Is D&D all about murder and pillaging?

[Janx]

somebody mentioned on the first page, how it's easier to do lethal damage, than subdual in the game.

This is true in real life, as well. It takes a fair amount of skill to take somebody down, minimizing the damage you inflict on them. Especially when they are trying to hurt you. Its a lot easier to trade blows until somebody goes down (though actually, most real hand-to-hand fights end up on the ground, grappling).

Also, as one of my players astutely pointed out, "when in doubt, light it on fire, deal with the aftermath". The core point is that violence is easy. Burning stuff is even easier.

Lastly, when it comes to ethics and such, D&D "law" could be viewed similar to the old west. The bad guys are bad guys, because they act against society. Anybody who takes out a bad guy is generally accepted. Not like today's modern legal system, where an investigation would be held to determine if lethal force was necessary, etc.

While certainly one can have fun exploring morality, legality and ethics, bringing too much reality to it can stifle the general model of D&D's "it's ok to kill monsters and take their stuff" ethics system.

But that said, while D&D has a lot of combat, you can play a wide variety of kinds of campaigns that aren't just focussed on combat.

 

[Hussar]

I think Hussar has a point, but I'm going to modify it a bit to say:

People have finite time and energy. To invest a lot of time and energy into something, you need to be very dedicated to that thing. Therefore, the more time and energy a hobby requires, the smaller and more dedicated its fanbase will be.

And a corollary:

When there exists a less-intensive alternative to a demanding hobby, casual fans will migrate to the alternative while hardcore fans stick with the real thing. The position of the dividing line depends on how good a substitute the alternative is for the real thing, and on how much more demanding the real thing is than the alternative.

(Note that when I say "good substitute," I'm referring to how well the alternative replicates the experience/rewards of the original, not to how well the alternative stands on its own merits.)

This is precisely what I wanted to say, and have some xp for saying it so much better than I could.

-----------

RogueAttourney

Are you HONESTLY going to tell me that Basic/Expert D&D, as written, isn't about killing and looting? Really? Well, fair enough. Fine. People can obviously disagree. Me, I'll stick to the idea that D&D has been about the hack, brought about by its wargaming roots, since day one.

Just a question though. These dwarven abilities you point out. How long would it take my dwarf to survey a region and discover what minerals could be mined in that region?

Oh, right, those mining "skills" have nothing to do with actually BUILDING or managing a mine.

 

[Hussar]

Darn, I cannot posrep Dasuul at this time.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Darn, I cannot posrep Dasuul at this time.

It's been done.

As he worded it, I agree.

As far as mining skills go, BD&D didn't give you that information, but AD&D 1e did tell you (in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide) how to figure out how long it would take your dwarf to survey a region and discover what minerals could be mined in that region, as well as how long it would take to play the region out, what had to be done to turn raw ore into metals, etc., etc., etc.

Again, remember that the Basic book was only 128 pages. And remember that, despite your claims to the contrary, it had rules for things outside the dungeon, and outside of combat/looting.

Examine, if you would, module B1. Certain items, if looted, can be identified as belonging to the lost heroes whose fortress you are exploring. You display them at your peril. Looting can have consequences.

Examine, if you would, module T1. Certain items, if looted, can be identified as belonging to the villians. You display them at your peril. Looting (and, in this case, killing) can have consequences.

Combat and looting have always been mainstays; the game has not always been "all about" combat and looting.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hey, another thought here.

If D&D was always about looting and killing, then how does one explain Dragon Magazine articles (and covers) which have nothing to do with looting and killing? For example, there is an article in an issue of the Strategic Review that deals specifically with conducting trade.

One could probably determine the % of article pages then and now directly related to things to loot or kill, and methods of looting and killing, versus other stuff. Some articles might be iffy -- is an article about Vecna worship related to looting and killing? -- but one should be able to get an overall idea whether things are the same, different, or whatever.


RC

 

[billd91]

If D&D was always about looting and killing, then how does one explain Dragon Magazine articles (and covers) which have nothing to do with looting and killing? For example, there is an article in an issue of the Strategic Review that deals specifically with conducting trade.

