A term I saw used on another forum, ostensibly about roleplaying games but mostly about tangential subjects. It was being used there to refer to D&D Player Characters, suggesting that D&D is a fatally flawed game because instead of producing great heroes, it produces detached vagrants who kill wantonly.
My question: does anyone seriously buy this crap? Is "murder-hobos" an accurate depiction of how you would define the PCs of your D&D game?
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;487719A term I saw used on another forum, ostensibly about roleplaying games but mostly about tangential subjects. It was being used there to refer to D&D Player Characters, suggesting that D&D is a fatally flawed game because instead of producing great heroes, it produces detached vagrants who kill wantonly.
My question: does anyone seriously buy this crap? Is "murder-hobos" an accurate depiction of how you would define the PCs of your D&D game?
RPGPundit
The only people who believe in the "murder-hobo" myth either have never played D&D, are playing it "ironically", or just play 4E. It has never been an accurate depiction of any D&D game I have ever played - not even the ones in Middle School.
Quote from: RPGPundit;487719A term I saw used on another forum, ostensibly about roleplaying games but mostly about tangential subjects. It was being used there to refer to D&D Player Characters, suggesting that D&D is a fatally flawed game because instead of producing great heroes, it produces detached vagrants who kill wantonly.
My question: does anyone seriously buy this crap? Is "murder-hobos" an accurate depiction of how you would define the PCs of your D&D game?
RPGPundit
I think it is just a specific term to denigrate "kill 'em and take their stuff" play, which most folks unfamiliar with earlier versions have come to assume encompasses the majority of play, if not all of it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;487719My question: does anyone seriously buy this crap? Is "murder-hobos" an accurate depiction of how you would define the PCs of your D&D game?
I have seen a fair number of sessions/groups that the title would apply to.
I would dispute that D&D (and its close kin) as a whole is fairly categorized by the moniker.
D&D can be played in murder-hobo mode; D&D doesn't have to be played in murder-hobo mode.
Honestly? I find Warhammer to be generally more murder-hobo-esque. I don't mean that as a critique; that's part of its charm.
I don't see this kind of play much. Have met a couple of players who basically like carnage and breaking the law. But they prefer to do so using Vampire.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;487728I don't see this kind of play much. Have met a couple of players who basically like carnage and breaking the law. But they prefer to do so using Vampire.
I think this is usually a function of age. When I started playing D&D at 13...yeah, those early games were probably in the murder-hobo vein.
A couple games in high school (such as when we tried an ill-advised all-evil party) dipped back into murder-hobo-ville.
Since then? Not so much. It's possibly a function of learning how to get more from the game as you become accustomed to it.
I think murdererous hobos is a good description of most hack and slash games. GM's hate good characters. Evil will always win because good is dumb. In an effort to try to tie the characters to the world or to make the players feel invested in going after the next bad guy, any NPC a player puts faith in will fuck them over. This, or the perception of this, leads players to make neutral characters rather than good ones, and everyone knows neutral characters don't have a conscience - you don't have to feel bad about anything you do so long as its justified rationally.
Combine this with the idea that nothing can really be evil by nature, and you have a band of adventurers who murder creatures based on race and rob their bodies. All adventuring is basically epic scale home invasions.
All of that, and they are still heroes in the Greek sense of the word.
I hate playing role playing games with most GMs because I like to play Paladins but the only thing that ever works out are rogues. In my current heroes game, I'm retiring my Principled martial artist because the GM keeps on tricking one of the other players into killing people with his force fields, and its go neutral or fight with the guy.
Just because the people on this website are the kinds of gamers that are motivated enough to make their RPGs great (also being the kinds of people motivated to read about them on the internet) are not normal gamers. Most gamers are shit when it comes to running games.
Quote from: RPGPundit;487719My question: does anyone seriously buy this crap? Is "murder-hobos" an accurate depiction of how you would define the PCs of your D&D game?
RPGPundit
Nope. Never was, not even in Grade School. Not to say that there weren't silly or shallow games, but even back then it was "save the town, princess, etc..." rather then "kill them and take their stuff".
However, the people who use "murder hobos" will frequently claim the default trope of D&D is to enter a dungeon randomly, leave nothing alive and loot everything that's nailed down without any purpose or rationale as to why other then because that's what you do in D&D - ie. no one who has played it more then once since becoming an adult. :D
It has described some games I have been in. They were funny and action-packed games with a satisfactory splat factor, so whatever, bitter online people.
But yeah, it is a term generally used by people who don't like D&D.
Quote from: Cranewings;487730I hate playing role playing games with most GMs because I like to play Paladins but the only thing that ever works out are rogues.
Well, this is interesting. The "murder hobos" stuff, though, while it contains a grain of truth and humor, has largely become about people projecting their own lame experiences and lack of imagination onto everyone else and the rules they use.
The term makes sense to me, I've seen murder-hobos players. I don't think the style is the exclusive province of D&D by any means. However it is possible that D&D's loose genre conventions are more tolerant towards the murder-hobo than some other games. For one thing if you try to pull that off in Pendragon or MSH and you'll quickly end up without Fame or Karma.
D&D is a big game played in many different ways by many different people. You couldn't really pull off a muderhobo in Dragonlance, probably not in Planescape either, or any other game that require a strong setting buy-in by the players. However the classic "don't bother naming your character till your at least level 3" attitude isn't miles away from the murder-hobo.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;487742Well, this is interesting. The "murder hobos" stuff, though, while it contains a grain of truth and humor, has largely become about people projecting their own lame experiences and lack of imagination onto everyone else and the rules they use.
In the last session I ran, the party was split. 5 characters found the crew of a treasure ship and recovered their treasure from the clutches of evil. They decided the best thing to do was to help the crew get it back to their king. Rewards from the king > than spending his gold while being hunted for having it.
The crew that brought the party to the island were Greek. The treasure ship was Persian.
To make a long story short, the PC who wasn't there, a paladin and his NPC cleric friend had a side quest were they were kidnapped by other bad guys, happened into the greek ship, had a big fight, helped the greeks win, and took the greek ship back to the island to meet the party.
Well, both sides square off. 25 persians standing with 5 pcs against 40 greeks. The cleric tells the paladin, "I don't want bloodshed, but these are my countrymen and they saved us. If it comes to a fight, I won't let your friends kill the hoplites." The party meets, decides that they couldn't just sit out a fight because the winners would hate them, couldn't take the treasure with the greeks because they would be hunted and might kill them for it, and didn't want to side with the persians because they would be out numbered in a fight.
So the paladin walks up to the hoplite captain and says, "My friends found the persian treasure. We plan to take it back to their land. Here is some gold. Take me back to port so I can higher a ship to take us to persia. You don't have to do it yourselves.
At this point, all the players face palm, pissed, because they thought it was clear they weren't going to bring up the treasure and were sure that the hoplites would attack for it.
Instead though, I reasoned that the hoplite commander wasn't an all together terrible person, and when faced with a Paladin he fought alongside in a battle, with a high charisma and an aura of good, he decided to do the right thing and take the paladin back to get another ship. No one apologized for face palming on it, but to the Paladin player and to me, it made sense. It is also the kind of interaction you hope to expect as a paladin player - that you can do the right thing and tell the truth because even people of questionable moral character will be inspired by you. That is the whole fucking point of the high charisma and aura of good.
I've never gotten to do something like that as a player though. It is always lie and murder or get shit on, because most GMs only know one way of motivating players to care about a plot, and that is to fuck with them.
I haven't seen "murder hobo" play since my age hit the early double digits. It got boring really quick, and we either moved on to more "serious" play or to other hobbies/pursuits.
I only really see it when players don't get immersed in a campaign. When there's a degree of detachment from the game world the players tend to ignore in-game attachments, in character motivations, and any sense of treating NPCs as more than info dispensers. Hell even in the best of games it takes me playing NPCs as untarnished saints to get my players to trust them. Murder-hobos is just a dismissive term for casual DnD play that focuses on combat and loot. I find that the only people who use it are those focused on their precious "stories" even though those are often a veneer for campaigns based around traveling to different places, killing things, and taking their stuff.
I've only played in a couple of groups that were 'kill them and take their stuff'... even when I ran a short CoC campaign that focused on 'murderous hobos'... but I've played LOTS of video game 'RPGS' that seem to play like that (maybe cause that's what they're best at?).
I've been playing World Of Warcraft again lately and the primacy it places on 'loot' seems to reinforce that type of play.
Surprisingly (to me) the kids I'm running games for don't play that way at all. I've yet to have one of them kill for the sake of killing or ask to loot a corpse...
Actually... I kind of wish our Deadlands games had a bit more of the 'murder hobo' to them...
I've seen some people this applies to. Does it accurately describe everyone who games? I hope not, and I think not!
Gold Hungry Murderhoboes is the best punk band name I've ever heard -- that is all.
The murderhobo epithet applies to the vast majority of the TTRPG sessions I have played in, run, and observed other people playing in the larger local community.
While it's entirely a function of player maturity, it would be disingenuous to ignore the fact that killing things and taking their stuff was the only thing that AD&D1E (the basis for most people's experience with gaming in their youth) explicitly rewarded you for, both mechanically and emotionally.
Quote from: RPGPundit;487719A term I saw used on another forum, ostensibly about roleplaying games but mostly about tangential subjects. It was being used there to refer to D&D Player Characters, suggesting that D&D is a fatally flawed game because instead of producing great heroes, it produces detached vagrants who kill wantonly.
My question: does anyone seriously buy this crap? Is "murder-hobos" an accurate depiction of how you would define the PCs of your D&D game?
RPGPundit
No, it's intellectual dishonesty started by mental midgets whose sole experience with D&D was dungeon crawls and nothing but when they were adolescents, and they now refuse to believe that even older editions support anything but, because of the XP for GP math.
What these small-minded philistines fail to apprehend is that "overcoming" a "monster" doesn't necessarily mean killing it. But they'll of course engage in the worst kind of disingenuous nonsense and drown out any reasonable discussion on the matter.
[image removed at pundits request]
So, 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.
Yeah, seriously, a good game of murder hobos is good fun for the whole family!
I mean, use more self-important language if you want, but "murder hobos" is basically the sword-and-sorcery vibe. The key, of course, is that there isn't that much of a divide between the murder hobos and the kings.
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.
Oh I think it can be a blast; I just think people who feel it's all D&D is about need a head-check.
I'll only be a murder hobo if I can use a shotgun.
Seriously though, D&D to me was always about gritty, dirty guys doing gritty, dirty things in gritty, dirty places in seach of loot. Look at the illos. in the PHB and DMG fer chrissakes, not a lot of "points of light" glamour shots in there that I recall. Over time, that view has changed a bit, but it's still there in the back of my mind.
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.
Old Geezer still runs games like this, IIRC. It involves things other than killing and looting, but he doesn't pretend that's mostly what the game is about at lower levels.
And yes, they can totally be entertaining. People who snub murder-hoboism are the same types who bitch about Diablo because it's just 'simple' fun and doesn't involve real role-playing blah blah blah.
Our Keep game is borderline murder-hobo-ist. I don't think it suffers for it at all, though I do expect the game to expand and evolve and it'll probably look different than it does now after a little while.
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.
Absolutely not! In fact I think that describes several of the characters in at least every game I've ever run. To me the idea as presented by El Pundito wasn't this. I'm not sure how I separate the two concepts, so I have something to think on!
Thanks!
Quote from: kregmosier;487777but it's a good game!
Where's the body?
Quote from: daniel_ream;487766it would be disingenuous to ignore the fact that killing things and taking their stuff was the only thing that AD&D1E (the basis for most people's experience with gaming in their youth) explicitly rewarded you for, both mechanically and emotionally.
I don't think AD&D explicitly rewards anyone emotionally. That would be like saying "You be happy now", yes? Anyway, I agree that the structure of BTB D&D is easily interpreted as incentivizing gaining XP for sake of gaining levels, in order to become more powerful and cooler. Also, getting magic items along the way. But the entire "rewards" theory has been pushed much too far.
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.
No, you're not the only one. But "murder hobo" carries a lot of baggage in both implication and usage. You know that when this guy (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=475505) uses the term he's projecting his damage onto D&D.
Yeah, I think they can be fun too... at least in small doses.
I think it also came out of talking to players (pre-internet) from other games... the loudest guys... all their stories seemingly about what they killed, what they got, how powerful they were now... at least in my experience it gave me the idea that kill/loot was all that was going on at their tables.
"Anti-social lowlives risking life and limb for a fistful of gold pieces in a dangerous, hostile and overpoweringly amoral world." is definite fun and is the key behind many stories in lots of genres: westerns, sword & sorcery, men's adventure, cyberpunk and the list goes on.
However the term "murder hobos" typically carries with it a little more then that when used by the people who sling it as a slight against D&D or people who don't play in a "sufficiently sophisticated" campaign.
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.
Oh, I definitely still dip into murder-hobo-ville, but not regularly. If a game is going to go that route I'm more likely to use Warhammer than D&D though--and the PCs are likely to be actual hobos.
No, murderhobo doesn't do it for me I 'm afraid. An important part of what makes roleplaying fun is bonding with my character and believing what he does. The typical murderhobo contrast has neither empathy nor any ties or investment in the setting. He's the let's kill the town guard just because we can kind of character.
You can play lowlifes, rogues and ruffians and assorted scum all you like but as long as they are well defined characters who do things for a reason (such as the crew of Firefly) they aren't murderhobos.
"Murder hobo" is used a lot on The Gaming Den, so no, I don't think it's used to denigrate D&D.
Good to see the results. For a moment, I thought TheRPGSite has also gone down the rabbit hole.
Quote from: B.T.;487799"Murder hobo" is used a lot on The Gaming Den, so no, I don't think it's used to denigrate D&D.
As much as I've enjoyed reading TGD at times, I think the dominant mode of reasoning is often convergent and rather reductionist. This post (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=186509#186509) may or may not have denigration as its intent, but it's still something that many D&D fans would object to--rather like the borderline Forgist view that accompanied 4e, in which D&D fans were encouraged to embrace hyper-gamism.
See also. (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=91589#91589) Etc.
Quote from: Cranewings;487748Instead though, I reasoned that the hoplite commander wasn't an all together terrible person, and when faced with a Paladin he fought alongside in a battle, with a high charisma and an aura of good, he decided to do the right thing and take the paladin back to get another ship. No one apologized for face palming on it, but to the Paladin player and to me, it made sense. It is also the kind of interaction you hope to expect as a paladin player - that you can do the right thing and tell the truth because even people of questionable moral character will be inspired by you. That is the whole fucking point of the high charisma and aura of good.
That is fucking
awesome, and it is going to be the core mechanic of any set of rules I eventually write. :)
Quote from: StormBringer;487815That is fucking awesome, and it is going to be the core mechanic of any set of rules I eventually write. :)
Agreed - any time conflict can be resolved without combat (in D&D especially) is a memorable moment, and great gaming. I actually talked down a Beholder once. Oh, and my evil cleric made a deal with a large Green dragon, and sealed the deal with a DeathTouch handshake - DM failed the roll. Was pretty spectacular.
Quote from: Werekoala;487788Seriously though, D&D to me was always about gritty, dirty guys doing gritty, dirty things in gritty, dirty places in seach of loot.
I'd also add "doing some good" in this list. This style of
D&D play which is how it goes for most gamers I have talked to reminds me a bit of Rightwing Film Geek's review of The Dark Knight. (http://vjmorton.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/nolans-batman/) The relevent bit is this :
QuoteIndeed, the best analogy I can think to the Batman character is from “The St. Petersburg Diaries,” a work by Count Joseph De Maistre — an anti-Revolution French philosopher hardly known (unjustly so) outside the circle of right-Catholic reaction. In that work, among the lather of ironies and paradoxes De Maistre has endless fun with, he describes the executioner as the man on whom society’s order relies but whom society despises.
I'm not saying all
D&D games are like this but I do think there's a grey area in
D&D where most characters exists. As for "murder hobos", well it's like if you don't like the game, you'll invent all sorts of swell names to denigrate it's players.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;487793I don't think AD&D explicitly rewards anyone emotionally.
I couldn't think of a better way to put it, but if you want to look at what kind of player behaviour you're going to get, look at what the game rewards the players for doing. In AD&D, players are mechanically rewarded for murder-hoboing (increased player agency through increased PC power via magic items and levels gained via XP earned from killing monsters and snarfing loot), but they are also rewarded emotionally in that virtually all of the game's mechanics are combat focused and somewhat opaque. Spending the effort to find the combination of rules and loopholes to produce a result beneficial to the character gives the player an emotional boost via a sense of achievement and mastery of a non-trivial task. Same reason people play sudoku and RTSes.
This is why I don't buy the "later editions of D&D say you don't have to kill the monster to get the XP" argument. That may be true, but the rules still reward the player emotionally for figuring out how to be the baddest-ass combat monster. They don't reward the player for figuring out how to be, say, Cranewing's Captain America Paladin.
Quote from: Werekoala;487816Agreed - any time conflict can be resolved without combat (in D&D especially) is a memorable moment, and great gaming. I actually talked down a Beholder once. Oh, and my evil cleric made a deal with a large Green dragon, and sealed the deal with a DeathTouch handshake - DM failed the roll. Was pretty spectacular.
Very nice.
Quote from: daniel_ream;487823I couldn't think of a better way to put it, but if you want to look at what kind of player behaviour you're going to get, look at what the game rewards the players for doing.[....]
But earlier editions give you XP for gold even if you don't kill the monster. That's point I.
Point II is that you're assuming the "combat-focused" mechanics are where people are going to seek their rewards. I certainly ran into this, we called them "munchkins", but I think it's a mistake to see the game that way, or at any rate to see the game
necessarily that way. In various incarnations, the rules of D&D have been so minimal as to be practically not there; playing it like a board game where all the goals are defined and interpreted through the rules is pretty much missing the point. The real point was simply learning that you could role-play; the rules were just there as an adjunct to handle situations were pure role-play didn't work very well.
Basically, not only did people who started with such-and-such-edition preserve this view of things into later editions, but even in those which are more rule-bound, it's been possible to receive the rules that way--as a simulative adjunct instead of as an incentivizing framework.
This is an argument I've made many times on these boards (e.g.
passim in this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=6320&highlight=rewards), so apologies to those who've already seen it.
Maybe I'll get lynched for saying this but even in AD&D we gave out XP for stuff other than combat. It's not like we thought we were Shakespearean reenactors-but clever ideas get some kind of reward. So does great characterization, and great moments of levity and humor.
That said I guess when I look at the original post, as written by El Pundito I don't think of a couple of guys blowing off steam in their game but misery tourist's looking to enact sick fantasies. At work I came across a group of sex offenders whose idea of fun was role-playing out their sick fantasies. That's kind of what I was thinking of.
AD&D says to avoid unnecessary encounters, that your first response to a combat encounter, unless you've specifically planned and prepared for it after determining that it's necessary to meet a certain objective, should be to run away.
Doesn't seem super-compatible with murder-hoboism to me.
I mainly saw this kind of stuff in RPGA tournaments. It wasn't very common in home games, though.
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.
In between adventures, my murderhobo PCs draw cards from a stack I made up describing what happens during the downtime. My baseline assumption when drawing up the cards is that the PCs are amoral thrill-seeking murderhobos who naturally gravitate to consorting with other amoral thrill-seeking murderhobos.
The current stack includes:
"
It turns out your drinking buddies are a bunch of pirates. They teach you pirate cant. They offer to let you in on where all the secret pirate hideouts are, but it's your head if they find out you've betrayed their trust."
"
A man named Wilmer Vassing cheats you at cards. In the ensuing drunken brawl, Vassing dies and you take the blame. You are wanted by the law (but not that badly)."
"
You attend a sermon by Doctor Vermandus, a noted priest of Tash. He blesses the congregation, and even you benefit from it. +1 to any one saving throw, once."
"
You do well at cards one night, but the Vassing Gang jumps you for it as you stumble home drunk. You lose 200gp and make a saving throw. Pass: You beat them off and get a reputation (but still lose the money). Fail: They beat you ugly -1 Cha"
"
You invest your money wisely: in rum-running and tobacco farming. You are welcome in every inn and watering hole in Heshtown. You gain 250gp."
"
An elvish conman named Givardi defrauds you in what hindsight reveals is a get-rich-quick scheme. You are poorer but wiser. -250gp + 250xp"
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say murder-hobo, but I definitely enjoy playing characters who are morally-questionable, ruthless opportunists
Quote from: Werekoala;487816Agreed - any time conflict can be resolved without combat (in D&D especially) is a memorable moment, and great gaming. I actually talked down a Beholder once. Oh, and my evil cleric made a deal with a large Green dragon, and sealed the deal with a DeathTouch handshake - DM failed the roll. Was pretty spectacular.
Nice. I've rarely seen negotiations with a dragon turn out ok (:
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.
Exactly.
But then,
The Wild Bunch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkCwh-IR_VQ) has always been more my style than Roy Rogers.
i think "the game" can be played in any number of ways by any number of people; the possibilities are staggering.
there were no default assumptions back in the day, but we all pretty much knew we were heroes...the good guys.
probably more 'han solo'-good than 'king arthur'-good, but still...
I thought the whole point of being Good was that you did the Good thing because it is the Good thing to do and not for any mechanical benefits. Selflessness and all.
Hell, I have a Murder-Hobo character (6th lvl AD&D NE M-U), that occasionally does the "right thing" because he's not that evil he's just generally ruthless and opportunistic.
Anyways, the beauty of Murder Hobo play is that it can evoke this wonderful alchemy of Spaghetti Westerns; Crime movies & fiction; Thieves World; and Cohen brothers films that can make for exciting and compelling D&D play.
Quote from: Planet Algol;487847I thought the whole point of being Good was that you did the Good thing because it is the Good thing to do and not for any mechanical benefits. Selflessness and all.
Hell, I have a Murder-Hobo character (6th lvl AD&D NE M-U), that occasionally does the "right thing" because he's not that evil he's just generally ruthless and opportunistic.
Anyways, the beauty of Murder Hobo play is that it can evoke this wonderful alchemy of Spaghetti Westerns; Crime movies & fiction; Thieves World; and Cohen brothers films that can make for exciting and compelling D&D play.
amen. QFT and right on.
Quote from: Planet Algol;487847I thought the whole point of being Good was that you did the Good thing because it is the Good thing to do and not for any mechanical benefits. Selflessness and all.
Well I mean the character isn't the player, so motivations don't always have to align (although it's usually good if they do in the sort of game D&D is).
Although it's not so much about rewarding good, specifically, as it is about rewarding other sorts of player behaviors. Sometimes people construct campaigns where the reward "systems" aren't explicit, but certain types of player behavior are encouraged or reinforced anyway, and people just ignore the XP for gold thing.
One of the reasons why I kinda put my Warhammer Enemy Within campaign on hold, was due to one of the players being pretty much in constant Mu-Ho mode. I've never seen a squire-aiming-at-knight loot so much and and go through the pockets of so many disgusting mutants in search for a few silver pennies and constantly scan every battlefield for ANYTHING valuable. He was well more murder-hobo than the groups grave- and tomb robber.
It was sort of ok in the two first books, but man, I'm not sure I really want him pillaging through Middenheim.
So yes. I've met the murder hobo-type players recently.
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 (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=186509#186509) may or may not have denigration as its intent, but it's still something that many D&D fans would object to--rather like the borderline Forgist view that accompanied 4e, in which D&D fans were encouraged to embrace hyper-gamism.
Well, one of those is a Frank Trollman post. I think we can safely consider him a fringe case when it comes to RPG morality
or D&D.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineIn between adventures, my murderhobo PCs draw cards from a stack I made up describing what happens during the downtime. My baseline assumption when drawing up the cards is that the PCs are amoral thrill-seeking murderhobos who naturally gravitate to consorting with other amoral thrill-seeking murderhobos.
That's very good stuff.
Quote from: Elfdart;487839But then, The Wild Bunch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkCwh-IR_VQ) has always been more my style than Roy Rogers.
My inspiration has been more The Man With No Name (who
has a moral compass, although a well-hidden one), but good point.
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 (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=186509#186509) may or may not have denigration as its intent, but it's still something that many D&D fans would object to--rather like the borderline Forgist view that accompanied 4e, in which D&D fans were encouraged to embrace hyper-gamism.
See also. (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=91589#91589) Etc.
The reductionist mode of argumentation has been popularized by one of our mutual members and, for better and worse, spread by the people who want to emulate him. This makes reading TGD both entertaining and frustrating because you're getting lots of cursing and invective mixed in with autistic logic.
Stay away from the political section, though. It's a mess.
Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;487861One of the reasons why I kinda put my Warhammer Enemy Within campaign on hold, was due to one of the players being pretty much in constant Mu-Ho mode. I've never seen a squire-aiming-at-knight loot so much and and go through the pockets of so many disgusting mutants in search for a few silver pennies and constantly scan every battlefield for ANYTHING valuable. He was well more murder-hobo than the groups grave- and tomb robber.
It was sort of ok in the two first books, but man, I'm not sure I really want him pillaging through Middenheim.
So yes. I've met the murder hobo-type players recently.
Middenheim Knights of the White Wolf are a great way to rid yourself of dishonorable Reiklander would-be-knights. :D
Quote from: Planet Algol;487847Anyways, the beauty of Murder Hobo play is that it can evoke this wonderful alchemy of Spaghetti Westerns; Crime movies & fiction; Thieves World; and Cohen brothers films that can make for exciting and compelling D&D play.
Hmm. I never really associated that stuff with the "murder hobo" descriptor. I always thought the term was more like the guy who just burned down the Village of Hommlet the first time we played AD&D, just because he was Chaotic Evil.
Something like Man With No Name or Coen Brothers or the other stuff you cite...yeah, that's good. What's Kyle's sig say? "High-minded hack?" I like that style a lot.
Quote"Apparently, there's a few serious adventurers in town right now...quite unscrupulous grave robbers for the most part. Anything for gold and experience." - Perdido Street Station, China Mieville.
I always thought the murder-hobo thing was kind of like this- a sort of joking acknowledgement that D&D "heroes" often aren't really very heroic. Not an attack on D&D or anyone's play style.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;487834In between adventures, my murderhobo PCs draw cards from a stack I made up describing what happens during the downtime. My baseline assumption when drawing up the cards is that the PCs are amoral thrill-seeking murderhobos who naturally gravitate to consorting with other amoral thrill-seeking murderhobos.
Ooh, I like those - very Lankhmaresque, and a nice way to expose setting and generate plot hooks. How many cards are in the stack, how many players draw them, and how often are they drawn?.
Quote from: Thalaba;487909Ooh, I like those - very Lankhmaresque, and a nice way to expose setting and generate plot hooks. How many cards are in the stack, how many players draw them, and how often are they drawn?.
There are currently 13 cards for six, soon to be seven, players, who each draw one. They draw them in between adventures, or whenever they spend a month or more of downtime. I draw up new cards whenever I feel like, usually in lots of 4 (since each one is a quarter of a sheet of paper). My PCs in this campaign are pretty new, so they're still getting the hang of the roleplaying side of gaming, and this helps them get ideas for personal goals.
Quote from: hexgrid;487904I always thought the murder-hobo thing was kind of like this- a sort of joking acknowledgement that D&D "heroes" often aren't really very heroic. Not an attack on D&D or anyone's play style.
Yeah, I take it more or less that way, too.
On the one hand, there is plenty to D&D other than killing and looting.
On the other hand, a rather noticable majority of the game tends to be spent on killing and looting. That's where the action is. And let's face it, even when PCs are trying to be good, even lawful good, they still tend to stall out at being rather greedy and power-hungry.
For example, PCs may negotiate their way out of a fight with orcs, but they aren't establishing full diplomatic relations any time soon. They certainly aren't starting the Goblin Anti-Defamation League and lobbying the king for equal goblin rights. They don't have any humanitarian missions to deliver food and medical supplies to the starving Hobgoblin marauders. Even amongst other humans/demi-humans, the "let's just beat it out of them" tactic tends to be the one of choice when they need information.
And forget about money. PCs are almost always mercenaries - even the lawful good ones insist on being paid for most things. They may or may not return recovered stolen treasure. They may avoid stealing from religious burial sites but that's about it. And what money they do have pretty much never gets given to the poor, and even the hint the ruler wants to tax them gets scowls. They aren't afraid to steal thing they "really need" from the local peasants, either.
IME, most PCs go back and forth between the lines of "flawed hero who breaks the rules", "full-fledged anti-hero", and "complete psycho". Anyone who plays "virtuous hero" always retires the character quickly because it doesn't really work that well.
Quote from: Werekoala;487788I'll only be a murder hobo if I can use a shotgun.
And look like Rutger Hauer.
I have a friend who's an excellent DM, but he prefers the dungeon crawl aspect of the game, which I have accused him of trying to make murder-hobo's out of my characters (I prefer games more like The Three Musketeers; plenty of intrigue and (demi-)human interaction).
Conan was a murder-hobo until he became king.
Most RPGs lend themselves to murder-hoboism and certainly most CRPGs are ubermurder-hoboville with a thin veneer of "story" tossed on top. Kinda like a side salad at an all-meat bbq.
I have certainly played & run whole Traveller campaigns where the PCs were "dirty deeds done real expensive" fleeing from planet to planet with bounty hunters after them for their various crimes. Was it fun? Hell yeah!!!
The only way I see D&D not being murder hobo is when the PCs have ties to the NPCs in the world and do more than kill stuff and loot. Wandering tomb robbers in a dungeon sandbox can have deep ties, but that's a choice by the GM and players to make that happen.
Right, I'm all for the spaghetti-western school of RPGing.
The very term "adventurers" isn't all that reputable. If you introduce yourself as an "adventurer" in some times & places, you might be seen as nothing more than a "drifter" putting on airs.
But adventurers don't "murder" unless you either
a) Have the sort of players who look at every NPC as nothing more than a sack of XP and treasure,
OR
b) Buy into the reductionist anti-D&D hack job which glosses all of the following as "murder":
- Fighting in the course of exploring a dungeon. (Do monsters have a common-law right to peaceable enjoyment of the ruins in which they're squatting, extending to attacking passersby?)
- Taking the fight to the enemy. (Attacking the lair of outlaws or raiding orcs, to capture, kill, or drive them off.)
- Getting into fights while engaged in a quest.
- Using deadly force anywhere, any time.
Let's face it, if D&D adventurers are "murder-hobos", then so are Bilbo & Frodo.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;487928Let's face it, if D&D adventurers are "murder-hobos", then so are Bilbo & Frodo.
Well, they had permanent homes, so they were more like murder-vacationers.
So it's not really "Murder-hobos" but rather "Killer-hobos" or the more delicate "Fighting-hobos".....
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Werekoala;487934Well, they had permanent homes, so they were more like murder-vacationers.
They were murder-hobbits, of course.
I propose the following experiment: run your next D&D campaign following the universe rules of the Hercules: The Legendary Journeys (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111999/) TV show.
A non-exhaustive summary: Hercules & Iolaus never kill a human being or sentient demi-human. Monsters are fair game. They don't carry money, instead working for food and shelter as they wander about fake Achaea. They never accept material reward for anything they do, and any "treasure" found in the course of their adventures is returned to the people of the nearest town. They always defer to local authority, unless the local kinglet is demonstrably corrupt. Monsters are to be destroyed; conflicts between warring groups of people are to resolved with diplomacy, although backed with the threat of force where necessary.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;487971They were murder-hobbits, of course.
Don't make me come over there....
Quote from: Novastar;487924And look like Rutger Hauer.
I have a friend who's an excellent DM, but he prefers the dungeon crawl aspect of the game, which I have accused him of trying to make murder-hobo's out of my characters (I prefer games more like The Three Musketeers; plenty of intrigue and (demi-)human interaction).
Swear to god, the more I accentuate the social-towing game, they complain they want more dungeon, then I they find adventure, and they tell me, "I thought this was a social- biased game..."
Quote from: jgants;487915Anyone who plays "virtuous hero" always retires the character quickly because it doesn't really work that well.
I get the whole spaghetti-western school of play but most times my PCs (for
D&D, at least) are more like the
Magnificent Seven or like Indiana Jones - "
Fortune and glory, kid. Fortune and glory"
Slight tangent. Are there any rules in
D&D for giving XP for "good" deeds regardless of alignment?
Regards,
David R
I'm fine with murder hobo as a character type but dislike murder hobos as a style of play. Yes, I'm sorry, I think the PCs should have better motives than killing things and taking their stuff. Actually in most of my games the big rewards are received from patrons for services rendered. Especially in medieval fantasy games where its much more appropriate than a Kmart style cash economy.
Interestingly, a lot of MMORPGs have shifted design focus from kill monsters/snarf loot giving the most XP to major quests giving the most XP. Some, like Guild Wars, actually tell you up front that grinding in the countryside is fairly pointless.
Damnit I may just have to give Guild Wars a try now.
Quote from: daniel_ream;487989Interestingly, a lot of MMORPGs have shifted design focus from kill monsters/snarf loot giving the most XP to major quests giving the most XP. Some, like Guild Wars, actually tell you up front that grinding in the countryside is fairly pointless.
Technically World of Warcraft is like that too... the fastest levelling is through quests... but the vast majority of the quests are to go kill someone/something and take stuff from them...
It's thinly disguised grinding... "go kill 40 diseased bears and bring me their livers... so I can study the corruption."
Not to say they haven't improved a lot from the old days... there are some very inventive quests now... but they're still only a drop in the bucket next to the kill/loot ones.
It would be great if XP could be given for the various 'Achievements' they've set up... such as for exploration, reputation, crafting... but that might require there be some other endgame than the synchronized swimming events they call 'Raids'.
Quote from: Simlasa;488000Technically World of Warcraft is like that too... the fastest levelling is through quests... but the vast majority of the quests are to go kill someone/something and take stuff from them...
Guild Wars has a lot more fetch quests than target practice quests, but yes, it does suffer the same problem. GW has the (slight) advantage that they really go overboard on the scenery porn, so trekking through the countryside is at least pretty.
One thing I've never understood is why MMOs that have instanced quests can't have branching plot trees and multiple "endings", like any Bioware RPG. There's nothing technical preventing it (GW does have class-specific side quests, but they're kind of irrelevant).
In Which I Stir The Shit.
The full essay (in drag as a meta-RPG) by John Tynes is here (http://johntynes.com/revland2000/rl_powerkill.html). Do go and read it all, it's important. Note you do not have to agree with it, but we need to start on the same page.
For the impatient, here is the money quote:
Quote from: John Tynes, c. 1996The actions taken by characters in [normal roleplaying games] would almost always be completely unacceptable in the real world; it is only the shoddy trappings of genre conventions that allow RPG players to consider their stories "heroic" or "dramatic." Stripped bare of themes and story arcs, RPG sessions consist of endless variations on the life of a criminal.
No roleplaying game currently in print encourages players to act out roles that are fully in accordance with the laws and customs of society, either those of the real world or of the fictional world that the RPG is set in. Murder, theft, extortion, burglary, and other serious crimes are the bread and butter of RPG storytelling; regardless of a game's higher purpose, it still amounts to story after story that consist of nothing significant other than gross criminal behavior covered in a glossy coat of genre acceptability.
When I was an undergrad, the anime fan club had a lot of trouble getting people to come out to showings because the only anime they'd ever heard of was Urotsukidoji[1] The club had a set of anime of wildly varying genres they would show to people as a demonstration that Urotsukidoji was an aberration[2], not indicative of the whole medium.
So here's a challenge: what currently in print/easily available TTRPGs would you present to someone to disprove Tynes' thesis?
EDIT:Quote from: Peregrin;488073By easily available, I'm assuming you're excluding obscure indie titles like Shooting The Moon.
All I mean is "you could show this to someone and then say 'and here is where you can go get it' and have that process be simple".
So anything currently available on IPR or DTRPG counts, for instance.
[1] Don't Google it. Seriously. It makes the Saw movies look like a restrained and tasteful meditation on the human condition.
[2] In more ways than one.
Pendragon?
What if you're only murdering/extorting/robbing that irredeemably evil-race/group over there? That's "fully in accordance with the laws and customs of society"... right?
This is also reminding me of that social experiment where the students were divided into prisoners and jailers... most people will tend towards bullying if there is any excuse that lets them get away with it. So surprising that games played predominantly by powerless geeks and maladroids focuses on beating up on other folks.
Most of my games involve characters that completely support society. Outlaw games are against tyranny. Only cyberpunk and cattlepunk involve much criminal behavior.
I submit d&d as the main game about heroic characters, reclaiming treasure from and holding back the terrors of the wild.
I saw that thread on rpg.net. It was a classic example of why discussion without play is so futile.
Does the poster have players who play murder-hobos when that's not what he wants out of the game? Talk to them.
Does he not face this problem, but just thinks it's out there and so wonders how to fix it? Why spend time fixing a problem that may not exist and which even if it does exist may not be a problem for those participating in that activity?
The whole thread was wank. It was perfectly clear this wasn't something he was actually experiencing in his own gaming. His concern was the theoretical possibility that people somewhere else were playing in a way he thought inferior and how to educate them out of it through game mechanics. Wank.
Quote from: Cranewings;488076Most of my games involve characters that completely support society. Outlaw games are against tyranny.
I guess the question is why does that 'support' just about always come in the form of killing and looting... vs. diplomacy, peacemaking, exploration without conquering? I can't think of any big campaigns where the goal was to make peace with the giants/orcs/Drow, rather than chopping them into bits and taking their stuff.
If RPGs had developed out of, say, the toy theaters of the 1800s... rather than wargames... would they still be so focused on combat?
I'd say most of the original Traveller games I ran or played in had very little in the way of law-breaking; most combat was in self-defense, and there was a lot of exploration and peaceful/legal trading going on. There was a notable time when a PC chased a criminal we were after onto a bus and opened up with a shotgun (really) - he ended up as an NPC that as far as I know is still languishing on a prison planet to this day.
Any "toolset" TTRPG (GURPS, Fate, etc.) of course has no criminal element to it, but I guess that's a given.
Quote from: daniel_ream;488067So here's a challenge: what currently in print/easily available TTRPGs would you present to someone to disprove Tynes' thesis?
GURPS, BRP, Spycraft, Mutants and Masterminds...
In fact, it's harder to name an RPG that
supports Tynes' thesis. Shadowrun, I suppose, would be a prime example, along with Poison'd.
Violence is common in RPGs. However, RPGs, in their rules per se, or even in their GMing advice (in my experience) don't generally encourage "Murder, theft, extortion, burglary, and other serious crimes". The only rudimentary encouragement I can find is:
1. Rules for violence are commonly detailed and fun mechanically, and often violence isn't so dangerous to PCs.
2. Some games explicitly tie experience points to successful violence--with varying degrees of wiggle room. D&D originally was a prime example of this, and has been less and more so over time. However for example I do not believe that GURPS does this.
However, the mere presence of "violence" doesn't make a "story" un-heroic, obviously.
I will have to return and read the entire essay, which I think I've read before, but the concept strikes me as, to quote myself, projecting one's own damage onto the hobby as a whole.
Also, and apologies if this has already been pointed out, but the OP at rpg.net was factually wrong. OD&D doesn't primarily reward killing things and taking their stuff. It primarily rewards getting loot, and rewards to a much smaller degree killing things. If the only way you can think of to get loot is killing stuff that says more about you than the game.
The smart player playing by the rules as written in OD&D avoids combat which is high risk and instead sneaks, cajoles or does whatever else is necessary short of actually risking their own neck to get the loot. If they can grab the money and run, they do. If they can get some other guy to fight, they do.
If they're playing just for the XP, which they most likely aren't because people aren't robots blindly responding to reward mechanics.
Original D&D didn't have thieves because all the characters were thieves. The idea that the game primarily rewarded killing stuff is a misremembering of the actual mechanics.
Tynes' point is somewhat undermined by the fact that the actions of the protagonists in most action-orientated entertainment media would be uancceptable in the real world.
His point holds pretty good for action movies, comics, certain genres of novels and so on.
