Just as many typical RPGs teach us that violence can solve most problems and that a (truly) dead enemy poses no problems, LARPers around my area (Moscow, Russia) are typically very quick to kill characters of other players, showing very little respect to the lives of sentient beings (not saying "humans" to avoid fantasy racism).

It is common to just go your way on a road and be killed by robbers who just wanted to take your couple of coins, and the robbers can turn out to be noble warriors. Non-lethal weapons are usually not even present in the combat system. Most conflicts are resolved by armed combat, and armed combat usually goes until one side is fully disabled, and being disabled usually means that death is just a matter of time, perhaps it will happen right away, perhaps it will happen after being questioned.

Experienced players develop response measures to this. They try to get as many defensive bonuses as possible so it is harder to disable them, e.g. automatic town portal when they get hit, or try to generally buff their combat stats as high as possible. They try to strike first, and always finish their opponents to prevent potential revenge, which in turn would make themselves finished. They move in huge squads so that fewer entities are actually dangerous for them.

Experienced players used to playing murderous cretins enjoy this, the victims of the murderous cretins typically don't enjoy losing their characters and the need to wait for a respawn. Stupid character deaths essentially remove players from the game for no in-game reason, which is obviously very frustrating.

It is worth noting that behaving like a murderous cretin in LARP is more disruptive than a similar behavior in tabletop because in LARP a real player loses their character and stuff, not an NPC.

The canonical question about casual violence in tabletop RPG has some awesome solutions for this problem in tabletop, but a lot of the solutions aren't applicable to LARP because they rely on the GM being in control of things -- he/she is not in control when a LARP event begins.


  • The GM often doesn't even know that something is happening until it has already happened and too many players know.
  • Rewinds are frowned upon and considered to be the worst possible offence against player agency.
  • There are no NPCs to serve as an example because the few NPCs that are present are not enough. Even if NPCs show disdain about anti-social behavior, other player characters are usually OK with casual violence. If played by a really charismatic leader, such an NPC could possibly override some of the players' decisions, but that is, in my opinion, not an NPC's job.
  • Players don't care much about local laws because law enforcement is usually a very hard thing to do. If a criminal isn't caught red-handed and changes clothes, unless someone knew the player IRL, it is very unlikely that somebody will even recognize him. Just changing clothes makes you indistinguishable. There have been a few very rare cases when law enforcement had ultimate powers and was done by NPCs (e.g. if the palace guards announce that you are arrested, you are assumed to be automatically arrested with no chance to escape or fight back).
    • Also, sometimes players don't care because they are the law. There is nobody capable of punishing High King's bodyguards who went on to earn some extra coins on the road and have slaughtered 15 people during that time, half of which were young women.
  • There is unlikely to be any revenge, as there are usually no witnesses of the murder, and people actually finish victims of armed robberies for this exact reason.
  • Most player characters don't care about murder being a wrong thing because the players don't care. I would like them to care, though.
  • Since killing anything that discomforts you is more effective than not killing it, players have no actual reason to change their behavior.
  • A murder doesn't look like a murder. There is no blood, there are no internal organs falling from a cut abdomen and no enemies trying to keep those internal organs in place: it would be too hard to physrep this unless the murder scene is scheduled, which is typically not the case. Scheduled murders most likely mean an NPC death, and even players who value character life often tend to neglect NPC's lives.
    • Another important reason is that players typically avoid roleplaying being wounded if they can avoid it, they just sit on their knee silently (our way to physrep being wounded or dead), don't plead for mercy, they just silently accept the death of their character.
    • Moreover, a player roleplaying being wounded too well is likely to be asked if they are actually hurt and get the game stop for a moment. This could probably change if more players were OK with such roleplay, but since it's rare, it causes this unneeded reaction. Also, it does happen that a player gets hurt, and I would probably opt to keep my players asking if everything is OK.

It should be noted that just killing everything on your way typically doesn't give any mechanical advancements. People casually kill to resolve conflicts even when it is not necessary, to remove witnesses and to take the property of the victims. Killing certain designated NPCs (like monsters) gives loot, but they are not to be valued too much.

It is also worth noting that game masters are usually not supposed to interfere in the gameplay once the game begins, so any measures are to be taken in advance. It's possible to write rules and to enforce them, it's possible to talk to players before the game, but, unless something extreme is happening, in most communities a GM shouldn't come to a player and tell to change their behavior.

