The murder hobo playstyle is clearly not OP's preferred playstyle, nor is it mine, nor is it that of a lot of people posting in this thread apparently. Nonetheless, it's as valid as any other and, let's be honest, it's not all that uncommon either. No need for taking potshots at the group for playing how they want to play or the DM for letting them. They're just having fun, nothing wrong with that. I do agree OP should have a friendly chat about this with the others, OP is just as entitled to having fun as anyone else in the group, but nobody's playing incorrectly here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The murder hobo playstyle is clearly not OP's preferred playstyle, nor is it mine, nor is it that of a lot of people posting in this thread apparently. Nonetheless, it's as valid as any other and, let's be honest, it's not all that uncommon either. No need for taking potshots at the group for playing how they want to play or the DM for letting them. They're just having fun, nothing wrong with that. I do agree OP should have a friendly chat about this with the others, OP is just as entitled to having fun as anyone else in the group, but nobody's playing incorrectly here.
Overt powergaming, murderhobos, etc... tend to get a bad wrap but honestly if thats the way the group as a whole wants to play the system is good for it!
The murder hobo playstyle is clearly not OP's preferred playstyle, nor is it mine, nor is it that of a lot of people posting in this thread apparently. Nonetheless, it's as valid as any other and, let's be honest, it's not all that uncommon either. No need for taking potshots at the group for playing how they want to play or the DM for letting them. They're just having fun, nothing wrong with that. I do agree OP should have a friendly chat about this with the others, OP is just as entitled to having fun as anyone else in the group, but nobody's playing incorrectly here.
Overt powergaming, murderhobos, etc... tend to get a bad wrap but honestly if thats the way the group as a whole wants to play the system is good for it!
Yeah it's only an issue when there's a conflict of what people are looking for in the game. If the players go one way and the dm the other, or the players are split etc, someone's not gonna have a fun time and if that's the case should talk things out or find a new group. But if everyone's on board they can play however they like.
The murder hobo playstyle is clearly not OP's preferred playstyle, nor is it mine, nor is it that of a lot of people posting in this thread apparently. Nonetheless, it's as valid as any other and, let's be honest, it's not all that uncommon either. No need for taking potshots at the group for playing how they want to play or the DM for letting them. They're just having fun, nothing wrong with that. I do agree OP should have a friendly chat about this with the others, OP is just as entitled to having fun as anyone else in the group, but nobody's playing incorrectly here.
Overt powergaming, murderhobos, etc... tend to get a bad wrap but honestly if thats the way the group as a whole wants to play the system is good for it!
Unless you've specifically set up your campaign for it, the system isn't actually good for what people typically describe as 'murder hobo' behaviour. Combat isn't meant to be a skeleton key for every challenge. If you use it like one, ordinarily that's a path to TPK, or a campaign that just ends in imprisonment. It's not Skyrim where NPCs have minimal intelligence and you can wipe out entire cities at relatively low levels.
The reason I bring that up is not in judgment of people who want to play that way. Heck, if a group wants to play a game were every roll counts as a nat 20 even if it's rolled on a d4, rad. Whatever floats yer goat. But I think the problem people have is that many people do want to play the game closer to its design, and the 'murder hobo' hate stories usually involve someone (or a group of someones) playing that way without telling anyone beforehand. Just because their individual actions are within RAW doesn't mean it makes sense. It either pushes the party closer to a fail state, or it pushes the DM to bend the world around that player behaviour so the campaign doesn't die super early.
Could be fun to be murder hobos and seeing how long you can make it before a tpk or you are all arrested.
Unless you've specifically set up your campaign for it, the system isn't actually good for what people typically describe as 'murder hobo' behaviour. Combat isn't meant to be a skeleton key for every challenge. If you use it like one, ordinarily that's a path to TPK, or a campaign that just ends in imprisonment. It's not Skyrim where NPCs have minimal intelligence and you can wipe out entire cities at relatively low levels.