It's a good essay in that it's thought provoking, but it's not (and I don't think it's intended to be) holy writ. It's meant to make the reader think. I'm not sure Tynes necessarily expects agreement or even himself agrees.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;488083In fact, it's harder to name an RPG that supports Tynes' thesis. Shadowrun, I suppose, would be a prime example, along with Poison'd.
Despite being generally horrible, I don't think the latter supports it at all.
The essay was originally included with Costikyan's
Violence RPG, and, IIRC, the point of that game wasn't to say you shouldn't have violence or criminal activity, but to acknowledge that the acts of your character can be and sometimes are heinous and not something that should be idolized or empathized with. In fact some people interpreted it as a call to take in-game extremes even further under the acknowledgement that "Yes, this is fucked up shit, but I am not my character and should not necessarily hold their values."
Poison'd, if I understand the game correctly, does the usually arm's length between character and self that story-games tend to have, and actively encourages the judgment of characters through its rules, which is what I think sets it apart from the type of dynamic Tynes talks about (hence the label Schizo Psychopath for the meta-game versions of characters in Powerkill).
Quote from: D-503;488087Tynes' point is somewhat undermined by the fact that the actions of the protagonists in most action-orientated entertainment media would be uancceptable in the real world.
It seems to me that action movies are what a lot of modern RPGs (and video games) are trying to emulate... enabling that sort of behavior without real world consequences. Is it all some reflection of people being frustrated that they can't beat on each other? Did Fight Club have the right idea?
I can sort of see that Sim, but is the essay's issue with violence and crime itself, or with the preference for violence and crime that (in the author's view) the demographic displays?
Am I crazy or is the same exact discussion happening on the swine thread. Sounds like the evil orc debate from a month or so ago.
I guess I'm repeating that old thing about us being inherently blood-thirsty violent critters... strapped into civilized straight-jackets... so no wonder our entertainment choices tend towards explosions and murder.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;488100Am I crazy or is the same exact discussion happening on the swine thread. Sounds like the evil orc debate from a month or so ago.
Yeah there's definitely a Venn diagram with the "People who use the term Murder Hobos as a slight against D&D and it's players" and the "D&D is colonial and racist" crowd being an intersection.
Quote from: Simlasa;488080I guess the question is why does that 'support' just about always come in the form of killing and looting... vs. diplomacy, peacemaking, exploration without conquering? I can't think of any big campaigns where the goal was to make peace with the giants/orcs/Drow, rather than chopping them into bits and taking their stuff.
If RPGs had developed out of, say, the toy theaters of the 1800s... rather than wargames... would they still be so focused on combat?
In the game I'm running now, the party has:
rescued a bunch of people from a vampire blood doll basement
helped a keep on the boarder fight off a horde of skeletons
taken an archmage to the edge of the mountains so he could view a silver dragon, and then return
killed a bunch of thieves guild members who were plotting to kill the clerics of athena
rescued a persian ship wrecked crew, retrieved their gold from Hades, and are now returning that gold to the persian king
obtained a fire flower from a forbidden mountain for a wizard so he could repair his wand. They did so without fighting anything.
I could keep going, and they are fucking level 2.
You can't make peace with orcs and giants because the gods put them their to fuck with humans, at least in my game.
I'm in the 'Murder Hobos can be a fun way to play, even when it's racist and colonial' camp.
Quote from: Simlasa;488101I guess I'm repeating that old thing about us being inherently blood-thirsty violent critters... strapped into civilized straight-jackets... so no wonder our entertainment choices tend towards explosions and murder.
What I meant was that in video-games and movies there is a bit more diversity, even in the mainstream. For as popular as Call of Duty and its ilk are, it will never be as popular as the Sims or Pokemon. Not to mention the self-awareness a lot of video-games display at the ludicrous-ness of traditional RPG tropes like looting and whatnot.
In terms of films good comedies/serious films tend to do just as well as action movies. Plus, even in something like the Dark Knight, you have a hero who refuses to kill, and whose own actions are questioned by a supporting character because they're unethical.
That sort of diversity in desire for different types of content and self-reflection on said content I've found lacking in tabletop wargames and RPGs. Pulp type action is definitely more popular and has marginalized a lot of other types of games. Which I think is a shame beyond the whole "is this good?" question, since other games (like historical fiction) are pushed to the side along with the more lighthearted or non-violent games.
TTRPGs and Wargames are just another kind of board game. My fiance' likes the Sims and Scrabble. I like Call of Duty and D&D. They aren't any different. I'd argue that her and her friends get more engaged in Scrabble than some D&D people I know get engaged in the game.
There isn't much diversity in war games because they are war games. They are a part of the diversity of board games. I know plenty of war gamers that play Settlers of Catan and Scrabble.
You're asking a question along the lines of, "Why isn't their more to the game than killing between Call of Duty, Battle Field, and Quake?"
I have run entire campaigns with no combat at all, where everything was about intrigue and investigation. I've also run sitcom sessions of standard games. However I would argue that violent video games are by far the most popular. Sure you have the sims, but you also have grandtgeft auto, resident evil, and wow. RPGs tend to draw on action, adventure and fantasy , largely because those are much easier genres to emulate than romantic comedies or legal dramas. I don't think that makes RPGs shady or in need of adjustment. If people are so sensitive that Indiana Jones or Willow present a problem, oh well.
Quote from: Cranewings;488111TTRPGs and Wargames are just another kind of board game. My fiance' likes the Sims and Scrabble. I like Call of Duty and D&D. They aren't any different. I'd argue that her and her friends get more engaged in Scrabble than some D&D people I know get engaged in the game.
There isn't much diversity in war games because they are war games. They are a part of the diversity of board games. I know plenty of war gamers that play Settlers of Catan and Scrabble.
You're asking a question along the lines of, "Why isn't their more to the game than killing between Call of Duty, Battle Field, and Quake?"
Exclude wargames, I threw it in their without thinking, since the communities overlap so much. Should've just said "tabletop hobby community."
Quote from: BedrockBrendanHowever I would argue that violent video games are by far the most popular. Sure you have the sims, but you also have grandtgeft auto, resident evil, and wow.
Traditionally, they're not the most popular, and the rise in their popularity also corresponded to PC developers moving to consoles, and they traditionally made games for the hobbyist gamer market, rather than everyday folk (esp. considering a lot of PC franchises were derived from tabletop games). They're also largely Western developers, who have risen to prominence with the success of the Xbox, while Japanese devs have sort of faded out a bit. But at that point you'd be getting into a discussion about the role of violence in entertainment in different cultures, and I'm not well versed in that at all.
QuoteI don't think that makes RPGs shady or in need of adjustment. If people are so sensitive that Indiana Jones or Willow present a problem, oh well.
I don't think the author of the essay would have a problem with those movies. After all, we're talking about the guy who conceived the idea of Unknown Armies.
Yes, Tynes' point, if it has any validity at all, is found in the deeper fact that people crave the fictional depiction of violence--and even, in the case of some sports, watching and participating in actual violence which is constrained and regulated.
Therefore one could argue that much fictional violence exists not in the service of the "narrative", but that the narrative is structured in order to make the violence (which is the real goal) socially acceptable.
In this way, RPGs are similar to movies and other media, although I do think that violence is more common and more frequent in RPGs, even if you compare RPGs with action-oriented genres of books, movies, etc.
This suggests a subtext of the essay and related critiques, that violence in RPGs is just a matter of inertia and if it weren't for the hidebound traditions of the hobby, we would have games with less violence. Oh, and not only that, games with less violence (such as ) would be warmly welcomed by "the market".
But off the top of my head, I can think of a couple reasons that RPGs tend toward violence without conceding this subtext. One is that game-type mechanics involving manipulation of resources, spatial relationships, etc., are inherently fun, and the most obvious representational application of the above is: simulation of violence. Another is that narrative sophistication of the kind found in other media requires skills that aren't widespread, and which are particularly hard to couple with the improvisational nature of an RPG session, where revisions and rewrites aren't available. Therefore, the baseline of RPGs is: simple conflicts, resolved by simple means.
Quote from: Peregrin;488109What I meant was that in video-games and movies there is a bit more diversity, even in the mainstream. For as popular as Call of Duty and its ilk are, it will never be as popular as the Sims or Pokemon. Not to mention the self-awareness a lot of video-games display at the ludicrous-ness of traditional RPG tropes like looting and whatnot.
In terms of films good comedies/serious films tend to do just as well as action movies. Plus, even in something like the Dark Knight, you have a hero who refuses to kill, and whose own actions are questioned by a supporting character because they're unethical.
That sort of diversity in desire for different types of content and self-reflection on said content I've found lacking in tabletop wargames and RPGs. Pulp type action is definitely more popular and has marginalized a lot of other types of games. Which I think is a shame beyond the whole "is this good?" question, since other games (like historical fiction) are pushed to the side along with the more lighthearted or non-violent games.
This is about how I feel. I think another good example of a medium being pared down to a single genre (and the harmful effect this can have) is mainstream American comics. The medium can and should do more. Or rather publishers should recognize that the medium can do more, as comickers often skip the publishers and make more diverse work these days.
Quote from: Cranewings;488111TTRPGs and Wargames are just another kind of board game. My fiance' likes the Sims and Scrabble. I like Call of Duty and D&D. They aren't any different. I'd argue that her and her friends get more engaged in Scrabble than some D&D people I know get engaged in the game.
There isn't much diversity in war games because they are war games. They are a part of the diversity of board games. I know plenty of war gamers that play Settlers of Catan and Scrabble.
You're asking a question along the lines of, "Why isn't their more to the game than killing between Call of Duty, Battle Field, and Quake?"
Conversely, sometimes formats have arbitrary distinctions. When I first saw Starcraft I thought of it as SimCity2000 at war. SimCity games have similar resource gathering/attrition gameplay elements, even without an opponent. Likewise the first person format is used by sandbox RPGs like New Vegas. Ostensibly, pacifism was supposed to be viable in that game, though I haven't tried it myself. And hardcore got me excited for the possibility of a first person Oregon Trail type game (not that anyone's about to make that).
I guess what I'm saying is that the core of what makes RPGs work can still work for more genres/situations than people give it credit for.
I think that is undoubtedly true and has been proven to be so many times over in actual play at the game tables of real RPGers.
However, the audience as a whole is less interested than many a designer/evangelist would like. Especially when they think they deserve to make a living out of their art.
Therefore you get whine/screeds (scrines?) like Powerkill, Violence, most essays by Ron Edwards, etc. (http://www.johnheronproject.com/wp/?p=30), etc. (http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/itoolkit1.html)
Peregin I really have to question your claim that violent video games havent been the most popular. I'm no video game expert but I grew up playing console, arcade and computer games from the early 80s to the end of the 90s (havent played a v game since 2003). Pretty much most of the popular games were violent: double dragon, street fighter, akari warriors, phantasy star, zelda, castlevania, mortal combat. Computer games were pretty darn violent too as I recall. Definitely think the violence has increased, but its popularity in the medium is nothing new.
I think we're using different definitions of the term "violent video games." I'm using it to refer to games with explicit killing and violent behavior as primary themes, so I wouldn't include Zelda in there (most of it is a dressed up puzzle game).
Also, none of those games you list are anywhere near as popular as Mario, Tetris, or Pac Man. Popular, yes. In the top lists? Yes. But not "most popular." The most popular games are generally puzzlers, platformers, and mini-strategy games. This is being proven again by the success of casual video-games and more contemporary titles (like Rock Band and other rhythm/music games).
I mean, let's take a look at the best-selling games from back then:
QuoteAtari 2600
Atari 2600
Atari 2600 games that have sold or shipped at least one million copies.
Pac-Man (7 million)[1][2]
Pitfall! (4 million)[3][4]
Missile Command (2.5 million)[5]
Demon Attack (2 million)[5]
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1.5 million)[6]
Adventure (1 million)[4]
Atlantis (1 million)[3]
Cosmic Ark (1 million)[5]
Kaboom! (1 million)[7]
Megamania (1 million)[3]
River Raid (1 million)[7]
Space Invaders (1 million)[4]
Nintendo Entertainment System
Nintendo Entertainment System
Main article: List of best-selling Nintendo Entertainment System games
Nintendo Entertainment System (NES)/Family Computer (Famicom) video games that have sold or shipped at least two million copies.
Super Mario Bros. (40.24 million)[45][46]
Super Mario Bros. 3 (18 million)[47]
Super Mario Bros. 2 (10 million)[48]
The Legend of Zelda (6.51 million)[49]
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link (4.38 million)[49]
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (4 million)[50]
Dragon Warrior III (3.8 million in Japan)[51]
Dragon Warrior IV (3.1 million in Japan)[51]
Golf (2.46 million in Japan)[51]
Dragon Warrior II (2.4 million in Japan)[51][52]
Baseball (2.35 million in Japan)[51]
R.C. Pro-Am (2.3 million)[53]
Mahjong (2.13 million in Japan)[51]
Family Stadium (2.05 million in Japan)[51]
Punch-Out!! (2 million)[54]
Super Nintendo Entertainment System
Main article: List of best-selling Super Nintendo Entertainment System video games
North American Super Nintendo Entertainment System
Super Nintendo Entertainment System video games that have sold or shipped at least four million copies.
Super Mario World (20.60 million)[56][46]
Donkey Kong Country (8 million)[57]
Super Mario Kart (8 million)[58]
Street Fighter II: The World Warrior (6.3 million)[59]
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (4.61 million)[49]
Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest (4.37 million approximately: 2.21 million in Japan,[51] 2.16 million in US)[19]
Street Fighter II Turbo (4.1 million)[59]
Star Fox (4 million)[60]
Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island (4 million)[56]
Nintendo 64
Nintendo 64
Main article: List of best-selling Nintendo 64 video games
Nintendo 64 video games that have sold or shipped at least three million copies.
Super Mario 64 (11.62 million)[61][46]
Mario Kart 64 (9 million)[62]
GoldenEye 007 (8 million)[63][64]
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (7.6 million)[49]
Super Smash Bros. (5 million)[65]
Diddy Kong Racing (4.434 million approximately: 3.78 million in US and PAL,[66] 653,928 in Japan)[67]
Pokémon Stadium (3.871 million approximately: 3.16 million in US,[19] 710,765 in Japan)[67]
Donkey Kong 64 (3.77 million approximately: 2.67 million in US,[19] 1.1 million in Japan)[51]
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (3.36 million)[49]
Star Fox 64 (3.325 million approximately: 2.76 million in US,[19] 565,222 in Japan)[67]
Banjo-Tooie (3 million)[68]
Sega Mega Drive/Genesis games that have sold or shipped at least one million copies.
Sonic the Hedgehog (15 million as pack-in;[98] over 4 million separately)[99]
Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (6 million)[100]
Aladdin (4 million)[101]
NBA Jam (1.93 million in US)[19]
Mortal Kombat II (1.78 million in US)[19]
Street Fighter II: Special Champion Edition (1.65 million)[59]
Altered Beast (at least 1.4 million in the US)[102]
Sonic & Knuckles (1.24 million in US)[19]
Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (1.02 million in US)[19]
Mortal Kombat 3 (1.02 million in US)[19]
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (1 million in US)[103][104]
Ms. Pac-Man (more than 1 million in US)[105]
NFL 98 (more than 1 million in US)[106]
Sonic Spinball ("each selling over one million units in 1993")[107]
Jurassic Park ("each selling over one million units in 1993")[107]
NFL Football '94 Starring Joe Montana ("each selling over one million units in 1993")[107]
Marvel Comic's X-Men ("each selling over one million units in 1993")[107]
And even when violent titles are in the top lists, sales are often dwarfed. The only platform where this wasn't true up through N64 was the PC, which again, drew most of its creative inspiration from tabletop games, or was influenced by them (Carmack's father played D&D, Sandy Petersen worked on DOOM, etc. -- a lot more crossover). Western developers during the heyday of the PC were extremely obsessed with titles revolving around war or violence as themes. Even then, titles like Myst, The Sims, Sim City, Civilization, and Minecraft are far more recognizable in the mainstream than something like Half-Life, because they were able to break outside of the hobbyist market.
The violent stuff is mostly gobbled up by us hobbyists ("gamers", or whatever), not the mainstream.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;488136I think that is undoubtedly true and has been proven to be so many times over in actual play at the game tables of real RPGers.
However, the audience as a whole is less interested than many a designer/evangelist would like. Especially when they think they deserve to make a living out of their art.
Therefore you get whine/screeds (scrines?) like Powerkill, Violence, most essays by Ron Edwards, etc. (http://www.johnheronproject.com/wp/?p=30), etc. (http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/itoolkit1.html)
I tend to agree with some of what you're saying here. The RPG "middle" may skew a little violent in the same way that the American "middle" skews right. I just think that as with comics, the skew was recognized and became exaggerated at some point.
I also think that part of the reason non-combat elements lose focus is the frequency with which they are poorly recognized and implemented. RPGs also have huge potential for mechanical strength in exploration, power-mongering, stealth, chase scenes, etc. All perfectly useful in the (still potentially violent) adventure genre.
And as others will point out, when death is on the line, the rules must be clear. Social rules can be handwaved much more easily than combat can be. And things with rules may get more attention at the table.
So there may be a cumulative resistance to risk-taking in other aspects of the rules (or even including such things), a need for combat rules, and a perception of play that develops from the rules available and makes people think "this is all they do with those games."
Quote from: Peregrin;488138I think we're using different definitions of the term "violent video games." I'm using it to refer to games with explicit killing and violent behavior as primary themes, so I wouldn't include Zelda in there (most of it is a dressed up puzzle game).
Also, none of those games you list are anywhere near as popular as Mario, Tetris, or Pac Man. Popular, yes. In the top lists? Yes. But not "most popular." The most popular games are generally puzzlers, platformers, and mini-strategy games. This is being proven again by the success of casual video-games and more contemporary titles (like Rock Band and other rhythm/music games).
The violent stuff is mostly gobbled up by us hobbyists ("gamers", or whatever), not the mainstream.
Again, I don't think that is true. Mario was popular but then so was shinobi or space invaders. Do you have numbers to support your claim?
Puzzlers were and remain popular. Angry birds and any number of similar games are big on smart phones. I just don't see these as being anywhere near as prevalent as the violent ones.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;488140Again, I don't think that is true. Mario was popular but then so was shinobi or space invaders. Do you have numbers to support your claim?
Puzzlers were and remain popular. Angry birds and any number of similar games are big on smart phones. I just don't see these as being anywhere near as prevalent as the violent ones.
See my post, I added some info.
Also, if you don't consider an install-base of 500 million as "anywhere near as prevalent" as Call of Duty's sub 20 million (12 mil for Black Ops, 4-5 mil for Modern Warfare), I don't know what your definition of "prevalent" is.
Quote from: Peregrin;488141See my post, I added some info.
Also, if you don't consider an install-base of 500 million as "anywhere near as prevalent" as Call of Duty's sub 20 million (12 mil for Black Ops, 4-5 mil for Modern Warfare), I don't know what your definition of "prevalent" is.
I am looking it over. Still remain very skeptical (but only because my personal memories of the 80s are very different from the figures presented). Can you link to the source? Even so I see a lot of violent games as the broad base of popular titles once you get past the mascot games like super mario (which I believe came with the system at one point).
I am not sure what you mean about the 500 million installs.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;488142I am looking it over. Still remain very skeptical (but only because my personal memories of the 80s are very different from the figures presented). Can you link to the source? Even so I see a lot of violent games as the broad base of popular titles once you get past the mascot games like super mario (which I believe came with the system at one point).
I am not sure what you mean about the 500 million installs.
Source is wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games
Only reason I link to wikipedia (since I don't like to use it if I can find a primary source) is because compiling the lists from the various magazines and other sources is a pain to do.
500 million is the number of installs Angry Birds has -- the number of unique users who have downloaded and played the game. Popcap games (they make puzzlers and other casual titles) also produced record numbers that shattered any game-magazine list of best-sellers for a long time, but I think that company changed hands and I haven't heard anything about them in a while.
Currently the most popular platforms for gaming are portables and phones. I haven't seen many violent titles top those lists, except on the PSP, which is aimed at more "hardcore" gamers.
And I can understand being skeptical. But you have to remember, if you consider yourself a "gamer" on any level, you're going to have a very different perception of what was popular and what wasn't. If I went along with my own perceptions, I'd probably end up with a conclusion similar to yours. But having had many conversations about old-school video-games with coworkers of mine who are around my age (24) and aren't gamers, most of their memories are of the platformers, racers, and puzzlers, not of the fighters or violent action games.
Angry 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).
I wasn't a hard core gamer but I played about as much as most kids my age in the 80s (I am 34). Most of the games I remember playing on console and computer (and at the arcade) were violent. I had friends that were heavy gamers but I tended toward lighter stuff like boxing (punch out, buster douglass and ring kings-i think that was the title), double dragon, golden axe, afterburner, castlevania, rush n attack, etc. Even most of my intellivision games were violent: tron, the tank game, dracula (where you had to suck peoples blood before sunrise). I don't remember puzzlers getting popular ti the early 90s or so (maybe the late 80s) but I saw that mainly as middle aged man stuff (my dad loved tetris for example).
Quote from: beejazz;488139I also think that part of the reason non-combat elements lose focus is the frequency with which they are poorly recognized and implemented. RPGs also have huge potential for mechanical strength in exploration, power-mongering, stealth, chase scenes, etc. All perfectly useful in the (still potentially violent) adventure genre.
And as others will point out, when death is on the line, the rules must be clear. Social rules can be handwaved much more easily than combat can be. And things with rules may get more attention at the table.
So there may be a cumulative resistance to risk-taking in other aspects of the rules (or even including such things), a need for combat rules, and a perception of play that develops from the rules available and makes people think "this is all they do with those games."
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're getting at with the bolded part unless you're saying that the RPG community as a whole hasn't been very innovative with respect to rules for social activity within the fiction represented by the game. Here again I think there are good reasons (largely having to do with "immersion" and elaborated partly here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=422002&postcount=210) and here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=422406&postcount=248)). And whatever the theory may be, the actual fact is that social combat and such have been around for a while, and if they were going to catch on, I think they would have. (I claim that, at the moment the
relative success (or at least visibility) of mechanics such as found in Dogs in the Vineyard or Burning Wheel is more a product of Internet-tunnel-vision and the
absolute contraction of the RPG hobby & industry, than anything else.)
More important, although I can certainly see room for mechanical improvement in my own gaming when it comes to things like handling chases, or large-scale conflicts & initiatives, I think it's been a long time since I've often felt uncomfortable (in any sense) with the level of violence in the games I've actually played, as opposed to ones I've read about. In short
Powerkill doesn't really speak to me--it comes across either as preaching at me not to play in a way that I enjoy (if my violence is too much for Mr. Tynes), or as encouraging me to look down on others. Neither of which really helps my game.
I usually play really casually. So yeah. GM is very clear on when death occurs and often there are ways to come back from death.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;488146I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're getting at with the bolded part unless you're saying that the RPG community as a whole hasn't been very innovative with respect to rules for social activity within the fiction represented by the game. Here again I think there are good reasons (largely having to do with "immersion" and elaborated partly here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=422002&postcount=210) and here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=422406&postcount=248)). And whatever the theory may be, the actual fact is that social combat and such have been around for a while, and if they were going to catch on, I think they would have. (I claim that, at the moment the relative success (or at least visibility) of mechanics such as found in Dogs in the Vineyard or Burning Wheel is more a product of Internet-tunnel-vision and the absolute contraction of the RPG hobby & industry, than anything else.)
I should have specified that I was referring to larger publishers. And I think part of what I was trying to get at was that there are certain kinds of social interaction better handled by RPGs than others. The goal of combat in RPGs is usually pretty specific: Kill somebody (or survive, capture, or what have you). General social rules might be hard to write because of the variability of potential goals.
QuoteMore important, although I can certainly see room for mechanical improvement in my own gaming when it comes to things like handling chases, or large-scale conflicts & initiatives, I think it's been a long time since I've often felt uncomfortable (in any sense) with the level of violence in the games I've actually played, as opposed to ones I've read about. In short Powerkill doesn't really speak to me--it comes across either as preaching at me not to play in a way that I enjoy (if my violence is too much for Mr. Tynes), or as encouraging me to look down on others. Neither of which really helps my game.
You might be misreading me. I'm not anti-violence. I'm pro-mechanical-variety. Murder-hobos as vagrant sellswords is a big part of the appeal of low-level play for me. I'm a fan of (say) Samurai Champloo or The Good the Bad and the Ugly as a way to play the game. At least in certain genres. Stops being cool in modern realistic games for some reason.
I thought about it.
I think that term describes World of Warcraft characters.
Fighting is where the game is for most TRPGs. That's why it's so fucking popular.
It's no surprise, therefore, that the TRPGs that have plenty of compelling minigames attract and retain doggedly loyal fanbases- especially if those very minigames interact in pleasing manners. (It's why I love Spycraft and Fantasycraft.)
Investigation without a proper minigame is boring as fuck. Hacking is boring as fuck, likewise. One guy rolls some dice and the rest of us take a nap. Talking to NPCs is boring as fuck without a minigame attached. The smart thing for the majority of people is to either make a decent minigame out of it or to do a quick check and move on to something fun- like an awesome car chase, dog fight, firefight or brawl.
Violence in games is a form of escapism, catharsis and the most visceral form of problem solving. If you need to justify it, you're doing it wrong.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David R;488183Violence in games is a form of escapism, catharsis and the most visceral form of problem solving. If you need to justify it, you're doing it wrong.
Regards,
David R
I was about to post that it is even simpler than most people are making it out to be. Drama is conflict, and there are few conflicts more compelling or with higher stakes than trying to stab each other in the face.
Quote from: StormBringer;488187I was about to post that it is even simpler than most people are making it out to be. Drama is conflict, and there are few conflicts more compelling or with higher stakes than trying to stab each other in the face.
True.
I didn't want to frame it in a "drama context" because I think it muddies the waters, a bit. You often hear people go on about "how intense the roleplaying was, though there's wasn't any combat" in their (even in murder-hobo) sessions/games. And I think that's what often forgetten about so-called trad games, the roleplaying aspects without the need for mechanical interference. I personally think these moments, are the main draw of rpgs, but I could wrong.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David R;488188True.
I didn't want to frame it in a "drama context" because I think it muddies the waters, a bit.
It probably does. I was just pointing out the old writer's adage as it applies to RPGs. Unless the game is Paranoia or Ghostbusters, I think there is a certain expectation of some drama at the table.
But to clear up the context, I am referring to 'drama' in the broadest terms, the kind that is found in any game where there are gains to be made and losses to be suffered.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;488171(It's why I love Spycraft and Fantasycraft.)
Here I thought it was just because you were a man of discerning taste. ;)
Quote from: RPGPundit;487719A term I saw used on another forum, ostensibly about roleplaying games but mostly about tangential subjects. It was being used there to refer to D&D Player Characters, suggesting that D&D is a fatally flawed game because instead of producing great heroes, it produces detached vagrants who kill wantonly.
My question: does anyone seriously buy this crap? Is "murder-hobos" an accurate depiction of how you would define the PCs of your D&D game?
RPGPundit
This is a total crock of horse crap. This is the almost the same thing as stating that ALL D&D characters are "LOOTERS".
These are comments made by people who either have a narrow mind or just do not know what D&D is about in general.
PC's in D&D are heroes, plain and simple provided they are of good alignment.
Quote from: kregmosier;487777but it's a good game!
(http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/7861/murderhobos.gif)
Please don't use Imageshack images on this forum.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;488246This is a total crock of horse crap. This is the almost the same thing as stating that ALL D&D characters are "LOOTERS".
These are comments made by people who either have a narrow mind or just do not know what D&D is about in general.
I think that may be part of the problem, and it's not entirely their fault.
I have played with a few groups my age who have had players who've done extremely anti-social things that may even strain the believability of their character. Not Killfuck Soulshitter types, but they've strained disbelief pretty hard. However, a lot of people I play with are more LotR fans than S&S fans, and so they love playing goody-two-shoes types. So I'm not sure how much these murder-hobo thing is a gamer thing, so much as it is a generational thing.
One thing that may have been a problem is that the audience for which D&D was originally published took a lot of assumptions for granted. OG pointed out on tbp that wargamers assumed that your medieval village had a lord, and if you were stirring the shit you would have way more to worry about than a few kobolds. But these sorts of things weren't necessarily assumed by the people who were buying D&D and were not in the expected demographic of middle-aged grognards. So the DM doesn't know how to run a consistent medieval-esque town, and the players run around stirring the shit, but the DM doesn't realize they should be bringing down the hammer on them in the form of the Lord's local militia/guard.
Now if you've got a generation of gamers who had no idea about the type of context D&D was supposed to be framed in, and these 12-13 year olds in the 80s are playing out power fantasies and form a lot of habits and their own assumptions about what D&D is "about", and then I can see some campaigns definitely trending towards the power-trip/anti-social behavior end of things. If you're talking about nerds who already suffer from poor social skills, this is only going to get worse.
So again, I'm not sure it's so much that the game, isolated from everything else, is the problem, so much as it is the relationship that people have to the game. And part of that is because D&D expanded beyond the intended market, catching Gygax & Co. off guard and putting the game in the hands of thousands of people who don't really understand how it's supposed to work.
QuotePlease don't use Imageshack images on this forum.
RPGPundit
Why?
Pundz can't see them for some reason. Use Imgur instead, it works fine.
Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;488246This is the almost the same thing as stating that ALL D&D characters are "LOOTERS".
I have yet to meet any D&D characters who weren't looters. Even the LG Paladins dig through bloody goblin rags looking for coppers.
It is hysterical when playing with kids because half the time they don't wait until the battle is over to start looting.
I played in a Gamma World demo today and there were 5 adults and 2 young teens and neither teen cared if PCs were in danger when they tossed grenades, dropped ground zero blasts and certainly leaped on the looting before the last foe went down.
I would have chastised them, but that would have made me a hypocrite because that's exactly how we played at their age.
Quote from: Spinachcat;488328I have yet to meet any D&D characters who weren't looters. Even the LG Paladins dig through bloody goblin rags looking for coppers.
This is my experience as well. The reasons behind a mission, quest or dungeon crawl might be noble'n'all, but once the heroes start out, they are all ready to pull the bloody +1 armors of their dead opponents still warm corpses and empty the pockets of even the lowliest goblin. I don't know if makes them murderous hobos, but it's hardly noble or especially heroic/classy.
Quote from: Peregrin;488288I think that may be part of the problem, and it's not entirely their fault.
So, something more than the Old School Primer is needed to bring them up to speed? I would have to agree, and that was kind of the stepping off point for me. It seems like the retro-clones are being targeted to a demographic that already knows what they are about, as you mention with the original games.
'Meanwhile Nestor shouted to the Argives, saying, "My friends, Danaan warriors, squires of Ares, let no man lag that he may spoil the dead, and bring back much booty to the ships. Let us kill as many as we can; the bodies will lie upon the plain, and you can despoil them later at your leisure."'
Looting the dead is exactly the sort of thing heroes do from pretty much the beginning of the concept of heroism. The heroes of the Iliad strip the dead and dying on the spot whenever possible.
The reason real people used to take prisoners in war was either to be paid a ransom for their safe return, or to sell them as slaves. If you are not offering either option, then you should not be surprised that your PCs are not taking prisoners.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;488308Pundz can't see them for some reason. Use Imgur instead, it works fine.
It isn't just me. Imageshack has decided that they don't really need a significant part of the world, mainly the third world countries, actually seeing their images. Which to me, makes them fucking useless.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;487719A term I saw used on another forum, ostensibly about roleplaying games but mostly about tangential subjects. It was being used there to refer to D&D Player Characters, suggesting that D&D is a fatally flawed game because instead of producing great heroes, it produces detached vagrants who kill wantonly.
My question: does anyone seriously buy this crap? Is "murder-hobos" an accurate depiction of how you would define the PCs of your D&D game?
RPGPundit
I never thought of it that way before I saw the term... but now that I have, I want to run that game. :D
JG
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;488340The reason real people used to take prisoners in war was either to be paid a ransom for their safe return, or to sell them as slaves. If you are not offering either option, then you should not be surprised that your PCs are not taking prisoners.
I hadn't thought of it that way... but it would be interesting if that were more the norm... with orcs acting more like Somali pirates.
Sorry, I've been away for a couple days but I want to acknowledge bee jazz below...
Quote from: beejazz;488152I should have specified that I was referring to larger publishers. And I think part of what I was trying to get at was that there are certain kinds of social interaction better handled by RPGs than others. The goal of combat in RPGs is usually pretty specific: Kill somebody (or survive, capture, or what have you). General social rules might be hard to write because of the variability of potential goals.
You might be misreading me. I'm not anti-violence. I'm pro-mechanical-variety. Murder-hobos as vagrant sellswords is a big part of the appeal of low-level play for me. I'm a fan of (say) Samurai Champloo or The Good the Bad and the Ugly as a way to play the game. At least in certain genres. Stops being cool in modern realistic games for some reason.
I think we may be talking past each other due to coming in with different agendas, or maybe we're over-agreeing and not seeing it because we phrase things differently.
Addressing your points above, as best I can, I'll reiterate that I don't believe the larger publishers, who address broad audiences, have failed to incorporate social interaction mechanics out of pure conservatism. I think it's "give the people what they want", or really: don't give the people what they don't want, and that is detailed, game-like social rules which are sufficiently integrated that they're hard to ignore. I think that (as you may have argued) this makes mainstream RPGs subject to "combat capture", where the game-oriented players glom onto that aspect of the activity and encourage the combat rules to grow more and more voluminous and detailed.
But for non-game-oriented players, mechanics aren't mainly a source of fun in themselves, but a way of easing the burden of decision-making & adjudication (for the GM), and helping players know what to expect. The main activity of an RPG for these people is "playing pretend"; the rules are just an adjunct for when "pretend" doesn't easily spit out an obvious result.
Skipping a few steps of logic, this may mean that "mainstream" games are nearly always liable to be played in a "murderous hobo" style with groups that don't know better, except
perhaps if the game provides extensive guidelines on setting-based social structures and repercussions, ways to tie the PCs into the setting, etc. And somehow ensures that GMs read that stuff.
But aside from that, working from your comics parallel, I think it's a bit silly for snot-nosed brats to reach their 20s and suddenly declare themselves (a) the new wave in opposition to superheroes, and (b) about to take the mainstream by storm--when in reality underground and indie comics have been around in the US since at least the 1960's, and despite non-superhero comics' occasional inroads into the mainstream (e.g.
Maus), it's really not likely that they'll ever be more than a niche with the genre, or a rare outcropping in the larger culture.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;488513Addressing your points above, as best I can, I'll reiterate that I don't believe the larger publishers, who address broad audiences, have failed to incorporate social interaction mechanics out of pure conservatism. I think it's "give the people what they want", or really: don't give the people what they don't want, and that is detailed, game-like social rules which are sufficiently integrated that they're hard to ignore. I think that (as you may have argued) this makes mainstream RPGs subject to "combat capture", where the game-oriented players glom onto that aspect of the activity and encourage the combat rules to grow more and more voluminous and detailed.
I think it's the combined effect of a formula that works and publisher conservatism. So combat rules are a must *plus* social rules have been done badly *plus* big publishers have the most to lose by taking a chance.
I agree with your points on degree of integration. I like the idea of treating some of the more complex rules as "widgets" to strip out or drop in. Non-combat rules can be built this way. And that's more or less how I see them working in a mainstream game.
QuoteBut for non-game-oriented players, mechanics aren't mainly a source of fun in themselves, but a way of easing the burden of decision-making & adjudication (for the GM), and helping players know what to expect. The main activity of an RPG for these people is "playing pretend"; the rules are just an adjunct for when "pretend" doesn't easily spit out an obvious result.
I see what you're getting at here (I think), and that's what I was trying to get at with the idea of narrower social rules. Like tracking notoriety in GTA/Assassin's Creed, or having "political influence" simplified to the level of abstract currency. As opposed to having a "combat" system come into play at every negotiation. Letting most of that stuff go without rules, and applying rules to the one or two things crucial to track could go a long way. And the "widget" could be easily dumped for dungeon crawling.
Also, some non-combat rules still handle similarly concrete challenges and such. People have also complained about the loss of dungeoncrawling focus or what have you.
QuoteSkipping a few steps of logic, this may mean that "mainstream" games are nearly always liable to be played in a "murderous hobo" style with groups that don't know better, except perhaps if the game provides extensive guidelines on setting-based social structures and repercussions, ways to tie the PCs into the setting, etc. And somehow ensures that GMs read that stuff.
IME, I've seen new players quickly catch on to the whole roleplaying thing with little external input. So that's not really my issue with the combat rules bloat or with the excision of other stuff. I have other issues with that stuff, but the main one is variety. Right now, teir 1 and teir 2 are both combat/chargen rules heavy takes on D&D.
I like vagrant sellswords. I know the game can do more. I think most newbs will quickly catch on to both points. But I also think there's been needless combat bloat and non-combat excisions on the basis of people playing and seeing the "murder hobo" game. I think fewer faster combat rules may be better for the "murder hobo" style, so it might be counterproductive too.
QuoteBut aside from that, working from your comics parallel, I think it's a bit silly for snot-nosed brats to reach their 20s and suddenly declare themselves (a) the new wave in opposition to superheroes, and (b) about to take the mainstream by storm--when in reality underground and indie comics have been around in the US since at least the 1960's, and despite non-superhero comics' occasional inroads into the mainstream (e.g. Maus), it's really not likely that they'll ever be more than a niche with the genre, or a rare outcropping in the larger culture.
Heh. It's what us snot-nosed 20 somethings tend to do.
But I'd point to the success of comics of many genres in Japan, different genres in France/Belgium, and shifts in predominant American genres of comics as examples of why stuff need not remain the same.
60s alternative comics are a pretty specific genre that happened to not appeal (those that I've seen... admittedly limited). I'm talking breadth. I'm talking many genres. I'm talking proven formula as much as you are. I just want more of them.
And lastly, even with supers and that subset of shonen (Bleach, DBZ, etc) not being my thing, I'm certainly not opposed to them. Watchmen, Soul Eater, and others are still pretty cool. At the end of the day, execution carries the piece.
Well, I don't think things don't change, there are just much higher barriers to change than you might think. For example, I thought you might give Japan as an example where comics on a variety of themes & topics are popular, but I suspect there may be deeper cultural and economic reasons why Japanese comics consumption is so different, beyond tradition.
Europe's a good call, too. There are excellent European comics on a variety of subjects and styles, but I'm not sure if say Möbius or Bilal are any more "mainstream" than the Hernandez brothers.
In any case, I think with games, the market (the public) has a great deal of influence over what's popular. There are many, many publishers trying all sorts of things; have been for a long time, so one isn't exactly starved for variety in games as much as one might have trouble finding people to play them with. (There's plenty of variety in American comics, too--even if the market is dominated by superheroes.)
What do you think about Basic Roleplaying? I'm not the first to say it, but I think it's a good example of a system that offers a relative balance between combat rules and other elements, with good customizability as shown by the various incarnations, but above all a fairly "light touch" where the rules generally aren't "the center" of play. I have to give credit to all the authors, from the original Runequest through CoC to modern BRP and Mongoose RQII: the game never deviated too far from this compared to e.g. GURPS, Hero, or D&D.
Quote from: Elliot WilenWell, I don't think things don't change, there are just much higher barriers to change than you might think. For example, I thought you might give Japan as an example where comics on a variety of themes & topics are popular, but I suspect there may be deeper cultural and economic reasons why Japanese comics consumption is so different, beyond tradition.
Japan uses saner publishing formats, and I think that's a big part of it. You get a handful of stories in Shonen Jump (or whatever) so if one of them's not as good, it's not as big a loss for them as long as they also have more popular titles like Death Note. Allows them to make absolutely silly tennis manga if that's what they feel like. And of course Death Note gets to exist because it's published alongside stuff like Bleach. Lumping comics together in a large, cheaply printed format means you get both experimentation and exposure.
