D&D General Violence and D&D: Is "Murderhobo" Essential to D&D?

[Umbran]

So what you're saying is that, just like Monopoly, we can just say it's a game, and therefore meaningless?

So... for mammals, play is most definitely not "merely entertainment" in general. Watch any puppy, kitten, or human child - play is a way to train and hone various skills and thought processes. It is a way to engage in complex behaviors and activities at low risk to develop abilities in youth and maintain them as adults.

Thus, in a broad sense, it would seem blithe to say that games, broadly, are meaningless.

Moreover, popular game products have a context in culture - they are cultural artifacts, just as any novel, movie, or artwork is. We can point to any number of cultural artifacts that have had great impact, both on individuals and on cultural direction. So, again, to generally categorize this stuff as "meaningless" would seem like wishful thinking.

I can understand that folks often want to be free of all that - "Just let me noodle meaninglessly with my friends about the dining table, please!" And, while a given entertainment is small, its overall impact is more limited. As things get popular, I'm sorry, but the folks who produce it have to think of their work as having greater cultural relevance and impact, and what is in the product comes to matter more.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Murder is the unlawful (or unjustified) killing of a person. There is absolutely zero reason whatsoever that the things being killed in a D&D campaign have to be people.

One of the major benefits of playing in world with actual for-reals monsters is that you get all of the excitement of combat, but without any problematic moral issues. You can also mix-and-match the slaying of monsters, with the subdual of people; or with the justified killing of people.

There's very little reason to include actual murder in a D&D game.

 

[Mistwell]

In my opinion...
Violence is ingrained in human experience. In ancient times, for millennia, males had to protect the females during pregnancy, and hunt to gain food. This is the basis for male aggressivity: violent males are more likely to survive with their female and offspring. This is also the reason girls prefer bad boys to nerds. The reason for which boys istinctively prefer weapons for toys, while girls prefer dolls. The reason for which we like aggressivity in sports and movies.
On this basis, western culture built a true mystique of violence and war, glorifying the characters of the Hero as a monster-slaying warrior (i.e.Hercules) and as a knight (i.e.King Arthur).
Listening a Myth, reading a fable, or playing D&D, you can live an experience in which you identify with the Hero, who fights, kills the monsters, and saves the princess, becoming adult in the process. It is truly rewarding.
This is the reason that I am in love with this game.

So, while in modern real life violence is unacceptable, in myths, fables, D&D (but also in sports and movies) violence is positive and actually required: a man needs violence to become an adult, but since violence is controlled nowadays, at least It can be surrogated in tales and sports. It is... educative. It Is MORAL. Actually, abolishing violence in movies and D&D is a very BAD choice.

While I agree with some of what you're saying and not other parts of your position, I just wanted you to know I found your post thought-provoking and interesting. There is some evidence that playing violent video games serves as an outlet for aggression, rather than being a precursor to aggression. Your argument seems to be along those lines.

 

[Umbran]

The lesson I learned at 7 years old is that it's a bad game design. I refused to play it after two games.

All designs have goals. If the goal of the design is to make the action of play engaging and entertaining, it is a failure. If you consider the design goal to be education - to show you the results of certain economic models... it actually does the job pretty well.

 

[Phion]

It's funny, in my teens the game started out with murderhobo style in the 80s for me, then it moved to heavy intrigue and investigation and lots of deep role playing in my 30s, and now that I have reached my 50s we're back into murderhobo style. Consider that, if it's not your thing right now, it might once again be your thing in the future too.

XD I can relate to this. Starting off violent because you are just trying to get knowledgeable on the mechanics (got to cut the new DM some slack as well), then getting all creative and becoming bit of a hipster with all these wild concepts and trying to be the "wild" one of the group and then finally becoming a generic human/ dwarf fighter who doesn't think too hard and accepts the world for what it is while still trying to do his bit.

 

[Phion]

All designs have goals. If the goal of the design is to make the action of play engaging and entertaining, it is a failure. If you consider the design goal to be education - to show you the results of certain economic models... it actually does the job pretty well.

So to you a morale/educational goal is more important than a mechanical design? Forgive me if I am reading that wrong

 

[Umbran]

Murder is the unlawful (or unjustified) killing of a person. There is absolutely zero reason whatsoever that the things being killed in a D&D campaign have to be people.

If it looks like, talks like, and largely acts like a person, claiming it isn't a person becomes difficult to make plausible. In the real world, even today, we humans take significant effort to dehumanize other humans to justify doing horrible things to them. Claiming things that are close to human aren't smacks of those efforts.

However, all it takes is a change of framing - step away from the "people" and look at the "justified". If your violence is justified, then the issue goes away.

And, really, it doesn't take all that much work. You want your players to have a good time slaying orcs? Sure - just put in the scenario setup that the orcs in question have been doing heinous things to local villages, and there's evidence to say they'll continue. Presto! Instant justification! With a few sentences of exposition, justification can be done.

The issue comes up when you present things that aren't covered by justification - just don't drop in orcs who haven't done anything yet.

 

[Umbran]

So to you a morale/educational goal is more important than a mechanical design? Forgive me if I am reading that wrong

Who am I to judge goals? People need to be taught things, so educational design goals have value. People need to be entertained. So, entertainment design goals are also valuable. I make no claim beyond that.

 

[RangerWickett]

Bear in mind, people play games based on what the rules say.

I mean, Lord knows I never tried to negotiate surrender during a game of Axis & Allies, nor did I try to research a cure for the zombie virus in Dead of Winter.

The rules tell you how to play. If the rules put a LOT of focus into combat, guess what part of the game people will tend to pay attention to.

 

[Umbran]

And how many 7 year olds realistically stopped to consider that?

Modern Monopoly has taken an educational game, and stripped it of its context and debrief. It is the equivlanet of using a dining room chair as a long-term office chair. The chair isn't bad for what it was intended - that you use it for the wrong thing is hardly the chair's fault, now is it?