Sociology of the murderhobo

[Max_Killjoy]

You can drop "from evil races" from your description to get a better fit I think. PCs that had no real ties to the game world outside their lust for violence and loot and walk the earth getting loot via violent persuasion.

As I posted above, it is a symptom with multiple causes. Beer and pretzel games typically focus on the characters as pawns. Adversarial DMs force the players to keep all others at arms-length for self protection. Worlds filled with helpless and hopeless characters breeds apathy and nihilism.

Exactly.

When it comes to NPCs, I find that as a GM one has to walk a narrow path between "helpless and hapless" and "stealing the spotlight from the PCs". Both cause serious problems, but for some reason, "don't outshine the PCs" is seen in GMing (and writing) advice far more often than "don't make your NPCs into helpless jokes who exist only to be saved from peril by the PCs or suffer to show the wickedness of the villains".

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

My players are murderhobos, they just aren't interested in the mundane life of the PC and role playing a relationship with the guy at the inn, or their brother for that matter. They want adventure in dungeons, or forests of doom, or whatever. Traps, dangers, monsters, piles of gold, etc. Not sure there is some deep issue there. I suppose if you looked at their psyche form an in game POV they are nuts, totally nuts, but really the PC is what the player uses to interact with the game world and they naturally get the POV of a person who is not in that world and isn't scared of that ghoul.

 

[steenan]

The article very well characterizes the two main kinds of literary sources that fantasy is built on. The contrast between them definitely gives some food for thought.


On the other hand, I think the article misses the point when it comes to translating it into what happens in game.

The frontier style needs not to reduce PCs' motivations to greed and survival. Living outside of society does not preclude forming ties with others - as the ties are formed with specific people, not the society as a whole.

Also, the PC-centered play style is not in conflict with having relations and societies play a significant role. Quite the opposite. It's hard to play "about PCs" if they have no real motivations and conflicts, no reasons to change. Characters who don't really care about anything are not protagonists.


On the other hand, playing within societies is not by itself "stifling and unfun". It only is when it's not what the players are interested in. Exploring the ways of the society and one's place in it can be an important theme of play and a source of fun.


Take most of WoD games as an example. Without the interpersonal relations, without the supernatural societies with their rules and laws and without the struggle of trying not to lose your ties with humanity what would they be? Definitely not as fun and engaging as they are. But they are - especially in the nWoD/CofD versions - definitely centered on PCs, their struggles and their choices.

Or take a completely different kind of game - Dogs in the Vineyard. We have gun-toting young people who ride into western towns to bring justice. Sounds like the essence of frontier-style play. But it wouldn't work at all without the PCs caring a lot about the society they are a part of, about its laws. And without the authority of the PCs their society as a whole acknowledges (although not every specific NPC does). And it's a game with laser-like focus on PCs and their choices, to the point of NPCs not getting any writeup prior to the session, other than a few bullet points of town background.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Thank you for such an erudite piece of writing.

What you have to say about Howard, Lovecraft and Tolkien, and their historical context, is worthwhile, but I don't think you've related it well to the subject of murderhoboism.

To do that one should discuss two modes of play that have been prominent in the history of D&D: a Gygaxian mode influenced by sword and sorcery, and a Dragonlance mode influenced by high fantasy. Rootlessness is more strongly associated with the Gygaxian play style. Lovecraft ought to be excluded from such a discussion.

Under the heading of murderhoboism, Lovecraft doesn't sit easily in the same category as Howard's Conan. The Cimmerian is a murderhobo while Lovecraft's characters, though often alienated, are not. Many of Howard's stories, including his Conan cycle, are either explicitly set in the Wild West or in a fantasy world that resembles it, however Lovecraft's work, thoroughly rooted in New England, isn't. There are a lot of connections between Howard and Lovecraft, both the men and their writing, that are worth discussing but murderhoboism isn't one of them.

Your perspective is a unique and interesting one. Perhaps you should write about fantasy literature and history without attempting to tie it to roleplaying games quite so strongly.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The protagonists in LotR are, with the exception of Sam, members of the landowning class. Maybe integration into society is a more attractive prospect when you're at the top of it!

 

[empireofchaos]

I’ll reply, since you are now raising substantive issues about what I wrote. But in general, your mode of public discourse doesn’t work for me. You are much too sloppy a writer to offer writing advice, especially to someone you don’t know. And you are much too inattentive a reader to call anyone’s claims “bunk”. If you persist in trying to instigate brawls, instead of conducting a normal discussion, into the “Ignore” bin you will go. That said:
You misunderstand what I mean by the “sociology of the murderhobo”. Despite the fact that I tell you what I mean in the OP – the situation of murderhobos in the world around them. My post is about characters, not about players. I am not offering a theory about why players play their PCs as murderhoboes. I largely agree with the commenters who stress that such behavior is endemic, and with the various “theories” (having to do with distrust of the DM, overly combat-centered games, etc.) that have been offered to explain why they do. There are sociological analyses of player and player-GM interaction, but that’s not the sociology I’m concerned with here.

