So I've been playing DnD for maybe a "year" since I moved to the area I live in. It's a game and group of friends that my sister pulled me in and I did enjoy it in the beginning for the most part. We all work for the same company, although mostly different departments, and so for the most part it was easy to get together (although covid stopped a whole lot of sessions, were a bi-weekly group on top of that, not to mention the occasional life hiccup, which is why DnD probably has only been a "year").
Part of the issue for the scenario I am about to describe is because the game has evolved for them (I joined in the middle of a campaign they were already playing) and they were transferring from old rules (they started playing ADndD, switched to 3.5 at some point and than went to 5e) and so not everything's switched over, I've only ever known and played 5e so I can only look at things through that set of eyes. To add to that for the most part there is a bunch of rules that I truly enjoy at the homebrew table that I know I wouldn't find anywhere else and it has made the game more enjoyable for me and got me interested into wanting to play and choose the characters that I did (were a small group, DM plus a total of three players, each player plays two characters). Again, I have roughly enjoyed playing it for the most part.
However, the last session kind of makes me want to be done with the game, and I half feel like I'm being unrealistic in my feelings and also feeling justified in them at the same time.
This is the setup. The game that we were playing had a bunch of side quests that we had to do before we went back to the main story, the current side quest we went on (which we were originally told, weren't tied to the story, we just had to explore those areas to make sure the person were tracking isn't in those spots), my sister and I didn't even feel like really doing. We stepped into the dungeon, not very far and got attacked by ghosts (which the DM didn't realize their CR had been raised from earlier editions), two people got aged up due to ghost abilities, and do to not being quick enough (the people who got aged, also got frightened) to say we were following the others back outside, the party got split. One of my characters almost went unconscious (my sorcerer) and wasted all his sorcery points and half his spells to ensure we could get out of there since we were fighting six ghosts with three members (the other three were outside). Than I was kind of getting complaints that I wanted to rest to recover (the DM, npcs a bard who occasionally helps out) and the DM and one player wanted to drink potions and go back outside (I also half was insisting because it was late, past our usual quitting time and it seemed like a decent place to stop).
It took us a couple of breaks due to life things, and in between I kept checking my inventory to see if something would be useful, and my sister and I kept talking and just thought our characters should leave and come back later (party is unbalanced, we have a level 8, level 7, three six's and two tens, and the three six's have leveled up one time in this campaign and no one else has leveled since I started playing), but the DM outside of the game insisted that he was shocked we were scared of a few ghosts (even though we kept saying whatever in the dungeon would be worse) and kept trying to say we should handle it.
Well than we got down to the bottom and we found a lich....and than the last game I played a pick up of that game. So we found a lich at the bottom of the dungeon, and while he didn't use everything that he could as a lich (the DM also didn't realize how strong a lich was and so he downplayed, a little bit, what the lich could do). Now mechanically, all I can reference is critical role since my experience goes down them and playing myself, and I do know that at the end of the Day the DM gets the final word, but playing the game just got me angry. I tried to counterspell a ritual spell the lich was performing, which I managed to succeed the check but than the DM decided since it was a ritual and had already been started previously that it was still going to go off (he did say at the time that due to this the next spell would be counterspelled). He also apologized in advance because he was going to have to juggle a lot and he wasnt used to some of the things he was doing (legendary actions and what not). He than let his Lich cast mirror image without letting me know he was going to use that spell (which was the lichs next regular action and therefore was not counterspelled like he said he would) and just described it by the lich split into two (which mirror image does three if I recall correctly). The DM used lair actions and we didn't know they were happening (I could understand if he wanted us to have surprises or what not, but I felt we should at least have gotten to roll if that was the case to try to understand what was going on, because I frankly didn't realize what was going on a good portion of the session).... at that point the shortest way to describe things is are characters are alive, the lich is free, and I just feel half cheated because two thirds of the party didn't want to go in to begin with.
I understand that the DM gets final call on things and it is ultimately his call but based off my past session I think maybe I'm the one with the main issue and so DnD just isn't for me.
