u/FR33C4NDYV4N

So, I've been DMing since around 2011 (Back with 4E) and I've ran some incredible campaigns and have had some failures. What DM doesn't? Well, about 4 years back I started running a campaign for 3 work friends, one of their partners and another ones friend. 5 players total. Well, I could already see the warning signs when one of my work friends handed me their character sheet and I have enough experience to see a future murder hobo a mile away. like I'm putting my ear to the train tracks and hearing "I stab the shop keeper!". Another player chose to be a Rogue which, in my experience, can easily devolve into a klepto hobo.

Well, I've had to deal with murder hobos in the past and usually I'd just have a private conversation with them about their behavior, how its impacting the other players, I've implemented hightened consequences and bounties, etc... but I had a stroke of mad genius. What if I turned this bug into a feature. So, I devised my system and when we got together for Session Zero and I laid out the rules, the usual. Everyone playing has at least played once before so I didn't have to go too crazy with the rules; with the exception of one added rule. I called it "Pre-conflict". So, here's how it works:

To prevent a single player from endangering the party with brash action, before engaging in acts that endanger the party as a whole (such as unwarranted violence, thieving or brawling) the party members present will vote on whether or not they wish to engage in the action or abstain. Then, each player will roll a D12. Whichever side has the highest cumulative number will win.

So, lets say its 4 against vs 1 for doing an act of violence upon an NPC. If the 4 other players roll enough to stop the murder hobo, they will, and the prospective murder hobo will be forced to not engage. If, by chance, the murder hobo rolls a 12 and everyone else rolls 2s, the murder hobo will get to carry out their act. If, though it is extremely unlikely, a tie is rolled, the player closest to the character who wants to engage who opposes engagement and the player who wants to engage will roll once more and whomever has the highest number will win.

This rule has sincr become a mainstay in every subsequent campaign I've run. It does several important things: 1) it allows the party to directly intervene in another players actions, giving them more agency over how they interact with eachother. 2) it discourages animosity between players, because it gives fair recourse 3) it discourages murder hobos and klepto hobos from ruining the flow and solidifying unpopular tendencies and 4) still leaves the possibility of rolling a high enough number that a murder hobo/klepto hobo can still get to act out, consequences be damned. The ability to disinsentivise antisocial character behavior while also leaving it as an option if you're willing to roll for it, I found, gives a level of player agency not previously present AND reduces real life drama. Fewer people feel slighted when, in the end, its all luck of the draw.

Okay nerds, I need help! I don't care about the subject, but I want some ACTUALLY GOOD and not sensationalist bullshit historical documentaries that I can find on, like, Netflix or whatever. Like I said, I don't care about the topic, just hit me with something you found interesting!