the good characters anyway, are trying to do their best not to give in to that beast. Heroes of Rokugan which is a far east setting, there are samurai, there are violent moments, but the best course of action is not usually to seek it out unless you are a character of degraded morality or if there is something that absolutely needs erradicated.

contrast video RPG where grinding and fighting are pretty much standard OP but a videogame does not have the timescale available to it that tabletop has. You have maybe 100 hours of legit gameplay, as low as 15 in some cases. Depends on sidequests, story and immersion. fighting things for experience is always a shortcut to roleplay. Depends on your world. How open do you want it to be? If the world is truly open in terms of time and space for growth, there are ways to achieve character goals without using physical violence. 

THat doesn't meant the world isn't violent. because even the real world is a very violent place and anything that is pacific is really either delusional or restrictive, and must be opposed. The jedi order still carries lightsabers, after all. Shaolin monks are peaceful enough, but they still kick ass when they have to.

just why though? Humans aren't the most violent species, but we're pretty much the only ones that go out of our way to destroy anything that might be trying to chew on us literally or metaphorically. Vendetta is pretty much the baseline human function. There might be some elephants and corvids that do it. But you certainly won't see a group of gazelles organizing to take down a small family of cheetahs because one of the cheetahs ate a herd member.

THe basic takeaway is simple: violence is a part of life. Stories shortcut life. The root of RPG is in tabletop war and strategy gaming. Lit RP is about stories based on established gaming convention.

If you want to try for a peaceful setting that is fine. but the downside of peace is: stagnation, traditionalism, isolation, and restrictive legalism. It also requires the environment to be favorable to the players. Conflict does arise from competition for resources, after all.

and then there are the goals. RP is a thought experiment if goalsetting and goalkeeping. What would a peaceful character have as a goal? Is it an interesting, challenging goal?

probably not, given the worlds involved in RPG. So. Basically. violence is necessary. you as an author just have to manage the consequences.

Re: Do LitRPGs necessitate violence?

#14
Well, I think you mean Successful because I've read crafting LitRPGs, and they really do get boring and lost in time, I'm sure even the author gets bored of it because suddenly, they put their mc against an enemy just for the sake of it. And then the plot armor comes in, They literally have no combat skills but still win and just continue crafting with no care in the world. 

On a side note though. A properly done alchemist story is really good, too bad they rarely finish this genre.

Re: Do LitRPGs necessitate violence?

#15


S. Wrote: If you want to try for a peaceful setting that is fine. but the downside of peace is: stagnation, traditionalism, isolation, and restrictive legalism. It also requires the environment to be favorable to the players. Conflict does arise from competition for resources, after all.

and then there are the goals. RP is a thought experiment if goalsetting and goalkeeping. What would a peaceful character have as a goal? Is it an interesting, challenging goal?

probably not, given the worlds involved in RPG. So. Basically. violence is necessary. you as an author just have to manage the consequences.
Good point, but it also makes me think that we are conflating violence and conflict. Violence may be a facet on conflict but that's not the case the other way around. I also don't think peace necessitates stagnation. Change may be catalyzed by an existential threat and that threat may be an alien invasion, it could also be climate change, disease, weather anomalies, resource shortages, the moon exploding, the list goes on. Other sources of conflict could be class inequality, ideological divides, pride even. And goals are just as wide and varied multiple ways of being pursued.  

Violence remains a possible solution but it's not the only one. If we interpret litRPG to function as an addendum to the rules of the world you are writing, just as any magic system or extra futuristic sci-fi technology would be, then we can better see that the RPG system is just another set of tools for characters to works with. The design of the RPG system would matter as the shape of the tool will guide how it is used, but just as a hammer can be used both for building a house and caving in a skull or a fire can be used for warmth and food or destruction, so to can be applied to RPG mechanics. The degree of freedom is dependent on how restrictive the system.

Violence is an easy answer to a problem (or easy method of pursuing a goal) which probably a big part of why it's so prevalent but I'll also say that fight scenes are usually my least favourite parts of litRPG's and I skim most of them; finding clever way's to game the system, or exploring an interesting world is so much more interesting.