I don't know how useful that publishing format would be to RPGs, though.
Also there's the possibility that I'm confusing correlation and cause. America's "big" publishers might be playing it safe because they're actually tiny (as opposed to bleeding audience because they're playing it safe).
QuoteEurope's a good call, too. There are excellent European comics on a variety of subjects and styles, but I'm not sure if say Möbius or Bilal are any more "mainstream" than the Hernandez brothers.
I was thinking more Tintin and Asterix (though I'm a fan of Mobius... really all of the old Metal Hurlant... and Enrique Fernandez). My point was more that the audience and genre Marvel/DC focus on isn't the only lucrative audience or mainstream genre. I'm not so much championing anything alternative, though the alternative has its place.
And I was kind of extending that to RPGs. As in yes, we've found something that works brilliantly, but limited genres don't make for a robust medium.
QuoteIn any case, I think with games, the market (the public) has a great deal of influence over what's popular. There are many, many publishers trying all sorts of things; have been for a long time, so one isn't exactly starved for variety in games as much as one might have trouble finding people to play them with. (There's plenty of variety in American comics, too--even if the market is dominated by superheroes.)
I think RPGs may be especially vulnerable to the exposure=popularity issue because of the player base. As in I see all this cool stuff happening, but I can usually only find players for D20 based games. Not a huge problem for me, as I love me some D20, but I think it can be kind of limiting.
Also, I think you can count on one hand the number of diceless RPGs. With so few iterations, can we be sure we've exhausted the possibilities? And while recent RPGs have experimented with cards, few (if any) have crunched the rules down to where they could actually fit in a deck of cards and get sold in the impulse-buy section. And what a missed opportunity that we didn't get a proper dungeon-crawler in the Lego Heroica sets. They got custom dice, modular dungeons, and while microfigs mean no (or less) cannibalizing sets, they can keep costs and size down.
QuoteWhat do you think about Basic Roleplaying? I'm not the first to say it, but I think it's a good example of a system that offers a relative balance between combat rules and other elements, with good customizability as shown by the various incarnations, but above all a fairly "light touch" where the rules generally aren't "the center" of play. I have to give credit to all the authors, from the original Runequest through CoC to modern BRP and Mongoose RQII: the game never deviated too far from this compared to e.g. GURPS, Hero, or D&D.
I've got CoC on my shelf, and everything I've read about the rest sounds great. One of these days I'll have the time and the cash, but college and seven day work weeks (saving up for a mac and cs5) have me short on both lately.
I'm worried we're drifting off the topic of murder hobos though. If you want to continue this discussion much further, maybe we should move it to another thread or PMs.
I don't know how useful comic book analogies are here. RPGs come in book format but at the end of the day it is more about playing than reading. You wouldn't just need to have genres that are more attractive to mainstrean audiences, you need to convince them that role playibg is an enjoyable pastime. And you also need your product in places people will see them. I really dont think this is anything new.
There was a period when rpgs and rpg like products were marketed to mainstream audiences. How to host a murder mystery is one example (it is more larp but i still see a connection). And there were other more table top mystery solving games.even now there are rpgs for most major genres (thriller, horror, superhero, fantasy, science fiction, action, etc). The only one that is not getting much love is romantic comedy. Traditional rp genres are more popular than they have been in a while too. The issue is the activity, for a range of reasons, only appeals to a narrow range of customers.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;488572I don't know how useful comic book analogies are here. RPGs come in book format but at the end of the day it is more about playing than reading. You wouldn't just need to have genres that are more attractive to mainstrean audiences, you need to convince them that role playibg is an enjoyable pastime. And you also need your product in places people will see them. I really dont think this is anything new.
I know there's limits to the analogy. Both manga and French comics have benefitted from the anthology format, which wouldn't work for RPGs. They also require less time to get into (I think RPG players are more likely to play one system than comic fans are to read one comic). And of course getting into a new RPG is no good if you can't find anyone to play in.
I do think finding new venues and formats will go a long way towards shaking things up. A LEGO RPG sold with the legos would be great for kids, and one of these days I'm going to put together a proper RPG/CCG hybrid (not that I'd be able to get it sold with the gum like I'd want, but maybe someone will copy me).
QuoteThere was a period when rpgs and rpg like products were marketed to mainstream audiences. How to host a murder mystery is one example (it is more larp but i still see a connection). And there were other more table top mystery solving games.even now there are rpgs for most major genres (thriller, horror, superhero, fantasy, science fiction, action, etc). The only one that is not getting much love is romantic comedy. Traditional rp genres are more popular than they have been in a while too. The issue is the activity, for a range of reasons, only appeals to a narrow range of customers.
Man, I think so much more could be done with mystery. Where did that genre go? Not seeing much good there any more. Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places. What are you thinking when you say table top mystery games?
There are lots of mystery style rpgs still in print (though everyone disagrees strongly about how it should be done). But i still take your point and it goes back to what I said. There was a time when rpg and rpg like mystery products were more widely available but they were passing fads. How to host a murder mystery is one that still remains. However I think that has become pretty niche.
I beliebe there is actually a lego product like you describe (pretty sure someone here posted an add for it). Great intro to gaming imo. But we've had these kinds of products before as well. I think there was a dungeon crawl boardgame in the late 80s early 90s called hero quest (and i am sure there have bern others). Heck when I was a kid in the early 80s I had D&D action figures.
Quote from: RPGPundit;488399It isn't just me. Imageshack has decided that they don't really need a significant part of the world, mainly the third world countries, actually seeing their images. Which to me, makes them fucking useless.
RPGPundit
Wait a minute. You actually can't see Imageshack images in Uruguay? Just checking here..
Quote from: beejazz;488571I think RPGs may be especially vulnerable to the exposure=popularity issue because of the player base. As in I see all this cool stuff happening, but I can usually only find players for D20 based games. Not a huge problem for me, as I love me some D20, but I think it can be kind of limiting.
See, I think this is the real area for innovation...if it's possible. Not mechanics per se, but fostering communities of interest. Developments in technology may help (and have done, actually, in the form of online "sims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simming)", even if tabletop players may not be crossing over). Possibly some mechanics could be engineered with an eye to facilitating long-distance play (e.g. Code of Unaris). Another possibility is social organization, which may also be facilitated by technology, such as the story game community, GoPlay NW, Camp Nerdly--none of these are really much use to me because they don't gravitate around the games that appeal to me, but they are examples of what could be done if you're trying to create a market.
QuoteI'm worried we're drifting off the topic of murder hobos though. If you want to continue this discussion much further, maybe we should move it to another thread or PMs.
That's okay, I believe what I wrote above is relevant to my argument in the thread (i.e., it's mainly people, not mechanics, which are directly responsible for style of play), and I think we're approaching closure (or repetition) anyway.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;488578Wait a minute. You actually can't see Imageshack images in Uruguay? Just checking here..
That's right; and not just uruguay but a significant part of the world.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;488626That's right; and not just uruguay but a significant part of the world.
RPGPundit
.....shit. :(
Ok, what would be a viable third party image hosting site? Most of my images are at Imageshack or Photobucket, and I don't really like Photobucket all that much. I'm rather a newbie when it comes to these kinds of things, so whatever ideas you can float my way would be appreciated.
Upthread someone recommended Imgur, I believe. There are plenty of image-hosting sites that for whatever reason, operate under the assumption that they should probably let people see images.
Imageshack is not one of them.
RPGPundit
Speaking of murder-hobos, Jeff Rients has released the draft version of Lasfodder (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2012/02/enlist-today.html), the Warhammer 40.000 equivalent of murder-hobo D&D. It looks playable and absolutely entertaining. :cool:
Quote from: Melan;516986Speaking of murder-hobos, Jeff Rients has released the draft version of Lasfodder (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2012/02/enlist-today.html), the Warhammer 40.000 equivalent of murder-hobo D&D. It looks playable and absolutely entertaining. :cool:
That is pure, undiluted awesome.
Quote from: RPGPundit;487719A term I saw used on another forum, ostensibly about roleplaying games but mostly about tangential subjects. It was being used there to refer to D&D Player Characters, suggesting that D&D is a fatally flawed game because instead of producing great heroes, it produces detached vagrants who kill wantonly.
My question: does anyone seriously buy this crap? Is "murder-hobos" an accurate depiction of how you would define the PCs of your D&D game?
RPGPundit
The answer is NO, fuck no, if you don't agree find another game to play in. I'm a simple girl and I like simple solutions. YMMV
Any game I agree or invited to play in better damn well have more than that going on. Let alone whatever fools talk me into running the damn game.
The origin of murder(ous) hobo (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?346702-Other-words-for-quot-Professional-Adventurer-quot).
Quote from: hexgrid;487904I always thought the murder-hobo thing was kind of like this- a sort of joking acknowledgement that D&D "heroes" often aren't really very heroic. Not an attack on D&D or anyone's play style.
Yeah, I really don't get the outrage.
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 (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=186509#186509) [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.
Quote from: Aos;517339QFT- I've even done it in supers games.
Yeah, that's how I ran by
Marvel Super Heroes game back in the late Eighties.
The thing of it is, the players need to get away from the, 'I'm on patrol!' mindset. They need to make contacts, cultivate informants, and such and pay attention to news reports - these take the place of the ubiquitous rumor-in-the-tavern from fantasy sandboxes - and they need to think strategically, not just tactically - weed and seed, as criminologists like to say.
I had one player who was really good at this. Both the player and her character were lawyers, and when the heroes basically gutted a building during a fight, her character arranged a fundraiser with her lawyer friends to repair the damage and get a better class of (non-supervillain) tenants in the building.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;517337With the right environment, it is possible to run proactive heroes without all that plot-hook and story nonsense.
I agree. It's all about the set-up of the environment in the first place, and how engaging it is for Upright Heroes to "do something about it".
Quote from: Black Vulmea;517340Yeah, that's how I ran by Marvel Super Heroes game back in the late Eighties.
The thing of it is, the players need to get away from the, 'I'm on patrol!' mindset. They need to make contacts, cultivate informants, and such and pay attention to news reports - these take the place of the ubiquitous rumor-in-the-tavern from fantasy sandboxes - and they need to think strategically, not just tactically - weed and seed, as criminologists like to say.
I had one player who was really good at this. Both the player and her character were lawyers, and when the heroes basically gutted a building during a fight, her character arranged a fundraiser with her lawyer friends to repair the damage and get a better class of (non-supervillain) tenants in the building.
Yeah, my guys work with the police and with the Federal Investigative and Strategic Task-force (F.I.S.T.) so they network through those guys and help with various/cases and missions. Right now, however, they are lost in time and on my universe's equivalent Toho's Monster Island (http://themetalearth.blogspot.com/2012/02/icons-isalnd-x-primer.html) of in the year 2004.The island is currently being assaulted by super villains (http://themetalearth.blogspot.com/) and they guys are just trying to figure out what the fuck is going on. So in short: super hero hex crawl.
Sounds like cool gaming.
I was reading Zak's post and I think the problem, to me, is here:
Quote"So what do you want to do today, Supes?"
"Uh, I guess I'll go on patrol."
Off he flies.
"Do I see any crime?"
"Umm, nope, not much, Metropolis is a fully-functioning independent world going about its business."
"Ok, I keep going. Now do I see any crime?"
"Ok, some jamoke is robbing a bank."
"Well then I stop him!"
The example doesn't work so well if we're talking about Gotham now.
"Do I see any crime?"
"Crime is everywhere. The police is corrupt. The city hall is populated by opportunists. The crime syndicate control most of the economic activity of the city. The slums are a constant battleground. It's war everywhere, and you are on the losing side, my friend."
"Alright. I'll start by gathering some help. I'll search for someone, anyone, that wouldn't be corrupt. Maybe the cop that told me about my parents' death? I'll put on my suit and go to him."
And so on.
Lex Luthor is more proactive (assuming the player is the same here for argument's sake) because the environment is hostile to him. There's no obvious stuff to do like going on patrol to find Superman sympathizers and beat them up. You've got to confront the environment head on.
Well. The sandbox setup should do that in spade. Whether we're talking about the city, the wilderness, there should be an abundance of stuff that is not right for do-gooders to confront one way or the other, on their own terms, by formulating strategies to go about it efficiently, rather than just go on patrol and not solve anything pertaining to the big picture in the end.
Quote from: Benoist;517347Lex Luthor is more proactive (assuming the player is the same here for argument's sake) because the environment is hostile to him. There's no obvious stuff to do like going on patrol to find Superman sympathizers and beat them up. You've got to confront the environment head on.
Spider-man has the same problem as Luthor in this regard.
Anyway, IMO, Supers is best played as a combination of mystery and sandbox, with the occasional GM instigated event, e.g., Galctus shows up (he is the superhero equivalent of the wandering monster) or the characters are catapulted into a another time dimension, whatever.
Anyway, its game day! I just finished making the perfect gamer food (tortilla de España) and I'm going to load the car in a bout 5 minutes.
Having skimmed this thread, I think it's important that we set a distinction between:
"Murder hobos" as I had understood the term (people who go about and kill EVERYTHING that moves, because they can, despite their alignments. And no RP or anything)
And a party composed of ruthless mercenaries. Heck - in my WFRP game, after I had started playing Mount & Blade, I had told my GM "I think I'll recruit a bunch of mercenaries and peasants, then hire myself under some lord that goes to war with orcs or whatever, so that we can loot the villages en route".
Superheroes are a wee - bit different, because they are indeed looking for trouble - and when you toss a guy through 10 skyscrapers, there will be collateral.
Quote from: Simlasa;488080I guess the question is why does that 'support' just about always come in the form of killing and looting... vs. diplomacy, peacemaking, exploration without conquering?
Largely because no one has ever managed to develop an interesting game structure for resolving social conflicts. Efforts in that direction have either been (a) mechanically non-interesting or (b) heavily dissociated to the point where the result is no longer a roleplaying game.
Partly because most of us have been heavily conditioned by the combat-heavy games in the hobby to default to combat solutions even when other solutions are present. For example, I've recently been playing
Technoir. This game has a slightly dissociated core mechanic, but it's notable because it's the first game I've played which features a truly universal mechanic (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/9595/roleplaying-games/technoir-sequences-vs-skill-challenges) which remains mechanically interesting. This is a mechanic which can be used just as easily to resolve diplomatic negotiations as combat... but sessions still end up skewing heavily towards combat because players are all conditioned for it.
To expand on the first point a bit: Combat provides a clear-cut "winner" and "loser" within a well-tested mechanical structure which almost always provides a satisfying conclusion. The only other game structure that provides that clear and satisfying "winner" condition is the successful solution of a mystery. But often mysteries will fizzle on the "satisfying conclusion" part of the equation; so even most mystery scenarios will cap things off with a fight against the villain to provide the satisfying conclusion.
(It might be interesting to experiment with a Law & Order style game where you not only have to solve the mystery, but you also need to prove your case in court. The courtroom mechanic, if properly designed, could provide combat-like structure and a clear build to the winning moment.)
And as much as some members of this board bemoan the "neutering" of GMs, one of the reasons why players like jumping into combat is specifically
because it's the one place where most railroad GMs finally give them the freedom to make meaningful choices. In other words, the clearly defined nature of the rules does, in fact, help to negate crappy GMing.
Quote from: Peregrin;488109That sort of diversity in desire for different types of content and self-reflection on said content I've found lacking in tabletop wargames and RPGs.
To put my point above a different way: The degree to which RPGs are
games is generally under-appreciated. The earliest RPGs understood this and attempted to present clear game structures which scenarios and campaigns could be built around. Later RPGs were designed with the assumption that RPGs were some kind of pure and unadulterated experience. You'll often hear people say things like, "The players tell me what their characters are doing and then we resolve it. They can do anything!"
Except, of course, that's nonsense. And the RPG industry actually continues to roll around on the basis of the four major structures that were developed in the first half decade or so of the industry: Railroading, dungeoncrawling, mystery scenarios, and combat. (Recently hexcrawling, as a fifth structure, has been making a resurgence.)
And, at most tables, things are even more constrained. Many ostensible mystery scenarios are poorly designed and actually fall back into railroading structures. D&D's communication of dungeoncrawling procedures became anorexic in 1989 and has literally disappeared entirely from the 4th Edition rulebooks.
I suspect the result is that the vast majority of RPG sessions are built around a core structure of railroading and combat.
So RPGs are predominantly based around combat because, at a functional level, combat is the only game in town. (Pun intended.) And until the industry realizes that a universal mechanic doesn't meaningfully equate to "You can do anything!" -- particularly on the macro-level of scenario design -- that's unlikely to change.
Regarding the "murderhobo" thing (and apologies if someone's already said it), I think this is as much the GM's fault as the players.
Except for the most devastated post-apocalyptic settings, the consequences of murderhoboing (holy shit, it's mutated into a verb now) should catch up with the PCs pretty quickly. People have families who may want justice and/or vengeance served, for one. Local rulers won't look kindly to armed malcontents antagonizing everyone, even in the wildest frontiers. Hell, that's the sort of stuff spaghetti westerns are made of.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;517340Yeah, that's how I ran by Marvel Super Heroes game back in the late Eighties.
The thing of it is, the players need to get away from the, 'I'm on patrol!' mindset. They need to make contacts, cultivate informants, and such and pay attention to news reports - these take the place of the ubiquitous rumor-in-the-tavern from fantasy sandboxes - and they need to think strategically, not just tactically - weed and seed, as criminologists like to say.
I had one player who was really good at this. Both the player and her character were lawyers, and when the heroes basically gutted a building during a fight, her character arranged a fundraiser with her lawyer friends to repair the damage and get a better class of (non-supervillain) tenants in the building.
Love this, and the discussion that followed. I have a hell of a hard time grasping the operational practicalities of running a supers game, it's something I've always wanted to do but never managed to wrap my head around it.
Quote from: Benoist;517347Sounds like cool gaming.
I was reading Zak's post and I think the problem, to me, is here:
The example doesn't work so well if we're talking about Gotham now.
[Snip]
Lex Luthor is more proactive (assuming the player is the same here for argument's sake) because the environment is hostile to him. There's no obvious stuff to do like going on patrol to find Superman sympathizers and beat them up. You've got to confront the environment head on.
Well-put. This, to me, boils down to "crapsack world = hero's playground". (Crapsack worlds being strongly to my preference.)
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".
Apparently they never watched
The Wild Geese,
The Dogs of War or
The Wild Bunch. Sucks to be them.
Quote from: The Butcher;517388Regarding the "murderhobo" thing (and apologies if someone's already said it), I think this is as much the GM's fault as the players.
Except for the most devastated post-apocalyptic settings, the consequences of murderhoboing (holy shit, it's mutated into a verb now) should catch up with the PCs pretty quickly. People have families who may want justice and/or vengeance served, for one. Local rulers won't look kindly to armed malcontents antagonizing everyone, even in the wildest frontiers. Hell, that's the sort of stuff spaghetti westerns are made of.
Consequences for actions? But that means you limit what the heroes can do, as some more powerful then them npc (THE THOUGHT! THE DARE!) can show up and kill them for their sins!!1
As I pointed out in the "Revamped Basic Edition" of my post...
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2010/01/rogues-and-sandboxes-basic-edition.html
...the reason Benoist, Black Vulmea, and DestroyYouAlot are not exactly right is because Batman does not really have a choice about whether to address the:
"crack house (or the) pawn shop where stolen goods get fenced (or the) warehouse where human traffickers run their operation.
"
...first--or what he's is going to do about them.
He is picking which one to deal with first based on which seems the most important (he's good, after all, if problem A is more serious he MUST deal with it first unless solving problem B first leads to solving problem A) or tactically best to pick and there is only one thing he can choose to do with the situation: end it.
Batman's choice of target is what they call in chess a forced move.
The rest of the choices about how exactly to go about it are all tactics and can be pretty clever, but his options are definitely more limited than someone who looks at the board as resources to be exploited.
The exception is in the TOTAL crapsack world: a 1984 or WH40K situation.
In this case, the hero is essentially in a war with injustice and can pick targets based on an overall (chosen) strategy against that overarching injustice.
But, anyway, like I said, I think all this is covered in the revamped version of the post.
Interestingly enough that touches upon why I dig In Nomine. From angels to demons your character is given a prime motivation (further the cause of your Superior's word), while given two restrictions on how to go about doing it. So wandering around waiting for 'jamokes' to go break the status quo is generally an unlikely scenario. Even the 'good guys' have responsibilities to pursue, and that routinely puts them into conflict on how to execute them.
Just something I noticed...
Anyway, to kill a metaphor dead, I always thought it was odd for Batman to try to solve Gotham crime through running around beating people up. I mean, he's Bruce fucking Wayne, prime real estate holder and business employer of the city. He has the ear of every major institution and -- though the city is dark -- it is still functioning, so you think he could accomplish more by being Bruce Wayne than futzing around as Batman. And yet he routinely chose to go street level, like some sort of 6th gen Ventrue with a katana, to "restore order." Personally amusing to me, all that.
Also, I thought that the critical point of Superman was his alter ego. Without it he could not only not have an ear for what crimes were in progress (a la Spiderman working also as a news reporter). But his living as a mild manner citizen brought him into contact with regular life and the complications that created. But then, that's more Lois & Clark TV Superman than Golden Age Superman, isn't it? I think I liked the more modern renditions of Superman where he was a more complex character...
Quote from: Opaopajr;517547Interestingly enough that touches upon why I dig In Nomine. From angels to demons your character is given a prime motivation (further the cause of your Superior's word), while given two restrictions on how to go about doing it. So wandering around waiting for 'jamokes' to go break the status quo is generally an unlikely scenario. Even the 'good guys' have responsibilities to pursue, and that routinely puts them into conflict on how to execute them.
Just something I noticed...
Anyway, to kill a metaphor dead, I always thought it was odd for Batman to try to solve Gotham crime through running around beating people up. I mean, he's Bruce fucking Wayne, prime real estate holder and business employer of the city. He has the ear of every major institution and -- though the city is dark -- it is still functioning, so you think he could accomplish more by being Bruce Wayne than futzing around as Batman. And yet he routinely chose to go street level, like some sort of 6th gen Ventrue with a katana, to "restore order." Personally amusing to me, all that.
Also, I thought that the critical point of Superman was his alter ego. Without it he could not only not have an ear for what crimes were in progress (a la Spiderman working also as a news reporter). But his living as a mild manner citizen brought him into contact with regular life and the complications that created. But then, that's more Lois & Clark TV Superman than Golden Age Superman, isn't it? I think I liked the more modern renditions of Superman where he was a more complex character...
To be fair in "War on Crime" Batman both eliminates the street gangs in aprticular neighbourhood then backs and sets up a new industrial development and social housing schemes.
Provided in Mega-format by Alex Ross the artwork is great but the story in pretty fucking dull :) Batman tustling in the Ruins of Arkham asylum with the Joker - great stuff, Batman attending a resource planning meeting where he discusses a syndicated loan arrangement with a range of financial backers whilst negotiating with the City council who are trying to use the scheme for dubious political benefit..... yawnsville :)
Holding PCs responsible for their actions would never work in most RPGs. Supers in particular would be a real problem. Just imagine how big the Avengers insurance policy would have to be to cover the property damage, personal injury claims and psychological damage inflicted on the various members of the public they routinely tangel with.
Quote from: jibbajibba;517562To be fair in "War on Crime" Batman both eliminates the street gangs in aprticular neighbourhood then backs and sets up a new industrial development and social housing schemes.
Provided in Mega-format by Alex Ross the artwork is great but the story in pretty fucking dull :) Batman tustling in the Ruins of Arkham asylum with the Joker - great stuff, Batman attending a resource planning meeting where he discusses a syndicated loan arrangement with a range of financial backers whilst negotiating with the City council who are trying to use the scheme for dubious political benefit..... yawnsville :)
Holding PCs responsible for their actions would never work in most RPGs. Supers in particular would be a real problem. Just imagine how big the Avengers insurance policy would have to be to cover the property damage, personal injury claims and psychological damage inflicted on the various members of the public they routinely tangel with.
I dunno man. Play Dirty had some clues on having supers responsible for their actions. Make a Supers organisation that the player must register or be renegades, that has some laws (no killing, for example), and execute them.
Quote from: Zak S;517540DestroyYouAlot [is] not exactly right
(http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/10/102899/1979849-this_is_madness.jpg)
;)
QuoteBatman's choice of target is what they call in chess a forced move.
[snip]
The exception is in the TOTAL crapsack world: a 1984 or WH40K situation.
In this case, the hero is essentially in a war with injustice and can pick targets based on an overall (chosen) strategy against that overarching injustice.
Good points. It's kinda the paladin's dilemma.
Running Dark Sun for the first time in *ahem*15 years*cough*cough*, I'm definitely seeing the thing where, "even mercenary assholes look like heroes when the people in charge are total evil assholes, and the good guys end up looking kinda like mercenary assholes". Which is kinda awesome.
Quote from: Rincewind1;517564I dunno man. Play Dirty had some clues on having supers responsible for their actions. Make a Supers organisation that the player must register or be renegades, that has some laws (no killing, for example), and execute them.
A number of comics have investigated it The Watchman most obviously but even if you have a 'Civil War' style superhero registration and enforcement program how are you going to cover stuff like the cost to repair the road you trashed, the lambpost you used to hit Seagullman with the class action lawsuit that the people on the city bus will take out on you even though you actually did protect them from Red Lightning's death bolts.
You end up with Superhero Insurance and the bill is like $1M a day for minimal coverage
Quote from: jibbajibba;517562Holding PCs responsible for their actions would never work in most RPGs. Supers in particular would be a real problem. Just imagine how big the Avengers insurance policy would have to be to cover the property damage, personal injury claims and psychological damage inflicted on the various members of the public they routinely tangel with.
I don't speak for anyone else, but I think that holding players responsible for their actions would include both the positive and the negative. So if they cause a huge amount of property damage in a pointless fight with another group of heroes, that would be a net loss. However, if they overcome a villain who would otherwise have destroyed the city - then the property damage is probably only a minor adjustment in the huge net positive.
One of the things that regularly bugs me in RPGs is when the authorities are absolutely useless against everything that the PCs fight (monsters, supervillains, etc.), but then suddenly being effective if the PCs step out of line.
To relate this to the original topic - I think "murder-hobos" is a dumb term that people use as an insult for different terms of play. I do see a distinction between a bunch of different types discussed:
1) Homeless PCs that wander and engage in violence and mayhem a la The Wild Bunch.
2) Homeless PCs with no allegiance that wander and engage in more-or-less principled violence - like Pale Rider, High Plains Drifter, etc. This is the most typical of D&D player characters.
3) PCs with a nominal home and allegiance who engage in more-or-less principled violence - like the Three Musketeers or Dirty Harry.
and there are tons of other variations.
Quote from: jibbajibba;517578A number of comics have investigated it The Watchman most obviously but even if you have a 'Civil War' style superhero registration and enforcement program how are you going to cover stuff like the cost to repair the road you trashed, the lambpost you used to hit Seagullman with the class action lawsuit that the people on the city bus will take out on you even though you actually did protect them from Red Lightning's death bolts.
You end up with Superhero Insurance and the bill is like $1M a day for minimal coverage
What is 1 million dollars compared to daily expenses of military anyway? Remember superheroes fight supervillains - they don't smash half a city when they are trying to catch Joe Robber.
Quote from: jhkim;517613One of the things that regularly bugs me in RPGs is when the authorities are absolutely useless against everything that the PCs fight (monsters, supervillains, etc.), but then suddenly being effective if the PCs step out of line.
Whether this breaks suspension of disbelief really depends on the game. I don't see why town guards would leave the town they're guarding to go dungeon crawling, and with in-city stuff maybe they just don't see the subtle mastermind at work while the PCs are blowing up soup kitchens*.
QuoteTo relate this to the original topic - I think "murder-hobos" is a dumb term that people use as an insult for different terms of play. I do see a distinction between a bunch of different types discussed:
1) Homeless PCs that wander and engage in violence and mayhem a la The Wild Bunch.
2) Homeless PCs with no allegiance that wander and engage in more-or-less principled violence - like Pale Rider, High Plains Drifter, etc. This is the most typical of D&D player characters.
3) PCs with a nominal home and allegiance who engage in more-or-less principled violence - like the Three Musketeers or Dirty Harry.
and there are tons of other variations.
Actually, I think that's part of the strength of the phrase, and why it gets reused. It covers a broad enough swath of material that everyone sees the phrase and says "yeah, I've played that." It's also why, whatever it's intended purpose, people like the idea. It distills one of the cooler aspects of a bunch of campaigns that might have little else in common.
See also: Fantasy Vietnam.
*Not something I want to present as typical, so much as a weird anecdote from my own table.
Quote from: Rincewind1;517695What is 1 million dollars compared to daily expenses of military anyway? Remember superheroes fight supervillains - they don't smash half a city when they are trying to catch Joe Robber.
Well the fact is that the heroes would have to pay their own insurance and a million dollars was actually far too low a sum. And people are people. If you save a New Yorker from the Green Goblin by wrapping him up in webbing and dragging him up 40 storeys he is so going to sue your spidery arse.
If you read Kingdom Come there are some interesting implications of what heroes could do if they got out of hand and how you would need to control them.
Quote from: Opaopajr;517547Anyway, to kill a metaphor dead, I always thought it was odd for Batman to try to solve Gotham crime through running around beating people up. I mean, he's Bruce fucking Wayne, prime real estate holder and business employer of the city. He has the ear of every major institution and -- though the city is dark -- it is still functioning, so you think he could accomplish more by being Bruce Wayne than futzing around as Batman. And yet he routinely chose to go street level, like some sort of 6th gen Ventrue with a katana, to "restore order." Personally amusing to me, all that.
There's the minor problem of Bruce Wayne being a bit fucked in the head. He doesn't put on the mask because it's the most efficient way to fight crime, he puts on the mask as part of a ritual of vengeance that probably keeps him from blowing his head off or hiring Bane to kill every criminal in Gotham. :D
Given that Wayne Senior took his son and wife to the shittiest cinema around,rather then just buy frigging film projector if he loved Zorro that much, that took them through the worst shady streets of worst shady city...
It's safe to assume that logic was never Wayne's family strong side.
Quote from: Rincewind1;517729Given that Wayne Senior took his son and wife to the shittiest cinema around,rather then just buy frigging film projector if he loved Zorro that much, that took them through the worst shady streets of worst shady city...
It's safe to assume that logic was never Wayne's family strong side.
Read Marshal Law 'Kingdom of the Blind; for an entire other angle :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;517730Read Marshal Law 'Kingdom of the Blind; for an entire other angle :)
This stuff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal_Law_(comics)
Right now reading Suffering of Young Werter and Age of Bronze, but it looks like stuff I like - British superhero parody.
I doubt it can change my mind on the fact that Wayne Senior was not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Murder Hobos as the Wild Bunch is one thing, however, too often the term is tied to real world baggage like this quote(from TrollCO's current sig).
Quote from: Poor Broken Thing"Other RPGs tend to focus on other aspects of roleplaying, while D&D traditionally focuses on racially-based home invasion, murder and theft."--The Little Raven, RPGnet
But that's flaccid purple you say, people here wouldn't claim that.
O'Rly? (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=20868)
Quote from: CRKrueger;517736Murder Hobos as the Wild Bunch is one thing, however, too often the term is tied to real world baggage like this quote(from TrollCO's current sig).
But that's flaccid purple you say, people here wouldn't claim that.
O'Rly? (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=20868)
heheh he links to one of the monster threads from hell :)
A finer troll move can not be fathomed.
Well played sir :)
Quote from: CRKrueger;517736Murder Hobos as the Wild Bunch is one thing, however, too often the term is tied to real world baggage like this quote(from TrollCO's current sig).
But that's flaccid purple you say, people here wouldn't claim that.
O'Rly? (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=20868)
Which is why it's better to say "Gang of Ruthless Outlaws" rather then say "Murder Hobos". Just like with the term heartbreaker - for last few years, I thought that just meant "my variation how game X should had looked", not "why DnD and retroclones are crap". Different meanings, official meaning is more then negatively loaded.
For the second note - orcs are Indians, durrr.
In my current game set in quasi - Ancient world, orcs are exactly what they were in Tolkien - elves changed by unholy rituals, ultimate soldiers, created by Rome in time of greatest peril (Hannibal's attack).
Quote from: Rincewind1;517732This stuff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal_Law_(comics)
Right now reading Suffering of Young Werter and Age of Bronze, but it looks like stuff I like - British superhero parody.
I doubt it can change my mind on the fact that Wayne Senior was not the sharpest tool in the shed.
That stuff... Kingdom of the Blind is a one off on an alternate Batman called The Private Eye. I think I have an original page from it somewhere actually (the wife tends to get dibs on what goes up on the wall unless I stick to fine art travel prints)
Quote from: jibbajibba;517737heheh he links to one of the monster threads from hell :)
A finer troll move can not be fathomed.
Well played sir :)
I missed that thread the first time, and I'm going to go right on missing it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;517741That stuff... Kingdom of the Blind is a one off on an alternate Batman called The Private Eye. I think I have an original page from it somewhere actually (the wife tends to get dibs on what goes up on the wall unless I stick to fine art travel prints)
Sounds interesting - since Judge Dreadd and Hellblazer, I love British comics. But I still stand by the fact that
A) Waynes aren't too bright
or
B) Wayne Senior was probably planning this all along - did not want to settle on the divorce, and was tired of that damned brat, and Wayne Senior did not actually die, but faked his death. He now lives in Bahamas, thanks to the money on a secret Switz account, drinking cocktails and boning easy girls.
Edit: Reading that thread now.
Internet connection: 20$ per month
A few books for DnD: 100$
Pizza, Drinks and Snacks For the Game: 15$
Comparing slaughter of orcs in a fantasy game to Hutu and Tutsi: Priceless.
There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there's MasterCard.
Quote from: CRKrueger;517736But that's flaccid purple you say, people here wouldn't claim that.
O'Rly? (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=20868)
That thread was one of the biggest clusterfuck we had on the board for a looong time indeed.
Quote from: Benoist;517753That thread was one of the biggest clusterfuck we had on the board for a looong time indeed.
It does read as something Krueger bookmarked, to unleash as Ultimate Trollbomb in time of great need.
;)
edit: Delving thought that thread...seriously, everybody that's avert to slaughter of monstrous families? I remember my gnomish samurai from Lantan exterminated every kobold he could, preferably by using his flamethrower - less kobolds now, less to worry later.
Although he was not good, no - no.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;517376Largely because no one has ever managed to develop an interesting game structure for resolving social conflicts. Efforts in that direction have either been (a) mechanically non-interesting or (b) heavily dissociated to the point where the result is no longer a roleplaying game.
Have you tried
Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits? While you could say the volley structure is a bit abstract (and potentially constraining), I've found that the resolution is more satisfying than most social combat systems because most of the time it produces results that are not binary, since the final "tallying up" of everything involves figuring how many compromises each side has to make, which actually feeds back into creating cool situations in the game.
Quote from: Aos;517742I missed that thread the first time, and I'm going to go right on missing it.
Since you missed it, here's one of the more entertaining posts...
Quote from: FrankTrollman;478035That's charmingly naive, but here are the old Ral Partha Orcs:
(http://www.mhorann.demon.co.uk/figpics/ral-partha-orcs.jpg)
Yes, there has been a concerted movement to make them the "Greenskins" that are no longer associated with any human ethnic group. But let's be honest here: in the old days Orcs were Black people and you were supposed to kill their females and young when you found their villages.
Lots of similar good stuff in that thread. :p
Although to cross this thread with the discussion of fantasy teats...my barbarian would be so up in that hot orc on the right. Apparently he has Jungle Fever.
So Obould Many-Arrows is a metaphor of Malcolm X or what?
The thing that pissed me off about that picture is you'll never find a real Zulu figure half as fucking cool as that damn orc.
Heh. Such is life.
I must admit that this thread (the terminology aside) makes me want to use Devil's Gulch BRP setting with Wild Bunch characters.
Quote from: Rincewind1;517823So Obould Many-Arrows is a metaphor of Malcolm X or what?
We didn't land on Mithrall Hall; Mithrall Hall landed on us!
Quote from: jibbajibba;517562Holding PCs responsible for their actions would never work in most RPGs.
Most campaigns are too ad hoc for it to work without the game turning into a GM power trip of the sort that no one wants to play. No blue bolts from the heavens for me, thank you very much!
Quote from: jibbajibba;517578A number of comics have investigated it The Watchman most obviously but even if you have a 'Civil War' style superhero registration and enforcement program how are you going to cover stuff like the cost to repair the road you trashed, the lambpost you used to hit Seagullman with the class action lawsuit that the people on the city bus will take out on you even though you actually did protect them from Red Lightning's death bolts.
You end up with Superhero Insurance and the bill is like $1M a day for minimal coverage
Many years ago (about the time of the Rodney King beating) it was pointed out that a major expense for the LAPD (i.e. taxpayers) was the millions of dollars in court settlements for police brutality and destruction of property. So the taxpayers are already footing the bill.
Quote from: beejazz;517720See also: Fantasy Vietnam.
I prefer Fantasy Huston or Fantasy Peckinpah.
I like the smell of corn dog in the morning.
http://berinkinsman.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/homicidal-transients-the-roleplaying-game/
Quote from: J Arcane;519087http://berinkinsman.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/homicidal-transients-the-roleplaying-game/
GOND DAMMIT!
I thought of writing exactly such a game as a joke, to one up the "Indie Crowd" and their love of transgressive content.
:(
Quote from: Rincewind1;519386GOND DAMMIT!
I thought of writing exactly such a game as a joke, to one up the "Indie Crowd" and their love of transgressive content.
:(
Poke fun at the OSR crowd too, and retroclone it. :p
Quote from: CRKrueger;519387Poke fun at the OSR crowd too, and retroclone it. :p
Judging from that article, it already (supposedly) is, but that is a thought....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dAUYAg8mAQ
A thread on EnWorld (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?335638-MurderHobos) about this thread.
Either thread necro or someone at ENWorld being pretty slow on the uptake. ;)
JG
Since its already necroed, here's a play story.
I'm in a group just now playing (I think) Barrowmaze. Early on, exploring the surface around some burial mounds, we were ambushed by about a dozen guys, some in chain armor with crossbows, others slingers in leather armor. No parley, just missile attacks from surprise. An encounter with a similar group later also starts hostile. I conclude, as a player, and not just "oh, my character thinks," that the random encounter table has bandits on it, and these are them.
So more recently, we encounter another dozen guys with chain armor and crossbows and leather with slings. We hear some of them moving to flank us, going for a door that will take them behind us, and the GM asks for an initiative roll. For once we win it, and our 1st level wizard Sleeps them all.
At this point, we've got the classic helpless prisoner dilemma, and are debating what to do. Someone suggests taking their weapons and waking them up to parley, maybe to use them to fill out our ranks, but I'm down on this at first, because they still outnumber us, and I figure they'll turn on us as soon as they can.
Now keep in mind, not just my character but *I* personally am convinced these are bandits. And I just start cutting throats. The GM said "Wait, really? You're just going to kill them?" or words to that effect (in hindsight this may have been a clue), and described our few hirelings turning their faces away.
But I left three alive, woke them up without their weapons, and told them the same fate as their companions awaited them if they didn't serve us in the front lines. One roll later, they reluctantly accepted, and had their crossbows returned, with orders to keep them pointed forward.
Of course, I found out later that "dozen guys with mixed armor and ranged weapons" is a random encounter entry for tomb robbers, which is to say, just a bunch of poor schlubs doing exactly what we're doing. We'd just happened to blow the reaction rolls the first two times we'd gotten them. The third group was neutral but wary, and I'd just murdered them.
Quote from: jeff37923;487722The only people who believe in the "murder-hobo" myth either have never played D&D, are playing it "ironically", or just play 4E. It has never been an accurate depiction of any D&D game I have ever played - not even the ones in Middle School.