You're not describing D&D; you're describing bad D&D. Playing bad D&D is not for anyone. Hopefully it was just a bit of an off day or two for your DM though and things will bounce back. Learning curves can be rough. Taking a breather, like Kotath says, might not be a bad idea but it's also ok to let your DM know it wasn't fun for you and why, as long as you stay civil about it. Sure, it is their call what happens and how they make rulings, but for most DMs the primary goal is everyone enjoying themselves (as it should be). A little feedback can help.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As Matt Coville says, not every group of friends will be a good dnd group. Not every band is Rush, where they enjoy playing music together for 30 years.
I think you'd have more fun if you played with a group that was familiar with the same rule system you were, and had similar things they were looking for from the game itself.
Less relevant, but the mismatched party was the one detail that clued me into the fact that these people really aren't that familiar with 5th Edition yet. Having party members of different levels is a very old school dnd thing that really isn't done anymore. 5e is not balanced for it, and odds are these days, if you're lower level than others in your party then you're going to have no fun while they grab all the spotlight. Either your party isn't aware of that, or they are aware of it and doing it anyways out of tradition (which is kinda crappy if it's still resulting in people not having fun).
Tldr; not every group is for everyone. Try playing with another group that knows 5e better, that you mesh with playstyle-wise. Odds are you'll have a much better time.
I hate to say it but that group sounds really… well not balanced and frustrating. Characters of different levels? That’s gonna make balance a nightmare and leave people feeling weaker. Dm twice not understanding the level and power of monsters. To the point that he is surprised when players struggle with things. Going from a few ghosts to a Lich in its lair with legendary and lair actions? Especially when the ghosts gave people trouble?
I am fairly sure this isn’t a published module so the person made this choice. To be fair they are probably a new DM but that seems like a real frustrating experience. Wild spikes in difficulty. Inconsistent management of mechanics. Difference in player level.
that just feels like bad dnd and I am not surprised it put you off but for what it is worth, I have never seen a game run like that in 5e. There are far better games out there and if you feel burned out then by all means take a break. But I wouldn’t write the hobby off as a whole. if you feel comfortable with it, an open chat with the dm may help. Or maybe try a game with other people and see if you like other styles better
I'll be blunt. Sounds like you had a bad session. The others have covered a lot of that in better detail than I could, but it's a bit of an over reaction to throw out D&D over one session. Especially since you've been enjoying it up until this point. It happens. It'll happen even with the best of DMs and players. Sometimes the problem is even us. That kind of thing happens with every game - and it doesn't mean that it's not going to be fun in the future.
You can patch things up with the DM, you can just suck it up and just get on with it or you can just give up on that group. But it seems soemwhat premature to be abandoning the game (D&D) entirely, because I don't think it's the game that's really the problem. If it keeps happening with different DMs and parties...then it might be time to say it's not for you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You mentioned transitioning from AD&D, then 3.5 then 5th edition, I'm curious in what time span that was done because I have to guess that any DM that attempts such a transition in a short amount of time is going to find themselves terribly unprepared, these systems and styles of play are so wildly different that about the only knowledge that carries over from one game to the next is the terminology. It's like learning to play American football and then walking onto a Rugby field and thinking... egg shaped ball, goal posts, tackling... I got this!
They started playing DnD with the group (only three, counting the DM, original members remain) about nine years ago. They started one campaign, than had to switch it up due to people leaving and than merged what was remaining of the two campaigns. They started with ADnD since that's what the DM was familiar with and within two years of starting they switched to 3.5.. they only started slowly trying to transition to 5e when I joined the group around three years ago.
While I haven't played any of the others I have done enough research (not much mind you) to know that the systems are vastly different than how they started and a part of me wants to say thats what some of the issues are. My biggest fear is that the DM has mentioned before that he has the final call on things (which I understand why) and I'm half afraid because of how upsetting I found the session to bring it up because if that is the actual playstyle were supposed to participate for an "epic battle" (which again was a side quest) than I can't see me wanting to participate because I found it frustrating that I couldn't even have a notion of how to actually play out the fight (other than you know just try to hit things until they die, and while valid strategy for a normalish encounter I do think strategy and tactics should be involved).
It sounds like you need to talk this through with the DM. Because the only Thing it sounds like you really hated was not being told when things were happening so you could react to it (and the ruling on ritually cast spells) so that you could use some strategy in it.
