D&D General Violence and D&D: Is "Murderhobo" Essential to D&D?

Rdm

Explorer
Well, then my PC will "test his abilities" to see how easily he can smash the shopkeeper. That is still a test. To see how easily I can do it. Like I was text my abilities to see how quickly I can demolish a 6th-grade algebra exam.

Non-combatant is likewise difficult to explain. Take a martial arts master, skills at the part, but a dedicated pacifist. Is he a non-combatant or not? He certainly would describe himself as a non-combatant.
Some weapons grade sophistry there. You know very well that isn’t how challenge is being used or defined in this situation.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Some weapons grade sophistry there. You know very well that isn’t how challenge is being used or defined in this situation.
I'm not sure sophistry applies. Historically, sophists presented their opinions and philosophies as fact. I'm doing the opposite by suggesting that we understand the world less well than we believe we do.
 


Rdm

Explorer
Well, then my PC will "test his abilities" to see how easily he can smash the shopkeeper. That is still a test. To see how easily I can do it. Like I was text my abilities to see how quickly I can demolish a 6th-grade algebra exam.

Non-combatant is likewise difficult to delineate. Take a martial arts master, skills at the part, but a dedicated pacifist. Is he a non-combatant or not? He certainly would describe himself as a non-combatant.
To test:
“reveal the strengths or capabilities of (someone or something) by putting them under strain.“

in no wise does murdering the shopkeeper put the abilities under strain.

if he is capable of meaningful combat, and will respond with it if you attack then he is a combatant. If he will not fight back despite having the ability to then he is not a combatant. It’s rather easy. If there was no risk there is no challenge.

“reveal the strengths or capabilities of (someone or something) by putting them under strain.”

the shopkeeper does not put the strengths or capabilities of the person under strain.
 


Rdm

Explorer
I'm not sure sophistry applies. Historically, sophists presented their opinions and philosophies as fact. I'm doing the opposite by suggesting that we understand the world less well than we believe we do.
You are trying to count angels on the head of a pin and argue that things don’t have their commonly accepted meaning, without offering any compelling arguments why your altenate ‘meaning’ should hold or have weight.
 

To test:
“reveal the strengths or capabilities of (someone or something) by putting them under strain.“

in no wise does murdering the shopkeeper put the abilities under strain.

if he is capable of meaningful combat, and will respond with it if you attack then he is a combatant. If he will not fight back despite having the ability to then he is not a combatant. It’s rather easy. If there was no risk there is no challenge.

So for you, challenge requires risk?
 

AaronOfBarbaria

Adventurer
Depends on your definition of challenge.
Not according to every definition of the word I've experienced outside of this exact conversation.

Why not? Whose has the authority to oppose that?
uh... literally everyone? Or maybe it'd be more accurate to say "anyone"?

I've never heard the phrase bull pucky.
Well, let's just say that it means I feel there is reason to suspect that the things you are saying are not things that you yourself believe to be accurate based on nothing more than how distinctly outlandish the statements appear to be.
 


You are trying to count angels on the head of a pin and argue that things don’t have their commonly accepted meaning, without offering any compelling arguments why your altenate ‘meaning’ should hold or have weight.

Do you have sources showing to what extend people share commonly meanings of abstract words. I've been looking for some hard research on the subject for quite a while.

I'm not presenting an alternate meaning.
 

Rdm

Explorer
Do you have sources showing to what extend people share commonly meanings of abstract words. I've been looking for some hard research on the subject for quite a while.

I'm not presenting an alternate meaning.
Those words are not abstract. I’m pulling the actual literal definitions.
 



Not according to every definition of the word I've experienced outside of this exact conversation.

We hang out in different crowd then, I guess. Getting drunk with linguistic philosophers is fun. I highly recommend it.

uh... literally everyone? Or maybe it'd be more accurate to say "anyone"?

Yes. Anyone has the ability to proscribe a definition for themselves, but who has the authority to proscribe a definition for others?

Well, let's just say that it means I feel there is reason to suspect that the things you are saying are not things that you yourself believe to be accurate based on nothing more than how distinctly outlandish the statements appear to be.

What have I said I don't believe. Can you give me an example?
 


Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Yes, now that we're done with our post-modern words have no stable definition moment, back on track. If we want to have a Jacques Derrida talks TTRPG theory thread it should be it's own thing. I'd love to recreate the text of Glas in a two column mobius strip that has, on the one side, the text of the 5E PHB, and on the other, something more like FATE's Houses of the Blooded. There's probably something more Jean Genet that HotB, but I can't think of a good example.

Are we all back in our happy place where notions like overcome a challenge have at least a soupcon of shared meaning, and no one is seriously suggesting that killing random shopkeepers be awarded with XP? I think a profitable line of discussion might be what does encounter design look like when it isn't based on monster kill XP? I think that opens up a lot of interesting design space for D&D games.

@WayOfTheFourElements - getting drunk with Linguistic Philosophers is a hoot, I agree.
 


BrokenTwin

Biological Disaster
Most of the groups I've played and run for since... well, since I started playing, have used D&D as escapism to distract them from the banality of being stuck in a situation where they're working customer service jobs with people constantly treating them as subhuman and not being able to retaliate without risk of losing their jobs. So D&D is an outlet for their repressed aggression. Which usually translates to killing monsters without having to think about it too hard. I used to enjoy playing in that same mindset, but since the prospect of violent confrontation has grown significantly in my personal world due to current political discourse in North America, I'm not as fond of escaping into a world that focuses on violence.

There's plenty of arguments showcasing how D&D is focused towards combat, like the core class structure of the game, and I'm not going to rehash them here. I do want to note that there are adventure-focused tabletop RPGs that don't make combat a mechanical priority (like Ryuutama), but I'm pretty sure pigs will fly before I can convince any of my groups to play one.
 

Mirtek

Hero
So, the implication is that, since a videogame has violent content, our RPGs must too?
isn't the topic of this thread that random senseless violence in games is a bad thing? Because that's the Basis of a huge number of tripple A games selling millions of copies.

For each Sims or Animal Crossing without violence or Last of Us at least questioning the contained violence, there are the Grand theft auto, God of War, call of duty that are essentially just about "MORE DAKKA! WAAGH!!11!!"


There's also Goblin Slayer that was a huge hit in fantasy anime and will get a season 2
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top