So no, I don't think litRPG's necessitate violence, but I do think violence is easy (to do poorly), and that there is also an element of writing based on what we are accustomed to.

All that said violence in stories is still a tool to be used and may be used well.

confused rant(ish) out, peace (-_-)ゞ゛

Re: Do LitRPGs necessitate violence?

#16
Conflict is what matters. and having someone fight it out is the best representation of it because its easier to write than social conflict i think. Im waiting for a Novel that have someone get ROB'ed they can modify themselves however they want before getting dropped into a world - they of course make themself ultra strong like every guy that has the chance at it  and then he isnt dropped into a fantasy conflict laden story but just a normal modern world where it amounts to jack if you can slaughter monsters en mass or can lift trucks above your head :D

now that i think about it maybe he could be a good sportler in some kind of ganbatte anime then :D

Re: Do LitRPGs necessitate violence?

#17
CILinkzSpre3, Eichi Nemoto ^^ https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/26135/auntie-toasts-the-vrmmorpg

My newest fav on RR. I didn't know it on my last post here, so I take back my words about crafting litrpgs (although this is only one novel aside from every fail I've seen in the genre). Yet of course there is still "violence" sooner and later and all types of conflicts and frankly without those it would probably be boring or maybe it won't work at all. But sometimes why and how you go about it is just as important as its lack or presence.

Re: Do LitRPGs necessitate violence?

#18
I'm not a fan of the LitRPG as expressed here. Every time I see a stat, I am popped out of the story. For me, it prevents immersion, and ruins what seem perfectly good stories otherwise.  I'm a gamer, and rather play one than pretend to be playing one in such a concordance. After all, reading ability really does not affect the outcome of a book, interaction is the point of gaming, and why statistics are tracked. Stats track progress.  However, As most RPG's feature conflict and battle challenges, I'm not surprised to find them peppering the text of stories based on gaming.  As for lit that wants to rate everything in points and levels,  considering one to be in any way an emulation of a game is moot, LOL. 

Re: Do LitRPGs necessitate violence?

#19

FAHyatt Wrote: I'm not a fan of the LitRPG as expressed here. Every time I see a stat, I am popped out of the story. For me, it prevents immersion, and ruins what seem perfectly good stories otherwise.  I'm a gamer, and rather play one than pretend to be playing one in such a concordance. However, As most RPG's feature conflict and battle challenges, I'm not surprised to find then peppering the text of stories based on gaming.  As for lit that wants to rate everything in points and levels,  considering  one to be in any way considered an emulation of reality, LOL.
I'm fine with it sometimes, but the authors had to commit to it. What I find bad is when you can see skills and lvl up popping up randomly, skipping 20 lvls without any mentioning in the next chapter, disappearing for a bunch of chapters completely and so on. If the gains are at least roughly counted by some hidden formula so it seems not pulled out of the gutter. It also doesn't help when MC is the special snowflake class cheater in the game-like world having sole access to things others not.


Coming back to the original question, I think the violence doesn't have to be there, but the only way that can be possible is when the story goes into crafting and building stuff. Otherwise, it's classical killing monsters for experience gain, thus violence.

Re: Do LitRPGs necessitate violence?

#20
TL;DR: Yes and No. Rambling below. Read at your own caution

---

For me, when you ask the original question, it opens up a bit of a quandary, as there is a degree of a logic loop/suspension of disbelief needed to sustain it. To lay out many observations I've made of the premises:

First, you'll notice that most system-based LitRPGs occur in a society/world that is automagically at a specific technological and social point, with maybe 1-2 generations of fleshed-out history, or in a world that is Earth-like at any particular point in time, to which a system is suddenly added. 

Second, hyper-aggressive monsters are either already present or begin magically spawning once the System/LitRPG kicks in.

Third, said monsters either breed like rabbits or are automagically replaced/sustained

Fourth, experience is either gained solely by direct kills assists or by supplementing with non-combat role play, albeit at a lower rate.

Fifth, either all non-combat classes exist to support the combat ones or only combatants gain classes.

What's the point of all these posits?
Well, if we were to take an Earth-like world and dump a system on it that functions like the standard LCD (lowest common denominator) system, then the human race would likely extinguish itself within a century or so and a majority of the world's biodiversity would be completely trashed.

