| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had to look up solipsistic
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a fallacy in here somewhere, something like "you can't worry about trivial things, there are too many huge things to worry about first."
Discussing the use of the term murderhobo has absolutely no connection whatsoever with discussing other isms. It doesn't suck energy away that should be focused on other isms, it doesn't yank other ism discussions off the messageboard, it doesn't impact any analysis or conclusion that can be reached in other discussions about isms.
In other words.
"Squirrel!"
Or maybe "Please stop talking about what you want to talk about and get back to talking about what I want to talk about."
The murder hobo thing is really about the "why" we do things. There are two "why's" to define, player motivation and character motivation. Players want to see their characters evolve, sometimes it is through the "story"; other times through character advancement, such as XP and Treasure. In the structure of the rules it is easy to divorce "story" rewards from the more concrete rewards of XP and Treasure; which can create a tendency to have more, objectively, sociopathic characters in an attempt to express a legitimate player desire, advancement.
To get away from that, my approach is to, early in the character's careers let them earn something of value; such as land, a mine, shares in a shipping consortium, get titles, etc., etc. Adventuring usually revolves around this central value thing which dovetails into the conflicts that exist in the campaign. I skip XP and just have people level when the table feels ready. Treasure is given as profits through the venture they have invested in, usually based upon the appropriate tables in the rule book.
There are times when there are longer adventures when they can't get back to their base of operations, so they will end up using an enemies gear. At the end of the day, when they get back they usually invest in their venture and get the cash rewards for a more personal development of their character. Some odds and ends get kept because it is a trophy or has a personal sense of value too it; others, like AD has shared, get returned to the appropriate owners.
When I approach it like that, I find that the characters tend to act more like people and it is hard to be a hobo when you are defending and cultivating something outside of yourself.
You know, nobody's saying they're NOT. What they're saying is ALL of them should be tackled equally.There is an interesting dynamic about what's worthy of concern for "serious gamers" going on here.
"Some people within our community deride certain play styles and players with the term murderhobo." - This is worthy of detailed discussion because it detracts/shames from gaming culture, and discourages new players/customers.
"Some people within our community highlight how cissexism, ablism, heterosexism, racism, and sexism is imported/present into our play." This is oversensitive soapboxing by radical queer feminists who are deemed alien to the gaming community.
Maybe there is some kind of mechanism where things that are too serious (i.e. sexism or racism) are inappropriate concerns for regular white, heterosexual, cisgender, male hobbyists. But pejoratives like "murderhobo," because it's ungendered and unracialize, are of utmost concern. Something like a solipsistic threshold, which is a necessary condition for "serious gamer" serious concern.
I don't think we all are saying that. And I don't think even I am saying that issues surrounding the term "murderhobo" deserve the same level of "tackling" as say, issues surrounding cissexism or racism.
In fact, I do think the term "murderhobo" does some productive work within the gaming community. Put aside issues of whether it is precise or representative of any actual gamers, it does signal to us some important things.
First, by talking about the "murderhobo," we do recognize that the free form nature of the game makes acting like a wild killer an easy task. Game imbalance makes the formation of typical not-european style towns guards woefully inadequate when facing a mid level full casting PC, or party. Therefor, creative efforts, through roleplay or world-building, must be done by the players to curb things getting wildly out of control.
Second, the "murderhobo" unceremonially jars instances where bad game design or distasteful roleplay becomes unreal. A party wandering the wilderness or underdark slaying villages full of others is quite plainly murderboboing. Even if they're after the 'orb of MacGuffin" or "book of Big Bad," the term murderhobo ought to stop a party right in its tracks. What are they really doing? What kind of adventure is this?
