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

[Rdm]

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.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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

I don't reward XP for those things. Furthermore, I don't award XP for simply "overcoming challenges." I prefer something my players and I can better understand.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Edit: Please excuse my double post.

 

[Rdm]

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.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Are there really DMs who award XP for killing random shopkeepers?

Sure. Especially when the shopkeeper turns out to be a dragon.

Mwuhahahahaha....

 

[Rdm]

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.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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]

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.

 

[Rdm]

So for you, challenge requires risk?

Not “for me”. In actuality. By definition.