4E? ok yeah 4E is the only game that you can be a murder in, what a stupid comment and near-sited attitude. I have GMed many games in many versions of D&D and they have all had murder-hobos if you want to use that term in them. But even Super-Hero games have gone down this path, one I can name off hand is Wild Talents, which just for some reason causes murder hobos in it to take fruit. IDK, but I think any game with any newbie players or young players tends to drive towards mass killings and murders to some effect or even the players attempting to be the bad guys at some point, they just want to play evil at times. My last Pathfinder group was made up of all NE or CE alignment PC's, so I had to run an evil centered campaign, with Good being the opposition instead.
Murder-hobos would be an accurate description of quite a few DnD (and other) games I played in. It is, however, not an accurate description of all DnD games I have played in.
I've noticed that many Traveller games are more murder hobo than D&D. Land on a planet, kill some fuckers, board the ship and jump out of the system.
Most D&D sandboxes I have seen have been very "Sword for Hire" (regardless of edition) where PCs wander from town to town making money by slaying some foe of the nobles of that area and then moving on.
I don't know exactly where "Sword for Hire" ends and "Murder-Hobos" begins.
And since I run OD&D with Law/Neutral/Chaos instead of Good vs. Evil, and I tend to emulate more classic Swords & Sorcery than modern High Fantasy, I have less of an issue with that style of play. Conan was a Murder Hobo until he gets older and focuses on his path to power instead of just a sack of gold.
Of course, if the GM has no repercussions for wanton murder in his campaign world, then its his own damn fault if the PCs are crazed serial killers.
Quote from: Spinachcat;687312I don't know exactly where "Sword for Hire" ends and "Murder-Hobos" begins.
I'd say it's in the first Ravenloft module. Reportedly, the Hickmans wrote it in response to encountering a random vampire in a dungeon and thought "What a waste of a vampire." (paraphrasing) Which I agree with. Every monster could be much more interetesting than a stat block encounter in a dungeon room.
Of course, their mistake was making the module about Strahd and not about the player characters, but that's a critique of that specific module.
And I'd not knock murder hobos. It's the focus of board dungeon games like Descent. And not a few basic D&D campaigns. (There's the great Fellowship of the Bling thread on TBP, for example)
But scratch the murder hobo style just a little, and out comes more than just "kill monster, get treasure, repeat".
Quote from: RPGPundit;487719A term I saw used on another forum, ostensibly about roleplaying games but mostly about tangential subjects. It was being used there to refer to D&D Player Characters, suggesting that D&D is a fatally flawed game because instead of producing great heroes, it produces detached vagrants who kill wantonly.
My question: does anyone seriously buy this crap? Is "murder-hobos" an accurate depiction of how you would define the PCs of your D&D game?
RPGPundit
Pundit, if you really do want old-school gaming to have credibility with the chattering classes, you have to lose the ultra-defensive, humorless attitude. D&D, out in the wild, is full of half-serious jackassery. That's the fun of it. Don't be another one of those dweebs who takes his hobby way too seriously.
Quote from: Noclue;687302Murder-hobos would be an accurate description of quite a few DnD (and other) games I played in. It is, however, not an accurate description of all DnD games I have played in.
Same here. I've never seen it as a contemptuous term at all. Any more than Fantasy Vietnam. In most campaigns I've played, the PCs really are vagabonds who leave a trail of corpses beyond them. Doesn't mean they indulge in sadism. But most problems are solved with the sharp end of a sword and the body-count is comically high. Murder-hobos? Fuck yeah. Why not?
Quote from: RPGPundit;487719A term I saw used on another forum, ostensibly about roleplaying games but mostly about tangential subjects. It was being used there to refer to D&D Player Characters, suggesting that D&D is a fatally flawed game because instead of producing great heroes, it produces detached vagrants who kill wantonly.
My question: does anyone seriously buy this crap? Is "murder-hobos" an accurate depiction of how you would define the PCs of your D&D game?
RPGPundit
Even though i may frequently rack down on D&D myself, and even though the pcs may be murderous bastards at worst, i do find it to be an incorrect defenition, even at worst. I think Murder Scouts would be more correct ...
However, that is at worst.
If it just get a bit better, they fast gain both skills, abilities, status, some fame, and, especially, rewards for their work/hobby.
At no point, they can be compared to hobos, and at best, they can not be compared to murderers either.
Murder hobos always seemed good-naturedly self deprecating in the vien of KotDT. "elf-games" otoh seems to be used derogatorily
I may have mentioned this before, but in Game of Thrones (the TV version especially) being a murder-hobo kinda seems like the POINT.
JG
(shrugs) It's a useful term. It's a term with wide recognition. I'd agree the syndrome's more prevalent in D&D circles, but I haven't run into anyone claiming that D&D players exclusively and uniformly play murderhobos, or that no one in any other game system does.
I'd say that if you DID run into someone asserting these things, and you got boiling mad under the collar rather than just say "What an asshole" and dismissing the choad ... ask yourself why the assertion bothers you that much.
I don't know, I think sometimes the criticism is useful. Some introspection is useful as long as it doesn't become dithering naval gazing. I think it's worthwhile to consider the role of orcs in the setting. I think it's worthwhile to consider realistic aspects of war and its impacts on individuals in game terms.
It's not too hard to make dungeons forward military bases and leave the women and children far out of reach of the PCs. Making the orcs despicable makes killing them palatable. If the orcs were just funny looking folks who just want to be left alone to live as they see fit, murdering them would be unreasonable.
Without such context you may as well be playing an Mmporg with respawning heroes and monsters in steady state environments that are always the same as they were the first time you passed through. "Room four oh three, that was five goblins and some nice jeweled tea cups that are worth 100gp just like the last three times we were here."
Actually, the Protagonist career in WHFRP is actually a murder hobo by profession. As usual WHFRP is awesome. Now I want to play a playwright who's working on the epic masterpiece Protagonist With A Blunderbus. Playing soon on the green near you.
Quote from: RPGPundit;487719A term I saw used on another forum, ostensibly about roleplaying games but mostly about tangential subjects. It was being used there to refer to D&D Player Characters, suggesting that D&D is a fatally flawed game because instead of producing great heroes, it produces detached vagrants who kill wantonly.
My question: does anyone seriously buy this crap? Is "murder-hobos" an accurate depiction of how you would define the PCs of your D&D game?
RPGPundit
I've personally never seen it used as a bash against D&D as a game.
I -have- however seen it used often by DMs complaining about how their players act.
There are two guys locally that are full on murder-hobo players. They do it no matter what the setting or system. It has nothing to do with D&D. That's just how they like to play.
So they definitely exist, and they are not necessarily related to D&D.
Quote from: David Johansen;687381I don't know, I think sometimes the criticism is useful. Some introspection is useful as long as it doesn't become dithering naval gazing. I think it's worthwhile to consider the role of orcs in the setting. I think it's worthwhile to consider realistic aspects of war and its impacts on individuals in game terms.
It's not too hard to make dungeons forward military bases and leave the women and children far out of reach of the PCs. Making the orcs despicable makes killing them palatable. If the orcs were just funny looking folks who just want to be left alone to live as they see fit, murdering them would be unreasonable.
Does 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?
I ask because I've never actually seen that. In games I've played in an evil alignment really means evil, that the monster has done and will do evil things. And there's evidence, and history, and sometimes on screen instances of that.
But maybe part of the disconnect with people who talk about murder-hobos is GMs who, short of the bait-and-switch above, don't bother to depict evil as evil, leading to orcs as just an opposing force with no moral dimension to the conflict.
I think orcs often come off more noble than the PCs. I may have to dig up my copy of Hordes of the Things and quote their comments on orcs.
My orcs are dumb, ugly, mean, evil monsters who will break your bones with a stone just to look at you cry and beg for your life. For the fun of it. Because they can point and laugh, make bets, and then fight amongst themselves because none can remember how to count the coins and they can't trust one another. Because that's what they are. Monsters. Just deal with it, RPGnet.
Quote from: Benoist;687694My orcs are dumb, ugly, mean, evil monsters who will break your bones with a stone just to look at you cry and beg for your life. For the fun of it. Because they can point and laugh, make bets, and then fight amongst themselves because none can remember how to count the coins and they can't trust one another. Because that's what they are. Monsters. Just deal with it, RPGnet.
Always in all the games you run?
Seems like a missed opportunity.
Quote from: Enlightened;687388I've personally never seen it used as a bash against D&D as a game.
I -have- however seen it used often by DMs complaining about how their players act.
There are two guys locally thaet are full on murder-hobo players. They do it no matter what the setting or system. It has nothing to do with D&D. That's just how they like to play.
So they definitely exist, and they are not necessarily related to D&D.
I have a whole group of them. And as such I have avoided gaming with them recently.
Cthulhu: kill it with fire!
Fate zombie game: kill them with boom stick!
MHR: Screw being heroic! Let's kill things 'for the greater good'.
Diaspora: erm... we have a body in a suitcase and we need to get off planet because we killed stuff.
The Diaspora game is the one I am siting out. I even sent them polite emails and we talked about character depth and "herp derp roleplaying not roll playing".
Leopards and spots.
Quote from: TristramEvans;687369Murder hobos always seemed good-naturedly self deprecating in the vien of KotDT. "elf-games" otoh seems to be used derogatorily
Funny, I always took these expressions the other way 'round.
I don't see either "murder hobos" nor "elf-games" as derogatory really. "Elfgame" is a fun word, and well, "murder hobo" does describe certain play styles fairly well (and not just D&D either. CP2020...).
Quote from: The_Shadow;687704Funny, I always took these expressions the other way 'round.
May just be the circumstances I encountered them in. 'Elf-games' is widely used by Ettin.
Quote from: TristramEvans;687708May just be the circumstances I encountered them in. 'Elf-games' is widely used by Ettin.
Eww.
Quote from: TristramEvans;687708May just be the circumstances I encountered them in. 'Elf-games' is widely used by Ettin.
Well, context is everything. The context that I often see "murder-hobo" or "elf-game" used in makes them derogatory terms in one instance and acceptable in others. More often than not though, I see the term "murder-hobo" used as a deliberately insulting descriptor.
Quote from: jibbajibba;687697Always in all the games you run? Seems like a missed opportunity.
The situation for which YMMV was coined, I expect. For my part, orcs in my campaign are a playable PC race, decidedly second-class citizens and with many bumps and warts, but not -- the prejudiced and naysayers' opinion notwithstanding -- monsters. But that's me.
Quote from: Benoist;687694My orcs are dumb, ugly, mean, evil monsters who will break your bones with a stone just to look at you cry and beg for your life. For the fun of it. Because they can point and laugh, make bets, and then fight amongst themselves because none can remember how to count the coins and they can't trust one another. Because that's what they are. Monsters. Just deal with it, RPGnet.
So your orcs are Oakland Raider fans?
Quote from: RPGPundit;487719A term I saw used on another forum, ostensibly about roleplaying games but mostly about tangential subjects. It was being used there to refer to D&D Player Characters, suggesting that D&D is a fatally flawed game because instead of producing great heroes, it produces detached vagrants who kill wantonly.
My question: does anyone seriously buy this crap? Is "murder-hobos" an accurate depiction of how you would define the PCs of your D&D game?
RPGPundit
I don't think dnd has anything to do with 'murder hobo'
Any player in any rpg can be a murder hobo.
The way I define murder hobo, is this:
Players who do not value ties to the environment; they think it is a weakness to have friends, family, or property.
They also use murder as a primary problem solver, even when the murder is actually creating more trouble for them.
So, as a dm, I find that playstyle to be terribly boring.
Almost all players have some degree of murder hobo in them.
A small amount is ok but I don't see the appeal as a player or as a gm for high degrees of murderhoboism.
Nothing to do with dnd though.
My orcs? Well, they tend to be militant, well organized, well equipped, and ready for action. And they use assassins against people who have really pissed them off (like PCs). The orcs aren't as smart as humans on average and are easily swayed by powerful leaders. But, the big problem is that they're prolific and immortal. This leads to population spikes followed by famines that lead to sudden and violent wars against their neighbors.
But, of course, when I run Warhammer FRP they're big, green, crazy fungal chavs who run amok screaming WAAAAGH!
I 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.
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
Quote from: David Johansen;687908I'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...
Probably got confused about the difference between Role Playing Games and therapeutic role playing.
Quote from: David Johansen;687928Maid? Dogs in the Vineyard? Whatever
Okay, cool. So what's the people changing mechanic in Dogs in the Vineyard?
Quote from: David Johansen;687928Maid?
That's not a "story game", though. Generally speaking, the only part of the basic system which diverges from traditional GMing is that the players may, if it suits the selected style of play, call for random event rolls.
(It's, fairly obviously, not some sinister plot to "change people", either.)
Quote from: Elfdart;687732So your orcs are Oakland Raider fans?
No, people are actually scared of Orcs.
JG
Quote from: The Yann Waters;687967That's not a "story game", though. Generally speaking, the only part of the basic system which diverges from traditional GMing is that the players may, if it suits the selected style of play, call for random event rolls.
(It's, fairly obviously, not some sinister plot to "change people", either.)
You forgot that "storygame" definition is about authorship, not content ;)
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?
It's gotten so that I have a sticky post for discussions about alignment, which is IMHO the
single stupidest, most pernicious piece of bullshit with which Gygax & Co. infested this hobby. I've yet to see a convincing reason for it to exist, and several excellent reasons to ashcan it.
Go search my advocation for it on this forum. I find it incredibly useful to my campaigns. And as an In Nomine player love arguments of morality, including shades of nuance, I find ideas of broad brush alignment pivotal in easing my campaigns' construction.
Quote from: David Johansen;687908I'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...
The next Story Telling RPG, it will be big for all those with low self-esteem and whatnot; the ANN LANDERS STORY TELLING & HELP GAME by Jackass Games;
"Expect trouble as an inevitable part of life and repeat to yourself, the most comforting words of all; this, too, shall pass."-Ann Landers; Opening Line from Game.
LOL!:rolleyes:
Quote from: Ravenswing;688044It's gotten so that I have a sticky post for discussions about alignment, which is IMHO the single stupidest, most pernicious piece of bullshit with which Gygax & Co. infested this hobby. I've yet to see a convincing reason for it to exist, and several excellent reasons to ashcan it.
In general, I don't really think alignment needs to be a mechanical aspect of a game system.
However, in the context of dnd, I can make a case for alignment existing.
Dnd, or at least 1E dnd, has a cosmology that consists of a 'ring' of outer planes, each the embodiment of an alignment. For example, the Devils are from the Nine Hells, and that is the plane where 'Lawful evil' is woven into the fabric of reality. I can see the Hells spawning a race of devils that speak a language mortals call 'Lawful evil'
Also, as Outer planar immortal beings, I can see devils being more naturally Lawful Evil than a mortal human being would be.
So Alignment does make a lot of sense as introduced in dnd.
Quote from: Ravenswing;688044It's gotten so that I have a sticky post for discussions about alignment, which is IMHO the single stupidest, most pernicious piece of bullshit with which Gygax & Co. infested this hobby. I've yet to see a convincing reason for it to exist, and several excellent reasons to ashcan it.
I hate annoying debates over alignment, but 99 percent of those are a player justifying his chaotic evil acts, trying to claim he is actually not evil.
Quote from: jeff37923;687901I 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?
But was your Bard a Male Elf?
All kidding aside, that person sounds like a real asshat.
Quote from: Simlasa;687848Except 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.
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).
Sounds like a playstyle thing to me.
Quote from: FaerieGodfather;687868It'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.
The 'killing is always evil' thing should not actually be a problem, but peopel make it a problem.
I see no real issue with a paladin viewing all killing as evil, but still killing to protect others, self defense, to stem the tide of evil, etc...
A paladin could choose to not ever kill, and take his beleiefs to an early grave.
The only time I get annoyed as a player or gm is when a 'good' character commits an obviously evil murder. And claims to be good. Usually with rationalization involved to justify doing whatever they please.
Oh, and as a gm, I don't enforce alignment with a lecture, that sucks. I just do my best to have the setting react accordingly. Paladin becoming an evil reaver? Other paladins might hunt him down eventually.
Quote from: Bill;688093In general, I don't really think alignment needs to be a mechanical aspect of a game system.
However, in the context of dnd, I can make a case for alignment existing.
Dnd, or at least 1E dnd, has a cosmology that consists of a 'ring' of outer planes, each the embodiment of an alignment. For example, the Devils are from the Nine Hells, and that is the plane where 'Lawful evil' is woven into the fabric of reality. I can see the Hells spawning a race of devils that speak a language mortals call 'Lawful evil'
Also, as Outer planar immortal beings, I can see devils being more naturally Lawful Evil than a mortal human being would be.
So Alignment does make a lot of sense as introduced in dnd.
Yeah, this (I'm a big fan of the planar ring, and the planes therein, including the ones not 100% clear-cut (as in CN(E), N(C)E, N(L)E, wich I believe are all present...).
Quote from: The Ent;688113Yeah, this (I'm a big fan of the planar ring, and the planes therein, including the ones not 100% clear-cut (as in CN(E), N(C)E, N(L)E, wich I believe are all present...).
Archeron is one of my favorite dnd planes.
Lawful Lawful Evil (Archeron is in between the LE Nine Hells, and LN Nirvanna)
What's not to love about a plane of huge drifting floating metal blocks that armies of orcs and goblins battle over for all eternity?
It's like Evil Valhalla!
Quote from: Bill;688094I hate annoying debates over alignment, but 99 percent of those are a player justifying his chaotic evil acts, trying to claim he is actually not evil.
Well, about 49%, anyway. The other 49% is the DM using alignment as a stick with which to beat the party: hahaha, you're Not Playing Your Alignment, so now I'm going to hose you!
I'd counter your argument re: planes, but that'd derail the thread even faster ...
I feel this post, from EW recently, exemplifies what's wrong with the murder hobo mentality 100% of the time:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340500-Sneak-Attack-optional-or-mandatory&p=6177324&viewfull=1#post6177324
Quote from: (Psi)SeveredHead;6177324There was a thread I participated in on the Paizo board a month or two ago, in which a relatively new player built a bard/something not related to a bard (level 2 total character), in other words a really weak character, and showed up at Pathfinder Society with that. This isn't an edition thing, by the way, you can easily make a weak character in 3.x (many monks) or a really weak hybrid character in 4e.
Maybe the poster was trolling, though. Many players didn't like the idea of running with a PC who couldn't contribute much and wouldn't even pass an interview to join the group (like in many organized play scenarios, the DM and players have no choice about who they play with), and many DMs didn't like the idea of trying to balance encounters for such a PC either.
Furthermore, while D&D is a flexible game where you can "play what you want", you actually don't get to do that. Not for long anyway. You need to play something that suits your adventuring group. In many cases, this could mean design a character concept, then show it to the DM ahead of time so they can tell what you need to do to have a contributing PC. (A friend of mine told me she wanted to play a "Disney princess" in a Pathfinder game, a druid/bard combo, so she was basically a bard who could talk/sing to animals. Another weak PC. She's often not serious.) I'm not a Pathfinder guru, but I told her what sort of reaction she'd face (incredibly negative) and suggested she look up archetypes for the bard (greensinger? I dunno) that could let her accomplish this.
Having an incredibly weak PC is just as bad as having a ridiculously powerful PC.
Suppose someone came to my group and told me they wanted to play a master thief. No sneak attack, just lots of social skills and Thievery. They've effectively developed a kender handler without the insanity. I would tell them they have designed a non-adventuring character and can't participate in the adventure as a PC. Naturally someone would say "you're not letting them play your character, and treating your playstyle as superior to theirs", which is fair enough. They can take their playstyle to another group, assuming they could find one that suits them. (Note: This never actually happened to me.)
Quote from: Bill;688095But was your Bard a Male Elf?
All kidding aside, that person sounds like a real asshat.
My PC was a male human. The part that really ground my gears was that I had a character concept for this guy that he was young and idealistic, having believed most of the stories and songs that he performed, and the process of adventuring would cause him to meet the reality of those fictions and grow him as a person. I had no desire to explore the sexuality of the Player Character in game. But since he was a Bard, the DM decided he had to be gay....
Yes, that DM was an asshat.
Quote from: Ravenswing;688185Well, about 49%, anyway. The other 49% is the DM using alignment as a stick with which to beat the party: hahaha, you're Not Playing Your Alignment, so now I'm going to hose you!
I'd counter your argument re: planes, but that'd derail the thread even faster ...
I did that precisely once, I think (the other time when the player started murdering random NPCs as LG, I just thanked him for his time). The guy was a good buddy of mine and I knew he had a tendency of always playing characters that were close to (Chaotic) Evil/Treacherous Evil types, so to speak. As we were playing with pregens, I landed him Chaotic Good Kobold Barbarian... Of course he whined that he wanted to be evil, but I said "hey, pregens are pregens". I think I enforced his alignment on him to cancel out one of his decisions (probably to kill questgivers or something like that. You can see where I'm going here). After that one slap on the nose, he "suddenly" found out new depths of his roleplaying, playing quite nicely with the rest of the team, and admitted he had great fun playing a good guy for a change.
Quote from: Mistwell;688186I feel this post, from EW recently, exemplifies what's wrong with the murder hobo mentality 100% of the time:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340500-Sneak-Attack-optional-or-mandatory&p=6177324&viewfull=1#post6177324
Yeah, that's pretty lame. So you're playing D&D wrong if your character isn't optimized for combat?
Still, I don't see that as a murder-hobo thing. You can sneak around killing things and taking their shit without being an uber-optimized party of combat-jockeys. And conversely, you can be an uber-optimized party of combat-jockeys and do nothing but defend the downtrodden and save the kingdom from the bad guys.
Quote from: Ravenswing;688185Well, about 49%, anyway. The other 49% is the DM using alignment as a stick with which to beat the party: hahaha, you're Not Playing Your Alignment, so now I'm going to hose you!
I'd counter your argument re: planes, but that'd derail the thread even faster ...
A dm doing that is an idiot; I have not seen many.
I would like to hear your counter argument about 1E dnd planes.
I think we can survive a small derailment.
I have been the idiot arguing with a player about alignment a few times over the years. So I am not tossing an idiot label around that won't also stick to me.
I saw a character once that was a fine role model for murder hobos everywhere.
In a Champions supers game, a player created a villain.
His name was Psycho. Former Viper agent that when given powers by them, murdered his way to freedom.
He had sonic powers, and essentially was fast and could blast holes in just about anything. He also could knock people out with an area sonic field to make blasting holes in them easier.
The icing on the murder hobo cake, was the Psychological Disadvantage he selected.
"Code Vs Not Killing"
You see, many heroes have "Code vs Killing".......
Quote from: Noclue;687966Okay, cool. So what's the people changing mechanic in Dogs in the Vineyard?
Stop trying to apply your "reason" and "logic" to my ill informed conspiracy rantings! :D
Quote from: Mistwell;688186I feel this post, from EW recently, exemplifies what's wrong with the murder hobo mentality 100% of the time:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340500-Sneak-Attack-optional-or-mandatory&p=6177324&viewfull=1#post6177324
Wow, 10bucks says that's Sunic_Flames up to his old tricks -_-
Quote from: David Johansen;688221Stop trying to apply your "reason" and "logic" to my ill informed conspiracy rantings! :D
Ah! Forgive me, I forgot where I was. Play on!
Quote from: Mistwell;688186I feel this post, from EW recently, exemplifies what's wrong with the murder hobo mentality 100% of the time:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340500-Sneak-Attack-optional-or-mandatory&p=6177324&viewfull=1#post6177324
So... "I want to play a Disney Princess singing and speaking to animals!"
DM: "Yeah, no. My CharOp buddies are going to hate on you. You better study the buildz, girl. Here's our 300-page manual, by the way."
Girl: "Oh... Hm. Well. OK. I'm going to be playing Nintendo over there while you guys play."
...
Fuck that noise.
From the same thread http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340500-Sneak-Attack-optional-or-mandatory&p=6177407&viewfull=1#post6177407
Quote from: Majoru OakheartI heavily disagree with this. If I'm running the Dungeon of Ultimate DOOM that I've been spending the last year writing up in great detail filled with horrendously deadly traps and nasty monsters who want to eat your face and you show up with a character who is an 8 year old girl who spends her days picking daisies in the field and doesn't know how to wield any weapons or solve any puzzles...you should expect to have nothing to contribute to the party...and likely to die.
I'd love to see a little boy or girl, say an orphan from the city trying to survive, and having somehow impressed a group of PCs with his nimble skills, trying to make it in a dungeon exploration. A kid is always great for making stuff happen, and for group dynamics. I remember kid (and Ewok) characters in WEG Star Wars fondly.
A kid doesn't have to be annoying like a kender, mind you. A little role play in that department goes a long way.
That bullshit about the "useless character" being "likely to die" and "not being able to contribute", it's crap. This guy would be a huge PITA playing a 1st level MU in a First ed AD&D game, probably, whining all the time about how his character sucks and has no spells and only 2 HP or something.
Quote from: Benoist;688283So... "I want to play a Disney Princess singing and speaking to animals!"
DM: "Yeah, no. My CharOp buddies are going to hate on you. You better study the buildz, girl. Here's our 300-page manual, by the way."
Girl: "Oh... Hm. Well. OK. I'm going to be playing Nintendo over there while you guys play."
...
Fuck that noise.
Meanwhile, I wrote an entire character class just for my wife in my current game project, just because she had a cool idea for one and I wanted her to want to play it.
Whattya wanna bet that dude sleeps with an anime body pillow instead of a woman?
What I can't understand is how char op dweebs claim thieves/rogues are useless if they aren't strikers in combat, because D&D has lots of combat. Okay. But even in a combat-heavy game, thieves play a big role in setting up the success or failure of a combat by scouting, disarming traps, killing guards, etc.
In a dynamic adventure dynamic, a big part of the your party's effectiveness is in how you turn the context of the battle to your own advantage. A combat where you ambush the enemy has a far, far better chance of PC victory than one where the PCs are ambushed. And a character who may be weak in combat itself can play a big role in gaining advantage in the context of those combats. It's the same way that combatants in the real world gain huge advantages by effective intelligence and reconnaissance.
Disregarding that role means that these guys aren't only char op freaks, but they only understand encountardized D&D, where every combat is a frozen, prescribed, calibrated challenge. I'd point out how dumb they are, but I can't be bothered with ENWorld's onerous registration process.
I understand about premise relevance, and organized play is something else... That said my sympathies with their argument is very slim. My bigger beef is with the limitations upon organized play in the first place.
I remember asking organizers how flexible GMs can be if the party composition favors alternate answers. They said there was some leeway, but extremely little. Outside of End Encounter trumps, like "diplomancing," used on the encounter directly, there was little in the way of alternate solutions: scouting, rumor-gathering, espionage, mob rallying, etc. all seemed off the table. The module environment and "path" was mostly static.
With such a construction and GM time limitation, where combat encounters (often in order, in set areas) are taken as a given, a party's combat DPR rates becomes the default premise. There are no other meaningful solutions because there is a metagame context that overrides the standard RPG contexts. The overlaid structure is too confined to entertain the full expression available to the base game.
Quote from: Haffrung;688288Disregarding that role means that these guys aren't only char op freaks, but they only understand encountardized D&D, where every combat is a frozen, prescribed, calibrated challenge. I'd point out how dumb they are, but I can't be bothered with ENWorld's onerous registration process.
Do you even D&D or do you just complain about how the meanie Charopers ruined the game for you. Seriously calm your tits for a second -_-
Quote from: Mistwell;688186I feel this post, from EW recently, exemplifies what's wrong with the murder hobo mentality 100% of the time:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340500-Sneak-Attack-optional-or-mandatory&p=6177324&viewfull=1#post6177324
Just reminds me of when Mr.GC was trolling this forum, with his bizarre talk of "a typical adventuring day" and "basket weavers"
I'm all for letting someone play a magical fairy princess if that's what they want, but there also needs to be some manner of conformity within the play group. Play styles need to have sufficient overlap to make the players 'gel'. For example, I wouldn't want to play in a game that is based strictly on combat encounters with no 'larger world' ramifications. But I know there are groups that do play that way.
I wouldn't demand that a group adopt my style if I join them; likewise, I wouldn't let a player join who's idea of a fun time was to murder and rape (in that order) every NPC they meet.
In extreme cases, incompatible play styles makes for a situation where it's better to split the group.
Now, as far as which play style I prefer, that's immaterial (but it's the fairy princess one) because it's not my job to tell someone why what they're doing is 'bad-wrong-unfun'.
In my games, I do tend to expect a fair amount of combat. If someone wants to make a character that isn't effective in combat, I'd expect them to determine how they'd contribute to the party - either by avoiding combat or finding a way to contribute that involves them in the action.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;688332In my games, I do tend to expect a fair amount of combat. If someone wants to make a character that isn't effective in combat, I'd expect them to determine how they'd contribute to the party - either by avoiding combat or finding a way to contribute that involves them in the action.
Are you talking about you as a player or you as a GM?
Are you talking about them knowing how they plan on playing the character or are you talking about them telling you how they plan on playing the character?
Just wondering, because if you were a player who asked me OOC how my character was going to contribute, I'd just tell you to go fuck yourself. :D
Quote from: deadDMwalking;688332I'm all for letting someone play a magical fairy princess if that's what they want, but there also needs to be some manner of conformity within the play group. Play styles need to have sufficient overlap to make the players 'gel'. For example, I wouldn't want to play in a game that is based strictly on combat encounters with no 'larger world' ramifications. But I know there are groups that do play that way.
I wouldn't demand that a group adopt my style if I join them; likewise, I wouldn't let a player join who's idea of a fun time was to murder and rape (in that order) every NPC they meet.
In extreme cases, incompatible play styles makes for a situation where it's better to split the group.
Now, as far as which play style I prefer, that's immaterial (but it's the fairy princess one) because it's not my job to tell someone why what they're doing is 'bad-wrong-unfun'.
In my games, I do tend to expect a fair amount of combat. If someone wants to make a character that isn't effective in combat, I'd expect them to determine how they'd contribute to the party - either by avoiding combat or finding a way to contribute that involves them in the action.
WTF? You just messed up 28+ pages of perfectly good whining, pissing, and moaning with a
reasonable post! Now things are
really gonna get ugly....
But for what it's worth, I agree with the above 100%.
Quote from: Benoist;688283So... "I want to play a Disney Princess singing and speaking to animals!"
DM: "Yeah, no. My CharOp buddies are going to hate on you. You better study the buildz, girl. Here's our 300-page manual, by the way."
Girl: "Oh... Hm. Well. OK. I'm going to be playing Nintendo over there while you guys play."
...
Fuck that noise.
Quote from: Benoist;688285From the same thread http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340500-Sneak-Attack-optional-or-mandatory&p=6177407&viewfull=1#post6177407
I'd love to see a little boy or girl, say an orphan from the city trying to survive, and having somehow impressed a group of PCs with his nimble skills, trying to make it in a dungeon exploration. A kid is always great for making stuff happen, and for group dynamics. I remember kid (and Ewok) characters in WEG Star Wars fondly.
I cannot help but think about the "D and DeeDee" episode of
Dexter's Laboratory.JG
Quote from: Bill;688208I would like to hear your counter argument about 1E dnd planes. I think we can survive a small derailment.
(grins) It wouldn't be a small one. But hey, if you want to open up a new dedicated alignment debate thread, sure, I'd show up.
Quote from: Haffrung;688288What I can't understand is how char op dweebs claim thieves/rogues are useless if they aren't strikers in combat, because D&D has lots of combat. Okay. But even in a combat-heavy game, thieves play a big role in setting up the success or failure of a combat by scouting, disarming traps, killing guards, etc.
No shit. The funny thing is that they don't nearly so often apply such a mentality to other REMF character types. I bet if I ran a cleric that had nothing but massive healing mojo, they'd appreciate that just fine.
But heck, that's one of the natural evolutions of character class / niche protection paradigms. The notion that you Have To Have a bunch of narrowly-defined, narrowly prescribed roles leads readily to the premise that a character has to function within people's perception of what that role ought to be. The
expectation is that a D&D thief must be a respectable fighter, because, well, D&D thieves are
supposed to be respectable fighters.
Quote from: Ravenswing;688392The expectation is that a D&D thief must be a respectable fighter, because, well, D&D thieves are supposed to be respectable fighters.
The "Thief" class wasn't a respectable fighter (or really a respectable anything). "Thieves" being good at fighting only starts in 3e when "backstab" became "sneak attack", and the Rogue class became awesome ;3
Quote from: gamerGoyf;688434The "Thief" class wasn't a respectable fighter (or really a respectable anything). "Thieves" being good at fighting only starts in 3e when "backstab" became "sneak attack", and the Rogue class became awesome ;3
I have always thought Rogues should have d8hd and Cleric thaco.
I couldn't work out how dropping edged weapons, some thaco and d10 to d8 but gaining MAGIC for clerics was the same as thieves droppign armour, most weapons, a lot of thaco and d10 to d6 and gainign some SKILLS was really balanced int eh wider scheme of things.
Quote from: jibbajibba;688455I have always thought Rogues should have d8hd and Cleric thaco.
I couldn't work out how dropping edged weapons, some thaco and d10 to d8 but gaining MAGIC for clerics was the same as thieves droppign armour, most weapons, a lot of thaco and d10 to d6 and gainign some SKILLS was really balanced int eh wider scheme of things.
Rogues in
Arcana Rising have a d8 hit die and cleric THAC0. ;)
Quote from: Haffrung;688288What I can't understand is how char op dweebs claim thieves/rogues are useless if they aren't strikers in combat, because D&D has lots of combat. Okay. But even in a combat-heavy game, thieves play a big role in setting up the success or failure of a combat by scouting, disarming traps, killing guards, etc.
In a dynamic adventure dynamic, a big part of the your party's effectiveness is in how you turn the context of the battle to your own advantage. A combat where you ambush the enemy has a far, far better chance of PC victory than one where the PCs are ambushed. And a character who may be weak in combat itself can play a big role in gaining advantage in the context of those combats. It's the same way that combatants in the real world gain huge advantages by effective intelligence and reconnaissance.
Disregarding that role means that these guys aren't only char op freaks, but they only understand encountardized D&D, where every combat is a frozen, prescribed, calibrated challenge. I'd point out how dumb they are, but I can't be bothered with ENWorld's onerous registration process.
In some playstyles success or failure is how much damage you can do in combat.
Not my playstyle, But I see it a lot.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;688434The "Thief" class wasn't a respectable fighter (or really a respectable anything). "Thieves" being good at fighting only starts in 3e when "backstab" became "sneak attack", and the Rogue class became awesome ;3
You don't need to be a good fighter to have a big influence on the outcome of a battle. Ever heard of intelligence, reconnaissance, deception, pathfinding, and ambush?
If none of that matters in your D&D, there are two, not necessarily mutually exclusive, possibilities:
- The DM is a lazy pussy who lets you just waltz into encounters and win standup fight after standup fight, without any dynamic, active response from the enemies.
- The players lack the imagination to think outside the box and shape the context of the combat encounter to your advantage.
Quote from: CRKrueger;688341Are you talking about you as a player or you as a GM?
Are you talking about them knowing how they plan on playing the character or are you talking about them telling you how they plan on playing the character?
Just wondering, because if you were a player who asked me OOC how my character was going to contribute, I'd just tell you to go fuck yourself. :D
If I were playing in a game with you, before I joined you/allowed you to join me, I would ask in-character about what you bring to the group. If you can't kill things, you can't infiltrate dangerous places, and you can't heal me, I probably don't want to give you an equal share of treasure. Now, I might be convinced otherwise, but I don't subscribe to the notion that 'every player gets to join the party because they're "real people"'.
If you want to join the party, the other players have to be willing to accept you 'in-character'.
This may seem harsh, but this is the single easiest way to deal with problem players that I've found.
You want to play a lone-wolf ninja? Fine. But if you're not willing to talk to the party and explain how you'd be useful, they'll wander off and I'll focus on their adventures.
You want to play an evil character in a party that is mostly good? Fine. But when you torture the orc prisoner in a way they don't approve of, they can drop you from the party.
And if you play a fragile flower and the party is interested in dangerous missions, they may have your character wait with the horses.
Since it seems appropriate for what the characters would do, I support it.
I do ask my players to make an effort in figuring out why they're going to work together as a party.
And this doesn't mean that we all get along - just that even when we don't get along, there is sufficient reason for us to stay together.
In a game that I'm a player, one of the characters is a Necromancer. My character REALLY finds that distasteful. Just a few sessions ago we had a sufficient disagreement that we sundered our party - but we were both committed to the same mission. When we realized that neither half of the party could overcome a particular obstacle without the help of the other, we reluctantly rejoined forces. And even though we don't get along in-character, we are both from the same small town and had quite a lot to bring us together as a party at the beginning of the campaign (some 33 sessions ago).
Quote from: Haffrung;688475You don't need to be a good fighter to have a big influence on the outcome of a battle. Ever heard of intelligence, reconnaissance, deception, pathfinding, and ambush?
If none of that matters in your D&D, there are two, not necessarily mutually exclusive, possibilities:
- The DM is a lazy pussy who lets you just waltz into encounters and win standup fight after standup fight, without any dynamic, active response from the enemies.
- The players lack the imagination to think outside the box and shape the context of the combat encounter to your advantage.
Ever heard of not being a dishonest shitstain -_-
You know what lets go on a wonderful journey of imagination together. Imagine for a moment a Thief variant that is actually capable of those things you are wanking about but wonder of wonders is also capable in combat because those thing
are not mutually exclusive -_-
What you're imagining is a fighter/thief, mage/thief or Illusionist/thief. ;)
(...well there's also the cleric/thief and the fighter/mage/thief I suppose but ymmv :D)
Thieves work best as multiclass, I'd say, and I've heard that's one reason for the very creation of the Class, back in the day, but don't take my Word for it.
The thief is great in combat, just not grinding melee combat. Choose better combat tactics and watch the change. I recommend learning the value of ambush, ranged weapons, and kiting. Choosing the terms of battle are often as or more important than DPRs.
I recommend single class challenges, running a party comprised of the same class, to all GMs and players to get a feel of their class strategy and tactics. It's an enlightening experiment.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;688434The "Thief" class wasn't a respectable fighter (or really a respectable anything). "Thieves" being good at fighting only starts in 3e when "backstab" became "sneak attack", and the Rogue class became awesome ;3
And that's been in place for over a dozen years now. What a particular character class had for abilities decades back isn't part of the discussion, I would imagine.
Quote from: J Arcane;688456Rogues in Arcana Rising have a d8 hit die and cleric THAC0. ;)
In my heartbreaker the default rogue has d8hd and +1 Att/ 2 levels
But the GM can build new archetypes under the rogue class that have lower HD and say more skills, much lower HD and say magic or better HD and less skills.
So a Scout might have d8HD +1Att/2 levels 2 points per skill
A Fence might have d6HD +1Att/3 levels 1 point per skill
(there are more class options but you get the idea :) )
One thing From AD&D that really confused me was why the warrior monk, the Shaolin master of mind and body who spent hours training in arts martial and spiritual was so much worse at fighting than friar tuck..... until he was about 12th level by which point Friar Tuck could waste him with a pillar of flame
Quote from: Ravenswing;688692And that's been in place for over a dozen years now. What a particular character class had for abilities decades back isn't part of the discussion, I would imagine.
Dude, where do you think you are 0_0
Quote from: Ravenswing;688692And that's been in place for over a dozen years now. What a particular character class had for abilities decades back isn't part of the discussion, I would imagine.
Some of us old guys have been playing 1E/2E dnd with the older thief model for more than 12 years :)
Bah! Uphill! both Ways!!!!
Personally I like the old thief who has to earn a backstab with strategy and stealth, but gets torn up by a real fighter in a fair fight.
The melee killing machine rogue tome is more a multiclassed fighter/thief.
