D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[CleverNickName]

The players never give any of this role playing any thought. They are LOCKED into the idea that ANY combat encounter MUST be a murderhobo slaughter fest to the death. A guard hits them with a net, they must use thier most deadly weapons, spells and abilities to do a ton of damage and slaughter the guard.

After the slaughter fest, the PCs flee the city and go to hide in some caves. And this ends the adventure for the night. Of course, next game brings up the problem: what will the city do about the most vile and evil mass murderers in all of history. Sure you could just ignore it. But most DMs like to have a bit more 'reality based games' where consequences matter.

I sent the game notes to the games DM, and he was a bit shocked the players did the murderfest. There is a chance, he said, he might need me to cover the game next week. So that puts it back to me of what might happen. My reaction would be the super harsh way...killing the characters. And maybe reseting the game with some time travel or something like that.

But this leaves the issue of talking to the players. I'm not really a fan of talking. They think they did nothing wrong by slaughtering so many NPCs, but then still "get" that they had to flee the city as they are now mass murderers. I know from many past "talks" that nothing much will come from such a talk. I'm sure the players will say "anything in the game that gets in my characters way will be slaughtered!!!!!!", as that is exactly what they did.

But....here I am. Asking for maybe another view point? Is there anything new to say on this topic? I guess someone might say that a game must have a session zero where the DM very slowly and carefully tells the players the way good, evil, slaughter and common sense work in the game. Though in this case it's not "my" game. Still the players "get" that it was wrong to slaughter all the guards......but that did NOTHING to stop them.

So, anyone?

My advice? Talk to the players. Tell them that their actions have serious consequences, and they are going to be exiled, sentenced to hard labor, or publicly executed for their deeds. Ask them to choose which option they prefer.

If they choose Hard Labor, they will be packed onto a ship and sent to a penal colony on a far-away island. But something's not right...when they arrive, they find that everyone has been killed! What happened here? Who (or what) is responsible? How will they survive until the next supply ship arrives? How will they warn the mainland? Basically, you kick off a whole other adventure that will give the characters a chance to earn back their freedom--or fake their deaths and escape.

If they choose Exile, they will be banished to a faraway land. They will be forced to make a new start in a neighboring kingdom...and there, they learn that this "ally" of their homeland is actually scheming to invade! As exiles, their knowledge of the city and its workings are very valuable indeed to the enemy forces that plan to invade. Basically, you kick off a whole other adventure where the characters get to be spies (or double-agents), and possibly earn back their freedom--or bring down the city that banished them.

If they choose Execution, give them some blank character sheets and some dice, and start rolling up new characters. Death is always an option, after all. (shrug)

 

[Vaalingrade]

In that case, make characters and bum rush the town until no one is left alive.

DMing also has consequences.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

If the players were full murderhobos, then they would hardly have agreed to surrender when first accused after they were framed. They could have insisted on some other form of restriction rather than go straight to jail. What happened between then and when they started killing guards to escape that might have changed their attitude?
How was the "magically binding the characters to perform a mysterious quest" escape option presented? It is a fairly obvious, if heavy-handed plot hook, so were they actually aware of and consider the option to refuse and sort it out with a trial, or did they think that they should take that option because the plot required it and they didn't want to derail the game?

Ultimately in terms of guidance for the next session, you really have to ask their actual DM. He will be the person who has to deal with the fallout and continue the game from where you leave it.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Just some quick thoughts:

1) Never cover someone else's game. I think the chances of it going well can be fairly slim. It would be like if you had someone step in for GRRM and keep writing his GoT books - yes, it'll get them done MUCH faster, but... you'll run into issues like is it really canon, or if the tone and feel is totally off. A DM/GM's playstyle is not interchangable, in my experience, nor should it be. Speaking for myself - if you want a long campaign, I might not be your person. If you want three sessions, connected but absolutely chaos, a mini-series as it were, I'm your person.

2) Consequences. I won't bring up the name of an agency that's been talked about here on the forums recently but look at their reputation. A group of PCs who go murderhobo and kill masses of citizens and guards will ABSOLUTELY get bounty hunters after them - first, the Joe Average guy trying to make a quick buck, working their way up to being pursued by an agency with far more in the means of magical resources, manpower, and support infrastructure to deal with this.