I don't entirely agree. The term murder hobo originates from much older editions (it originated in Usenet discussions, which a lot of players today are too young to even remember, and that makes it nearly as old as D&D itself - Usenet started in '79 or '80, if memory serves). D&D was a very different game back then, often a lot more dungeon-oriented, usually with starkly delineated alignments which were as verifiable as the colour of an NPC's eyes (it was slightly harder of course, but the point is PCs could be 100% certain if NPCs or monsters were Evil). Murderhobo behaviour didn't really have to attract too much attention necessarily. And while the standards of play have shifted a lot since, the rules still lend themselves perfectly well to the way is was done way back when. You can meet one NPC that's going to direct you towards a dungeon (which you leave alone because you want to go to the dungeon and maybe you'll even get paid), maybe a bar maid or two and a nameless dude operating the inn (which you also leave alone because you want to be served drinks) and everything else happens in the dungeon where 95% of who or what you meet is hostile and won't be missed by anyone part of civil society. Again, not particularly my cup of tea but the system handles this more than adequately if that's what you want to play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Unless you've specifically set up your campaign for it, the system isn't actually good for what people typically describe as 'murder hobo' behaviour. Combat isn't meant to be a skeleton key for every challenge. If you use it like one, ordinarily that's a path to TPK, or a campaign that just ends in imprisonment. It's not Skyrim where NPCs have minimal intelligence and you can wipe out entire cities at relatively low levels.
I don't entirely agree. The term murder hobo originates from much older editions (it originated in Usenet discussions, which a lot of players today are too young to even remember, and that makes it nearly as old as D&D itself - Usenet started in '79 or '80, if memory serves). D&D was a very different game back then, often a lot more dungeon-oriented, usually with starkly delineated alignments which were as verifiable as the colour of an NPC's eyes (it was slightly harder of course, but the point is PCs could be 100% certain if NPCs or monsters were Evil). Murderhobo behaviour didn't really have to attract too much attention necessarily. And while the standards of play have shifted a lot since, the rules still lend themselves perfectly well to the way is was done way back when. You can meet one NPC that's going to direct you towards a dungeon (which you leave alone because you want to go to the dungeon and maybe you'll even get paid), maybe a bar maid or two and a nameless dude operating the inn (which you also leave alone because you want to be served drinks) and everything else happens in the dungeon where 95% of who or what you meet is hostile and won't be missed by anyone part of civil society. Again, not particularly my cup of tea but the system handles this more than adequately if that's what you want to play.
Try and stay in context. We're in 5e and 2021. 'Murder hobo' is probably interpreted slightly different by different people, and I have no doubt not everyone uses it the way it was originally used. Perhaps few do, and I'd be happy to learn more about that history. But the OP has reasonably enough defined the sort of behaviour being described as 'murder hobo' behaviour, which is that of being quick to violence as a solution even where it may not make sense to do so (e.g. breaking character). I find these days, when the term 'murder hobo' is invoked, that's what's being talked about. Your mileage may vary. I respect that, but again, in this thread we're in a somewhat narrower context. This tangent that you and I are on now still ties directly back to the OP and the situation they were describing. And I also provided enough context for how I used it.
Even in the modern context, I do not think D&D as a system inherently favors one play style over another, and there is nothing about D&D being unsuitable for murderhoboing. If anything, D&D is more suitable for murderhoboing than roleplaying, as a murderhobo campaign is arguably far easier to run than a campaign with an actual story involved. Combat IS the skeleton key to every challenge if the GM sets up the campaign that way, and it takes far more effort from the GM to steer the campaign away from combat while still making the campaign interesting.
Due to how shallow the rules are for exploration and social encounters compared to combat, what makes exploration and social encounters exciting is the fluff backing it up. Casting Fireball, swinging around a big sword, and sniping a target far away are inherently fun for most players. On the other hand though, winning a skill checks is not all that exciting by itself. You need more fluff to make skill checks exciting, like winning an intimidation check against a god or deceiving a devil into signing a contract with no drawbacks to you.
If you removed all the combat elements you would be removing about 80% of character information.
Combat is a massive part of 5e and while I get your sentiment for it also being a RP heavy edition social rules and skill challenges do not take much space in character design overall.
5e can be run as a combatless RP game no issue but it's also not exactly special built for that style either. You would be ignoring almost all your character sheet.
There's no real style that defines 5e and I think that's the main point of it.
