D&D 5E Making Combat Mean Something [+]

[Andvari]

Honest question: why? Character is dead. The dead do not feel. They are no more. Why are they invested?

The dead character isn't as he's dead. The rest are still very much alive.

Your experience so vastly differs from mine I struggle to understand it. IME, it's "easy" to introduce a new character only in the extremely sense that one can perform the action of entering data into a new character sheet and showing up for a session easily. Actually introducing—as in, writing a new character into an ongoing story in a way that is satisfying and effective—is hard. Extremely hard. Because you are haunted by the specter of what could have been and constantly comparing the incomplete, partial thing you have to the far more developed thing you had. It's like picking up the pieces after a breakup. "Rebound" relationships are notorious for their flaws, and many people wisely choose not to get into relationships until they have properly grieved for their previous one.

Well, dying sucks, but not nearly this much.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The dead character isn't as he's dead. The rest are still very much alive.

My apologies, unclear pronouns. Why are the other characters invested? The dead character is dead. Whatever they valued no longer matters to anyone that is driven primarily by survival value. The (explicit) core goal of these house rules is to make survival value the dominant concern for players.

Well, dying sucks, but not nearly this much.

I don't understand why not. Just telling me "it isn't that bad" doesn't actually help me understand how it isn't or why you think so.

 

[Andvari]

My apologies, unclear pronouns. Why are the other characters invested? The dead character is dead. Whatever they valued no longer matters to anyone that is driven primarily by survival value. The (explicit) core goal of these house rules is to make survival value the dominant concern for players.

The campaign I'm running does not use these house rules.

I don't understand why not. Just telling me "it isn't that bad" doesn't actually help me understand how it isn't or why you think so.

I don't know. I suppose people are just affected differently by things. I've never experienced, or seen anyone affected to the degree you imply, over a character death in an RPG. I've seen people be upset for a brief period, sure, but if you didn't seem so sincere about it, I would have thought you were making humorous attempt to over-dramatize.

My dread instead is navigating the labyrinthine operation that is Pathfinder 2nd edition character creation. Fortunately, the Pathbuilder app is a big help.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The campaign I'm running does not use these house rules.

While fair, I was discussing in the context of doing so.

I don't know. I suppose people are just affected differently by things. I've never experienced, or seen anyone affected to the degree you imply, over a character death in an RPG. I've seen people be upset for a brief period, sure, but if you didn't seem so sincere about it, I would have thought you were making humorous attempt to over-dramatize.

In most things I am quite sincere, it is sometimes more a stumbling block than a help, so I appreciate that you gave me the benefit of the doubt on that front.

But yeah, I do tend to get upset about character deaths. I have gotten more upset about other characters dying than over my own characters' deaths--indeed, more upset than that character's actual player. It hits me hard. My distinct preference is long-running games (as in, two years or more of weekly play), so having most likely the entire roster (4-6 deaths) effectively guaranteed to die over the course of a game would indeed be massively demoralizing for me. Knowing that such odds await, I would struggle to justify investment.

Let me give an example of a similar thing which has affected my ability to play a video game I received as a gift (and thus feel guilty about not playing): Cyberpunk 2077. I had the ending spoiled by accident while I was looking up stuff that shouldn't have contained spoilers. Obviously, don't click if you want to avoid the same spoilers.

Spoiler: Cyberpunk 2077 Ending Spoilers!

One of the early events in the game is that a good friend, Jackie Welles, dies on V's (the player character) first "big" mission. That's sad, of course, but by itself wouldn't be enough to ruin my experience. The death comes so early that I haven't had time to become that attached. However, you also get the data-ghost of Johnny Silverhand uploaded into your brain, and getting him out of your brain is a key plot point. By the time you actually get someone who can do that though, you find out that it's too late. Johnny's engram has been present inside your head for too long. Either both V and Johnny die, or Johnny gets the body (whether by absorbing V or V departing the body for cyberspace.) You get a choice of leaving your body behind and allowing Johnny to live out the rest of your life in it, or accepting that you'll die either as yourself or with Johnny still in your head. There are some variations on this, but it's pretty well established that no matter what happens, V-as-V is almost certainly dead or removed from the world within 6 months of the game's end.