3) If you have a behavior you want to see modeled in a game, that is the behavior you reward and just that. It's essentially training your players. I don't know where I've heard that advice, but I'm sure I've heard it many times from Matt Colville, John Wick or Robin Laws. On a similar note, if you want to see players surrender more against the odds, give them chances to see NPCs surrender - even to other NPCs - and not be burnt for the behavior. If knights profit off capturing other knights and keeping them safe, then it will remain profitable for all knights to engage in that behavior. You see it in other fictions as well - organized crime families or gangs being more troubled by rogue elements than the cops are because they know anything unusual will only bring more attention to their activities. There are plenty of real world stories of criminals being taken out by colleagues because they're being too flashy, too violent, and it's drawing too much attention

 

[Mort]

If the players were full murderhobos, then they would hardly have agreed to surrender when first accused after they were framed. They could have insisted on some other form of restriction rather than go straight to jail. What happened between then and when they started killing guards to escape that might have changed their attitude?
How was the "magically binding the characters to perform a mysterious quest" escape option presented? It is a fairly obvious, if heavy-handed plot hook, so were they actually aware of and consider the option to refuse and sort it out with a trial, or did they think that they should take that option because the plot required it and they didn't want to derail the game?

Ultimately in terms of guidance for the next session, you really have to ask their actual DM. He will be the person who has to deal with the fallout and continue the game from where you leave it.

These are some good questions.

Why did the PCs initiation agree to jail and a trial and then suddenly decide to run for it? Was there some in game reason, like they were informed the judge was a hanging judge and would certainly find them guilty and sentence death?

You said you're not a fan of talking, but:

I'd talk to the DM and players (preferably together to avoid miscommunication) before the next session and see what they want - just so there are no future misconceptions/miscommunications.

Do they want a fugitives on the run plotline?

Was there just a huge misunderstanding and there needs to be a retcon (not ideal, but it's something)?

What are the players' thoughts on what happened? Are they happy with you DMing again, or would they rather just have a game night when the regular DM can't make it?

 

[iserith]

But....here I am. Asking for maybe another view point? Is there anything new to say on this topic? I guess someone might say that a game must have a session zero where the DM very slowly and carefully tells the players the way good, evil, slaughter and common sense work in the game. Though in this case it's not "my" game. Still the players "get" that it was wrong to slaughter all the guards......but that did NOTHING to stop them.

So, anyone?

Whatever happens after this turn of events should in my view follow at least somewhat logically, but should still be fun for everyone at the table and help contribute to the creation of an exciting, memorable tale. After all, that's how you "win" D&D.

So whatever you decide on, make it fun, and not a punishment for the players. Whatever happens can suck for the characters, but the players should enjoy it. If you're not sure what they'd enjoy, talk to them to find out.

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't remember where I saw it (maybe it was here on ENWorld?) but someone had come up with an interesting solution for the "murderhobo" characters: Invincible NPCs.

In a nutshell, if the party isn't "supposed" to kill certain NPCs--whether for story reasons, ethical reasons, or whatever--they can't kill them. They can attack them all they want, and hit them, slap them around, do damage, whatever, but the NPCs never drop to zero hit points. Eventually the party will exhaust themselves and either surrender, be subdued/captured, or flee.

I've never tried it, and I'm not sure I'd like it. It seems like it would be unsatisfying for the players. But on the other hand, it could keep them out of trouble by protecting them from themselves. And besides: do you even want the killing of innocent NPCs to be satisfying? For certain situations, maybe this would be worth a shot.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If I were the returning DM, I’d honestly play the previous session off as a dream one of the PCs had and I’d restart where I’d previously left off.

Hopefully, that one session is enough to show them the errors of that approach. Then going forward, I’d avoid having plots that the players have to follow.

 

[Mort]

If I were the returning DM, I’d honestly play the previous session off as a dream one of the PCs had and I’d restart where I’d previously left off.

Hopefully, that one session is enough to show them the errors of that approach. Then going forward, I’d avoid having plots that the players have to follow.

That and, in the future, don't put this group in a situation where they're in conflict with the "good guys," as they'll clearly mow through them as readily as anything else. That is, unless the group WANTS a morally ambiguous everyone's after them plotline (and the group is cool with not being heroes).

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I know there's probably people reading this that really are repulsed by the set up in the original post, and feel this is 'bad player syndrome'. And I feel it a good time to reiterate some great wisdom I heard from Matt Colville before: There are no bad players. There are just players who would rather play a different style and would be a perfect fit at a different table. Same with DMs.