"Adventuring" is not synonymous with being a murder-hobo.

[Tanarii]

a) few considerations for NPCs (kill the shopkeeper if he won't give you a discount is a classic)

I disagree with this one. Also, you forgot the key to proper murdurhoboism: the reason you're murdering things in dungeons / adventure sites is to roll them for their loot.

(Edit: to be clear, the reason they are called murderhobos has nothing to do with murdering NPCs. It's because you murder the creatures in adventuring sites / dungeons, going through them like a hot knife through butter. Then roll them for loot. Then move on to murderhoboing bandits and monster lairs, once you start wilderness adventuring.)

Right , but murderhobo is most commonly used as a pejorative. I don't have any fundamental problem with the play-style of dungeon raiding with little connecting plot (used intentionally loosely there), but I'd like to find a different word than murderhobo to describe it. I guess I was reacting to those who seemed to believe that adventuring is a lesser play style as compared to building castles or merchant empires (or gaining wealth by using peculiar readings of optional rules for DMs as if it's a player entitlement). It's a form of elitism and badwrongfun. At least that's how it comes across.

i know it's used as a Perjorative. I don't care. I've unilaterally decided to adopt the terms murderhero and murderhobo as very accurate labels of certain styles of play. Typically running the line that goes Hero, Murderhero, Murderhobo, and Villain. D&D works just fine for a while if all you want to do is kill things and roll them for loot, to murderhobo. It also works fine if all you want to do is kill the bad guys and roll them for their loot, or murderhero.

But I think older editions of D&D had it right: this gets old. You need to do something new. That's why BECM(I) was designed to go Dungeon --> Wilderness --> Rulership --> epic / planar adventures.

And as far as I'm concerned, 5e is absolutely ideal for doing the same. Tier 1 is great for a basic dungeon. By the time you finish that after 5-6 sessions, you're level 5. Now it's time to branch out and explore the wilderness / frontier adventuring sites, in Tier 2! Right as you hit Tier 3 the party starts getting enough treasure they can pool resources for a Keep, or individually start saving for a Tower. Time to settle down a bit and look at those juicy neighboring kingdoms ... Uh, protect your investment in your land and people from various threats. Then Toer 4 creeps up, and you can get out there and do some really Epic and planar-bound stuff. And dump all your party's loot into a fancy palace, because by now you've probably installed one of your party as emperor.

Of course, you don't *have* to do that. You can murderhobo from one to twenty, sinking your cash into magic marts/ gear treadmill (if available). You can go jump straight into an epic adventure path at the ground floor and follow it the entire way. You can sandbox and persue your own goals. You can west marches wilderness. All for an entire campaign. It's just the traditional path / progression. And the costs for Towers, Keeps and Palaces etc in 5e line up pretty handily with the Tiers. What a co-inky-dink that is.

[Potato_Priest]

I see a lot of argument that murder hobo can refer to a game wherein the players go from dungeon to dungeon and murder monsters taking their loot. I don't think that quite approximates the actual theory of murder hoboing, which in my opinions includes disregard for all NPC life, not just that of monsters.

So, when I described my last campaign being founded on murderhoboism, I mean that most of the PC's opponents were priests and townsfolk who the PCs murdered and looted.

It was fun.

[KorvinStarmast]

I see a lot of argument that murder hobo can refer to a game wherein the players go from dungeon to dungeon and murder monsters taking their loot.

As I understand the terminology, that's "murderhero."

I don't think that quite approximates the actual theory of murder hoboing, which in my opinions includes disregard for all NPC life, not just that of monsters.

So, when I described my last campaign being founded on murderhoboism, I mean that most of the PC's opponents were priests and townsfolk who the PCs murdered and looted.

It was fun.

Murderhoboes indeed. With a price on their heads ... (See also the hole in the wall gang for a kinder, gentler version of murder hoboes ...)

[Tanarii]

As I understand the terminology, that's "murderhero."

