Quote from: David Johansen;687761I think players who refuse to have ties to the setting tend to be players who've had GMs who would abuse such things for shits and giggles.

Possibly, but I tend to think they ought to grow up a bit.  I've had bad meals in restaurants, but that doesn't stop me going to restaurants.  I've had some lousy bosses, but that doesn't have me foregoing gainful employment.  I've bought books I disliked, but I still get books.

And, sure, I've played under some rotten GMs, but that hasn't caused me to change what aspects of RPGs I play or not.

Eh, it's a useful identifier.  If someone describes someone else's game being murderhoboey, I'll ask questions.  If someone their game as murderhoboey, I'll know not to bother at all.

Quote from: David Johansen;687761I think players who refuse to have ties to the setting tend to be players who've had GMs who would abuse such things for shits and giggles.

Disagree. Some players simply prefer dungeon and exploration mode D&D. Strangers in a strange land stuff.

True and fair enough but some players will stab everything they can in the face whether it's friendly or not.  In fact, if you're playing a Protagonist in WFRP and you aren't, you're doing it wrong.

Another thing to remember about such players is that they are often casual players without much experience and little to no reading.  I'm not saying you can't have a good dungeon crawl game.  But the players I'm thinking of will screw that up too by refusing to manage their resources or be clever or smart in their play.  They just open every door and attack everything they see.

Quote from: Bill;687739I don't think dnd has anything to do with 'murder hobo'

Except that it does seem to promote that mindset where any creature your PC meets is a 'phat loot' pinata that just needs a few good wacks of a sword to dispense its goodies.
I know not everyone plays that way... but I've met plenty who insist that is how D&D is 'meant to be played!'. Doesn't help that it's the default for a lot of video games as well.
Our group started playing 3.5 recently and I've gone round and round with them regarding their assumptions that the game demands to be played with a focus on the equipment lists. The same players behave quite differently when we have another system on the table.

QuoteAny player in any rpg can be a murder hobo.

Of course. I'd rather not play with those folks... and one way I've avoided them is staying away from D&D (not that that's been easy).

Murder-Hoboism is something that ends up happening in a lot of games.  It's not always what the players WANT to do, but it often ends up that way.

It's helpful to break up the terms and look at them independently.  Hoboism is walking around without a fixed residence.  If your PCs are constantly camping in the woods or staying in inns and don't own property, they're pretty much living a hobo lifestyle.  Even if they're living 'well', characters that wander the globe are unlikely to make too many permanent ties.  So lots of D&D games feature hobos.  

Murder tends to be a problem solution, frequently employed by adventurers.  This can be applied simply to team monster.  When you wander into a new area, find monsters, stab them in the face and take their stuff, you're a wandering murderer.  

But sometimes even well-intentioned PCs can take this to an extreme.  In a campaign I'm playing in right now, our characters all come from the same small village.  We have ties (and permanent residences) there.  But when we left our small town, we stumbled upon a cabal of evil cultists planning to destroy the city.  The cultists included some very high-ranking political figures, so we couldn't simply involve the guards.  We ended up trying to sneak into a few places, but when we were discovered, things went downhill fast.  We ended up stabbing a bunch of people in the face.  It was totally illegal, but ultimately we were able to prove that the people we stabbed in the face were totally the bad guys, and the fact that we saved the city helped defend us of our reckless vigilantism...  

But it wouldn't be totally unfair to call it a murder-hobo game...

Quote from: Saladman;687668Does the latter case even arise?  Are there jack-ass DMs out there running orcs as noble savages, but not communicating that in any way to the players for some reason, all for a cheap gotcha?

It's worse than that-- they view the orcs as "noble savages" but still have them behave as standard orcs, and killing them is evil because killing sentient persons is always evil. It doesn't matter how evil the orcs are, because heroes don't kill.

Part of my issue with the alignment system, and enforcing morality mechanics in general; I don't want some smug jerk GM with a C in Ethics 101 judging my moral values according to the standards of PG-13 media when he's running an R-rated game.

[waves the dust away and coughs]

With that out of the way - I admit I turn "murder - hobo" when the campaign turns into a complete railroad, especially with "untouchable superimportant npcs" who are bartenders or other people acting tough when standing alone in front of 4 - 6 professional murderers.

More GMs should remember that Forsyth admitted mercenaries and arms dealers he met while working on Dogs of War/Actual coup were pretty scary people.

Quote from: FaerieGodfather;687868I don't want some smug jerk GM with a C in Ethics 101 judging my moral values according to the standards of PG-13 media when he's running an R-rated game.

Then don't play with that GM.

Quote from: jeff37923;687884Then don't play with that GM.

Bad rules create and enable that kind of GM. How many alignment arguments have we seen since D&D was first published, that basically boiled down to one person-- or the other-- having all of the sophisticated and nuanced moral reasoning of an earnest but not-too-bright schoolchild?

Quote from: FaerieGodfather;687894Bad rules create and enable that kind of GM. How many alignment arguments have we seen since D&D was first published, that basically boiled down to one person-- or the other-- having all of the sophisticated and nuanced moral reasoning of an earnest but not-too-bright schoolchild?

I handle this type of guy the same way I handled the DM who insisted that since my character was a Bard that he was gay - I stood up from the table and walked away. If I am not having fun, then why play that game? If you don't play with an asshole, you don't have to worry about it.

Really, what is so hard about that?

Bad rules enable jack. GM's setting, GM's ethics. Can't deal, game with another GM.

I'm completely convinced that Gary Gygax saw alignment arguments as a feature of D&D, not a bug.

Anyhow, one hard truth about rpgs is that they can really force you to face the fact that some of your friends are unrepentant jackasses.  I don't have a solution to that.  I don't think the solution can be achieved by a game mechanic.  Indeed, I wonder if that's the real fallacy behind the story game movement?  Is it that they believe they can change people with game mechanics?  Talk about confusing fantasy with reality...

Quote from: David Johansen;687908Indeed, I wonder if that's the real fallacy behind the story game movement?  Is it that they believe they can change people with game mechanics?  Talk about confusing fantasy with reality...

Okay, I'll take the bait. What game?

Maid?  Dogs in the Vineyard?  Whatever