Finally, I think the term "murderhobo" goes a long way to highlight how some forms of roleplay just becomes absurd. Not to say they can't be fun (my boyfriend quite literally designed a "Murderhobo Quest," involving magical trains and impoverished adventurers). Rather, if everyone is sitting around the table plotting orc genocide as a means to some "greater good" (or even just for fun), calling them out as murderhobos rightly identifies what they're up to.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dear ladies and gentlemen of the discourse,
Please cease and desist in the slander, libel, and defamation of those who identify with the murderhobo lifestyle and profession. We, the Golarion Union of Murderhoboes for the Betterment of Others, (referred to hereafter as GUMBO), have been a united society for centuries in our efforts to contribute to society by doing the dirty work that keeps so-called civilized world in good working order. It is with the utmost importance that any and all offensive usage of the phrase "murderhobo" be ceased immediately. This includes, but is not limited to, any and all comparisons of murderhoboes to murderers, sociopaths, degenerates, poor people, "roll-players", "serious gamers", criminals, munchkins, adventurers, Pathfinders, trolls, people who hate cats, people without towels, Paizo staff, Walmart executives, the Mob, puppies, the NSA, the FBI, the FDA, the EPA, the Queen of England, satirists, Anonymous, you the reader, and anything or anyone else. Further violations of this citation or further attacks on the upstanding moral character of the GUMBO membership shall be met with legal action, vagrancy, and a killing spree unlike any the world hath seen. Thank you for your timely cooperation.
With the utmost respect and appreciation,
~Jaspar "Shank Him Louis" Kahrdboordebachs~
your local GUMBO representative
But I do have to admit, even among "serious gamers," I've found it difficult to run a game devoid of regular combat. A great deal of class features and game rules are combat specific (position, round order, AoO, maneuvers, defensive casting, etc), and as a consequence a DM must find a way to turn out regular, serial combat encounters to keep DnD/Pathfinder mechanics rolling. Roleplaying almost happens outside or orthogonal to the rules, leading to the unfortunate result that the DnD/Pathfinder rules alone foster "murderhobo" game styles.Insightful. I wonder if re-introducing emphasis on role-play for experience would cause an evolution from munchkinism to melodrama.
I dropped the use of experience point allocation a long while ago. The party levels as they progress. Very little mechanics to leveling in my games; it's mostly dependent on how the adventure is going.
It's hard, but I've found just outright leaving combat out of some sessions as a useful tool to encourage roleplay. I designed a mystery campaign a many months ago, and the first two sessions had zero combat encounters. The game was located in a moderately detailed location, so there was a fair number of NPCs and locations to involve the PCs in roleplay.
The rules weren't completely absent, but we just focused on things non-combat oriented. The party was at 11th level, so plenty of spells and skills were available. Scrying, speak with dead, and other spells like this were cast, but no combat.
One of the interesting things I learned at the beginning of the third session was how quickly initiative roles bring people into the mindset of the murderhobo. People don't generally think about things like full attacks or throwing bombs outside of round order. But once it's begun, all those detailed decisions you made about what your character would do with their turn becomes priority, and sometimes competes with roleplay.
Combat is often about life or death, and round order breaks the roleplay down to an economy of actions and Hit dice: you can try to talk your way out of the combat, but remember that a diplomacy check to influence attitude takes 1 minute (10 rounds).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread cracks me up.
Murderhobos ain't going anywhere. Been a part of the game for a long time. Organized play and one shots make the practice a bit more prevalent, but its a mile wide/inch deep lake we've all dipped a toe in on occasion. It happens. Once you catch yourself doing it, stop, if its a problem. Or continue- provided everyone at the table is having a good time. No problem with the term existing or some people falling into it. Getting stuck there is a problem, the same way the incessent intensely deep and involved backstory of characters canbe a problem when done too much.
. Insightful. I wonder if re-introducing emphasis on role-play for experience would cause an evolution from munchkinism to melodrama.
"The ... the agony ... of my existence!!!"
[Pause.]
"Did I level? Huh? Did I?"
ive been in games where this happened. Wasn't as much fun for those who weren't drama geeks at that particular table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm notAre you saying you are civil online but downright ornery in person? I only ask because your response was a civil one. ;)
Yes*, that would be correct. I do try, to the best of my ability, to be civil while online, while in the real world I am known to my co-workers (behind my back, mostly) as "That pointed-headed f$*@" and my annual employee reviews often state that although I am a valuable resource, knowledgeable and hard working, I am argumentative.