As far as I know, I'm the one that uses that regularly. I've never seen anyone else use it, but it's possible I picked it up from somewhere.

To me the difference between a murderhero and a murderhobo is the murderhero find and kills cartoonishly evil villains in their dungeons / adventuring site, and rolls them for loot. The murderhobo just kills whatever's in the dungeon/adventuring site and rolls them for loot, and doesn't need any 'justification' that they're the Evil Villains.

[Tanarii]

As I understand the terminology, that's "murderhero."

As far as I know, I'm the one that uses that regularly. I've never seen anyone else use it, but it's possible I picked it up from somewhere.

To me the difference between a murderhero and a murderhobo is the murderhero find and kills cartoonishly evil villains* in their dungeons / adventuring site, and rolls them for loot. The murderhobo just kills whatever's in the dungeon/adventuring site and rolls them for loot, and doesn't need any 'justification' that they're the Evil Villains.

*possibly non-cartoonish Evil Villains too, but I like my Villains obviously villainous. So the murderheros know they're the bad guys they're supposed to murder.

[MadBear]

Boom, right here.

I typically have my players have families and relations. Stuff they do will cause issues with their families or have their children love or hate them... I can play off their murder hobo tendencies and bring them back down to earth...

In the middle of a battle with a Black Dragon a lawyer showed up and served one of the PCs divorce papers... The player was being a murder hobo and his character's wife decided that she didn't want anything to do with him (yay backgrounds). The player, to his credit, stopped the fight and asked the black dragon if he could go... That he didn't want to be rude but he really needed to fix his marriage...

The black dragon understood his plight as she recently went through a messy divorce (on the fly I decided this was why she was causing trouble since the player actually stopped to talk). The dragon ended up being an ally to the adventurers as they bonded over mutual strife and even put on an abduction act in order to allow the player character to win back his wife (dragon abducts the wife, the player saves her). By the roll of the dice it didn't work as their acting skills sucked (never leave home without performance or deception) but the PC learned something and stopped being such a murder hobo, he still had a daughter to protect and wants to keep in good graces with).

Wait, how have we all skirted past this post. This is both the most ridiculous and also most humorous thing I've seen happen at a table in a long while. Literally getting served divorce papers mid battle. Even, better that the Evil Black Dragon was like "Ah, that's rough man" and let the player fake capture him.

just wow.

[Knaight]

Players respond to the DM. Outside of that, players do next to nothing. Most player behavior begins with DM behavior. Players are not so different from one another when considered as a group rather than as individuals - something I hate doing, but which is sometimes useful.

Funny how I've consistently ended up with very different games when GMing for different groups of people then. Either there's a heck of a lot of coincidental group-style match-ups across a random distribution of existing GM styles or players can have a lot of influence in how the group pans out.

Now, if we're going to throw around accusations of bad DMing, I could point out that a sufficiently railroad happy DM who heavily restricts player agency wouldn't be in a good position to notice the rest of the group having an effect. But I wouldn't do that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As far as I know, I'm the one that uses that regularly. I've never seen anyone else use it, but it's possible I picked it up from somewhere.

To me the difference between a murderhero and a murderhobo is the murderhero find and kills cartoonishly evil villains* in their dungeons / adventuring site, and rolls them for loot. The murderhobo just kills whatever's in the dungeon/adventuring site and rolls them for loot, and doesn't need any 'justification' that they're the Evil Villains.

*possibly non-cartoonish Evil Villains too, but I like my Villains obviously villainous. So the murderheros know they're the bad guys they're supposed to murder.

Then what do you call those who

a) treat killing as a necessary evil backup-plan and generally try to sneak past/talk to creatures they find and resolve things peacefully
b) have plans for the adventuring site beyond loot (although they're not averse to loot if such is found)
c) protect areas and build institutions (not necessarily selfishly either, but to help the area out even if they don't get direct rewards)?

Because that's what I see as my "normal" players.

