D&D 5E (2014) What does "murderhobo" mean to you?

[doctorbadwolf]

Really?

I've got a stack of D&D modules from pretty much every edition that would disagree with you.

Lol OK which fifth edition modules assume murder hobos and in what way do they indicate that assumption?

 

[Hussar]

Lol OK which fifth edition modules assume murder hobos and in what way do they indicate that assumption?

Well, let's see, I just played through the first Tales of the Yawning Portal adventure - Sunless Citadel, where the primary motivation for going into the home of a bunch of goblins and kobolds is to murder as many as you can and steal everything that isn't nailed down.

Started playing 5e with Lost Mines of Phandelver, again, your entire motivation for traveling pretty much anywhere is to kill whatever is living there and take its stuff. I mean, you start off the adventure on the road, get attacked by goblins which you follow home and murder en masse.

Now, considering that the term is a LOT older than just 5e, why would we limit ourselves to solely 5e modules when discussing the term? Not really sure what your point is. But, since murderhoboing as a baseline certainly exists in 5e modules, just like it does in every other edition's modules, I'm frankly flabbergasted as to what the issue here is.

Murderhoboes just describes a fairly beer and pretzel, kick in the door style of campaign. I LIKE that style of campaign from time to time. Nothing wrong with it. Tons of fun and a nice light hearted, campy break.

Sometimes I like great movies, and sometimes I like schlock.

 

[Hussar]

Now as far as understanding the definition, I'd point out that according to the poll, 2/3rds of people understand it to mean definition 2. If you (whoever you happen to be) are finding yourself feeling insulted by the phrase, perhaps it might be helpful to realize that for most people, it's a fairly banal term to describe characters in a beer and pretzels game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, let's see, I just played through the first Tales of the Yawning Portal adventure - Sunless Citadel, where the primary motivation for going into the home of a bunch of goblins and kobolds is to murder as many as you can and steal everything that isn't nailed down.

Started playing 5e with Lost Mines of Phandelver, again, your entire motivation for traveling pretty much anywhere is to kill whatever is living there and take its stuff. I mean, you start off the adventure on the road, get attacked by goblins which you follow home and murder en masse.

Now, considering that the term is a LOT older than just 5e, why would we limit ourselves to solely 5e modules when discussing the term? Not really sure what your point is. But, since murderhoboing as a baseline certainly exists in 5e modules, just like it does in every other edition's modules, I'm frankly flabbergasted as to what the issue here is.

Murderhoboes just describes a fairly beer and pretzel, kick in the door style of campaign. I LIKE that style of campaign from time to time. Nothing wrong with it. Tons of fun and a nice light hearted, campy break.

Sometimes I like great movies, and sometimes I like schlock.

Nothing you just said supports the idea that murderhobos are the default mode of dnd. You've just shown that some modules don't go out of their way to push against that mode of play. <shrug> OK. So...many playstyles exist. Got it.

I'd go so far as to say that most modules do encourage a non-murderhobo campaign.

Also, murderhobo means more than "bear and pretzels" dnd. If your characters have backstories and motivations other than loot, and aren't going to go around killing everything in sight to get that loot, it's not murderhobo, but certainly can be beer and pretzels.

EDIT: "everything in sight" is an exageration, not a literal statement

Also, more importantly than anything mentioned thus far, is that I've never seen any evidence that supports the notion that most tables play as murderhobos.

 

[Lanefan]

When I talk about "murderhobos vs mercenaries" I'm talking about characters for whom the majority of their existence (say, 75%) is based around a lifestyle of killing on whimsy vs a lifestyle of profit via death.

OK, got that.

And from there I'm having trouble parsing the following as a group, so I've lobbed in some questions:

Well, considering I'm speaking from what I've experienced as a DM who doesn't run evil campaigns, and a player who doesn't play in evil campaigns, I certainly have not witnessed people playing a "murderous campaign" or an "evil campaign". So, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't tell me I don't know what I'm looking at or playing in, because I'm certainly not telling you or anyone else that their own experiences are incorrect.

The singular evil campaign I do run (my Drow campaign I've mentioned before) I an incredibly picky with my players because while murder may be a regular part of life in the Underdark, it is most decidedly not a murderhobo campaign.

So...er...you run an evil campaign but you won't let the PCs be, by your definition, evil?

Doesn't make sense, somehow.

I separated whimsy from XP acquisition for a reason. The delineation is important.

I don't think I'm reading this right, because to me it says that killing for whimsy (as defined above) is not OK but killing for xp acquisition is.

What's the difference - particularly to those classes that gain xp via killing (e.g. any version of Assassin)?

Every party wants XP and loot. Every. Last. One.

Murderhobos get it by killing anything that walks, talks or gets in their way.
Mercanries get it by accepting contracts to kill specific things.
Holy Crusaders get it by killing things that are specifically unholy.
and so on and so forth.

You've said you won't run a murderhobo campaign. What about a mercenary campaign, or a holy crusader campaign?

