Quote from: Malfi;695187That said I have rarely seen this "murder hobo" behaviour and I play third edition.

It's seen mostly among 14 year old boys (who are feral little beasts anyway) and early 20s young men with anger management issues.

Quote from: Old Geezer;695210It's seen mostly among 14 year old boys (who are feral little beasts anyway) and early 20s young men with anger management issues.

Yep, even at 14 I knew there were some people it's just not fun to play with.

I wouldn't play chess, monopoly, or warhammer with certain people too.

The problem isnt in the system. It is very much a group and player individual problem or non-problem. How flexible and adaptable are the GMs and Players? Everyone is different.

Sometimes a player is just out to ruin things. I've had it happen and it pretty much killed a 3 year game. In that case it occurred near the middle and I resolved to not just end the whole thing right there. Instead I kept things rolling and made sure the players were having fun. But when things came to a good closing point. I wrapped things up.

Other sessions went perfectly smoothly. I know one player is kinda bloodthirsty and so set up events to give them a chance to lay into the enemy. My group also knows Im notorious for bringing back old sins to haunt the characters when they go too far. But generally I give the players a-lot of leeway to play as they like and they enjoy the fact that actions have repercussions.

But in the end it boils down to individual groups and sometimes individual players. Some just want to hack-n-slash all day.

On top of this, the problem can be GM related. If all the GM is doing are combat sessions then that is on the GM and their call.

Are the players enjoying themselves in a mostly or purely hack-n-slash? If yes. Then it is not a problem.

The same argument can be aimed at sessions that are predominantly diplomacy RPs and courtly intrigue. Some players and GMs love this, some hate it as deadly boring.

Among the other problems with the term, "murder hobo" is used in different ways.  Some people use it just to mean fairly typical D&D play which includes regular killing of monsters, but also has non-violent action. Some people use it to mean hack-and-slash where almost all time is focused on monster-killing. Some people use it to mean kill-everything behavior where the PCs attack shepherds and innkeepers for the XP.

It's a stupid term, though one can have interesting discussions about the levels of violence in campaigns.

Quote from: dragoner;694864In my campaign, vis the authorities, there is no standard; corrupt police will want to steal your gear for sure, but as per normal, the police will not want to see anyone better armed and armored than them.

I generally feel that police are an anachronism. My rule of thumb for (pseudo)-medieval societies is that nobles are expected to carry weapons (or even required to), while commoners are not allowed to carry military weapons except under specific circumstances.

Quote from: jhkim;695410I generally feel that police are an anachronism. My rule of thumb for (pseudo)-medieval societies is that nobles are expected to carry weapons (or even required to), while commoners are not allowed to carry military weapons except under specific circumstances.

As in modern police, yes, agreed. However in Romeo and Juliet, when the Montagues and Capulets are fighting in the street - and these are local families, some of the other citizens call out:

Clubs, bills, and partisans! strike! beat them down!
Down with the Capulets! down with the Montagues!

IMO, heavily armed and armored strangers would be treated with great suspicion.

Quote from: dragoner;695415As in modern police, yes, agreed. However in Romeo and Juliet, when the Montagues and Capulets are fighting in the street - and these are local families, some of the other citizens call out:

Clubs, bills, and partisans! strike! beat them down!
Down with the Capulets! down with the Montagues!

IMO, heavily armed and armored strangers would be treated with great suspicion.

As far as I know, the general public took care of crime on the streets.

Quote from: Bill;695416As far as I know, the general public took care of crime on the streets.

That and/or a city watch or militia; which could be outright hostile to heavily armed adventurers.

Quote from: jhkim;695410I generally feel that police are an anachronism. My rule of thumb for (pseudo)-medieval societies is that nobles are expected to carry weapons (or even required to), while commoners are not allowed to carry military weapons except under specific circumstances.

This.  In England post-Norman conquest it was generally illegal for anyone not of at least knightly peerage to carry a sword; Venice in the 15th century, on the other hand, had quite the number of armed bravos wandering about the bad parts of the city.

Police aren't entirely anachronistic; ancient Rome did have the vigiles, although they started out as firefighters and only became watchmen via mission creep.