I get the feeling if he is a dm worth his salt then he won’t see that as an unreasonable thing.
if you are after more mechanics in a fight that’s also a perfectly reasonable request and something he may have fun planning with you.
either way I’d like to stress that by no means is D&D anything as rigid as that. In fact there are so many different ways to play it that it’s hard to put it into words. If this particular style is starting to frustrate then I am confident you will find one that works for you elsewhere
It sounds to me like your DM doesn't have enough 5e experience to be running a 5e campaign. I would hope your DM had AD&D experience and thought they could transition into a newer system on the fly. I wouldn't want to do that because I don't believe I could handle the transition well. I have no earthly idea why they would jump to 3.5e before jumping into 5e.
I am sure your DM is trying to do their best. It sounds like the players may not have much experience either. So you are are struggling to keep it straight what should be happening from one moment to the next. I don't want to cast any shade on which specific things happened that I wouldn't let go if it happened in my game. I would discuss it immediately after the session with the DM and not stop the session cold to hash it out. The DM does have the final say.
I encourage you to stay with this game and talk with your sister about how you feel, and also talk to your DM separately about how you feel. D&D is a rich game, and the fact that you stuck it out through some speed bumps shows me there is a good chance that with the right table full of players you will have a good time. Good luck.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
It sounds to me like your DM doesn't have enough 5e experience to be running a 5e campaign. I would hope your DM had AD&D experience and thought they could transition into a newer system on the fly. I wouldn't want to do that because I don't believe I could handle the transition well.
I don't think lacking experience with 5E has to be an issue for an aspiring 5E DM, but it would almost certainly require putting in more prep work to make up for it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It sounds to me like your DM doesn't have enough 5e experience to be running a 5e campaign. I would hope your DM had AD&D experience and thought they could transition into a newer system on the fly. I wouldn't want to do that because I don't believe I could handle the transition well.
I don't think lacking experience with 5E has to be an issue for an aspiring 5E DM, but it would almost certainly require putting in more prep work to make up for it.
It sounds less like a lack of experience with 5E and more like not actually reading 5E's rules and instead trying to run the game based on older rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It sounds to me like your DM doesn't have enough 5e experience to be running a 5e campaign. I would hope your DM had AD&D experience and thought they could transition into a newer system on the fly. I wouldn't want to do that because I don't believe I could handle the transition well.
I don't think lacking experience with 5E has to be an issue for an aspiring 5E DM, but it would almost certainly require putting in more prep work to make up for it.
It sounds less like a lack of experience with 5E and more like not actually reading 5E's rules and instead trying to run the game based on older rules.
Could be, clearly I wasn't there, but it feels to me like looking up the creatures he was going to use beforehand would have fixed a lot of the problems. The thing with not dispelling the ritual is annoying, but it's a ruling I suppose I could live with for the sake of the story (though I'd have let the player take a mulligan on using an action to cast Dispel Magic). Not realizing the difficulties of the various encounters is just a result of not enough and/or shoddy preparation work though. And aside from that, reading the rules would constitute prep work for someone not familiar (enough) with them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Going by what the OP said, it just sounds a lot like the same thing that happened to a group I was in with a GM who was used to 2E trying to run a game without bothering to read up on 5E rules. I suppose you could call it prep work, but I consider it a bit more basic than that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You mentioned transitioning from AD&D, then 3.5 then 5th edition, I'm curious in what time span that was done because I have to guess that any DM that attempts such a transition in a short amount of time is going to find themselves terribly unprepared, these systems and styles of play are so wildly different that about the only knowledge that carries over from one game to the next is the terminology. It's like learning to play American football and then walking onto a Rugby field and thinking... egg shaped ball, goal posts, tackling... I got this!
They started playing DnD with the group (only three, counting the DM, original members remain) about nine years ago. They started one campaign, than had to switch it up due to people leaving and than merged what was remaining of the two campaigns. They started with ADnD since that's what the DM was familiar with and within two years of starting they switched to 3.5.. they only started slowly trying to transition to 5e when I joined the group around three years ago.
While I haven't played any of the others I have done enough research (not much mind you) to know that the systems are vastly different than how they started and a part of me wants to say thats what some of the issues are. My biggest fear is that the DM has mentioned before that he has the final call on things (which I understand why) and I'm half afraid because of how upsetting I found the session to bring it up because if that is the actual playstyle were supposed to participate for an "epic battle" (which again was a side quest) than I can't see me wanting to participate because I found it frustrating that I couldn't even have a notion of how to actually play out the fight (other than you know just try to hit things until they die, and while valid strategy for a normalish encounter I do think strategy and tactics should be involved).