The design of the game employs NPCs for a variety of functions, and a lot of those functions get hampered if you kill them indiscriminately. And it is set up as a game of decisions and consequences. Violence is nearly always an option, but by design it's one of many. And by design there are going to be cases where it is suboptimal if not fatal. If stabbing becomes your goto tool for handling npc interactions, each time you're stabbing at hidden landmines. The op describe players going after guards who won't let them through. That is a decision with consequences.
You're conflating the system with how it may be used by individual DMs. The design of the game doesn't employ NPCs, DMs employ NPCs - the design of the game is what allows DMs various ways to do so, but doesn't require NPCs to be used in any specific way. Player decisions have consequences if the DM makes it so. The system has no say in that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The term murder hobo originates from much older editions (it originated in Usenet discussions, which a lot of players today are too young to even remember, and that makes it nearly as old as D&D itself - Usenet started in '79 or '80, if memory serves). D&D was a very different game back then, often a lot more dungeon-oriented, usually with starkly delineated alignments which were as verifiable as the colour of an NPC's eyes (it was slightly harder of course, but the point is PCs could be 100% certain if NPCs or monsters were Evil). Murderhobo behaviour didn't really have to attract too much attention necessarily.
In addition to all that, back then, killing and treasure were (strictly) the only way to gain experience points. The game literally incentivized you to murder/loot everything you could get away with (presumably within your alignment). Doing so meant you were constantly moving around from place to place, thus, "murder hobo."
80%? I am not sure if you are exaggerating or not. I'd still need ability scores, saving throws, movement, languages, skills, spells (and spell slots), equipment, tool proficiencies, background, description, traits, features, feats, resistances, conditions, hit points, inspiration. Not sure what else. Don't need initiative. AC? I don't think it would be needed.
5e can be run as a combatless RP game no issue but it's also not exactly special built for that style either.
Definitely. That's a big part of what I am saying. If you want it for one extreme or the other (or anything in between), it's doable. But there are bound to be points on that gamut where the design fits best to worst. And I'm saying with the sort of play style described by the op (the whimsically slaughtering guards and mayors type), the design of the system is not a great match.
Spells would be questionable...you for sure would not need any damage spells anymore which make up the largest percentage of the catalog for sure. Class features is a mixed bag but I would hazard the majority of class features are related to combat (not sure the split but I would hazard at least 60%). Resistances are not very common outside of combat but can come up with traps/weather. If you are rolling saves you are generally in a combat situation. I would likely say that traps are about the only thing I can think of that relies on traps outside of combat and could represent a fair portion if you are more focused on puzzles and what not.
Conditions and HP are mostly combat focused. Conditions impart mechanical circumstances that primarily affect combat. HP is needed for RP potential but is generally used in combat.
Overall I feel 80% is fairly close to how much of a character sheet is directly or mostly directed towards combat.
Really for RP you need skills, abilities, proficiencies, and languages. Spells factor in as well infrequently. Most class features or feats for RP manifest as augmentations for these skills.
The game has a lot more space and effort put into the combat mechanics than the RP mechanics simiply because the RP mechanics are generally more free form to run from a DM perspective.
I do think the game can do either form well though and ultimately its up to the group to work out dynamics.
80%? I am not sure if you are exaggerating or not. I'd still need ability scores, saving throws, movement, languages, skills, spells (and spell slots), equipment, tool proficiencies, background, description, traits, features, feats, resistances, conditions, hit points, inspiration. Not sure what else. Don't need initiative. AC? I don't think it would be needed.
5e can be run as a combatless RP game no issue but it's also not exactly special built for that style either.
Definitely. That's a big part of what I am saying. If you want it for one extreme or the other (or anything in between), it's doable. But there are bound to be points on that gamut where the design fits best to worst. And I'm saying with the sort of play style described by the op (the whimsically slaughtering guards and mayors type), the design of the system is not a great match.
Spells would be questionable...you for sure would not need any damage spells anymore which make up the largest percentage of the catalog for sure. Class features is a mixed bag but I would hazard the majority of class features are related to combat (not sure the split but I would hazard at least 60%). Resistances are not very common outside of combat but can come up with traps/weather. If you are rolling saves you are generally in a combat situation. I would likely say that traps are about the only thing I can think of that relies on traps outside of combat and could represent a fair portion if you are more focused on puzzles and what not.