I'd say that as a half-assed approximation, the more egalitarian one's pseudo-medieval town is, the more likely it is to have some independent force enforcing the law.  The more caste- and class-bound it is, the more likely it is that the responsibility and privilege of suppressing violence in the streets will fall to the personal guards of the aristocracy - if for no better reason than they're the only ones who will be allowed to carry weapons, and they only care about violence that affects them.

Quote from: Bill;695416As far as I know, the general public took care of crime on the streets.

Right; local citizens would be taking turns to be the "night watch".

Quote from: jhkim;695410I generally feel that police are an anachronism. My rule of thumb for (pseudo)-medieval societies is that nobles are expected to carry weapons (or even required to), while commoners are not allowed to carry military weapons except under specific circumstances.

In any setting where monsters are a common threat and where thieves and assassins are around just about every corner, then you might expect everyone to go everywhere prepped for trouble. Especially farmers and small villages that monsters just love to pick on.

Some settings do though have cities with the "no weapons in public" rule, or at least a peacebonding rule. Others are wild west free-for-alls where going around unarmed is inviting trouble. And I've have players do exactly that to entice thugs to try and waylay them.

Cant think of a setting city that has an actual policing force. A-lot though have city guards to deal with troublemakers. Which is technically a police force. but fits settings where there is lots of threats both internal and external.

Big city? Very likely.
Small village? Unlikely.

That and city guards make for great last minute cavalry rescues,d cannon fodder when things go crazy, and as foils for rowdy adventurers.

At least untill the murder hobos arrive... ahem...

The way I generally run it, it depends on the type of settlement. Large trade city? There certainly will be an armed watch who will deal with armed adventurers who get out of line, with an eye of balance between wanting to keep adventurer business (if the place has mercenaries as part of the local economy) versus maintaining order. As I am not a historian and I am not running a historical simulation, I don't sweat the details. I'm interested in the PCs having swords and sorcery adventures as per Appendix N. Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser were criminals, and guys like Conan would usually answer  insults back with deadly force or at least a good beating. The entire murder hobo thing is an extreme manifestation of what is already present in the literature. Folks have to have a frank conversation about how much of this kind of mayhem they want to see in their games. Alignment in D&D style games is a marker for "I want this kind of action." In games where all bets are off,I let folks take whatever Alignment they like, and let them go crazy with consequences. But that's for "breaking bad" style mercenary gaming. My more regular D&D stuff I tell my players Good or Nuetral only.

Again, tying players to the setting by way of rewards and consequences, and making the part of various communities, cures murderhoboism.

Quote from: Malfi;695187Xp gain sometimes motivates the player this way.
If you gain most or all of your xp from killing monsters you will be drawn to do so.
If you gain most of your xp from getting the treasure you will be drawn to explore the dungeon, avoid the monsters, get the stuff and get out of there.

That said I have rarely seen this "murder hobo" behaviour and I play third edition.

Heh, a variant system of where you only get XP for stopping fights and saving lives might be interesting to experiment with.

I'm just a murder-hobo and everywhere I go
 People know the part, I'm playin'


I will admit though, as a teenager, this is exactly what we did sometimes: random dungeon gen from the DMG, then wandering monster/random encounter; then kill them and loot the corpse and roll random treasure. That, a crown royal bag full of polyhedrals, a two liter bottle of like cola, and a few friends made for a good weekend night circa the early 80's.

If it makes someone happy, I have no fault with that.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;695438Heh, a variant system of where you only get XP for stopping fights and saving lives might be interesting to experiment with.

Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, the RPG.

Except not the actual Hercules RPG, because that didn't have anything like that in it, but you know what I mean.

Quote from: Omega;695403Sometimes a player is just out to ruin things. I've had it happen and it pretty much killed a 3 year game. In that case it occurred near the middle and I resolved to not just end the whole thing right there. Instead I kept things rolling and made sure the players were having fun. But when things came to a good closing point. I wrapped things up.

(scratches his head)  And that was preferable to pulling the problem player aside and cluing him in on your expectations?