In a recent game another PC was playing up the addiction to violence she rolled. Because we were trying not to be too antagonistic and avoid drawing attention (Imperial world spaceport, heavy security, which we did not want looking at us), while she was in the middle of getting up from the bar we were seated at I said "I get up, put one hand on her shoulder, draw my blaster, and stun her. As she falls I catch her and lean her against the bar."

To placate the argument I placed 50 creds on the bar and bought another round for the 2 patrons she was about to get into a fight with. Then promptly slung her over my shoulder and carried her to an empty alcove to rest until we finished.

Not that anyone cares, but as previously noted, it doesn't block posts from appearing in the "latest posts" dropdown in the thread lists.

Don't think I wouldn't notice, senpai.

Back to the subject of the thread, I'm fortunate in that my current group of players and I worked through our "murderhobo" phase in high school. Nowadays rather than the GM railroading us our most common problem is the GM (Re: me) not giving us enough railing, which leads to the players pushing to make something happen---which in itself leads to a much stronger sense of accomplishment and ownership over the plot, so mission accomplished?

Honestly alekzanter, I dont see why you made that thread. You are running a Edge of the Empire game where most characters are hardened criminals. What were you expecting when you made that NPC insult that player?

A witty crack about the NPC's appearance, stone silence, or a Coercion check to be left alone?

Call me crazy, but in my games there's kind of a reasonable gap between "your mom" and cold blooded murder.

Depend of the character. That the beauty of an rpg. Endless of possibility for every action.

Honestly alekzanter, I dont see why you made that thread. You are running a Edge of the Empire game where most characters are hardened criminals. What were you expecting when you made that NPC insult that player?

A witty crack about the NPC's appearance, stone silence, or a Coercion check to be left alone?

Call me crazy, but in my games there's kind of a reasonable gap between "your mom" and cold blooded murder.

Depend of the character. That the beauty of an rpg. Endless of possibility for every action.

Pretty much :-) I like the condescending tone of people here saying how murder hobos are a thing of a past from teenage years - now obviously those gamers experience transcendence of role playing through oscar worthy GM'ing.

In star wars.

A world with laser sticks and explosions in space.

Give me a break.

Honestly alekzanter, I dont see why you made that thread. You are running a Edge of the Empire game where most characters are hardened criminals. What were you expecting when you made that NPC insult that player?

A witty crack about the NPC's appearance, stone silence, or a Coercion check to be left alone?

Call me crazy, but in my games there's kind of a reasonable gap between "your mom" and cold blooded murder.

Depend of the character. That the beauty of an rpg. Endless of possibility for every action.

Pretty much :-) I like the condescending tone of people here saying how murder hobos are a thing of a past from teenage years - now obviously those gamers experience transcendence of role playing through oscar worthy GM'ing.

In star wars.

A world with laser sticks and explosions in space.

Give me a break.

Sometimes, violence is the only answer.

Honestly alekzanter, I dont see why you made that thread. You are running a Edge of the Empire game where most characters are hardened criminals. What were you expecting when you made that NPC insult that player?

A witty crack about the NPC's appearance, stone silence, or a Coercion check to be left alone?

Call me crazy, but in my games there's kind of a reasonable gap between "your mom" and cold blooded murder.

Depend of the character. That the beauty of an rpg. Endless of possibility for every action.

Pretty much :-) I like the condescending tone of people here saying how murder hobos are a thing of a past from teenage years - now obviously those gamers experience transcendence of role playing through oscar worthy GM'ing.

In star wars.

A world with laser sticks and explosions in space.

Give me a break.

Sometimes, violence is the only answer.

Sure. But this isn't one of those times.

I cannot be bothered to write a full description of the scene/encounter, but suffice to say the players new this wasn't a shithole establishment, they were told no one was carrying visible weapons, everyone (even the drunk) was dressed business casual, and the bartender even pointed to their weapons, saying "you gonna behave, or do I have to call the constable?" Everyone agreed they weren't here for anything other than a few drinks and some chit chat. Two minutes into the scene, insult equals spontaneous murder.

