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

[payn]

It’s a good point though. The game rewards the objectives it encourages. You want players to resolve problems without combat - give them the full reward for solving that problem without combat.

Funny enough, there are threads with pages upon pages of frustration about lack of magic stuff in 5E.

 

[Guest 85555]

On the war-game front, I feel like D&D has returned to being more wargame like with the increased focus on miniatures post WOTC. Obviously miniatures and grids have been around for a long time. But I always ran it theater of the mind, and maybe used miniatures for marching order once in a while or for particularly complex battles. When you take away the miniatures and the grid it doesn't feel anything like a war game

 

[Guest 85555]

the food people eat isn't even a part of the game though, it's like saying the real issue of sports is the sunburn you got while playing.

It is more like complaining about beer and the food served at a baseball game. Mountain dew and greasy food are part of gaming culture. But my point is it is an actual problem in the hobby, one that results in early death. Unlike characters killing things in games, which doesn't impact the real world

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Most of fantasy society is civilized

I think that even this assumption has changed throughout the years. Some people run on the assumption that the world is uncharted and dangerous, with civilisation being little more than walled points of light. Monsters and brigands lurk around every corner waiting to tear down anything they can.

Other people prefer a more developed and cosmopolitan setting, where populations are large and varied, the world is more mapped, and there are big institutions which ensure that people generally play nice and the evils of the world are gone.

Modern DnD is leaning more and more towards the latter assumption. But that world assumption in itself leads onto the question of "why have a party of heroes?" If the world is developed and less dangerous, without great evils on a large scale, then surely having a band of armed vigilantes charging round giving out their own personal idea of justice on the end of a sword no longer has a place in that world?

It's why I prefer to build settings with the assumption that sapient species are rare, and the entire world is uncharted and extremely dangerous.

 

[Umbran]

I have no idea how I went from searching for sex punishment gifs to send to my wife

yeah posted on yours by mistake looked for the delete comment but then got distracted by my wife's reply to my gif..lol sorry!

Mod Note:
Please be aware that EN World strives to be a family-friendly place, and your off-color commentary is not appropriate for the site.

You may be tempted to respond in-thread to this post. Please don't. If you have comments on moderation, we ask that you don't put them in-thread. Take them to the private message system.

In general, we strongly recommend that new posters read and acquaint themselves with the Terms and rules (which are conveniently linked at the bottom of every page).

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I have heard the refrain of, "if we talk to them then we dont get their magic stuff".

I mean, if the party is running round killing people specifically to take their stuff, then they're no longer a party of heroes.

They're a bandit clan.

The result of that is other parties of heroes might hear that there is a bandit clan in the area, and go looking for them to give out their own idea of justice.

 

[payn]

I think that even this assumption has changed throughout the years. Some people run on the assumption that the world is uncharted and dangerous, with civilisation being little more than walled points of light. Monsters and brigands lurk around every corner waiting to tear down anything they can.

IDK, all I can think of is Dark Sun, maybe Birthright in the D&D space. Lots of settings like that in OSR though.

Other people prefer a more developed and cosmopolitan setting, where populations are large and varied, the world is more mapped, and there are big institutions which ensure that people generally play nice and the evils of the world are gone.

Yeap, thats me. Though, evil is certainly not gone, its just obfuscated in polite society operating in the shadows.

Modern DnD is leaning more and more towards the latter assumption. But that world assumption in itself leads onto the question of "why have a party of heroes?" If the world is developed and less dangerous, without great evils on a large scale, then surely having a band of armed vigilantes charging round giving out their own personal idea of justice on the end of a sword no longer has a place in that world?

Thats interesting framing. I think you look to modern ideology for the answer. Spy stories often take place within society but only under the notice of particular parties. The events go largely unnoticed by society at large, but the fallout could have wide ranging impact. Like proof a leader isnt who they say they are, or evidence they are double dealing with a state enemy. Factions play for these items of note so they can leverage them like a weapon. When the PCs become privy to these situations, how do they choose to handle them?

For example, bandits might be attacking a trade route becasue the city resources are stretched just policing the city itself. A crime of opportunity that the PCs can deal with in a few different ways. Though, maybe the bandits are picking specific targets? To drive a certain fear of folks who use certain services or goods among the city population. Perhaps a conspiracy is afoot to drive a certain political outcome and the bandits are acting so embolden becasue they have a benefactor supporting them. A conspiracy for the PCs to figure out!

It's why I prefer to build settings with the assumption that sapient species are rare, and the entire world is uncharted and extremely dangerous.

Sure, that makes framing certainly easier and violence application a lot more expedient.

 

[KYRON45]

I mean, if the party is running round killing people specifically to take their stuff, then they're no longer a party of heroes.

They're a bandit clan.

The result of that is other parties of heroes might hear that there is a bandit clan in the area, and go looking for them to give out their own idea of justice.

For a game that isn't about violence, there is an awful lot of real-estate on the character sheet for ways to hurt others.
The entire reason for monsters is to ausage the guilt of the player for stabbing "people".
If the DM puts the party in a position to question the morality of their actions...i feel like you're now playing a different game. I don't want to play with a DM that is intentionally trying to make me feel bad.

NPC: The fate of the world rests in your hands. You must retrieve the Mcguffin.
Party: Cool...where is it?
NPC: it is being guarded by a basket of puppies cared for by sea otters and penguin hatchlings. You must destroy them to save the world.

Play the game how you want. Of course. But when you change the very foundation of what the system was designed for you then have to allow for those changes in the mechanics.

The game is changing. Of course it its....of course it is. Sensibilities change. Core values change. Change is good. Change is bad. Change is change. But if D&D specifically is going to meet those changes shouldn't the rules also reflect those changes?

This rambling brought to you by a lack of caffeine.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Not like most other experience systems aren't just as arbitrary. All they do is provide a set of incentives for a certain style of play.

 

[TiQuinn]

Funny enough, there are threads with pages upon pages of frustration about lack of magic stuff in 5E.

This is why I still like 2e and OSR for the magic loot, but I think that makes sense. 5e really doesn’t need magic items - your character gets its uniqueness and power from the class abilities. In earlier games, you got that from the magic items. By the same token, I hear much more often from players about whether taking on a side quest or an encounter is worth the effort in 5e (again with milestone leveling). In 2e, if you don’t adventure, you don’t level and more importantly, you miss out on magic items. IME, that’s less of a thing with 5e.