Why?

Well, frankly, nobody ever gets experience for activities directly related to ensuring the survival of their race. Sure, some world might have a Courtesan class, but that's still only experience gained for doing the deed in pursuit of another goal and/or the skill by which one does the deed. A similar corollary: why farm or raise livestock if killing other humans helps you advance faster. And if humans are out killing other humans, you'll need to defend yourself. So, why bother wasting time on a non-combat trade at all?

This is why systems are plonked on world that hae an already-existing infrastructure, set of philosophies, and culture, and why a separate, existential threat is always supplied, because Caveman Ug would have already killed Og and Ugga to get stronger, before realising he can boink with Ugga. Voila, Caveman Ug tyrannises his sphere of influence and dies alone, having never passed on his genes. Or, perhaps the three make it to adulthood, fighting off sabre-toothed cats and whatnot. Ug still kills Og for Ugga, boinks Ugga, likely goes all Kronos on the Uglings before either eventually offing or getting offed by Ugga (if Ugga doesn't die via childbirth, because there's never a skill for L&D). Mediaeval age? Industrial Revolution? In your dreams.

And, let's face it, if Orcs/Gobbos/Giant-Demon-Thingies-that-Go-Ding aren't introduced, Can you imagine the horrors that would be Colonial Britannia? (Let's not even get into slave magic <shudders>). Not to mention the infighting and backstabbing. Even an advanced society would collapse under the eventual war machine without some distraction. (Hell, that's partially why the Crusades were instigated anyways - to get the bored, petty, antsy European powers to stop infighting and focus on something else for a change).

Even if we introduce monsters, given the rate of human-induced endangerment or extinction, they would be gone within a few hundred years, regardless of whether they were initially more powerful than humans. So, of course populations have to be magically replaced, because no story truly shows the terrible efficiency at which humans are capable of eradicating threats. Even gobbos couldn't boink and whelp fast enough to maintain a population - especially not if they required human women.

Lastly, to cover those last two posits, it's amazing that crafting classes ever exist, as there is little incentive in such worlds to make proper weapons, clothing, or shelter. Cast magic or gain unarmed or improvised weapon skills and you're set for the experience-fueled growth you'd ever need. Even a world with existing infrastructure would eventually face skill and technology erosion, because there would be no incentive to spend time crafting unless forced (see: slave spell) and the only crafting would be newer/bigger/flashier ways to deadify things. Crafter classes often have to be shoehorned in as subclasses and even non-combat classes, like healers, have to be provided in advance and initially forced upon people, lest everyone pick warrior or assassin and attempt to survive by deadifying everything as fast as possible. Why would people pick healer unless either initially forced to or  having a pre-existing ideology and strategy that healing is good and provides long-term benefits not seen in the immediate, evolving struggle for survival. Because let's remember, y'all, evolution is blind and picks what fits best for survival right now. Ug, Og, and Ugga would all have ended up picking some variation of puncher/clubber/stone thrower.

---

Now... to answer the actual question: Yes and No.

Yes, LitRPGs as commonly written engender, and thereby necessitate violence. However, as hinted at by many others in this thread and beyond, there are examples of LitRPGs that don't, in part because the authors realise those limitations and find ways to enable non-combat classes and incentivise non-combat growth. This, then, allows for the development of culture, philosophy, and civil engineering, among other things. That is where the "No" comes into play, as the vehicle of LitRPGs or System-based worlds don't have to be built in such a way that violence is necessary, though such Systems would inherently have their own problems, as mentioned in a prior comment.

And the philosophy/worldview aspect is a key point, here. I don't know if it was this thread or somewhere else, but someone made the statement that, in a LitRPG/System-Run world, the rules of the world or the system itself would be a huge object of investigation, inquiry, and philosophy, kind of like science, ontology, and epistemology are IRL. Ethics, too, would be shaped by such a world, with strict anti-murder laws and a robust study of ethis prior to and following said legal establishment would be necessary  being necessary for any measure of civilisation to evcen begin to be established. (including, but not limited to, the idea that the collective sum of levels among two people/a group/a society is exponentially stronger/more advantageous than all the power being condensed and collected into one, single, terminal individual)