* Also, I thought it was a cool reference to the movie, "The Life of Brian"
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also I'll be honest. When discussions drift into Isms, my eyes start to glaze over. I've stopped trying to keep track of all the Isms floating around, there seems to be a new one popping up every time I turn around.
I'm equal-opportunity apathetic. I don't care enough about everybody to make an effort.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also I'll be honest. When discussions drift into Isms, my eyes start to glaze over. I've stopped trying to keep track of all the Isms floating around, there seems to be a new one popping up every time I turn around.
I'm equal-opportunity apathetic. I don't care enough about everybody to make an effort.
Wait... doesn't that make you guilty of Ismism?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tried to catch up and read this thread but in doing so I was turning something I enjoy and look forward to into something that made my stomach hurt
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait... doesn't that make you guilty of Ismism?Also I'll be honest. When discussions drift into Isms, my eyes start to glaze over. I've stopped trying to keep track of all the Isms floating around, there seems to be a new one popping up every time I turn around.
I'm equal-opportunity apathetic. I don't care enough about everybody to make an effort.
Eh.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait... doesn't that make you guilty of Ismism?Also I'll be honest. When discussions drift into Isms, my eyes start to glaze over. I've stopped trying to keep track of all the Isms floating around, there seems to be a new one popping up every time I turn around.
I'm equal-opportunity apathetic. I don't care enough about everybody to make an effort.
I think this is an ism schism.
|
I think this is an ism schism.Wait... doesn't that make you guilty of Ismism?Also I'll be honest. When discussions drift into Isms, my eyes start to glaze over. I've stopped trying to keep track of all the Isms floating around, there seems to be a new one popping up every time I turn around.
I'm equal-opportunity apathetic. I don't care enough about everybody to make an effort.
I am noticing an interesting trend in this thread. People are pretty much being blasted if, for example, they happen to ENJOY a campaign that is almost entirely combat. More specifically, a campaign that requires your characters to be A.) nomadic and B.) subsist off the spoils of their victories. Most of the people I know, who consequently are adults, enjoy combat more than the roleplaying aspect of the game. They love dungeon crawls, and they are perfectly fine with the lines of morality getting blurred. Does their enjoyment of large scale conflict and subsequent reaping of the spoils, as well as its frequency, make them murderhobos? By the definition, yes it does. ..No, it doesn't.Its very possible that you two have different definitions of murderhobo.
Murderhobo has always been there. Sometimes its had another name, but its pretty darn old. I know the first time I heard it was in 2008, and I know the idea has been around for decades. I know when I first started playing when I was much younger and didn't even think of growing a beard it was how I played the game and I had fun. Kill, loot, repeat. Not really a bad thing, it was all dungeons.
I gave the definition I found on the internet and it matches how i use the term. ""Murderhobo(s)" is used especially to refer to characters (or entire parties) of looser morals who tend to regard massive collateral damage as an inevitable and unremarkable consequence of their actions, or who are quite happy to slaughter otherwise friendly NPCs at slight provocation or the prospect of financial gain".
A Google search on the term shows that it wasn't commonly used until 2012.
But yes, clearing dungeons, which can be assumed to be full of evil nasty monsters, not innocent peasants, is fairly standard and not really what I'd call "murderhobo".
3) Cugel the Clever was a murderhobo, and I'll be in the cold, cold ground before anybody tells me Eyes of the Overworld isn't as much of a legitimate influence on D&D (/Pathfinder) as Lord of the Rings.
It certainly is. But Cugel was a con-man and a rogue. He rarely killed.
And Jack made sure that the point of the stories is that Cugel's greed often served him poorly. There are noble heroes and wise mages in those stories too. Cugel is the comic foil.
FUN FACT: Derogatory sneering at people who enjoy a combat-oriented game "roll-play" game as opposed to a "deeper", more "mature" "role-play" game dates back to at least 1980, at least according to Wikipedia.