It seems to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you're somewhat saying murderhobos have to be by definition chaotic evil, or close. Yet I'd hazard a guess we've all seen or run or DMed campaigns where characters of all alignments operate largely under a murderhobo ethic once they get into the field and it's them or us.

While murderhobos may have the lowest bar, the bar is so low that there is little differentiation in the mind of a murderhobo between something that gives XP and loot and something that is simply killable.

"Something that is simply killable" may still have loot and still give xp, until and unless you as DM houserule that it doesn't.

I also wonder if you're being a bit harsh with the term murderhobo in the first place. I certainly don't see it as meaning "psychotic bloodthirsty killer who most civilizations would lock away never to be seen again", yet that seems to be the level of revulsion you have for them.

I mean, hell, Thorin Oakenshield's party in The Hobbit were by and large murderhobos - they had no home, and they sure did some killing now and then. But they - or at least Thorin - didn't turn evil until they'd got their home back; and even that didn't last. Ditto the main Party in LotR - between the time they leave Rivendell and the crowning of Aragorn they're pretty much - you guessed it - murderhobos. And there's a whole lot of Orcs who would agree, were they still alive to do so.

Lan-"by the time Pippin and Sam got to Mt. Doom they'd become mordorhobos"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Well, let's see, I just played through the first Tales of the Yawning Portal adventure - Sunless Citadel, where the primary motivation for going into the home of a bunch of goblins and kobolds is to murder as many as you can and steal everything that isn't nailed down.

Started playing 5e with Lost Mines of Phandelver, again, your entire motivation for traveling pretty much anywhere is to kill whatever is living there and take its stuff. I mean, you start off the adventure on the road, get attacked by goblins which you follow home and murder en masse.

Now, considering that the term is a LOT older than just 5e, why would we limit ourselves to solely 5e modules when discussing the term? Not really sure what your point is. But, since murderhoboing as a baseline certainly exists in 5e modules, just like it does in every other edition's modules, I'm frankly flabbergasted as to what the issue here is.

Murderhoboes just describes a fairly beer and pretzel, kick in the door style of campaign. I LIKE that style of campaign from time to time. Nothing wrong with it. Tons of fun and a nice light hearted, campy break.

I'd have xp-ed you had you stopped here; because all of this is great!

Sometimes I like great movies, and sometimes I like schlock.

But you just had to take a shot, didn't ya?

Beer, pretzels, kick-down-the-door, and argue-with-your-party ain't schlock. It's D&D, man, distilled down to its best and purest form!

All the other fancy trappings of drama and heroics and skill systems - that's where the schlock usually comes in.

Lanefan

 

[Argyle King]

I understand the term to mean a combination of both choices.

Characters that have no "home" or connection to the world; even if they had one, they're so much more powerful than the world around them that they're removed from the world rather than being a part of it. They have no reason to care about the town guards any more than they care about orcs because they can easily trounce both groups (possibly both at the same time) and take whatever they want without consequence.

Power needn't necessarily be part of the definition, but I find that certain sets of rpgs lead to PCs being at a power level which makes being a murderhobo easier. However, if I remove the power part of my understanding of the word, I think the rest would still remain: characters who are homeless (and thus hobos) in the sense that there is no emotional, moral, story, or other such categorical connection between them and the gameworld; as such, they are free to kill and take what they want without concern for how it may impact the game world.

 

[Sunseeker]

Shidaku, I'm sorry, I did not mean to insult you with pedantics about definitions of murderhobo-ery. Somebody upthread made a comment about "it's not murder if it's done lawfully," but I don't know that that person was you. Still my reaction to that may have slightly colored my response.

No, that wasn't my argument, though in some campaigns that may be relevant. But for the most part I'm trying to keep it basic and focus on less complicated D&D.

Skipping down a bit...

And since I consider the term to be, at worst, a loving insult, I don't really mind having such an un-nuanced definition. I realize that, for some people, murderhobo is a more pointed criticism of bad actors in an RPG, but I don't feel that way. It's just a way of playing the game.

"Come, come, Mr. Bond. You enjoy killing just as much as I do."

I think that's where I stand on the issue. I don't think I've ever enjoyed a game of murderhobodom. Quite frankly, much like I question people who want to play a game of "kill the orc because it's evil" I question the motivations of players who want to partake in murderhoboing. It makes me highly uncomfortable to be around (and this has been a rather consistent experience) people who want to kill sentient creatures, especially harmless townsfolk, for little other reason than they are within weapons reach.

 

[CM]

Never heard the term myself until I started frequenting D&D websites. I always assumed it was used to describe a stereotypical hack & slash group that does little RP and largely plays larger-than-life, immoral fantasy versions of themselves who try to get away with whatever unseemly scheme they can convince the DM to go along with.


Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[guachi]

Lan-"by the time Pippin and Sam got to Mt. Doom they'd become mordorhobos"-efan

Mordorhobos? Is there a way to give negative XP? Because I want to give negative XP.

P.S.: It's Frodo and Sam not Pippin and Sam.