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

[Umbran]

Since when is use of reasonable and proportionate force in policing and military not an extension of self defence (namely collective defence, of the community)?

How is the use of any violent force proportionate in response to non-violent crime?

Mod Note:
Folks, this is not a place for a proxy fight about real-world policing philosophies. Please stop.

 

[Flamestrike]

How is the use of any violent force proportionate in response to non-violent crime?

Just noticed the mod notice above.

I had a post here but deleted it seeing as some people seem to want to link what we are talking about with current politics in the USA for some reason. Lets leave it.

 

[Todd Roybark]

I’ve been toying with the notion of a bidding mechanic, as seen in board games like The Godfather: Corleone’s Empire.

Tentatively, I imagine a token pool equal to one’s INT and DEX modifier. Participants bid tokens, in a blind process. Winner gets to pick their Initiative spot, in game.

So the Initiative bid winner, can decide to delay, or advance when they take their round, and can “bump” someone from their spot.

Only two bidding participants can get Initiative Winner or Initiative Runner up status, the rest get their dice rolls.

The idea still needs some work, I admit

 

[DammitVictor]

For my OSR game-- by its various titles-- I'm thinking of making Initiative a skill, DEX/INT based, with ties broken by the number of proficiency slots invested in the skill, roll every round AD&D style. This means that Warriors and Rogues are just naturally going to be faster than other classes. But skill checks are pretty flat in my system, with real differences in skill coming from class-gated skill unlocks.

I'm wondering what kind of unlocks I can offer for the Initiative skill, for Warriors and Rogues especially.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

For my OSR game-- by its various titles-- I'm thinking of making Initiative a skill, DEX/INT based, with ties broken by the number of proficiency slots invested in the skill, roll every round AD&D style. This means that Warriors and Rogues are just naturally going to be faster than other classes. But skill checks are pretty flat in my system, with real differences in skill coming from class-gated skill unlocks.

I'm wondering what kind of unlocks I can offer for the Initiative skill, for Warriors and Rogues especially.

One of my issues with initiative has always been that the slower reacting/slower thinking (worst initiative roll) character gets to see what everyone else is doing before they decide what to do on their turn and then react to that with their action. This is not quite as bad a problem with the 5E six-second round, but was ridiculous in older versions. Going last should not be a benefit, but I have never found a satisfactory way of resolving that.

 

[DammitVictor]

Street Fighter: the Storytelling Game had a solution for this, but it's time-consuming and only really works for 1-on-1 battles: loser goes first, but everyone who has a better initiative can interrupt him at any time and have their move go off first.

 

[Imaculata]

One of the most memorable sessions I ever DM'd, involved a druid shape shifting into a crab, and then trying to imitate the behavior of a bunch of aggressive giant crabs during mating season, in order to pacify them and retrieve a keg of rum from a sand dune. Full experience for overcoming all the giant crabs.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I have always been confused by the argument "it is okay to kill evil aligned creatures because they are evil aligned" because I find myself asking questions like: What alignment would you ascribe to a person that has zero remorse or hesitation to kill people for having other beliefs?

When not dealing with creatures that are literally infused with or are the embodiment of an alignment (such as devils and various other outsiders), is it not the creature's overall outlook and behavior that informs what their alignment is? And if that is the case, which I believe the books have always presented it as being, then why is it possible for one character that behaves as a self-interested loner that kills who they view to be 'the bad guy' to be Neutral Evil and another that behaves identically to be Neutral Good, and all that differs is what their view of 'the bad guy' happens to look like.

And also the "super hero" question comes to mind: Isn't part of being 'the good guys' refusing to use the same methods as 'the bad guys'?

It's one thing to be unconcerned with the moral quandary and just play the game, and I can't get doing that, but it's an entirely different thing to try and claim that Good and Evil being real forces in the world includes Good having free reign to do the things that make Evil evil so long as they have picked the right target.

 

[Umbran]

Going last should not be a benefit, but I have never found a satisfactory way of resolving that.

I think if you look back, you'll find the original is "Actions declared low to high, actions resolved high to low."

So, if you got that good initiative, you got to see what everyone else planned, and then declare what you wanted to and have that go off with them being stuck in their declared actions. Before Attacks of Opportunity, this meant a lot of attacks whiffed, because a target with a better initiative could see it coming, and move out of the way.

While this may sound cool, in practice what this meant was that the poor schlub who got low initiative might as well just pass and go get a soda, as anyone going faster would be out of the way of sword or spell, and their action wasted.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I think if you look back, you'll find the original is "Actions declared low to high, actions resolved high to low."

So, if you got that good initiative, you got to see what everyone else planned, and then declare what you wanted to and have that go off with them being stuck in their declared actions. Before Attacks of Opportunity, this meant a lot of attacks whiffed, because a target with a better initiative could see it coming, and move out of the way.

While this may sound cool, in practice what this meant was that the poor schlub who got low initiative might as well just pass and go get a soda, as anyone going faster would be out of the way of sword or spell, and their action wasted.

Yep. Some older console turn-based RPGs were sort of like that. You selected the actions for your characters and if you picked the same enemy to be attacked by more than one member of your party, and that enemy died before everyone went, those remaining characters attacked the empty space where the now dead enemy used to be. Then when games got more sophisticated, instead of losing that attack, the programming had your character attack a random remaining enemy instead.