Is D&D all about murder and pillaging?

[Garthanos]

Marvel Superheroes however was one of the few early systems that did reward you for things other than defeating your opponent. For example, you got rewarded for preventing the destruction of property and saving lives, but also penalized you for doing the opposite.

Sticking closer to genre and far earlier others went a different direction--- > RuneQuest. Made the gold its own reward and acting towards the goals of your divinity earns you an improved relationship with that divinity which may be exploitable (for divine interventions and similar) ... and most of all shifting how the characters improved their skills to being primarily based on what skills they used. ... and killing the dragon earns you well nothing except abstract renown.

It didn't encourage heroics either...even the most skilled characters were forever at the mercy of happen chance (pretend every attack is a save or die and that brings the picture close) nor does it maintain niche protection and the advancements tended to result in a generic adventurer class. And some of the game fluff was just the silliest I have seen, humanoid ducks just like donald and daffy...arggghhhh.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Ahem, you missed this part:



Mmorgs force you to kill the monster to get the treasure. WoW is like this. So is Champions Online.

And you can certainly claim that it is about exploration, but exploration is simply a means to achieve an end, and is not the true focus. The true focus is on defeating the creature and getting its loot. Sometimes you have no choice but to search the country side to find it or solve a mystery to get it.

But this is a poetaytoe and a poetahtoe kind of thang that all teh youngsters are hip to, savvy?

...I have no clue what you're trying to say. Yes, MMORPGs are about killing monster receive treasure. That's what I said. Early editions were not about kill monster receive treasure, but rather explore dungeon receive treasure.

Seriously, you're confusing the hell out of me.

 

[Quantum]

The point I've been trying to make is that in early editions of D&D is that the xp awards were not for accomplishing overall goals. There were only three, treasure, monsters and above average stats.

That supports the conclusion that at least for early editions of D&D it was all about killing and looting.

In order to accomplish that goal, you had to find out where the monster lairs were and that is the "exploration" aspect that some are referring to.

But the primary goal was to defeat the monster, and you didn't really get the xp awards for just bypassing the monster, you got awards for killing the monster.

So because you only got the xp awards for doing those things, in early editions, that meant you pretty much had no real other choice but to kill the monster in order to get the treasure and xp.

So in conclusion, at least with early editions through 2nd edition, it was all about killing and looting.

But it also depended on how the DM ran the game. I'm sure some would probably give out the xp bonus for bypassing the monster as well as killing the monster.

 

[Raven Crowking]

1. As pointed out above, you are specifically advised to avoid the killing, and get with the looting.

2. 2e had an option XP system, presented in the 2e DMG, for gaining XP based on doing other things, such as using thief skills and casting spells.

3. In the imaginary gamespace of earlier editions, the game was about getting the treasure. Killing its guardians was one method of doing so. Avoiding guardians, parlaying with them, defeating traps and tricks, and creating traps and tricks of your own were other ways. While there is almost always some difficulty involved in gaining any given bit of treasure, that difficulty also includes identifying it as treasure, figuring out how to move bulky/heavy items, and not getting bilked out of it by bandits or conmen. Before the concept of "level apporpriate encounters" hit its heyday, it was quite possible to have encounters where "killing" is a suicidal option.

4. Of the 8 text pages on adventuring in the 1e PHB, only 2 are about combat, and in those 2 the players are advised to consider non-combat options.

5. 1e produced the only D&D module ever where combat and looting are almost uniformly bad decisions (Beyond the Crystal Cave). Obviously, TSR differed about what D&D was "all about"!


RC

 

[Garthanos]

Before the concept of "level apporpriate encounters" hit its heyday, it was quite possible to have encounters where "killing" is a suicidal option.

Not having tools for even the DM to tell if a monster could be reasonably battled gets trotted out as a feature... nifty.

 

[Garthanos]

5. 1e produced the only D&D module ever where combat and looting are almost uniformly bad decisions (Beyond the Crystal Cave). Obviously, TSR differed about what D&D was "all about"!

You would probably get awesome experience points for that were it converted to 4th edition.

 

[Mark]

Not having tools for even the DM to tell if a monster could be reasonably battled gets trotted out as a feature... nifty.

The DM knew some encounters were deadly. The players were supposed to figure that out before engaging, not just assume encounters were tailored to be challenging but possible to overcome.

 

[Steel_Wind]

To answer your question: If that is how you want to play it.

Now, there's no doubt that D&D IS becoming more and more focused on combat.

While you have a point, I must disagree.

All versions of Dungeons and Dragons since OD&D have been games that featured combat with an evil menace as the central aspect of the game. All versions have also been about "killing the monsters and taking their stuff."