A 9 year campaign with such a slow progress in terms of leveling? I thought I leveled my players slowly.
It does sound that you are in a bad dnd campaign, do you and your sister have any other friends that would like to play? You could talk to them and see about starting your own game.
Its rough math but to hit 10th level in a AD&D game it would take roughly 100-115 session in a really slow (standard) moving game, assuming you play every week [then that is] roughly 2 years.
Two years at a weekly sitting. As a parent, I couldn't manage weekly meetings with those outside the home. We do ours once every two weeks, which can be a push. Between work/school, we can do evenings or weekends. Except, weeknights don't work very well for us. So weekends? However, Sundays are busy, and we don't want to give up every Saturday for D&D, we have other family to visit, day trips, we need to work on the house, they have their own schedules as well. So we do a session roughly once a fortnight, although we might squeeze in another occasionally. It's not hard to see someone deciding once a month, though. Especially if D&D is just one thing amongst several that they do.
So, to do 100-115 sessions, let's take the average of that which 107.5 sessions, doing 12 sessions a year, that's...pretty much spot on 9 years.
I don't see a problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
These are the key issues I see. Anything else that I have not highlight is not a real game issue, it's perhaps just a DM error, e.g. he forgot about it mid-combat, which happens.
we just had to explore those areas to make sure the person were tracking isn't in those spots), my sister and I didn't even feel like really doing.
This is poor DM'ing, because the DM has told you that there is no real point to doing the quests, which is going to limit motivation, but also because the DM is forcing your characters to do content that they have prepped regardless of your choices. There's a kind of contract between players and DM: the DM will make stuff, the players will do their best to find motivations to do it. Outright rejection of the content is not good playing on your part: the DM has put time and effort into making it for you to play. You need to change your mindset here, and try to make sure you engaging with the content. You don't have to do everything, or do it in the order the DM thinks, but if the DM has spent time planning a dungeon and provided a story reason to go there, then you should do your part and ensure that time hasn't been wasted.
the party got split
Don't split the party in dangerous situations. Any encounter designed for 6 players becomes extremely deadly if the party is split, especially given the state of levelling up (see below).
(the DM, npcs a bard who occasionally helps out) and the DM wanted to drink potions and go back outside.
The DM can play an NPC (a DMPC) but the DM must not use that NPC to try to advise, control or change player actions. If they do this then you are essentially hearing The Voice of God directing your actions with prior knowledge, or else you're purposefully being fed wrong information. I have a DMPC in my campaign; I roleplay her through the downtime with the players, I let one of the players control her in combat so that I don't let her take actions based on the knowledge I have, and she never suggests where to go, what to do next etc. You should tell the DM that the NPC Bard is a problem if it is used as the DM's in-game mouth piece, and it feels like you're being instructed on what to do without being able to make up your own mind. Your choices become limited: in-game, your character wants to enter the dark forest. The Bard pipes up "I think that looks too dangerous for us without resting first." Instantly, as a player you know that the DM is giving you information you shouldn't have. This limits your player agency.
(party is unbalanced, we have a level 8, level 7, three six's and two tens, and the three six's have leveled up one time in this campaign and no one else has leveled since I started playing)
This is such a problem. A level 10 PC with level 5 spells is so much stronger than a level 6 PC that the level 6 PC is basically just a tag-along. Lack of levelling is also an issue, and removes a core part of the game - I have literally played in a campaign that ended after 3 years because we only reached level 7 and hadn't advanced from 7 to 8 in a year of playing. Advise the DM that the low level PCs all need to level up to reach 10, and then you should expect to level up every 20-25 hours of gameplay (or whatever you think is fair based on campaign style) thereafter. If the DM does not want to run a game with levelling up, then I advise you to find a new table to play at.
I also advise that each player retires one character and you run one character each. I do not see an in-game benefit to running two characters each.
but the DM kept trying to say we should handle it.