So, as the host of the event, how can I prevent players from behaving like a bunch of murderous cretins?

By requests from comments:

  • Characters are usually not transferred from game to game even if they survive. It is rare to have LARP series, but this happens, and there are a few successful LARP groups that only play in series. So you can call it "one-shot". Some series begin unpredictably: one successful game happens, and its game masters decide to host a sequel game, allowing the players to use their old characters.
    • Because of the usual one-shot nature of the games, a lot of weird stuff often happens at the end of a typical game, making continuing the plot harder.
  • This problem generally persists from setting to setting and I don't see a correlation here. I have mostly played fantasy, but a zombie LARP where I basically was an NPC had this problem too. To be exact, here is a list of settings where I have seen it:

    • Witcher
    • Warhammer
    • Innistrad (part of Magic: The Gathering)
    • Vampire: The Masquerade (I was myself a murderous cretin there, but it was fully in-character; if you know the setting, my Humanity was around 3-4).
    • The Elder Scrolls

    Probably worth noting that I did not encounter this at the only Dragon Age LARP that I've attended, but that doesn't automatically mean that it didn't happen -- just that I have not seen it. This game also didn't include much personal conflict, it was more about the Blight. I could presume that a game being focused on an external threat partially solves the problem, but this needs further testing.

  • The number of players attending a given game can be very small (like 50-60 players) or very large (1000-3000 players), but the "murderous cretins" behavior seems to be most common at the biggest projects and more rare on the smaller ones. An "average" game is typically attended by several hundred players (200-400).
  • The NPC crew is usually not big, as it is not feasible to have a big one. Generally about 1 NPC per 10 players or less. Should be noted that some NPCs are typically non-combatants, meaning that they don't have the skills/health/equipment to meaningfully participate in combat. Combat encounters against NPCs usually involve either "dungeons" where there is a limit on the number of entrant PCs to ensure that NPCs have strength in numbers, or "powerful monster" encounters, when a powerful NPC monster roams the area and looks for problems (the NPC uses this power to compensate for the quantity disadvantage here).
  • Players usually design their own characters themselves unless the game is particularly small. The range of their roles and nature is huge, it is not really possible to define it shortly. Some major characters can be created by the GMs, some can be canonical characters from a universe that the game is based on (e.g. most LARP about The Witcher has Geralt of Rivia as a PC), but players can normally ask to have something changed.
  • Many types of combat can happen. It might be a duel of honor between two characters (rarely), or a small group of 5-6 bandits ganking one passer-by, or two squads of 10-15 soldiers fighting each other in open field, or a huge epic battle with two to three hundred participants per side (even if there are more players there, they don't usually rush into combat at the same time). There are two semi-important ones that are probably worth noting, though.
    • Army combat, a model simulating a clash between two big armies. In this case, this squad of 10+ soldiers (sometimes rules dictate 15+) represents a huge state army. The difference between a crowd of 10 (or 15) characters and an army is that armies have a number of "respawn points" used to revive their fallen soldiers, so dying as a soldier there doesn't make your character dead. Another rule often (but not always) exists and tells that anyone or anything that is not an army and is attacked by an army is automatically hit.
    • Combat versus NPCs. The difference is that NPCs usually shouldn't really try to win -- they try to create a challenge and die against the players in a way that makes players feel overcoming this challenge. It is rare to die against NPCs, but it can sometimes happen, like a total party kill (TPK) in a dungeon. Also, as noted before, when entering a dungeon, there is typically a limit on how many players can enter so that the NPCs have a quantity advantage and can be swarming the PCs (as noted above).
  • An interesting addition: player characters are also often ready to kill themselves, for example, if they are going to be interrogated and have a risk to give away some important information. The decision to commit suicide is (gladly!) a very hard one in real life for real people, but not for the LARP characters. It creates a vicious circle where characters don't value their lives because it is easy to lose it on the road and kill themselves, and because human life isn't valued, it gets even easier to kill others without a strong reason, and easier to get killed.
  • As the players represent the most active part of the game world, game masters are usually not supposed to interfere. However, sometimes it is still needed. E.g.:
    • When a player character addresses a deity with their prayer, a deity can sometimes answer through a game master, and even give them something tangible.
    • Players entering a dungeon can get comments from the dungeon master like "You enter a dark, dark cave with stone walls. You see lyrium veins in the walls here, and those white strings look like spider web.".
    • Some supernatural powers need the player to talk to the GM so the game master can name the effect.
    • When players get, say, daily resources, they typically get them from "regional gamemasters", those responsible for a particular area in the game world.
    • When a player does something that is against the rules.
    • When a player does something really disruptive.
    • When a player's physical (or, sometimes, even psychological) health is in danger.
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ Per Good Subjective, Bad Subjective, answers here should follow the the Back It Up! principle: Your answer should be based on personal experience of how that solution works out in practice in a LARP. The experience can be your own, or someone else's that you can cite. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 9, 2018 at 22:48
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Just to clarify, are you open to significant changes in playstyle or core mechanics (e.g. eliminating combat entirely, or switching to consent-based combat resolution), or are you just looking for some trick to make your players behave differently while keeping essentially the same setting, theme and mechanics? Or something in between? \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 11, 2018 at 4:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ @IlmariKaronen I would be interested in hearing about such a solution, perhaps I will even try such a thing once a day, but I am currently unlikely to accept it. Feel free to submit such an answer, though! Would be nice if you also write about the environment where you use your system. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 11, 2018 at 5:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ You've actually reminded me of one historical LARP that I've been to 10 years ago where combat essentially required consent, but it made sense because it was about the French Queen's birthday, it was in a palace that was presumed to be full of guards who would detain anyone trying to start combat. To fight someone (to have a duel) people had to go to a designated place (a hidden place with no palace guards), take special protected equipment and swords, and fight using special rules. I remember this going well, so I would upvote your answer based on my experience. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 11, 2018 at 5:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ What is at stake for a potential answer? Are the players not having fun? Are you, NPCs, or other GMs not having fun? \$\endgroup\$
    – user52772
    Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 19:40

