I am a pretty new DM and player. One thing I am struggling with as a DM is the players sometimes will either rush parts story or completely do a 180 and do something that derails the rest and I am left scrambling to improv. What advice do experienced dms have to combat this without taking the fun from the players and railroading them instead?
Also, on a semi related note, one of the players is a drow rogue that likes to kill things first and ask questions later (or usually not at all) and is usually the one sending the story into chaos and/or the player will intimidate and persuade everything. how should a DM handle a character like this and allow them to play their character how they want while not letting them completely run everything because they can have some crazy high rolls?
This is strictly my opinion, based on my experience.
1 -- Improv is 80% of being a DM.
2 -- Railroading is anything a DM does that takes away choice (agency) from the players, such as "you must do this"or "your choice is this or death".
3 -- When players rush parts or derail things, it is usually because they aren't invested in a story, or do not realize something is part of the story.
4 -- I suggest you take a session to discuss how everyone is supposed to be having fun, and if they don't like the adventure, then perhaps all of you should change to a different one, or if they do, they need to remember that they are supposed to be going forward.
5 -- With the disruptive one, after the table meeting, remind them that actions have consequences. People get angry when loved ones are killed, towns get angry when when people are killed, monsters get angry and start targeting people they think of as more dangerous, intimidation sometimes makes people smile and nod, then plan sneaky stuff like hiring assassins who are, I dunno, ten levels higher. They should be aware that just because it is a game, there are still consequences to their actions, and the two of you need to find a middle path.
6 -- Speaking of, much of this is stuff to address during a zero session: sticking to a story, not killing first and asking questions later, and such things. You can have a zero session whenever you need to, and if a story isn't keeping the attention of the adventurers, then you need to change it or go to a different one.
Not sure how much use any of that will be, but there ya go.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Most things were covered above but I would also add a player should not be able to intimdate / persuade EVERYTHING.
The rules aar ethe player descibes what they want to do and the DM narrates the results. I a player's character says "As the rats in the palace cellars that we were sent to kill were giant sized you, oh king should give me half the kingdom" does not mean he can immediately roll persuasion and on rolling 37 gets what was requested. As DM you decide whether the king waves them away with no reward for insolance, makes a commnet about that being a good joke and otherwise ignoring it or decide whether a roll is required and what uncertainly that reflects, you might decide he may give them a small amount extra based on a persuasion roll for example but the king will not give up half his kingdom for such a task so no roll is required. That is an extreme example but you asa DM decide whether a guard CAN be intimidated for example and only if that is the case should the player roll.
I am a pretty new DM and player. One thing I am struggling with as a DM is the players sometimes will either rush parts story or completely do a 180 and do something that derails the rest and I am left scrambling to improv. What advice do experienced dms have to combat this without taking the fun from the players and railroading them instead?
What you’re describing there we call “DMing.” That’s just part and parcel with the job. As I always say, “players do the darndest things.” You gotta just roll with whatever the players do. When DMing, I don’t “write a story.” That’s not my job. Authors write stories, DMs narrate worlds. I design (or adapt) a setting; populate it with NPCs and monsters; and give those characters personalities, goals and objectives. Then I determine what those characters would plan to accomplish those goals and objectives based on their personalities and then set those plans in motion. Then I drop the PCs into that setting and stuff just starts happening around them. The players have their characters interact with that environment and I just narrate what happens as a result of those interactions. The players steer the campaign, all I do is describe what they see when it gets wherever they’re going. Essentially they determine whatever happens next, I just describe it for them. Good DMs don’t write campaigns. Players and DM write campaigns together.
Also, on a semi related note, one of the players is a drow rogue that likes to kill things first and ask questions later (or usually not at all) and is usually the one sending the story into chaos and/or the player will intimidate and persuade everything. how should a DM handle a character like this and allow them to play their character how they want while not letting them completely run everything because they can have some crazy high rolls?
That’s not a problem with that character, it’s a problem with the player. Players ≠ Characters. You need to pull that player aside and have a conversation with them about how their character’s actions are disruptive to everyone else’s fun.
