I was GM’ing this game. The premise was that the goddesses created the world as this perfectly idyllic place – an absolute utopia that I frequently compared to Mayberry RFD – until the shit hit the fan. An ancient evil awakened and turned it into an absolute post-apocalyptic wasteland. Except for the single most populous city which the goddesses managed to shield from the corrupting influence of the ancient evil (before themselves succumbing to the corrupting influence). (A few fortunate pockets here and there also escaped the corruption.)
The PCs were the most murder-hobo of murder hobos. There was a town of halflings who continued their happy lives from before the calamity by day but turned into demons by night, not remembering anything come morning. The party marched them all (children included) into the schoolhouse, barricaded them in, and set fire to it. When they ran across a few dwarves who had retained their sanity, they robbed them blind. In the one city which was fully shielded from the ancient evil, they fireballed a procession of a dozen or so devout monks to take out one cultist hiding among them. That all just to name a few of their heinous crimes.
Of course, in response to all of this, the central city put out arrest warrants on the party. They were going to be dragged into court and hung out to dry whether they liked it or not. I had a whole court scene planned.
But it never happened.
They sneaked into town, publicly executed the mayor and the sheriff, and installed the local crime boss as the new mayor.
I’m sure you don’t need to be told, but for those who are reading and need to hear it: the most powerful and healthy thing a GM can do is say no. The GM gets to arbitrate the tone of the game and setting, and healthy boundaries are conducive to both fun and creativity.
Actually OP handled it pretty well, at least in the end . PC face consequences for their actions (a trial with the risk of being hung) and end up having to act to solve the problem. It’s somehow created more game opportunities.
But, sometimes it’s more fun to let the players go. Especially if they keep the game and the table separated.
Cross lines in game, but keep the table clean? Then keep going.
Cross lines at the table, and the game ends until everyone has talked it through. And sometimes the game is just over.
This story sounds like it stayed in game enough, but may have been scratching at the table. Enough to pull back and talk for a moment, but not enough to kill the game.
I am so sorry you had to endure that. I’m all for combat. And I do enjoy when my DM crafts a session with it in mind. But to just, hijack(shit all over) the story the DM has made just doesn’t sit well with me.
Agreed, but even with managed expectations it’s a balancing act. Both from the players and the DM. Everyone is trying to get something out of their experience at the table, and it needs to have give and take. Murderhoboing just seems like the most selfish thing a player can do. It takes away from everyone else involved. You destroy plot hooks from other players, derail the story from the DM, sabotage combat for the combat players, outright deny roleplay for the RP players, and disregard a DMs crafting. I can even ‘understand’ spotlight hogs. But murderhobos seem to only get enjoyment from denying others.
When all the characters are murder hobos it isn’t about being selfish, just how they approach the world. If everyone is on the same page, including the DM, that style can be a blast for everyone!
It is only an issue when people aren’t on the same page, then it can result in the things you mentioned.
I was definitely looking to do a game that was basically as far from “railroad” as possible. And Dungeon World (the system in which we were playing) definitely encourages that sort of way of playing. (Though to be fair, we weren’t doing Dungeon World quite how it was supposed to be played. There was player churn at the beginning of the campaign, so trying to ) It definitely ended up being more “comedy” than I anticipated, but the players loved it and I got some great stories out of that game. (Well, mostly the one story I just told, but yeah.)
I was GM’ing this game. The premise was that the goddesses created the world as this perfectly idyllic place – an absolute utopia that I frequently compared to Mayberry RFD – until the shit hit the fan. An ancient evil awakened and turned it into an absolute post-apocalyptic wasteland. Except for the single most populous city which the goddesses managed to shield from the corrupting influence of the ancient evil (before themselves succumbing to the corrupting influence). (A few fortunate pockets here and there also escaped the corruption.)
The PCs were the most murder-hobo of murder hobos. There was a town of halflings who continued their happy lives from before the calamity by day but turned into demons by night, not remembering anything come morning. The party marched them all (children included) into the schoolhouse, barricaded them in, and set fire to it. When they ran across a few dwarves who had retained their sanity, they robbed them blind. In the one city which was fully shielded from the ancient evil, they fireballed a procession of a dozen or so devout monks to take out one cultist hiding among them. That all just to name a few of their heinous crimes.
Of course, in response to all of this, the central city put out arrest warrants on the party. They were going to be dragged into court and hung out to dry whether they liked it or not. I had a whole court scene planned.
But it never happened.
They sneaked into town, publicly executed the mayor and the sheriff, and installed the local crime boss as the new mayor.
I’m sure you don’t need to be told, but for those who are reading and need to hear it: the most powerful and healthy thing a GM can do is say no. The GM gets to arbitrate the tone of the game and setting, and healthy boundaries are conducive to both fun and creativity.
Actually OP handled it pretty well, at least in the end . PC face consequences for their actions (a trial with the risk of being hung) and end up having to act to solve the problem. It’s somehow created more game opportunities.
It’s a world of gods that intervene with mortals, so a GM is perfectly justified in-universe in smiting any players who get out of hand.
But, sometimes it’s more fun to let the players go. Especially if they keep the game and the table separated.
Cross lines in game, but keep the table clean? Then keep going.
Cross lines at the table, and the game ends until everyone has talked it through. And sometimes the game is just over.
This story sounds like it stayed in game enough, but may have been scratching at the table. Enough to pull back and talk for a moment, but not enough to kill the game.
Jfc, that group goes hard
I am so sorry you had to endure that. I’m all for combat. And I do enjoy when my DM crafts a session with it in mind. But to just, hijack(shit all over) the story the DM has made just doesn’t sit well with me.
That is why it is necessary to be on the same page about the expectations for the group.
Agreed, but even with managed expectations it’s a balancing act. Both from the players and the DM. Everyone is trying to get something out of their experience at the table, and it needs to have give and take. Murderhoboing just seems like the most selfish thing a player can do. It takes away from everyone else involved. You destroy plot hooks from other players, derail the story from the DM, sabotage combat for the combat players, outright deny roleplay for the RP players, and disregard a DMs crafting. I can even ‘understand’ spotlight hogs. But murderhobos seem to only get enjoyment from denying others.
When all the characters are murder hobos it isn’t about being selfish, just how they approach the world. If everyone is on the same page, including the DM, that style can be a blast for everyone!
It is only an issue when people aren’t on the same page, then it can result in the things you mentioned.
Was it fun for you to GM that game?
Short answer: yes.
I was definitely looking to do a game that was basically as far from “railroad” as possible. And Dungeon World (the system in which we were playing) definitely encourages that sort of way of playing. (Though to be fair, we weren’t doing Dungeon World quite how it was supposed to be played. There was player churn at the beginning of the campaign, so trying to ) It definitely ended up being more “comedy” than I anticipated, but the players loved it and I got some great stories out of that game. (Well, mostly the one story I just told, but yeah.)