4 Answers 4


Generally you need to build reasons why murder is disadvantageous into the setting. The details will tend to be very setting dependant, and will vary depending on what level and type of murder you want to include/exclude from your game. Below are some examples which I have seen work, with a bit of context on the game style.

Odyssey (~300 players): A game which featured 5 player factions based on classical myth. We designed the game to allow any PvP within a faction but very carefully controlled PvP between factions. A feature of the setting were real gods who would both speak to players after their death and enact punishment on their faction for violations of the worlds rules. If a member of one faction murdered a member of another faction then the gods would punish the entire faction of the murderer. Generally we would find murderers sacrificed to the gods before we even found out the murder had happened.

Maelstrom (~1000 Players): A game I played which featured both immortal souls and skills needed to speak to the dead. The game was highly political with shifting factions, as well as some NPC support for the hosting faction (which varied from event to event). The nature of the soul meant that it was difficult (but not impossible) to hide the details of a murder. Murder was common, but rarely done without planning and forethought, as it would tend to have consequences, especially if the event hosts were keen on law and order. Specifically, the friends of your victim would tend to find out that you were responsible for the murder unless you were clever and careful about a murder (sometimes even then). The friends of the victim would then speak to other groups with a reason to punish you. This could just be your enemies, it might be characters who have a strong desire to uphold the law, it might be mercenaries they have paid. However, a common outcome of murder was a large group of people (larger than any friends you might have) coming along and killing you.

Memento Mundi (4-8 players vs 6-14 monsters): A very small game which I ran for several years. This was a high combat game where killing the enemies was largely the point of the game. There were 2 ways a player might face repercussions for a murder. If the authorities in the city the players came from considered the victim a citizen and heard about the murder, then they might find themselves with a price on their head, unable to go on certain adventures, or even with exploding control collars round their neck. If the victim wasn't a citizen of the city then they were unlikely to face any consequences unless other players took issue with it or if they ran into an enemy force allied with the victim.


You have a large number of players and a limited crew presence. This basically means that you need to find ways to ensure that your players are policing other players. You do this by ensuring that there are in-game laws of some sort, PCs gain advantage by enforcing them, and that players are broken up into subgroups so that any one sub-group is always outnumbered by everyone else.

You don't need just one set of laws though, and different player groups could gain benefit from enforcing different sets of laws.