As with the Bard, the DM should not be advising you on what you can and cannot handle, or what course of action you should take. You on the other hand need to be able to trust the groundwork in-game clues the DM has laid out to tell you whether you should be going to a particular location. As a general rule, if they planned it, then you should probably be able to handle it. But...
we found a lich
And herein lies a major problem. The DM has not balanced the game appropriately (a level 6 character is dead meat against a lich). So it's not surprising you're reluctant to plunge on into dungeons where you could meet a CR21 monster without warning. Tell your DM that the game feels too dangerous for the characters to undertake the content the DM is building, and that there needs to be some kind of warning sign of ultra-dangerous, high CR monsters. Ask them to use the Encounter Builder tool, erring on the side of caution until they get used to the 5e combat encounter balancing if they are still adjusting. Point out that the challenges are exciting and feel dangerous, but that due to the high level of danger from the creatures you encounter, you feel like your character isn't equipped to deal with them and would not want to go on adventuring.
He than let his Lich cast mirror image without letting me know he was going to use that spell (which was the lichs next regular action and therefore was not counterspelled like he said he wouldr
This could just be combat-error, or session fatigue. The DM should have retconned and allowed the counterspell. The DM should declare that the lich starts casting a spell as it has verbal and somatic components to allow your reaction.
The DM used lair actions and we didn't know they were happening
The DM should declare that a lair action is being used at initiative count 20, but they don't have to tell you what is happening if your character wouldn't reasonably know. They can describe the effects and ask for rolls without giving you all the information.
A 9 year campaign with such a slow progress in terms of leveling? I thought I leveled my players slowly.
It does sound that you are in a bad dnd campaign, do you and your sister have any other friends that would like to play? You could talk to them and see about starting your own game.
In my experience, a typical AD&D campaign would take 2x's as many 4-6 hour sessions as the level of the characters. So like going from 1st to 2nd level would take 2x2 (4) sessions, then from 2-3 it would take 2x3 (6) sessions and so on. Its rough math but to hit 10th level in a AD&D game it would take roughly 100-115 session in a really slow (standard) moving game, assuming you play every week roughly 2 years. You also got XP for gold and occasionally "quest end XP", so realistically you would probably have these big booms that might cut that down by 10-40 sessions depending on circumstance. Still way slower than what you get out of a typical 5e game, but 1 year per level... I don't know of any rules in the game that would cause that, it would have to be a complete DM fiat.
I dunno. Gonna go against the flow here and agree that maybe DnD isn't for you. It is a team game and I don't really get "team player" off of you. Sure, I can agree that you don't have the greatest DM on the planet. You also don't have to endure anything you don't find enjoyable during the course of an activity that is supposed to be fun but the problems you report are not anything that would incite me to walk away from the game. Your dissatisfaction really seems to boil down the DM and the others in the group not doing the things that you wanted to do, when you wanted to or the way that you wanted to do them. To be frank, this isn't bad gaming, this is poor sportsmanship on your part.
If you do decide to stick with the game, consider cutting your DM some slack. DM'ing is difficult; way more difficult than playing, most would agree. Or maybe you want to give DM'ing a go if you're so deeply disappointed in the way the game is run for you?
A 9 year campaign with such a slow progress in terms of leveling? I thought I leveled my players slowly.
It does sound that you are in a bad dnd campaign, do you and your sister have any other friends that would like to play? You could talk to them and see about starting your own game.
In my experience, a typical AD&D campaign would take 2x's as many 4-6 hour sessions as the level of the characters. So like going from 1st to 2nd level would take 2x2 (4) sessions, then from 2-3 it would take 2x3 (6) sessions and so on. Its rough math but to hit 10th level in a AD&D game it would take roughly 100-115 session in a really slow (standard) moving game, assuming you play every week roughly 2 years. You also got XP for gold and occasionally "quest end XP", so realistically you would probably have these big booms that might cut that down by 10-40 sessions depending on circumstance. Still way slower than what you get out of a typical 5e game, but 1 year per level... I don't know of any rules in the game that would cause that, it would have to be a complete DM fiat.
10th level after 100-115 sessions?
Omg that made me laugh so hard.
No, just no.
Just hit level 8 in an SKT weekly campaign my group has been playing since the beginning of September last year. I expect to see level 10 sometime in the spring, maybe April or May. So yes, it's very possible. Not every table plays at the same pace.
To be frank, this isn't bad gaming, this is poor sportsmanship on your part.