Conditions and HP are mostly combat focused. Conditions impart mechanical circumstances that primarily affect combat. HP is needed for RP potential but is generally used in combat.
Overall I feel 80% is fairly close to how much of a character sheet is directly or mostly directed towards combat.
Really for RP you need skills, abilities, proficiencies, and languages. Spells factor in as well infrequently. Most class features or feats for RP manifest as augmentations for these skills.
The game has a lot more space and effort put into the combat mechanics than the RP mechanics simiply because the RP mechanics are generally more free form to run from a DM perspective.
I do think the game can do either form well though and ultimately its up to the group to work out dynamics.
I use spells out of combat all of the time, including levelled spells (e.g. dimension door), offensive spells (e.g. firebolt on flammable terrain elements), and control spells more suited to combat (e.g. phantasmal force). Definitely, some classes lose a lot more functionality if combat is off the table. I don't know how useful rage would be, for instance, but as someone who has mostly played as a glamour bard, I got lots of useful stuff outside of combat.
Even without combat, there are still traps and damaging terrain effects that require saving throws, as are there conditions that affect skill checks, mobility, sensory abilities. There is exhaustion. There is fall damage. There is so much in the game that uses these numbers. This is without really getting in to the rp side. Just, mechanically, these things are used outside of combat.
So using that context you are using maybe 2-3 spells outside of combat when you know approximately 10 or so at that point. Bards would be the best at this type of game as they have very limited options for pure damage spells but you stated already that your class affects your perspective so that is fair. Glamour bard in particular would be very good at RP only games. (As an aside Firebolt? I assume magic initiate but interesting you would take a combat focused spell with the feat)
I did mention traps for saving throws so I acknowledge that....exhaustion I did not directly mention but is a common issue seen with weather/exploration.
The main point is that you would only need about 20% of your sheet to make most of this work. Saves/Skills/Abilities are all together.
Bard would be the one that obviously has more components to look over as they have a heavier RP angle than most classes as more of their features focus on the RP side of the game so it is fair to say its class specific.
Martial classes would be the biggest hit here and you might not see a fighter, monk, or barbarian in these type of games as their features are almost entirely focused on combat. Not saying a caster heavy game would not be a problem but it would likely be more the norm for that type of game.
If a guard blocking your path is so untethered to the world that killing them is immaterial, what is their function in the game?
The same as that of any monster standing between the PCs and the loot, presumably.
1) You aren't actually answering the question. 'So untethered' was in reference the idea that consequences can be removed, in which case, no, they aren't standing between the PCs and loot. They're just standing.
2) Even setting that aside, that's a considerably reductionist take on 5e. Sure, they both can fulfil that role, but there are limits to their interchangeability beyond stat blocks and flavour text. Again and as always, there doesn't have to be if a DM/ group elects for there not to be. But in the game design as handed off to players? Yeah, there are.
1) that’s not what we’re talking about though, is it? Or at least, it’s not exactly pertinent. It’s a hypothetical that doesn’t really apply to even the most murderest hobo type of game. A game that accommodates murderhobos essentially removes negative societal consequences from going around and killing people on a whim, but clearly there needs to be killing. Whether you call it just standing or standing to get in the way or standing opportunistically or any other kind of standing, beings are standing there because PCs can’t be murderhobos if they can’t murder.
2) well, again and as always, “there doesn’t have to be” is the crux of the argument. As for the game design ‘as handed off to the players’, there are two designs handed off to the players: the crunchy mechanics sans context, which is the system; and the contextual design of the campaign done by the DM. The former is perfectly suited to murderhobo games in any edition, including 5E; the latter is what makes it a murderhobo game and has nothing to do with system design.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So using that context you are using maybe 2-3 spells outside of combat when you know approximately 10 or so at that point. Bards would be the best at this type of game as they have very limited options for pure damage spells but you stated already that your class affects your perspective so that is fair. Glamour bard in particular would be very good at RP only games. (As an aside Firebolt? I assume magic initiate but interesting you would take a combat focused spell with the feat)
I was just using those three as examples. (To the aside, 1 level dip in sorcerer). I've used 17 of my 23 known spells out of combat, despite the fact that the majority of them were chosen for combat use. 18 if you include the time my character drunkenly told people that bards can fart thunder then used thunderclap when it some how spun out into a competition (which I won).