I am a pretty new DM and player. One thing I am struggling with as a DM is the players sometimes will either rush parts story or completely do a 180 and do something that derails the rest and I am left scrambling to improv. What advice do experienced dms have to combat this without taking the fun from the players and railroading them instead?
As everyone else says: that's just the way of things. No plan survives contact with the enemy players. As you go on, you'll get better at guessing which way they'll jump, but you can never be sure.
You'll get better at rolling with it over time, and at keeping a library of things like pregenerated encounters on hand, ready to reflavor and use, but there is no sin in saying "give me a few minutes to figure things out".
If you're not confident with your ability to roll with it yet, there's also the option of talking to your players, and getting them to agree to stay in a box ("We'll be exploring this dungeon"), or play an assigned-mission style game. ("For now, there's a wizard you work for")
Also, on a semi related note, one of the players is a drow rogue that likes to kill things first and ask questions later (or usually not at all) and is usually the one sending the story into chaos and/or the player will intimidate and persuade everything. how should a DM handle a character like this and allow them to play their character how they want while not letting them completely run everything because they can have some crazy high rolls?
You don't have to. In particular, this is a cooperative game, and people should be making characters that can more-or-less function in a group. A character like that is almost never a team player -- everything becomes about them; the party spends most of their time cleaning up after Stabby McStabPants. (It's tempting to start trying to enforce consequences for their actions, but that usually ends up with either them dominating the game even more, or one or more dead characters and likely ill feeling.)
Three main points to remember:
This is a cooperative game
Everyone's fun matters, including the DM
Most problems can be solved by stepping back from the game and having a conversation about what's going on. (Sometimes the solution involves people dropping out, or even the group dissolving. See point 2.)
My suggestion is make a group of encounters that you have no intention of using under normal circumstances anywhere from 8 to 20 should do and use them to work the party around to the adventure you are trying to run. On the very rare occasion where a group wants to go in a different direction take a break discuss with the group and don't be afraid to tell them if they want to continue in the direction you are going you will need time to prep
The player who is playing the drow should be reminded that while the long arm of the law may not be able to touch him thieves guilds do not like heat coming down on them because someone is going around killing people unnecessarily Also what that person is doing reflects on the party as well if such a thing happens in town as it were there could be repercussions for the entire party.
I am a pretty new DM and player. One thing I am struggling with as a DM is the players sometimes will either rush parts story or completely do a 180 and do something that derails the rest and I am left scrambling to improv. What advice do experienced dms have to combat this without taking the fun from the players and railroading them instead?
Also, on a semi related note, one of the players is a drow rogue that likes to kill things first and ask questions later (or usually not at all) and is usually the one sending the story into chaos and/or the player will intimidate and persuade everything. how should a DM handle a character like this and allow them to play their character how they want while not letting them completely run everything because they can have some crazy high rolls?
Okay, here's a follow up take on this too - the story belongs to the group of the players not the DM. A lot of DMs frequently make the mistake that their role is to tell a story. That's simply not the case and if you stick to that you're going to have a bad time. A GM's role, particularly in something like 5e D&D is more to build a world around the party. To construct the obstacles and minor lore in the world that the players will then interact with. I often liken it to an obstacle course or playground. You have no idea as a GM how the players will interact with that construction. Once you enter that mindset - the one of building the world - the game takes on a different spin. You're not entering with any expectation of the players who are 'supposed to do this one thing to achieve this one goal'. That vital piece of exposition you want to give the party to aid them in their quest, you now realise could be anywhere and in any form. Maybe you initially thought it would be on a desk in an office. But the party don't choose to go to the office. Maybe the note is on the corpse of someone? Maybe it's in the hands of messenger? Maybe it's not a note, but instead is a half overheard conversation in the Tavern. The important part isn't what form and location the exposition is in. The important part is in the opportunity to encounter the exposition.
So in all honesty - don't try to write a story, there are better formats to do that. Instead, build a world. Fill it with small stories that aren't the 'main' story by all means, but they should be flavourful and environmental in service of the world at large.