Once I learned this, a ton of my initial investment and interest disappeared, and I have struggled to get back into it. The intent was for it to be emotionally powerful only after you'd invested, so it would hurt, I get that, and if it had been delivered as intended it probably would have had that impact, making all your adventures bittersweet. But because I now know about it in advance, I just...don't feel any desire to invest, knowing that whatever I put in will be torn down.

I get exactly the same feeling from knowing there's an intentionally "high," as far as I'm concerned, lethality rate in a game. All my care, all my invested interest, all the things I try to nurture and build up, are a couple bad rolls from being just erased. Why bother committing myself to that, knowing it will just hurt when it gets ripped away, unceremoniously? I don't engage in TTRPGs looking to get hurt, but being probabilistically certain that it will happen, indeed almost certainly repeatedly, just drains away whatever motives I might have for caring. I'm left wondering what the point of the activity is.

My dread instead is navigating the labyrinthine operation that is Pathfinder 2nd edition character creation. Fortunately, the Pathbuilder app is a big help.

Totally reasonable.

 

[Lanefan]

Distribution of getting owned by monsters between classes.

So, death rates by class or class group, then? OK.

That's not something I'd define as "hard data" lol but okay.

Er...why not? It's far more concrete than someone sayng "Well, going by what I've seen I think the death rate for warriors is x but the death rate for casters is y". Those observations are nigh-meaningless even if only talking about your own game if you don't have actual numbers to back it up.

Same goes for other game stats e.g. what classes or species get rolled up and-or played how often, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

Honest question: why? Character is dead. The dead do not feel. They are no more. Why are they invested?

Maybe because they want to honour their now-dead companion by fulfilling the quest? Maybe because the quest itself piqued the interest of other players/PCs? Maybe because there's plans afoot to revive the dead character later? There could be any number of reasons, all of which are as valid as the table decides to make them.

Your experience so vastly differs from mine I struggle to understand it. IME, it's "easy" to introduce a new character only in the extremely sense that one can perform the action of entering data into a new character sheet and showing up for a session easily. Actually introducing—as in, writing a new character into an ongoing story in a way that is satisfying and effective—is hard. Extremely hard. Because you are haunted by the specter of what could have been and constantly comparing the incomplete, partial thing you have to the far more developed thing you had.

While you might feel this way, not everyone does. I lose a long-standing character, I'll have something else in play ASAP and that's my focus now - oftentimes I've had ideas bubbling for the new one for a long time anyway, meaning I'm glad to finally get it into play. If the long-standing character gets revived later, I'll play both side-along if I can and if not, I have a choice to make (this exact choice came up recently for me in the game I play in; I stuck with the new one and sent the established one down the road).

This would be the candyfloss "teamwork" I spoke of (to use the term from across the pond.) The instant this "teamwork" encounters a threat of sufficient magnitude, it not only can but will break. Because the whole incentive structure is selfish survival.

(Of course, I agree that characters should have strengths and weaknesses and benefit from working together. D&D in general is extremely bad at actually designing characters so that that is true and even worse at doing so in a way that is productive game design. Consider that this thread has literally spoken—purely positively!—of training players not to use healing spells so they can use their "interesting" spells instead. Even in this very conversation, teamwork is treated as a dull, boring exercise, contrasted against the exciting and productive selfishness!)

While I get your point, the specific example you chose isn't the best; in that I've long held that healing is something that shouldn't really be something done during combat (at least, not without very high risk) but should instead be done afterwards.

Wow. That's an impressive jab; simultaneously calling me immature and straight-up contradicting my lived experience by telling me that "the heroes always win."

Sorry if it came across that way, I was referring only to myself.

It is deeply infuriating whenever I discuss this, because half the time folks do exactly what you have done here. Pretending that because death is rare, victory is guaranteed and thus the story is boring.

With death being pretty much the only true loss condition left in 5e, death being rare does mean victory is close to guaranteed.

Victory emphatically is not guaranteed. My players work hard for and earn their victories, and I always let the dice fall where they may, in the open. We have our understanding on these matters specifically so the dice can fall where they may and the players will roll with it (pun intended.)

Which in itself is great! Kudos to you.

So I then ask: how often are those dice liable to fall in such a way as to generate a true-loss condition: a character death, level loss*, major item loss*, limb loss*, or complete mind loss? I'd guess not very...maybe not at all as it seems you don't like character death.

* - loss conditions that I'm aware don't exist in 5e, included here for completeness.

