Oh good. For a minute there I thought this was a thread about me.


Carry on...

Quote from: Melan;487779So, am I the only one here who has

• not only played in games with murder hobo characters, but
• enjoyed them and
• doesn't find them a guilty pleasure?

Because I think you folks are missing out on something. Playing anti-social lowlives risking life and limb for a fistful of gold pieces in a dangerous, hostile and overpoweringly amoral world is liberating and legitimately entertaining.

Replying before I trudge through the whole thread, but I don't have a problem with this.  The first time I stumbled across the term (prolly on flabby purple), I chuckled and got a decent-sized inspiration charge.  I mean, it's kind of a thing that happens in D&D.  You can play other ways, but it is kind of a default mode, for some groups.  And certainly this mode of play has its own end-game (the more you play this way, the more YOU become the BBEGs, a la the Untouchable Trio (plus one) from KoDT), but, again, I don't have a problem with that.

Murderhobo: we're taking it back.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;487814As much as I've enjoyed reading TGD at times, I think the dominant mode of reasoning is often convergent and rather reductionist. This post [snip]

Whaaaaaat a load of horseshit.  (The linked post, that is.)  Evil PCs (as opposed to N/G ones that just act like asses to orcs or whatever) are automatically "disruptive"?  Gimme a break.  

One of the most "coherent" campaigns I've ever run (in terms of the group having concrete goals and the game having a consistent tone) was the one where the group of neutral-to-evil fighters, thieves, and 1 assassin (and a dwarf f/c of Abbathor, dwarven god of greed) were systematically grabbing power and turf from the Greyhawk City thieves' guild.  Hell, they only ran dungeon jaunts to lay low when the heat was on.  I never had to lead them by the nose for ANYTHING - if anything, it was all I could do to keep ahead of their ambitions.  Gimme that every time over, "c'mon, guys, the Count of Blah Blah Blah needs you to get the MacGuffin of Excuse, or they'll have to sell the orphanage".

The Three Musketeers were murder hobos. If it was good enough for them, surely it is good enough for me.

Consider for a moment:

Given traditional D&D morality, and its relative lack of complexity (a feature, not a bug, in my opinion), and assuming a decent amount of dungeon play, aren't "good" PCs locked into the murderhobo mode of play more than evil ones?

Think about it:  Given the base assumption of "always-evil orcs" and such, a good-aligned  party that parleys rather than slays is treading on thin ice, morally.  Won't they be forced to kill the monsters even after they find out the secret password, or whatever?  THEY'RE EEEEEVIL.  

A morally-ambiguous party, on the other hand, has a lot more options:  They can actually work WITH the monsters, trade information, even hire the lowly sacks of hp as henchmen!  (Robilar, anyone?)

So who's the murderhobo, now?

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;517154Consider for a moment:

Given traditional D&D morality, and its relative lack of complexity (a feature, not a bug, in my opinion), and assuming a decent amount of dungeon play, aren't "good" PCs locked into the murderhobo mode of play more than evil ones?

Think about it:  Given the base assumption of "always-evil orcs" and such, a good-aligned  party that parleys rather than slays is treading on thin ice, morally.  Won't they be forced to kill the monsters even after they find out the secret password, or whatever?  THEY'RE EEEEEVIL.  

A morally-ambiguous party, on the other hand, has a lot more options:  They can actually work WITH the monsters, trade information, even hire the lowly sacks of hp as henchmen!  (Robilar, anyone?)

So who's the murderhobo, now?

Robilar, obviously.

For me, "murder - hobo" is a PC that basically starts attacking NPCs without really good reason.

Like engaging with partisan warfare a caravan of merchants, because they refused to pay a reward for catching a pseudodragon that he supposedly "promised", by shouting out in the air that he will pay for catching. And by catching, I mean that the party killed the pseudodragon, then animated it (in front of caravan that outnumbered them 5 to 1) with some sort of Voodoo - style zombie powder. Then they demanded payment.

Oh, and they were both LG and CG.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;517149Replying before I trudge through the whole thread, but I don't have a problem with this.  The first time I stumbled across the term (prolly on flabby purple), I chuckled and got a decent-sized inspiration charge.  I mean, it's kind of a thing that happens in D&D.  You can play other ways, but it is kind of a default mode, for some groups.  And certainly this mode of play has its own end-game (the more you play this way, the more YOU become the BBEGs, a la the Untouchable Trio (plus one) from KoDT), but, again, I don't have a problem with that.

Murderhobo: we're taking it back.

I'm with you -the pussification must end!

QuoteAs a point of order, who says that PCs need be of heroic stamp? that's a matter for the players to determine, they and none other, most assuredly.
-Gary Gygax

Quote from: Aos;517152The Three Musketeers were murder hobos. If it was good enough for them, surely it is good enough for me.

You just made my day.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;517151Whaaaaaat a load of horseshit.  (The linked post, that is.)  Evil PCs (as opposed to N/G ones that just act like asses to orcs or whatever) are automatically "disruptive"?  Gimme a break.  