Nothing wrong with a combat oriented “roll-play” game. They are quite fun, even if I prefer more role-playing. What I object to is games where the PC’s run around killing everything they see, including peasants, ect, acting out weird rape fantasies, looting everything and everyone, burning villages and what not. I made it clear the a dungeon crawl game is not what is normally defined as “murderhobo”=""Murderhobo(s)" is used especially to refer to characters (or entire parties) of looser morals who tend to regard massive collateral damage as an inevitable and unremarkable consequence of their actions, or who are quite happy to slaughter otherwise friendly NPCs at slight provocation or the prospect of financial gain". "Hack & Slash" is NOT "murderhobo".
So yeah, killing evil nasty orcs and looting their bodies? Part of the game. Killing innocent peasants and looting their bodies? Childish and immature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um, with all due respect Chris, those posts on Clark Peterson were VERY on topic, given the discussion revolving around claims by several people here that the "witch hunts"/"satanism"/other degrading terms and social stigma associated with gaming no longer exist, as proof very strongly to the opposite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FUN FACT: Derogatory sneering at people who enjoy a combat-oriented game "roll-play" game as opposed to a "deeper", more "mature" "role-play" game dates back to at least 1980, at least according to Wikipedia.
Nothing wrong with a combat oriented “roll-play” game. They are quite fun, even if I prefer more role-playing. What I object to is games where the PC’s run around killing everything they see, including peasants, ect, acting out weird rape fantasies, looting everything and everyone, burning villages and what not. I made it clear the a dungeon crawl game is not what is normally defined as “murderhobo”=""Murderhobo(s)" is used especially to refer to characters (or entire parties) of looser morals who tend to regard massive collateral damage as an inevitable and unremarkable consequence of their actions, or who are quite happy to slaughter otherwise friendly NPCs at slight provocation or the prospect of financial gain". "Hack & Slash" is NOT "murderhobo".
So yeah, killing evil nasty orcs and looting their bodies? Part of the game. Killing innocent peasants and looting their bodies? Childish and immature.
As a self confessed murderhobo, let me tell you, your definition is wrong. Murderhoboing is going around city to city, dungeon to dungeon, murdering monsters and taking loot. Nothing more, nothing less. The barbarian does it to test himself against monster, the paladin because his god tld him to, the wizard in the advance of magic, the rogue n search of riches, the bard to become famous. Sometimes you're in a quest to save the world, sometimes you do it because killing monsters is fun.
What you describe is a roleplayers first attempt at being an evil party, before someone keys them in on the fact that you can do evil masterminds or sympathetic villains.
|
okay i may be out of my league here......
I think some of it comes from the menal disconnect of organized play.
We have all "saved the world"
I dont know if in organized play, you have been given equipment to save the world.
OR it seems that the PFS is a theives guild that collects loot, and never distributes it out. Which describes the concept of murdehobo?
I dunno. Recently in organized play my group did an entire scenario where we mostly captured the bad guys. (The Pali brought a LOT of rope and stabalized via heal skill most of them at the end of each fight).
And we also took on an ancient evil wizard brought back to life by a vile cult. (the Waking Rune)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is perhaps relevant to suggest that some gamers play "murder hobos" precisely because they've been led to believe that's how you play the game by their encountering of terms like "murder hobos" in casual use by the gamers they know.
It is perhaps relevant to suggest that some gamers play "murder hobos" precisely because they've been led to believe that's how you play the game by their encountering of terms like "murder hobos" in casual use by the gamers they know.
Somewhat related, I tend to find the style of adventure provided by the manufacturer of a game tends to be the main culprit here. Fight-which-leads-to-fight-which-leads-to-fight-which-leads-to-fight-which- leads-to-endboss really doesn't tend to inspire me, and leaves me worrying new players will see it and think that's all RPGs are.
