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. (And a few fortunate pockets here and there who had 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.

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.

Putting a "random" encounter that didn't exist five minutes earlier in the path of your players, knowing it will be a TPK, is the DM version of murder hobo-ing. You're ignoring the logic of the game and the feelings of the other players so you can have fun killing things. You're not fixing the problem, you're becoming part of it.

Putting a "random" encounter that didn't exist five minutes earlier in the path of your players, knowing it will be a TPK, is the DM version of murder hobo-ing. You're ignoring the logic of the game and the feelings of the other players so you can have fun killing things. You're not fixing the problem, you're becoming part of it.

One of my favourite lines from the internet I've enjoyed recently .... "If you don't fuck around .... how are you ever going to find out?" https://youtube.com/shorts/GKPU8lNEAZ4

i don't see the issue, in theory. if players have chosen to live by the sword, the dm is meeting them on their level by allowing them to die by the sword. and you never know, maybe it's an op party that could make it a close match. maybe the players had warnings and brought the god's wrath on their heads anyway. as with all things, there are contexts where it is appropriate and contexts where it is a wild overreaction. but this is a meme comm, not a nuance factory.

It’s telling you think the only thing that can come from that situation is a TPK. Nobody’s ever made a threat to “straighten up or else”, as the most basic and uninspired alternative possibility.

The post is about putting people who always start a fight against someone unassuming, but undefeatable. What exactly do you think the DM in the meme is trying to do?

Then the meme doesn't make sense. The DM doesn't look like they're having fun, they look spiteful. If the DM's actions aren't spiteful, the meme is poorly made.

That is why it is necessary to be on the same page about the expectations for the group.

Starting a fight with an undefeatable opponent does not guarantee a TPK. They could be swatted around a bit, learn a lesson, and move on. They could realize it immediately and handle the situation without violence. They could do lots of things. You are right that the point is to offer them a chance to fuck around and find out, but that doesn't always mean TPK.

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?

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 boundaries are healthy 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.

"They hated him because he told them the truth"

I never get more hate than when I say "hey, this toxic DM behaviour is bad and you shouldn't do it." This time, it's "responding to violent PCs with an unreasonably powerful NPC out of spite just reinforces a player vs DM mentality." See also "the illusion of choice isn't a brilliant trick, it just removes player agency" and "if one person's idea of fun doesn't match the rest of the group, remove that person, even if that person is you."