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

[MoonSong]

Yep. And there are movies that are violent. And novels. And... so what?

"All the other kids are doing it!" does not seem like a major statement in its favor.

But this isn't the case of "all the other kids are doing it", D&D is already doing it and has always done it. Violence is in the game's DNA for better or worse. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have had a core class that is mostly if not entirely about the ability to cause violence from day one.

I myself prefer to play more peaceful and non-combat characters, but I would never deny that violence is part of the game. At the very least the potential for violence is. And like I said upthread, it is impossible to remove that from the game for the simple reason that previous editions are still out in the wild in both original and clone versions. Not to mention that if D&D refused to do violence from now on, there are many other publishers who would gladly take its place as a violent fantasy game.

If we really want to remove violence from the game, all we can do is do it at the table level. There's no room for excising it from the game at large. We can't deny the game's wargaming roots, instead we should relish choice.

 

[MGibster]

So, the implication is that, since a videogame has violent content, our RPGs must too?

Probably the most popular videogame around recently has been Animal Crossing. No so much death and destruction there.

I think the implication here is that the audience for Animal Crossing has wildly different expectations than the audience for Doom. If I sat down for a nice relaxing game of Animal Crossing I'd be rather disappointed if I had to generate resources by ripping demons apart.

And no matter how we're defining murderhobo, I'm still not clear on how everyone is using it, violence is a major component of D&D with the major abilities of each class revolving around breaking things and killing people. If I sit down to play some D&D I expect there to be a decent amount of combat because the game was built with that assumption. But if I sat down to play Trail of Cthulhu and it was combat heavy I'd be disappointed because that's not where the game shines. (Though there are more action-oriented adaptations of the Gumshoe system.) i.e. If I want to play a game with very little combat, more diplomacy, more peaceful resolutions then D&D is not my first choice.

 

[Umbran]

But this isn't the case of "all the other kids are doing it", D&D is already doing it and has always done it.

Tradition!

I don't find that to be a compelling argument.

If we really want to remove violence from the game, all we can do is do it at the table level. There's no room for excising it from the game at large. We can't deny the game's wargaming roots, instead we should relish choice.

Don't think "excising". Think, "give more (and more interesting) support for other options to resolve conflicts and challenges." There's a segment of folks who are constantly clamoring for more rules and expansion, right? Well...

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

"D&D is already doing it and has always done it" isn't 100% accurate, though.

Most editions of the game explicitly allow for non-violent solutions to be used and provide gains in experience. Yes, violence is an option, and most of the word count of the rules happens to relate to violent conflict - but that is not because the game is saying "what you do in this game is go to a location, violence every creature in there, take all the cool stuff, and repeat at some other location." It's because combat is the area of play in which more words are needed in order to reach an established order that accounts for the majority of what a player might try or a GM might have a monster attempt.

But at no point did, or does, D&D actually say "killing stuff is plan A." Sure, a lot of people like playing as if it did... but heck, I've seen people approach every RPG that way, even ones that clearly say "if you engage in combat, you are almost assuredly going to have a dead character." so that's not actually relevant to the question of whether the game necessitates violence in the game-play.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Seems like a lot of the posts are trying to justify violence, whereas the topic is supposed to be if we need it. Or, more specifically, if it needs to be the default conflict resolution mechanic (fancy way of saying "murderhoboism").

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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

I know that newer DMs do.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Seems like a lot of the posts are trying to justify violence, whereas the topic is supposed to be if we need it. Or, more specifically, if it needs to be the default conflict resolution mechanic (fancy way of saying "murderhoboism").

So many rules around combat. And that includes spells that enhance actions in combat, do damage in combat, heal damage from combat etc.

So the volume of rules around combat seems to imply that combat is the default conflict resolution mechanic. I think whoever it was who called out Dogs in the Vineyard hit it right. Conflicts start with discussion - which is mechanized. And if the conflict starts at a higher level - say brawling - then it can be descalated down to discussion.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So you're directly equating murderhobo play with problem players? That makes pretty much everyone I've ever gamed with a problem player by your standards...sorry, not buying it.

Also, doesn't the bit I bolded above fight against the bit I italicized, in that you're in effect telling them to stop having fun?

No, I'm telling them to be better at working with the playstyle at the table. At my table, a murderhobo is a problem player. At others, if that's the group's playstyle, they're free to play how they want.

 

[Fanaelialae]

IME, violence in D&D is common, but murderhobo behavior is not. The groups I play with usually look for non-violent solutions unless engaged violently.

In a session from a few weeks ago, we came upon a group of bandits that were harassing a family of travelers. We attempted to convince them to leave peacefully, but our skill rolls were bad, and they attacked, so our characters responded in kind.

In a later session we came upon a flock of large birds that were displaying some aggressive behavior. We tried circling around them and, when they didn't attack, we continued on our way.

I award full XP for encounters, even when they are overcome without violence. As far as I'm concerned, it's a good way to encourage the players to be creative with their approaches. It plays to the strengths of TTRPGs (when compared to something like a video game). In a video game, many times you literally have no option if you want to progress but to kill enemies, but in TTRPGs you pretty much always have the choice to try a different option. The non-standard approach won't necessarily always succeed, but I think it warrants a reward nonetheless.

I've played very enjoyable sessions of D&D that didn't see a single combat. That said, my players and I enjoy the combat mini-game, so we prefer it at least occasionally.

I think that rewarding non-violent solutions encourages them, and enforcing consequences strongly discourages murderhobo behavior. If you give the players opportunities to succeed without violence, then they'll realize and appreciate all of the tools at their disposal, rather than seeing their characters as nothing more than hammers.

 

[Lanefan]

So for you, challenge requires risk?

Usually, yes; though occasionally a challenge might contain no risk but still require solving e.g. a riddle, or finding the way out of a maze.