"Dear JB" Mailbag #9

Dear JB:

every single one of the party members in the campaign I run and they try to murder every npc I've introduced they tried murdering and I need advice as I don't want to ruin their fun as well as stopping them.

How To Deal With Murder Hobos

Dear HTDWMH:

I've read a lot...a LOT...of letters complaining about murder hobos. I'm posting yours because, although poorly written, it is short, describes the issue, and voices a possible concern (ruining the players' fun). However, what I am about to write would certainly apply to ANY letter writer concerned with "the murder hobo problem."

Deep breath.

"Murder hobo" is one of those terms that has changed over time. When I first heard the phrase, it playfully referred to the average (D&D) adventure party. Why? Because adventurers are a group of folks without homes (until Name level) that wander about the fantasy world engaging in violence as a means to make their living. It was a wink-and-a-smile at the basic premise of the original fantasy RPG: combat (even against "evil" and "monsters") is still just a form of killing (i.e. murder) and these protagonists were outside the norms of whatever established society the game world has.

It was a way to jokingly refer to the PCs, purposefully ignoring the nuance and context that makes a game of (essentially) killing and looting enjoyable by viewing it through the perspective of non-gamer eyes.

NOW, though, the term has come to mean something else...instead of being used to describe ANY adventuring party, it is used to describe a specific type of player: one who indiscriminately kills (i.e. engages in combat) during the game, even when doing so is deemed inappropriate or counter-productive to the goals/objectives of the party.  And in SOME instances, it is used to describe a player who engages in ANY form of combat without just cause...and sometimes even with just cause! Here's an example from another letter:

Whilst traveling to investigate a temple affiliated with the city guard that had misteriously fallen silent for the past couple weeks they encountered 3 random bandits ransacking a cart. After trying and failing to sneak up on the bandits the ranger was confronted by one of them and threatened to leave. Failing to comply because the party took too long to decide what to do, the first bandit loosed an arrow at him, not hitting him.

This triggered initiative, the ranger was up first, hunter's marking one of the other bandits standing nearby and killing him with a single arrow through the eye. Next up was the sorcerer, 3 magic missiles to the chest took care of the second bandit standing next to the first.

The last bandit, seeing his compatriots killed instantly, decided to run. He jumped out of the cart but fell flat on his face because of the mud from earlier heavy rain. After scampering to his feet he made a dash for it fully intending to get away. The paladin, a former mercenary, saw all of this happening and was content not having to do anything. The druid used her turn to speak to her party to the effect of "what the F, guys?!"

The initiative came back around to the hunter. who, after moving his hunters mark to the runner, gave the final, fleeing, bandit an arrow to the back of the skull as a parting gift.

The session ended with the hunter looting the corpses, the paladin finding footprints leading away from the cart, a suspected fleeing owner, and the sorcerer skinning the dead ox that was pulling the cart. The druid player was playfully disappointed in her party, and made it clear that her character is very much not okay with the callous murder of 3 people.

This one was signed "Murderhobo Drama." I could show another one (from a player) who was ostracized by his fellow party members for killing a goblin (in combat!) during a raid of its lair by the PCs.

More often, however, the "murder hobo" label is applied to a character who decides to slay non-combatant NPCs for little reason. A tavern keeper giving the PC lip. A shopkeeper that won't lower their prices. A "quest giver" NPC who the player(s) find annoying. These kinds of in-game actions are considered to be disruptive and/or derailing to the story the DM is attempting to tell.

Another deep breath.

Here's the short answer: DMs, the problem is not "murder hobos;" the problem is YOU.

I do not have, nor have I ever seen, "murder hobos" at my table (in 40+ years of play), unless you mean in the tongue-in-cheek original sense of the term (i.e. when all un-settled adventurers are little more than wandering, murderous hobos). But if you mean in the "disruptive" or "derailing" present day use of the term, then nope, no murder hobos here.

And these days I'm (usually) playing with kids. 

First off, how fucking boring must your game be that the players can find nothing better to do than stab some NPC shopkeeper? I mean, really. Players never even interact with NPC shopkeepers in my game! "Do you guys want to buy some equipment before heading out?" Yeah. "Okay, tell me what you buy and how much it costs and let's go." 

The only reason to go into any detail about a particular non-dungeon location (such as a tavern or inn or shop) is because that location is pertinent to the adventure (say, the Golden Grain Inn from module N1). The tavern in B2 has a chance of containing men-at-arms or adventurers for hire...you roll up how many are there (if the PCs express an interest in hiring people) and you ask what they're offering as payment. That's it! Let's get on with the game!

Dungeons & Dragons is a game where violence is an inherent part of its concept. I know that doesn't sit well with some people, and that's fine...D&D is probably not the game for them! Not everyone likes every form of entertainment out there! I'm not big into horror movies or playing tennis...that doesn't mean other people don't love-love-love those things. And more power to them. 

But if I went into a game of tennis and complained that people kept score because 'how lame to just make it about getting points' than guess what? I'm the asshole...not the tennis player or the game of tennis.

