Does the world exist for the PCs?

Lanefan said:

Why does murderhobo play ruin your investment? They're still interacting with your setting, aren't they; and isn't that the goal?

Click to expand...

That might be the sum of YOUR goals and ambitions, but it's not MY only goal.

Lanefan said:

Expecting them to interact with your setting in the particular way you want them to is a high-speed road to madness.

Click to expand...

You say that as if I had not already arrived at madness.

I expect the players at *my* table to interact with the setting in ways which are not limited to "kill" and "loot", and I get what I expect, because I don't offer seats at my table to murder-hobo players.

Murderhobo play is in most cases bad faith engagement by the player or players. I dont force specific interactions on my players but I do expect them to pick up what I'm putting down. I'm making a couple of unstated assumptions about murderhobo play there, but im comfortable with that.

Murderhobo parties in a setting with lots of internal consistency and logical consequences wouldn't be much fun for the players very long, I don't think.

My world does not exist for the PCs. It exists independent of them. However, the campaign exists for the PCs, so they are usually central to what is going on immediately around them.

Fenris-77 said:

Murderhobo play is in most cases bad faith engagement by the player or players. I dont force specific interactions on my players but I do expect them to pick up what I'm putting down. I'm making a couple of unstated assumptions about murderhobo play there, but im comfortable with that.

Click to expand...

I'm not typically worried about murderhobo play. The consequences of that kind of play usually curb the behavior. If the PCs start killing people, the world will kill them back. The PCs aren't the biggest and baddest. If they kill someone or something with important information, they will likely fail with what they are trying to do.

Lanefan said:

In improv acting the goal is to riff off each other and generate some entertainment for a watching audience. (which is why things like Critical Role are not good guides to how to play; the first goal there is to entertain the audience, and true-to-character play suffers as a result)

Click to expand...

You guys need to stop maligning the show. It started before they began streaming and will likely continue after we all move onto the next big thing. It’s incredibly hard to perform for an absent audience (they have no idea what the audience response is and thank the gods they don’t monitor the chat during the game), so they actually perform for the enjoyment of each other, which happens at many regular D&D tables I would suppose (certainly it does at mine even if I’m the one who does the most). And i wish my players spent half the time the CR players do developing their characters over the course of the campaign.

I’m not sure why this table gets such disrespect, when it is a major engine in the surging popularity of the game...

robus said:

You guys need to stop maligning the show. It started before they began streaming and will likely continue after we all move onto the next big thing. It’s incredibly hard to perform for an absent audience (they have no idea what the audience response is and thank the gods they don’t monitor the chat during the game), so they actually perform for the enjoyment of each other, which happens at many regular D&D tables I would suppose (certainly it does at mine even if I’m the one who does the most). And i wish my players spent half the time the CR players do developing their characters over the course of the campaign.

I’m not sure why this table gets such disrespect, when it is a major engine in the surging popularity of the game...

Click to expand...

I dont see anyone saying its a bad show? In fact, I don't see anyone really being critical about it much at all. We're simply saying 'Its not a good model for a standard D&D game', which isnt like...a black mark against it. For what it is, people like it and enjoy it so good on em glad they are creating a thing people enjoy.

But, well, it's meaningless as a model for D&D gameplay, because its goals and needs are different.

What is disrespectful about any of what I said? Honest question.

HJFudge said:

I dont see anyone saying its a bad show? In fact, I don't see anyone really being critical about it much at all. We're simply saying 'Its not a good model for a standard D&D game', which isnt like...a black mark against it. For what it is, people like it and enjoy it so good on em glad they are creating a thing people enjoy.

But, well, it's meaningless as a model for D&D gameplay, because its goals and needs are different.

What is disrespectful about any of what I said? Honest question.

Click to expand...

Calling a legitimate D&D game meaningless, when it’s probably the most meaningful game around? We’re all ace DMs but no-one actually sees our game. This one guy (and players) actually show a game and it’s exceptionally good and everyone is quick to dismiss it as “not an example of real D&D”, “meaningless”.

