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

[Rdm]

Murderhobo doesn't automatically mean that you kill everything in sight.
A murderhobo has no attachments to anyone or anything (hobo), uses violence and murder to achieve its goals and never faces any repercussions for it. And that is very much a D&D playstyle. The PCs arrive from somewhere, answer to nobody, set out to clear a dungeon with several combat encounters on their way there, murder everyone inside, sell loot, repeat.
Thats very much how D&D plays out in most cases.

You’ve done some comprehensive survey of people’s games?
Not in any games I’ve participated in.
You can definitely say ‘it’s a play style’ that exists, but to say ‘it’s how d&d plays out in most cases’ is an unwarranted and unsupported claim.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Doesn't killing a shopkeeper require the PCs to overcome the challenge of "life and death struggle with a civilian" and accomplish the goal of "unprovoked murder."

A skilled adventurer killing a noncombatant is not a challenge. And unprovoked murder is not a goal.

At least, not a goal in any play scenario I've ever been in or heard of before. It's not like the campaign started out with "recover stolen goods from bandits" or something and the next adventure is "commit unprovoked murder" and after that it will move on to "rescue kidnapped princess."

The terms "overcoming challenges" and "accomplishing goals" are so broadly defined that they are essential meaningless.

Does the terms "bull pucky" and "appearing to be deliberately obtuse" similarly have such broad definitions as to be meaningless, or can we agree that words and phrases have meanings even if they are inconvenient to your argument?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

A skilled adventurer killing a noncombatant is not a challenge. And unprovoked murder is not a goal.

Depends on your definition of challenge.

At least, not a goal in any play scenario I've ever been in or heard of before. It's not like the campaign started out with "recover stolen goods from bandits" or something and the next adventure is "commit unprovoked murder" and after that it will move on to "rescue kidnapped princess."

Why not? Whose has the authority to oppose that?

Does the terms "bull pucky" and "appearing to be deliberately obtuse" similarly have such broad definitions as to be meaningless, or can we agree that words and phrases have meanings even if they are inconvenient to your argument?

I've never heard the phrase bull pucky. "Appearing to be deliberately obtuse" can be very easily defined because "appearing" allows an individual to incorrectly perceive another's actions as "deliberately obtuse" without those actions being "deliberately obtuse" in the second individual's own mind. Thus art criticism will never be a hard science.

Though, I would say that "being deliberately obtuse" can be defined much easier than challenge and goal. "Being deliberately obtuse" has a definable set actions and sensations, as opposed to being merely a conceptual construct.

 

[Rdm]

Depends on your definition of challenge.



Why not? Whose has the authority to oppose that?



I've never heard the phrase bull pucky. "Appearing to be deliberately obtuse" can be very easily defined because "appearing" allows an individual to incorrectly perceive another's actions as "deliberately obtuse" without those actions being "deliberately obtuse" in the second individual's own mind. Thus art criticism will never be a hard science.

Though, I would say that "being deliberately obtuse" can be defined much easier than challenge and goal. "Being deliberately obtuse" has a definable set actions and sensations, as opposed to being merely a conceptual construct.

No non-absurd definition of ‘challenge’ would include a combatant killing a non-combatant as a ‘challenge’. A challenge is ‘testing the abilities of something’. In no way does an armed pc killing an unarmed shopkeeper ’Test their abilities’, unless you are meaning ‘test their ability to be a douchebag’.

 

[MGibster]

The terms "overcoming challenges" and "accomplishing goals" are so broadly defined that they are essential meaningless. It's like asking someone to define culture. It's a meaningless term used to approximate something we don't understand.

Being a DM very often requires someone to make an interpretation of the rules in a way that make sense. And your way does make sense and is consitent. If an encounter is supposed to give you 10 experience points then the PCs get 10 experience for overcoming it and it's something we used to poke fun at back in 1st and 2dn edition. If were were close to leveling up we'd ask the DM if we could go out and stomp on ants or find some goblins to kill so we could get to the next level. Dragon Magazine one featured a cartoon with a large wooden box with a slot in it and a sign reading "Insert Sword for Experience."

I wouldn't give the PCs experience for murdering the shopkeeper because there wasn't any challenge and there wasn't any risk involved. But that's just me. Part of my job at the DM is to interpret the rules in a way that make sense according to the situation at hand.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

No non-absurd definition of ‘challenge’ would include a combatant killing a non-combatant as a ‘challenge’. A challenge is ‘testing the abilities of something’. In no way does an armed pc killing an unarmed shopkeeper ’Test their abilities’, unless you are meaning ‘test their ability to be a douchebag’.

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.

 

[Rdm]

Being a DM very often requires someone to make an interpretation of the rules in a way that make sense. And your way does make sense and is consitent. If an encounter is supposed to give you 10 experience points then the PCs get 10 experience for overcoming it and it's something we used to poke fun at back in 1st and 2dn edition. If were were close to leveling up we'd ask the DM if we could go out and stomp on ants or find some goblins to kill so we could get to the next level. Dragon Magazine one featured a cartoon with a large wooden box with a slot in it and a sign reading "Insert Sword for Experience."

I wouldn't give the PCs experience for murdering the shopkeeper because there wasn't any challenge and there wasn't any risk involved. But that's just me. Part of my job at the DM is to interpret the rules in a way that make sense according to the situation at hand.

I believe that a zero challenge rating is ‘zero to ten XP’. Note the inclusion of zero.

Also ...

“When making this calculation, don’t count any monsters whose challenge rating is significantly below the average challenge rating of the other monsters in the group unless you think the weak monsters significantly contribute to the difficulty of the encounter.”

 

[QuentinGeorge]

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.

Do you also reward your PCs with XP for tying their shoelaces or eating pies? Those two are "tests" of "their abilities".

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Being a DM very often requires someone to make an interpretation of the rules in a way that make sense. And your way does make sense and is consitent. If an encounter is supposed to give you 10 experience points then the PCs get 10 experience for overcoming it and it's something we used to poke fun at back in 1st and 2dn edition. If were were close to leveling up we'd ask the DM if we could go out and stomp on ants or find some goblins to kill so we could get to the next level. Dragon Magazine one featured a cartoon with a large wooden box with a slot in it and a sign reading "Insert Sword for Experience."

I wouldn't give the PCs experience for murdering the shopkeeper because there wasn't any challenge and there wasn't any risk involved. But that's just me. Part of my job at the DM is to interpret the rules in a way that make sense according to the situation at hand.

Of course. You are see to define "challenge" and "risk" differently than I do. I see no problem in that. They are abstract concepts that elude concrete definitions. The level of arbitrary imposition we are all comfortable with varies by individual.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Murderhobo doesn't automatically mean that you kill everything in sight.
A murderhobo has no attachments to anyone or anything (hobo), uses violence and murder to achieve its goals and never faces any repercussions for it. And that is very much a D&D playstyle. The PCs arrive from somewhere, answer to nobody, set out to clear a dungeon with several combat encounters on their way there, murder everyone inside, sell loot, repeat.
Thats very much how D&D plays out in most cases.

Apparently to at least one poster in this thread it does!