Then there needs to be consequences for that. Now they’re in jail and the quest is to escape before the party is executed.
My DM always says, you can do anything you want, but there will be consequences.
The killing was at the end of the oneshot, so i simply finished by saying that they got captured by the authorities and executed for murder.
Ahh, the Fight Club, China Edition ending!
I had something like that happen. I had to rewrite the whole story on the fly and kept hinting at the big, important mystery that they missed out because they killed the people necessary for the initial hook of the quest.
Punish murderhoboing severely. Party gets wiped and it won't be fun.
The point of murderhoboing is to create chaos. Don't give them what they want, just forbid murderhoboing entirely. If there is a non-murderhobo in the party, that person doesn't deserve to get wiped and if the party is all murderhobos, you should find a different party.
Set bounties on them. Put up wanted posters in major cities. Now they can no longer find important NPCs and they are constantly attacked by adventuring parties and mercenaries.
Did they at least one-shot the quest giver?
Yes
Well then,
I had a campaign end that way, It was incredibly sad and anti climactic. Now when people do that I just say no. Don't go for punishment, just refuse to recognise the attack.
It's a moment to re-establish the general idea of the adventure out of character. Trying to one-up murderhobos with fictional consequences is sure to spiral into pettiness and end up miserable for everyone involved.
I was a player in a campaign where two of the other players just full-on sprinted past every sign post the (Pathfinder) GM threw up saying, "This character is here to give quests. He is much higher level than you. Don't attack him. He will slaughter you."
They pulled out their weapons and made to attack the guy and my CN character was like, "You have fun with that. I don't want to die today." The quest giver and our other party member tried to talk them out of it for a couple rounds AFTER they started attacking (and doing no damage, naturally). The NPC then started using non-lethal spells to try to defuse the situation. A couple rounds of that and the GM finally gave up went hostile. Two or three AoE attacks later and both characters were gone.
They rolled new characters, but I didn't last much longer in that campaign.
My procedure is as follows:
- Make it clear that PCs have nothing to gain by attacking. If they still try I try to talk them out of it.
- If they try to attack, say no and ignore them
- If for some reason, you have to recognize their attacks, just make all of them miss. Don't be descriptive, just say "miss" and have the NPC sit there. This is not a fun way of playing DnD at all, the point is to bore them out of it. Never attack, that's going to mess up the campaign for months.
- Consider not inviting the player back to the next sessions. Problem players ruin campaigns and it's usually because they'd rather do something else. Don't force them to keep playing, let them go and your campaign will improve.
It's important to avoid punishing the entire party because of one problem player. Your DM's mistake was giving the problem players chaos which is what they want. That and choosing their enjoyment above players who are making the game more fun, not less.
One of the things I like about the CofD games like Mage is it has a mechanical tracker for doing vile stuff. "Sure, you can curse him to vomit forever but that's going to call for a Wisdom check." Losing wisdom means you're worse at containing spell miscasts. Uncontained spell paradoxes will ruin your day. And hitting wisdom 0 means the character is unplayable.
I've stopped a lot of nonsense with "that'll be a wisdom check, if you're sure you want to do that"
Yeah, I remember playing D&D in high school. If you don't have a lot of maturity, it's easy to fall into violent power fantasies that the freedom of a TRPG offers versus a CRPG.
This is why I'm really glad for modern session 0 agendas and safety tools to set expectations and keep people on the same page.
In theory I think a wacky GTA-style TTRPG is not fundamentally wrong, but everyone including the DM needs to agree to it beforehand.
but everyone including the DM needs to agree to it beforehand.
Exactly, it can be a lot of fun if everyone is on board. So many great ttrpg memories have come from that kind of chaos, but they're only good memories because everyone at the table consented to join the chaos.
ah yes, the "no-shot"
I actually kind of embrace the players doing whatever they want, so long as it's not some way to harass other players or the DM. If they're doing something to deliberately ruin the game, that's not acceptable. If they're doing something the DM didn't expect or account for, that's just the game baybee. It be how it is
A quest is only truly yours if you paid the iron price