We stepped into the dungeon, not very far and got attacked by ghosts (which the DM didn't realize their CR had been raised from earlier editions)
(the DM also didn't realize how strong a lich was and so he downplayed, a little bit, what the lich could do)
This is objectively bad gaming and has nothing to do with sportsmanship. A basic minimum requirement for DMing is knowing how the monsters you chose to put in your adventure work. It's fine to put in challenges that are too strong for the party, but not if you're pushing them both in and out of the game to take them on.
There's only so much incompetence a person can take before the game is not fun. When your death - or your triumph for that matter - isn't ever based on any decisions you made as a player but rather how much the DM screwed up, the game is broken.
If a seven-year-old quit a little league game because the other team's coach "unknowingly" subbed in a team of adult pro players, that's not bad sportsmanship. It's not wanting to play a stupidly unbalanced game. Even if the pro players imposed a bunch of limits on themselves to try to readjust the game to being fair, it would be those actions that determined the outcome of the game.
Now it's true that DMing is always like this. We always have Tiamat sitting on the bench. Our power is unlimited and ultimately it's how much of that power we leverage against the PCs that determines whether they have a chance of succeeding or not. But being thoughtful about setting up encounters and setting the challenge level so that the players can win or lose based on their own merits and choices makes for a much more satisfying game. You don't end an encounter like that with the same feeling as you would taking out a lich at level 6, being keenly aware that it was pulling punches the whole fight. And that feeling that the players won or lost based on their own choices? That's like the heart of the game. That's why we play D&D.
I totally get behind the notion of rolling with it when the DM stumbles - I certainly appreciate it in my players when I screw up - but there is a point where you just need to stop the game and set the ultimatum that the DM either meet the minimum standards of the game or it's time to find a new DM. I don't think OP has necessarily reached that point, but I do think a break might be a good idea. And the DM definitely needs to get some feedback.
So I've been playing DnD for maybe a "year" since I moved to the area I live in. It's a game and group of friends that my sister pulled me in and I did enjoy it in the beginning for the most part. We all work for the same company, although mostly different departments, and so for the most part it was easy to get together (although covid stopped a whole lot of sessions, were a bi-weekly group on top of that, not to mention the occasional life hiccup, which is why DnD probably has only been a "year").
Part of the issue for the scenario I am about to describe is because the game has evolved for them (I joined in the middle of a campaign they were already playing) and they were transferring from old rules (they started playing ADndD, switched to 3.5 at some point and than went to 5e) and so not everything's switched over, I've only ever known and played 5e so I can only look at things through that set of eyes. To add to that for the most part there is a bunch of rules that I truly enjoy at the homebrew table that I know I wouldn't find anywhere else and it has made the game more enjoyable for me and got me interested into wanting to play and choose the characters that I did (were a small group, DM plus a total of three players, each player plays two characters). Again, I have roughly enjoyed playing it for the most part.
However, the last session kind of makes me want to be done with the game, and I half feel like I'm being unrealistic in my feelings and also feeling justified in them at the same time.
This is the setup. The game that we were playing had a bunch of side quests that we had to do before we went back to the main story, the current side quest we went on (which we were originally told, weren't tied to the story, we just had to explore those areas to make sure the person were tracking isn't in those spots), my sister and I didn't even feel like really doing. We stepped into the dungeon, not very far and got attacked by ghosts (which the DM didn't realize their CR had been raised from earlier editions), two people got aged up due to ghost abilities, and do to not being quick enough (the people who got aged, also got frightened) to say we were following the others back outside, the party got split. One of my characters almost went unconscious (my sorcerer) and wasted all his sorcery points and half his spells to ensure we could get out of there since we were fighting six ghosts with three members (the other three were outside). Than I was kind of getting complaints that I wanted to rest to recover (the DM, npcs a bard who occasionally helps out) and the DM and one player wanted to drink potions and go back outside (I also half was insisting because it was late, past our usual quitting time and it seemed like a decent place to stop).
It took us a couple of breaks due to life things, and in between I kept checking my inventory to see if something would be useful, and my sister and I kept talking and just thought our characters should leave and come back later (party is unbalanced, we have a level 8, level 7, three six's and two tens, and the three six's have leveled up one time in this campaign and no one else has leveled since I started playing), but the DM outside of the game insisted that he was shocked we were scared of a few ghosts (even though we kept saying whatever in the dungeon would be worse) and kept trying to say we should handle it.