As stated, we agree that a no combat game would be a less than optimal use of 5e's design even though it's doable. All I am getting at is there is lots more in the game available that uses these sections of your character sheet and creates interesting challenges. But I suppose by this point we've wandered off on quite the tangent from the op.
The 'crunchy mechanics' isn't the entirety of the system because those mechanics are designed to interact with the world. That world is also comprised of machinery which, while highly customizable, does need some internal consistency and defined parameters.
The 'crunchy mechanics' is the entirety of the system as far as the ruleset is concerned simply because how they interact with the world depends entirely on that world, and that world is a separate design. The consequences of murderhoboism vary considerably between a campaign set in a civilized area of the Realms, like Waterdeep, set in Menzobarranzan, set in the Abyss, set in Rokugan, or potentially set in a setting entirely of the DM's making. The fact that you use the 5E ruleset in and of itself says nothing about the setting you'll be using, or the type of characters the players will create, or what their status and role in the setting will be. It also says nothing about what kind of NPCs those characters will meet and what, if anything, their relation with those NPCs will be. Just using 5E doesn't define any of that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The 'crunchy mechanics' is the entirety of the system as far as the ruleset is concerned simply because how they interact with the world depends entirely on that world, and that world is a separate design. The consequences of murderhoboism vary considerably between a campaign set in a civilized area of the Realms, like Waterdeep, set in Menzobarranzan, set in the Abyss, set in Rokugan, or potentially set in a setting entirely of the DM's making. The fact that you use the 5E ruleset in and of itself says nothing about the setting you'll be using, or the type of characters the players will create, or what their status and role in the setting will be. It also says nothing about what kind of NPCs those characters will meet and what, if anything, their relation with those NPCs will be. Just using 5E doesn't define any of that.
If what you are referring to as 'murderhoboism' is pretty much what is described as 'Hack and Slash' in the DM's Guide, honestly, there is no disagreement on that front. Definitely disagree still about some of the other stuff, but we've run that circle enough.
You could definitely create a game that's a series of dungeon crawls where everything aggros or at least would have if you didn't first. I am sure there are lots of other ways it could be handled. Maybe that is the more authentic/ accurate way to use 'murder hobo'. But I don't quite think that's what the op was talking about and that does not seem like the type of campaign they are in.
What I mean is, murdering random people because they annoy you is absolutely going to land you in hot water in Waterdeep; if you do so in Menzobarranzan but you're a bit careful which house they're aligned with you might be ok; in the Abyss getting killed is in many cases a temporary inconvenience; and in Rokugan depending on your status relative to that of your victims' might not be considered murder at all (or even dishonorable in the court of public opinion, depending on how you spin it). I'm not just talking about hack and slash campaigns, though those certainly are palatable for murderhobo players. I'm saying societal consequences for your actions depend on the society you're in, and that society is designed entirely separately from the 5E (or any edition's) ruleset.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
In addition to all that, back then, killing and treasure were (strictly) the only way to gain experience points. The game literally incentivized you to murder/loot everything you could get away with (presumably within your alignment). Doing so meant you were constantly moving around from place to place, thus, "murder hobo."
To be fair, Dungeons & Dragons was created to more readily reflect Medieval European sensibilities with a dash of Swords & Sorcery to make it pseudo-Medieval. Despite claims to the contrary, people in the Medieval world (Europe, Western Asia, North Africa) were not nearly as averse to violence as we are in the modern world. I mean, executions were spectacles you brought your kids to watch in many places. On top of that, the source materials that influenced D&D such as Vance's Dying Earth (what with Cugel the Clever) were INCREDIBLY violent (Cugel is more than a bit of a dirtbag, in all honesty, who steals and murders to get spells and such). While outwitting/out thinking your opponents is preferable, some people would rather just put their enemies to the sword. That's not inconsistent with either the inspirational sources or the fact the game is supposed to reflect a pseudo-medieval world.