So I don’t really know what “I can see a couple of huge problems with your claim that the competing forces of rugged individualism and societal structure and obligation pulling in different directs create the ‘sociology of the murderhobo’” means. Competing forces don’t “create” the sociology of the murderhobo. The sociology is simply an observation and a description of how adventurers act in fiction and in history (the subject of later parts of the blogpost, which is unfinished – that was only Part 1). Here, I am contrasting two types of fantasy literature in order to show that even murderhoboes have social roles, fit in with social institutions, and form social bonds – if they operate in a world which is more than a dungeon – tavern – library axis. I am intentionally conflating murderhobo and adventurer, to underline that most adventurer-types tend to have more tenuous links to the rest of the world than most other people, and that they tend to solve problems with violence. Aragon rejects his past, and kills an awful lot of orcs (and humans). Jon Snow is a bastard, and kills a lot of Wildlings (and a lot of Men of the Night’s Watch to boot). But even so, such adventurers can still be socially grounded, if placed in a good setting. Epic fantasy, moreso than Swords & Sorcery constructs worlds which fantasy gamers (who play adventurers) find engaging. If GMs’ worlds are interesting, if the social groups in these worlds consist of more than backstabbers that live only for the purpose of screwing heroes over, the players of the adventurers may find things to do other than kill and take its stuff.

I am not trying to “prove” that this is so. You are complaining “that merely having a deeply structured world in no way guarantees that there will be a particular moral code held up by world to stand in opposition too.” Has anyone offered you guarantees that produce creative, engaged players? I’m guessing no. I am simply suggesting that epic-type fantasy offers more to draw players into a world, and reminding some people (to whom my blogpost is a response) who tend to argue that Swords & Sorcery is a more important inspiration for fantasy role-playing that this isn’t true. None of this means I have the least bit of trouble with people playing Swords & Sorcery type games at their table. If that makes your beer and pretzels go down easier, more power to you. But if you want something else, a look at other fantasy, which situates heroes, as well as history, which I will deal with later, may be worth your while.
Finally, to the claim you regard as “complete bunk”. In my post, I helpfully link to a page with information about Tolkien’s search for a foundational English myth, which, by his own testament, England lacked. As you learn from reading that page, as well as other sources that discuss Tolkien the mythographer, he located a potential source in the Frisian-Danish legend of Queen Nerthus – a goddess from across the sea, and the mortal King Ing. The two marry, and establishes universal peace. He reformulates this myth in the Lord of the Rings as the marriage of Arwen and Aragorn, which inaugurates the Fourth Age. Tolkien prioritized this myth because he found the Wagnerian obsession with the Valhalla- and Ragnarok-oriented version of the Ring legend, which was highly influential on German nationalism and on the Nazis, highly distasteful, and he thought the overemphasis distorted the full field of Nordic mythology. All of this information can be found by doing a bit of reading. How you get from that to charging me with being unaware that Tolkien didn’t know the Eddas is beyond me. I don’t presume to know how old you are, but I’m guessing that it’s likely that I reading was about Tolkien’s literary and linguistic scholarship before you were born.

While I agree that Gord the Rogue and Aragorn call for very different ideas of what it means to be a fantasy protagonist, I can see a couple of huge problems with your claim that the competing forces of rugged individualism and societal structure and obligation pulling in different directs create the "sociology of the murderhobo"

First, your theory would seem to make PC behavior based on rejection of the societal strictures in favor of the rugged individualism, placing them at odds with society. But in practice we see that different players even at the same table engage in "murderhoboism" to different degrees. The theory works as a theory, but doesn't explain the situation we actually observe.

Secondly, both GRR Martin and JRR Tolkien produce a story set in a world of feudal obligations, yet the way that their protagonists navigate these obligations and try to achieve success within the world greatly differs. This suggests that merely having a deeply structured world in no way guarantees that there will be a particular moral code held up by world to stand in opposition too. We would expect players trying to emulate the deeds of the different characters in different stories to be significantly different regardless of the campaign world they played in or its strictures.

Thirdly, there are much simpler and less torturous explanations for player behavior than what you offer.

Finally, although much of your essay is good, if overly wordy, this line is complete bunk:



Have you ever read a Viking edda? I assure you that Tolkien had.