As an example, I have a starter dungeon that I have used now with 3 groups. Their assigned task is to find and stop a group of goblins who have been stealing sheep (from friendly goblins). The dungeon has the following encounters:

a) 4 lazy goblins at the entrance. If not dealt with quickly, they'll try to alert the ones inside.
b) 4 goblins guarding a ramp downward (to a wyrmling dragon that serves as the brains of the operation).
c) a goblin boss, with about 6 goblins that he will call as reinforcements from a nearby room. This boss is cartoonishly evil--if the party doesn't alert the goblins, they find him engaged in...non-consensual relations...with some female goblin prisoners.
d) a black wyrmling dragon with a small hoard. This dragon is described as having been in captivity and rants about "Not going back to HIM" but is willing (unbeknownst to the party) to talk and will flee through an escape passage under an acid pool if given the chance.

So far, I've run it with three parties--two were newcomers to TTRPGs and one has a year of experience. How did they handle it?

1) the experienced party: Stealth ambushed a), tried to talk to b) but ended up in combat, ignored c) (didn't even explore over there due to time constraints), and talked to d) from the get-go and negotiated a compromise.
2) Newbie party 1: Tried to ambush a), failed and ended up killing them. Talked/bluffed b) into going looking for their friends. Split up--two went and talked down d) (tried to make allies with it and ended up spending healing resources to help it out) and two went and, upon catching c) in the act, knocked him out, interrogated him, then executed him for his crimes.
3) Newbie party 2: Found a) all asleep, killed them in their sleep. Tried to bluff b), failed, and ended up having to kill them. Took out the 6 goblin reinforcements quietly (sleep for the win), found c) in the act and killed him in fair combat. Talked to d) and tried to figure out how to help it escape more easily.

Notice that none of them (except in the case of a) used force as their primary objective. Only people that were over-the-top evil got killed, and they usually were able to fight back. All of them talked to the dragon and let it go willingly (and most even tried to help it along its way with no extra benefit to them, since it was leaving its meager hoard behind anyway.)

These are the players I see. I don't see either the murderheros or the murderhobos, at least in games I run. I have seen them in other games, where "no evil characters" was interpreted as "don't put evil on your sheet, but still act however you want."

[Deleted]

Wait, how have we all skirted past this post. This is both the most ridiculous and also most humorous thing I've seen happen at a table in a long while. Literally getting served divorce papers mid battle. Even, better that the Evil Black Dragon was like "Ah, that's rough man" and let the player fake capture him.

just wow.

Thank you , I do a lot better as a DM than a forum user.

Though different players will play differently and have a different idea of fun, when a DM leads a group and doesn't actually play yo the strengths that they have (PCs are living members of that world). Murderhobo is typically because of a disconnect between what the player wants to do and what the character wants to do because they don't really feel a consequence for their actions. But if you give the player a reason to not murderhobo, they will typically go with it because not being a murderhobo still has you murdering and adventuring, just in a vastly different way.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thank you , I do a lot better as a DM than a forum user.

Though different players will play differently and have a different idea of fun, when a DM leads a group and doesn't actually play yo the strengths that they have (PCs are living members of that world). Murderhobo is typically because of a disconnect between what the player wants to do and what the character wants to do because they don't really feel a consequence for their actions. But if you give the player a reason to not murderhobo, they will typically go with it because not being a murderhobo still has you murdering and adventuring, just in a vastly different way.

And most people aren't really comfortable acting like that around people they like and trust. I feel most people are actually reasonably good at heart, but when disconnected from consequences and from positive social pressure (and when they don't really care about the game) they can act like jerks in the same way that people on the internet (myself included) often find it easier to be obnoxious.

Of course, there are some hard cases out there. I had one group (that I didn't continue DMing for) that, in their trial run with me as DM (a sort of job interview) had their first actions in a town after being told of the problem they had been hired to solve be

a) one bought all the alcohol he could and proceeded to get drunk
b) another tried to get all the town kids drunk (for what purpose, I'm not sure)
c) two others wanted to have explicit sex in public
d) and the fifth (not a regular to that group) actually wanted to investigate the problem.