3rd edition, in particular, enshrined the "taking their stuff" element of the game by making the character very much ABOUT the "stuff" the character has. This intrinsic aspect of the game's design arises not so much out of the expectation of the players as it does by design in the very RULES of the game itself.

If you want a game about combat and role-playing -- but not about looting? Try playing a Star Wars: Saga Edition campaign (or any one of a few hundred other non FRPG games).

You will see -- and very quickly too -- how it is the RULES of D&D that very much drive the "kill em and take their stuff" ethos of the game.

So is D&D about murder and pillaging? Yes it is -- and to an extent -- it always has been for over 35 years. It has, however, become MORE about this as the years have worn on and as each successive version of the game has been released.

The loot aspect of the game drives combat as the reward for it as a formal part of the rules. If you want to avoid that aspect of D&D -- switch to another game system that does not reward players with loot for killing the bad guys. You will quickly find that this opens up new possibilities for your game sessions, while at the same time making the game more difficult to maintain interest in.

Not impossible to do, just harder to do. When the game is not about loot, it takes more effort on behalf of the GM to make the game and combat interesting for the players. It also takes more effort from the players to become engaged in the story and game world in which the combat takes place. The rewards for the combat nature of the game (apart from being fun in and of itself) arises from the story "rewards" and not the loot "rewards".

Conclusion

Yes: it's about murder and pillage by design. It's always been about that. That's the game Gary created. That design element has been emphasized by the rules of over the years. It has its good points and its bad points. If the players of a D&D campaign want to avoid the looting aspect of the game driving the character's motivations, they can do so, but it IS built into the rules by default.

 

[Garthanos]

2. 2e had an option XP system, presented in the 2e DMG, for gaining XP based on doing other things, such as using thief skills

I actually found a DMG from 2nd edition in my library... I inherited it from somebody who quit playing /moved and couldn't transport their books. <RC clapping so loudly I can here it all the way here />

And those xp for Individual Class Awards RC is talking about above look to be a direct method for encouraging class specific successes and even include an extra bit for the fighter involved in defeating the monsters and they arent (marked as optional), but rather have a clause stating the award should be for a "significant" use.

I see some incredibly hand wavy but still not presented as optional ... recommendations about granting experience for character survival and a biggy===> Story Goals!!!! and a separate sounding one for "completing the adventure" which may be an amalgom of character survival and completing story goals ...

What did the premaid 2e adventures include about "story goals" I wonder? Did they already have saving the village gives you X experience points?

There are some very precise experience rules for those gained by defeating monsters.... the number granted for "completing the adventure" looks like is recommended to be scaled based on that.

And experience points for gold is now an optional one sentence thing over shadowed by just about all the methods mentioned.

2e is different experience points wise this looks to have been a dramatic shift.... nothing gradual about it. Honestly this looks like uber amounts of work... and much of it is not clear... 2 people could walk away granting anything from 1 to 4 times the experience points as each other.


Most of my comments on "early D&D" should hereafter be assumed to have been about "1e".

 

[Raven Crowking]

Not having tools for even the DM to tell if a monster could be reasonably battled gets trotted out as a feature... nifty.

An oil rig is a fine tool for extracting oil, but of little help when constructing a bookcase.

Likewise, in a game where the DM's responsibilities do not include telling if a monster could be reasonably battled, this has little relevance. Only in a game where (1) the DM determines what encounters will occur (as opposed to a game in which the players have numerous sets of potential encounters, from which they choose), and/or in a game where (2) successful combat is the expected outcome of said encounters, are such tools even relevant.

No, in 1e, the DM gets tools to place monsters appropriately, and said appropriate placement is then used (along with divination spells, information gathering, scouting, consulting sages, etc.) by the players to determine where they will go. Darwin's observations then come into effect. The players, not the DM, need tools to determine what they can reasonably battle.

(Of course, half an iota of common sense will tell both players and DM that, without a magic weapon, a fight with a gargoyle will be disproportionately difficult. Likewise, that heading down those stairs to level 10 may be a bad idea for 1st level adventurers. 1e requires few tools in this regard because the obvious is, well, obvious. That said, smart money in bd&d and 1e was always to avoid a fight if a fight could be avoided. He who lives by the sword -- when another means presents itself -- sooner or later dies by the sword.)

This is a feature because pre-2e D&D was largely a game of exploration and finding/recovering loot. Avoiding fighting was always a smart move, and the tools given reflect that. Read Gygax's advice in the back of the 1e PHB if you like.....some of the best advice to players ever written (assuming a game that isn't stacked in their favour, and that doesn't assume they'll need or want to fight everything they encounter, anyway! ).


RC