I’m playing with a group of friends and among the 4 of us 1 is a murder hobo and the other 2 are half murder hobos. Their idea of fun is killing a guard who won’t let them through or a deluded mayor who’s hiding in his mansion instead of helping his town. Their preferred way of playing is killing things that are in their way. Personally I get very triggered by this style of play because 1) I find it disturbing 2) it’s lazy play 3) killing random NPCs might limit the game and story development. Most of the time I’m the only one calling for peace and “no don’t kill him we can do this the civil way.” Our DM has no problem with them being murder hobos and so doesn’t do much to discourage it. Am I being too sensitive? Does anyone else feel the same way?
Are you too sensitive? No. Do i feel the same? Sometimes.
To me it seems more that while they are your friends and you enjoy hanging out with them, they enjoy the combat in the game more and are happy to force situations that result in combat. You on the other hand seem to enjoy a more thought out process. Taking your time to find alternative ways even when brute force seems the quicker, although bloody, solution to a rather "easy problem" in their eyes.
Good. Now the hard part is to actually make them enjoy that as well. Most likely tool is to have a talk - i mean they are your friends. You should be able to be super open about it really easy and just tell them that you would find it cool if we wouldn't just murderhobo our way through life and that it feels flat. Personally i think this requires a bit of assistance from the DM in not making each scenario murderhobo material and put things into their way that don't allow for that.
Not too sensitive at all. When I DMed games, a zillion years ago, I had some friends (and one younger brother) who played that way. I didn't tell them they couldn't, I just treated it as a world with consequences. Whack a bunch of guards because you can and they are irritating? All the sudden, bounty papers start showing up in inns, and NPC vendors won't sell to the murderhobos because they have a reputation as killer thugs. It continues, and why wouldn't a local lord hire some similarly skilled NPCs to bring the murderhobos to justice.
Your DM needs to get that figured out, quick, before they lose a player. Maybe a post-session debrief with all of them, to let them know how you feel, and get them to discuss it. MH campaigns and games are stupendously boring and painful, so I wish you best of luck, and hopefully things get sorted to everyone's satisfaction.
The murder hobo playstyle is clearly not OP's preferred playstyle, nor is it mine, nor is it that of a lot of people posting in this thread apparently. Nonetheless, it's as valid as any other and, let's be honest, it's not all that uncommon either. No need for taking potshots at the group for playing how they want to play or the DM for letting them. They're just having fun, nothing wrong with that. I do agree OP should have a friendly chat about this with the others, OP is just as entitled to having fun as anyone else in the group, but nobody's playing incorrectly here.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Overt powergaming, murderhobos, etc... tend to get a bad wrap but honestly if thats the way the group as a whole wants to play the system is good for it!
Yeah it's only an issue when there's a conflict of what people are looking for in the game. If the players go one way and the dm the other, or the players are split etc, someone's not gonna have a fun time and if that's the case should talk things out or find a new group. But if everyone's on board they can play however they like.
Could be fun to be murder hobos and seeing how long you can make it before a tpk or you are all arrested.
The system would be great for this.
I don't entirely agree. The term murder hobo originates from much older editions (it originated in Usenet discussions, which a lot of players today are too young to even remember, and that makes it nearly as old as D&D itself - Usenet started in '79 or '80, if memory serves). D&D was a very different game back then, often a lot more dungeon-oriented, usually with starkly delineated alignments which were as verifiable as the colour of an NPC's eyes (it was slightly harder of course, but the point is PCs could be 100% certain if NPCs or monsters were Evil). Murderhobo behaviour didn't really have to attract too much attention necessarily. And while the standards of play have shifted a lot since, the rules still lend themselves perfectly well to the way is was done way back when. You can meet one NPC that's going to direct you towards a dungeon (which you leave alone because you want to go to the dungeon and maybe you'll even get paid), maybe a bar maid or two and a nameless dude operating the inn (which you also leave alone because you want to be served drinks) and everything else happens in the dungeon where 95% of who or what you meet is hostile and won't be missed by anyone part of civil society. Again, not particularly my cup of tea but the system handles this more than adequately if that's what you want to play.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Even in the modern context, I do not think D&D as a system inherently favors one play style over another, and there is nothing about D&D being unsuitable for murderhoboing. If anything, D&D is more suitable for murderhoboing than roleplaying, as a murderhobo campaign is arguably far easier to run than a campaign with an actual story involved. Combat IS the skeleton key to every challenge if the GM sets up the campaign that way, and it takes far more effort from the GM to steer the campaign away from combat while still making the campaign interesting.