Quote from: The Ent;688600What you're imagining is a fighter/thief, mage/thief or Illusionist/thief. ;)
(...well there's also the cleric/thief and the fighter/mage/thief I suppose but ymmv :D)
Thieves work best as multiclass, I'd say, and I've heard that's one reason for the very creation of the Class, back in the day, but don't take my Word for it.
The thief was the first step toward taking classes away from representing strong archetypes and toward representing skilled job specialties.
Before there was a thief, all competent adventurers could climb, sneak, look for traps, etc. Based on circumstances and the application of common sense these activities were handled.
Along comes the thief and suddenly all other adventurers were incompetent clowns to make room for the thiefs miserable existence. Common interpretation of the rules made the fighter in light armor no longer capable of sneaking because being stealthy was the thief's "thing".
This soon became a proliferation of classes, shoehorning everyone into tighter and tighter niches to make room for the ever growing number of class specialties. Envisioning your fighter as a type of Conan, Lancelot, or Aragorn didn't work because there were barbarians, cavaliers, rangers, etc.
The evolution of this became "builds" within those classes and specialization and hyper-focus to a level of absurdity.
In 4E flying creatures were only allowed to "hop" in combat. Why? Because of melee focused builds. "Viable" characters were designed in such a way that they would be utterly useless in any ranged situation so the mean old monsters had to agree to stay on the ground so the melee folks wouldn't feel useless.
That is fucking shit design and it all started by making room for the thief.
(nods to Exploderwizard) Yeah. Like a lot of those 70s gamers, my VD&D homebrew got increasingly baroque -- as D&D itself would become, as the years went on -- and loaded down with more and more classes and "demi-classes" to reflect each Kewl Noo Option. I wince, in recollection, at how I bought into the shoehorning, and would steer people who'd give me a character concept towards the narrow little box that I thought came the closest to their notion. Sometimes there was even a "demi-class" that fit. Sometimes.
Then, in 1983, I started writing for a game company that had a Fantasy Trip license, and starting up my campaign again after a year's hiatus, the owner suggested I convert to TFT, a system I'd always sneakingly admired. I was enchanted. I didn't have to shoehorn, and my players didn't have to compromise: to hell with the labels and the pigeonholes, here are your points, just pick the stats and abilities you want. I never looked back.
Quote from: Ravenswing;688833(nods to Exploderwizard) Yeah. Like a lot of those 70s gamers, my VD&D homebrew got increasingly baroque -- as D&D itself would become, as the years went on -- and loaded down with more and more classes and "demi-classes" to reflect each Kewl Noo Option. I wince, in recollection, at how I bought into the shoehorning, and would steer people who'd give me a character concept towards the narrow little box that I thought came the closest to their notion. Sometimes there was even a "demi-class" that fit. Sometimes.
Then, in 1983, I started writing for a game company that had a Fantasy Trip license, and starting up my campaign again after a year's hiatus, the owner suggested I convert to TFT, a system I'd always sneakingly admired. I was enchanted. I didn't have to shoehorn, and my players didn't have to compromise: to hell with the labels and the pigeonholes, here are your points, just pick the stats and abilities you want. I never looked back.
If finely tuned specific abilities are what you are looking for I agree, just ditch the class baggage and move on. I still enjoy the simplicity of class based systems. Once they start to go beyond the broad archetypes needed for the genre, its better just to switch to a skill base.
Quote from: James Gillen;687372I may have mentioned this before, but in Game of Thrones (the TV version especially) being a murder-hobo kinda seems like the POINT.
JG
I'd say the point in Game of Thrones (or any GoT-like campaign) would be to get OTHER people to be murder-hobos for you.
I swear hanging out with you people on this board has poisoned my mind.
I have not been posting to EnWorld for a couple years now. I go back there for 5e discussion, and the 3e/Pathfinder and 4e fans are irritating the shit out of me!
It's all DPR and tactical combat and Kewl Powerz and optimization between feats and class powers and magical items and balance stuff and all this bullshit.
Fuck people! When the DM looks at you and says "what do you do", do not look down at your character sheet or power cards or figurine or whatever the fuck you've been depending on to tell you what to do. You look the DM in the eye and you say "I toss my torch at the rug that troll is standing on, intending to light the rug on fire, and then I get the fuck out of there before the whole place goes up!" or "I try to convince the troll to allow us to escort it to a whole den of tasty Kobolds to eat, in exchange for safe passage" or whatever it is you think your character would do to get out of that situation alive and (hopefully) a bit better off for it.
The game is not about doing the most damage. This is not a wargame for fuck's sake, it's a role playing game!
Argh! OK, sorry, rant done.
It's all your fault. You people and your ideas, they're poison I tell you! You boiled me in your TSR era pot of water and before I realized it, this frog was cooked!
Quote from: Mistwell;689234I have not been posting to EnWorld for a couple years now. I go back there for 5e discussion, and the 3e/Pathfinder and 4e fans are irritating the shit out of me!
It's all DPR and tactical combat and Kewl Powerz and optimization between feats and class powers and magical items and balance stuff and all this bullshit.
Fuck people! When the DM looks at you and says "what do you do", do not look down at your character sheet or power cards or figurine or whatever the fuck you've been depending on to tell you what to do. You look the DM in the eye and you say "I toss my torch at the rug that troll is standing on, intending to light the rug on fire, and then I get the fuck out of there before the whole place goes up!" or "I try to convince the troll to allow us to escort it to a whole den of tasty Kobolds to eat, in exchange for safe passage" or whatever it is you think your character would do to get out of that situation alive and (hopefully) a bit better off for it.
The game is not about doing the most damage. This is not a wargame for fuck's sake, it's a role playing game!
Your journey towards the dark side is complete.
Quote from: RPGPundit;689218I'd say the point in Game of Thrones (or any GoT-like campaign) would be to get OTHER people to be murder-hobos for you.
[thumb up]
Quote from: Mistwell;689234I swear hanging out with you people on this board has poisoned my mind.
Yes it has, so let me snap you back to you senses ;3
Quote from: Mistwell;689234Fuck people! When the DM looks at you and says "what do you do", do not look down at your character sheet or power cards or figurine or whatever the fuck you've been depending on to tell you what to do. You look the DM in the eye and you say "I toss my torch at the rug that troll is standing on, intending to light the rug on fire, and then I get the fuck out of there before the whole place goes up!" or "I try to convince the troll to allow us to escort it to a whole den of tasty Kobolds to eat, in exchange for safe passage" or whatever it is you think your character would do to get out of that situation alive and (hopefully) a bit better off for it.
All of those scenarios assume an absurdly cooperative GM otherwise
"The rug is too wet to catch on fire, the troll eats you."
"You fail to escape, the troll eats you."
The troll is not convinced by your argument, then the troll eats you."
because in any "old-school" system heck in D&D Next even, those actions are governed solely by GM fiat. So if he isn't on board you are not escaping the troll today. Now you are right, combat being the only option on the table sucks. That has nothing to do with what isn't on peoples character sheet and everything to do with what is -_-
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689290All of those scenarios assume an absurdly cooperative GM otherwise
Methinks there might be a wee flaw in your argument.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689290Yes it has, so let me snap you back to you senses ;3
All of those scenarios assume a competent and fair-minded GM
-
FYP
If you don't have a competent and fair-minded GM, you may as well stick to boardgames. Because an RPG with a comprehensive rules-set that engages only the analytical part of the mind is just a really fiddly boardgame.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689290Yes it has, so let me snap you back to you senses ;3
All of those scenarios assume an absurdly cooperative GM otherwise
"The rug is too wet to catch on fire, the troll eats you."
"You fail to escape, the troll eats you."
The troll is not convinced by your argument, then the troll eats you."
because in any "old-school" system heck in D&D Next even, those actions are governed solely by GM fiat. So if he isn't on board you are not escaping the troll today. Now you are right, combat being the only option on the table sucks. That has nothing to do with what isn't on peoples character sheet and everything to do with what is -_-
You miss the point i fear.
He doesn't set light to the rug he doesn't convince the troll... He TRIES to do those things because it feels the his pc in that situation would try to do these things. If they fail because the troll pissed on the rug out of fear when he saw the torch or the pc and the troll share no common tongue then that is the world...
Yes for these moves to work there may be gm fiat, but most gms would say.... Roll a save for the rug versus normal fire or let the player may a skill check after deciding to talk to the troll etc... You are already in a position where you have to trust the gm entirely as they are your only interface to the game world, if you are doing that then you may as well trust them to rule the rest of the world, outside what you see hear smell taste sense discover decypher or pick up through investigating the entrails of chickens.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689290Yes it has, so let me snap you back to you senses ;3
All of those scenarios assume an absurdly cooperative GM otherwise
"The rug is too wet to catch on fire, the troll eats you."
"You fail to escape, the troll eats you."
The troll is not convinced by your argument, then the troll eats you."
because in any "old-school" system heck in D&D Next even, those actions are governed solely by GM fiat. So if he isn't on board you are not escaping the troll today. Now you are right, combat being the only option on the table sucks. That has nothing to do with what isn't on peoples character sheet and everything to do with what is -_-
a) no, maybe a good GM who is working with the PCs and not trying to kill them. I tend to like it when my players roleplay vs just play of their sheets. I don't consider this compliant, just willing to listen.
b) Next, and all games, should avoid diplomancers, etc. But sometimes a character can be more persuasive based on skills or stats and use that with the ability to roleplay...I know, I'm crazy....
Quote from: Mistwell;689234I swear hanging out with you people on this board has poisoned my mind.
Evidently...
QuoteFuck people! When the DM looks at you and says "what do you do", do not look down at your character sheet or power cards or figurine or whatever the fuck you've been depending on to tell you what to do.
Then you're not playing D&D of any edition. You are having tea with teddy bears.
QuoteYou look the DM in the eye and you say "I toss my torch at the rug that troll is standing on, intending to light the rug on fire, and then I get the fuck out of there before the whole place goes up!" or "I try to convince the troll to allow us to escort it to a whole den of tasty Kobolds to eat, in exchange for safe passage" or whatever it is you think your character would do to get out of that situation alive and (hopefully) a bit better off for it.
Your PCs are idiots. 1. What the fuck are rugs made of in your world? You've clearly been playing too many video games where various terrain bits explode when you look at them funny. 2. Trolls are faster than you and nearly impossible to tire out because of their obscene health. You've clearly been playing too many video games where you can run forever and monsters have an aggro radius. 3. Trolls only have a 25% chance of understanding other trolls, and generally view non-trolls as food, not conversation. You've clearly been playing too many point and click adventure games where you get to try a million stupid options while the enemy just stands there.
I would say,
All of those scenarios assume a reasonably competent GM
Quote from: Arturick;689298Then you're not playing D&D of any edition. You are having tea with teddy bears.
.
You mean role playing? As in the point of a role playing game?
Quote from: TristramEvans;689300You mean role playing? As in the point of a role playing game?
I never said he wasn't roleplaying. I said he's not playing any form of D&D if his decisions are not informed or affected by the rules of D&D. He's also roleplaying an idiot.
"Tea Party" has always been the wrong analogy. It's more like cops and robbers with your mean older brother. Nothing you do works, nothing you say matters and you'll feel a lot better about the whole thing if you walk away now.
Anyhow, the right answer is "I pick up the Kender thief and feed him to the troll." Then we go and have a beer and laugh about it.
However, constant, arbitrary blocking by the GM can be supremely annoying and frusterating for the players and often ends up singling out a single player. If there ain't a roll assign a reasonable percentage chance (meaning the player doesn't flip out and start screaming) and let them roll it. If your precious story-line dies the death here and you can't salvage it, that's your fault as a GM. You keep flexible and roll with things.
I like a good list of skills because I like to take the fiat out of games. I get to say "roll your fast talk" or "roll your luck" and the problem is out of my hands and people get mad at the dice instead of me.
Quote from: Arturick;689301I never said he wasn't roleplaying. I said he's not playing any form of D&D if his decisions are not informed or affected by the rules of D&D. He's also roleplaying an idiot.
It's perfectly possible to play D&D without knowing or referencing any rules. That's the GM's job/burden. It's also one of the biggest appeals of the game to new players in the past. A player's only responsibility is playing thier role, the numbers on an index card might give one a starting point ( or not, as correlating the stats to real world equivilants has never been D&D's strong suit), but the role is brought to life by the player investing them with personality and making decisions from the character's PoV.
Quote from: Haffrung;689294FYP
If you don't have a competent and fair-minded GM, you may as well stick to boardgames. Because an RPG with a comprehensive rules-set that engages only the analytical part of the mind is just a really fiddly boardgame.
if you're RPG doesn't have relatively comprehensive rules-set than it's really just a fiddly game of pretend ;3
Quote from: TristramEvans;689300You mean role playing? As in the point of a role playing game?
This really does need to be answered 'casuse you guys got it backwards. Not having rules for thing's isn't the great strength it's being able to keep going even when you don't have explicit rules. Because the rules can not cover everything it's literally impossible and "Magical Tea Party" is always going to be part of you game ^_^
That doesn't mean that "Magical Tea Party" is the be all and end all of RPG design either 'cause ideally MTP is always going to be the worst rule in your system ;3
Magic tea party is a slur for people who don't think they are playing a wargame. I Roleplay with adults, magic tea party is not an essential part of any system that isn't played by little girls
Quote from: TristramEvans;689309Magic tea party is a slur for people who don't think they are playing a wargame. I Roleplay with adults, magic tea party is not an essential part of any system that isn't played by little girls
So you're not going to engage with the substance of my statement. Instead you opt to remain fannyflustered about how people once said mean things about you on the internet :?
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689306if you're RPG doesn't have relatively comprehensive rules-set than it's really just a fiddly game of pretend
Well, duh!
That's all a role playing game really IS, you dummy: a fiddly game of let's pretend! :D
And the more "comprehensive" your rules, the more fiddly it becomes!
Congratulations, genius. Now you can get back to your bizarro argument that RPGs really shouldn't be about let's pretend. Enjoy the backlash.
Quote from: Benoist;689320Well, duh!
That's all a role playing game really IS, you dummy: a fiddly game of let's pretend! :D
And the more "comprehensive" your rules, the more fiddly it becomes!
Congratulations, genius. Now you can get back to your bizarro argument that RPGs really shouldn't be about let's pretend. Enjoy the backlash.
Do you not understand what I'm saying, or are you being deliberately obtuse because if you did follow me it would lead to conclusions you are uncomfortable with? Seriously what's with the greedy reductionism :?
Edit: Haffrung, try my first post on this page of the thread again.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689306if you're RPG doesn't have relatively comprehensive rules-set than it's really just a fiddly game of pretend ;3
What, if any, fundamental differences do you see between D&D and a game like Descent?
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689315So you're not going to engage with the substance of my statement. Instead you opt to remain fannyflustered about how people once said mean things about you on the internet :?
The substance of your statement was a tangent from the discussion. We were talking about player perspective and you responded by talking about design perspective, so it mostly came across as a non-sequitur. Thus I have no response, I'd rather not shift goalposts this quickly in the discussion.
Quote from: misterguignol;487729I think this is usually a function of age. When I started playing D&D at 13...yeah, those early games were probably in the murder-hobo vein.
A couple games in high school (such as when we tried an ill-advised all-evil party) dipped back into murder-hobo-ville.
Since then? Not so much. It's possibly a function of learning how to get more from the game as you become accustomed to it.
I'd agree with the age thing. My campaigns in Junior High were pretty bloody and players spent a lot of time destroying Halfling villages. And like you I think I saw one or two more instances of that in highschool. But for the most part, ninth grade and on there just wasn't that much of this.
Quote from: TristramEvans;689326The substance of your statement was a tangent from the discussion. We were talking about player perspective and you responded by talking about design perspective, so it mostly came across as a non-sequitur. Thus I have no response, I'd rather not shift goalposts this quickly in the discussion.
This tangent can not be disentangled from the design perspective. Anyway this line of argument is likely to result in something more constructive than people just whining about other people liking things that they dislike ;3
Quote from: Mistwell;689234I swear hanging out with you people on this board has poisoned my mind.
I have not been posting to EnWorld for a couple years now. I go back there for 5e discussion, and the 3e/Pathfinder and 4e fans are irritating the shit out of me!
It's all DPR and tactical combat and Kewl Powerz and optimization between feats and class powers and magical items and balance stuff and all this bullshit.
Fuck people! When the DM looks at you and says "what do you do", do not look down at your character sheet or power cards or figurine or whatever the fuck you've been depending on to tell you what to do. You look the DM in the eye and you say "I toss my torch at the rug that troll is standing on, intending to light the rug on fire, and then I get the fuck out of there before the whole place goes up!" or "I try to convince the troll to allow us to escort it to a whole den of tasty Kobolds to eat, in exchange for safe passage" or whatever it is you think your character would do to get out of that situation alive and (hopefully) a bit better off for it.
The game is not about doing the most damage. This is not a wargame for fuck's sake, it's a role playing game!
Argh! OK, sorry, rant done.
It's all your fault. You people and your ideas, they're poison I tell you! You boiled me in your TSR era pot of water and before I realized it, this frog was cooked!
Is the correct answer! ;)
I see we have Denners Part II going on in this thread, too.
Quote from: Mistwell;689234I swear hanging out with you people on this board has poisoned my mind.
I have not been posting to EnWorld for a couple years now. I go back there for 5e discussion, and the 3e/Pathfinder and 4e fans are irritating the shit out of me!
It's all DPR and tactical combat and Kewl Powerz and optimization between feats and class powers and magical items and balance stuff and all this bullshit.
Fuck people! When the DM looks at you and says "what do you do", do not look down at your character sheet or power cards or figurine or whatever the fuck you've been depending on to tell you what to do. You look the DM in the eye and you say "I toss my torch at the rug that troll is standing on, intending to light the rug on fire, and then I get the fuck out of there before the whole place goes up!" or "I try to convince the troll to allow us to escort it to a whole den of tasty Kobolds to eat, in exchange for safe passage" or whatever it is you think your character would do to get out of that situation alive and (hopefully) a bit better off for it.
The game is not about doing the most damage. This is not a wargame for fuck's sake, it's a role playing game!
Argh! OK, sorry, rant done.
It's all your fault. You people and your ideas, they're poison I tell you! You boiled me in your TSR era pot of water and before I realized it, this frog was cooked!
Yup. The game is not the rules, and the rules are not the game.
I feel you, man. It was a cool post/rant for me to read on your part though.
Quote from: Benoist;689340Yup. The game is not the rules, and the rules are not the game.
That doesn't even make sense :?
Quote from: Benoist;689340I feel you, man. It was a cool post/rant for me to read on your part though.
No that post wasn't cool. People making a show of how upset they are that people like things they dislike is actually incredibly lame -_-
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689323Do you not understand what I'm saying, or are you being deliberately obtuse because if you did follow me it would lead to conclusions you are uncomfortable with? Seriously what's with the greedy reductionism :?
You seem to think you can get there (to, I guess, an objective world-sim) with pen and paper rules – I don't think 3e is actually very close in any coherent sense – but it's either going to make the game so slow it's unplayable by humans or so rigid that to adjust the game-world it presents requires modding the game they way you would a computer game. Thus the only real choice you have with P&P are more-or-less fiddly games of let's pretend. You can make a veneer of world-sim but for a P&P system to handle it, it will need to be abstracted, which will create stupid edge scenarios which you then have to resolve by fiat.
Objective world-sims, like rabbit-pellet level-and-loot-grinders, are better handled by computers, though the objective world-sim is a much harder task once you've started focusing in from a wide level of abstraction.
Quote from: Mistwell;689234I swear hanging out with you people on this board has poisoned my mind.
I have not been posting to EnWorld for a couple years now. I go back there for 5e discussion, and the 3e/Pathfinder and 4e fans are irritating the shit out of me!
It's all DPR and tactical combat and Kewl Powerz and optimization between feats and class powers and magical items and balance stuff and all this bullshit.
Fuck people! When the DM looks at you and says "what do you do", do not look down at your character sheet or power cards or figurine or whatever the fuck you've been depending on to tell you what to do. You look the DM in the eye and you say "I toss my torch at the rug that troll is standing on, intending to light the rug on fire, and then I get the fuck out of there before the whole place goes up!" or "I try to convince the troll to allow us to escort it to a whole den of tasty Kobolds to eat, in exchange for safe passage" or whatever it is you think your character would do to get out of that situation alive and (hopefully) a bit better off for it.
The game is not about doing the most damage. This is not a wargame for fuck's sake, it's a role playing game!
Argh! OK, sorry, rant done.
It's all your fault. You people and your ideas, they're poison I tell you! You boiled me in your TSR era pot of water and before I realized it, this frog was cooked!
There may be hope for you yet....
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689290Yes it has, so let me snap you back to you senses ;3
All of those scenarios assume an absurdly cooperative GM otherwise
"The rug is too wet to catch on fire, the troll eats you."
"You fail to escape, the troll eats you."
The troll is not convinced by your argument, then the troll eats you."
because in any "old-school" system heck in D&D Next even, those actions are governed solely by GM fiat. So if he isn't on board you are not escaping the troll today. Now you are right, combat being the only option on the table sucks. That has nothing to do with what isn't on peoples character sheet and everything to do with what is -_-
Show us on the doll where the Bad DM touched you.
Quote from: Arturick;689298Then you're not playing D&D of any edition. You are having tea with teddy bears.
Aww, look, it's the old Magical Tea Party arguement come to visit us again after all these months...
Quote from: jeff37923;689352Show us on the doll where the Bad DM touched you.
Isn't it weird how many schools of bad RPG theory share a fundamental distrust and even hatred of the DM?
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689345Quote from: Benoist;689340Yup. The game is not the rules, and the rules are not the game.
That doesn't even make sense :?
That is why you fail. :D
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689345That doesn't even make sense :?
No that post wasn't cool. People making a show of how upset they are that people like things they dislike is actually incredibly lame -_-
Makes sense to me.
1) Ben is referring to the fact that there is more to a gaming group and experience than just the rules, there is the interaction, the personal side, houserules, adjudications...lots more than just the rules. In the case of Ben's exact response to Mistwell, he was responding to the assertion that there is more to the play than a character sheet and some dice.
2) You don't know your history. Mistwell was giving people a backhanded compliment that posting here had given him an added perspective on gaming that included some more OSR mindset, I believe.
Quote from: Imp;689349You seem to think you can get there (to, I guess, an objective world-sim) with pen and paper rules
That is
specifically what I'm not saying hence my accusation of greedy reductionism -_-
My point was that "Magical Tea Party" is an essential and undeniable part RPGs. No one is arguing for the removal of Magic Tea Party as an element of RPGs the impossibility of such a thing is intuitively obvious to everyone with a brain. However we are all in agreement that
rules can potentially be and improvement from MTP. At least I assume so given we all play RPGs with at least some rules ^_^
Quote from: J Arcane;689354Isn't it weird how many schools of bad RPG theory share a fundamental distrust and even hatred of the DM?
One Horse Town declared a while ago that the majority of problems people claim in RPG design actually stem from a distrust of the people that are enagaged as participants.
Quote from: jeff37923;689352Show us on the doll where the Bad DM touched you.
So you assume that the GM must always have your harebrained schemes succeed. That's some pretty hefty player entitlement you have there. Remind me to never run a game for you.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689364So you assume that the GM must always have your harebrained schemes succeed. That's some pretty hefty player entitlement you have there. Remind me to never run a game for you.
Talk about excluded middles. Dude, you are really bad at this. Seriously. You are making yourself look like a complete tool. Calm down and try to engage in actual conversations with people.
Quote from: J Arcane;689354Isn't it weird how many schools of bad RPG theory share a fundamental distrust and even hatred of the DM?
It's also weird how all new schools of RPG theory share a fundamental distrust and even hatred of the GM.
If A=C and B=C...
Quote from: One Horse Town;689334I see we have Denners Part II going on in this thread, too.
Goyf isn't looking much like a denner. He uses greentext (more of a 4chan thing) but also uses emoticons heavily (generally frowned on over there). From the looks of things he has shown up in a few places (the Den, here, TBP, and I can only guess /tg/) very nearly simultaneously after doing very very little lurking in any of those places.
Haven't seen enough of Arturik to guess at where he might hail from.
Sorry for the tangent. Back to your scheduled homicidal camping trips.
Quote from: Benoist;689366Talk about excluded middles. Dude, you are really bad at this. Seriously. You are making yourself look like a complete tool. Calm down and try to engage in actual conversations with people.
Whom pray tell was excluding the middle, I gave reasons why those plans might not work (or rather why the GM might not allow those plans to work) and then he responded by accusing me of being traumatized by a "bad GM". Assuming his idea of a "good GM" would be one who let all his plans work all the time isn't even a stretch -_-
Man... you ARE really bad at this.
Quote from: Benoist;689375Man... you ARE really bad at this.
Well it's hard to make arguments against people who don't have any. Seriously a huge amount of this forums traffic is people complaining that people like things they dislike. Accompanied of course by the flexing of a truly massive persecution complex.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689372Whom pray tell was excluding the middle, I gave reasons why those plans might not work (or rather why the GM might not allow those plans to work) and then he responded by accusing me of being traumatized by a "bad GM". Assuming his idea of a "good GM" would be one who let all his plans work all the time isn't even a stretch -_-
yes, you gave reasons, and then wrote that a GM that acted to the contrary involved, "an absurdly cooperative GM." See, you need that part that moves you to a dichotomous situation to properly understand why there is an excluded middle. That's the part you missed.
Glad to help.
"All of those scenarios assume an absurdly cooperative GM otherwise
"The rug is too wet to catch on fire, the troll eats you."
"You fail to escape, the troll eats you."
The troll is not convinced by your argument, then the troll eats you."
because in any "old-school" system heck in D&D Next even, those actions are governed solely by GM fiat. So if he isn't on board you are not escaping the troll today. Now you are right, combat being the only option on the table sucks. That has nothing to do with what isn't on peoples character sheet and everything to do with what is -_-"
RPGs are multi-contextual games. Character generation -- which is mere selection of dials along potential resolution rules -- is merely one context in the bunch. The rules are not, and cannot ever hope to be, the sole context provider in a shared imaginary world where there is an infinite response capacity.
Resolution rules, world setting, campaign scope, starting premise, participant dynamics structure, participant shared expectations, etc. are all layers that comprise "pretend-land." By the impossibility of the authors from being everywhere at once to determine adjudication of all these contexts, it is then left to focus elaboration on one context, and a lot of recommendations and expected end-user adjudications for the remaining contexts. The magic of RPGs is the fluidity of end-user management of these multiple contexts to create dynamic responses to the participants' infinite capacity to engage this multi-layered system.
(Plus "Paradigm"... 'cuz if I'm gonna use $2 words like a corporate consultant I cannot forget the granddaddy buzzword of them all. :p)
Quote from: Benoist;689375Man... you ARE really bad at this.
Should I point out that it IS September? ;)
Quote from: J Arcane;689380Should I point out that it IS September? ;)
You just did.
Quote from: Opaopajr(Plus "Paradigm"... 'cuz if I'm gonna use $2 words like a corporate consultant I cannot forget the granddaddy buzzword of them all. )
Hey, I went a whole post without using it, it's the least you can do.
Quote from: LordVreeg;689378yes, you gave reasons, and then wrote that a GM that acted to the contrary involved, "an absurdly cooperative GM." See, you need that part that moves you to a dichotomous situation to properly understand why there is an excluded middle. That's the part you missed.
Glad to help.
Those plans are all pretty bad for reasons that don't include the necessity of GM fiat, and my assumption of GM fiat thus also included the handwaving of those issues. I made the incorrect assumption that focusing on the core issue of GM fiat would be more efficient than listing the reason why those particular plans were dumb. Clearly this was a grave misstep.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689377Well it's hard to make arguments against people who don't have any. Seriously a huge amount of this forums traffic is people complaining that people like things they dislike. Accompanied of course by the flexing of a truly massive persecution complex.
I agree too many people complain about things they don't like here. But your posts also seem to be complaints about things you don't like.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;689383I agree too many people complain about things they don't like here. But your posts also seem to be complaints about things you don't like.
Well I for one don't like that you're complaining about him complaining about people complaining about people that like things they don't like.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTXahWBmtcFlDKxKKMzeGyWqlDqWzbjp3aiHG8gceBVxkiBVbA)
THE SERPENT STIRS.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689364So you assume that the GM must always have your harebrained schemes succeed. That's some pretty hefty player entitlement you have there. Remind me to never run a game for you.
You haven't got much actual play experience, have you?
See, in actual play and not some artificial theory constructed arguement, the vast majority of gaming happens in the middle you are excluding. Most people remember and talk about the extremes because they are the outliers of that experience. Your inexperience is showing up in the very binary nature of your arguement, either all GMs are heartless ogres out to crush the Player or all GMs are spineless pussies that allow anything that the Player desires, these are internet constructs and don't usually show in real life.
Go, play some games, have some fun. I'm willing to talk to you about this subject later once you've got more actual play under your belt.
Quote from: Rincewind1;689384(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTXahWBmtcFlDKxKKMzeGyWqlDqWzbjp3aiHG8gceBVxkiBVbA)
Very cool logo. Do you have a source? Does the source have more cool logos?
Quote from: jeff37923;689390Very cool logo. Do you have a source? Does the source have more cool logos?
I have no idea, I found it via the ancient art of Google Image Search, but here's the original as it took me 5 seconds to find it.
http://saki-blackwing.deviantart.com/art/ouroboros-17479771
Quote from: Rincewind1;689384Well I for one don't like that you're complaining about him complaining about people complaining about people that like things they don't like.
I do like that you don't like that he's complaining about that guy complaining about people complaining about people that like things they don't like.
c-c-c-combo breakerrrr...!
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;689383I agree too many people complain about things they don't like here. But your posts also seem to be complaints about things you don't like.
Ok let me expand on this. (though I'll admit than in retrospect I've done a lot of complaing about posts that I dislike) Let's for a minute have a serious discussion about feels.
We all have things we like and things we dislike and when we encounter people who like this we dislike we often get angry and defensive. Doubly so if it's a thing we dislike especially strongly. The thing is it doesn't seem like people here are dealing with those feeling in a healthy way. People here have this warped idea that 3e and 4e don't merely like/engage with RPGs in was they dislike but rather are some monolithic block of generically evil subhumans who are gleefully ruining the hobby forever. They invent elaborate conspiracy theories about how say the term "Magic Tea Party" is a [strike]communist[/strike]munchkin plot to [STRIKE]sap and impureify our precious bodily fluids[/STRIKE] get rid of GM rulings. Or that the 3e designers were secretly emulating MTG by including elaborate system mastery puzzles. To be honest it's all kind of off putting.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689360That is specifically what I'm not saying hence my accusation of greedy reductionism -_-
My point was that "Magical Tea Party" is an essential and undeniable part RPGs. No one is arguing for the removal of Magic Tea Party as an element of RPGs the impossibility of such a thing is intuitively obvious to everyone with a brain. However we are all in agreement that rules can potentially be and improvement from MTP. At least I assume so given we all play RPGs with at least some rules ^_^
What you call "magical tea party", is what normal people call "role playing". So, yes, I agree role playing is an essential part of roleplaying games. The phrase "magic tea party" arose among minmaxers and char-op fanatics (aka Denners) to disparage players who want to Roleplay and aren't interested in rules lawyering and look at the game from any perspective besides focusing exclusively on the rules. So you're being contradictory when you complain about people complaining about how other people have fun, as that's exactly what you're doing. Hence posters dropping by to tell you to stop acting like an ass. There was a big giant thread here a little while back all about MTP, you might be beholden to google it.
And no, I highly doubt anyone here believes that rules " can be an improvement" over roleplaying, in the same way salt isnt an improvement over steak. Wrong message board for that, most posters here are old school, old school inclined, or like Mistwell, old school converted.
Quote from: TristramEvans;689404The phrase "magic tea party" arose among minmaxers and chariot fanatics (aka Denners) to disparage players who want to Roleplay and aren't interested in rules lawyering and looking at the game from any perspective besides focusing exclusively on the rules.
No that isn't actually what it means, I asked them and that's not the definition they gave. Heck that thread featured Frank Trollman singing the praises of MTP.
Quote from: TristramEvans;689404And no, I highly doubt anyone here believes that rules " can be an improvement over roleplaying. Wrong message board for that, most posters here are old school, old school inclined, or like Mistwell, old school converted.
So you believe we should get rid of attack rolls and have whether or not you hit the monsters be up the DM :?
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689403Ok let me expand on this. (though I'll admit than in retrospect I've done a lot of complaing about posts that I dislike) Let's for a minute have a serious discussion about feels.
We all have things we like and things we dislike and when we encounter people who like this we dislike we often get angry and defensive. Doubly so if it's a thing we dislike especially strongly. The thing is it doesn't seem like people here are dealing with those feeling in a healthy way. People here have this warped idea that 3e and 4e don't merely like/engage with RPGs in was they dislike but rather are some monolithic block of generically evil subhumans who are gleefully ruining the hobby forever. They invent elaborate conspiracy theories about how say the term "Magic Tea Party" is a [strike]communist[/strike]munchkin plot to [STRIKE]sap and impureify our precious bodily fluids[/STRIKE] get rid of GM rulings. Or that the 3e designers were secretly emulating MTG by including elaborate system mastery puzzles. To be honest it's all kind of off putting.
Can we have a conversation about games instead of 'feels'. I'm having enough trouble following the attempt at English.
"People here have this warped idea that 3e and 4e don't merely like/engage with RPGs in was they dislike but rather are some monolithic block of generically evil subhumans who are gleefully ruining the hobby forever"
Of course, we all have these moments. And I think the response you are getting would be off-putting, though I think you misdiagnose the reason. Let's go back to your feelings on how the GM should interpret rules, and adjudicate roleplay, or character actions that are outside the exact ones described on a character sheet.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689405No that isn't actually what it means, I asked them and that's not the definition they gave. Heck that thread featured Frank Trollman singing the praises of MTP.
So you believe we should get rid of attack rolls and have whether or not you hit the monsters be up the DM :?
Hmm.. Our excluded middle seems to have gone missing again. You seem to confuse a continuum for a duality easily, based on an admittedly small sample (most of your posts on this thread).
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689405No that isn't actually what it means, I asked them and that's not the definition they gave. Heck that thread featured Frank Trollman singing the praises of MTP.
Of course it's not the definition THEY gave. :rolleyes: How could THEY?
QuoteSo you believe we should get rid of attack rolls and have whether or not you hit the monsters be up the DM :?
Will you ever stop beating your wife?
There's nothing like calling your interlocutors a bunch of unhealthy, unstable, delusional and fascistic nazi people with a hard-on for eugenics and conspiracy theories to kickstart a "serious conversation" between gentlemen. :D
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689403Ok let me expand on this. (though I'll admit than in retrospect I've done a lot of complaing about posts that I dislike) Let's for a minute have a serious discussion about feels.
We all have things we like and things we dislike and when we encounter people who like this we dislike we often get angry and defensive. Doubly so if it's a thing we dislike especially strongly. The thing is it doesn't seem like people here are dealing with those feeling in a healthy way. People here have this warped idea that 3e and 4e don't merely like/engage with RPGs in was they dislike but rather are some monolithic block of generically evil subhumans who are gleefully ruining the hobby forever. They invent elaborate conspiracy theories about how say the term "Magic Tea Party" is a [strike]communist[/strike]munchkin plot to [STRIKE]sap and impureify our precious bodily fluids[/STRIKE] get rid of GM rulings. Or that the 3e designers were secretly emulating MTG by including elaborate system mastery puzzles. To be honest it's all kind of off putting.
Again all I am seeing is more posting about things you don't like.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689403We all have things we like and things we dislike and when we encounter people who like this we dislike we often get angry and defensive. Doubly so if it's a thing we dislike especially strongly. The thing is it doesn't seem like people here are dealing with those feeling in a healthy way. People here have this warped idea that 3e and 4e don't merely like/engage with RPGs in was they dislike but rather are some monolithic block of generically evil subhumans who are gleefully ruining the hobby forever. They invent elaborate conspiracy theories about how say the term "Magic Tea Party" is a [strike]communist[/strike]munchkin plot to [STRIKE]sap and impureify our precious bodily fluids[/STRIKE] get rid of GM rulings. Or that the 3e designers were secretly emulating MTG by including elaborate system mastery puzzles. To be honest it's all kind of off putting.
I think you'll find the old-school posters on this board are comfortable with more scope for rules in their games than the char op crunch-masters are with DM rulings. So which stance is more dogmatic?
And that's why people here get their backs up about the denners and system-wanks; their approach to RPGs regard GM judgement as an annoyance or inconvenience. They're chasing the dream of a system that runs entirely by rules, so that someone sitting at home by himself studying those rules can master the game and WIN the goddamn thing without some capricious GM interfering.
Is that paragraph above a polemic exaggeration? Sure. But those ideas are really out there in the RPG world. They shape the expectations of new gamers, and they have a big influence on how games are designed and marketed.
There are people here who actually play 3E and 4E, and people who like crunchy systems. But you're not going to talk any people here out of the belief that the capacity for improvisation in a game with a GM who has authority to exercise his judgement is the essential element that makes RPGs what they are.
Quote from: TristramEvans;689409Will you ever stop beating your wife?
Don't be coy you made an absurd statement, I merely extended it to it's logical conclusion. I'm sure you don't actually believe that every rule ever is harmful to roleplaying.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;689411Again all I am seeing is more posting about things you don't like.
Well I'll cop to not liking when people make hateful statements about broad groups of people I may or may not be a part of.
Edit
Quote from: Haffrung;689414I think you'll find the old-school posters on this board are comfortable with more scope for rules in their games than the char op crunch-masters are with DM rulings. So which stance is more dogmatic?
I'm sure the "char op crunch masters" are perfectly comfortable with the many DM rulings their games require as well.
Quote from: Haffrung;689414And that's why people here get their backs up about the denners and system-wanks; their approach to RPGs regard GM judgement as an annoyance or inconvenience. They're chasing the dream of a system that runs entirely by rules, so that someone sitting at home by himself studying those rules can master the game and WIN the goddamn thing without some capricious GM interfering.
Is that paragraph above a polemic exaggeration? Sure. But those ideas are really out there in the RPG world. They shape the expectations of new gamers, and they have a big influence on how games are designed and marketed.
Yes it's a polemic exaggeration, there are people who want more crunch in their RPGs than you would personally like, and that's really all there is to say on the matter.
Quote from: Haffrung;689414There are people here who actually play 3E and 4E, and people who like crunchy systems. But you're not going to talk any people here out of the belief that the capacity for improvisation in a game with a GM who has authority to exercise his judgement is the essential element that makes RPGs what they are.
No, no, one is arguing for that. People are arguing about what is the ideal balance between "crunch" and "improvisation".
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689403Let's for a minute have a serious discussion about feels.
We all have things we like and things we dislike and when we encounter people who like this we dislike we often get angry and defensive. Doubly so if it's a thing we dislike especially strongly. The thing is it doesn't seem like people here are dealing with those feeling in a healthy way.
I will engage you in this discussion of yours as soon as you show some credentials telling me and everyone else here on this forum that you are certified professional in psychological counselling.
Otherwise, you are just another nitwit who has stepped out of a Psych 101 classroom convinced he now is the next Carl Jung.
Quote from: jeff37923;689421I will engage you in this discussion of yours as soon as you show some credentials telling me and everyone else here on this forum that you are certified professional in psychological counselling.
Otherwise, you are just another nitwit who has stepped out of a Psych 101 classroom convinced he now is the next Carl Jung.
So you feel the fact many people on this site are convinced that there is a vast conspiracy among other RPG fans to ruin the game for them personally is completely unproblematic.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689424So you feel the fact many people on this site are convinced that there is a vast conspiracy among other RPG fans to ruin the game for them personally is completely unproblematic.
When compared to your approach about discussing our feelings? When compared to your complaint that people on this board are not dealing with their feelings in an appropriate manner?
You come on this forum and act like an irritating pimple and then wonder why people want to pop you?