I noped out of there pretty fast and didn't go back.

[Psikerlord]

I don't have any fundamental problem with the play-style of dungeon raiding with little connecting plot (used intentionally loosely there), but I'd like to find a different word than murderhobo to describe it.

The word is adventuring. Murderhobos to me suggests a party with no ties to anyone, keeps on the move, kills NPCs willy nilly, stealing from ordinary folk, etc. Adventurers =/= murderhobos.

I've never actually seen a "murderhobo" game outside of a oneshot shadowrun adventure

[Max_Killjoy]

The word is adventuring. Murderhobos to me suggests a party with no ties to anyone, keeps on the move, kills NPCs willy nilly, stealing from ordinary folk, etc. Adventurers =/= murderhobos.

I've never actually seen a "murderhobo" game outside of a oneshot shadowrun adventure

That's been my position whenever this has come up, and it's also the position of the thread title in a way.

Adventurer and murderhobo are not synonyms.

[Psikerlord]

As far as I know, I'm the one that uses that regularly. I've never seen anyone else use it, but it's possible I picked it up from somewhere.

To me the difference between a murderhero and a murderhobo is the murderhero find and kills cartoonishly evil villains* in their dungeons / adventuring site, and rolls them for loot. The murderhobo just kills whatever's in the dungeon/adventuring site and rolls them for loot, and doesn't need any 'justification' that they're the Evil Villains.

*possibly non-cartoonish Evil Villains too, but I like my Villains obviously villainous. So the murderheros know they're the bad guys they're supposed to murder.

As I understand it, that was the whole point of alignment. chaotic evil monsters so I can kill them and take their stuff without any pesky conscience issues as I am neutral good. indeed if I do not kill them and take their stuff, likely they will go chaotic evil on some poor shepherd and I dont want that blood on my hands. In we go!

[PhoenixPhyre]

The word is adventuring. Murderhobos to me suggests a party with no ties to anyone, keeps on the move, kills NPCs willy nilly, stealing from ordinary folk, etc. Adventurers =/= murderhobos.

I've never actually seen a "murderhobo" game outside of a oneshot shadowrun adventure

Exactly. That was my point. PCs are adventurers in 5e. Not shopkeepers, not commoners, not murderhobos. The last is more playable than the first two, but still not the default. I posted this in response to someone who equated the two, saying that focusing on adventures was a more polite way of saying "kill things, take their stuff, repeat."

Or shorter version:

That's been my position whenever this has come up, and it's also the position of the thread title in a way.

Adventurer and murderhobo are not synonyms.

[Tanarii]

Then what do you call those who

a) treat killing as a necessary evil backup-plan and generally try to sneak past/talk to creatures they find and resolve things peacefully
b) have plans for the adventuring site beyond loot (although they're not averse to loot if such is found)
c) protect areas and build institutions (not necessarily selfishly either, but to help the area out even if they don't get direct rewards)?

Because that's what I see as my "normal" players.

Heroes.

Alternately, in any game where combat is actually fairly dangerous, smart. If sneaking and talking to loot and XP is safer than killing your way to it, it makes sense to do that instead. Certainly it makes more sense than murderhoboing your way to it in older editions where gold = XP and combat is dangerous.

[Honest Tiefling]

Or alternatively, you call them 'Exhibit A-F for why I hate PhoenixPhyre because I don't have a group of rational people to play with right now'.

[mephnick]

The only people that think this are the idiots that brag about having entire sessions with no combat, as if that's something to be proud of. Sure, you can solve lots of issues through non-violence (try DMing for a GOO warlock face character), but if that becomes the focus of the game you should probably play something else. UNLESS (as Tanarii points out often), you're doing an older-school style where fighting means you ****ed up.