(Obviously, not something Paizo are guilty of)
Jaelithe, one of my players played for years before joining our group. From his descriptions the only sort of game he ever played before joining our group was a standard dungeon crawl with room after room of conveniently but ecologically improbable located monsters waiting for the group to come and kill them and take their stuff.
For whatever reason, that seems to be all his previous group ever did.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, nobody's saying they're NOT. Knightnday certainly isn't. What they're saying is ALL of them should be tackled equally. And that derogatory terms of ALL sorts should get the same kind of reaction, rather than some yes and some no.There is an interesting dynamic about what's worthy of concern for "serious gamers" going on here.
"Some people within our community deride certain play styles and players with the term murderhobo." - This is worthy of detailed discussion because it detracts/shames from gaming culture, and discourages new players/customers.
"Some people within our community highlight how cissexism, ablism, heterosexism, racism, and sexism is imported/present into our play." This is oversensitive soapboxing by radical queer feminists who are deemed alien to the gaming community.
Maybe there is some kind of mechanism where things that are too serious (i.e. sexism or racism) are inappropriate concerns for regular white, heterosexual, cisgender, male hobbyists. But pejoratives like "murderhobo," because it's ungendered and unracialize, are of utmost concern. Something like a solipsistic threshold, which is a necessary condition for "serious gamer" serious concern.
Right. What I'm saying is that it is poor form to deride someone else's concerns and then want equal or more time for yours. It isn't a matter of degree of seriousness or importance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right. What I'm saying is that it is poor form to deride someone else's concerns and then want equal or more time for yours. It isn't a matter of degree of seriousness or importance.
The problem is that not all concerns are valid. The concern that people saying "murderhobo" will lead to people thinking Pathfinder encourages violence and witchcraft which will lead to Pathfinder being unable to attract new players is not a valid concern. This can be seen by comparing a similar medium, namely video games. Accusations have been thrown at video games, saying that they promote violence and satanism. Consider the video game Doom. You even see this sort of accusation in the present/recent path, though it is much more fringe. See e.g. here, here, here, or here.
A similar medium has survived and even thrived under the same sort of accusations of violence and satanism that have been thrown at tabletop roleplaying games. If someone thinks that these accusations scare a significant number of people off from roleplaying games, they have to explain why the same hasn't happened to video games. Why are such accusations a threat to tabletop games but not video games?
It's certainly true that tabletop games are a niche medium. However, I think this can be easily explained by perfectly mundane reasons. It's hard to get people into tabletop games because, for example,
- monetary costs (buying books, miniatures, gamemats, etc.)
- spending the time upfront to learn the rules (it doesn't help that for a lot of tabletop games, the rulebooks aren't very well written and it takes a decent amount of system mastery to build a competent character);
- finding other people to play with and finding a common time to meet;
- ongoing time commitments and keeping schedules sufficiently consistent;
- lingering social stigma that tabletop games are weird/nerdy.
There is no reason to be concerned about the threat to tabletop gaming posed by the word "murderhobo" because it poses no threat. That is why such concerns are being dismissed. It's not that the concern is less important. Rather, the concern is entirely unimportant.
Right. What I'm saying is that it is poor form to deride someone else's concerns and then want equal or more time for yours. It isn't a matter of degree of seriousness or importance.The problem is that not all concerns are valid. The concern that people saying "murderhobo" will lead to people thinking Pathfinder encourages violence and witchcraft which will lead to Pathfinder being unable to attract new players is not a valid concern. This can be seen by comparing a similar medium, namely video games. Accusations have been thrown at video games, saying that they promote violence and satanism. Consider the video game Doom. You even see this sort of accusation in the present/recent path, though it is much more fringe. See e.g. here, here, here, or here.
A similar medium has survived and even thrived under the same sort of accusations of violence and satanism that have been thrown at tabletop roleplaying games. If someone thinks that these accusations scare a significant number of people off from roleplaying games, they have to explain why the same hasn't happened to video games. Why are such accusations a threat to tabletop games but not video games?
It's certainly true that tabletop games are a niche medium. However, I think this can be easily explained by perfectly mundane reasons. It's hard to get people into tabletop games because, for example,
...
