D&D mindset in other games

The thing is that for an awful lot of genres, the "kill them and take their stuff" works very well. Better, in fact, than the genre appropriate actions.

This is primarily because many genres try to screw with the protagonists within the terms of the genre. And if you kill the genre and take its stuff, then the genre is left without an answer.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The thing is that for an awful lot of genres, the "kill them and take their stuff" works very well. Better, in fact, than the genre appropriate actions.

This is primarily because many genres try to screw with the protagonists within the terms of the genre. And if you kill the genre and take its stuff, then the genre is left without an answer.

I don't know about that...sometimes an answer will present itself if you think about it.

If you kill & take in the West, you may become an outlaw. Or you may have just killed an outlaw...who was related to another, nastier outlaw who is "gonna come gunnin'" for the man who shot his ___________(fill in the blank).

In a traditional supers game, killers quickly get branded outlaws, and again, face being hunted by the law and other costumed vigilantes.

If you kill & take in the future, what you take may have some kind of tracking device, letting the owner (or their successors in interest) track you down, kill you and take your stuff. This is especially true if the people you're killing are police or military.

In fact, in future-tech situations, you may not even be able to get what you take to work. SG: Atlantis had its "Ancient Gene", but even in RW tech, we're talking about "smart gun" technologies that require the wielder to have a RFID chip on their person to get the thing to work. Given that said chips are smaller than the tip of an eraser, they can be (and have been) hidden in rings, badges, rank pins, name tags, belt-buckles, holsters, and other gear.
 
Last edited:



Yes, and most of the answers are applicable in D&D -- or used to be.

To a certain extent, yes, but the kill/loot thing is more acceptable in a quasi-Medieval setting than in any other genre typically found in RPGs except maybe post-apocalyptic.
 

To a certain extent, yes, but the kill/loot thing is more acceptable in a quasi-Medieval setting than in any other genre typically found in RPGs except maybe post-apocalyptic.

THIS

In Gammaworld, when you find a mutant and kill it and takes it loot, chances are pretty good that the mutant in the first place didn't get that loot legitimately.

Same thing applies to D&D I find.

In a modern game, that loot is usually the antagonist loot that they either bought or made themselves.
 

THIS

In Gammaworld, when you find a mutant and kill it and takes it loot, chances are pretty good that the mutant in the first place didn't get that loot legitimately.

Same thing applies to D&D I find.

In a modern game, that loot is usually the antagonist loot that they either bought or made themselves.

Or stole from someone who, by virtue of not being dead (Simply robbed? They're a corporation?), has a pre-existing legal claim to the loot.

And the PCs, being all "White-Hat" types, don't want to get in trouble with the legal owner, do they? Imagine the bad press!
 

I don´t like to call the D&D mindset kill the monster and take treasure.

For me the D&D mindset is the existance of good and evil, and hero and villain.

I usually have the problem, that i am very bad at playing evil persons for more than one or two sessions, or beeing only a small part of a bigger story... i like the focus on the PCs D&D has.

In D&D games i run, i had usually two problems:

- D&D mindset of: monsters are there to be killed, no matter how tough they appear (and actually are)

- shadowrun mindset: ok, the guy tries to be helpful... he must be a baddy.
 

Remove ads

Top