D&D General A History of Violence: Killing in D&D

[Snarf Zagyg]

So what you were describing was a parody of D&D? Because you literally described the core mechanics of Munchkin.

If the parody is the same, is it still a parody?

This may seem familiar ...

Any work that employs satire, irony, or sarcasm in a proper and correct fashion requires that some portion of the audience be confused, or even hurt, by the work. Because ambiguity is not a bug, but the central feature of any work that plays with or invokes satire and irony. Simply put, the possibility that the audience can misunderstand the message is necessary to the proper conveyance of the message. This ambiguity is not a bug - it is the distinguishing feature.


And since @GrimCo brought up Starship Troopers (and also @Remathilis )

The reason why fascism is antithetical to humor is because it is always already straddling the line of self-parody; satire simply points out that the appeal of fascism is indistinguishable from the innate ridiculousness of it, and the only followers it will have are those who are unable to get the joke.

There is a reason we have Poe's Law.



To move this to TTRPGs, I would make the following statement-

While Munchkin is a parody of D&D, it kinda also isn't in terms of effectiveness, because D&D itself can straddle that line.* When I think of a game that actually parodies and satirizes TTRPGs effectively, I think of the original Paranoia, which wasn't just a comedic game, it was a game that effectively satirized the norms and tropes of traditional TTRPG play.


*In GODS, DEMI-GODS AND HEROES it says that a forty-plus level character is ridiculous. In our game we have two characters that are at one thousand-plus level. This happened in “Armageddon,” a conflict between the gods and the characters. Of course, the characters won. What do you think about that?
-From the very first Sage Advice, Dragon Magazine, 1979.

 

[TiQuinn]

I think the ratio of RP to combat will always have more to do with player types, character builds, any current situation and how much Mountain Dew has been consumed vs. moral quandaries.

Sometimes you want to approach an encounter like a puzzle. Sometimes you just wanna take the new Flametongue long sword you got out for a test drive.

 

[Micah Sweet]

heh, some would say, that is you need XP to take the game seriously, maybe you are playing the wrong game.

I wouldn't say that though.

 

[Scott Christian]

There are two rabbit holes on violence in D&D:

• Players who care about the world and NPCs won't be murder hobos
• Encounters per day has a lot to do with how violent your games are

I know when I run my games, there is often a bit of exposition to get them to care about people. I often romanticize when needed, such as the gruff first mate on the boat that secretly reads romance novels and keeps letters from his kids and wife pinned up above his hammock, or the stable owner that named all his kids after horse names: Foal, Colt, Yearling and Filly. And the kids all read bedtime stories to the horses at night. That, or have the adventurers catch the NPC in a state of emotion: the Prince crying because his uncle that he loved just passed away. These little things help decrease needless violence.

Encounters per day, at least at my table is limited to one or two. There are only so many things you should be killing. I prefer the monsters to be just that, monsters. I have a reason, both ecological and lore, why they are there. So an encounter should be something the adventurers understand. For example, in my last campaign the adventurers heard rumors from the shepherds of all the goats heading west. The fay tree also spoke (in riddles) of rumblings underneath felt in her roots. When they met the miners in the area, the mine was closed and no one could work. They did not know what it was, but one person died while trying to work, so they needed someone to investigate the mines. An umber hulk had also migrated west and stumbled into the mine. His burrowing passage clearly went east, but had caved in. To me, the encounters should connect to one of the story threads. If not, what's the point.

 

[GrimCo]

And then there are people who like to play D&D as a ttrpg team version of Diablo. Go in, kill, loot, git good, kill bigger things, loot more, rinse and repeat. Which is totally legit play style. Most of one shots i run these days are like that. Very simple story, overpowered characters and tons of cannon fodder. No one questions why. That's not the point. They do it cause it's fun. They get to try different builds, experience fighting different monsters, try some new tactics. It more like WH40k Kill teams than classic d&d, but hey, people like it. ( And sometimes, we just play Kill teams with light RP and mission scenario is the plot).

 

[Frozen_Heart]

And then there are people who like to play D&D as a ttrpg team version of Diablo. Go in, kill, loot, git good, kill bigger things, loot more, rinse and repeat. Which is totally legit play style. Most of one shots i run these days are like that. Very simple story, overpowered characters and tons of cannon fodder. No one questions why. That's not the point. They do it cause it's fun. They get to try different builds, experience fighting different monsters, try some new tactics. It more like WH40k Kill teams than classic d&d, but hey, people like it. ( And sometimes, we just play Kill teams with light RP and mission scenario is the plot).

Ngl would be fun to have a 'kill team like' DnD fantasy game. Each player controls a group of adventurers trying to reach the treasure first.

 

[TiQuinn]

And then there are people who like to play D&D as a ttrpg team version of Diablo. Go in, kill, loot, git good, kill bigger things, loot more, rinse and repeat. Which is totally legit play style. Most of one shots i run these days are like that. Very simple story, overpowered characters and tons of cannon fodder. No one questions why. That's not the point. They do it cause it's fun. They get to try different builds, experience fighting different monsters, try some new tactics. It more like WH40k Kill teams than classic d&d, but hey, people like it. ( And sometimes, we just play Kill teams with light RP and mission scenario is the plot).

Part of it is expectations too. I don’t need the game to be about monster killing but I do need to know what it will be about. Is the game a mystery? Is it intrigue? I can roll with just about anything but I need to be in the frame of mind upfront to get into the game.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Never been a fan of milestone. Too narrative, and I feel it removes the motivation to take the game seriously, as all you have to do is cross an arbitrary line to level up.

as opposed to XP where it removes the motivation to take the game seriously, as all you have to do is cross a very specific number of dead lvl 1 goblins and npcs to level up?

 

[Frozen_Heart]

as opposed to XP where it removes the motivation to take the game seriously, as all you have to do is cross a very specific number of dead lvl 1 goblins and npcs to level up?

Wait do groups not offer XP for getting past encounters peacefully?

When our group tried XP that's how we did it. (We still ended up going back to milestone as less book keeping.)

 

[CreamCloud0]

Wait do groups not offer XP for getting past encounters peacefully?

When our group tried XP that's how we did it. (We still ended up going back to milestone as less book keeping.)

i feel like they're meant to but whether they actually do is another matter entirely.