Most of my adventures are the sandboxy "rumours that something wicked sweet is in the Cave of Caverns to the west, but it's dangerous" type, so "kill, loot, repeat" is synonymous with adventuring for me. Doesn't mean I force it and I allow non-violent solutions, but the agreement is that if we're sitting down to play, you're killing things and taking their stuff. But you're also expected to be sane and non-evil.

[Tanarii]

Or alternatively, you call them 'Exhibit A-F for why I hate PhoenixPhyre because I don't have a group of rational people to play with right now'.

It's also quite unusual in my experience to have new players willing to talk to humanoids unless you intentionally make them approach the players first.

Take the Caves of Chaos in Keep in the Borderlands module. One of the best tactics you can use is to ally with either the Hobgoblins/Goblins or Orcs/Gnolls against the others. In multiple editions, I've never had a group try to work with one side against the others. I have had some befriend the Kobolds, but I make them excessively non-hostile. But usually players invade the caves and attack on sight. And in BECMI, typically die brutally until they learn to be more cautious.

I even told my current 5e group I'm running in the Caves (playtest version) they were welcome to try talking to anything at any time when we started the campaign, that they weren't required to fight. They massacred the bandits, lizard folk, and all the humanoids that couldn't flee except the kobolds. I half expected them to just kill the Kobold with a white flag that approached them to plead for a truce in exchange for information.

Edit: however they also freed a bugbear renegade held prisoner in the bugbear cave and worked with him for a while. So I guess they're not totally embedded in 'kill humanoids on sight'. Otoh they also killed an Orc and Gnoll prisoner in the Hobgoblin cave out of hand, while freeing the (Demi)humans ones. Can't remember what I had the Bugbear renegade say that persuaded them.

[Unoriginal]

I mean... the rules don't allow for you to get a stronghold for free, such as a druid grove or a house.

Yes they do. Marks of Prestige section, DMG p.228-30.


Unless you meant "but you have to pay the upkeep anyway", but that's splitting hair.

[Sigreid]

Thank you , I do a lot better as a DM than a forum user.

Though different players will play differently and have a different idea of fun, when a DM leads a group and doesn't actually play yo the strengths that they have (PCs are living members of that world). Murderhobo is typically because of a disconnect between what the player wants to do and what the character wants to do because they don't really feel a consequence for their actions. But if you give the player a reason to not murderhobo, they will typically go with it because not being a murderhobo still has you murdering and adventuring, just in a vastly different way.

My experience is that players start to seriously murder hobo when they are either bored, or feel so railroaded all they really want to do is break the DM's plans. I'm particularly bad about that last one. If I feel the DM is being too controlling, I'll do just about anything to smash the setup....bad Sigreid, no biscuit.

[Meta]

I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume anything about statistics in how other groups play. Maybe the majority of groups enjoy fighting everything. Maybe most don't. Perhaps the average player never remembers or cares about diplomacy and stealth or maybe only the clumsiest of players lets the situation devolve in to combat. Obviously we all have different experiences, and extrapolating what the 'typical' style is from such a small sample size has no guarantees of being accurate.

[Potato_Priest]

I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume anything about statistics in how other groups play. Maybe the majority of groups enjoy fighting everything. Maybe most don't. Perhaps the average player never remembers or cares about diplomacy and stealth or maybe only the clumsiest of players lets the situation devolve in to combat. Obviously we all have different experiences, and extrapolating what the 'typical' style is from such a small sample size has no guarantees of being accurate.

Man, this is so true. I moved recently, and in finding a new D&D group, found that they play an entirely different game with the same rules. There's so much more railroading and consistent story-like plot than I ever experienced back home. At the same time, they actually adventure in big dungeons that take more than one session. It's really a more dramatic change than I ever would have expected!

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or alternatively, you call them 'Exhibit A-F for why I hate PhoenixPhyre because I don't have a group of rational people to play with right now'.

Heh. I have been pretty blessed as to players. All my newbie groups are school groups (where I'm a teacher), and I tend to attract the theater kids (this year anyway), so they're more attuned to talking and roleplay from the get go. The high level group is some of my colleagues and their spouses. The one bad group I mentioned was a random group at a game store where I was auditioning as a DM. Not my style.