- monetary costs (buying books, miniatures, gamemats, etc.)
- spending the time upfront to learn the rules (it doesn't help that for a lot of tabletop games, the rulebooks
I thought the Murderhobo issue is related to your last point. "Tabletop games are seen as weird/nerdy." The argument being that the meme of Murderhobo can give an off putting reputation to the hobby that it really doesn't need.
I thought the Murderhobo issue is related to your last point. "Tabletop games are seen as weird/nerdy." The argument being that the meme of Murderhobo can give an off putting reputation to the hobby that it really doesn't need.
Cool. Video games, which used to be much more niche than they are today, used to be seen as weird/nerdy too. The one-two punch of weird/nerdy and promoting violence/satanism didn't destroy video games. Why are tabletop games different?
Then, again, I suppose we all do stuff when we don't know any better.
Just for example, when I was very young, I would relieve myself of bladder or colon pressure by releasing said liquid or excrement directly into my pants. My parents, being cautious people, clothed me with an under-layer that would absorb much of the waste-matter. It did not change the fact, though, that they were none to pleased with the increasing repetition of, and increasing volume of, these happenings. When they became too tired of it, and realized that I was intelligent enough to learn differently, they potty-trained me.
:)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no reason to be concerned about the threat to tabletop gaming posed by the word "murderhobo" because it poses no threat. That is why such concerns are being dismissed. It's not that the concern is less important. Rather, the concern is entirely unimportant.
Again, to you, and that's fine. To other people, the concern that *isms aren't being met at everyone's table is utterly ridiculous and a silly thing to concern one's self with, let alone berate the community about. Others still argue that the game will not fall apart if we don't fix the monk or the rogue.
One more time, if you don't agree, then don't agree and put up your actual argument (which you, by the way, just did. Thank you.) But dismissing it with "this isn't a real concern or issue" and then turning around to rally for another cause is hypocritical at best.
I thought the Murderhobo issue is related to your last point. "Tabletop games are seen as weird/nerdy." The argument being that the meme of Murderhobo can give an off putting reputation to the hobby that it really doesn't need.
Indeed. Less about the word, more about the action. No one is saying, I do not think, that people will hear the word and clutch their purse and drag little Jimmy out of the gaming store away from those evil, evil gamers. But overhearing the usual suspects nattering on about how they rape and pillage and slaughter the town of Peaceful Green for all their mad loot might put the Mom and Dad of Prospective Gamer Jimmy off, much like the "satanic" artwork might have back when I started in the infancy of the game. You never know what might be a parent's trigger; I still haven't figured out all of mine for my kids yet -- we don't watch Spongebob because I think it is idiotic, as an example, while other parents are AOK with it.
tl;dr version: What is important to you isn't the same as what is important to AD or me or that guy over there, and vice versa. It is the equivalent (for me) of mentioning that I am concerned about the news story where a 6 year old boy was suspended for kissing a girl's hand and I'm told that my concerns are dumb, but did I hear about the abuse of whales at Seaworld and why aren't I doing more to help them.
I thought the Murderhobo issue is related to your last point. "Tabletop games are seen as weird/nerdy." The argument being that the meme of Murderhobo can give an off putting reputation to the hobby that it really doesn't need.Cool. Video games, which used to be much more niche than they are today, used to be seen as weird/nerdy too. The one-two punch of weird/nerdy and promoting violence/satanism didn't destroy video games. Why are tabletop games different?
I am not really prepared to speak intelligently on this topic. I just noticed that being "weird/nerdy" was on your list of issues on why it is hard to get people into table top gaming and that this particular issue fits in that umbrella.
So why is being weird or nerdy make it difficult for people to get into tabletop gaming?