Due to how shallow the rules are for exploration and social encounters compared to combat, what makes exploration and social encounters exciting is the fluff backing it up. Casting Fireball, swinging around a big sword, and sniping a target far away are inherently fun for most players. On the other hand though, winning a skill checks is not all that exciting by itself. You need more fluff to make skill checks exciting, like winning an intimidation check against a god or deceiving a devil into signing a contract with no drawbacks to you.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
If you removed all the combat elements you would be removing about 80% of character information.
Combat is a massive part of 5e and while I get your sentiment for it also being a RP heavy edition social rules and skill challenges do not take much space in character design overall.
5e can be run as a combatless RP game no issue but it's also not exactly special built for that style either. You would be ignoring almost all your character sheet.
There's no real style that defines 5e and I think that's the main point of it.
You're conflating the system with how it may be used by individual DMs. The design of the game doesn't employ NPCs, DMs employ NPCs - the design of the game is what allows DMs various ways to do so, but doesn't require NPCs to be used in any specific way. Player decisions have consequences if the DM makes it so. The system has no say in that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
In addition to all that, back then, killing and treasure were (strictly) the only way to gain experience points. The game literally incentivized you to murder/loot everything you could get away with (presumably within your alignment). Doing so meant you were constantly moving around from place to place, thus, "murder hobo."
Spells would be questionable...you for sure would not need any damage spells anymore which make up the largest percentage of the catalog for sure. Class features is a mixed bag but I would hazard the majority of class features are related to combat (not sure the split but I would hazard at least 60%). Resistances are not very common outside of combat but can come up with traps/weather. If you are rolling saves you are generally in a combat situation. I would likely say that traps are about the only thing I can think of that relies on traps outside of combat and could represent a fair portion if you are more focused on puzzles and what not.
Conditions and HP are mostly combat focused. Conditions impart mechanical circumstances that primarily affect combat. HP is needed for RP potential but is generally used in combat.
Overall I feel 80% is fairly close to how much of a character sheet is directly or mostly directed towards combat.
Really for RP you need skills, abilities, proficiencies, and languages. Spells factor in as well infrequently. Most class features or feats for RP manifest as augmentations for these skills.
The game has a lot more space and effort put into the combat mechanics than the RP mechanics simiply because the RP mechanics are generally more free form to run from a DM perspective.
I do think the game can do either form well though and ultimately its up to the group to work out dynamics.
The same as that of any monster standing between the PCs and the loot, presumably.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So using that context you are using maybe 2-3 spells outside of combat when you know approximately 10 or so at that point. Bards would be the best at this type of game as they have very limited options for pure damage spells but you stated already that your class affects your perspective so that is fair. Glamour bard in particular would be very good at RP only games. (As an aside Firebolt? I assume magic initiate but interesting you would take a combat focused spell with the feat)
I did mention traps for saving throws so I acknowledge that....exhaustion I did not directly mention but is a common issue seen with weather/exploration.
The main point is that you would only need about 20% of your sheet to make most of this work. Saves/Skills/Abilities are all together.
Bard would be the one that obviously has more components to look over as they have a heavier RP angle than most classes as more of their features focus on the RP side of the game so it is fair to say its class specific.
Martial classes would be the biggest hit here and you might not see a fighter, monk, or barbarian in these type of games as their features are almost entirely focused on combat. Not saying a caster heavy game would not be a problem but it would likely be more the norm for that type of game.
1) that’s not what we’re talking about though, is it? Or at least, it’s not exactly pertinent. It’s a hypothetical that doesn’t really apply to even the most murderest hobo type of game. A game that accommodates murderhobos essentially removes negative societal consequences from going around and killing people on a whim, but clearly there needs to be killing. Whether you call it just standing or standing to get in the way or standing opportunistically or any other kind of standing, beings are standing there because PCs can’t be murderhobos if they can’t murder.