The players as a group - you included - write the story of the party as a collaborative process. If they choose a different direction to what you imagined that's not railroading, that's the process. Railroading largely is a player or GM removing agency from the players by saying this person goes here and does this
As to the player in question - consequences would be my answer. I would simply ensure that they have comeuppances. Now the actions of killing first asking questions later (or not at all) can often mean that the party miss out on things. In one session, I ended by fading out leaving the party at the inn drinking and eating while narrating that the magical cloak the dead NPC had hidden would now remain lost for all time. The look on the players' faces when they realised that they could have not killed the NPC and maybe gotten some cool loot was priceless. Of course that's just one tactic. The other is to have people get uncomfortable with them. What happens if there are a group who keep going around killing everything in their path? Do you think the townsfolk of the next place they turn up to are going to be comfortable around these bloodstained characters? Perhaps the Innkeeper is going to refuse service to the characters while their covered in blood and gore? The consequences that you choose are going to need to be tailored to the players and the party. This is again where I say the process is collaborative.
On that note, up until now I've assumed that the player in question is only a problem for you. If however this player is causing friction or drawing complaints from other players in the group, then you do have a problem. It's at that point you might need to consider either a quiet word or an out and out removal of said player. That's a call that only you will know if you need to make though.
Just a couple of comments which might reinforce some of the comments above ...
1) "the player will intimidate and persuade everything" ... this is up to you as the DM. A character can't intimidate or persuade "everything" unless you let them. However, there are MANY circumstances where intimidation or persuasion are impossible. No matter how high the character might roll ... even a 20 ... success is impossible. Sometimes, a DM calls for a die roll just to give the player the impression there is a chance, then they roll a 20 and the DM sometimes feels like that have to say Yes. The answer to that is No.
There are two approaches to dealing with this situation ... either don't ask for a roll and just narrate that the character tries as hard as they can to intimidate or persuade but the NPC ignores them (This is usually the better approach since it makes it clear to the player that success is impossible).
If you have gone the route of allowing a die roll then you explain the the player that the task was impossible for their character to succeed at with their present modifier. The rolling is simply a mechanism to prevent the player from knowing when tasks are actually not possible for them to succeed at.
Things like convincing a noble to give them money, the king to abdicate, intimidating the royal guard at the castle into letting them pass ... might all be impossible.
2) Have an out of game chat with all the players but particularly the one that likes to kill folks first ... explain that this behavior is very anti-social and that the characters live in a society with groups like town guards, bounty hunters, perhaps some magistrates, maybe some law and order, or maybe just vigilante justice. Consider this from the perspective of the townsfolk. They make money from adventurers who need supplies, want to relax, etc ... but they don't want to die for it. An adventurer who kills the townsfolk for no reason will find themselves hunted, banned, perhaps caught and executed. The villagers are scared and angry - this shouldn't happen to them - that adventurer needs to pay if only to make sure other adventurers don't think it is ok to extort or kill the townsfolk.
So, explain to the player that their character is much more likely to, realistically, be somewhat selective in the folks they decide to attack first and skip questioning later. The creatures they attack may be innocent bystanders, they could be victims, good guys or bad guys ... you really don't know until you stop for a second to ask a question. After explaining, you can then add that the NPCs may be "imaginary" but they have emotions, thoughts, motivations, desires, ideas, plans ... ask them to consider what they would do in a medieval society with a limited legal system in which a stranger entered the town then killed their best friend because they refused to give them free booze at the tavern? What would they expect the townsfolk to do in response to someone behaving that way?
Some players will respond to the description of the NPCs and their reactions since they just haven't thought about going around attacking first and killing possibly innocent people might mean in the context of the game ... they might not have thought whether "Is this something my character would really do?". Other players will be swayed by the thought that the character actions will have in game consequences which could very well include the imprisonment or death of the character.
