D&D General Why are we fighting?

[overgeeked]

Fair point: players bring expectations with them. One dm can make a murderhobo, but it takes years to unlearn that.

I’d push back on that a bit. I don’t buy that all player behavior is directly the fault of the referee. If players want to play a murderhobo there’s not much the referee can do either way. An NPC betrayal doesn’t cause murderhobos. Players not wanting to engage with the story or the game beyond a “kill things and take their treasure” level is what causes murderhobos.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I’d push back on that a bit. I don’t buy that all player behavior is directly the fault of the referee. If players want to play a murderhobo there’s not much the referee can do either way. An NPC betrayal doesn’t cause murderhobos. Players not wanting to engage with the story or the game beyond a “kill things and take their treasure” level is what causes murderhobos.

I will still maintain a lot of it is taught behavior. I've seen too many players who exhibit too much paranoid behavior for it not to be caused by experience. And its contagious; a player can not have experienced it themselves, but if they've heard of it too often from others they'll start to assume its common.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's not just taught; it's pop cultural osmosis.

The idea of every NPC you meet being jerk of judas, of any escapee brining hell down on you, of everything in the world trying to kill you like an old arcade game... it's something people 'know' about the game before they get started.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

Was that Brian Gleichman? If so, he was being a little blase; the issue is when one side wants to flee, and the other side decides its a good time to run them down and not have to deal with them later.

I believe it was. I didn't remember the name, but I recognize it now that I see it.

But I do remember asking how one can tell when a party conducting a "hit and run" raid has broken contact after the "run" part, and getting that answer.

 

[Lanefan]

Players not wanting to engage with the story or the game beyond a “kill things and take their treasure” level is what causes murderhobos.

Disagree. One can be very engaged with the story and still generally approach it from a "kill 'em all and take their loot" angle.

And I say this from long experience, as unless I'm playing a particularly Good character (which happens, now and then!) that approach is my usual default.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

There's a distinction between NPC enemies who become prisoners because they've been non-lethally rendered hors de combat and those who become prisoners because they throw down their weapons and cry "I surrender!"

In the first case, of course the NPCs are going to attempt to escape and/or strike back as soon as they are able to. In the second case, there are many examples of "I surrender, suckers" [see TV Tropes] being presented as a heroic action by the Good Guys in various media, despite it being the war crime of perfidy, so players both expect NPCs to use it, and to use it themselves against NPCs stupid enough to fall for it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I believe it was. I didn't remember the name, but I recognize it now that I see it.

But I do remember asking how one can tell when a party conducting a "hit and run" raid has broken contact after the "run" part, and getting that answer.

Brian could be like that sometimes (I was probably one of the other two big Gamists on their (along with Bradd Szonze) so he kind of made me roll my eyes when he did things like that).

 

[MGibster]

And this is a positive thing to you?

It's a negative, but if a player flips out over a character's death I tend to fault the player and not the game.

Before the dark age, how many Fantasy stories ended with a Shaggy Dog story of the heroes dead out somewhere, having accomplished nothing?

We're not telling a fantasy story here, we're playing a game. I might take an unusual approach to D&D I guess. In our last campaign, I decided to play a Bard for the first time in memory. If I ever played a Bard before, it was likely back when George Bush, the first one, was in office. The very first game of the campaign, we run into a Giff and my character yells out "You're butt is so big, it counts as full cover for your party," after which he struck me down with a critical hit and I failed my three Death Saves in subsequent rounds because none of my party could reach me. I thought it was hilariously fun.

You can have a perfectly good campaign without death being on the table. I know I have, well, not for D&D, but for other games. But I don't think the campaign is going to be a lot of fun if failure isn't an option.

Also, how friendly is your PCs relationship with the local law? In my experience, most PCs are too independently minded to essentially act as law enforcement, and most law enforcement officials are very leery of vigilantes.

I realize most D&D settings are entirely modern in how the people think, but you've got to make some concessions to make the game fun to play. Adventurers are often hired to take care of problems the locals can't, I don't see why that shouldn't apply to lawbreakers.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's a negative, but if a player flips out over a character's death I tend to fault the player and not the game.

I'm going to fault the person who clearly relishes it happening.

We're not telling a fantasy story here, we're playing a game.

A cooperative storytelling game.

I might take an unusual approach to D&D I guess. In our last campaign, I decided to play a Bard for the first time in memory. If I ever played a Bard before, it was likely back when George Bush, the first one, was in office. The very first game of the campaign, we run into a Giff and my character yells out "You're butt is so big, it counts as full cover for your party," after which he struck me down with a critical hit and I failed my three Death Saves in subsequent rounds because none of my party could reach me. I thought it was hilariously fun.

The important thing is that you thought it was fun and instigated the situation. That's different from some dude killing your character for the express purpose to tee you off.

You can have a perfectly good campaign without death being on the table. I know I have, well, not for D&D, but for other games. But I don't think the campaign is going to be a lot of fun if failure isn't an option.

Failures can happen without the entire thing being turned into a Shaggy Dog Story. I think this lack of understanding is why some people are so hung up on death as the only stake. As much as they profess to hate 'the video games', they can't comprehend failure without a Game Over.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

Its an intrinsic problem; usually disengaging makes it easier to be attacked, so even if you're taking a beating disengaging as long as everyone is functional it seems like a bad idea. But as you say, most groups are not leaving someone behind, so...

My experience is that players are willing to accept rules for "disengage without a last attack to avoid the opponents' last attacks" and "fleeing combat is faster than pursuit, at least in the short to medium turn," as a convention of the game. The hard part is retreating when comrades are slowed or immobile.