D&D 5E A good method to prevent Murder Hobos

[Cadence]

Instead, I'm speaking to finding out what the player goals for the table actually are, and then running that game, if it's something that can be agreed to.

But, my recommendations are not to put the GM foot down, but to find a consensus as to what game everyone wants to play.

And if consensus can't be found (which your first quote seemed to admit to as a possibility) do you capitulate or do you not have that player play?

It feels like for every DM there are things that aren't worth discussing. (Explicit sex? Rape? The party becoming slavers? Making a Third Reich parody to go after half-orcs?). Is there nothing you would just decline to discuss because it's on your list of things you don't want to RP? For some, could murder hoboing reasonably be on that list?

 

[Ovinomancer]

And if consensus can't be found (which your first quote seemed to admit to as a possibility) do you capitulate or do you not have that player play?

It feels like for every DM there are things that aren't worth discussing. (Explicit sex? Rape? The party becoming slavers? Making a Third Reich parody to go after half-orcs?). Is there nothing you would just decline to discuss because it's on your list of things you don't want to RP? For some, could murder hoboing reasonably be on that list?

What do you normally do if you can't agree on a shared activity? The answer to this is not to force anyone to agree. If you can't put a game together that everyone wants to play, then either everyone doesn't play or you do something else. Depends on your situation.

EDIT: for example, I hate, hate, hate the card game Fluxx. With a passion. My friend love it. We'll get together and they'll want to play a few hands. They're quick games, so I go entertain myself elsewhere, and everyone's happy with it. I'm not expected to get onboard.

 

[Cadence]

What do you normally do if you can't agree on a shared activity? The answer to this is not to force anyone to agree. If you can't put a game together that everyone wants to play, then either everyone doesn't play or you do something else. Depends on your situation.

EDIT: for example, I hate, hate, hate the card game Fluxx. With a passion. My friend love it. We'll get together and they'll want to play a few hands. They're quick games, so I go entertain myself elsewhere, and everyone's happy with it. I'm not expected to get onboard.

Thank goodness Fluxx isn't a 4 hour per session weekly game that goes on for months.

 

[Oofta]

I do not. I'm very specific, it's not hard to tell what I'm saying. I'm saying that when you invoked my as support and then said you put your GM foot down at tell the players what's what, that this is not what I was saying, so you shouldn't use me for support on that.

This isn't rocket science, and I have no idea why you feel the need to make this me saying something entirely different that you can then strawman.

And here's the strawman, arguing with a stuffed dummy of your own invention. Beat it up! Kapow! Nicely done, that one's down for the count!

No, you were clear that it's very easy for you to find players that agree to play the game you pitch, so you do not have to find consensus. You even noted that I might be in a different situation where I have to adapt my games for my friends, which is another interesting statement that assumes facts not needed for my position so as to bin it neatly.

Look, the simple fact is that I'm suggesting seeking consensus and finding out what game everyone wants to play. This doesn't privilege the GM in any way as having a superior voice or more input than the players. You're not there, but you invoked me as support for your position, which I am not advocating. I've pointed this out, politely at first, to clear the air, but you keep doubling down that you were correct to invoke me as supporting your position, and, if not, then I must be suggesting any number of things I haven't said at all so that I can be very wrong indeed. You've cast me as wrong, either way. I either don't understand and am supporting your positions, so invoking me was correct on your part, or I am wrong in that I'm actually, nefariously, suggesting some other things, so your mistake was one of my bad faith in this discussion. I'm really not interested in either -- you are in error that I support your position (past the rather generic deal with out of game things out of game), and in error that I am saying what you've intimated here. It's okay being wrong on this, I don't understand why you're being so defensive. We do not agree on approach, here. Do you think we have to? And, if not, why are you fighting so hard, here, to insist that we do or I'm advocating some wild and wrong ideas?

What I was saying is that where I believe we agree is that there should be a conversation outside of the game on the style and tone of the campaign. I don't use in-game tools to get people to play a certain style.