2) well, again and as always, “there doesn’t have to be” is the crux of the argument. As for the game design ‘as handed off to the players’, there are two designs handed off to the players: the crunchy mechanics sans context, which is the system; and the contextual design of the campaign done by the DM. The former is perfectly suited to murderhobo games in any edition, including 5E; the latter is what makes it a murderhobo game and has nothing to do with system design.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Fair enough! Also I love sorcerer dips for Bards!
The 'crunchy mechanics' is the entirety of the system as far as the ruleset is concerned simply because how they interact with the world depends entirely on that world, and that world is a separate design. The consequences of murderhoboism vary considerably between a campaign set in a civilized area of the Realms, like Waterdeep, set in Menzobarranzan, set in the Abyss, set in Rokugan, or potentially set in a setting entirely of the DM's making. The fact that you use the 5E ruleset in and of itself says nothing about the setting you'll be using, or the type of characters the players will create, or what their status and role in the setting will be. It also says nothing about what kind of NPCs those characters will meet and what, if anything, their relation with those NPCs will be. Just using 5E doesn't define any of that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What I mean is, murdering random people because they annoy you is absolutely going to land you in hot water in Waterdeep; if you do so in Menzobarranzan but you're a bit careful which house they're aligned with you might be ok; in the Abyss getting killed is in many cases a temporary inconvenience; and in Rokugan depending on your status relative to that of your victims' might not be considered murder at all (or even dishonorable in the court of public opinion, depending on how you spin it). I'm not just talking about hack and slash campaigns, though those certainly are palatable for murderhobo players. I'm saying societal consequences for your actions depend on the society you're in, and that society is designed entirely separately from the 5E (or any edition's) ruleset.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To be fair, Dungeons & Dragons was created to more readily reflect Medieval European sensibilities with a dash of Swords & Sorcery to make it pseudo-Medieval. Despite claims to the contrary, people in the Medieval world (Europe, Western Asia, North Africa) were not nearly as averse to violence as we are in the modern world. I mean, executions were spectacles you brought your kids to watch in many places. On top of that, the source materials that influenced D&D such as Vance's Dying Earth (what with Cugel the Clever) were INCREDIBLY violent (Cugel is more than a bit of a dirtbag, in all honesty, who steals and murders to get spells and such). While outwitting/out thinking your opponents is preferable, some people would rather just put their enemies to the sword. That's not inconsistent with either the inspirational sources or the fact the game is supposed to reflect a pseudo-medieval world.
Are you too sensitive? No.
Do i feel the same? Sometimes.
To me it seems more that while they are your friends and you enjoy hanging out with them, they enjoy the combat in the game more and are happy to force situations that result in combat. You on the other hand seem to enjoy a more thought out process. Taking your time to find alternative ways even when brute force seems the quicker, although bloody, solution to a rather "easy problem" in their eyes.
Good. Now the hard part is to actually make them enjoy that as well. Most likely tool is to have a talk - i mean they are your friends. You should be able to be super open about it really easy and just tell them that you would find it cool if we wouldn't just murderhobo our way through life and that it feels flat. Personally i think this requires a bit of assistance from the DM in not making each scenario murderhobo material and put things into their way that don't allow for that.
Best of luck.
Not too sensitive at all. When I DMed games, a zillion years ago, I had some friends (and one younger brother) who played that way. I didn't tell them they couldn't, I just treated it as a world with consequences. Whack a bunch of guards because you can and they are irritating? All the sudden, bounty papers start showing up in inns, and NPC vendors won't sell to the murderhobos because they have a reputation as killer thugs. It continues, and why wouldn't a local lord hire some similarly skilled NPCs to bring the murderhobos to justice.
Your DM needs to get that figured out, quick, before they lose a player. Maybe a post-session debrief with all of them, to let them know how you feel, and get them to discuss it. MH campaigns and games are stupendously boring and painful, so I wish you best of luck, and hopefully things get sorted to everyone's satisfaction.
"You think you have won! What is light without dark?
What are you without me? I am a part of you all. You can never defeat me. We are brothers eternal!"