Ensure there are people who wish to investigate and resolve murders:

  • If your setting has religion, ensure that variations of murder are condemned by each faith, and ensure that there is some sort of reward mechanism for upholding the faith
  • If your setting has off-stage rulers, then some of your players can be law enforcement. Again, ensure that there are benefits to upholding the law: promotions, greater resources, favours.
  • Your background material can talk about the virtues of ensuring that transgressions against you are yours should be punished, to show that future transgressions are unwise.

Ensure that murders can be investigated:

  • For example, get recently deceased players to provide you a short write up of what happened to them when they were murdered. Give it a quick review to ensure that everything in it is appropriately IC, and then provide that writeup to people who are using appropriate skills (magic/divination/etc) to investigate.
  • Give players the option to roleplay their corpse for a while, so that they can describe what has been done to their body. Potentially provide a means of talking to the dead.
  • On the rare occasions where you have spare GMs and know enough about the murder, hang around the crime scene giving characters little details like "there is a patch of yellow fabric caught on this tree"

Where possible, make murder cause problems for friends of the murderer:

  • This is where my example above of god-given punishments on an entire nation fit in.
  • Lost diplomatic opportunities can also work. NPCs don't necessarily want to share their plot and loot with characters known for harbouring murders.
  • If your setting features ghosts, then they can haunt those associated with their death, reducing income and resources. Nothing will encourage people to find and punish a murderer like a piece of paper reading "Angry ghosts haunt you sleep demanding justice for Bob, your mana pool is reduced by 1 until Bob's murder is caught."

Only specific characters should be allowed to kill, and/or only a specific set of circumstances should allow killing

Since the time I had asked the question, I attended two LARP events. Well, I actually attended more, but those two are what I want to talk about.

One was a very small game based on books by Mark Twain. It was about a small peaceful town near Mississippi, and a lot of children have attended this event along with their parents. Gamemasters have defined that only a specific set of characters will have weapons at all, that weapons were seldom used in this place, and the only murder that had happened there not so long ago attracted serious investigation. It was defined that most conflicts get resolved through words, and when words don't help, combat is non-lethal (there were special rules for that), the loser had to go home and stay there for some time until they "recovered". A doctor could speed up recovery, and there was only one available.

Finishing someone was only allowed if the murderer had a "serious personal grudge" against the victim, and nobody was actually killed at this event. Only two combat encounters have happened, both of them were non-lethal.

The other event was based on books by Stephen King (the Dark Tower setting) and set in the year 1992 in Ural (Russia). It was a post-apocalyptic world, and there were very few people left alive, so human lives were valued very much. Unless your character had the ability to finish anyone, the only way to kill someone was to execute them with a group of 4 people. Executions could only happen in public places, so it was not possible to rob someone on the road and finish.

There were some deaths at this event, but they all had strong in-game reasons behind them.

This all, plus my experience from other LARP events (like those mentioned in the question), tells me that violence should be limited by the rules, and finishing people should be limited even more. I have yet to see another solution that works that well.

A supplementary solution: do not promote murder by your mechanics

If you use XP or any similar mechanic, never ever reward killing something for no reason. On the contrary, reward non-lethal solutions with bigger mechanical rewards.

Limit looting

Another example was a Witcher LARP. Usually, around my area (Moscow, Russia) you need silver weapons to kill monsters, and witchers start with those. In order not to deal with witchers and not to pay them, people kill the witchers and loot the silver swords. So one of the LARP organizers has just forbidden looting silver swords from witchers. You can kill them, but you won't get a sword. You will lose an option to deal with monsters, not gain one, and other witchers will likely increase their prices due to the lowered competition, if even dealing with you at all.

Witchers died a lot less that summer than it happened before, if any have died at all (I don't remember exactly).

Of course, there is one more solution that can work -- filtering your players. However, it is not always possible (imagine a game with like several hundred participants), and not even always desired -- every LARP community needs fresh blood from time to time.

