Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?

Maxperson · Jun 17, 2019

Hussar said:
Like a lot of things AD&D, it was pretty schizophrenic.

For example, while you can talk about xp for "tricking" monsters being in the 1e DMG, you also have the training rules. A fighter that didn't fight was actively penalized by being forced to take longer to train and spending far, far more money on training, for example. In 2e, while there were "bonus Xp tables" again, fighters ONLY gained bonus xp for killing stuff.

You focus on tricking monsters, but ignore that it talks about avoiding/disarming traps as well. There are no monsters(typically) involved with traps, and yet the DM is supposed to come up with an encounter level for them in order to assign non-combat XP.

Add to that the published modules of the day, which again, leads to a VERY schizophrenic experience of 1e where the DMG advocates one thing and the modules pretty much entirely ignore the DMG, and it's very easy to see why murderhobo play was pretty common.

Modules are a different beast. In order to appeal to the widest audience, they have to be written murderhobo and then DMs can add or change them to suit other playstyles. It's MUCH harder to do it the other way around.

IOW, if you kill the monster and take the treasure, you are guaranteed a certain xp award. If you trick the monster and steal the treasure, your xp reward will be based entirely on whatever you DM feels like. You tricked them too easily? Oops, sorry, no xp for you. And, frankly, that sort of thing just leads to far too many arguments at the table. So, DM's and players both shied away from it and relied on the codified rules.

There is also, "If you trick it and it was harder to pull off than killing it, more XP for you." And of course the non-combat XP in that statement regarding traps.

And, lastly, we're left with this bit of advice on page 85

IOW, all that stuff that isn't killing and looting is "conducive to non-game boredom".

Not quite. Not going out and looting is "conducive to boredom." That's why there's the whole section on stealing, sneaking, and traps, and why XP was tied to loot many fold more times than killing monsters. He expected people to avoid fighting and dying whenever possible.

Hussar · Jun 17, 2019

billd91 said:
I notice it doesn’t say anything about seeking out combat. What you highlighted could easily be expected behavior at the point combat has been rendered unavoidable.

Or, you know, the stuff that isn’t adventuring (which includes other stuff like doping out riddles and traps, exploring, etc. You’re way too hung up on “killing and looting”. You should get that looked at...

Ok, ok. I surrender. 1e players were renowned throughout the hobby, throughout all the history of RPG's as the greatest, most wonderful roleplayers of all time who never once picked up a d20 unless they absolutely had to and solved nearly every single encounter through spectacular exposition and wonderous words of wisdom.

Now, with the revisionist history out of the way, can we get back to reality where D&D=hack and slash was pretty much common knowledge, even back in the day. I mean, good grief, look at the flack Dragonlance gets for trying to inject a story into the game. Heck, among the AD&D crowd, storygame is a four letter word.

It constantly baffles and befuddles just how far people will go to try to present D&D as the epitome of roleplaying with no drawbacks and all criticism must be folks just doing it wrong. Sheesh.

In a game where you GET EXPERIENCE FOR KILLING THINGS, combat is pretty much expected no? When you get REWARDED FOR MURDER, then violence is expected in the game, no?

I would LOVE to see these mythical AD&D tables where even 40% of encounters were not resolved by combat.

Bedrockgames · Jun 17, 2019

Hussar said:
Ok, ok. I surrender. 1e players were renowned throughout the hobby, throughout all the history of RPG's as the greatest, most wonderful roleplayers of all time who never once picked up a d20 unless they absolutely had to and solved nearly every single encounter through spectacular exposition and wonderous words of wisdom.

Now, with the revisionist history out of the way, can we get back to reality where D&D=hack and slash was pretty much common knowledge, even back in the day. I mean, good grief, look at the flack Dragonlance gets for trying to inject a story into the game. Heck, among the AD&D crowd, storygame is a four letter word.

It constantly baffles and befuddles just how far people will go to try to present D&D as the epitome of roleplaying with no drawbacks and all criticism must be folks just doing it wrong. Sheesh.

In a game where you GET EXPERIENCE FOR KILLING THINGS, combat is pretty much expected no? When you get REWARDED FOR MURDER, then violence is expected in the game, no?

I would LOVE to see these mythical AD&D tables where even 40% of encounters were not resolved by combat.

You are painting a straw man here. You got XP for gold in AD&D and you honestly wouldn't survive long if you fought everything the moved. AD&D was definitely about being clever. Yes hack and slash was a thing too. But problem solving was just as much as feature of the game. In pretty much every AD&D game I have played in, and in most OSR games I've played in, 40% of encounters not being resolved by combat, wouldn't be that unusual. It very much depends on the GM of course, because what one GM considers a plausible non-combat solution, another might not. But this isn't at all controversial among people who've played AD&D. In fact, I don't think I started to see every encounter being about combat until 3E.

Also, when Dragonlance came out, I don't remember it getting huge flack. It wasn't like today with the internet where everyone's opinion gets broadcasted. Back then if people didn't like Dragonlance, they simply didn't play, and the single most common reason I recall for people not liking Dragonlance, wasn't the story, it was the pre-made characters. Personally though, I liked the Dragonlance setting.

Lanefan · Jun 17, 2019

Hussar said:
In a game where you GET EXPERIENCE FOR KILLING THINGS, combat is pretty much expected no? When you get REWARDED FOR MURDER, then violence is expected in the game, no?

I would LOVE to see these mythical AD&D tables where even 40% of encounters were not resolved by combat.

That 60% or 80% or even 99.5% of encounters were/are resolved by combat is not the point, at least not the one I'm getting at.

My point is that in 1e by RAW all that combat would still, in a typical published module* and given typical play, only represent about [20%? 30%?] of the x.p. you'd usually earn for the adventure; with a very small percentage coming from non-combat encounters and the vast majority (i.e. all the rest) coming from treasure.

* - possible exceptions being the G1-2-3 series; 1e Giants absolutely bleed x.p.

Lanefan · Jun 17, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
Also, when Dragonlance came out, I don't remember it getting huge flack. It wasn't like today with the internet where everyone's opinion gets broadcasted. Back then if people didn't like Dragonlance, they simply didn't play, and the single most common reason I recall for people not liking Dragonlance, wasn't the story, it was the pre-made characters.

Round here the general reaction I seem to recall was that the novels were OK but the modules were generally awful, in that a) they expected the PCs to be led by the nose far more than most modules of that era and b) for anyone who hadn't read the novels, large parts of them made little to no sense.

Hussar · Jun 17, 2019

Lanefan said:
That 60% or 80% or even 99.5% of encounters were/are resolved by combat is not the point, at least not the one I'm getting at.

My point is that in 1e by RAW all that combat would still, in a typical published module* and given typical play, only represent about [20%? 30%?] of the x.p. you'd usually earn for the adventure; with a very small percentage coming from non-combat encounters and the vast majority (i.e. all the rest) coming from treasure.

* - possible exceptions being the G1-2-3 series; 1e Giants absolutely bleed x.p.

Well, kinda sorta. Sure, the total would only be a small percentage of kill xp. Monsters weren't worth that much xp. But, in order to get that other percentage - the GP value - by and large you did it by killing the monster that was guarding it. So, yeah, the percentages were mostly for treasure, I totally agree. But, in order to get that treasure, most of the time, the solution was to beat on the xp pinata until it broke and you picked up the coins.

I'm just blown away by folks that want to paint early D&D as anything other than a hack and slash wargame with a thin veneer of story laid over top. 99% of the rules were related to combat. Virtually everything your character got was either directly related to combat, or as a result of combat. This shouldn't be terribly contentious. This is D&D after all. Y'know, back to the dungeon, the mega dungeon, dungeon crawling, that sort of thing? I mean, good grief, look at most modules published up until about 1982, which is a pile of them - they're pretty much nothing but hack fest dungeon crawls.

Maxperson · Jun 17, 2019

Hussar said:
In a game where you GET EXPERIENCE FOR KILLING THINGS, combat is pretty much expected no? When you get REWARDED FOR MURDER, then violence is expected in the game, no?

I would LOVE to see these mythical AD&D tables where even 40% of encounters were not resolved by combat.

In 1e an ancient red dragon was worth 7758, or 1939 xp each for a party of 4. An ancient red dragon can easily have 250,000gp worth of treasure, not including magic items. That equates to 62,500 xp each for that party of 4. Gaining the treasure is 32 times more xp than killing it, and you get that same exp if you steal the treasure rather than fight the dragon.

D&D was originally concieved as a get the loot game where you sometimes had to fight, but really tried to avoid it when possible so you didn't end up dead.

Bedrockgames · Jun 17, 2019

Hussar said:
Well, kinda sorta. Sure, the total would only be a small percentage of kill xp. Monsters weren't worth that much xp. But, in order to get that other percentage - the GP value - by and large you did it by killing the monster that was guarding it. So, yeah, the percentages were mostly for treasure, I totally agree. But, in order to get that treasure, most of the time, the solution was to beat on the xp pinata until it broke and you picked up the coins.
.

This so does not match my experience of play. When you have a group of characters with mixed skills (Magic User, Cleric, Fighter, Thief, Monk), it makes complete sense not to fight every monster that is guarding its treasure, but to use your brains to steal it.

Flexor the Mighty! · Jun 17, 2019

I don't know if anyone ever asked Gary this, but did OD&D/1e not have all kinds of rules for social situations because he didn't think that was important, or because role playing non combat encounters was something the players at the table did? Granted I don't think the focus of early D&D was deep social interaction, it was adventure, exploration, and combat.