The bartender kept saying he didn't know anything, you know, because he has to work there. The drunk knew some helpful info tidbits, but insult equals gun. NPC doesn't mean license to kill in every scenario. Had the player interacted with a modicum of reason, they'd have been on their way in no time. Now they're back to square one. Obligation aside, where else does one go when told "You can try this place, but be discrete"?

Honestly alekzanter, I dont see why you made that thread. You are running a Edge of the Empire game where most characters are hardened criminals. What were you expecting when you made that NPC insult that player?

A witty crack about the NPC's appearance, stone silence, or a Coercion check to be left alone?

Call me crazy, but in my games there's kind of a reasonable gap between "your mom" and cold blooded murder.

Depend of the character. That the beauty of an rpg. Endless of possibility for every action.

Pretty much :-) I like the condescending tone of people here saying how murder hobos are a thing of a past from teenage years - now obviously those gamers experience transcendence of role playing through oscar worthy GM'ing.

In star wars.

A world with laser sticks and explosions in space.

Give me a break.

Sometimes, violence is the only answer.

Sure. But this isn't one of those times.

I cannot be bothered to write a full description of the scene/encounter, but suffice to say the players new this wasn't a shithole establishment, they were told no one was carrying visible weapons, everyone (even the drunk) was dressed business casual, and the bartender even pointed to their weapons, saying "you gonna behave, or do I have to call the constable?" Everyone agreed they weren't here for anything other than a few drinks and some chit chat. Two minutes into the scene, insult equals spontaneous murder.

The bartender kept saying he didn't know anything, you know, because he has to work there. The drunk knew some helpful info tidbits, but insult equals gun. NPC doesn't mean license to kill in every scenario. Had the player interacted with a modicum of reason, they'd have been on their way in no time. Now they're back to square one. Obligation aside, where else does one go when told "You can try this place, but be discrete"?

Well if you didn't want to make the NPC with the information to be a target then it would be helpful for them to not be hostile to the party. A speciesist comment like that will get people killed, especially outside of the Core Worlds. It's even more common out in the Outer Rim where people are killed for making such remarks. The best equivalent in our world to the Outer Rim is that it's the wild west and those with the biggest guns get the most respect. They don't take crap from anyone. Just because there wasn't visible weapons displayed doesn't mean to the players that there aren't concealed weapons. Also, what is business casual to one set of society like Yuppies is completely different for another set like the poor. For Yuppies it's polo shirts and khakis while for the poor its a white t-shirt and jeans. This is why descriptions are so important.

From your description, the bar reminds me of one of those saloons in a place like Tombstone, AZ where the carrying of visible weapons were prohibited. Concealed weapons were allowed. If you insulted someone then you can be expect to be either shot dead on the spot or called out into the street for a duel. There is an old saying, "An armed society is a polite society." It's there for a good reason since no one would dare to insult someone that was armed as that could be enough justification for a shooting. Speciesist comments like the one you made with the NPC shows hostility to the party and no respect. No one in their right mind would say that to someone that is obviously armed and not have a death wish. A final comment, how many prior adventures has the group been on? If it's quite a bit and they have developed a reputation for dealing with insulting NPCs in the manner described then the quest NPC would have known to keep his speciesism to himself.

Clearly, I need to include every detail, otherwise people are just going to keep making assumptions about the setting.

There'd is NO Outer Rim, there is only planet. Planet has big city. Players know THEY are included in the less-than 1% carrying ANY weapon other than a fist.

Need I go on?

Clearly, I need to include every detail, otherwise people are just going to keep making assumptions about the setting.

There'd is NO Outer Rim, there is only planet. Planet has big city. Players know THEY are included in the less-than 1% carrying ANY weapon other than a fist.

Need I go on?

We're going off of what you've told us. Even my Je'daii would have gotten in the face of the NPC and used his Coercion to make the guy rethink his views. My Je'daii has YG plus 2 Force Dice in Coercion and would have succeeded in scaring the crap out of the guy.

