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

[Fenris-77]

I dont think anyone in this thread is seriously suggesting that awarding XP for killing shopkeepers is still a useful or necessary part of the game. Better? I get that it used to, kinda, but it seems antiquated and tone deaf at this point. Unless you mean here's some XP, now get out of my basement... which is where that would get you in my game.

 

[Lanefan]

I used to take issue with "double dipping" but eventually decided it isn't an issue.

Let's take a purely combat scenario where there are guards on a drawbridge and archers on top of the wall. The PCs kill the guards while taking heavy fire from the archers, and get inside the castle. The archers fall back to the throne room (as they've been instructed to do). When the players get to the throne room, they face off against the BBEG and those archers, and ultimately defeat them.

I see no reason why, in the above scenario, the PCs shouldn't get XP for the archers twice. They fought the archers twice, taking a risk twice. If they killed the archers above the gate and then a second group of archers in the throne room, I would award XP for both groups. I don't see much of a difference between fighting the same group a second time or an identical group for the first time.

Don't get me wrong. If it's a continuous fight with the archers into the throne room, I'd only award XP once. Awarding XP a second time is predicated on the archers having time to recover. If the archers are all at 1 hp from having taken a fireball, they're effectively in the original encounter as far as I'm concerned.

From there, it isn't a huge leap that if they talk their way past the archers, and then have to fight them later, that they should get XP for both. I would grant XP for fighting or talking, and I would grant XP for fighting them twice, so why not for fighting and talking?

Maybe if my players were trying to game the system it would be a bigger deal, but they don't. I have sizable achievement XP rewards in my games, so "double dipping" on minor encounters is somewhat self defeating in the first place. You'll advance much more quickly in my game if you overcome goals and then continue on to new goals than if you double back to double-dip by killing everyone you talked your way past.

YMMV

Ah - I think there's a difference in how we do xp that hasn't been mentioned yet: in my game you only get xp for what you defeat (or otherwise succeed at), be it by combat or whatever other means.

In your example the archers aren't defeated at the gate: the party only get xp for the gate guards they actually defeated (or caused to surrender, etc.). Xp for the archers would be included in the throne room battle; and if the party decide to abandon the mission after the gate battle they never get xp for the archers at all. That said, the archers would probably be worth a few more xp each than their level/HD would normally dictate, due to their positional superiority and greater-than-usual threat.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Ah - I think there's a difference in how we do xp that hasn't been mentioned yet: in my game you only get xp for what you defeat (or otherwise succeed at), be it by combat or whatever other means.

In your example the archers aren't defeated at the gate: the party only get xp for the gate guards they actually defeated (or caused to surrender, etc.). Xp for the archers would be included in the throne room battle; and if the party decide to abandon the mission after the gate battle they never get xp for the archers at all. That said, the archers would probably be worth a few more xp each than their level/HD would normally dictate, due to their positional superiority and greater-than-usual threat.

Fair enough. Rather than using defeated as my yardstick, I consider whether the challenge they posed was overcome.

That might mean defeating them in combat. It could also mean sneaking past them, or even recruiting them to your cause.

 

[Lanefan]

I dont think anyone in this thread is seriously suggesting that awarding XP for killing shopkeepers is still a useful or necessary part of the game. Better? I get that it used to, kinda, but it seems antiquated and tone deaf at this point. Unless you mean here's some XP, now get out of my basement... which is where that would get you in my game.

Oh, I suppose I'll take up that gauntlet...

If the players/PCs decide that killing shopkeepers is the way to make their living, in my view it's the DM's job to run with it as part of letting them play their characters as they will. Chances are all involved will probably get bored after a while and move on to more interesting fare.

And is this the right place to mention that the very first PC death in my current campaign came at the hands of a shopkeeper?

Party overnighting in a village en route to their first adventure, some thieves stole some of their gear. Party notice said gear for sale in a shop the next day and go in to confront (not violently) the shopkeeper and ask where he got it. Things went sideways, violence erupted, one PC dead before shopkeeper is subdued. Party took their gear back (and, amazingly, nothing else!) and left the tied-up shopkeeper for the local constable to deal with.

 

[Lanefan]

Fair enough. Rather than using defeated as my yardstick, I consider whether the challenge they posed was overcome.

That might mean defeating them in combat. It could also mean sneaking past them, or even recruiting them to your cause.

Yes, all of these would count as defeating them. My point is that no matter how you do it you can't (barring very unusual circumstances) defeat them twice.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, not so much. If you want to wander around killing innocent shopkeepers you arent doing it my game. I call that playing to GTFO. I dont feel at all beholden in some way to the job of GMing that I need to run that game. If people want to play it that's fine, but I'm not running it. I'm bored of the idea already just talking about it.

Edit- cheating murdering blackguard shopkeepers are fair game, of course.

 

[Umbran]

If the players/PCs decide that killing shopkeepers is the way to make their living, in my view it's the DM's job to run with it as part of letting them play their characters as they will.

Erm, no.

You had your Session Zero, and talked about the play expectations, right? If that didn't include killing shopkeepers as the way to make their living, then no, the GM is not obligated to support it.

 

[werecorpse]

Wow, that’s a thorough session 0, or a short & limited campaign.

For me the mechanics is mostly about regulating the violence because it comes from a wargame (emphasis game) background. That part of the pure tactical choices and challenges is that part of the game.

The roleplaying bit, is about a bunch of different stuff but often about justification and consequences. IMO murderhobos tend to arise where there is weak justification & consequences in game. Where “I want their stuff and enjoy the tactical fight (or power trip beat down) & if I win there are no negative consequences“ is as far as the thought process goes. It’s possible to set up this kind of beer and pretzel game, so it plays like a D&D boardgame, meet ankhegs in room 1 ravening troll in room 2, Orc demon worshippers in room 3 etc. In these games the roleplaying tends to be how the characters interact with each Other and divide treasure or approach combats.

If however the justification and consequence dials are turned up. Why are we doing this, what is the point of getting this treasure, what happens if we rob the dragon? It’s a different style of game.

Both can be fun - for me it’s about story above roleplay and/or tactics elements of the game and murderhobo makes a dull story.

I don’t think murderhoboism is essential (or even that common from my person experience).

 

[Umbran]

Wow, that’s a thorough session 0, or a short & limited campaign.

Hardly. One sentence - "We expect you are generally aiming to be playing 'white hats' right?"

 

[prabe]

Hardly. One sentence - "We expect you are generally aiming to be playing 'white hats' right?"

In my campaigns that sentence is "Your characters need to be willing to be heroes." Probably gets to the same place, more or less.