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689424So you feel the fact many people on this site are convinced that there is a vast conspiracy among other RPG fans to ruin the game for them personally is completely unproblematic.
There doesn't need to be a conspiracy, just a collection of similar agendas.
You'd be shocked nay stunned to find out just how little many of the posters on this board actually care about D&D. Thirty year old squabbles about alignment, the divergent power levels between magic users and fighters as time goes on, EPIC edition wars and what Gary would have recommended for breakfast mean absolutely nothing to such people, because such people are interested in gaming and having fun first and foremost.
What does annoy these people are jackasses whose main interest in the hobby appears to be inflicting their own halfassed political agendas on how they have fun, despite such fun being inoffensive and entirely harmless to anyone that isn't a strident first year arts student out to do the world a favour.
IKR, gamers not interested in deeundee!?!1 Unpossible!
Quote from: The Traveller;689431What does annoy these people are jackasses whose main interest in the hobby appears to be inflicting their own halfassed political agendas on how they have fun, despite such fun being inoffensive and entirely harmless to anyone that isn't a strident first year arts student out to do the world a favour.
Pundit, Benoist, and Sacrosant: You'll have to leave now. Turn on the "Swine Welcome" sign before you go.
Damn, Traveller, have you read these boards? Half the threads turn into, "Arrgh, I'm going to die alone as a true roleplayer while the munchkin WoW players set the world on fire!!!"
But, more constructively...
Tristram: I think a large part of the "Magical Tea Party" controversy comes from a distinction between "roleplaying," "making stuff up," and "Bugs Bunny Carpet Pulling Absurdism."
I'm a crunchy kind of guy. The first time I played D&D, my choices were Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Mage, Dwarf, Elf, or Hobbit. But, I settled into 3.5, which I like, and I've mostly been the DM for my groups. So, I really can't be accused of being unfamiliar with OLD SCHOOL or afraid of DM rulings, since I'm the DM.
Now, if one of my players misses a series of attacks against a Quickling, and proceeds to say (in character), "Curse your blurry hide and curse all the fey!" then he is, in fact, roleplaying. If his character maintains a vendetta against the fey after the fight, his is continuing to roleplay. I support these things.
If one of my players says, "I'm going to swing off a (previously unmentioned) chandelier and kick the bad guy into a (previously unmentioned) cage full of bears, causing the door to slam shut behind him and wake up the bears," then he is making stuff up. If we're playing Exalted, this is a perfectly legal move with rules that back it up. This is something I get little uncomfortable with, and is the sort of thing that usually jumps to mind when "Magic Tea Party" gets thrown around. The thing that bothers me is not that the rules are being violated, but that the internal consistency of the game world and the feel of the game are constantly being called into question.
If one of my players sees a troll, and throws a torch on the rug expecting the rug to explode, or for the troll to stand there and burn to death, then we've gone into absurdism. If we're playing Toon, this is again a legal move, but so is distracting the troll by grabbing it's hand and asking how long since it's had a manicure. "Rule of Cool" type games tend to veer into this category, and I don't like them because I like to have an internally consistent world.
Now, an internally consistent world NECESSARILY has rules. In fantasy gaming, I lean towards the crunchier systems because I don't want to argue about the way things like magic and dragons interact with the world. I also don't want to argue about the gross wheat output of an 11th century farm using the two field method, but also using Manticore shit as fertilizer. I want a relatively solid framework that handles those interactions and to save my creative juices for inter-kingdom rivalries, archeological hints of ancient evils, and other fun, "roleplay" elements.
I think more "rules light" systems tend to lend themselves to modern/futuristic games because it is easier to understand how the world is supposed to work. People don't try Bugs Bunny carpet pulling BS because we know it doesn't work.
It's Saturday night. Go out for a beer or something.
Quote from: One Horse Town;689442It's Saturday night. Go out for a beer or something.
I wish I wasn't at work. Beer for my lunch/dinner break gets me in more trouble than pestering the internet.
Quote from: Arturick;689439Tristram: I think a large part of the "Magical Tea Party" controversy comes from a distinction between "roleplaying," "making stuff up," and "Bugs Bunny Carpet Pulling Absurdism."
MTP refers exclusively to option 2 in your list, and you literally can not have a session of a role playing game without the GM making things up. It is imposible.
First of all, Mistwell was ranting, so it's not like he was laying out the most logical responses to a troll, he was trying to illustrate the point that based on conversations he was seeing on Enworld, players were mainly "running the numbers".
I'll just tell you as a GM what I would do if Mistwell tossed the torch. I'm the kind of GM that thinks a little bit about my encounters, so when there's a creature that players are going to be looking to defeat with fire, like a mummy or a troll, I try to determine the flammability of things. It's possible a dry, dusty rug might go up (I had one in my garage go up pretty good from a halogen lamp that went over), but unlikely that a damp one would. So I'd probably give the rug some form of saving throw (modified by just being a torch dropped).
Same thing with the Troll's response, I'd determine based on the environment. Is that the Troll's lair or is he roaming. A wandering monster would be far less likely to stand in the face of a foe that has demonstrated its weakness, fire. Then again, a Troll's not the world's most intelligent monster, so the appearance of a very small fire might induce a "Hulk Smash" moment where the Troll wants to get rid of the small fire before it becomes a big one. Saving Throws, morale checks, has the Troll eaten or not, all those factors come into play, a combination of a die roll and adjudication of the GM.
If that's Magical Tea Party, then pass the watercress sandwiches, because I don't see any other way to GM that makes sense to me.
Dan, you don't have to worry, now I'm going out.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689448you literally can not have a session of a role playing game without the GM making things up. It is imposible.
Absolutely agreed. I, as a DM, make stuff up all the time. I am less enthusiastic about players making stuff up or expecting my world to react in ways that I find unrealistic.
CRKrueger: I would run with the description of trolls presented in the Monster Manual: "Trolls have no fear of death: They launch themselves into combat without hesitation, flailing wildly at the closest opponent. Even when confronted with fire, they try to get around the flames and attack."
Quote from: arturickNow, if one of my players misses a series of attacks against a Quickling, and proceeds to say (in character), "Curse your blurry hide and curse all the fey!" then he is, in fact, roleplaying. If his character maintains a vendetta against the fey after the fight, his is continuing to roleplay. I support these things.
If one of my players says, "I'm going to swing off a (previously unmentioned) chandelier and kick the bad guy into a (previously unmentioned) cage full of bears, causing the door to slam shut behind him and wake up the bears," then he is making stuff up. If we're playing Exalted, this is a perfectly legal move with rules that back it up. This is something I get little uncomfortable with, and is the sort of thing that usually jumps to mind when "Magic Tea Party" gets thrown around. The thing that bothers me is not that the rules are being violated, but that the internal consistency of the game world and the feel of the game are constantly being called into question.
Bravo, a slightly more intelligent an cleverly constructed exclusion of the middle. We've moved up to fourth grade now. I guess it is a step up.
However, you are still living in Northern Canada, and talking about Cuba, and pretending that there is nothing in between.
Why don't I find you a 9 year old to help you understand? because for most of us, this was pretty elementary a decade or so ago. Really. Did you read anything here before you started spewing? There is SO much in between your examples you miss...in most cases, a player asks the GM what is around, no one makes up chandeliers unless they play in an idiot's game. And most of it makes a better game, without messing with the game.
and try focusing on that idea of better game.
The examples I gave with the troll were not intended to garner a response from a DM of "OK, that works!".
I expect they will work like the DM guidelines suggest they should work. The DM will call for a roll, possibly modified by an ability modifier, and/or a circumstance bonus or penalty, and/or a modifier based on my character background and such. There will be a target DC the DM sets, either a fixed one, or a variable one rolled by the DM and modified appropriate based on the troll's abilities and background and circumstances.
My point is not that rules shouldn't be used. My point is that the character's actions shouldn't be dictated by the artificial constraints of the character sheet or power cards. Those things can be helpful, particularly as a reminder of some things which benefit from a calculation done before-hand that saves time during the game. But the point of the character sheet is not to provide a comprehensive list of things your PC can do - that would be impossible.
I'm finding, however, that too many people have become dependent on their character sheets and/or power cards to be told what their character does, rather than role playing and thinking about what their character does. In any given situation there are usually a dozen things your character could do, only a handful of which are covered directly by things on your character sheet.
The rest of those options might be suggested by some entries on that sheet (like "I am strong, so I could probably lift that large braizer and dump it on that Orc's head"), but for the most part simply engaging the DM and players and thinking through the situation and terrain and allies and enemies present and character background and "general" strengths and weaknesses is plenty enough to inform your decisions at the table on what to do.
In other words, the character sheet can be handy, but it's not supposed to be your list of options within the rules. The rules cover way more situations than the specific options on your character sheet, and it's often best to simply state what you think your character would do given the circumstances, rather than become dependent on the character sheet to tell you what your choices are.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689416Don't be coy you made an absurd statement, I merely extended it to it's logical conclusion. I'm sure you don't actually believe that every rule ever is harmful to roleplaying.
No, just as I'm sure that I never said that, and that the logical conclusion of me saying
, well, whatever comment you're specifically responding to, isn't 'rules are all bad and everyone should play freeform'. There's a huge middle ground between the one and the other, which is what people are referring to as being excluded.
Rules resolution mechanics are no substitution for paying attention to the details of pretend-land. Those will be provided at the table, and it behooves players to be engaged listeners and ask pertinent questions. In RPGs there is more than one context of which to be aware.
Benoist is right when he says the rules is not the game. A facet is not the whole. Further, all RPG contexts involved cannot be covered by the rules without ceasing to be an RPG.
This is essential to understand.
Quote from: Mistwell;689456I'm finding, however, that too many people have become dependent on their character sheets and/or power cards to be told what their character does, rather than role playing and thinking about what their character does. In any given situation there are usually a dozen things your character could do, only a handful of which are covered directly by things on your character sheet.
The problem is that your complaints at the most generous interpenetration merely about 4e. Alternatively you are merely whining about players you don't like and those players are virtually everyone. People default to actions that are a known factor, especially if those actions have payed-off in the past. Double especially if the alternative is a completely unknown factor.
Folding back to our original topic this is where muder-hobos come in. What exactly do you expect is going to happen when D&D has always had clear rules and rewards for combat and historically the rules have not handled non-combat resolutions badly if at all (unless you're playing glorious 3.0)
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689501Folding back to our original topic this is where muder-hobos come in. What exactly do you expect is going to happen when D&D has always had clear rules and rewards for combat and historically the rules have not handled non-combat resolutions badly if at all (unless you're playing glorious 3.0)
Original D&D had rules for combat. The rewards usually end up being that you get to roll up new characters fairly often. Please get educated before spouting off about what D&D "always" had.
D&D rewards killing stuff (XP) and taking their stuff (possibly XP, but definitely money that can be used to buy goods and services).
Choosing not to kill things and avoid taking their stuff is not rewarded. Even if you accomplish 'the mission' the system is not designed to reward you.
If you 'rescue the princess' without killing anything or taking it's stuff, your only reward is potentially a friendly contact.
The system rewards murder-hoboism.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;689502Original D&D had rules for combat. The rewards usually end up being that you get to roll up new characters fairly often. Please get educated before spouting off about what D&D "always" had.
So the wargamers who comprised the playerbase of "original D&D" just completely abandoned doing combats in favor of tea and crumpets in their fantasy wargame hack. That's some sick revisionism bro.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;689503D&D rewards killing stuff (XP) and taking their stuff (possibly XP, but definitely money that can be used to buy goods and services).
Choosing not to kill things and avoid taking their stuff is not rewarded. Even if you accomplish 'the mission' the system is not designed to reward you.
If you 'rescue the princess' without killing anything or taking it's stuff, your only reward is potentially a friendly contact.
The system rewards murder-hoboism.
Except for the part where this isn't true.
3e includes rules on story awards right in the DMG (though they're left a bit to DM fiat). OD&D doesn't award monster XP at all, only treasure. Some editions reward encounter XP based on survival rather than killing, and pre 3e editions had morale checks that meant monsters might flee instead of fighting to the death, so you only had to rout the enemy, not kill them.
'Murder hoboes' is an idea based largely on a style of play that actually ignores many of the actual rules of D&D as written.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;689503D&D rewards killing stuff (XP) and taking their stuff (possibly XP, but definitely money that can be used to buy goods and services).
Choosing not to kill things and avoid taking their stuff is not rewarded. Even if you accomplish 'the mission' the system is not designed to reward you.
If you 'rescue the princess' without killing anything or taking it's stuff, your only reward is potentially a friendly contact.
The system rewards murder-hoboism.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689505So the wargamers who comprised the playerbase of "original D&D" just completely abandoned doing combats in favor of tea and crumpets in their fantasy wargame hack. That's some sick revisionism bro.
Once again, for those a bit slow on the uptake, original D&D rewarded the aquisition of
treasure by whatever means, with rewards for killing/defeating foes coming in at a very distant 2nd place.
Furthermore, OD&D characters were very fragile at first and prone to dying from a single hit. Getting into combat after combat was thus the fastest way to rolling up new characters and never getting any treasure or decent XP.
Exploring and finding ways to obtain treasure without having to bleed for it was the most optimal path to success. Murder hoboism became more of an option once a few levels were gained and combat was initiated with known weaker foes.
Quote from: jeff37923;689362One Horse Town declared a while ago that the majority of problems people claim in RPG design actually stem from a distrust of the people that are enagaged as participants.
I don't know if its based in distrust, but after a long break from gaming that included totally missing D&D 3e, one repeated statement I've seen that really bought home how much roleplaying gaming had changed, at least as far as D&D went, was "The rules are the medium through which the players interact with the game." That was a total shock to me, used as I was to the
DM being the medium through which players interacted with the game. Rules, such as they were, were merely structures to aid the DM in that role.
Quote from: Iosue;689510I don't know if its based in distrust, but after a long break from gaming that included totally missing D&D 3e, one repeated statement I've seen that really bought home how much roleplaying gaming had changed, at least as far as D&D went, was "The rules are the medium through which the players interact with the game." That was a total shock to me, used as I was to the DM being the medium through which players interacted with the game.
Ditto. One of the sea changes was that apparently, players started reading the rules. Cracking the Players Handbook a couple times during a session to look up a spell was about all the rules-referencing my players ever partook in. Rules? Those are for the DM to worry about. Players just concern themselves with what their PCs know and do.
Then when I heard that it has become common for players to read the Monster Manual, I was thrown for another loop. That was flat-out cheating back in the day.
It is disingenuous to stay its a style of play not active in the hobby and particularly early style D&D.
Saying but you only needed to route the monster and you didn't need to kill them is takign murder hobo to literally.
The point is in early D&D a lot of PCs wandered about with no backstory no context and no real concern about characterisation. They met things that they generally tried to kill. If the thing ran away then great you saved resources for later. Then they took their stuff.
Yes hte game was really about taking their stuff as opposed to actually killing them but we all know a monster killed it less likely to come back lookign for its stuff with a dozen mates later on than one that you stabbed a few times.
If people are honestly saying that back in the day they never rolled a PC found themselves at the gate to an underground complex and explored it lookig for treasure and killing stuff that got in their way then .... I have to ask if they are being entirely honest.
Didn't you even find your self in a tavern when a guy annouced he was looking "adventurers" to help him recover a lost maguffin in a nearby catecomb and they could keep everything else they found. By adventurer read travellers just passing through town willing to comitt violence to others in exchange for reward .... sound like Murder Hobos to me....
It's like saying Traveller isn't about "Tinker Hobos" or CoC isn't about "Nosey Busybodies"
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689505So the wargamers who comprised the playerbase of "original D&D" just completely abandoned doing combats in favor of tea and crumpets in their fantasy wargame hack.
In a sense, yes, that's exactly what happened. The wargamers weren't interested in doing combat. That's what they had wargames for. D&D was for doing all the other stuff that wargames didn't care about.
This can easily be seen in how combat has changed over editions. Combat in OD&D was highly abstract and fairly quick to resolve. Heck the original rules even said, "Here's a quick-and-dirty alternate system, but you can just use the CHAINMAIL rules for combat." Combat in OD&D is all about setting up advantageous HP attrition. In video game terms it was Sid Meier's Gettysburg, or the original Warcraft game.
It was the folks who never got into wargaming that latched onto the combat mini-game. And like any good company, TSR and WotC changed the game steadily through the years to make it more intensive, more granular, and more fun. Less Warcraft, more World of Warcraft. And that's not even a dig at the newer editions. World of Warcraft is the result of the same impetuses -- both the desire for something more personal than the setting up of forces, such as individual characters taking up quests, as well as a desire for a more granular combat experience.
Quote from: RPGPundit;487719A term I saw used on another forum, ostensibly about roleplaying games but mostly about tangential subjects. It was being used there to refer to D&D Player Characters, suggesting that D&D is a fatally flawed game because instead of producing great heroes, it produces detached vagrants who kill wantonly.
My question: does anyone seriously buy this crap? Is "murder-hobos" an accurate depiction of how you would define the PCs of your D&D game?
RPGPundit
It's more of a Skyrim character than a D&D character from what I've seen. In fact, I've rarely seen it in D&D.
Quote from: jibbajibba;689513The point is in early D&D a lot of PCs wandered about with no backstory no context and no real concern about characterisation. They met things that they generally tried to kill. If the thing ran away then great you saved resources for later. Then they took their stuff.
Yes hte game was really about taking their stuff as opposed to actually killing them but we all know a monster killed it less likely to come back lookign for its stuff with a dozen mates later on than one that you stabbed a few times.
I agree. There has a been a shit-tonne of historical revisionism among old-school players in recent years, and a blurring of the lines between OD&D and B/X and AD&D. OD&D was only ever played by a very small number of people. Even by 1979, the number of players introduced by the Holmes set swamped the OD&D player base. And back then we had no way of knowing how Gygax and his crew played.
It's one thing to say you often encountered monsters you had to avoid or run from. It's another thing to say you were never intended to fight monsters, only steal treasure. Or that hack and slash play started with 3rd edition. That's complete bullshit. I'm willing to bet that most groups who played Keep in the Borderlands ultimately put every living monster in that dungeon to the sword.
In AD&D adventures, there was major incentive to kill everything - eventually. How could you know you found all the treasure, all the secret areas, if you left parts of the dungeon unexplored? Why head off to a new dungeon and leave potentially lootable rooms and monsters behind? And of course in B/X and AD&D you
do get XP for killing monsters. Quite a bit.
The style of play promoted by many old-school players today isn't the way they actually played back in the day; it's a style of play they read about on forums over the last 6-8 years. And it's a reaction against WotC D&D and modern playstyles. Go back and read the Necromancer Games or the Dragonsfoot boards from 10 or 12 years ago. That's the way most old-schoolers played before the OSR Old Testament reactionary jihad raised its banners and tried to convince younger gamers that before 3rd edition everyone played like Gary fucking Gygax.
Quote from: Haffrung;689530It's one thing to say you often encountered monsters you had to avoid or run from. It's another thing to say you were never intended to fight monsters, only steal treasure. Or that hack and slash play started with 3rd edition. That's complete bullshit. I'm willing to bet that most groups who played Keep in the Borderlands ultimately put every living monster in that dungeon to the sword.
That's certainly how my group and I used to roll.
There's a difference between how the OD&D game was envisioned, the particular form it took upon publication, or the way it was played by different groups in those times.
The game spread like wildfire and was played in a variety of ways depending on regional affiliations, whether the people were into wargames and what type or types of wargames they were accustomed to, whether they were society of anachronism type dudes, or big on Diplomacy variants and whatnot. The end result is that no two groups were playing the exact same game. Some of those groups started to find the game needed addition, or correction, or simply wanted to put their own imaginative stuff out there. That's how stuff like the Perrin Conventions, Judges Guild and Arduin came up. Ultimately, these experiences would lead to new games cattering to specific needs and wants re:OD&D. More "realistic," simpler and more intuitive, etc. So we get Chivalry & Sorcery, RuneQuest, Tunnels & Trolls etc.
The point here is that saying that "most people did this or that" IS revisionism, whether it's "killing things and taking their stuff" (which is actually an expression from c. 2005 invented by none other than Mike Mearls, so it's kind of ironic to see Denners brandishing it like it exemplifies their understanding of the game) or "role playing court interactions at the castle and not doing much dungeon crawling."
These were wild times. D&D was new, exciting, and it was spreading like wildfire.
There is also sometimes a difference between "combat" and "killing things".
For example, I recall in the Giants Keep, we managed to lock the giants in their hall, obtain the roof, create a hole in the roof, and proceed to fireball the interior of the hall (with a wand of fireball) until everything was crispy or a few flaming stragglers bashed down the door only to fall to a rain of arrows as they burst through.
I would not call that event "combat". It was a coordinated slaughter, but very little was combat.
The GP=XP thing is great piece of games design that served an important function but faded away because people didn't understand it. It is proof that system matters in terms of driving the direction of play.
GP=XP is a standard rule in AD&D, OD&D, and I believe red box basic. You also get XP for monster kills but it's a small % of your total intake. The result is that the game directly encourages and rewards smart problem solving, where players think of ways to accomplish objectives indirectly while avoiding the (incredibly lethal at low levels) combat system. The dungeon (or wilderness, later) is something to explore and ultimately outwit. This is not to say that many people wouldn't have played that way anyway, depending on their backgrounds etc as Benoist points out. But at the very least putting it in as a rule highlights its importance and encourages people to do it more.
By the time of second edition (which is when I started playing) the game is different and the players are different. GP=XP when looked at from the perspective of 'D&D is about combat/realism/story' is a weird, nonsensical rule. 2e reduced it to an optional thief-specific rule which many people ignored, especially as the book offered little to no explanation of its benefits. Combat (and to a much lesser extent 'story' and skill use) becomes the rewarded activity in the game and hack and slash becomes I suspect more prevalent (again, partly due to the new younger generations of players coming from computer games and fighting fantasy books). Fighting three penniless orcs in a room is a worthwhile activity rather than a pointless waste of resources. Finding a way to dodge the easy but unrewarding encounters is now bad play rather than good play.
By the time you get to third edition combat is by far the primary means of generating XP and only very old school people remember about or use the GP thing. Advancement is easier so killing your way to second level is the expected progression. Easy combats are to be sought out and finding clever ways to avoid winnable encounters is actually counter-productive. The combat system itself becomes much more complex and tactical as people are expecting to engage with it regularly (rather than it being a failure condition as it is in some old school play). Noncombat activites are to be defeated by skill rolls because they earn you XP in a way that non-rules based creativity does not. The rules become the game.
4th edition then continues the tradition, arguably making combat even more of a focus, making rules-based solutions to noncombat problems even more prevalent (skill challenges), and defining almost everything in mechanistic rules terms. Combats are also tactical enough now, and the focus of so much of the character sheet, that fights are fun enough to be an ends in and of themselves. Avoiding a fair fight is not only leaving cash money on the table, it's also avoiding the best part of the game. D&D is almost entirely about hack and slash rather than puzzle solving.
5th edition if it wants to approximate old school play needs to go back to GP=XP.
To be honest I find this whole debate a bit silly. Killing things and taking their stuff in games is zero reflection on who people actually are, in defiance of the totalitarians who feel guilty if they don't wipe their asses in a manner approved by the party. The way I played D&D many, many years ago when I still did play it was killing things and taking their stuff, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Indeed entire multibillion dollar industries have been built around killing things and taking their stuff. It's very popular. WoW, almost every FPS PC game, every PC game that involves combat could be accused of the very same thing, and the millions of people who enjoy them daily couldn't give a tinker's damn about what the PC brigade think of it.
(http://images.vg247.com/current//2013/08/13-08-2013-15-57-31.jpg)
And that's shooting your fellow human beings, not some evil entities squatting in caverns, o noes!
In fact I'd wager most of the PC brigade play those games without a second thought.
That there is greater depth available to RPGs has been known from the first, but it wasn't really pursued until relatively recently. Yes the D&D system does give essential rewards for murderhobo-ing and so promotes it, the real question is does anyone see this as a bad thing? Anyone that matters? No, not really.
These days I play a system that doesn't offer any special rewards for killing things and taking their stuff and it has produced a very different and to my mind better experience. When skills progress naturally by using them or training in them, and gold coins are useful only for buying stuff, players become more immersed and act towards goals their character would like to achieve.
tl;dr, yes D&D encourages murderhoboing, what of it? Doesn't stop you getting your roleplaying on if you want to do that.
And lots of people found out that killing things and taking their stuff (any edition) is the best way to advance a character's personal power.
Even in 3.x (my preferred edition) there is too much emphasis on XP for killing monsters (defeating) and not enough on story awards. In fact, since advancement is too fast for my liking as written, unless you scale WAY BACK on XP for defeating monsters, adding EVEN MORE XP for story awards just makes the problem worse.
I'm sure there are lots of people that try to avoid 'murder-hoboism'. I'm one of them. But I end up swimming up stream against the rules.
The same is true for me for magic items. I don't like the idea of looting people and taking their stuff. But if I want to kill a wraith, I need a magical sword. So do I take it from the goblin chief I killed? If there are no magical item shops, then I'm pretty much forced to do that. I could choose NOT to and hope that if I'm really good, a king will GIFT me a magic weapon, but the game tends to PRESUME that you'll pick up useful items from people you kill.
Some people fight against that. But the rules don't make it easy.
Quote from: Mistwell;689541There is also sometimes a difference between "combat" and "killing things".
For example, I recall in the Giants Keep, we managed to lock the giants in their hall, obtain the roof, create a hole in the roof, and proceed to fireball the interior of the hall (with a wand of fireball) until everything was crispy or a few flaming stragglers bashed down the door only to fall to a rain of arrows as they burst through.
I would not call that event "combat". It was a coordinated slaughter, but very little was combat.
I see what you mean. I'd call this actual tactics based on the game world versus charging into melee to let the numbers do your imagining for you, but I think this is a similar distinction we're making.
In order to take out foes efficiently, the game (referring to the O/AD&D game here) kind of assumes that you'll avoid straight on "combat in a white room" with monsters to use actual tactics to your utmost advantage whenever possible. It's not letting the numbers in a white room scenario decide for you the outcome of the confrontation, it's playing with the game world in order for the situation to overwhelmingly favor your side of the engagement. Or in other words, tactical confrontations are smart play. "Combat" kills your character.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;689505So the wargamers who comprised the playerbase of "original D&D" just completely abandoned doing combats in favor of tea and crumpets in their fantasy wargame hack. That's some sick revisionism bro.
Nope, but then you already know what youre saying is false when every response you make is reductio ad absurdum.
And please stop conflating my magical tea parties with your dirty role playing hobby.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;689503D&D rewards killing stuff (XP) and taking their stuff (possibly XP, but definitely money that can be used to buy goods and services).
Choosing not to kill things and avoid taking their stuff is not rewarded. Even if you accomplish 'the mission' the system is not designed to reward you.
If you 'rescue the princess' without killing anything or taking it's stuff, your only reward is potentially a friendly contact.
The system rewards murder-hoboism.
Hate to disagree, but what happened just as often as the Full Frontal Assault method of gaining XP was finding where some magical treasure was and stealthily taking it for the XP. If the XP value of the treasure was high enough, then we knew that it was guarded by something we could not overcome by combat so we had to outsmart the defenses without engaging them. This was a cornerstone for our play in AD&D and AD&D2.
Quote from: soviet;689543By the time you get to third edition combat is by far the primary means of generating XP and only very old school people remember about or use the GP thing. Advancement is easier so killing your way to second level is the expected progression. Easy combats are to be sought out and finding clever ways to avoid winnable encounters is actually counter-productive. The combat system itself becomes much more complex and tactical as people are expecting to engage with it regularly (rather than it being a failure condition as it is in some old school play). Noncombat activites are to be defeated by skill rolls because they earn you XP in a way that non-rules based creativity does not. The rules become the game.
OK, this just shows a complete misunderstanding of what CR actually did in relation to XP. And it has come up before, a lot.
Even in the beginning when the 3.0 PHB came out and had the 2000 Survival Kit in place that allowed you to start playing, CR gave XP for overcoming obstacles and you did not have to overcome them solely by combat. That is a very important distinction that gets ignored far too often, usually by someone trying to paint the game in a very different light.
Quote from: jeff37923;689572Hate to disagree, but what happened just as often as the Full Frontal Assault method of gaining XP was finding where some magical treasure was and stealthily taking it for the XP. If the XP value of the treasure was high enough, then we knew that it was guarded by something we could not overcome by combat so we had to outsmart the defenses without engaging them. This was a cornerstone for our play in AD&D and AD&D2.
Not to mention, the king rewarded you with coins from his own coffers upon restitution of the apple of his eyes, which would translate as, wait for it... yes! XP! AND the means to train as well! Perhaps he would even allow you to use the services of his alchemist, or give you the Sword of Badassery since he is too old to wield it and would like his now trusted servants to accomplish this new, secret task for the good of the Kingdom! Funny how that works, heh?
Quote from: jeff37923;689572Hate to disagree, but what happened just as often as the Full Frontal Assault method of gaining XP was finding where some magical treasure was and stealthily taking it for the XP. If the XP value of the treasure was high enough, then we knew that it was guarded by something we could not overcome by combat so we had to outsmart the defenses without engaging them. This was a cornerstone for our play in AD&D and AD&D2.
I get it. You're not disagreeing with me as much as you think you are.
Getting treasure was rewarded more than fighting (because GP=XP) so if you could get a lot of GP without risking dying, the game rewarded you for it. If you could straight up murder the monsters (because they weren't that tough) the game rewarded you for it.
Sneaking into the dragon's lair, stealing it's hoard and avoiding combat is great - if you can manage it. That's high risk, high reward. Most groups would avoid doing that unless they were either SURE they could avoid a confrontation or they had a reasonable chance of at least surviving a fight (even if they couldn't hope to defeat the dragon).
Here's an example from 'real play' in the 3.x era. I didn't play with the group long because it wasn't a play style I enjoyed. I was a player (an old, crotchety man who became a wizard as a 2nd career).
The party needed to enter a fortress to achieve a certain objective (that I don't quite remember). While we were exploring we came to a room with a garbage pile. We were sure there was a monster waiting there (probably an Otyugh). But garbage piles are great places to lose magical items, so maybe there was some 'rich stuff' waiting for us there. I cast
detect magic and sure enough, there was something there. It was small, so I cast
mage hand and pulled the item to me. It was a magical ring of protection +1. I told the party that we should continue on and not waste any resources on fighting the creature in the garbage pile, because that was ancillary to our mission. The rest of the party said something to the effect of 'well, we need the XP'. They ended up wading in and killing it with a fairly difficult fight while I watched. Then they wanted to spike the doors and rest because they were hurt.
From my perspective, getting the treasure with minimal risk to life and limb was the 'preferred solution'. But since getting the ring wasn't 'overcoming the challenge', to get XP the party decided to fight. That's where the
system rewards a particular play style.
2nd edition (which I played and ran) we never used GP=XP. Since it took a lot of XP to go up in levels (say 150,000 sometimes) killing orcs for 15 XP wasn't usually worthwhile. But if we could kill 30 or 40 in their sleep, well, who passes up free XP? The system rewards murdering them in their sleep, because they're worth XP whether they know you're stabbing them or not. The system doesn't award XP for
not killing them.
In my version of an ideal world, the only thing you get XP for is completing adventures. I don't care HOW you do it - you can kill everything or avoid killing everything - you can take all the statuary and pull the gold fillings from the slain or leave all the treasure... Gaining levels is about going on adventures. Completing adventures should net you XP.
If you get treasure, too, that's a different type of reward.
Even if D&D doesn't encourage murder-hoboism (which I contest that it does), it undeniably encourages tomb-robbing and looting corpses. 'Sorry that you're dead, King Arthur, but it'd be a waste if we didn't use your +5 Sword of Sharpness against Mordred. Yoink.'
From the point of view of system design, everyone should be aware that rewarding a certain action encourages that action (Pavlov will be happy to explain fully). So it's worth asking, 'what do I want to reward'.
You can reward players based on taking cinematic actions. You can reward players for 'taking one for the team'. Or you can reward them for surviving. Or any number of other things. Depending on what you choose,
most people will end up doing that thing more often.
Quote from: Benoist;689576Not to mention, the king rewarded you with coins from his own coffers upon restitution of the apple of his eyes, which would translate as, wait for it... yes! XP! AND the means to train as well! Perhaps he would even allow you to use the services of his alchemist, or give you the Sword of Badassery since he is to hold to wield it and would like his now trusted servants to accomplish this new, secret task for the good of the Kingdom! Funny how that works, heh?
Clearly, if you get XP for GP, removing all the silver inlay on the magical sigils, carting back several tons of statues, rolling up every tapestry and carrying it back nets you...MORE XP and MORE TRAINING and MORE of EVERYTHING, plus whatever you'd get from the King anyway.
It's not unreasonable to think that people will want MORE of anything good - even to the point where it becomes self destructive. Winning the lottery ruins the lives of a lot of people - but people still want all that money. It's human nature.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;689578I get it. You're not disagreeing with me as much as you think you are.
It seems we are not, however I disagree with your conclusion that the system encourages murder-hoboism.
In the 3.x example you gave with the unneccessary Otyugh fight, the problem as I see it was not the rules, but the perception by the Players that it boiled down to combat=XP and the DM who didn't reward the challenge being overcome with at least a partial XP value for that CR. Your character certainly overcame the challenge of getting the magic ring, but did not waste resources in a combat for it. If the challenge was just the Otyugh, then there is no way around engaging it (although luring it away from the treasure could count).
This may be a point which we just don't agree on.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;689581Clearly, if you get XP for GP, removing all the silver inlay on the magical sigils, carting back several tons of statues, rolling up every tapestry and carrying it back nets you...MORE XP and MORE TRAINING and MORE of EVERYTHING, plus whatever you'd get from the King anyway.
It's not unreasonable to think that people will want MORE of anything good - even to the point where it becomes self destructive. Winning the lottery ruins the lives of a lot of people - but people still want all that money. It's human nature.
Of course, but all that stuff might be guarded by stuff that wants to kill you and can, then you have to secure all that shit and bring it back to the surface in order for it to become XP, which potentially carries its own weight (pun intended) of logistical problems, potentially slowing you down, triggering wandering monster rolls, etc. It's as though the game was all about risk v rewards management, knowing when to steal, when to bargain, when to attack and how, when to leave something there for the time being to come back to it later, what to explore, when and how you proceed, if you bring in porters and men at arms with the risk of making even more noise with easy to kill rookies following you around... as though the game was more than its rules, more than numbers and white room scenarios, more than "I roll to hit", and more than "killing things and taking their stuff".
I got to hand it to you, though: for a guy thinking Mike Mearls is a hack (assuming you agree with the Den's party line, here), you learned his tag line and subsequent reductio ad absurdum of the game very well indeed, to the point it's become second nature, apparently.
Quote from: RPGPundit;487719Is "murder-hobos" an accurate depiction of how you would define the PCs of your D&D game?
No, but it fit the PCs in my last Traveller game. The same players in D&D routinely go for being "good guys." Neither posture is an imposition by either rules set, though; it's the players' choice.
Murder is a culturally defined subset of killing. In the case of an RPG, there may be different definitions from the characters' point of view and the players' point of view.
There can also be relevant questions of fact. Is an orc in D&D as much a person as a troll in RuneQuest? Even in the latter case, of course, there are facts of circumstance as well, but thinking of the orc as just the same as the troll may (depending on campaign) be misleading.
During the game's boom years of 79 to 85, millions of people learned to play D&D from the classic modules.
The G series
The D series
Keep on the Borderlands
Village of Hommlet
A series
Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth
Temple of Elemental Evil
In almost every case, the purpose of those modules was to kills monsters. Kill the giants. Kill the drow. Kill the humanoids in the Caves of Chaos. Kill the evil lurking under the moathouse. Kill the slavers.
Nothing in the background written for those modules indicated, or even implied, that the purpose of the adventure was to get in, find loot, and get out. That may have been the way Gygax and his buddies ran their megadungeons in 1974-77. But the millions of people buying the Holmes and Moldvay sets had no way of knowing that's the way the game was 'supposed' to be played. They looked at the adventures published by TSR - written by Gygax himself in many cases - and figured the point of D&D was to assault the lairs of monsters, put them to the sword, and then take their stuff.
That is a load of bullshit.
They could start by reading their own rules books. Your time frame Haffrung is 1974-1977? Read Volume 3 of OD&D, The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures. The entirety of the book, including the first pages describing the default of the underworld and its multiple levels and so on. Unless of course you are actually talking about AD&D, which only came out by 1978 of course, in which case I direct you to the Player's Handbook page 107 Successful Adventures which describes the default game play of the game with the group exploring, deciding on specific objectives, and those sections of the Dungeon Master's Guide, pertaining to the dungeon, restocking the dungeon, the creation and management of the campaign milieu. Maybe you skipped those parts and went straight for the attack matrixes, but that's a function of your personal experience - or lack thereof and seriously: it's OKAY to admit to ourselves that we were kids and didn't know what we were doing! - and not reflective of what's actually printed on the page, nor the the way other people than yourself and your buddies might have been playing the game in 74-77, or later, for that matter.
Wether you are talking about OD&D or AD&D, you are full of shit, Haffrung. You might be talking about some buddies of yours or yourself reading the books in diagonal, but you are certainly not talking about what's contained within them. You are projecting your own bias and construing them as generalities. I'm sorry. You are wrong.
PS: Holmes is 1977, the tail end of the period you think you are talking about, and it plugs directly into the AD&D game that came out directly after. See above. Moldvay is 1981, so it's completely irrelevant to the period concerned. Not to mention it's completely self-contained, apart from AD&D rules and content.
Quote from: Haffrung;689594They looked at the adventures published by TSR - written by Gygax himself in many cases - and figured the point of D&D was to assault the lairs of monsters, put them to the sword, and then take their stuff.
Not an unreasonable interpretation I have to say. At the time that's pretty much what we did.
As for the modules, Village of Hommlet and Temple of Elemental Evil describe a village complete with NPCs, people to trade with, hire as henchmen to travel through the Wilderness around, back and forth from the village, until you find the Moat house and or the Temple, with Nulb nearby, for a reason. It's actually a complete setting "Sandbox" in today's parlance that emphasizes what I was talking about. The factions of the Temple will react to the party. Try to go through the Temple in one go with no reactivity at all from the setting and your characters will die, which will be a relief to your players dying of boredom.
Ditto the Keep on the Borderlands, which comes with a Keep, multiple locations with stuff to find out or plug your own dungeon, back and forth exploring from the Keep, making it to the Caves of Chaos, turning the various factions against one another and/or whatnot. Try doing the whole caves in one go without going back to the Keep, without aid, leveling up because no training availble etc. Good luck with that.
G and D series are dangerous, and part of a wider world. Try to attack the steading with a frontal assault expecting to win "because hack and slash", and prepare to cry.
Tsojcanth is a whole mountainous region to explore. Good luck cleaning up the upper AND Lower caverns in one go.
And the A Series were tournament modules of the later AD&D era which weren't even authored by Gary Gygax, but Zeb Cook and Co. From 1980 on.
I'm puzzled as to the reasons you'd bring up products from 1980-83 to supposedly talk about 74-77. My guess is that it is what you know, or think you know and/or remember of those days, so you project those experiences and, since that's what you particularly experienced it must have been true through time warp for all D&D players of 74-77 too. Look: I'm sorry if your DM was terrible, didn't read the rules books and fudged the whole way through the modules in order to let your guys go through them all in one go, or until you guys quit out of boredom, whichever applies- which might explain why you had such a bad time playing them, by the way - but you are just projecting, here.
Quote from: jeff37923;689574OK, this just shows a complete misunderstanding of what CR actually did in relation to XP. And it has come up before, a lot.
Even in the beginning when the 3.0 PHB came out and had the 2000 Survival Kit in place that allowed you to start playing, CR gave XP for overcoming obstacles and you did not have to overcome them solely by combat. That is a very important distinction that gets ignored far too often, usually by someone trying to paint the game in a very different light.