 

[Nagol]

I’ll reply, since you are now raising substantive issues about what I wrote. But in general, your mode of public discourse doesn’t work for me. You are much too sloppy a writer to offer writing advice, especially to someone you don’t know. And you are much too inattentive a reader to call anyone’s claims “bunk”. If you persist in trying to instigate brawls, instead of conducting a normal discussion, into the “Ignore” bin you will go. That said:
You misunderstand what I mean by the “sociology of the murderhobo”. Despite the fact that I tell you what I mean in the OP – the situation of murderhobos in the world around them. My post is about characters, not about players. I am not offering a theory about why players play their PCs as murderhoboes. I largely agree with the commenters who stress that such behavior is endemic, and with the various “theories” (having to do with distrust of the DM, overly combat-centered games, etc.) that have been offered to explain why they do. There are sociological analyses of player and player-GM interaction, but that’s not the sociology I’m concerned with here.

So I don’t really know what “I can see a couple of huge problems with your claim that the competing forces of rugged individualism and societal structure and obligation pulling in different directs create the ‘sociology of the murderhobo’” means. Competing forces don’t “create” the sociology of the murderhobo. The sociology is simply an observation and a description of how adventurers act in fiction and in history (the subject of later parts of the blogpost, which is unfinished – that was only Part 1). Here, I am contrasting two types of fantasy literature in order to show that even murderhoboes have social roles, fit in with social institutions, and form social bonds – if they operate in a world which is more than a dungeon – tavern – library axis. I am intentionally conflating murderhobo and adventurer, to underline that most adventurer-types tend to have more tenuous links to the rest of the world than most other people, and that they tend to solve problems with violence. Aragon rejects his past, and kills an awful lot of orcs (and humans). Jon Snow is a bastard, and kills a lot of Wildlings (and a lot of Men of the Night’s Watch to boot). But even so, such adventurers can still be socially grounded, if placed in a good setting. Epic fantasy, moreso than Swords & Sorcery constructs worlds which fantasy gamers (who play adventurers) find engaging. If GMs’ worlds are interesting, if the social groups in these worlds consist of more than backstabbers that live only for the purpose of screwing heroes over, the players of the adventurers may find things to do other than kill and take its stuff.

I am not trying to “prove” that this is so. You are complaining “that merely having a deeply structured world in no way guarantees that there will be a particular moral code held up by world to stand in opposition too.” Has anyone offered you guarantees that produce creative, engaged players? I’m guessing no. I am simply suggesting that epic-type fantasy offers more to draw players into a world, and reminding some people (to whom my blogpost is a response) who tend to argue that Swords & Sorcery is a more important inspiration for fantasy role-playing that this isn’t true. None of this means I have the least bit of trouble with people playing Swords & Sorcery type games at their table. If that makes your beer and pretzels go down easier, more power to you. But if you want something else, a look at other fantasy, which situates heroes, as well as history, which I will deal with later, may be worth your while.
Finally, to the claim you regard as “complete bunk”. In my post, I helpfully link to a page with information about Tolkien’s search for a foundational English myth, which, by his own testament, England lacked. As you learn from reading that page, as well as other sources that discuss Tolkien the mythographer, he located a potential source in the Frisian-Danish legend of Queen Nerthus – a goddess from across the sea, and the mortal King Ing. The two marry, and establishes universal peace. He reformulates this myth in the Lord of the Rings as the marriage of Arwen and Aragorn, which inaugurates the Fourth Age. Tolkien prioritized this myth because he found the Wagnerian obsession with the Valhalla- and Ragnarok-oriented version of the Ring legend, which was highly influential on German nationalism and on the Nazis, highly distasteful, and he thought the overemphasis distorted the full field of Nordic mythology. All of this information can be found by doing a bit of reading. How you get from that to charging me with being unaware that Tolkien didn’t know the Eddas is beyond me. I don’t presume to know how old you are, but I’m guessing that it’s likely that I reading was about Tolkien’s literary and linguistic scholarship before you were born.

Thing is it is a table pathology and as such little can be gathered about the sociology of the characters. I've have 'murderhobos' who were all members of the ruling class with landed estates and social obligations out the wazoo. The social roles the characters have are immaterial once the players decide they no longer matter.

 

[empireofchaos]

My post was intended (in part) as a response to some other bloggers, who write about OSR. Their take is that both strands of American fantasy fiction, including Swords & Sorcery and Weird Fiction were more influential on fantasy gaming (in the original Gygaxian period), and rightly so, because in this type of literature, heroes had more freedom to explore and express themselves precisely because they operated in contexts where society didn't really exist, or didn't matter. I'm offering a counterpoint, by showing that the other type of fantasy, where society is important, helps ground heroes, but without taking away their "freedom" to act as murderhoboes in certain situations.