As someone else said location is everything. Was this bar in the bowels of the city or was it near the business district? Was it near the starport? If it was in the bowels or near the starport then it will be a seedy joint regardless of how people are dressed.

Now do you get my point about the NPC making a speciesist comment? That is a hostile action towards the party and I'm surprised that he wasn't ventilated by a prior group. People like that tend not to last long unless they are the local boss and even then it's bad for business.

Go back and read your second sentence in that last comment.

No gun.

Go back and read your second sentence in that last comment.

No gun.

No visible gun. Just because the players can't see a gun doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't armed.

EDIT: A lot of people have given you a lot of advice on GMing and presenting things. You choose to ignore it and assume that your crap doesn't stink. Sorry, but the fault lies entirely at your feet for what the player did. You had a quest NPC that was hostile to the group and got ventilated for making a speciesist comment. You think that the problem is with the player, but it isn't it. If you had not had a hostile NPC and made the remark then the player had no justification for shooting him.

My mistake, then. Apologies to everyone.

Honestly alekzanter, I dont see why you made that thread. You are running a Edge of the Empire game where most characters are hardened criminals. What were you expecting when you made that NPC insult that player?

A witty crack about the NPC's appearance, stone silence, or a Coercion check to be left alone?

Call me crazy, but in my games there's kind of a reasonable gap between "your mom" and cold blooded murder.

Depend of the character. That the beauty of an rpg. Endless of possibility for every action.

Pretty much :-) I like the condescending tone of people here saying how murder hobos are a thing of a past from teenage years - now obviously those gamers experience transcendence of role playing through oscar worthy GM'ing.

In star wars.

A world with laser sticks and explosions in space.

Give me a break.

Sometimes, violence is the only answer.

Sure. But this isn't one of those times.

I cannot be bothered to write a full description of the scene/encounter, but suffice to say the players new this wasn't a shithole establishment, they were told no one was carrying visible weapons, everyone (even the drunk) was dressed business casual, and the bartender even pointed to their weapons, saying "you gonna behave, or do I have to call the constable?" Everyone agreed they weren't here for anything other than a few drinks and some chit chat. Two minutes into the scene, insult equals spontaneous murder.

The bartender kept saying he didn't know anything, you know, because he has to work there. The drunk knew some helpful info tidbits, but insult equals gun. NPC doesn't mean license to kill in every scenario. Had the player interacted with a modicum of reason, they'd have been on their way in no time. Now they're back to square one. Obligation aside, where else does one go when told "You can try this place, but be discrete"?

To be honest I am siding with the GM on this one. There's clearly a bit of a difference in expectation between you and the player, so perhaps it's worth having a little chat to set the tone. Theres one thing being really aggressive, but it gets hard to work with people who substitute a happy trigger finger to every minor complication. Even within that 3 coffins clip, the guy was clearly shown to intimidate the thugs first before he opened fire. He didn't just open fire, but gave them ample time to regret the poor choice they made today.

Now, stop chanting "the DM is wrong", because in this case he's perfectly justified to be angry because there are countless things that could have been done that would have been just as badass, then pulling a gun in what was described to be civilised bar. Because I know that it is difficult to write a story around people who pull guns, look for combat or play video games when they are not doing said combat.

Now, giving an intimidation check? acceptable, or even biting down his tongue because thats what a lot of people do in good fictional tales, they are hated on but can't do anything because of their social handicap of whatever their issue is. Clearly the insult was meant to set the tone for this particular NPC.

Stranger's walking in, blasting people? I am a player in YelshaNu's campaign and we were taking the guy to a seedy bar because he was drinking constantly, so as a prank between missions we put him in that environment to show him what would happen to reckless drunks. One guy gets up in his face and says "I like your hair", so how were I to know he would draw a blaster and gun him down? What my DM didn't mention was that we spent about a hour hiding his ass in the undercity, and I had to come clean to the Hutt whom I had received information on, thankfully it was her informant, but it put a lot of extra pressure to come through with the good's I promised. Why? Because the fellow is the biggest drama queen going, not that I would have him any other way. (My character absolutely hates the guy now since it was his first impression of him, but I found it rather funny.)