One of the most "coherent" campaigns I've ever run (in terms of the group having concrete goals and the game having a consistent tone) was the one where the group of neutral-to-evil fighters, thieves, and 1 assassin (and a dwarf f/c of Abbathor, dwarven god of greed) were systematically grabbing power and turf from the Greyhawk City thieves' guild.  Hell, they only ran dungeon jaunts to lay low when the heat was on.  I never had to lead them by the nose for ANYTHING - if anything, it was all I could do to keep ahead of their ambitions.  Gimme that every time over, "c'mon, guys, the Count of Blah Blah Blah needs you to get the MacGuffin of Excuse, or they'll have to sell the orphanage".

It worked for The Blues Brothers.

Once.

JG

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;517151One of the most "coherent" campaigns I've ever run (in terms of the group having concrete goals and the game having a consistent tone) was the one where the group of neutral-to-evil fighters, thieves, and 1 assassin (and a dwarf f/c of Abbathor, dwarven god of greed) were systematically grabbing power and turf from the Greyhawk City thieves' guild.  Hell, they only ran dungeon jaunts to lay low when the heat was on.  I never had to lead them by the nose for ANYTHING - if anything, it was all I could do to keep ahead of their ambitions.  Gimme that every time over, "c'mon, guys, the Count of Blah Blah Blah needs you to get the MacGuffin of Excuse, or they'll have to sell the orphanage".

Something I've noticed over the years is that groups of good-aligned, 'heroic' adventurers are rarely this proactive.

Just once I'd like to see a group of good adventurers clear bandits out of a ruin, found a hospital for pilgrims, create an order of knights to run the hospital, and back a neutral good or lawful neutral thief in a bid to take control of that thieves guild.

Quote from: Elfdart;517249I'm with you -the pussification must end!

QuoteAs a point of order, who says that PCs need be of heroic stamp? that's a matter for the players to determine, they and none other, most assuredly.
-Gary Gygax

Ha - I was wondering how long until somebody hauled out the Gary quote.  As relevant now as it ever was.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;517256Something I've noticed over the years is that groups of good-aligned, 'heroic' adventurers are rarely this proactive.

Just once I'd like to see a group of good adventurers clear bandits out of a ruin, found a hospital for pilgrims, create an order of knights to run the hospital, and back a neutral good or lawful neutral thief in a bid to take control of that thieves guild.

Zak from "Playing D&D With Porn Stars" wrote a pretty well-thought-out piece on the subject:

(NSFW, unless your work is cool with you reading a blog called "Playing D&D With Porn Stars"    )

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2010/01/sandboxes-and-roguish-work-ethic.html

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;488144Angry birds doesn't surprise me. But I think that has a lot to do with the medium (mostly smart phones). Most folk I know, myself included, who play it, do so as a half ass time passer while waiting for doctor appointments etc. My guess is most people who play such games don't play mant computer or console games.

I'll take a look, but like I said those numbers seem a little odd to me (super mario looks right, but there were lots of very popular games that don't even appear on the list).

Just poking in my 2cp, here:  I'm currently finishing up an Associates in C.S. with a concentration in Game Design and Simulation (super useful, I know :rolleyes: ), and I can confirm that, with the rise of smartphone and Facebook games in the last few years, the demographics of the industry have tipped over on their ear.  In years past, I'd have said that violent games (depending on where you want to set that bar) were king, but nowadays, it's not so clear-cut.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;517285Zak from "Playing D&D With Porn Stars" wrote a pretty well-thought-out piece on the subject . . .

I didn't start reading Zak's blog regularly until last year, and I hadn't seen that before - thanks for the link.

Where I would disagree with Zak is that a sandbox can offer immediate opportunities for good-aligned or heroic adventurers to immediately start making the same sorts of decisions as their more rougish counterparts. In his sample sandbox he has a bank and a church and an orphanage, but if you want to make the heroes more proactive and less reactive, then the sandbox should also have a crack house and a pawn shop where stolen goods get fenced and a warehouse where human traffickers run their operation.

Last year Trent Foster ran his Castle Xanadu megadungeon at a local game-day here. We heard a rumor that there were bandits around the upper works, and we assumed that they would try to hit us on our way out of the dungeon. We managed to sneak past them on our way out and that was that. Had the one-shot turned into a campaign, however, my character would be all for clearing out the bandits before our next foray into the dungeon, maybe hiring some guards to protect adventurers and monitor the ruins as well.

(At least that's how my lawful fighter would've done it, if he hadn't been punked by a giant spider. My neutral fighter - my first character's squire - would likely set up a protection racket instead.)

With the right environment, it is possible to run proactive heroes without all that plot-hook and story nonsense.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;517337With the right environment, it is possible to run proactive heroes without all that plot-hook and story nonsense.

QFT- I've even done it in supers games.