If they decide to continue to play the way there were then it is clear that they don't mind the consequences ... so go with death or imprisonment and have them roll up another character and hope that they will go with something more party friendly (this is assuming that they are actually roll-playing it and it is the character and not player personality that is driving the behavior). On the other hand, sometimes the player just enjoys being the star, hogging the limelight, disrupting the story and uses the excuse "it is what my character would do". If this remains a problem then you may have to ask them to leave the campaign since the issue is fundamentally a player problem and not a character one.
3) Have a discussion with everyone that a party of adventurers is a team. They work together to achieve goals and they CHOOSE to work together because they can achieve those goals efficiently and/or they like the other characters. A character/player that kills everything, jumps into combat all the time or dominates the social interactions isn't being a team playing player and may not be a team playing character.
The other characters would really have no reason to adventure with a character that was such a poor team player ... rogues are a dime a dozen, the party would boot the rogue that is a problem and find another one. Basically, the player is playing a character that the party would never adventure with voluntarily ... as such either the character needs to be changed or perhaps the player needs to change.
(1) It is OK to be upfront with players about railroading.
GM: Look, if you want your characters to do that, they can, but I haven't prepared for it. We'll call it early tonight (so you lose some gameplay) and I'll put together something for next week, but it will probably be a bit rough. Or, you can have your characters do this, which I've spent weeks preparing, which I reckon is of a much higher quality than if I have to make stuff up on the fly. Your call.
For example, my last 5E game was Princes of the Apocalypse. We all discussed it before we started and I was quite blunt. "If we start this, your characters are not going to leave the Dessarin Valley. If you are not happy with this, if you want your characters to be far-ranging travellers, then you need to me know right now, before I put untold hours of over-preparation into it."
(1a) It's OK to take time to improvise. In fact, it is expected.
No plan survives contact with the players so you will have to improvise. A lot. Ask the players for a bit of time (couple of minutes? 5-10 mins?) while you come up with something. Sublty suggest that one of them should get you a cup of tea while you are doing this heh heh heh.
(2) A player who has their character do disruptive stuff like that is a player who is not invested in the world. They are not treating the game world as a real world - they are treating it as a canvas where they can do whatever they want. They don't care.
As a GM you can't force anyone to care about the world, but you can provide them with lots of opportunities.
Liberally sprinkle in things that players might care about and watch for emotional responses.
Name everyone. Don't have the characters encounter "the stablehand", have them encounter "Dominic, the young stablehand, takes the reins. He nods at the fighter, saying 'Morning Mr McFighterFace, I've got the carrots I know your horse likes'."
Have the world react in realistic ways. Make everything have consequences. If a character intimidates a guard then sometime later they encounter that guard, who remembers them and reacts accordingly. If the party kills someone then at a later stage a person they need to meet with is unavailable because they are attending a funeral.
"Yeah, sad thing, the burgomeister's son got killed in a bandit raid, so she''s off burying the boy. Your business will have to wait till next week." It doesn't matter if the PCs killed that particular boy (it is a better scene if they didn't), what matters is that the players see the world responding in a believable way. They see a "world" not a "game board".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am a pretty new DM and player. One thing I am struggling with as a DM is the players sometimes will either rush parts story or completely do a 180 and do something that derails the rest and I am left scrambling to improv. What advice do experienced dms have to combat this without taking the fun from the players and railroading them instead?
Also, on a semi related note, one of the players is a drow rogue that likes to kill things first and ask questions later (or usually not at all) and is usually the one sending the story into chaos and/or the player will intimidate and persuade everything. how should a DM handle a character like this and allow them to play their character how they want while not letting them completely run everything because they can have some crazy high rolls?
This is strictly my opinion, based on my experience.
1 -- Improv is 80% of being a DM.
2 -- Railroading is anything a DM does that takes away choice (agency) from the players, such as "you must do this"or "your choice is this or death".
3 -- When players rush parts or derail things, it is usually because they aren't invested in a story, or do not realize something is part of the story.
4 -- I suggest you take a session to discuss how everyone is supposed to be having fun, and if they don't like the adventure, then perhaps all of you should change to a different one, or if they do, they need to remember that they are supposed to be going forward.