I’m not sure why this burns my britches, but it all seems more like “tall poppy syndrome” than actual criticism. I certainly have things I don’t prefer about the way Matt Mercer runs his game, but I would never for one second criticise it as illegitimate, which is the subtext of these critiques. i.e. If you think CR is D&D, you’re wrong.

Lanefan said:

. Why does murderhobo play ruin your investment? They're still interacting with your setting, aren't they; and isn't that the goal?

Click to expand...

The goal may well be to interact in a certain way, of course. From keep your arms and legs inside until the ride has come to a complete stop setting tourism, to there's no point killing of a character -PC or NPC - If it's not going to make anyone cry, to SimCastle, to well we have the one ring let's teleport straight to mount doom, to oh yay! that same NPC rescued us and saved the kingdom again, to oh no I'm not touching it you touch it I'm not going to touch it.. hey! Mikey! ....


....that is to say, in the first 25 years of the hobby, we found every possible dysfunctional way to play it. It's just not fair to expect 5e to cater to all of them, without a little effort on our part.

...but, about murderhobo play, specifically, it's not really a style, it's just a mean-spirited label for how D&D often shook out when you were just random rolling nameless characters until one had a series of lucky breaks and got powerful enough to survive and stringing together unrelated modules into a campaign.
You learned that life was cheap and magic items were invaluable, and that the next cache of magic items wasn't going to be anywhere near the last.
So you moved around - sometimes even unwittingly between worlds - killed whatever was in that next module, and took their stuff.
That's really more home invasion robbery.
And, since you were often at least nominally hire by local authorities, a lot more like paramilitary security consultants than hobos.

(Also, I guess hobos have really let their image slip since the early 20th century.)

robus said:

Calling a legitimate D&D game meaningless, when it’s probably the most meaningful game around? We’re all ace DMs but no-one actually sees our game. This one guy (and players) actually show a game and it’s exceptionally good and everyone is quick to dismiss it as “not an example of real D&D”, “meaningless”.

I’m not sure why this burns my britches, but it all seems more like “tall poppy syndrome” than actual criticism. I certainly have things I don’t prefer about the way Matt Mercer runs his game, but I would never for one second criticise it as illegitimate, which is the subtext of these critiques. i.e. If you think CR is D&D, you’re wrong.

Click to expand...

Well, a couple points here. I get that you enjoy the show, but you even addressed it as a show. Your initial complaint was 'I wish people would stop disparaging this show'

Because, again, it is a show.

People behave differently when they know they are observed. I know that if I decided to put my game on display and stream it, that I would run it differently because I am no longer trying to run a game I would be hosting a show.

And you are right, it seems like something other than actual criticism because it is not criticism. I am merely calling it what it is and pointing out that, unless you are trying to entertain an audience, you should probably not use the show as a guide or example of how to run a game. Much like, if I wanted to learn tips on how to run a game of FATE, I would be very ill served to go ask a DM whose done D&D and D&D-alikes and to sit in at his table and then try and model my behavior on that. It is simply just not the same thing!

Is it criticism against the D&D DM? Of course not! Does it make what the D&D DM is doing 'meaningless'? No, at his table and for his players and for those looking to run that style of game it has plenty of meaning. If you want to learn how to run a successful stream or a game that is meant to be observed, you should definitely go study and practice what Mercer and Co. are doing. It has a meaning and people enjoy that meaning. But when a new DM wants to learn how to DM, it is a bad choice to use as a role model unless that person wants to put on a show.

I get it though. You really like it, so you are very protective of it, I understand. Its like if someone trash talks your favorite sports team. Or someone says 'I don't like firefly'. Fans will get mad, its not about reason or rational, its an instinctive thing. You view it as an attack on you, because its something you love. But it isn't. Again, I'm not even saying I dislike the show! (For the record, I dont? but I dont enjoy watching streams in general of anything so thats not really a mark against it its just my tastes)