I have the occasional "quest giver" type NPC that shows up in my campaign. A duke with a treasure map who's willing to finance an expedition (that he doesn't want to go on) in exchange for a cut of the profits. An innkeeper who had a break-in through her cellar and was willing to pay brave souls to go into the mysterious tunnel and see what was going on. A drunken man at a tavern crying about how his sister had been taken by the evil vampire lord of the village and maybe the PCs would be interested in avenging his family. Etc.

Did my players decide to roll the duke? Slay the innkeeper? Stomp the rambling drunk? No! Because they were mature individuals? No way! Because they wanted to get onto the adventure, and they saw the profit in dialing in to the game we were playing. Not just actual "profit" (treasure for their PCs) but a profit of time (for the players)...time better spent playing the damn game we'd all sat down to play!

Hey, DMs: how seriously do you take your game? Do you make a world that is sensible and consequential? If players pick a fight with the town guardsmen (and lose), do they end up swinging from a rope and needing to roll up new characters? They do in my game. Do you have "magic shops" on the street corner just begging to be robbed by the PCs because the potential profit far outweighs the risk of killing the owner and his body guards? I don't...because I want my players to have reasons to go into dungeons, rather than loot townsfolk.

Hey, DMs: are you providing enough treasure in your games that knocking over citizens isn't worth their time? If you're not, guess whose fault that is.

Yes, I have seen "evil PCs" that would actively engage in reprehensible behavior. In my youth, I had one player who created a (male) Drow cleric of Llolth that was trying to set up a secret temple in a (surface) town and murdered a goodwife and at least a child or two, mainly as random acts of wanton violence. However, the character was caught and imprisoned (for being Drow, I think...not sure if the murders were initially discovered) and the player lost interest in playing the character after that first and only session. A different player, playing an insane, evil priest (Father Cornelius...still remember his name) engaged in some sort of heinous acts that I honestly can't remember. But that was back when I still allowed PvP and the other players killed him for being too much of a loose cannon. 

In neither of these cases was this an issue of "disruptive" behavior. They were brief experiments into "playing evil" and being transgressive, the kind of thing you do when you're young and new to role-playing. Murdering (and 'hoboing') was neither new, nor outside the norms of play at our table. Many of our characters were chaotic neutral (or worse) back in the day, simply because we played By The Book, and those non-goody alignments allowed PCs more freedom of action ("agency"). It didn't turn them into random stabbers of non-combatants. 

But they would have wanted the option (even though it wasn't exercised)...which explains why we didn't see any paladins and few rangers or Lawful Good types (the main LG cleric was the same player who created "Father Cornelius"); just too many strictures over player behavior for our taste. However, my co-DM and I provided enough adventure in our games (as well as a consequential game world) that giving the players such leeway was never an issue.

Do you give your players enough adventure?

I know, I know...many of the  DMs that complain about "murder hobos" are yelling: 'That's the whole point, JB! We are TRYING to give our players adventure, but they ignore our efforts in favor of slaying innocent NPCs! This is why we find "murder hobos" so damnable! They are wrecking our whole process of running an adventure.' 

Okay...but have you considered that maybe you're doing this wrong?

And by "this" I mean "running the D&D game." Maybe, just maybe, this isn't a matter of having assholes for players. And maybe, just maybe, it has nothing to do with having a "session zero" for "setting expectations of play" (I don't do that). Maybe it's not about taking players aside and talking to them between sessions and asking them not to be disruptive, nor shaming them, nor shunning them at the table.

Maybe it's just about running a solid game of Dungeons & Dragons in a competent manner that engages the players' interest, promotes cooperation, and provides an exciting experience.

Maybe people want to play bold adventurers in a fantasy world, braving perilous dangers in the hope of discovering glory and riches. Maybe that's the kind of experience the game is meant to provide and MAYBE you're failing to run the game in a way that facilitates that experience. Maybe the players are simply trying to "find fun" because they ain't getting it from your lovingly-crafted "story."

Maybe?

As always, I prefer to take the stance that the DM is ultimately responsible for what happens at their table. A PC that murders an NPC is not "playing in character;" the player is making the choice of what the character does and can ALWAYS justify ANY action for "in-game reasons." But, personally, I don't sweat a dead NPC...as the Dungeon Master I can make as many NPCs as I need. Poof! There's an army! Heck, if I need to, I can always bring an NPC back to life...I AM GOD IN MY WORLD: I can do whatever is necessary to run the game.  So what's the complaint, DMs?

Is the "murder hobo" player really "ruining the game" for the other players? Or is it really that the player is exercising agency and ruining your fun, DM? Your "fun" story? Is that it, Mr./Ms. Would-Be Author?

THEN GO WRITE YOUR NOVEL. GO DO IT. STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT PLAYERS WANTING AGENCY IN A GAME BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH YOUR CAREFULLY SCRIPTED PLANS.

Go write your novel, and then AFTERWARDS, come back and run some D&D. 

Sincerely,

JB