My recollection is that there were XP awards for objectives and roleplaying and stuff like that, but they were miniscule compared to what you got from killing monsters. I guess it's possible I'm remembering it wrong. I played 3e for the duration of its run, although I didn't GM it, which may be relevant.
Quote from: Haffrung;689594During the game's boom years of 79 to 85, millions of people learned to play D&D from the classic modules...A series...Nothing in the background written for those modules indicated, or even implied, that the purpose of the adventure was to get in, find loot, and get out...
Did you never play A4, or simply forget?
Quote from: soviet;689607My recollection is that there were XP awards for objectives and roleplaying and stuff like that, but they were miniscule compared to what you got from killing monsters. I guess it's possible I'm remembering it wrong. I played 3e for the duration of its run, although I didn't GM it, which may be relevant.
You got XP for overcoming the encounter. So if you persuade the monsters to let you pass, you got XP for those monsters. If you tricked the monsters into attacking another group of monsters, you got XP for those monsters. If you disabled the pittrap, you got XP for the trap. XP was awarded for overcoming the encounter, not just for killing them.
Quote from: soviet;689607My recollection is that there were XP awards for objectives and roleplaying and stuff like that, but they were miniscule compared to what you got from killing monsters. I guess it's possible I'm remembering it wrong. I played 3e for the duration of its run, although I didn't GM it, which may be relevant.
Quote from: Mistwell;689609You got XP for overcoming the encounter. So if you persuade the monsters to let you pass, you got XP for those monsters. If you tricked the monsters into attacking another group of monsters, you got XP for those monsters. If you disabled the pittrap, you got XP for the trap. XP was awarded for overcoming the encounter, not just for killing them.
Here is the thing though, we are all correct in this because how encounters were handled was up to individual DMs. While the rules allowed for non-combat methods of overcomming obstacles, some DMs and adventure authors took the shortcut of figuring up an encounter as combat only - which evolved into the dead end result of 4E's combat centric encounter system and skill challenges.
When a multidimensional system is used only to concentrate on a single aspect, then the rule evolves into a system that is no longer as flexible and becomes overspecialized. A biological analogy to this is the cheetah, which has evolved into such a specialized predator for its ecological niche that all current members of the species are essntially clones of one another.
From a related EnWorld thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340500-Sneak-Attack-optional-or-mandatory/page8&p=6179089#post6179089):
Quote from: Paraxis;6179206But Indiana Jones is mostly a fighter, and Sherlock Holmes would not be a D&D adventurer.
When the party gathers at the Inn of [Adjective Noun] and meets for the first time by taking up the quest of the week, and they introduce each other, the guy who says "I suck at combat and can't contribute at all to one of the key areas of the adventure." gets left behind. His player then spends the next 30 minutes making a character that doesn't suck.
The game is about big damn heroes going around killing things and taking their stuff, if you want to roleplay something else use a different system than D&D they do that better, don't try and turn D&D into something it is not.
The rules should not be balanced around people making Mary Sue characters because you can't balance that.
Quote from: Benoist;689604As for the modules, Village of Hommlet and Temple of Elemental Evil describe a village complete with NPCs, people to trade with, hire as henchmen to travel through the Wilderness around, back and forth from the village, until you find the Moat house and or the Temple, with Nulb nearby, for a reason. It's actually a complete setting "Sandbox" in today's parlance that emphasizes what I was talking about. The factions of the Temple will react to the party. Try to go through the Temple in one go with no reactivity at all from the setting and your characters will die, which will be a relief to your players dying of boredom.
Ditto the Keep on the Borderlands, which comes with a Keep, multiple locations with stuff to find out or plug your own dungeon, back and forth exploring from the Keep, making it to the Caves of Chaos, turning the various factions against one another and/or whatnot. Try doing the whole caves in one go without going back to the Keep, without aid, leveling up because no training availble etc. Good luck with that.
G and D series are dangerous, and part of a wider world. Try to attack the steading with a frontal assault expecting to win "because hack and slash", and prepare to cry.
<...snip...>.
But you get no XP for exploring, politicking, shopping, whatever and you are only interacting with the villagers so you can explor the ruins more safely, kill things and take their stuff.
There was definitely a section of the player base that enjoyed the exploration. But they were a minority. Most of the plyers wanted to find treasure and increase in levels. Most of the players liked combat, which is why is so central to the game they were all coming from wargames after all.
This is how the majority of D&D games ran.
You create characters
The characters are all contacted by a central NPC and brought into a party, or they are just assumed to be in a party by default.
The party goes to explore some ruins or dungeon looking for treasure.
We in agreement so far?
The game is build on gain treasure , gain xp.
Gain xp get more power.
The whole game is built on wanting to gain power go up in levels etc etc Eventually to reach the end game of setting up a realm (although is not well covered in the rules)
We still in agreement?
As part of that looking for treasure the party are expected to encounter reistance, in fact in AD&D if there is no resistance the rules say they get no xp (example of a high level partys getting reduced xp for defeating weak monsters so a 4th level party that defeats a 1st level group of monsters they get 1/4 xp for the treasure, thus no monsters would mean they get 0/4 or no xp for the treasure)
So you don't get XP for finding stuff you get xp for liberating/stealing stuff.
This brings you into conflict.
This conflict is part of the game as the game develops over time this conflict becomes increasingly central as its the one part of the game you can easily codify into rules and create variablity and difference for.
Agreed?
So we have a group of 'adventurers' moving about exploring an area looking for guarded loot. If they find guarded loot they will try to take it from the monsters/people that have it depending on their alignment.
In doing so they are prepared to kill the creatures that have it, be they goblins, orcs, giants, drow elves, or with an evil party, hobbits, wood elves, anyonelse etc
Now you seems to be drawing a very fine distinction between "Murder hobo" and "Looter/(would be murderer if required) hobo".
Are you resistant to the word murder? is "Warrior Hobo" better or "militant hobo" better? Do you not like the word hobo? would you prefer "gentleman of the road", "wanderer", "tramp".
Would you be happy with "Militant Wanderer" ?
Either you are arguing over a semantic choice of words, which is pointless, or you don't think that D&D was really about adventurers of no fixed abode searching out evil creatures killing them and taking their stuff? Which when you look at XP rewards seems to be what it was about (no xp for exploring, no xp for thespy roleplay, no xp for setting up a tavern, no xp for using a spell, no xp for disarming a trap, no xp for rescuing the princess).
Quote from: Mistwell;689609You got XP for overcoming the encounter. So if you persuade the monsters to let you pass, you got XP for those monsters. If you tricked the monsters into attacking another group of monsters, you got XP for those monsters. If you disabled the pittrap, you got XP for the trap. XP was awarded for overcoming the encounter, not just for killing them.
No you got the XP for gettignthe treasure. Not until 2e did the rules actually talk about XP for stuff not based on killing things and/or taking their stuff.
Now if you bypass the monsters and just take their stuff then fine you get the XP. If their are no monsters you get no XP (see my previous post for explanation).
If you find a group of things and take their stuff you have to expect that they are going to come looking for you to get their stuff back. To stop them doing that you can either
i) run a long way away so they can't find you or give up (hobo)
ii) Kill them or threaten them enough with killing that they give up (murderer).
Leaving a group of Bugbears trapped in a cave whilst you waltz off to the nearest village with all their worldly belongings is either going to result in them
i) Dying because they can't escape from the cave and they all starve
ii) Them escaping and tracking you to the village and trying to kill you to get their stuff back
I like militant wanderer, myself.
Murder-hoboism can be used as a pejorative, which I can totally understand trying to be defensive about. Murder has a pretty negative connotation in the modern world. Killing people because they kill and eat babies, for instance, isn't as clear cut in the modern world as it is in D&D. There are moral relativists who try to claim that it isn't abhorrent for that group because of cultural reasons. There are also very upstanding moral figures that believe that punishment may be appropriate, but capital punishment goes too far and/or vigilantism goes beyond the pale.
In D&D, we don't have to worry about moral relativism (orcs are evil) or those who believe the state should be responsible for apprehension and punishment of evildoers - the state doesn't have power in orc territory. Adventurers have a special call to go out and kill bad people and take their stuff for justice. Murder-Hoboism in that case is actually liberating.
I don't really have a problem with the game being described in that way. Sure, it's a form of reductionism that misses a bunch of OTHER GREAT STUFF, but if you're trying to distill the game down to it's essence, you could do worse.
While I don't object to the description in general, as a matter of design, I wish the game put more emphasis on rewarding other styles of play. Again, nobody has addressed the magical item issue. Magic items (regardless of edition) translate into power. Outside of 3.x which seems prone to Ye Olde Magic Mart (TM), the only way to gain magical items was to kill things and take their stuff.
Again, it's totally justified because killing bad guys and using their tools to kill MORE bad guys is pretty awesome. It sure beats watching the good guys get massacred.
Personally, I'd like the system to offer more flexibility (and since I play my own way, it's not an issue), but I think it's false to claim that if the system rewards particular behavior that the behavior in question isn't encouraged. You can certainly play a different way, but I described the feeling as 'swimming upstream'.
Imagine, for a moment, that you're with 5 of your best friends. A stranger approaches you and tells you he'll give you $10 million to kill an octogenarian, and he'll ensure you get away with the crime. If you could know with certainty that you'd get away with it, would you do it? I expect you'd say no, but are you sure of your friends? The thing with traveling with a party is that your moral failures tend to be the result of the 'weakest link'. If killing bad creatures results in personal power, and you can get away with it, there are a lot of people who choose that route. It's not necessarily a bad thing (at least, not in all cases), but it is, totally, a thing.
Quote from: Benoist;689600That is a load of bullshit.
They could start by reading their own rules books. Your time frame Haffrung is 1974-1977? Read Volume 3 of OD&D, The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures. The entirety of the book, including the first pages describing the default of the underworld and its multiple levels and so on. Unless of course you are actually talking about AD&D, which only came out by 1978 of course, in which case I direct you to the Player's Handbook page 107 Successful Adventures which describes the default game play of the game with the group exploring, deciding on specific objectives, and those sections of the Dungeon Master's Guide, pertaining to the dungeon, restocking the dungeon, the creation and management of the campaign milieu. Maybe you skipped those parts and went straight for the attack matrixes, but that's a function of your personal experience - or lack thereof and seriously: it's OKAY to admit to ourselves that we were kids and didn't know what we were doing! - and not reflective of what's actually printed on the page, nor the the way other people than yourself and your buddies might have been playing the game in 74-77, or later, for that matter.
Wether you are talking about OD&D or AD&D, you are full of shit, Haffrung. You might be talking about some buddies of yours or yourself reading the books in diagonal, but you are certainly not talking about what's contained within them. You are projecting your own bias and construing them as generalities. I'm sorry. You are wrong.
PS: Holmes is 1977, the tail end of the period you think you are talking about, and it plugs directly into the AD&D game that came out directly after. See above. Moldvay is 1981, so it's completely irrelevant to the period concerned. Not to mention it's completely self-contained, apart from AD&D rules and content.
You completely failed to understand what I'm talking about. I've never said I was talking about OD&D. I started playing in 1979, at the time period when the popularity of the game exploded 20-fold. OD&D was already fucking irrelevant. It was out of print. There was no internet. D&D was what those millions of 10-17-year olds who cracked the Holmes and Moldvay editions parsed from the books, from each other, and from TSR's published modules.
Old-school doesn't mean OD&D. Old-school means TSR D&D. It wasn't until a bunch of people on forums started talking about OD&D a few years ago that this Founding Text approach to D&D became de rigour among OSR forum-wonks. Go back to the Necromancer Games forums and Dragonsfoot 10 years ago. Nobody talked about OD&D, because hardly anyone had played it, and the people who had played it weren't posting on forums about it yet.
And people like you, Benoist, who didn't even play back then decided they are experts on everything old-school, and started pretending that play-modes explained by a handful of guys on forums who played pre 1977 is the True Way.
That's the bullshit. And that's why the OSR is little different from the forge - it became something that wasn't about how people actually played, but about how they were supposed to play according to some authority - Gygax, Ron Edwards - same thing. You and James Maliszewski - trying to get cred by reaching back to traditions you were never a part of, acting more fundamentalist than the people who really were, motivated by shame that you weren't doing it right when you were a kid.
At least I base my understanding of D&D on the way I actually played, and the way dozens of other kids played. I couldn't give a fuck how the game was supposed to be played, or how Gygax played, or how a bunch of wannabe OSR gatekeepers have determined the game was meant to be played. Like millions of people, I learned from the modules. Gygax must have been a dolt if he didn't think that would influence how millions of 10-16-year-olds picking up the game for the first time would play.
And I can guarantee you the way I played would be far more recognizable to someone who started playing in 1980 and doesn't read RPG forums, than the dogmatic, revisionist stuff peddled by the OSR on forums today. OD&D stopped having any relevance to the way 90 per cent of people played from 1979 onward. At the peak of the game's popularity - long after OD&D was out of print - the game was a largely hack and slash affair. It's simple revisionist, OSR propaganda to pretend otherwise.
Quote from: jibbajibba;689623No you got the XP for gettignthe treasure. Not until 2e did the rules actually talk about XP for stuff not based on killing things and/or taking their stuff.
It would be awesome if you made an attempt to follow the thread. He asked about the 3e rules ("Even in the beginning when the 3.0 PHB..."), and made an error in stating them (saying he was unsure), so I corrected him.
At least we've established there's no discussion going on, here.
It's just Haffrung and who knows fuck else fighting the same fucking delusions over and over inside their heads, ranting about their pet peeves and theories and running their mouth endlessly about it.
"Who cares you were introduced to RPGs playing 1st ed yourself! I'm just going to pretend that didn't happen, and since you read the books regularly and recently, still play the game now, just like then, instead of relying on vague memories and resentment like me, actually can tell me that whatever I'm ranting about not being in the actual books actually is, with page numbers, and point to me that all I'm claiming as factual is either partial, biased, or just plain wrong, you must be a nazi revisionist poopy head non gamer! Who cares about the texts and modules, even though that's actually what I was talking about a minute before?! I didn't play ToEE that way and it sucked, therefore it must have sucked for the whole world of gamers out there and that's why it was all mindless killing shit and taking their stuff! GRRRR You extremist!!!"
It's been going on for years. It's not going to change now. /done
Quote from: Benoist;689633At least we've established there's no discussion going on, here.
Quite the contrary. I have found it quite stimulating.
Quote from: jibbajibba;689619Are you resistant to the word murder? is "Warrior Hobo" better or "militant hobo" better? Do you not like the word hobo? would you prefer "gentleman of the road", "wanderer", "tramp".
Would you be happy with "Militant Wanderer" ?
Either you are arguing over a semantic choice of words, which is pointless, or you don't think that D&D was really about adventurers of no fixed abode searching out evil creatures killing them and taking their stuff? Which when you look at XP rewards seems to be what it was about (no xp for exploring, no xp for thespy roleplay, no xp for setting up a tavern, no xp for using a spell, no xp for disarming a trap, no xp for rescuing the princess).
Words have meaning.
I agree that a lot of D&D is about homeless wandering heroes killing monsters and collecting treasure, but the term "murder hobo" is pointlessly pejorative.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;689634Quite the contrary. I have found it quite stimulating.
Great. At least someone got something out of it. I mean it without sarcasm.
Quote from: Benoist;689604As for the modules, Village of Hommlet and Temple of Elemental Evil describe a village complete with NPCs, people to trade with, hire as henchmen to travel through the Wilderness around, back and forth from the village, until you find the Moat house and or the Temple, with Nulb nearby, for a reason. It's actually a complete setting "Sandbox" in today's parlance that emphasizes what I was talking about. The factions of the Temple will react to the party. Try to go through the Temple in one go with no reactivity at all from the setting and your characters will die, which will be a relief to your players dying of boredom.
Ditto the Keep on the Borderlands, which comes with a Keep, multiple locations with stuff to find out or plug your own dungeon, back and forth exploring from the Keep, making it to the Caves of Chaos, turning the various factions against one another and/or whatnot. Try doing the whole caves in one go without going back to the Keep, without aid, leveling up because no training availble etc. Good luck with that.
G and D series are dangerous, and part of a wider world. Try to attack the steading with a frontal assault expecting to win "because hack and slash", and prepare to cry.
Tsojcanth is a whole mountainous region to explore. Good luck cleaning up the upper AND Lower caverns in one go.
And the A Series were tournament modules of the later AD&D era which weren't even authored by Gary Gygax, but Zeb Cook and Co. From 1980 on.
Who said anything about frontal assaults? We slunk around like hunted foxes, attacking by ambush and fleeing in terror when overmatched. But we did eventually kill everything. And take all their shit. And that was normal.
Hall of the Fire Giant King. Are you telling me that the way you're expected to play that dungeon is to creep into Snurre's treasure vault (which is actually very close to the entrance of the dungeon on level one), grab the loot, and creep out again? Seriously?
And Hommlet is the perfect example of murder-hoboism. Why did all those farmers and millers have their treasure caches spelled out all nice and tidy, if there wasn't at least the possibility of killing them and taking their shit? Lots of people played Hommlet as a murder-rampage. Same with Keep in the Borderlands.
But you know what? We were 12. And I'm betting the median age of D&D players at the peak of its popularity was about 15. Now that RPGs are a quasi-intellectual pass-time with all sorts of middle-aged wonks postulating about them, we forget that D&D at its peak was a game played largely by kids. Millions remember playing it as kids. Many of them killed and looted their way through the Village of Hommlet and Keep on the Borderlands. Why get all defensive and denounce them as apostates when they remark that yeah, D&D was mostly about being murder-hobos for them?
I imagine 30 years from now there will a bunch of aging first-person-shooter geeks in a forum somewhere denying that Call of Duty was ever about blowing the heads off thousands of mooks - that it was a game of deep immersion into historical roles and the comradery of a soldier fighting for his buddies. And they'll be full of shit.
I think there's an internet expression that gets to the heart of your unavoidable shifting of goalposts and meltdown over shit those "revisionists" you hate hate hate so much were never actually talking about, Haffrung: "herp derp derp herp derp." Good luck with the eternal ranting bullshit, man.
Quote from: jhkim;689635I agree that a lot of D&D is about homeless wandering heroes killing monsters and collecting treasure, but the term "murder hobo" is pointlessly pejorative.
Indeed. One suspects it might possibly have been so on purpose.
IMHO, I see nothing wrong with playing wandering adventurers who fight evil, kill it, and take treasure from its lair. That's the core of D&D — and most roleplaying games — and it's fun.
It's sneering elitism to shit all over other people's fun. It's the quintessential incarnation of "you're doing it wrong" and such people can fuck right off.
Quote from: jhkim;689635Words have meaning.
I agree that a lot of D&D is about homeless wandering heroes killing monsters and collecting treasure, but the term "murder hobo" is pointlessly pejorative.
Its just a tongue in cheek description. Is the term hobo really negative in the US or something carires no such weight for me.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;689644Indeed. One suspects it might possibly have been so on purpose.
IMHO, I see nothing wrong with playing wandering adventurers who fight evil, kill it, and take treasure from its lair. That's the core of D&D — and most roleplaying games — and it's fun.
It's sneering of elitism to shit all over other people's fun. It's the quintessential incarnation of "you're doing it wrong" and such people can fuck right off.
Again I see no such implications.
So its a game of murder hobos no issue with that.
Wandering people, some heroes but a lot of villains, kill things and take their stuff then wander off. Murder hobos, what's the biggie?
Can you also play D&D with complex plots sure, you can play Game of Thrones D&D. Just becuase Game of thrones is the latest fantasy series of note doesn't mean that The Elf Stones of Shannara, The Belgariad, and all those other Questy Tolkien rip off novels were never written or weren't incredibly popular and you know what some of them are really great fun to read.
I know I played Murder Hobo games for years and when we got a bit more mature and wanted more depth, we still played Murder Hobos, except now with backstory plot hooks and a wider range of rewards.
In my current Strontium Dog game the PCs wander between planets searching for people and killing them for rewards. Murder/Bounty Hunter Hobo just about sums it up, doesn't mean there is no arc, no characterisation or some great and interesting settigns or antagonists.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;689626In D&D, we don't have to worry about moral relativism (orcs are evil) or those who believe the state should be responsible for apprehension and punishment of evildoers - the state doesn't have power in orc territory. Adventurers have a special call to go out and kill bad people and take their stuff for justice. Murder-Hoboism in that case is actually liberating.
We don't have to worry about about moral relativism
because it's just a game, in the same way that the humongous popularity of considerably more murdery games like CoD doesn't reflect badly on the morals and personality of those who enjoy it. Some people just can't tell the difference between a game and reality, they're up there with MADD and those who think computer games will lead to everyone turning into rampaging psychopaths.
Quote from: Haffrung;689629And I can guarantee you the way I played would be far more recognizable to someone who started playing in 1980 and doesn't read RPG forums, than the dogmatic, revisionist stuff peddled by the OSR on forums today. OD&D stopped having any relevance to the way 90 per cent of people played from 1979 onward. At the peak of the game's popularity - long after OD&D was out of print - the game was a largely hack and slash affair. It's simple revisionist, OSR propaganda to pretend otherwise.
Honestly I'm not even all that clear on what this OSR thing is, but it does seem like some people are trying to gain cachet by invoking it.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;689634Quite the contrary. I have found it quite stimulating.
Indeed!Quote from: Daddy Warpig;689644It's sneering of elitism to shit all over other people's fun. It's the quintessential incarnation of "you're doing it wrong" and such people can fuck right off.
Don't make me sig you again, man!
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;689644Indeed. One suspects it might possibly have been so on purpose.
IMHO, I see nothing wrong with playing wandering adventurers who fight evil, kill it, and take treasure from its lair. That's the core of D&D — and most roleplaying games — and it's fun.
It's sneering elitism to shit all over other people's fun. It's the quintessential incarnation of "you're doing it wrong" and such people can fuck right off.
Or it can be more than one thing.
I played a certain way with some groups, other ways with others. Played one way at age ten and eleven, and kept changing as I got older.
Some games were somewhat amoral, some were not. I don't point fingers at others for having played with different people and who learned different ways.
Cash for EXP gave a player
the option of avoiding a fight. Most players I knew would still weigh it and try to play cleverly, with good tactics, but they still would fight given the opportunity. I have had groups do otherwise. There is a whole lot between hack and slash and avoiding combat.
I think Harfrung is right in the way a lot of people played, especially when younger. But not because that was how the game was designed to be played; but how it spread, especially to the youngers. Not bad or good, it is just what happened; different people played the game differently. Its the beauty of the thing.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;689644It's sneering elitism to shit all over other people's fun. It's the quintessential incarnation of "you're doing it wrong" and such people can fuck right off.
Yeah, that's my view, too, agreed 100%.
My characters aren't hobos.
Quote from: One Horse Town;689814My characters aren't hobos.
True, no need to connect hobo charcaters with murderer charcaters.
One can easily be only one of the two.
Even my non-hobo characters spend a lot of time 'on the road'. We've had some campaigns that largely took place within the confines of a single city, but more have involved travel to at least a handful of towns beyond our 'home base'.
My group of murderers used to be hobos, but they cleared a level of a local dungeon and now they have a home. It's very convenient, as it provides easy access to their day-job, which is murdering monsters in the lower level of the same dungeon to acquire wealth.
Joking aside, would people have called the Forty-Niners hunting for gold during the California Gold Rush "Hobos"? I wouldn't. They used tents at night, and hunted for gold during the day - which is roughly similar to what a party of adventurers is doing.
(http://www.kidport.com/reflib/usahistory/calgoldrush/Images/CampSite.gif)
Similarly, some park rangers will roam the wilderness during the day looking for problems, and camp at night, as part of their profession. They are also not hobos.
And, many soldiers will roam during the day looking for the enemy, and camp at night. Again, part of their profession.
I'd say when camping is part of your profession, like a gold miner or park ranger or a soldier, then you're not a hobo. Adventurers are not homeless vagabonds, they're engaging in the profession of adventuring in a target-rich and treasure-rich region.
Quote from: Mistwell;689842My group of murderers used to be hobos, but they cleared a level of a local dungeon and now they have a home. It's very convenient, as it provides easy access to their day-job, which is murdering monsters in the lower level of the same dungeon to acquire wealth.
Joking aside, would people have called the Forty-Niners hunting for gold during the California Gold Rush "Hobos"? I wouldn't. They used tents at night, and hunted for gold during the day - which is roughly similar to what a party of adventurers is doing.
(http://www.kidport.com/reflib/usahistory/calgoldrush/Images/CampSite.gif)
Similarly, some park rangers will roam the wilderness during the day looking for problems, and camp at night, as part of their profession. They are also not hobos.
And, many soldiers will roam during the day looking for the enemy, and camp at night. Again, part of their profession.
I'd say when camping is part of your profession, like a gold miner or park ranger or a soldier, then you're not a hobo. Adventurers are not homeless vagabonds, they're engaging in the profession of adventuring in a target-rich and treasure-rich region.
You must really get the shakes when you read the term "Grognard" on RPG forums Mistwell, as none of them actually served in Emperor Bonaparte's Old Guard.
Quote from: Rincewind1;689845You must really get the shakes when you read the term "Grognard" on RPG forums Mistwell, as none of them actually served in Emperor Bonaparte's Old Guard.
I'm explaining why some disagree with the term - you know, the topic at hand. You can pretend I am taking the topic super-serious if you like, but given I started that post with a bit of a joke, and have frequently been pretty casual about this topic and not prone to take offense at the term, that would be a foolish inference on your part.
Quote from: Rincewind1;689845You must really get the shakes when you read the term "Grognard" on RPG forums Mistwell, as none of them actually served in Emperor Bonaparte's Old Guard.
You sure about that?
Quote from: Mistwell;689842Similarly, some park rangers will roam the wilderness during the day looking for problems, and camp at night, as part of their profession. They are also not hobos.
And, many soldiers will roam during the day looking for the enemy, and camp at night. Again, part of their profession.
I'd say when camping is part of your profession, like a gold miner or park ranger or a soldier, then you're not a hobo. Adventurers are not homeless vagabonds, they're engaging in the profession of adventuring in a target-rich and treasure-rich region.
I think using the term "hobo" is dumb in this context.
However, that said, I think there is a big distinction of a PC who is away from their home for a while - and a PC who has no defined home to go back to. For me, it makes a huge difference in how I see the mindset of a PC.
Quote from: CRKrueger;689858You sure about that?
Considering the last man who served in WW1 died I think a year ago, pretty sure ;). Even if we'd count Napoleon the 3rd's guard.
Serious cat is serious.
Quote from: Mistwell;689848I'm explaining why some disagree with the term - you know, the topic at hand. You can pretend I am taking the topic super-serious if you like, but given I started that post with a bit of a joke, and have frequently been pretty casual about this topic and not prone to take offense at the term, that would be a foolish inference on your part.
(http://fail.brm.sk/o_rly/no-shit-sherlock.jpg)
Quote from: jhkim;689859For me, it makes a huge difference in how I see the mindset of a PC.
How do you feel about the hundred million odd people who have played CoD? Because I think the socially less aware have you outnumbered by just a smidgeon. I know I know, they are the proletariat masses waiting for their betters to hoist the flag and... oh forget it, you know what, it's just a game, stop reading so much into it.
Quote from: Rincewind1;689861Considering the last man who served in WW1 died I think a year ago, pretty sure.
Last
woman, actually. Being in the middle of the mix on Wikipedia tracking the dwindling "Last surviving soldiers of WWI" articles, I had a bit of a giggle fit at the misogynists who were flat out irate that the last veteran was a gurrrrlll.
That being said, though, I think some folks are getting a bit over the top regarding the etymology of this term. Slang is slang, and the coiners thereof are seldom culturally sensitive or linguistically respectful.
Quote from: Mistwell;689842My group of murderers used to be hobos, but they cleared a level of a local dungeon and now they have a home. It's very convenient, as it provides easy access to their day-job, which is murdering monsters in the lower level of the same dungeon to acquire wealth.
Joking aside, would people have called the Forty-Niners hunting for gold during the California Gold Rush "Hobos"? I wouldn't. They used tents at night, and hunted for gold during the day - which is roughly similar to what a party of adventurers is doing.
(http://www.kidport.com/reflib/usahistory/calgoldrush/Images/CampSite.gif)
Similarly, some park rangers will roam the wilderness during the day looking for problems, and camp at night, as part of their profession. They are also not hobos.
And, many soldiers will roam during the day looking for the enemy, and camp at night. Again, part of their profession.
I'd say when camping is part of your profession, like a gold miner or park ranger or a soldier, then you're not a hobo. Adventurers are not homeless vagabonds, they're engaging in the profession of adventuring in a target-rich and treasure-rich region.
Yes the 49'ers were hobos.
Most were all but penniless and ended up broke and travelled back home like hobos.
Whilst they were living in a tent heading down to the river to prospect you may have a point and if your D&D characters put up a tent and prospected they would be prospecters.
Adventurer is not a profession. If you met a bloke in a bar and you asked what he did and he said I am an adventurer I wander from place to place looking for adventures you would think hobo.... Worked for that dog on the telly.
If your D&D characters are members of a formal organisation, say a miltary group or an order of rangers and their adventures are on patrols that may not be a murder hobo game but not many games are set up with that premise.
Military orders of mercenaries in the middle ages etc that wandered from town to town taking contreacts pillaging cities and living off the land were indeed murder hobos just 'cos they went round in large groups and took occassional work doesn't change that.
Really I am not seeing the problem with the label.
If your PCs are based in a city and found the thieves guild they are theives, if they join an army and go to the goblin wars they are soldiers, if they wander round looking for tombs to raid they are murder hobos.
By way of a quote
Jules Winnfield: Well, that's why I've been sitting here complating. First, I'm gonna deliver this case to Marsellus, then basically I'm just gonna walk the earth.
Vincent Vega: What do you mean, 'walk the earth'?
Jules Winnfield: You know like Cain in 'Kung Fu', walking place to place, meet people and get in adventures.
Vincent Vega: And how long do you intend to 'walk the earth'?
Jules Winnfield: Until God puts me where he wants me to be.
Vincent Vega: And what if he don't do that?
Jules Winnfield: If it takes forever, then I'll walk forever.
Vincent Vega: So you decided to be a bum?
Jules Winnfield: I'll just be Jules, Vincent; no more, no less.
Vincent Vega: No, Jules. You've decided to be a bum. Just like those pieces of shit out there who beg for change, sleep in garbage bins and eat what I throw away. They got a name for that, Jules: it's called "a bum". And without a job, a residence or legal tender, that's exactly what you're going to be: a fucking bum.
But a rich bum if you do it D&D style. Because for some reason, evil races deep in the wilderness are sitting on more scratch than they have any right to.
Quote from: Mistwell;689848I'm explaining why some disagree with the term - you know, the topic at hand. You can pretend I am taking the topic super-serious if you like, but given I started that post with a bit of a joke, and have frequently been pretty casual about this topic and not prone to take offense at the term, that would be a foolish inference on your part.
More to the point, he's the one who necroed this thread, the fucker!
I'm idly curious to know if everyone's just repeating the positions they held the first time around, but not nearly so curious as to, in fact, check and see.
My position is mostly unchanged - I can see why some characterize the game that way. While it is largely descriptive, it is needlessly pejorative. Militant Wanderer is a good counter if you don't feel like owning the term.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;689909My position is mostly unchanged - I can see why some characterize the game that way. While it is largely descriptive, it is needlessly pejorative. Militant Wanderer is a good counter if you don't feel like owning the term.
Person With Psychotic Episodes Who Is Currently Without A Constant Place of Residence is the proper term. Enough with the eggshells, it's not like someone'll force you to sit in the back of the bus because they call your PC murder hobos.
The real point was always really whether or not D&D is built around murder - hobos in mind.
Quote from: Ravenswing;689897Last woman, actually. Being in the middle of the mix on Wikipedia tracking the dwindling "Last surviving soldiers of WWI" articles, I had a bit of a giggle fit at the misogynists who were flat out irate that the last veteran was a gurrrrlll.
That being said, though, I think some folks are getting a bit over the top regarding the etymology of this term. Slang is slang, and the coiners thereof are seldom culturally sensitive or linguistically respectful.
Huh, cool to know.
I don't have a problem with the term and even find it amusing but I agree the probable intent behind it is to rile people up. I also think it's a really silly thing to get worked up over.
Most Shadowrun characters Ive seen have been murderhobos, and Ive never had a problem with that.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340143-Final-playtest-packet-due-in-mid-September/page22#axzz2eSNvn0ij
Quote from: Hussar;6179787Umm, what?
Every single edition of D&D has focused very strongly on balance. The difference between the editions has to do with evolving views on how to achieve balance, not that one edition is more or less concerned with balance. Starting with Gygax and moving forward, D&D has always put balance ahead of all considerations.
Why do you think that paladins used to need more XP than fighters? What pseudo-natural physics is being represented there?
And this is just another reason why ENworld is useless and irrelevant.
Quote from: Mistwell;689842Similarly, some park rangers will roam the wilderness during the day looking for problems, and camp at night, as part of their profession. They are also not hobos.
Actually, many of them are pretty close, but only in the off-season.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;689967Actually, many of them are pretty close, but only in the off-season.
True that. I have a friend who is one, and she's basically a Vermont hippie. Rainbow Gatherer, Burning Man fan, Couch Surfer, and Park Ranger.
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/melchissedec/Cartman_Hippies.jpg)
Quote from: Mistwell;689968True that. I have a friend who is one, and she's basically a Vermont hippie. Rainbow Gatherer, Burning Man fan, Couch Surfer, and Park Ranger.
For the better part of four years, pretty much everything I owned fit in the back of a Toyota pick-up, with room to spare.
It's a very appealing lifestyle, to be honest.
I think most of my D&D characters - hell most of my fantasy rpg characters that didn't rule a fief or nation - were hobos of one kind or another. And if they weren't hobos then they were bums.
I don't have a problem with this.
Playing some dead broke dude travelling the world getting into adventures = awesome.
Huh, I made an account on ENWorld, though haven't used it yet, as a potential expansion into other fora, mainly as it seemed to overall have the most nuetral reputation from what I gathered from some time googling, but that appears to not be the case?
Quote from: The Ent;689981Playing some dead broke dude travelling the world getting into adventures = awesome.
I'm picturing train-hopping Great Depression hobos who are the only ones who know the real dangers that lurk in the shadows, and what must be done to stop them. Use Call of Cthulhu or Unknown Armies. I can see that working, provided you know what you're in for and you embrace it fully.
The closest I've gotten in actual play kind of sucked. I joined a new, younger GM's "epic" campaign. (And yes, that should have been enough warning. I should have sat it out, or possibly attempted a coup for the GM spot.) We traveled his custom steampunk world to avert a global apocalypse. And we were tracking expenses out of starting funds, but we had no gainful employment or steady income. And because his idea of "heroic" didn't include looting the bodies of our fallen foes, said fallen foes just never dropped treasure. At most, guns we could try to sell, but only cheap ones.
So we can't really stop or divert, or the world is literally screwed, but we're going broke in play, stealing vehicles to travel and starting to worry about buying meals.
I came very close to showing up to a session and hijacking it for a bank robbery. And in hindsight, I probably should have, just for the change of pace. In the event though, I talked to him out of game and he took my point. Darn mature approach to problem solving anyway, it cost me a heist session. :(
Quote from: Mistwell;689951http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340143-Final-playtest-packet-due-in-mid-September/page22#axzz2eSNvn0ij
I wouldn't disagree with that. Talk of "balance" is all over AD&D and B/X. It's just a different kind of balance. Instead of making sure all the character classes are balanced for adventuring together, you have a more long term kind of balance where, to take the most simple example, the magic-user trades the fighter's low-level versatility for weaker low levels and a more powerful back-end. Instead of making it easy to balance encounters with party strength, the advice is to balance risk with reward.
Quote from: TristramEvans;689998Huh, I made an account on ENWorld, though haven't used it yet, as a potential expansion into other fora, mainly as it seemed to overall have the most nuetral reputation from what I gathered from some time googling, but that appears to not be the case?
It's neutral in the sense that there are some prolific 3e folks and prolific 4e folks, and for the most part they play nice, and the mod touch is light, compared to RPG.net. Pre-WotC D&D is not highly represented.
Quote from: TristramEvans;689998Huh, I made an account on ENWorld, though haven't used it yet, as a potential expansion into other fora, mainly as it seemed to overall have the most nuetral reputation from what I gathered from some time googling, but that appears to not be the case?
I'd say EnWorld does have a fairly neutral reputation. Their moderation exists, but it's not as heavy handed as the Big Purple. The bias is pretty much all over the place, rather than focused on one edition. I'd say their biggest issue is that the edition wars resulted in people siloing themselves into their own edition forum and sub-forums, with less interaction between general fans of the game than I think is healthy.
Quote from: Saladman;690002I'm picturing train-hopping Great Depression hobos who are the only ones who know the real dangers that lurk in the shadows, and what must be done to stop them. Use Call of Cthulhu or Unknown Armies. I can see that working, provided you know what you're in for and you embrace it fully.
There are a couple of comics themed like that. For example, I think Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere is sort of like that. I vaguely recall one of Jim Shooter's comics under his Defiant Comics imprint was like that as well.
Quote from: Mistwell;690061There are a couple of comics themed like that. For example, I think Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere is sort of like that. I vaguely recall one of Jim Shooter's comics under his Defiant Comics imprint was like that as well.
Neverwhere not so much but Grant Morrison's Invisibles is pretty much on the money especially Tom O'Bedlam who is a genuine hobo...
(http://theharkin.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/tomobedlam22.jpg)
Quote from: jibbajibba;690062Neverwhere not so much but Grant Morrison's Invisibles is pretty much on the money especially Tom O'Bedlam who is a genuine hobo...
Ah right, I knew there was another Brit who wrote something like that!
Quote from: jibbajibba;690062Neverwhere not so much but Grant Morrison's Invisibles is pretty much on the money especially Tom O'Bedlam who is a genuine hobo...
(http://theharkin.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/tomobedlam22.jpg)
This guy just needs a shotgun and he's all set. :)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;690067This guy just needs a shotgun and he's all set. :)
He can mnipulate the entropic powers of cities and travel through the layers of reality to the primal source. He has graduated from the Invisible College and has the knowing of a lot of things, shotgun....pah!
:)
Quote from: Mistwell;690066Ah right, I knew there was another Brit who wrote something like that!
All the cool kids wanted to be homeless Brits in the 90s :D
There was a William Shatner song about that somewhere...
Quote from: RPGPundit;690177There was a William Shatner song about that somewhere...
His cover of Pulp's "Common People"?
Quote from: TristramEvans;690186His cover of Pulp's "Common People"?
Yes that's what I was referring to.
Quote from: Saladman;690002I'm picturing train-hopping Great Depression hobos who are the only ones who know the real dangers that lurk in the shadows, and what must be done to stop them. Use Call of Cthulhu or Unknown Armies. I can see that working, provided you know what you're in for and you embrace it fully.
Minus the Great Depression the TV show Supernatural is pretty much like that... except that the main characters steal and lie to live at a slightly higher standard. To the outside world and law enforcement a lot of what they do looks pretty bad.
Quote from: Simlasa;690661Minus the Great Depression the TV show Supernatural is pretty much like that... except that the main characters steal and lie to live at a slightly higher standard. To the outside world and law enforcement a lot of what they do looks pretty bad.
True. While most of the time they're living out of hotels, they do a fair amount of living out of the car as well.
And they do kill a lot of monsters.
And they steal.
So yeah, Sam and Dean are Murder Hobos, I suppose.
Quote from: Simlasa;690661To the outside world and law enforcement a lot of what they do looks pretty bad.
Which was brilliantly lampshaded in the episodes with the FBI. I still miss that FBI agent, he was one of the cooler supporting characters on the show. Just great.
Also, Sam and Dean — and D&D adventurers, for that matter — are only "murder" hobos if we're stupid enough to believe that all killing is automatically murder. It isn't.