5 -- With the disruptive one, after the table meeting, remind them that actions have consequences. People get angry when loved ones are killed, towns get angry when when people are killed, monsters get angry and start targeting people they think of as more dangerous, intimidation sometimes makes people smile and nod, then plan sneaky stuff like hiring assassins who are, I dunno, ten levels higher. They should be aware that just because it is a game, there are still consequences to their actions, and the two of you need to find a middle path.
6 -- Speaking of, much of this is stuff to address during a zero session: sticking to a story, not killing first and asking questions later, and such things. You can have a zero session whenever you need to, and if a story isn't keeping the attention of the adventurers, then you need to change it or go to a different one.
Not sure how much use any of that will be, but there ya go.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Most things were covered above but I would also add a player should not be able to intimdate / persuade EVERYTHING.
The rules aar ethe player descibes what they want to do and the DM narrates the results. I a player's character says "As the rats in the palace cellars that we were sent to kill were giant sized you, oh king should give me half the kingdom" does not mean he can immediately roll persuasion and on rolling 37 gets what was requested. As DM you decide whether the king waves them away with no reward for insolance, makes a commnet about that being a good joke and otherwise ignoring it or decide whether a roll is required and what uncertainly that reflects, you might decide he may give them a small amount extra based on a persuasion roll for example but the king will not give up half his kingdom for such a task so no roll is required. That is an extreme example but you asa DM decide whether a guard CAN be intimidated for example and only if that is the case should the player roll.
What you’re describing there we call “DMing.” That’s just part and parcel with the job. As I always say, “players do the darndest things.” You gotta just roll with whatever the players do. When DMing, I don’t “write a story.” That’s not my job. Authors write stories, DMs narrate worlds. I design (or adapt) a setting; populate it with NPCs and monsters; and give those characters personalities, goals and objectives. Then I determine what those characters would plan to accomplish those goals and objectives based on their personalities and then set those plans in motion. Then I drop the PCs into that setting and stuff just starts happening around them. The players have their characters interact with that environment and I just narrate what happens as a result of those interactions. The players steer the campaign, all I do is describe what they see when it gets wherever they’re going. Essentially they determine whatever happens next, I just describe it for them. Good DMs don’t write campaigns. Players and DM write campaigns together.
That’s not a problem with that character, it’s a problem with the player. Players ≠ Characters. You need to pull that player aside and have a conversation with them about how their character’s actions are disruptive to everyone else’s fun.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
As everyone else says: that's just the way of things. No plan survives contact with the
enemyplayers. As you go on, you'll get better at guessing which way they'll jump, but you can never be sure.You'll get better at rolling with it over time, and at keeping a library of things like pregenerated encounters on hand, ready to reflavor and use, but there is no sin in saying "give me a few minutes to figure things out".
If you're not confident with your ability to roll with it yet, there's also the option of talking to your players, and getting them to agree to stay in a box ("We'll be exploring this dungeon"), or play an assigned-mission style game. ("For now, there's a wizard you work for")
You don't have to. In particular, this is a cooperative game, and people should be making characters that can more-or-less function in a group. A character like that is almost never a team player -- everything becomes about them; the party spends most of their time cleaning up after Stabby McStabPants. (It's tempting to start trying to enforce consequences for their actions, but that usually ends up with either them dominating the game even more, or one or more dead characters and likely ill feeling.)
Three main points to remember:
My suggestion is make a group of encounters that you have no intention of using under normal circumstances anywhere from 8 to 20 should do and use them to work the party around to the adventure you are trying to run. On the very rare occasion where a group wants to go in a different direction take a break discuss with the group and don't be afraid to tell them if they want to continue in the direction you are going you will need time to prep
The player who is playing the drow should be reminded that while the long arm of the law may not be able to touch him thieves guilds do not like heat coming down on them because someone is going around killing people unnecessarily Also what that person is doing reflects on the party as well if such a thing happens in town as it were there could be repercussions for the entire party.