I largely agree with everything else you say. Society still happens at the frontier - even, I would add, among monsters. Playing within civilization - for example, in an intrigue campaign - can also be fun. It is people who (IMO) overemphasize dungeons that miss this point. And WoD was highly successful, in its age, precisely because ReinHagen realized that socially situation the PCs (e.g. in clans) is very important.

I'm saying that the more we learn about socially marginal settings (from fiction, and from history) where adventurer-types operate, the more we can apply what we learn to our PCs, and the better games we can run and play in.

Hopefully, that answers most of Doug McCrae's points as well.

The article very well characterizes the two main kinds of literary sources that fantasy is built on. The contrast between them definitely gives some food for thought.


On the other hand, I think the article misses the point when it comes to translating it into what happens in game.

The frontier style needs not to reduce PCs' motivations to greed and survival. Living outside of society does not preclude forming ties with others - as the ties are formed with specific people, not the society as a whole.

Also, the PC-centered play style is not in conflict with having relations and societies play a significant role. Quite the opposite. It's hard to play "about PCs" if they have no real motivations and conflicts, no reasons to change. Characters who don't really care about anything are not protagonists.


On the other hand, playing within societies is not by itself "stifling and unfun". It only is when it's not what the players are interested in. Exploring the ways of the society and one's place in it can be an important theme of play and a source of fun.


Take most of WoD games as an example. Without the interpersonal relations, without the supernatural societies with their rules and laws and without the struggle of trying not to lose your ties with humanity what would they be? Definitely not as fun and engaging as they are. But they are - especially in the nWoD/CofD versions - definitely centered on PCs, their struggles and their choices.

Or take a completely different kind of game - Dogs in the Vineyard. We have gun-toting young people who ride into western towns to bring justice. Sounds like the essence of frontier-style play. But it wouldn't work at all without the PCs caring a lot about the society they are a part of, about its laws. And without the authority of the PCs their society as a whole acknowledges (although not every specific NPC does). And it's a game with laser-like focus on PCs and their choices, to the point of NPCs not getting any writeup prior to the session, other than a few bullet points of town background.

 

[empireofchaos]

We do what we can. Some table pathologies can be allayed by better GMing and better setting design. And sometimes, we just need to find better players.

Thing is it is a table pathology and as such little can be gathered about the sociology of the characters. I've have 'murderhobos' who were all members of the ruling class with landed estates and social obligations out the wazoo. The social roles the characters have are immaterial once the players decide they no longer matter.

 

[empireofchaos]

In my next post, I discuss the social class of adventurers. The word "adventure" was redefined in the 14th century. It used to mean "chance occurrence" or "miracle", but now it would mean "an exciting, risk-taking venture". A new social type - the adventurer - one who made his (usually) living from managing risk, or gambling, arose roughly at the same time. Obviously, those who can gamble are those who have something to lose. People who live on the edge of survival (i.e. the majority of the population in medieval-type settings) are notoriously risk-averse. So nobles are more likely to adventure than peasants, yes. But if you look at the list of backgrounds in the PHB, you'll find that most of them actually fit into middle classes of various kinds (artisans, merchants, soldiers, entertainers, etc.). These groups are less bound by social rules, and are trying to achieve upward mobility. They are the classes and professions where risk-taking is concentrated. Nobles, by virtue of being on top, have a lot to lose, but generally, they are playing a defensive game. It's not so much about what they do, but about how they do it - so manners, social graces, speech, appeals to rules and morality (at least in public) are more important to them. That makes them somewhat less fitting in a context (such as in most, though not all, fantasy games) where status and etiquette matters much less than in most other social situations. The nobles who become adventurers are probably scions of impoverished families, non-inheriting second sons and daughters, and so on.

That said - the Fellowship are not quite all nobles. Gandalf is somewhat of an outsider (though in some ways, he has a higher standing than a noble, but most people in Middle Earth aren't aware of it). The Shire, which provides almost half of the Fellowship members, isn't exactly an aristocratic society. The Bagginses are certainly elites compared to Sam, but they are closer to gentry farmers than nobles. Elvish society was also conceptualized as a non-class society. There are kings and rulers, but Tolkien sees them as more customary, than wielders of political power (though we don't have to agree with him). There is little sense of class divide among elves - no elvish serfs.

The protagonists in LotR are, with the exception of Sam, members of the landowning class. Maybe integration into society is a more attractive prospect when you're at the top of it!