I told my players that if they wished to sail for the horizon, they were free to do so. I was honest about it and said I would feel disappointed in myself, for having framed scenes and provided context and stakes they found so uninteresting, but I would give them the story they were actually looking for. I'm not going to force them. Fortunately, they (a) said they knew I wouldn't do that and that that is something they highly value about my game, and (b) were quite clear that they're happy where they're at and, while they may feel wanderlust from time to time, that's a "variety is the spice of life" response, not an effort to escape to a story they actually care about. As I have said many times, my players are troopers and I very much appreciate their patience and support (though I do wish they would give more critical feedback.)

We're on the same page with this, then. I've always got something in mind that I want to run, but in the end I'll run what they give me to run.

Given I 100% agree with this statement, it is odd that you should mention it. Characters should not be so. Most versions of D&D incentivize and permit building such characters. The selfishness encouraged by the rules is specifically all about that. Never rely on healing, you should heal yourself. Never expect buffs because spells should be used efficiently. Optimize your own performance, that is how you will survive longest. Compete for the most and/or best loot, conceal discovered treasure from your (so-called) allies, break promises if it is advantageous to you, etc. These things generate something that isn't a team; it is a collection of individual adventurers who merely happen to adventure in the same places at the same times.

I'm not sure that selfishness is encouraged by the rules, it's simply a very common playstyle no matter what the rules might say.

It wasn't. Especially as these editions wore on. Niche protection requires that the niches actually have value and not be so thoroughly "draftable" that one character can fill nearly all roles. And guess what? Clerics can. Wizards often could do everything but heal. Fighters? Pshaw, they get niche enforcement, not allowed to move beyond it.

In 0e-BX-1e at least, only the cleric group can heal while only the thief group can sneak. Mages can do more if they have the right spells and the slots left today to cast them (a rare thing at low levels!), while the warrior group are very equipment-dependent but with the right gear can do a lot of stuff. Further, multiclassing (by RAW) is very limited and only available to certain species, and some of the more versatile classes (Ranger, Paladin, Illusionist) are gated behind stat requirements and thus in theory are supposed to be uncommon. At high levels, mages tend to rule the roost but IMO by that time they've earned it; and they still can't fight worth crap and have the resilience of a wet noodle.

Contrast this with the WotC editions (all of 'em), where it's trivially easy to build a character who can dabble in absolutely everything through unrestricted multiclassing and almost-unrestricted feat choices, while still being baseline effective due to additive levels.

But when you actually make niche protection that matters, that has teeth, people riot over (allegedly) being told what kind of character to play. I've seen it on this very forum.

I hear you on that one.

These two statements are contradictory. If the game is well designed for the purpose of teamwork, then by definition it should be producing teamwork at the table. Being well designed means accomplishing the goals set by the designer. There is no more important test for game design than looking at actual play and confirming that, within reasonable statistical limits, the design actually does what you want it to do. To say that the rules somehow do what they're supposed to at the "design" level but fail to do so at the "table" level is a contradiction in terms. One might as well speak of cars that have good fuel economy at the design level and terrible fuel economy when actually driven.

In both the game and car examples, the design is trying for one thing while the end user wants to use it for another. I mean, I could have the most fuel-efficient car imaginable but if I drove it like Mario Andretti on a racetrack I'd still get awful mileage. In the game, the design gently encourages teamwork but the players still want to play individualists.

Firstly, I hadn't realized we were playing a Realistic Roleplaying Game. I had thought I read that D&D was a Fantasy Roleplaying Game, as in, one where we set aside many of the often grim and depressing details of the reality we live in so that we may experience entertaining fictions (among other ends, some of them actually productive in addition to being entertaining.)

Fantasy takes many forms; and basing it on reality, at least to some extent, serves to make it far easier to relate to and share.

Second, again, humans are not homo economicus. Rules that get people to act that way are in fact unrealistic, not realistic. Real people care about their social context, and (more importantly) almost always recognize that survival value is only one form of value, and in fact often a rather weak one in comparison to other things (like the virtues and social dynamics you disregard here.) Amoral, purely self-interested, perfectly rational and consistent people are mostly fictive, only useful as an abstraction, something most economists have known for a long time, though it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking real people act this way.

Maybe that's where the fantasy comes in: we don't get to act this way in real life but we sure the hell can in the game, so let's get after it!

Why throw good money after bad? We're already talking about selfish characters here. Why revive the dead? That's extra investment! Especially early on, when such things are not at all guaranteed. As people are so keen to note, raise dead doesn't come online until very late, relatively speaking, and others have noted the kinds of people who want combat to "matter" usually restrict and/or punish resurrection anyway!

I've had 1st-2nd level parties move heaven and earth to get a character revived, usually because it was a character that the rest of the characters genuinely liked in-character. And while Raise Dead might not be field-castable within the party until late on, it's nearly always available from NPC casters in town - for a price, of course. I neither restrict nor punish revival beyond what 1e RAW prescribes, and in fact probably make it more available than ol' Gary G would have preferred.

What investment? What story? There is no investment in the party for the dead characters! That's my whole point! The dead don't care about anything. They're dead. And didn't you just say you don't do "story as a whole"?

You might be surprised to hear that perhaps the longest-running out-of-adventure character saga in our games is an ill-fated romance between one of my PCs and that of another player. This has been going on since about 1984, and during most of the intervening time one or the other of them - usually mine - has been dead. They've gone to great, even sometimes ridiculous, lengths to get each other back to life over the years; and are both still going (and, remarkably, are both alive) today.

So telling me there's no investment in dead characters just ain't gonna fly.

 

[Flamestrike]

Sometimes sucking - and having to decide whether to carry on while sucking - is just part of the game.

Sounds like fun. Being basically unable to use your class features for the latter half of every adventure.

As much fun as 'For the second half of every adventure, there will be a global AMF in operation. Suck it casters.'

There are better ways to enforce the OP's stated design goals, without making the game suck for the people that play it.

 

[TheSword]

Sounds like fun. Being basically unable to use your class features for the latter half of every adventure.

As much fun as 'For the second half of every adventure, there will be a global AMF in operation. Suck it casters.'

There are better ways to enforce the OP's stated design goals, without making the game suck for the people that play it.

The hyperbole here undermines your point. It isn’t the second half of every adventure, and it doesn’t stop you using you character abilities.

Firstly - characters will have a lot more of their resources to expend in encounters they’re less likely to drop. Some adventures may only have a single combat encounter with down time afterwards.

Secondly there is a 58% chance the player this happens to has 1-6 levels of exhaustion. Debilitating sure but not always. It will force you to consider how you use your character and will put you on notice of death if you throw yourself into combat again.

You’re going to need support from your team mates, maybe you switch roles for a bit and get out your bow, or a reach weapon, maybe you fight defensively or switch to scouting. Maybe the wizard casts stone skin on you instead of their usual concentration spell. Remember we’re not new to the game or group, we’ve played together for 20+ years most of us.

In short it causes the party to revaluate in a way that it doesn’t currently. Most importantly it might mean you talk or negotiate instead of jumping into combat straight away. Or surrender to avoid a character dying. This is a good thing.

I take your point about playing and winning being fun but I’m taken back to this essential point. Being disadvantaged in a combat encounter is better than being dead and missing the rest of the adventure entirely.

 

[Flamestrike]

The hyperbole here undermines your point. It isn’t the second half of every adventure, and it doesn’t stop you using you character abilities.

It does stop (or seriously hamper) you from using your abilities as a martial.

Rogues are totally denied sneak attack class feature with even a single level of exhaustion.

Vs AC 15 a 7th level Rogue (Dex 20, shortsword) has a DPR of 15 (65 percent chance of 4d6+5). The same Rogue with a single level of exhaustion has a DPR of 4 (42 percent chance of 1d6+5).

Fighters core class feature is 'making attacks'. You're imposing disadvantage on those attacks, which is seriously harming their core class feature, which is 'Fighting'.

Firstly - characters will have a lot more of their resources to expend in encounters they’re less likely to drop. Some adventures may only have a single combat encounter with down time afterwards.

Casters will utterly dominate in such a game. Firstly, you're penalizing martials far more than casters with exhaustion (for no other reason than doing their jobs) and secondly, you're running a game where Casters only ever have to deal with a few encounters before getting back their entire suite of spells (meaning they can nova with relative impunity).

Now not only can they Nova much more easily, they're also encouraged to do so, in order to avoid everyone getting levels of exhaustion. Nuke them, before they nuke us, then fall back to long rest.

If you want 'rocket tag' to be the games default play style, your rule changes are the way to go.

Secondly there is a 58% chance the player this happens to has 1-6 levels of exhaustion. Debilitating sure but not always. It will force you to consider how you use your character and will put you on notice of death if you throw yourself into combat again.

Simply making failed death saves stack (even after being brought to positive HP) does this, without forcing a player to play a crippled PC. They drop by 1 save per long rest, and if ever brought to 3 failed saves, you die.

Let me give you an extreme example. Say I brought in a rule that 'any PC reduced to half HP or less, takes a -10 penalty to all D20 rolls, till that PC finishes a long rest'.

What would be the natural consequence of that rule? That meta channels players into seeking to avoid getting hit (avoid heroics, play ranged PCs or casters) and further channels them into Long resting as soon as they have the above penalty (grinding play to a halt, and forcing the DM to do extra work to maintain pacing) or alternatively into playing the game without having any fun.

While your goals might be noble, none of those things are desirable outcomes.

You’re going to need support from your team mates, maybe you switch roles for a bit and get out your bow, or a reach weapon, maybe you fight defensively or switch to scouting. Maybe the wizard casts stone skin on you instead of their usual concentration spell. Remember we’re not new to the game or group, we’ve played together for 20+ years most of us.

If you want more co-operation from your PCs, or to increase the stakes for them as your goals, there are other ways of doing it, without forcing your players to not have fun, or implementing a rule that pushes them towards the 5MWD, Nova strikes, and massive class imbalance.

Pause for a second and consider the above sentence. Trust me mate, I dont doubt your goals are sincere, I just want you to step back and consider that there are better ways of achieving those goals, that dont also have an adverse effect elsewhere.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Maybe because they want to honour their now-dead companion by fulfilling the quest? Maybe because the quest itself piqued the interest of other players/PCs? Maybe because there's plans afoot to revive the dead character later? There could be any number of reasons, all of which are as valid as the table decides to make them.

Okay. For examples 1+2 though, you're talking non-material value, things valued for themselves, not their utility. (#3 could go either way but leans material/instrumental, whatever the plan does.) The given purpose for the proposed rules is to make survival motives categorically outweigh everything else. Piqued interest and honoring the dead are irrelevant to survival. I certainly want players to care about inherent/non-instrumental/non-materialist value.

While I get your point, the specific example you chose isn't the best; in that I've long held that healing is something that shouldn't really be something done during combat (at least, not without very high risk) but should instead be done afterwards.

Chosen for being in-thread, not for quality. Better but not seen in-thread: Buffing allies. Even buffing max-level 5e Fighters is weak. Consider elemental weapon, a stock "Wizard makes Fighter better" spell. Even over two rounds with Action Surge both times, that's only (hit rate)x(16d4) = (hit rate)x20 bonus damage. With a generous 70% hit rate, it's only 28 damage. One enemy hit by fireball (same level) takes 28 damage up front. At 2nd level, scorching ray's 2d6 with 3 hits. Even at a rather bad 50% hit rate, it does almost as much damage in one round (10.5 vs 14) as elemental weapon does with zero other resources invested.

Buffing < directly solving problems. Treantmonk's (in?)famous "God Wizard" guides expressly note that you should keep these buff spells, not because they're good, but because they keep the "BSF" (Big Stupid Fighter) from feeling left out of the game.

Sorry if it came across that way, I was referring only to myself.

Thank you for apologizing. Water under the bridge.

So I then ask: how often are those dice liable to fall in such a way as to generate a true-loss condition: a character death, level loss*, major item loss*, limb loss*, or complete mind loss? I'd guess not very...maybe not at all as it seems you don't like character death.

I took mind-loss mostly out because that wigs out one of my players (long story, not mine to tell.) Haven't considered limb loss, just...hasn't come up? I'm not opposed (love "silverhand" stuff!), it just hasn't followed from the fiction thus far. Party's adventures tend toward a political or social edge rather than pure combat.

Major item loss has happened. Most losses involve allies, resources, reputation, or especially morals. Someone faces an agonizing choice/difficulty every 3-4 months minimum. Giving in to dark temptation, revealing terrible secrets, debts to hated enemies, violating your own principles to succeed. Facing horrors that shake the players deeply (a recent big one there). Giving up chances for answers or power etc. to do the right/needed thing. No physical scars, but still losses.

In part, it seems you define "true-loss condition" in a narrow, purely material way. That's...reductive. Many "true-loss conditions" aren't about mind/body health, instead about the world they reside in, the people/places/things they care about, or the ideals to which they have committed themselves.