Successfully, I hope? ;)Then, again, I suppose we all do stuff when we don't know any better.Just for example, when I was very young, I would relieve myself of bladder or colon pressure by releasing said liquid or excrement directly into my pants. My parents, being cautious people, clothed me with an under-layer that would absorb much of the waste-matter. It did not change the fact, though, that they were none to pleased with the increasing repetition of, and increasing volume of, these happenings. When they became too tired of it, and realized that I was intelligent enough to learn differently, they potty-trained me.
:)
With occasional lapses. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So why is being weird or nerdy make it difficult for people to get into tabletop gaming?
I'm not sure how big of an impact it has. I listed it because it seemed like a possible reason some people might not get into tabletop games. With other "nerdy" media being popular (consider how many Hollywood blockbusters are comic book movies), I'm skeptical that it's a very influential factor. Whatever stigma is attached to tabletop games, I think it's much more complicated than them being seen as nerdy.
Again, to you, and that's fine. To other people, the concern that *isms aren't being met at everyone's table is utterly ridiculous and a silly thing to concern one's self with, let alone berate the community about.
The difference is that systematic racism etc. is real, unlike the threat posed to Pathfinder by the word "murderhobo".
One more time, if you don't agree, then don't agree and put up your actual argument (which you, by the way, just did. Thank you.) But dismissing it with "this isn't a real concern or issue" and then turning around to rally for another cause is hypocritical at best.
I did the same thing in my post on the second page of this thread. I explained why the concern isn't valid and then dismissed it. My most recent comment just expanded on my earlier argument. I don't think other people commenting in the thread should be obligated to argue why Adamantine Dragon's concern is invalid before saying anything else. The thread already contains an argument (and a later expansion of that argument) that his concerns are invalid.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I explained why the concern isn't valid and then dismissed it. My most recent comment just expanded on my earlier argument. I don't think other people commenting in the thread should be obligated to argue why Adamantine Dragon's concern is invalid before saying anything else. The thread already contains an argument (and a later expansion of that argument) that his concerns are invalid.
In your view.
And in the view of a die hard racist, your concerns about systematic racism being an issue would be viewed as not valid and get dismissed. It does not make his (or her) viewpoint the valid one.
So stop arguing as if your opinion is the end all and accept that others may have a differing view. Just because the thread contains an argument are to whether others agree with his view does not make AD's view any less valid than yours.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, to you, and that's fine. To other people, the concern that *isms aren't being met at everyone's table is utterly ridiculous and a silly thing to concern one's self with, let alone berate the community about.The difference is that systematic racism etc. is real, unlike the threat posed to Pathfinder by the word "murderhobo".
Again, you are focusing on the word rather than the expanded discussion that has been laid out. And if you aren't sure that the perception of violence in games is a concern, I invite you to review some of the news stories after each and every mass shooting. There are people that find that concern much more in tune with their everyday concerns than racism, or sexism, or foodism, or whichever *ism we're up to today.
Whether you believe the concern is valid or not is immaterial. There are those who believe differently, which is where this sprang from -- well, that and a (I hope) comedy take on allowing someone's profession to be murderhobo in game.
Koloktroni, I concur that the game rewards such behavior...
But, as I said, we eventually avoided that temptation and did the heroic thing anyway. And I like to think that's not uncommon in this hobby.
Exactly. rewards it. But as to what it encourages, it encourages fantasy play, which could run the gamut from murder hobo to gallant rescuer of endangered civilians.
I've played with a few murder hobos.
But most of my players are on quests, or want to get involved in story, or have some special place in the world. And as to my own characters, I've never played a murder hobo in 32 years of gaming.
So stop arguing as if your opinion is the end all and accept that others may have a differing view. Just because the thread contains an argument are to whether others agree with his view does not make AD's view any less valid than yours.
I have refuted Adamantine Dragon's position. I explained why his conclusion does not follow from the premises. If someone disagrees with this, then they should provide a coherent reason to disagree. Just calling it an opinion is a dishonest attempt to avoid addressing the points I raised.
And if you aren't sure that the perception of violence in games is a concern, I invite you to review some of the news stories after each and every mass shooting.
I am aware of these news stories. Note that they have not stopped violent video games from being popular and commercially successful.