The only people that think this are the idiots that brag about having entire sessions with no combat, as if that's something to be proud of. Sure, you can solve lots of issues through non-violence (try DMing for a GOO warlock face character), but if that becomes the focus of the game you should probably play something else. UNLESS (as Tanarii points out often), you're doing an older-school style where fighting means you ****ed up.

Most of my adventures are the sandboxy "rumours that something wicked sweet is in the Cave of Caverns to the west, but it's dangerous" type, so "kill, loot, repeat" is synonymous with adventuring for me. Doesn't mean I force it and I allow non-violent solutions, but the agreement is that if we're sitting down to play, you're killing things and taking their stuff. But you're also expected to be sane and non-evil.

Don't get me wrong. We do plenty of killing and looting. It just usually happens as a side effect of the other goals and adventures.

It's also quite unusual in my experience to have new players willing to talk to humanoids unless you intentionally make them approach the players first.

Take the Caves of Chaos in Keep in the Borderlands module. One of the best tactics you can use is to ally with either the Hobgoblins/Goblins or Orcs/Gnolls against the others. In multiple editions, I've never had a group try to work with one side against the others. I have had some befriend the Kobolds, but I make them excessively non-hostile. But usually players invade the caves and attack on sight. And in BECMI, typically die brutally until they learn to be more cautious.

I even told my current 5e group I'm running in the Caves (playtest version) they were welcome to try talking to anything at any time when we started the campaign, that they weren't required to fight. They massacred the bandits, lizard folk, and all the humanoids that couldn't flee except the kobolds. I half expected them to just kill the Kobold with a white flag that approached them to plead for a truce in exchange for information.

Edit: however they also freed a bugbear renegade held prisoner in the bugbear cave and worked with him for a while. So I guess they're not totally embedded in 'kill humanoids on sight'. Otoh they also killed an Orc and Gnoll prisoner in the Hobgoblin cave out of hand, while freeing the (Demi)humans ones. Can't remember what I had the Bugbear renegade say that persuaded them.

I intentionally stress with my groups that most creatures (unless they have a reason to be otherwise) will talk. The goblins in that cave? Aren't very bright, so trying to bluff them is a reasonable tactic. It's a major setting conceit that not all X are good/evil. Even angels and devils--angels tend to the lawful side of the spectrum (and aren't generally concerned with collateral damage), and devils lean to the make a deal side. Demons are "evil" mainly because their goals are inimical to existence as we know it, but aren't particularly nasty individuals (necessarily--the Twisted One is a bit of a tentacled jerk face). Setting this out upfront goes a long way to reinforcing the "there are more than one way to get past this" mentality. Oh, and my games are notoriously non-deadly, mostly because my dice like my players. I can't roll worth crap when trying to hit them, and roll saves like crap as well . I've killed (as in dead dead) one character--a level 2 solo against a CR 9 dire yeti is...painful. He brought that on himself by going and yelling in its ear while it was trying to hibernate.

I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume anything about statistics in how other groups play. Maybe the majority of groups enjoy fighting everything. Maybe most don't. Perhaps the average player never remembers or cares about diplomacy and stealth or maybe only the clumsiest of players lets the situation devolve in to combat. Obviously we all have different experiences, and extrapolating what the 'typical' style is from such a small sample size has no guarantees of being accurate.

I am honestly puzzled here. I'm not sure how this is apropos of anything in this thread. I don't think I've assumed anything about statistics or collective play style beyond my own experience. This is more of a counter-example to the idea I saw in other threads than a "everyone (or even most players) are like X."

[Meta]

Stuff like this is in the thread:

"Game Design 101. Anyone engaged in a game will automatically, subconsciously, drift towards whatever strategy or gameplay elements best rewards them. As a player you may make the conscious decision early on and at certain intervals to intentionally take more flavorful choices over powerful ones, but during moment-to-moment gameplay, you will divert towards whatever the easiest and most profitable decisions are within those guidelines."

