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

[CleverNickName]

Are we talking about murderhoboing which, in my mind at least, involves players just kicking down doors and killing everything in sight? Or are we just talking about violence in general?

It's a fair question. Some people like to blur that line merely for the sake of argument.

I think it's about the first one.

 

[Fenris-77]

Are we talking about murderhoboing which, in my mind at least, involves players just kicking down doors and killing everything in sight? Or are we just talking about violence in general?

Yes.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's a fair question. Some people like to blur that line merely for the sake of argument.

I think it's about the first one.

"But at the end of that post, I curled around to what I think is the underlying issue I have recently been wrestling with; the nature of violence in Dungeons & Dragons. In the title to the post, I cheekily refer to the question as to whether or not "hobomurder" is essential to D&D, but this is more a post (and a thread) about the nature of violence in society, fiction, and D&D. About the way that our culture celebrates violence, and the way that the rules of D&D channel activities toward violence; in effect, the game itself rewards violence. That's the reason why I started this with the quote I did; traditionally, D&D prizes combat, and when the rules of the game are geared toward combat (violence), it is more likely that every problem can be solved through combat (violence)."

People can talk about whatever they want, but that is from the starting post.

 

[prabe]

Are we talking about murderhoboing which, in my mind at least, involves players just kicking down doors and killing everything in sight? Or are we just talking about violence in general?

I think that the game does tend to treat violence as the primary means of problem-solving, and murderhoboing is just that taken to something of an extreme--it treats violence as the sole means of problem-solving and the primary means of interacting with the world. In this case "murderhobo" might be something of a synecdoche and stand in for the whole approach to violence in the game.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Also, I think I finally realized what was going on with the whole muderhobo / hobomurder thing.

No, it's not some kind of Freudian slip involving watching Dexter along with the Littlest Hobo, eating too much pizza, and then having a terrible nightmare.

Nor is it a manifestation of portmanteau dyslexia.

I think I'm just naturally taking the phrase "murderhobo" (as in the PC in D&D who wanders around and kills indiscriminately) and switching it around to place the emphasis on the act of killing (hobomurder).

I can't even see it unless it's called out!

 

[Mistwell]

Truly, I think the only thing that is Essential to D&D is a twenty-sided die.

Bah, I remember chits coming with a basic box once, so you don't even need that!

 

[Mirtek]

currently the best face character of the DnD party is Matt Mercer. I can’t see him as a ambassador of free violence and murderhobo.

Really? I have only recently started watching critical role (I am at episode 5 of campaign 1) but boy is that a stabby-happy if I ever saw one.

I laughed a little when in their first Q&A after session 4 they said their characters are chaotic good and that their alignment is important for how they play them.

 

[jgsugden]

One thing to consider - in a story driven game, the violence has a point. In a delve style game with no real story, most violence boils down to killing for treasure. Most games fall somewhere in the middle, but the more story you have in your D&D, the more likely the violence will have a point.

 

[Manbearcat]

Systematize robust, player-facing conflict mechanics for noncombat challenges and have thematic PC build abilities and reward cycle mechanics that are tightly integrated with those mechanics...

...and watch play subtly move away from ALL THE VIOLENCE ALL THE TIME over time.

 

[jgsugden]

Really? I have only recently started watching critical role (I am at episode 5 of campaign 1) but boy is that a stabby-happy if I ever saw one.

I laughed a little when in their first Q&A after session 4 they said their characters are chaotic good and that their alignment is important for how they play them.

While they are more chaotic than good, they do play them seeking to better the world around that. I assume you're listening to campaign 2 as their was no Q&A for campaign 1's first few episodes (that I know of). The second set of characters are more morally ambiguous, and each has personal goals that are selfish, but they would rescue a child rather than watch it be killed. They would try to do what is best for all people rather than capitalize on chaos for profit - although the temptation of profit would not necessarily be unnoticed.