It's fine that we disagree on the role of a DM and I never said we did. The DM (whether I am DM or player) is more important to the campaign than anyone else. If the DM ain't happy, ain't nobody happy. If I'm running a campaign in a style I don't like, I'm not going to be a good DM. I've always viewed calling a DM a "my way or the highway DM" as a pejorative, an insult. What happens in the campaign is very much up to the players, the style of play for the campaign is very much the DM's prerogative as far as I'm concerned. I'm not invoking you or saying you agree with me on that.

EDIT:
P.S. I make my expectations clear when seeking players. There's no "gotcha". For that matter if someone told me they were running an all evil player campaign, I'd politely decline because it's just not my cup of tea. What I don't want to do is not be clear and then punish the PCs in game because they're doing something I don't like.

 

[MattW]

IMHO, the state of "Murder Hobo" represents the inability of players to see any link between their Characters and the rest of the gameworld. It's not JUST because they've never faced consequences for criminal actions by PCs (although this is a big part of the problem).

The big problem is that the Murder Hobo player has little experience (or sees little value) in non-violent interactions with NPCs and sees no problem in violence - they are disturbingly happy to act like unhinged psychopaths. Why is this? I suggest that this may be due to a GM failing to "flesh out" the people that are in the gameworld (emphasis on PEOPLE, not random NPCs #25, #26 and so on).

ANECDOTE: It's been decades, but I can still remember the reaction of a murder hobo player upon first playing Call of Cthulhu (he was experienced in playing AD&D).
Their PC killed someone that the players had come to know fairly well. The GM (graphically) described both the death - and the subsequent necessity to escape from Law Enforcement. This caused a continuing problem for several subsequent game sessions. Other NPCs treated the PCs with a great deal of caution and distrust and the Police were actively looking for the killers.
The murder hobo player expressed the feeling that this was the FIRST TIME that he'd actually been involved in a killing. (after years of playing AD&D )

 

[Tonguez]

I got rid of gold coins and instead require PCs to use Cha-based influence to get stuff. Players get to describe NPC allies and followers (who might be family or might be the local blacksmith or even gang boss) who they can ask for stuff "spending influence". PCs still find treasure (gems, silver candlesticks) which they can sell to merchants but PCs who threaten merchants probably wont get a willing buyer and wont earn much influence from the transaction either, though they might gain more Reputation in the thieves guild

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thank goodness Fluxx isn't a 4 hour per session weekly game that goes on for months.

Wasn't meant to be. Example of how people can make informed decisions. You don't have to play. No gaming is better than bad gaming. YMMV.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What I was saying is that where I believe we agree is that there should be a conversation outside of the game on the style and tone of the campaign. I don't use in-game tools to get people to play a certain style.

If your main point was just to deal with out of game issues out of game, cool. You might want to lead with that, next time, rather than spending your time talking about where we don't agree while invoking agreeing with me. Free advice.

It's fine that we disagree on the role of a DM and I never said we did. The DM (whether I am DM or player) is more important to the campaign than anyone else. If the DM ain't happy, ain't nobody happy. If I'm running a campaign in a style I don't like, I'm not going to be a good DM. I've always viewed calling a DM a "my way or the highway DM" as a pejorative, an insult. What happens in the campaign is very much up to the players, the style of play for the campaign is very much the DM's prerogative as far as I'm concerned. I'm not invoking you or saying you agree with me on that.

Yes, I'm quite aware that this is your position, and one that I find somewhat toxic to the culture of gaming. To me, the GM is most responsible to ensure fun for the group as they've placed their trust in you, not that you do more work and therefore deserve more deference. Again, we can agree to disagree, here.

EDIT:
P.S. I make my expectations clear when seeking players. There's no "gotcha". For that matter if someone told me they were running an all evil player campaign, I'd politely decline because it's just not my cup of tea. What I don't want to do is not be clear and then punish the PCs in game because they're doing something I don't like.

Cool, no one I've seen has suggested that you don't.