Disagree.

That scene seems as 'Edge of the Empire' as all hell to me, and Clint is a classic PC archetype.

We have two (maybe three) EoE groups, one of which is more freewheeling, light-hearted scoundrel stuff, and the other one is straight out of the Wild West.

Heck, the entire cantina scene in 'Star Wars' was pretty much to establish Kenobi and Solo as badasses.

I think there is a preconceived notion among some players that Edge of the Empire = Do Whatever the Hell I Want / Murdohobo. My counterpoint is the substantial chapter dedicated to Law and Society in the core book. Edge games are meant to be rough fringe games but the PCs are still meant to be heroes and they have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

To the OP situation, I think he has a valid reason for being miffed. However, I tend to deal with that stuff in-game. Now the PC or the PCs have to deal with a less-than savory reputation and directly affects their dealings. This particular PC starts to be known as someone with a short-fuse and people want to avoid dealing with him.

Two tools that some GMs may overlook are the Obligation Threshold Guidelines table 9-3 pg. 308 and the Reputation chart in Fly Casual. Both of which give narrative and mechanical options for dealing with the actions of the PCs.

The OPs situation is something that I have had to deal with in my own game. I've found it difficult because I am running an Episodic game that has to have things happen to move the plot along and can't /doesn't go off the rails too often to deal properly with the PCs being murdohobos.

I won't comment on the scene as I was not there. Sounds like a reasonable outcome to me though. More interested in the rationalizations so many are posting on how the shooter is in the right. They are hilarious. Do I have to pull out the beer and popcorn again?

More interested in the rationalizations so many are posting on how the shooter is in the right.

Well there's trying to justify your "I don't give an F about anyone that is not an NPC" attitude, that everyone controlled by the GM is just someone there simply to be murdered and looted, and then there's discussing that this could be an appropriate response depending on a great many factors, like setting, genre, tone and the way that the character is built.

I've had characters that would not kill anyone ever and I've had characters where shooting a man in the chest for a tiny slight is getting off easy. If that was an imperial off duty watering hole, Kiran would have gunned the man down without a thought, murdered everyone else in the bar and then burnt the place to the ground.

Murderhobo? No - he was an IRA style terrorist and not an idealistic Rebel freedom fighter who was a very, very dark character. That's how he was written from the get go, and it was written with the intent of having a story arc that eventually got him from that very dark place.

Our (well, at least my) defending of the gunman doesn't necessarily try and justify all immature playing styles, just pointing out that there is room for characters that would kill a man without hesitation for calling him a sissy.

I think there is a preconceived notion among some players that Edge of the Empire = Do Whatever the Hell I Want / Murdohobo. My counterpoint is the substantial chapter dedicated to Law and Society in the core book. Edge games are meant to be rough fringe games but the PCs are still meant to be heroes and they have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

To the OP situation, I think he has a valid reason for being miffed. However, I tend to deal with that stuff in-game. Now the PC or the PCs have to deal with a less-than savory reputation and directly affects their dealings. This particular PC starts to be known as someone with a short-fuse and people want to avoid dealing with him.

Two tools that some GMs may overlook are the Obligation Threshold Guidelines table 9-3 pg. 308 and the Reputation chart in Fly Casual. Both of which give narrative and mechanical options for dealing with the actions of the PCs.

The OPs situation is something that I have had to deal with in my own game. I've found it difficult because I am running an Episodic game that has to have things happen to move the plot along and can't /doesn't go off the rails too often to deal properly with the PCs being murdohobos.