Murder, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another".
Monsters don't count. Unpremeditated killings don't count. And lawful killings — in war or by execution — don't count.
Clearly the people who coined the term didn't understand simple basic English.
I am the murderhobo.
Should probably just go with "stabbin' hobo" to avoid super tiresome conversations. Also, Simpsons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_6TBTP-EJI).
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;690685Also, Sam and Dean — and D&D adventurers, for that matter — are only "murder" hobos if we're stupid enough to believe that all killing is automatically murder. It isn't.
Murder, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another".
Monsters don't count. Unpremeditated killings don't count. And lawful killings — in war or by execution — don't count.
Clearly the people who coined the term didn't understand simple basic English.
Slow down there tiger. In a world where the only sentient beings are humans we define muder as their unlawfull killing. If there were other sentieint beings one assumes we would extend them the same courtesy.
Lawful is a rather loose term, stoning women in Iran who commit adultery is lawful, accidentally killing villagers through drone strikes is lawful, the janajaweed killing Sudanese women and children is lawful, I for one would count all of these as murder.
Also you never played D&D with an evil party where you murder folks? really in how many years? that is the default mode of play for an awful lot of people. Like someone pointed out about the only reason the possessions of the villagers of Hommett were so well details was so that you could kill them and take it all.
So I am not so sure their understanding of English was quite as weak as you maintain.
No, I think he's right. It's not murder if you say, "He's coming right at us." Then you can kill anything because it's self defense.
Most D&D parties believe in Stand Your Ground Laws, even if you're in someone else's home when you invoke it.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;690701No, I think he's right. It's not murder if you say, "He's coming right at us." Then you can kill anything because it's self defense.
Most D&D parties believe in Stand Your Ground Laws, even if you're in someone else's home when you invoke it.
:)
I wander how that woudl go down in Florida or Texas.
Party: We were attacked officer. There were dozens of them.
Officer: I see. I am right in understanding that you had broken into their cave, slit two of their throats and at the time of said altercation were sneaking out of said cave carrying all their worldly possessions in a number of sacks.
Party: Well not only sacks there was a big chest as well.
Officer: I see....
Quote from: deadDMwalking;690701Most D&D parties believe in Stand Your Ground Laws, even if you're in someone else's home when you invoke it.
Ah. I have nothing to really add other than that this quote made my day brighter. I needed a laugh. Thanks.
Quote from: jibbajibba;690703:)
I wander how that woudl go down in Florida or Texas.
Party: We were attacked officer. There were dozens of them.
Officer: I see. I am right in understanding that you had broken into their cave, slit two of their throats and at the time of said altercation were sneaking out of said cave carrying all their worldly possessions in a number of sacks.
Party: Well not only sacks there was a big chest as well.
Officer: I see....
You think police would respond to murdered orcs in Texas? They'd make sure the garbage men showed up to haul the corpses away. Hell in Arizona they wouldn't even have caves, Arpaio would round 'em all up and put 'em in camps.
Fuck that shit ! - Florida and Texas aren''t in 'Greyhawk' or the Forgotten Realms - okay?
Screw the damn modern-day political correctness and politics bullshit references.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Koltar;690728Fuck that shit ! - Florida and Texas aren''t in 'Greyhawk' or the Forgotten Realms - okay?
And neither "Greyhawk" nor the "Forgotten Realms" are in my gameworld, for what it's worth. What's your point?
I think Ed's trying to say he's a huge fan of Lou Dobbs. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;690716[...]would round 'em all up and put 'em in camps.
I see what you did there.
Quote from: Ravenswing;690735And neither "Greyhawk" nor the "Forgotten Realms" are in my gameworld, for what it's worth. What's your point?
Texas is kinda like The Land Of The Lost...
Being ruled by an evil gold Sleestak and all..
Quote from: CRKrueger;690716You think police would respond to murdered orcs in Texas? They'd make sure the garbage men showed up to haul the corpses away. Hell in Arizona they wouldn't even have caves, Arpaio would round 'em all up and put 'em in camps.
Who said they werre orcs I was picturing dwarves.... probably the same deal though :)
Quote from: TristramEvans;690741Texas is kinda like The Land Of The Lost...
Being ruled by an evil gold Sleestak and all..
That is awesome!
Now I have an idea for a villain.
Quote from: Bill;690777That is awesome!
Now I have an idea for a villain.
HAHAHAHAHAH
cAN HE AT LEAST SPEAK WITH THE TEXAS TWANG?
Quote from: LordVreeg;690792HAHAHAHAHAH
cAN HE AT LEAST SPEAK WITH THE TEXAS TWANG?
Hmmm....suggestion spell? maybe confusion or madness :)
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;690685Murder, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another".
Monsters don't count. Unpremeditated killings don't count. And lawful killings — in war or by execution — don't count.
That topic, and what counts as a "monster", actually crops up with some regularity in hunter discussions about WoD, where the various supernatural beings in their own game lines often demonstrate that they aren't necessarily any worse than ordinary human beings. Under those circumstances, persecuting them may quite easily classify as what TV Tropes likes to call "Van Helsing Hate Crimes".
Then again, I've also seen hunter discussions about PCs shooting larpers just in case one of them might be a real elf, so...
Quote from: The Yann Waters;690810Then again, I've also seen hunter discussions about PCs shooting larpers just in case one of them might be a real elf, so...
It's the only way to be sure.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;690701No, I think he's right. It's not murder if you say, "He's coming right at us." Then you can kill anything because it's self defense.
Most D&D parties believe in Stand Your Ground Laws, even if you're in someone else's home when you invoke it.
South Parks Rules of Hunting (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149674/its-coming-right-for-us)
Quote from: The Yann Waters;690810Then again, I've also seen hunter discussions about PCs shooting larpers just in case one of them might be a real elf, so...
Sure they want any part of that? The tabletop gamers, after all, are the sedentary ones sitting around the table munching Doritos. The combat LARPers are the ones running around forests and only competing in battle if they hone their physical skills to do so. I don't like the TT gamers' chances.
Quote from: Ravenswing;691237Sure they want any part of that? The tabletop gamers, after all, are the sedentary ones sitting around the table munching Doritos. The combat LARPers are the ones running around forests and only competing in battle if they hone their physical skills to do so. I don't like the TT gamers' chances.
(http://winningateverything.com/files/2011/07/WA_larping.jpg)
Quote from: Imp;690687Should probably just go with "stabbin' hobo" to avoid super tiresome conversations. Also, Simpsons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_6TBTP-EJI).
Given that a hoard will give way more XP than the creatures guarding it, I'd prefer to be a lootin' hobo. A "burglarhobo" if you will.
Quote from: Ravenswing;691237Sure they want any part of that? The tabletop gamers, after all, are the sedentary ones sitting around the table munching Doritos. The combat LARPers are the ones running around forests and only competing in battle if they hone their physical skills to do so. I don't like the TT gamers' chances.
Good luck proving before your peers he was a real elf.
Quote from: Koltar;690728Fuck that shit ! - Florida and Texas aren''t in 'Greyhawk' or the Forgotten Realms - okay?
Screw the damn modern-day political correctness and politics bullshit references.
- Ed C.
Do you ever open your fridge these days, Koltar, or afraid some JOKES!!1 will jump out of it too?
Quote from: RPGPundit;487719A term I saw used on another forum, ostensibly about roleplaying games but mostly about tangential subjects. It was being used there to refer to D&D Player Characters, suggesting that D&D is a fatally flawed game because instead of producing great heroes, it produces detached vagrants who kill wantonly.
My question: does anyone seriously buy this crap? Is "murder-hobos" an accurate depiction of how you would define the PCs of your D&D game?
RPGPundit
Over the years, yes, I have indeed encountered players, and sometimes even player groups, who really will kill everything that they see, not just monsters, but every living animal and maybe a few plants.
And not just D&D; one of these groups in an Old West game "distracted" the town sheriff before a bank robbery by putting an entire crate of dynamite under the schoolhouse and detonating it at 9:45 Tuesday morning.
Most of these people were young adult males with severe anger management issues and/or really shitty lives in general.
I do not play with them any more and really haven't encountered any since the late 70s. But they are not 100% an invention.
However, much like Catpiss Man, their actual numbers are greatly exaggerated.
Quote from: Arminius;488136Therefore you get whine/screeds (scrines?) like Powerkill, Violence, most essays by Ron Edwards, etc. (http://www.johnheronproject.com/wp/?p=30), etc. (http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/itoolkit1.html)
Ya know what's funny about the last one, the "oracles?"
OD&D has more rules on uses of Charisma and NPC interaction than it does on combat.
"Oh, how I am laughing."
Quote from: Old Geezer;691613Over the years, yes, I have indeed encountered players, and sometimes even player groups, who really will kill everything that they see, not just monsters, but every living animal and maybe a few plants. [...] I do not play with them any more and really haven't encountered any since the late 70s. But they are not 100% an invention.
However, much like Catpiss Man, their actual numbers are greatly exaggerated.
That's every 3.5/PF gamer down my local game store. And that was the default case for the BECMI/AD&D players when I was in junior high/high school. So no, it's not "greatly exaggerated".
Quote from: Old Geezer;691615Ya know what's funny about the last one, the "oracles?"
OD&D has more rules on uses of Charisma and NPC interaction than it does on combat.
I don't think that's accurate -- ignore the Supplements, but throw in the reaction modifiers and henchman and hireling elaborations from the DMG, and it arguably might be if you don't consider the combat-oriented equipment, monsters and magic "rules" -- but the emphasis in the original boxed set is certainly more on Charisma than on Strength. (If there's a "dump stat," I'll go for Wisdom, since a Cleric doesn't really need an x.p. bonus and it takes a bit of foolhardiness to go down into the underworld.)
Kubasik had a point, though, considering things such as Vampire the Masquerade. From C&S on, combat systems got more elaborate. When people started doing games on subjects beyond the usual two-fisted/bladed/gunned slam-bang (the popularity of which speaks for itself), they were for the most stuck in a mindset that a tactical combat simulation had to be the centerpiece of an RPG.
That's just one of a number of ways in which a natural early tendency to follow the leader, D&D, calcified into doing things just because "that's the way it's always been done."
I have had the occasional player who wanted his character to not have any connections, not own anything, not sleep in inns at night ("I just camp in the forest instead".. or even "I sleep in the street"), who distrust anything they could be invested in.
I quickly disabused them of all that; or rather, their fellow party members usually did pretty fast when the character's reputation as a creepy indigent reflected negatively on all of them.
The Invincible Hammer-Wheel.
He has hammers for hands and wheels for feet.
He was born that way.
He was raised by farm implements.
He lives in the woods.
Quote from: James Gillen;692686The Invincible Hammer-Wheel.
He has hammers for hands and wheels for feet.
He was born that way.
He was raised by farm implements.
He lives in the woods.
one of the rare gems from rpg.net, that was a fun topic to flip through.
You could tell it was someone who was tired of the chargen already and wanted to play.
I haven't really run across the whole murderhobo thing yet. Not really any way, I mean my players are self serving and have done things like playing both sides of a political conflict and did spend some time robbing small merchant caravans in a frontier region. Even then they did their best not kill anyone and to hide their identity, they never went about just wantonly killing everything.
If that ever did come up I think I would solve that with a classic mob of angry villagers, more than enough to deal with low level pcs.
first game i played at the local gaming club involved a group of adventurers escorting some merchants (father and son) and their cargo from averheim to nuln. there were four of us: sea elf smuggler (me), dwarf mercenary (my brother), human protagonist (some guy from the club) and suspiciously necromancery type (some other guy from the club). it was our first time at the club and all these guys were quite new to us.
so, on the road, three of us (dwarf, necromancer and elf) are delayed by unfortunate misunderstanding with a band of flagellants while human protagonist and NPCs push on. protagonist says that they will wait for us while we deal with local road-warden concerning said flagellants and their accusations of witchcraft (not totally unfounded but alas i did not know that then).
but unknown to us that night, while we wait for cleric of sigmar that will vouch for us, protagonist kills both merchants in their sleep and steals their cart and wares (some silk and shit), hides bodies and triumphantly waits for us. like: see, i have some loot. let's sell this shit and find some brothel.
i was honestly shocked but it had interesting 'things you can do in denver when you are dead' vibe.
i suppose that his act is like quintessence of murderhoboism :D
Quote from: Arkansan;692918I haven't really run across the whole murderhobo thing yet. Not really any way, I mean my players are self serving and have done things like playing both sides of a political conflict and did spend some time robbing small merchant caravans in a frontier region. Even then they did their best not kill anyone and to hide their identity, they never went about just wantonly killing everything.
If that ever did come up I think I would solve that with a classic mob of angry villagers, more than enough to deal with low level pcs.
It's just so much about the game and GM and setting as the players.
Quote from: Varek Azzur;692929i was honestly shocked but it had interesting 'things you can do in denver when you are dead' vibe.
i suppose that his act is like quintessence of murderhoboism :D
Welcome Varek! That kind of action would fit fairly well in the Warhammer world, maybe he was just playing up to the setting?
Quote from: RPGPundit;692636I have had the occasional player who wanted his character to not have any connections, not own anything, not sleep in inns at night ("I just camp in the forest instead".. or even "I sleep in the street"), who distrust anything they could be invested in.
I quickly disabused them of all that; or rather, their fellow party members usually did pretty fast when the character's reputation as a creepy indigent reflected negatively on all of them.
Well, I've never run into that much of the "hobo" part of murderhobo, but I've encountered a few players who emphasized the "murder" part.
To me (mileage, vary, etc) "murderhobo" means the kind of player who treats NPCs as vending machines; if they're "merchants" they give supplies for gold, if they aren't "merchants" they give XP in exchange for being killed. There are players who simply kill everything and everyone they see.
As I said, I don't play with people like that.
Quote from: Old Geezer;692977To me (mileage, vary, etc) "murderhobo" means the kind of player who treats NPCs as vending machines; if they're "merchants" they give supplies for gold, if they aren't "merchants" they give XP in exchange for being killed. There are players who simply kill everything and everyone they see.
I've seen some characters played as
stupid sociopaths. They tend to end up dead pretty quickly, because D&D-Land doesn't have that much more use for that sort than the real world. Even Chaotic master villains require their minions to be somewhat manageable!
Quote from: Varek Azzur;692929i was honestly shocked but it had interesting 'things you can do in denver when you are dead' vibe.
Welcome to the adult swim.
I've found that the best way to make PCs in any RPG setting to act in a pro-social way is to make them actual members of society - give them real relationships to care about, communities to be a part of, and so on.
In a fantasy games like D&D, I like to supply family members, lords, mentors, allies, lovers and friends, as well as memorable antagonists. Players only act like murder hobos when they have no communities that they care about and are responsible to. It's also a two way street - for example, a D&D cleric can count on a certain amount of support from the temple where he trains at and from the High Priest that he works under, and will be rewarded with reasonable things like monetary reward, increased rank, prestige, and training in exchange for accomplishing his sect's objectives. A fighter, even if he operates independently as a mercenary, may have in the setting contacts back in whatever military her served in, old battle comrades, family members to care for, or a lord to be responsible too. Thieves/Rogues are part of guilds, crime families and so on. Even Wizards have masters, apprentices, open or secret orders they belong to, and so on.
These communities can't just demand of players - they also need to provide something to PCs as well. They can be awesome springboards for adventures. With a well realized setting, adventure action practically writes itself.
Murderhobos can be curbed if players understand that in order to achieve their mechanical game objectives (levelling, getting magic, etc) that they must engage with the setting and the NPCs who live in it, and that there are benefits for cooperation and consequences for acting like bandits.
Quote from: Varek Azzur;692929first game i played at the local gaming club involved a group of adventurers escorting some merchants (father and son) and their cargo from averheim to nuln. there were four of us: sea elf smuggler (me), dwarf mercenary (my brother), human protagonist (some guy from the club) and suspiciously necromancery type (some other guy from the club). it was our first time at the club and all these guys were quite new to us.
so, on the road, three of us (dwarf, necromancer and elf) are delayed by unfortunate misunderstanding with a band of flagellants while human protagonist and NPCs push on. protagonist says that they will wait for us while we deal with local road-warden concerning said flagellants and their accusations of witchcraft (not totally unfounded but alas i did not know that then).
but unknown to us that night, while we wait for cleric of sigmar that will vouch for us, protagonist kills both merchants in their sleep and steals their cart and wares (some silk and shit), hides bodies and triumphantly waits for us. like: see, i have some loot. let's sell this shit and find some brothel.
i was honestly shocked but it had interesting 'things you can do in denver when you are dead' vibe.
i suppose that his act is like quintessence of murderhoboism :D
I based the first character in WFRP I ever played on Felix Jaeger, the way he is at the start of the books. After first few sessions, my character went from wide - eyed idealistic into a hardened warrior, as he had to disavow Sigmar to not have his throat cut by Ulrician fanatics, who later press ganged us into their services. We then helped them battle for a cart full of mithril, then, two hours later, betrayed said fanatics and helped some mobsters to get said cart of mithril (I literally betrayed them in battle, as I was warned by mobster's agent in the group about 3 minutes before ambush, as he "took a liking to me" - I had a pretty high Fellowship or however the original skill from 1e translates to English). And few days later, had to storm said mobsters to get our mithril back, so we'd not be hanged by Imperial authorities. By the time my character went ahead to search for the girl he fell in love with (who, let's just say, was rather bad company), he'd probably be a bit like said protagonist, except probably not kill the merchant, just rob him :D.
Another variant of the murder-hobo concept I was talking about before is the guy who desperately wants to be able to walk down a city street in full plate armor and covered in weapons. In my Albion game that's absolutely not possible, and yet I always have a couple of players that keep trying to wheel-and-deal to get that.
Now, that might be arguably something that is a product of player paranoia, not wanting to be caught unarmed in a bad fight; but its funny when taken to extremes: guys trying to insist that they'd be sleeping in their plate armor... even when they're in an Inn... :P
Huh, you know that is something that has never really come up in my games. Of course in most of my face to face games plate is simply not available. Other aroma I have just assumed players did their best to conceal when in town. Although one time I did have a group of players enter a town where weapons and armor had to be left with the city guard. Needless to say they were a nervous bunch and only stayed there for a single night. To this day they are convinced that I had a trap planned for them that I simply let go.
Quote from: Arkansan;694090Huh, you know that is something that has never really come up in my games. Of course in most of my face to face games plate is simply not available. Other aroma I have just assumed players did their best to conceal when in town.
In a crowded town, it's usually easy to have your aroma blend with everything else. :D
JG
Quote from: James Gillen;694184In a crowded town, it's usually easy to have your aroma blend with everything else. :D
JG
Smell of excrement on the streets masks any aromas anyway.
Ha! I cant believe I did not catch that one. Got to love iPhone auto correct.
Quote from: RPGPundit;694072Another variant of the murder-hobo concept I was talking about before is the guy who desperately wants to be able to walk down a city street in full plate armor and covered in weapons. In my Albion game that's absolutely not possible, and yet I always have a couple of players that keep trying to wheel-and-deal to get that.
Now, that might be arguably something that is a product of player paranoia, not wanting to be caught unarmed in a bad fight; but its funny when taken to extremes: guys trying to insist that they'd be sleeping in their plate armor... even when they're in an Inn... :P
In my experience, I've seen very frequently that player paranoia is correct. When our fantasy party goes into town and trouble shows up (monsters, murder, mayhem), then the PCs are the ones who have to deal with it. On the other hand, if the PCs cause trouble, suddenly there are a whole bunch of NPCs who are ready to stand up and bring them to justice.
Quote from: jhkim;694279In my experience, I've seen very frequently that player paranoia is correct. When our fantasy party goes into town and trouble shows up (monsters, murder, mayhem), then the PCs are the ones who have to deal with it. On the other hand, if the PCs cause trouble, suddenly there are a whole bunch of NPCs who are ready to stand up and bring them to justice.
I've only seen that happen with railroady GMs, the infamous "City Watch appears after 30 seconds after you've started attacking an NPC you were supposed to bow down before."
Quote from: Rincewind1;694282I've only seen that happen with railroady GMs, the infamous "City Watch appears after 30 seconds after you've started attacking an NPC you were supposed to bow down before."
It's rarely been that extreme for me. Instead, it's just that the GM wants some interesting encounters in the town - so maybe someone cries "Stop, thief" or maybe goblins raid the waterfront - and the PCs are called on to deal with it instead of it being handled by NPCs. However, the GM also doesn't want the PCs running roughshod over the town without consequence.
Quote from: jhkim;694298It's rarely been that extreme for me. Instead, it's just that the GM wants some interesting encounters in the town - so maybe someone cries "Stop, thief" or maybe goblins raid the waterfront - and the PCs are called on to deal with it instead of it being handled by NPCs. However, the GM also doesn't want the PCs running roughshod over the town without consequence.
I had a player once that did not seem to realize bullying his way past the two royal guardsman outside the kings bedchamber was a good idea. I guess Kings are supposed to cater to the demands of PC warriors.
Quote from: Rincewind1;694282I've only seen that happen with railroady GMs, the infamous "City Watch appears after 30 seconds after you've started attacking an NPC you were supposed to bow down before."
911 is a joke.
Unless you're in gated community.
JG
In some campaigns I'm not a huge stickler about it but in my Albion campaign, its very well established that PCs can't go around with (visible) arms and armor in a city (with very few specific exceptions).
Nor are they the only ones who will handle a problem in the city (sometimes to their frustration), nor will there be 50 guards waiting to arrest them the second they do something criminal.
Quote from: RPGPundit;694820In some campaigns I'm not a huge stickler about it but in my Albion campaign, its very well established that PCs can't go around with (visible) arms and armor in a city (with very few specific exceptions).
Yep, most cities in my campaign, the authorities are about as keen on Random Folk wandering around with military arms as the police in modern-day cities would be keen on civvies wearing kevlar body armor and with assault rifles slung over their shoulders.
Smallswords? Okay. Shortswords? Okay.
Visible armor of any type? No. Shields? No. Broadswords or bows? Nope.
The only exceptions are on-duty guards wearing recognized livery, and recognized (and uniformed) mercenaries in marching formation.
Quote from: Ravenswing;694837Yep, most cities in my campaign, the authorities are about as keen on Random Folk wandering around with military arms as the police in modern-day cities would be keen on civvies wearing kevlar body armor and with assault rifles slung over their shoulders.
Oddly enough, not that uncommon in the Outlaw.
In my campaign, vis the authorities, there is no standard; corrupt police will want to steal your gear for sure, but as per normal, the police will not want to see anyone better armed and armored than them.
One of the guys in my group came up with a saying years ago that has become something of a truism - "The town IS the adventure."
Isn't it in Ptolus where armed people going through the city gates have to wear ribbons attached to their blades and scabbards? If the seal is broken or has been screwed with it's immediately visible, and if the PCs are high profile, this could lead to scrying, ESP and the like performed by the Inverted Pyramid and likewise authorities.
Might have been another fantasy city. Can't be sure now.
Quote from: Benoist;694923Isn't it in Ptolus where armed people going through the city gates have to wear ribbons attached to their blades and scabbards? If the seal is broken or has been screwed with it's immediately visible, and if the PCs are high profile, this could lead to scrying, ESP and the like performed by the Inverted Pyramid and likewise authorities.
Might have been another fantasy city. Can't be sure now.
I seem to remember that's a Cormyr thing in the Realms.
Cormyr has peace knots, which tie your blade to the scabbard to prevent you from unsheathing it quickly.
That must be it. I fleshed out Suzail my way for a FR game c. 2002. I must have mixed it up with my first Ptolus game a few years later.
Always liked the Cormyr peace knot thing myself. Lets the PCs defend themselves if necessary.
Xp gain sometimes motivates the player this way.
If you gain most or all of your xp from killing monsters you will be drawn to do so.
If you gain most of your xp from getting the treasure you will be drawn to explore the dungeon, avoid the monsters, get the stuff and get out of there.
That said I have rarely seen this "murder hobo" behaviour and I play third edition.
Quote from: Malfi;695187That said I have rarely seen this "murder hobo" behaviour and I play third edition.
It's seen mostly among 14 year old boys (who are feral little beasts anyway) and early 20s young men with anger management issues.
Quote from: Old Geezer;695210It's seen mostly among 14 year old boys (who are feral little beasts anyway) and early 20s young men with anger management issues.
Yep, even at 14 I knew there were some people it's just not fun to play with.
I wouldn't play chess, monopoly, or warhammer with certain people too.
The problem isnt in the system. It is very much a group and player individual problem or non-problem. How flexible and adaptable are the GMs and Players? Everyone is different.
Sometimes a player is just out to ruin things. I've had it happen and it pretty much killed a 3 year game. In that case it occurred near the middle and I resolved to not just end the whole thing right there. Instead I kept things rolling and made sure the players were having fun. But when things came to a good closing point. I wrapped things up.
Other sessions went perfectly smoothly. I know one player is kinda bloodthirsty and so set up events to give them a chance to lay into the enemy. My group also knows Im notorious for bringing back old sins to haunt the characters when they go too far. But generally I give the players a-lot of leeway to play as they like and they enjoy the fact that actions have repercussions.
But in the end it boils down to individual groups and sometimes individual players. Some just want to hack-n-slash all day.
On top of this, the problem can be GM related. If all the GM is doing are combat sessions then that is on the GM and their call.
Are the players enjoying themselves in a mostly or purely hack-n-slash? If yes. Then it is not a problem.
The same argument can be aimed at sessions that are predominantly diplomacy RPs and courtly intrigue. Some players and GMs love this, some hate it as deadly boring.
Among the other problems with the term, "murder hobo" is used in different ways. Some people use it just to mean fairly typical D&D play which includes regular killing of monsters, but also has non-violent action. Some people use it to mean hack-and-slash where almost all time is focused on monster-killing. Some people use it to mean kill-everything behavior where the PCs attack shepherds and innkeepers for the XP.
It's a stupid term, though one can have interesting discussions about the levels of violence in campaigns.
Quote from: dragoner;694864In my campaign, vis the authorities, there is no standard; corrupt police will want to steal your gear for sure, but as per normal, the police will not want to see anyone better armed and armored than them.
I generally feel that police are an anachronism. My rule of thumb for (pseudo)-medieval societies is that nobles are expected to carry weapons (or even required to), while commoners are not allowed to carry military weapons except under specific circumstances.
Quote from: jhkim;695410I generally feel that police are an anachronism. My rule of thumb for (pseudo)-medieval societies is that nobles are expected to carry weapons (or even required to), while commoners are not allowed to carry military weapons except under specific circumstances.
As in modern police, yes, agreed. However in Romeo and Juliet, when the Montagues and Capulets are fighting in the street - and these are local families, some of the other citizens call out:
Clubs, bills, and partisans! strike! beat them down!
Down with the Capulets! down with the Montagues!IMO, heavily armed and armored strangers would be treated with great suspicion.
Quote from: dragoner;695415As in modern police, yes, agreed. However in Romeo and Juliet, when the Montagues and Capulets are fighting in the street - and these are local families, some of the other citizens call out:
Clubs, bills, and partisans! strike! beat them down!
Down with the Capulets! down with the Montagues!
IMO, heavily armed and armored strangers would be treated with great suspicion.
As far as I know, the general public took care of crime on the streets.
Quote from: Bill;695416As far as I know, the general public took care of crime on the streets.
That and/or a city watch or militia; which could be outright hostile to heavily armed adventurers.
Quote from: jhkim;695410I generally feel that police are an anachronism. My rule of thumb for (pseudo)-medieval societies is that nobles are expected to carry weapons (or even required to), while commoners are not allowed to carry military weapons except under specific circumstances.
This. In England post-Norman conquest it was generally illegal for anyone not of at least knightly peerage to carry a sword; Venice in the 15th century, on the other hand, had quite the number of armed bravos wandering about the bad parts of the city.
Police aren't entirely anachronistic; ancient Rome did have the vigiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigiles), although they started out as firefighters and only became watchmen via mission creep.
I'd say that as a half-assed approximation, the more egalitarian one's pseudo-medieval town is, the more likely it is to have some independent force enforcing the law. The more caste- and class-bound it is, the more likely it is that the responsibility and privilege of suppressing violence in the streets will fall to the personal guards of the aristocracy - if for no better reason than they're the only ones who will be allowed to carry weapons, and they only care about violence that affects them.
Quote from: Bill;695416As far as I know, the general public took care of crime on the streets.
Right; local citizens would be taking turns to be the "night watch".
Quote from: jhkim;695410I generally feel that police are an anachronism. My rule of thumb for (pseudo)-medieval societies is that nobles are expected to carry weapons (or even required to), while commoners are not allowed to carry military weapons except under specific circumstances.
In any setting where monsters are a common threat and where thieves and assassins are around just about every corner, then you might expect everyone to go everywhere prepped for trouble. Especially farmers and small villages that monsters just love to pick on.
Some settings do though have cities with the "no weapons in public" rule, or at least a peacebonding rule. Others are wild west free-for-alls where going around unarmed is inviting trouble. And I've have players do exactly that to entice thugs to try and waylay them.
Cant think of a setting city that has an actual policing force. A-lot though have city guards to deal with troublemakers. Which is technically a police force. but fits settings where there is lots of threats both internal and external.
Big city? Very likely.
Small village? Unlikely.
That and city guards make for great last minute cavalry rescues,d cannon fodder when things go crazy, and as foils for rowdy adventurers.
At least untill the murder hobos arrive... ahem...
The way I generally run it, it depends on the type of settlement. Large trade city? There certainly will be an armed watch who will deal with armed adventurers who get out of line, with an eye of balance between wanting to keep adventurer business (if the place has mercenaries as part of the local economy) versus maintaining order. As I am not a historian and I am not running a historical simulation, I don't sweat the details. I'm interested in the PCs having swords and sorcery adventures as per Appendix N. Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser were criminals, and guys like Conan would usually answer insults back with deadly force or at least a good beating. The entire murder hobo thing is an extreme manifestation of what is already present in the literature. Folks have to have a frank conversation about how much of this kind of mayhem they want to see in their games. Alignment in D&D style games is a marker for "I want this kind of action." In games where all bets are off,I let folks take whatever Alignment they like, and let them go crazy with consequences. But that's for "breaking bad" style mercenary gaming. My more regular D&D stuff I tell my players Good or Nuetral only.
Again, tying players to the setting by way of rewards and consequences, and making the part of various communities, cures murderhoboism.
Quote from: Malfi;695187Xp gain sometimes motivates the player this way.
If you gain most or all of your xp from killing monsters you will be drawn to do so.
If you gain most of your xp from getting the treasure you will be drawn to explore the dungeon, avoid the monsters, get the stuff and get out of there.
That said I have rarely seen this "murder hobo" behaviour and I play third edition.
Heh, a variant system of where you only get XP for stopping fights and saving lives might be interesting to experiment with.
I'm just a murder-hobo and everywhere I go
People know the part, I'm playin'
I will admit though, as a teenager, this is exactly what we did sometimes: random dungeon gen from the DMG, then wandering monster/random encounter; then kill them and loot the corpse and roll random treasure. That, a crown royal bag full of polyhedrals, a two liter bottle of like cola, and a few friends made for a good weekend night circa the early 80's.
If it makes someone happy, I have no fault with that.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;695438Heh, a variant system of where you only get XP for stopping fights and saving lives might be interesting to experiment with.
Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, the RPG.
Except not the actual Hercules RPG, because that didn't have anything like that in it, but you know what I mean.
Quote from: Omega;695403Sometimes a player is just out to ruin things. I've had it happen and it pretty much killed a 3 year game. In that case it occurred near the middle and I resolved to not just end the whole thing right there. Instead I kept things rolling and made sure the players were having fun. But when things came to a good closing point. I wrapped things up.
(scratches his head) And that was preferable to pulling the problem player aside and cluing him in on your expectations?
Quote from: Ravenswing;695553(scratches his head) And that was preferable to pulling the problem player aside and cluing him in on your expectations?
I was pretty mad at the time and did not trust myself not to just blow up on the person. He was also the only means of transportation for another player who was handicapped. So I also was not keen on possibly ruining things for a bystander.
If it had not been just me that was irked at the incident then yes. Id have pulled him over and things would have gone from there.
That and in general they acted ok. But jeebus sometimes they got on my nerves. But it was never enough to be a game killer and I wanted to progress the adventure to a viable end point. The campaign could not have gone much further anyhow. So they missed out on one or two big space battles and a larger closure. The group never really got into the space battle side of things so it was no loss to the players.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;695438Heh, a variant system of where you only get XP for stopping fights and saving lives might be interesting to experiment with.
That'd likely fall under "promotes Deity's Ethos" XP for D&D 2e pacifist priests.
Seriously, pretty much all conceivable forms of XP generation were readily spelled out in the 2e DMG. I'm surprised people keep going to this well when there's already been several toolbox games that addressed this.
Quote from: Opaopajr;695646That'd likely fall under "promotes Deity's Ethos" XP for D&D 2e pacifist priests.
Seriously, pretty much all conceivable forms of XP generation were readily spelled out in the 2e DMG. I'm surprised people keep going to this well when there's already been several toolbox games that addressed this.
Indeed. In AD&D 2e getting tons of XP w/o killing shouldn't really be a problem for any non-warrior class, but Thieves and Priests in particular. Especially Thieves. A dungeon crawl could be run as a heist with Thieves using specialized* skills (the meaningful use of wich gives XP) to get GP (wich gives XP).
*=since 2e Thieves can choose how to develop their skills, meaning you could have a Dwarf locks & traps specialist, an Elf sneak, etc.
Heh, you could get it for successful uses of thief skill climbing and listening, if your GM was so inclined. If it was tactically useful, why not? The game's manifold context is best judged by an adjudicator who was there; better judgment matters.
But again it all goes back to pre-conceived assumptions on how GMs were to run a campaign, which includes the concept of rewards for successful and extended play. If GMs feel the game is somehow out of their control, it will be. Whoever promoted this idea for GMs to give up game possession to some assumedly shared standardization did amazing damage to this hobby.
Considering how often older D&D DMGs repeatedly harped that it is your own game and to run it (including XP) as it makes sense in your own world, you'd think someone would have listened by now.
(But yes, weren't we all little shits as pre-teens with our power fantasies. Thankfully we're adults now, may run our own games, and can move on. :rolleyes:)
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;695438Heh, a variant system of where you only get XP for stopping fights and saving lives might be interesting to experiment with.
Wow I can't even
imagine what that would be like.
I began writing an alternate xp awards system for my dnd 3.5 houserules but I have never used it.
It was about gaining xp from spending money in endeavours related to your class like building, creating and running castles, thief guilds, magic academies, trade companies, shops, taverns, temples, churches, cults, shrines.
At the same time magic items had no direct relation with the gp economy and monsters gave you less xp.
I don't do things based on xp rewards.
I play my character.
Quote from: Bill;695674I don't do things based on xp rewards.
I play my character.
And a better system/game match the 2 concepts together. That's the point.
I would probably play city watch as they are in the Discworld Novel "Night Watch". Cowardly, and not likely to mess with an adventurer or plains barbarian walking around armed to the teeth - unless, of course, they outnumbered them greatly, at which point they enter full-on bully mode. They exist mostly to reinforce the local burgher's power, possibly coming to the aid of a bailiff if one is present, and nobles will have their own thugs to use for policing.
Quote from: LordVreeg;695728And a better system/game match the 2 concepts together. That's the point.
Better for some perhaps, but I prefer not to use xp at all. For me, XP is detrimental, or a waste of time, not beneficial.
Quote from: Bill;695766Better for some perhaps, but I prefer not to use xp at all. For me, XP is detrimental, or a waste of time, not beneficial.
Yes.
I looked back and realized I was a little terse. But I would rather have a system with no exp than one that rewards behavior inimical to the playstyle, so at a level I agree.
Quote from: LordVreeg;695791Yes.
I looked back and realized I was a little terse. But I would rather have a system with no exp than one that rewards behavior inimical to the playstyle, so at a level I agree.
I am probably biased against xp because it does not motivate me as a player.
Quote from: Bill;695798I am probably biased against xp because it does not motivate me as a player.
I've DM'd and played in a couple of games where you get your level by completing a quest or goal of some type, rather than having to track every kill and/or gold piece. It seemed to work fairly well.
Are there any games out there with this type of advancement built into the rules?
Quote from: Werekoala;696180I've DM'd and played in a couple of games where you get your level by completing a quest or goal of some type, rather than having to track every kill and/or gold piece. It seemed to work fairly well.
Are there any games out there with this type of advancement built into the rules?
Loads of them and its detial in 2e as an XP option.
the only problem is its a bit of a rialroad. If you only get XP for rescuing the princess but instead you kill her and use her head as a cup how do you get XP.
Quest based XP is often used by railroady GMs who want the players to follow their adventure.
After doing personal objectives at work I adopted it for Amber first of all but now other games.
PC sets 3 objectives GM evaluates each one and sets an XP award against them. The objective must involve a conflict to be overcome with an obstacle of some type but doesn't need to be physical.
So get to be Mayor of Dursan might be an objective, or get control of my own pirate ship, or even rescue the Princess.
You can drop objectives or postpone them but you want 3 running at any one time usually at short, medium and long timeframes.
You still get XP for all the other stuff but these make up your PC goals. Great in a game like Amber where the PCs are all off doing their own thing.
Quote from: Werekoala;696180I've DM'd and played in a couple of games where you get your level by completing a quest or goal of some type, rather than having to track every kill and/or gold piece. It seemed to work fairly well.
Are there any games out there with this type of advancement built into the rules?
It's in D&D 2e explicitly in PHB and DMG.
And they also explicitly state that this is a realm where there's little rules and a lot of guidelines for the GM. Really, it's up to your campaign and the logic you build around it.
And I disagree about it being a railroad. It's only so as much as the GM is prone to railroad players in the first place. GM judgment is there to make sense of the results after the fact; in a multi-contextual game with an infinite potential for responses no mathematical XP formula would
ever work. The old 2e PHB and DMG pretty much say the same verbatim. It must be adjudicated by one present to the game's circumstances and understanding its ramifications -- everything else is even less than such guesswork because it ignores all the preceeding contexts.
Quote from: Werekoala;696180I've DM'd and played in a couple of games where you get your level by completing a quest or goal of some type, rather than having to track every kill and/or gold piece. It seemed to work fairly well.
Are there any games out there with this type of advancement built into the rules?
Warhammer.
Quote from: Werekoala;696180Are there any games out there with this type of advancement built into the rules?
Marvel Heroic. Milestones.
Quote from: Werekoala;696180I've DM'd and played in a couple of games where you get your level by completing a quest or goal of some type, rather than having to track every kill and/or gold piece. It seemed to work fairly well.
Are there any games out there with this type of advancement built into the rules?
13th Age does that, but it is a very new game.
Quote from: jibbajibba;696207Loads of them and its detial in 2e as an XP option.
the only problem is its a bit of a rialroad. If you only get XP for rescuing the princess but instead you kill her and use her head as a cup how do you get XP.
Quest based XP is often used by railroady GMs who want the players to follow their adventure.
After doing personal objectives at work I adopted it for Amber first of all but now other games.
PC sets 3 objectives GM evaluates each one and sets an XP award against them. The objective must involve a conflict to be overcome with an obstacle of some type but doesn't need to be physical.
So get to be Mayor of Dursan might be an objective, or get control of my own pirate ship, or even rescue the Princess.
You can drop objectives or postpone them but you want 3 running at any one time usually at short, medium and long timeframes.
You still get XP for all the other stuff but these make up your PC goals. Great in a game like Amber where the PCs are all off doing their own thing.
Campaign objectives. When I am forced to use xp because of the nature of a system (example, 1E dnd has different xp charts by class) I do group xp, not individual xp. Preferably I don't use any xp at all.
But if the players are working toward a goal, such as 'free the goblin slaves from a dark elven city' they might gain a level (or lump of group xp) when they succeed.
This has worked well for me for many years.