I have no idea if that's true, but it's presented as fact. In this statement what are the 'powerful choices' anyways? Is boosting con to survive? Extra skill proficiencies to avoid a fight altogether?

[Honest Tiefling]

I have no idea if that's true, but it's presented as fact. In this statement what are the 'powerful choices' anyways? Is boosting con to survive? Extra skill proficiencies to avoid a fight altogether?

That's where the meta comes in, and for these to be successful strategies, you'll have to game your DM. Playing in their favored setting or gifts of the finest soda will also increase your chances of survival.

More seriously, depends on the game. Some are pretty RP/Skill heavy, others just break everything in their way. Neither is correct, but it's probably best to show up with a character built for the game for multiple reasons.

[Jerrykhor]

You mean like how the first and original class in the game is the FIGHTER? Whose job is the hit stuff till they die? And how every single class has combat capabilities?

I heard a quote from somewhere: 'D&D PCs are actually problem solvers, but if the problem can't be killed, it is not worth solving.'

Truer words has never been spoken.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You mean like how the first and original class in the game is the FIGHTER? Whose job is the hit stuff till they die? And how every single class has combat capabilities?

I heard a quote from somewhere: 'D&D PCs are actually problem solvers, but if the problem can't be killed, it is not worth solving.'

Truer words has never been spoken.

Yes, combat is a major part of D&D. But there are many reasons to kill things other than "because things in dungeons (or in shops) have money and I want money".

Or alternatively, you call them 'Exhibit A-F for why I hate PhoenixPhyre because I don't have a group of rational people to play with right now'.

Would it make the hate worse if I mentioned that of the newbies I have, almost half are female (3/7)? Or that I had several players ask (unprompted!) for the website address I use for my setting information?

[Honest Tiefling]

Would it make the hate worse if I mentioned that of the newbies I have, almost half are female (3/7)?

I'm bi. Give me subjective data on the quality of butts and then I'll care. I've actually played with females at the table before, and man did my sample go full on murder-hobo/Assassin Queen.

Or that I had several players ask (unprompted!) for the website address I use for my setting information?

...Now I'm jealous. None of my players ever did that. Heck, none of the DMs seemed ready for it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm bi. Give me subjective data on the quality of butts and then I'll care. I've actually played with females at the table before, and man did my sample go full on murder-hobo/Assassin Queen.



...Now I'm jealous. None of my players ever did that. Heck, none of the DMs seemed ready for it.

I need to clarify--the newbies are all high school students. There's no interest possibility there. Just that female players are stereotypically rare beasts, same with sane, thoughtful ones.

[2D8HP]

Okay, obviously the problem is how do you define "Adventuring", fortunately I am well qualified and with the DEEPEST HUMILITY, having done the EXTENSIVE RESEARCH (looking at the dusty books my hall closet, and a Wikipedia article at lunch), and having the CREDENTIALS (within the space of a year I saw the Hobbit cartoon on channel 5 without missing any of it to go to the bathroom, I looked at the Dungeons & Dragons box at the toystore in the mall, and saw Stars Wars the most times of everyone in 5th grade, no way did Ben see it 15 times, where are the ticket stubs huh?) to answer the conundrum asked in this thread about Adventurin' (Just sayin'!).

Deep in the depths of time (1939) a story by

Fritz Leiber



(who's hand I shook, I told you I had the credentials dagnabbit! Good thing I'm so dang humble!)

was published titled "Two Sought Adventure"

In 1958 it was republished as "Jewels in the Forest" in the book Two Sought Adventure



To know what a proper Adventure is read:

Two Sought Adventure/The Jewels in the Forest by Fritz Leiber.

Read it?

Now do you know?

Good.

YOUR WELCOME!

Now DM with more treasure maps and less end-of-the-world-save-us-please claptrap!

Also NO HARPERS!