If you're trading for profit you're looting the laborer of the surplus value that the goods have that generates that profit. So, I guess Marx has your answer for why D&D is all about looting but still involves conducting trade.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Lew Pulphiser's article in White Dwarf #1 (entitled "D&D Campaigns") might be of some interest to this discussion. I excerpt:

D&D players can be divided into two groups, those who want to play the game as a game and those who want to play it as a fantasy novel, i.e. direct escapism through abandonment of oneself to the flow of play as opposed to the gamer's indirect escapism - the clearcut competition and mental exercise any good game offers. There are two subdivisions in each division. The game-players may emphasize player skill in players-vs-monsters (and sometimes vs other players) or they may prefer players-vs-puzzles (riddles, traps, mazes, etc.) to monster slaying. Of course no D&D campaign is purely one or the other.​

(also of side interest: )

One of the most destructive notions I've encountered in D&D is the belief that 'anything goes'.​

RC

 

[bagger245]

IMO, pre-3.5e D&D was about loot acquisition at low levels through various means, with killing monsters as one option. At higher levels, it becomes domain management and fighting "threats" that are often dealt by killing ie defeat the ancient dragon, tarrasque etc and save the land. In 3.5/4e D&D, it was the same but more focused on "threats" that range from level 1 to epic.

In terms of which edition focused more on combat, I would have to say 4e. Can anyone deny the mandatory battle grid as well as the obsession on class balance? These two points only facilitates combat. With that said, it is not necessarily a bad thing, so 4e fans have no reason to be pissed, unless they don't want me to have an opinion of their game that way.

 

[Quantum]

Sorry, The Shaman but no moving goalposts here.

My point was that MOST people (not all) aren't willing to invest considerable time and effort into their hobbies. Nor did I ever say that TTRPG's are more mainstream than model trains or rock climbing.

What I did say is that outside of niche hobbies, like TTRPG's, people are not willing to spend a great deal of effort on difficult hobbies.

You responded with a couple of niche hobbies which require a great deal of effort. Wow, so, how is your point counter to mine?

Me: TTRPG's require a large investment in time and effort. Most people don't want to bother.
You: Hey, look at these two niche hobbies that have numbers similar to TTRPG players. They invest a lot of time and effort.
Me:

Ok, answer me this then. If people are willing to invest huge amounts of time and effort into difficult hobbies, then why does WOW have a user base about TEN times that of TTRPG's. Why isn't everyone jumping on the TTRPG bandwagon?

So what does this have to do with the topic of the post about Dungeons and Dragons being all about pillaging and killing? That is an entirely different subject with which you should start an entirely different thread.

By the way, I say killing because murder is really a relative term. It is entirely relative in the sense of "one man's hero is another man's villain"/ For example, even though he killed millions of people, Stalin is still a hero to thousands of people around the world.

Because in the game world at least most humans don't think twice about killing a Kobold being murder. But from a Kobold's point of view I'm sure they consider it murder.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Since we're quibbling over technicalities, only AD&D gave you exp for gold, so, this only applies to a single edition, not "older editions".

Are you serious?

And, well, since almost all treasure was guarded by something, a point that has been hammered home to me very recently, you pretty much had to kill to get the loot. The option of not fighting to get the loot was rarely presented.

Specific menu options for obtaining loot without a fight were not needed or even desired in most cases. The plotless location based adventure handled such things just fine. Here are the treasures, here are the obstacles, have fun finding whatever works best to obtain the former while surviving the latter. Creative problem solving on the part of the player was an integral part of play and not something that only came up in corner cases.

Often, because 1e characters were significantly more powerful relative to the monsters, it was far more effecient to simply kill everything in sight and take everything that wasn't nailed down.

Can this really be true considering how many times the deadliness of housecats has been discussed around here?

But, the topic is about "Is D&D about murder and pillaging so, really, while the murder quotient is arguable, the pillaging part isn't.

Getting loot by some means has been pretty universal across all editions. I can agree with this.

Overall, assuming players are attempting to achieve goals that the game system as written rewards most favorably then bloodthirst has certainly become more prominent in later editions.

As an example lets look at how hit points are handled:

Old D&D- hit points are vitality. They are slow to naturally recover and healing magic is not cheap/ubiquitous. The logical conclusion following this is that losing them while overcoming obstacles is undesirable.

3E-hit points are vitality. They are somewhat slow to naturally recover but healing magic is cheap and plentiful. The logical conclusion following this is that frequent hit point loss is expected to some extent.

4E-hit points are currency. All damage refreshes on a daily basis so HP/surges are a sort of expense account for obstacle tackling. The logical conclusion following this is that HP/surge expenditure is a primary means of getting things done.