Just published a map on DriveThruRPG The Forgotten Temple
Okay, here's a follow up take on this too - the story belongs to the group of the players not the DM. A lot of DMs frequently make the mistake that their role is to tell a story. That's simply not the case and if you stick to that you're going to have a bad time. A GM's role, particularly in something like 5e D&D is more to build a world around the party. To construct the obstacles and minor lore in the world that the players will then interact with. I often liken it to an obstacle course or playground. You have no idea as a GM how the players will interact with that construction. Once you enter that mindset - the one of building the world - the game takes on a different spin. You're not entering with any expectation of the players who are 'supposed to do this one thing to achieve this one goal'. That vital piece of exposition you want to give the party to aid them in their quest, you now realise could be anywhere and in any form. Maybe you initially thought it would be on a desk in an office. But the party don't choose to go to the office. Maybe the note is on the corpse of someone? Maybe it's in the hands of messenger? Maybe it's not a note, but instead is a half overheard conversation in the Tavern. The important part isn't what form and location the exposition is in. The important part is in the opportunity to encounter the exposition.
So in all honesty - don't try to write a story, there are better formats to do that. Instead, build a world. Fill it with small stories that aren't the 'main' story by all means, but they should be flavourful and environmental in service of the world at large.
The players as a group - you included - write the story of the party as a collaborative process. If they choose a different direction to what you imagined that's not railroading, that's the process. Railroading largely is a player or GM removing agency from the players by saying this person goes here and does this
As to the player in question - consequences would be my answer. I would simply ensure that they have comeuppances. Now the actions of killing first asking questions later (or not at all) can often mean that the party miss out on things. In one session, I ended by fading out leaving the party at the inn drinking and eating while narrating that the magical cloak the dead NPC had hidden would now remain lost for all time. The look on the players' faces when they realised that they could have not killed the NPC and maybe gotten some cool loot was priceless. Of course that's just one tactic. The other is to have people get uncomfortable with them. What happens if there are a group who keep going around killing everything in their path? Do you think the townsfolk of the next place they turn up to are going to be comfortable around these bloodstained characters? Perhaps the Innkeeper is going to refuse service to the characters while their covered in blood and gore? The consequences that you choose are going to need to be tailored to the players and the party. This is again where I say the process is collaborative.
On that note, up until now I've assumed that the player in question is only a problem for you. If however this player is causing friction or drawing complaints from other players in the group, then you do have a problem. It's at that point you might need to consider either a quiet word or an out and out removal of said player. That's a call that only you will know if you need to make though.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Just a couple of comments which might reinforce some of the comments above ...
1) "the player will intimidate and persuade everything" ... this is up to you as the DM. A character can't intimidate or persuade "everything" unless you let them. However, there are MANY circumstances where intimidation or persuasion are impossible. No matter how high the character might roll ... even a 20 ... success is impossible. Sometimes, a DM calls for a die roll just to give the player the impression there is a chance, then they roll a 20 and the DM sometimes feels like that have to say Yes. The answer to that is No.
There are two approaches to dealing with this situation ... either don't ask for a roll and just narrate that the character tries as hard as they can to intimidate or persuade but the NPC ignores them (This is usually the better approach since it makes it clear to the player that success is impossible).
If you have gone the route of allowing a die roll then you explain the the player that the task was impossible for their character to succeed at with their present modifier. The rolling is simply a mechanism to prevent the player from knowing when tasks are actually not possible for them to succeed at.
Things like convincing a noble to give them money, the king to abdicate, intimidating the royal guard at the castle into letting them pass ... might all be impossible.
2) Have an out of game chat with all the players but particularly the one that likes to kill folks first ... explain that this behavior is very anti-social and that the characters live in a society with groups like town guards, bounty hunters, perhaps some magistrates, maybe some law and order, or maybe just vigilante justice. Consider this from the perspective of the townsfolk. They make money from adventurers who need supplies, want to relax, etc ... but they don't want to die for it. An adventurer who kills the townsfolk for no reason will find themselves hunted, banned, perhaps caught and executed. The villagers are scared and angry - this shouldn't happen to them - that adventurer needs to pay if only to make sure other adventurers don't think it is ok to extort or kill the townsfolk.