Usually, it's only feasible to have real casting for some important roles, not for every single in your game. And most game masters don't do even that.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Did the players enjoy the imposed low-death settings more than the settings described in the OP? Was it the product of the players (in the case of Mark Twain) being younger and supervised? You mention that the character deaths had more story consequence when it was prevented by the rules, but did the characters have more fun? It almost sounds like for the Witcher example, the players just wanted some advancement. I'm sure if there were easier ways to get the cool sword than mobbing an NPC, they'd do it... right? \$\endgroup\$
    – user52772
    Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 20:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @TylerGubala Yes, many players have specifically mentioned lower witcher death count being something good and attributed it to the looting limitation mentioned above. The Mark Twain game was just not about direct violence, a lot of good things made for a good coincidence: it was for children, it was not about direct combat, weapons and their lethality were limited, people didn't have that many strong conflicts compared to what people usually have at large-scale LARP, the fact that the game was small-scale is usually significant to lower death count itsel. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 21:23
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @TylerGubala The characters don't need to have fun -- fun is for the players. Yes, many players have noted that they had a lot of fun, many attributed that to lower death count. When one team went on a killing spree at the Witcher LARP, they were hated by many others. Yes, in the Witcher example, it's often about some advancement. No, just being more lenient about giving it neither helps nor is desired. Witchers are to be needed to deal with monsters effectively. The rules are written to make people hire a witcher to slay monsters, not to do it themselves. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 21:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ Right, fun for the players, hence asking "did the players enjoy...". I have no idea what your rules are written like, I figure locked in roles like that probably leave people wanting to kill the witcher guys to validate having the cool sword. Never did I say "just being more lenient about giving it", just that if there was some natural way to advance, the players would probably take the natural route, but I guess simply ruling against it works too. \$\endgroup\$
    – user52772
    Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 22:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ @TylerGubala The point is, in this setting people need witchers to effectively deal with monsters. It's better to remove this way of "advancing" towards being able to slay monsters with no help from witchers than to introduce new, "alternative" ones. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 15:35

Having been very close to an L5R LARP's organization group the past half year, I can give a little insight how they promoted not fighting, even as the LARP itself fell into the water due to some events:

There are almost no NPCs!

Almost every character on the LARP was to be a player. Samurai or farmer, it was a fellow player, never an NPC. The few NPCs that were to appear would have been fully-fledged characters, gods, or clearly dedicated to being killed (oni). This basic 'respect your peers' did help in past events of the organisators.


The setting itself was used to disincentive combat in the first place. Sure, every player samurai is in his right to just kill a player-heimin, but doing so without a just cause would violate the in-setting rules of bushido - and lead to your Daimyo demanding to commit Seppuku. The time in the setting was specifically chosen right after the Clan Wars with a newly crowned emperor to discourage open war and encourage intrigue and status play.


All Characters were somewhat casted. Not in a way that you couldn't say "I want to be XYZ" but in the way that the SL did discuss stuff with you and find a good place for your character idea in the world.

For the somewhat eloquent fighter guy, they found a spot as a Crane Yojimbo tasked with protecting another PC, but gave him the agenda that he disliked the Crab and Scorpion for their roles in the destruction of crane lands in the Clan Wars. For the heavyset but sensitive guy disliking a lot of combat in LARP they found a Crab Courtier role, who wants to marry a Crane. In doing so, they set up rivalries and conflicts between the characters, offering tons of avenues of play besides combat. Sure, the Crane could try to kill the Crab but he needs an excuse to demand to duel him, so he'd need to spin some intrigue first! Or he spins intrigue to force the crab to commit seppuku...


Consider running more non-combat storylines.


The LARP takes place during a wedding.

Characters that are in high demand include: Entertainers (musicians, actors, storytellers, jugglers), traders, chefs, visiting dignitaries, craftsmen, family of the bride and groom, local nobility, a priest or two.

Events that will occur include: A feast, a play, dancing, music, trade, friendly competitions. Off the side people may do crafts, hang out, play games with eachother, enjoy the good atmosphere, and pursue personal storylines.

Characters that are not in demand include: Soldiers, fighters, bandits, monsters.

Events that will not occur include: Combat.

In such games you can remove most rules for combat, simplifying it by a lot, and only allow a handful of players to even carry weapons.

There are many plots that do not need to include violent conflict. Think about things that people can do that does not boil down to violence: Character interaction, investigation, exploration, management, crafting, and also think about genre's outside of action: Drama, slice of life, mystery, romance, maybe horror. Then build LARPS around such stories instead.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .