RPG Evolution: What if I just kill him?

We all know the "murderhobo" archetype. I've now come face-to-face with a few.
sergeitokmakov-themis-6347375_1920.jpg

Image courtesy of Pixabay.

We've heard the term before: "murderhobo," player characters that lead a nomadic existence defined by indiscriminate violence and a lack of social ties. These PCs are not merely a choice but a symptom of a deeper cognitive disconnect: the assumption that an NPC's authority is derived exclusively from their hit point total or combat statistics.

Where do murderhobos come from? In my weekly Dungeons & Dragons library game that's open to the public, I've discovered they're out there, and I have a better of idea why.

The Digital Legacy

My encounters with murderhobos usually happen after the second game, when a player has gotten comfortable enough to ask. In-game, an authority figure tells them what to do (usually a sheriff or judge), and the player asks a simple question: "What if I just kill him?"

The murderhobo does not emerge in a vacuum. Though it's existed before video games were common, it surely nowadays comes from the digital sandbox. In most computer role-playing games (CRPGs), players are conditioned to interact with the world through a binary interface. An NPC can be classified as a Static Quest Giver, often rendered unkillable by the game’s code—the aforementioned plot armor—or an Enemy, whose sole purpose is to be reduced to zero hit points for experience and loot. This binary creates an interesting dynamic where players only respect what the software forces them to respect.

When these players move to the tabletop, they often test the limits of the Dungeon Master’s world by attempting to kill low-level authority figures, such as town guards or local magistrates. If the DM has not established the institutional weight of these characters, players assume that a weak stat block implies a lack of importance.

The Hit Point Hallucination

A core tenet of the murderhobo's logic is the Hit Point Hallucination: the belief that the capacity to take damage is the ultimate measure of an NPC’s worth. Historically, hit points have always been a nebulous abstraction. Since the original rules, they have represented a combination of physical durability, luck, and the will to survive. As the rules have evolved, particularly in the 2024 revision, this abstraction has been clarified to include "stamina, resilience, and endurance".

When a player looks at a king with 10 hit points and a dragon with 500, they often conclude that the dragon is important and the king is not. This ignores the reality that hit points do not determine effectiveness in battle until they reach zero. A king with 1 HP can still command an army to fire a thousand arrows. The fallacy lies in treating hit points as meat points rather than a narrative resource.

The core of the murderhobo problem is the belief that the player is the only "real" person in the world. In a collaborative narrative, the NPC's reality is maintained by the DM and the shared imagination of the group. If the party kills a beloved NPC, they are not just "clearing a mob"; they are destroying a piece of the shared world that everyone has invested in.

But to be clear, there has to be a world in the first place. A player can't be blamed for threatening every guard when they've been eyeballs deep in dungeon monsters for weeks. Conversely, if the game is hack-and-slash only, this may well be acceptable (there's a visceral thrill in playing a chaotic, violent campaign, though it probably doesn't last long) and as long as that's the goal of the campaign and everyone agrees, being openly violent can be fun.

Most times though, it's one player who is new to the game or gets bored with it, reacting to the lack of stimulus or the frustration that their character can cast miracles, but they have to listen to this (surely low level) NPC. Depending on how resilient the DM's campaign world is, they might not be wrong to think they can get away with it too. When players know that the world reacts logically to their actions—that killing a shopkeeper leads to the closure of the shop, the loss of a supply line, and a permanent Hostile attitude from the merchant's guild—they begin to see the world as a persistent entity rather than a disposable playground.

The Authority of the Shared Dream

The murderhobo mindset can be a mismatch of expectations for those who have not yet learned to trust the DM or the world. Authority in a TTRPG is not a number; it is a story. It is the collective agreement that the king’s decree matters, that the merchant’s life has value, and that the party’s actions have weight. Conversely, not killing everything should matter; this means rewarding non-combat solutions, making NPCs feel like living people with goals and fears, and using the 2024 Influence rules to show that Charisma is just as powerful as a +1 longsword.

"Can't I just kill him?"

Sure, I respond with a smile. "But then you have to deal with the consequences." And that's usually enough to make the player change their mind.

Your Turn: How do you deal with murderhobos?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

I think that choice of system and the chosen system's underlying structure can be a factor in creating murder hobos.
If PCs are more like super heroes and exist so far above the gameworld that they cease to be part of it, that's something that a player can see when their character interacts with the game world.
I remember one of the early D&D 4E Skill Challenge examples being disarming a trap while mid-fight. However, many PCs could accomplish what the entire skill challenge was attempting to do just by attacking. So, from the player point of view, do you spend 4-5 rounds effectively doing nothing with the possibility of failing a roll and making the situation worse, or do you spend 1 round of brute force to solve the problem?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

The most basic idea of an RPG is that it is escapist fantasy: "what if you were someone else?" And as most people, most players are 'average people', so that "someone else" is "someone important" and/or "someone powerful".

Most RPG characters, like many fictional characters, are Outside normal society, ones that are Above the Law, Beyond the Law.

