Yep. And there are movies that are violent. And novels. And... so what?
"All the other kids are doing it!" does not seem like a major statement in its favor.
D&D General Violence and D&D: Is "Murderhobo" Essential to D&D?
Yep. And there are movies that are violent. And novels. And... so what?
"All the other kids are doing it!" does not seem like a major statement in its favor.
I don't disagree with your point, but I do think that videogames are a fairer comparison to TRPGs than novels or movies.
Well in the rogue clone nethack ancient PC game (based very much on d&d rules), it was a tough challenge, and one of the key elements to be successful. First of all the shopkeeper was normally an incredible tough opponent, and besides he would summon the keystone cops which attacked you with their thrown cakes blinding your character.
Of course there were other tricks possible to rob a shop e.g. train your pet to do it, teleporting out with the loot (also causing an alarm and a furious shopkeeper) but that was the straight solution. You needed to aquire the loot, somehow buying it was mostly not an option, because you would not have enough Zorkmids (yes the coinage in game was called that way)
But in summary the game was quite murderhobo, you could find scrolls of genocide and blessed versions of these, allowing you to eliminate one kind or a whole class of monsters or convert altars contraire to your alignment by sacrificing dead mobs on them e.g.
Fine. The point stands that there's a whole lot of violence in our entertainments, in general. The argument, "There's a whole lot of violence in our entertainment," is not itself an argument to have violence in your entertainment.
It is like... hm, my swimming pool is full of water. Let's add another glass of water to it! It isn't supporting the need for the glass of water.
One of the highest achievements of the game was (is, actually - it is still supported) to finish it without killing anyone.
Oofta
Legend
In my games I remind people that there are laws and that most places have the means to enforce the laws. Yes, even against mid-to-high level PCs. That along with "no evil PCs" limits the murderhobo aspects.
Add in that I almost never do traditional dungeon crawls, I don't use XP, I don't care how they resolve issues. But violence is still part of the game. For all practical purposes, the PCs in my current campaign are on the front lines of an ongoing war. I don't have a problem with resolving conflicts with violence.
Multiple studies over the years have shown that there is no correlation between games and real world violence. What they have shown is that the game has a positive effect on kids in everything from analytical thinking to working cooperatively with others. I doubt all those kids played a pacifist version of the game.
Add in that I almost never do traditional dungeon crawls, I don't use XP, I don't care how they resolve issues. But violence is still part of the game. For all practical purposes, the PCs in my current campaign are on the front lines of an ongoing war. I don't have a problem with resolving conflicts with violence.
Multiple studies over the years have shown that there is no correlation between games and real world violence. What they have shown is that the game has a positive effect on kids in everything from analytical thinking to working cooperatively with others. I doubt all those kids played a pacifist version of the game.
I concur. I just figured that getting the quibble from someone who agreed with the broader point would be easier or kinder than getting it from someone who wanted to argue about it.
Nobody denies this, but in our hobby (with a DM who runs with it) the beautiful thing is you do not have to resort to PC violence as solution for everything, you can resolve things by trickery social skills and other tricks. It is just an option, not being present to much in most video games.
Still some video games offer peaceful solutions, some RPGs are tailored around a combat is the last resort theme, and I believe I read that in the early days it was more grab the loot and run because your XP were calculated by the value of the acquired treasure and killing mobs wouldn't give you any XP.
I did some four true ascensions (no save game cheating) which was a very tough challenge on its own, I needed 70000 to 120000 moves for each.
How to do this w/o killing anything totally eludes me. You would have to be incredibly lucky and skillful and equipped with tons of teleportation.
But wasn't it required to kill the wizard of Yendor to get the amulet? Or did you just find the amulet? I just cannot remember it was so long ago.
werecorpse
Adventurer
Well I see the games I run and play in are about confrontations where violence is often a possible solution and where various levels of violence can be justifiable. Like a bunch of carrion crawlers have set up a nest near a road and are attacking travellers or a group of humanoids are trying to gather the materials (Included sacrifice) needed to summon a demon. The players decide how much violence they wish to use.
In the last session I ran the party is passing through the wilderness and discovered that a tribe of bugbears ruled by a large green dragon had captured a couple of kenku from a kenku village and were demanding a ransom be paid or death. They interfered to free the kenku but used magic and stealth (no bugbears or dragons were harmed). One of the reasons they chose this course is that they figured the bugbears were no threat to their homelands so they didn’t want to just attack them (Kenku can’t speak so they couldn’t figure out exactly what happened). They later encountered some wood woad who had also captured a Kenku who they claimed had entered on a sacred grove and needed to be punished. They determined that the punishment was not life threatening so they let them proceed without interference. In the previous session they were attacked by various humanoids who had been hired to kill them - that was just a battle, kill or be killed.
Its Not hard to give them justification for a fight if you want to, I prefer it no be simply that the creatures are commonly evilly aligned. Thats why I’m not a huge fan of Planescape or stuff where demons are supposedly “evil” but they act the same as the good guys. In my world demons are evil and can’t help but undertake evil acts. It’s the action that counts.
In the last session I ran the party is passing through the wilderness and discovered that a tribe of bugbears ruled by a large green dragon had captured a couple of kenku from a kenku village and were demanding a ransom be paid or death. They interfered to free the kenku but used magic and stealth (no bugbears or dragons were harmed). One of the reasons they chose this course is that they figured the bugbears were no threat to their homelands so they didn’t want to just attack them (Kenku can’t speak so they couldn’t figure out exactly what happened). They later encountered some wood woad who had also captured a Kenku who they claimed had entered on a sacred grove and needed to be punished. They determined that the punishment was not life threatening so they let them proceed without interference. In the previous session they were attacked by various humanoids who had been hired to kill them - that was just a battle, kill or be killed.
Its Not hard to give them justification for a fight if you want to, I prefer it no be simply that the creatures are commonly evilly aligned. Thats why I’m not a huge fan of Planescape or stuff where demons are supposedly “evil” but they act the same as the good guys. In my world demons are evil and can’t help but undertake evil acts. It’s the action that counts.
Similar Threads