So, explain to the player that their character is much more likely to, realistically, be somewhat selective in the folks they decide to attack first and skip questioning later. The creatures they attack may be innocent bystanders, they could be victims, good guys or bad guys ... you really don't know until you stop for a second to ask a question. After explaining, you can then add that the NPCs may be "imaginary" but they have emotions, thoughts, motivations, desires, ideas, plans ... ask them to consider what they would do in a medieval society with a limited legal system in which a stranger entered the town then killed their best friend because they refused to give them free booze at the tavern? What would they expect the townsfolk to do in response to someone behaving that way?
Some players will respond to the description of the NPCs and their reactions since they just haven't thought about going around attacking first and killing possibly innocent people might mean in the context of the game ... they might not have thought whether "Is this something my character would really do?". Other players will be swayed by the thought that the character actions will have in game consequences which could very well include the imprisonment or death of the character.
If they decide to continue to play the way there were then it is clear that they don't mind the consequences ... so go with death or imprisonment and have them roll up another character and hope that they will go with something more party friendly (this is assuming that they are actually roll-playing it and it is the character and not player personality that is driving the behavior). On the other hand, sometimes the player just enjoys being the star, hogging the limelight, disrupting the story and uses the excuse "it is what my character would do". If this remains a problem then you may have to ask them to leave the campaign since the issue is fundamentally a player problem and not a character one.
3) Have a discussion with everyone that a party of adventurers is a team. They work together to achieve goals and they CHOOSE to work together because they can achieve those goals efficiently and/or they like the other characters. A character/player that kills everything, jumps into combat all the time or dominates the social interactions isn't being a team playing player and may not be a team playing character.
The other characters would really have no reason to adventure with a character that was such a poor team player ... rogues are a dime a dozen, the party would boot the rogue that is a problem and find another one. Basically, the player is playing a character that the party would never adventure with voluntarily ... as such either the character needs to be changed or perhaps the player needs to change.
Welcome to this side of the GM Screen!
(1) It is OK to be upfront with players about railroading.
GM: Look, if you want your characters to do that, they can, but I haven't prepared for it. We'll call it early tonight (so you lose some gameplay) and I'll put together something for next week, but it will probably be a bit rough. Or, you can have your characters do this, which I've spent weeks preparing, which I reckon is of a much higher quality than if I have to make stuff up on the fly. Your call.
For example, my last 5E game was Princes of the Apocalypse. We all discussed it before we started and I was quite blunt. "If we start this, your characters are not going to leave the Dessarin Valley. If you are not happy with this, if you want your characters to be far-ranging travellers, then you need to me know right now, before I put untold hours of over-preparation into it."
(1a) It's OK to take time to improvise. In fact, it is expected.
No plan survives contact with the players so you will have to improvise. A lot. Ask the players for a bit of time (couple of minutes? 5-10 mins?) while you come up with something. Sublty suggest that one of them should get you a cup of tea while you are doing this heh heh heh.
(2) A player who has their character do disruptive stuff like that is a player who is not invested in the world. They are not treating the game world as a real world - they are treating it as a canvas where they can do whatever they want. They don't care.
As a GM you can't force anyone to care about the world, but you can provide them with lots of opportunities.
Liberally sprinkle in things that players might care about and watch for emotional responses.
Name everyone. Don't have the characters encounter "the stablehand", have them encounter "Dominic, the young stablehand, takes the reins. He nods at the fighter, saying 'Morning Mr McFighterFace, I've got the carrots I know your horse likes'."
Have the world react in realistic ways. Make everything have consequences. If a character intimidates a guard then sometime later they encounter that guard, who remembers them and reacts accordingly. If the party kills someone then at a later stage a person they need to meet with is unavailable because they are attending a funeral.
"Yeah, sad thing, the burgomeister's son got killed in a bandit raid, so she''s off burying the boy. Your business will have to wait till next week." It doesn't matter if the PCs killed that particular boy (it is a better scene if they didn't), what matters is that the players see the world responding in a believable way. They see a "world" not a "game board".