This is the basic power fantasy. Comics give us some easy ones: Batman, Superman, The Hulk, Iron Man. All powerful character that can just utterly do whatever they want on a whim. And for RPG Characters, it's much more the long list of Anti-Hero types....the ones that kill NPCs like flies.

And this gives you the murderhobos. And they existed way before video games were a thing.
 


Talking back to authority figures is one of the most common power fantasies around. It's usually a good idea to be lenient about a certain amount of sass, just because of how common it is, as long as it doesn't strain the narrative too much.

Killing annoying jerks, like that corrupt noble or bossy ruler, is the same power fantasy taken to the next level. Sadly, it often strains the narrative so far it starts to break. Both in the sense that the NPCs of powerful people should (resources permitting) start organizing coordinated efforts at revenge/justice that are NOT balanced for the party to face. And in the sense that you stop being heroic very quickly.
 
Last edited:

So, first I let my players know at Session 0 that the game has to be fun for everyone, and DMing a murderhobo campaign is not fun for me. Not judging - if that's your thing, then bless. But find a more copacetic DM.

Or if, it's at school, then just no. We run a PG campaign, and randomly murdering people is not PG.
Are we talking about randomly murdering people, though; or are we talking more about simply a violence-first approach to solving in-game challenges?

Example: when trying to get past a gate guard at night in order to get into an enemy town is the party's usual go-to option kill him, bribe him, sneak past him, charm him, or ? The 'kill him' option is what I mean by violence-first, and it's not at all unusual particularly in D&D where so much of the game is centered on combat and violence.

That, and if someone really does want to randomly murder people I'd far rather they do it in the game than in real life.
Consequences are consequences. The world should react sensibly to the party. So if you are running around killing folks, even folks who arguably deserve it, the authorities might not think highly of your vigilantism. Or your victims might have friends. Etc.
Agreed. The world should react to the party (or its individual members) just the same as it would to anyone else in the setting doing those same things. They don't get a free pass just because they're player characters. :)
 

Are we talking about randomly murdering people, though; or are we talking more about simply a violence-first approach to solving in-game challenges?
I think this is crucial distinction. GTA style random killing spree done for funsies gets old, stale and boring real fast. Kill first, ask question later(or never) approach to problem solving is not that uncommon in d&d, primarily due to game rules being heavily centered around combat. If you look at classes and class abilities, vast majority of them is centered around solving problems with violence.
 

Another side of this to consider is that the term "murderhobo" isn't only used to refer to problem players. It's used, humorously, as a definition of adventurers in general. They're people of no fixed abode, who are generally hired to solve problems in a fashion that very often involves killing things, and some of those "things" will be beings that can quite readily also be defined as "people".

So it's not just as simple as "if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". Adventurers are people who have specifically been forged into hammers because so many of the problems in the world they inhabit are, in fact, nails. And when the world in general is presented in that fashion, "normal" social interactions with regular people can feel like weird exceptions rather than the rule. "If every problem looks like a nail, all you need is a hammer".
 

Are we talking about randomly murdering people, though; or are we talking more about simply a violence-first approach to solving in-game challenges?

Example: when trying to get past a gate guard at night in order to get into an enemy town is the party's usual go-to option kill him, bribe him, sneak past him, charm him, or ? The 'kill him' option is what I mean by violence-first, and it's not at all unusual particularly in D&D where so much of the game is centered on combat and violence.

That, and if someone really does want to randomly murder people I'd far rather they do it in the game than in real life.

Agreed. The world should react to the party (or its individual members) just the same as it would to anyone else in the setting doing those same things. They don't get a free pass just because they're player characters. :)
I think this is crucial distinction. GTA style random killing spree done for funsies gets old, stale and boring real fast. Kill first, ask question later(or never) approach to problem solving is not that uncommon in d&d, primarily due to game rules being heavily centered around combat. If you look at classes and class abilities, vast majority of them is centered around solving problems with violence.
I don't understand the difference you are articulating here.

"GTA style random killing spree done for funsies" and "Kill first, ask question later(or never)" are the same thing. One just involves laughing while you do it, the other doesn't. That's not a meaningful difference.
 

I don't understand the difference you are articulating here.

"GTA style random killing spree done for funsies" and "Kill first, ask question later(or never)" are the same thing. One just involves laughing while you do it, the other doesn't. That's not a meaningful difference.
One is killing random npcs just for fun sake or because they feel like. Inkeeper didn't give you a discount? Off he goes, fireball into the inn. That noble was iritating in a way he adressed you? Off with it's head. I leveled up and got cool new AoE spell? Nice, let's try it on that bunch of farmers right there. That's GTA style. Killing npcs just for the fun of killing stuff.

Other one is using violence as main problem solving skill. Instead of negotiating with orc boss, you kill it. Instead of doing elaborate heist to get mcguffin, you just knock down front door, kill everyone and take it. It's using killing as first (and usually only) option in situations where there are other options that are just as effective and don't involve killing. But you don't go out and gunk random npcs just because you feel like it.
 

Just as the OP mentioned, I simply remind them of the consequences.

Consequences usually take the form of an overwhelming force of town guards.

In all the decades that I've played, I only had to resort to that twice.
 

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Related Articles

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top