Contrast this with the WotC editions (all of 'em), where it's trivially easy to build a character who can dabble in absolutely everything through unrestricted multiclassing and almost-unrestricted feat choices, while still being baseline effective due to additive levels.

Even 4e? Few are so willing to give it a break on that front! Most complain bitterly "you can't be a Fighter who does damage" (even though you totally can.) IMO, niche protection requires both roles that aren't shared (without major effort) and chars who can't do everything.* Plus, are you sure that the sneaky stuff was hard Thief-only? Because people have usually told me that that is a misconception or even outright falsehood, that the old Thief skills were meant only to offer a guarantee of certain competencies, which anyone could attempt but would usually be much less good at (e.g. the difference between "you have a 55% chance to unlock locks" vs "if you roll 6 on a d6, you can unlock it.")

*"Major effort" means, to me, spending permanent character resources that cannot be recovered. In 4e, that's something like investing several feats and your Paragon Path into it, things that would normally be going to making you better at your core shtick. Conversely, "chars who can't do everything" forbids old-school Clerics, because Clerics can take and deal hits very nearly as good as the Fighter, dish out spell damage almost as good as the Wizard, and do healing that no one else can provide. Final Fantasy actually recognized this and limited its Cleric to something more like "priest" in the White Mage: great at dealing with undead, buffing, and healing; weak at almost everything else.

In the game, the design gently encourages teamwork but the players still want to play individualists.

I disagree. The player is doing what is highly effective within the rules. Most people quickly pick up on anything but very obscure rules interactions once they actually start playing. It's harder to pick up on things purely from looking at rules (e.g. folks thought 3e Monk was OP before actual play happened.) The rules permit teamwork, but give no reason to pursue teamwork. Instead, under most circumstances, the advantage is always to doing the most personal impact as fast as possible. A lack of real, synergistic teamwork is likewise only punished indirectly if at all, and such punishment is often not that hard to mitigate. I've got first-hand experience of what happens in 4e if you don't use teamwork. Characters die. Fights become horrible unwinnable slogs. Flip that teamwork switch, and suddenly the game springs to life and fights that seemed unwinnable become totally doable but not totally free of risk.

Fantasy takes many forms; and basing it on reality, at least to some extent, serves to make it far easier to relate to and share.

Then it is on you to defend why this specific, ugly, unpleasant part of reality should be part of it. It seems you agree realism is but one tool in the toolbox; a strong one, but not the only or even the best, valued because it makes things relatable/sharable/etc. Other concerns exist besides how relatable/shareable the fiction is. If realism can be piecemeal (include realistic things A, B, C, but not X, Y, Z) and is instrumentally valuable rather than intrinsically valuable (valuable because it adds other qualities, not because realism itself is inherently needed), then responding to "that's an ugly, unpleasant thing I don't want in my game" with "well it's realistic!" is a total non sequitur. You need to defend why this element ought to be included despite the stated instrumental faults, and why other alternative sources of realism (perhaps socioeconomic class divides or anatomical realism) could not be employed to make up the difference.

I've had 1st-2nd level parties move heaven and earth to get a character revived, usually because it was a character that the rest of the characters genuinely liked in-character.

Firstly, to quote your own above response, "Which in itself is great! Kudos to you." More importantly, my problem is that the proposed rules (and the rules of old-school D&D, such as "GP = XP") discourage that kind of thinking. They reward players who don't behave that way (greater survival rates, faster levelling, etc.) and punish those who don't (much higher likelihood of death or failure, delayed or even lost progress, etc.) The rules themselves encourage viewing people as things. How are you getting the players to not do that? If they're choosing to simply because they want to, that's nice and all, but you have to recognize that your group will be an outlier in this way, and people playing the game based on what the actual game does/says will predominate. That's one of the biggest lessons from game design in general: dominant strategies, where they exist, will be employed by most players.

If you want the players to not be murderhobos, to value their fellow PCs, to care about the world they're in, to treat laws and those who enforce them with respect (even if they dislike/oppose them), to recognize that there are serious and deleterious consequences for reckless and dangerous behavior, then you need to provide rules which reward the things you want players to do and punish the things you don't want them to do. When you do that, and especially if you can do it while also making it fun/cool/exciting/neat, you no longer need to worry about whether the players will play along. They'll do so enthusiastically, because the effective action is the one you desire them to take.