At no time in this conversation did I say that there shouldn't be in game consequences. The player did kill an NPC, but the set up of the situation was solely on the head of the GM. From the information given, we can deduce the gun bunny is friends with the Cathar and he doesn't like speciesists, read that as racist. The player is perfectly justified in shooting the offending NPC because that is his personality. If the GM wanted to ensure the quest NPC didn't get shot then he wouldn't have made the offending remark to the group's Cathar. This is why I said the situation lies entirely at the feet of the GM. The GM had the NPC be a racist and one of the players responds in character to shoot him. The GM then made the unilateral decision to auto-kill the NPC. At no time did the player get to do anything beyond, "I shoot him." The GM by fiat took control of the player's character and made sure that the player's character killed the NPC. He didn't give the player the choice of rolling for initiative or even the common decency of setting the weapon to stun. Read the original post because that is what the GM did.

The entire thing lies at the feet of the GM. The player had zero input once he said, "I shoot him." As a player, I would have immediately got up from the game and walked out. The reason is because the GM just showed me that he doesn't care about my input and will play games by ruling through fiat that takes away my choices as a player. It also shows that he has no respect for me as a player and will run my character as a GMNPC when he feels like it. This is what got lost in the past four pages.

This is the ultimate "YMMV" topic. It's very revealing of what people think the boundaries of acceptable behaviour are in an EotE campaign. Imagine how differently the same situation would have gone down if it were a Jedi in the shooter's place.

There's two main issues here from what I can see:

1) Justified IC Action vs. "Reasons": Relative to the Jedi comparison above, ostensibly at least, both actors (Jedi PC vs. EotE PC) are working in the same universe. The game systems are different, but they're still walking on the same planets with the same laws, codes of conduct, etc. Just because one story is using EotE doesn't all of a sudden make the action ethically correct. One might be able to find more "reasons" for shooting someone in an EotE campaign, but "reasons" abound. "Justifications" are a different matter entirely.

2) Metagaming Expectations/Murderhobo Mitigation: This is where I'm with the OP/GM. Setting aside IC ethics, it's extremely tiresome to run campaigns with Muderhobo players. This has *nothing* to do with players not "pathing" a scripted story. It has everything to do with mitigating the always-insane actions of a murderhobo player who itchy-trigger-fingers his way through every obstacle. This isn't just insane from an "IRL" perspective, but it's also annoying and frankly flat-out boring to work with as a GM. So every scenario I design, I have to be prepared for someone in the party to lob a grenade into the room and for the constabulary to show up? I'm pretty nimble as a GM, and can accommodate sudden and unexpected (and occasionally murderous) changes in behaviour, but if this is a pattern of behaviour -- or worse, an expectation of the PCs -- then there's probably a massive disconnect between GMs and PCs. And frankly, if the PCs like that kind of BS, they should probably just go play a console FPS to satisfy their bloodlust.

Heck, the entire cantina scene in 'Star Wars' was pretty much to establish Kenobi and Solo as badasses.

I don't think those are equivalent to the situation described in the OP. Kenobi responded to a direct threat ("...then you'll be dead!"). Han shot Greedo because if he hadn't Greedo would have killed him. Those are a little more severe than what the OP described.

I'd be miffed if I was the GM. I do think the OP made a mistake just killing the NPC. Crippled maybe, on life support, and knowing some very powerful friends might have been a better way. Or just essential to work with and now getting serious difficulty upgrades.

But it's hard to make the "perfect GM ruling" every time, especially when someone is acting their PC like a ****.

Our (well, at least my) defending of the gunman doesn't necessarily try and justify all immature playing styles, just pointing out that there is room for characters that would kill a man without hesitation for calling him a sissy.

Sure as long as you are a/the villain. See as long as you are playing such a game then I agree with such a rationalization. Only a right @$$hole would respond in such a way, Edge or not. That is an extreme response no matter how you rationalize it. No "hero" walks into a bar and shoots someone for insulting him. Beat the crap out of him, sure. Kill him when he pulls a blaster or a knife after the brawl starts, sure. But to just out and out shoot him for an insult? No. if so then you are one of the bad guys. Which, again, is all right if that is the game you are playing. Which could very well be the case here. maybe all the players are right @$$hole straight up villains so this was an all right response.

A PC that doesn't hold back and is completely sociopathic I just don't hold back either. The bounty is dead, not alive. I don't tell PCs how to behave but I do say threat and challenge will scale based on their behavior and approach. My sociopath isn't really attending anymore, and honestly he was more suicidal and completely accepting of his likely fate.

This is the ultimate "YMMV" topic. It's very revealing of what people think the boundaries of acceptable behaviour are in an EotE campaign. Imagine how differently the same situation would have gone down if it were a Jedi in the shooter's place.

There's two main issues here from what I can see:

1) Justified IC Action vs. "Reasons": Relative to the Jedi comparison above, ostensibly at least, both actors (Jedi PC vs. EotE PC) are working in the same universe. The game systems are different, but they're still walking on the same planets with the same laws, codes of conduct, etc. Just because one story is using EotE doesn't all of a sudden make the action ethically correct. One might be able to find more "reasons" for shooting someone in an EotE campaign, but "reasons" abound. "Justifications" are a different matter entirely.

2) Metagaming Expectations/Murderhobo Mitigation: This is where I'm with the OP/GM. Setting aside IC ethics, it's extremely tiresome to run campaigns with Muderhobo players. This has *nothing* to do with players not "pathing" a scripted story. It has everything to do with mitigating the always-insane actions of a murderhobo player who itchy-trigger-fingers his way through every obstacle. This isn't just insane from an "IRL" perspective, but it's also annoying and frankly flat-out boring to work with as a GM. So every scenario I design, I have to be prepared for someone in the party to lob a grenade into the room and for the constabulary to show up? I'm pretty nimble as a GM, and can accommodate sudden and unexpected (and occasionally murderous) changes in behaviour, but if this is a pattern of behaviour -- or worse, an expectation of the PCs -- then there's probably a massive disconnect between GMs and PCs. And frankly, if the PCs like that kind of BS, they should probably just go play a console FPS to satisfy their bloodlust.

1. It's a matter of characterization and how the player portrays the action. Although from the original post, it was the GM that killed the NPC not the player. My action as I described as a Je'daii are through my own agency. The action of the PC from the OP is GM fiat. The player had zero input into what happened after he said I shoot him with my blaster.

2. The murderhobo is the GM as he took control over the PC and said the PC murdered the NPC. Here's the quote.

PC is insulted by NPC, so PC attacks NPC.

I ask "Attack him with what?" Player says "I shoot him with my blaster." I say "Okay..." and player starts gathering his Initiative pool, "...you shoot him and he falls to the floor, dead." Player says "I didn't want to kill him, just hurt him." I say "Then you shouldn't have shot him."

The GM didn't give the player the choice to use the stun setting or aiming at the NPC's legs or arms. Again, the murderhobo is the GM.

1. It's a matter of characterization and how the player portrays the action. Although from the original post, it was the GM that killed the NPC not the player.

2. The murderhobo is the GM as he took control over the PC and said the PC murdered the NPC. Here's the quote.

PC is insulted by NPC, so PC attacks NPC.

I ask "Attack him with what?" Player says "I shoot him with my blaster." I say "Okay..." and player starts gathering his Initiative pool, "...you shoot him and he falls to the floor, dead." Player says "I didn't want to kill him, just hurt him." I say "Then you shouldn't have shot him."

The GM didn't give the player the choice to use the stun setting or aiming at the NPC's legs or arms. Again, the murderhobo is the GM.

You are abdicating all authority in this scenario to the GM. That's dumb.

The PC shot someone.

To say "You shot someone and they died" isn't like saying "You give someone a donut and they died". There's a pretty obvious consequence in the former that is totally proportional to the action.

Also, the PC initiated the action of shooting. He didn't say "I stun him". Stunning someone is a special action -- a setting -- that isn't a default condition of the weapon. It would be like saying "I attack him with my pistol" and requiring the GM to ask "Do you mean you try to pistol-whip him with the butt of the weapon or you shoot him?" Obviously the default is "shoot"; obviously the PC bears the brunt of the responsibility in the action.

It's an RPG. You use words. Words have consequences. That's the whole point of an RPG. To expect a GM to intuit every possible nuance of an utterance is, frankly, a tiresome thought.