Well than we got down to the bottom and we found a lich....and than the last game I played a pick up of that game. So we found a lich at the bottom of the dungeon, and while he didn't use everything that he could as a lich (the DM also didn't realize how strong a lich was and so he downplayed, a little bit, what the lich could do). Now mechanically, all I can reference is critical role since my experience goes down them and playing myself, and I do know that at the end of the Day the DM gets the final word, but playing the game just got me angry. I tried to counterspell a ritual spell the lich was performing, which I managed to succeed the check but than the DM decided since it was a ritual and had already been started previously that it was still going to go off (he did say at the time that due to this the next spell would be counterspelled). He also apologized in advance because he was going to have to juggle a lot and he wasnt used to some of the things he was doing (legendary actions and what not). He than let his Lich cast mirror image without letting me know he was going to use that spell (which was the lichs next regular action and therefore was not counterspelled like he said he would) and just described it by the lich split into two (which mirror image does three if I recall correctly). The DM used lair actions and we didn't know they were happening (I could understand if he wanted us to have surprises or what not, but I felt we should at least have gotten to roll if that was the case to try to understand what was going on, because I frankly didn't realize what was going on a good portion of the session).... at that point the shortest way to describe things is are characters are alive, the lich is free, and I just feel half cheated because two thirds of the party didn't want to go in to begin with.
I understand that the DM gets final call on things and it is ultimately his call but based off my past session I think maybe I'm the one with the main issue and so DnD just isn't for me.
You're not describing D&D; you're describing bad D&D. Playing bad D&D is not for anyone. Hopefully it was just a bit of an off day or two for your DM though and things will bounce back. Learning curves can be rough. Taking a breather, like Kotath says, might not be a bad idea but it's also ok to let your DM know it wasn't fun for you and why, as long as you stay civil about it. Sure, it is their call what happens and how they make rulings, but for most DMs the primary goal is everyone enjoying themselves (as it should be). A little feedback can help.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If, as in your case, you have an incredibly bad DM who doesn't do even minimalistic preparation then yeah, your D&D experience is going to suck ass.
As Matt Coville says, not every group of friends will be a good dnd group. Not every band is Rush, where they enjoy playing music together for 30 years.
I think you'd have more fun if you played with a group that was familiar with the same rule system you were, and had similar things they were looking for from the game itself.
Less relevant, but the mismatched party was the one detail that clued me into the fact that these people really aren't that familiar with 5th Edition yet. Having party members of different levels is a very old school dnd thing that really isn't done anymore. 5e is not balanced for it, and odds are these days, if you're lower level than others in your party then you're going to have no fun while they grab all the spotlight. Either your party isn't aware of that, or they are aware of it and doing it anyways out of tradition (which is kinda crappy if it's still resulting in people not having fun).
Tldr; not every group is for everyone. Try playing with another group that knows 5e better, that you mesh with playstyle-wise. Odds are you'll have a much better time.
I hate to say it but that group sounds really… well not balanced and frustrating. Characters of different levels? That’s gonna make balance a nightmare and leave people feeling weaker. Dm twice not understanding the level and power of monsters. To the point that he is surprised when players struggle with things. Going from a few ghosts to a Lich in its lair with legendary and lair actions? Especially when the ghosts gave people trouble?
I am fairly sure this isn’t a published module so the person made this choice. To be fair they are probably a new DM but that seems like a real frustrating experience. Wild spikes in difficulty. Inconsistent management of mechanics. Difference in player level.
that just feels like bad dnd and I am not surprised it put you off but for what it is worth, I have never seen a game run like that in 5e. There are far better games out there and if you feel burned out then by all means take a break. But I wouldn’t write the hobby off as a whole. if you feel comfortable with it, an open chat with the dm may help. Or maybe try a game with other people and see if you like other styles better
I'll be blunt. Sounds like you had a bad session. The others have covered a lot of that in better detail than I could, but it's a bit of an over reaction to throw out D&D over one session. Especially since you've been enjoying it up until this point. It happens. It'll happen even with the best of DMs and players. Sometimes the problem is even us. That kind of thing happens with every game - and it doesn't mean that it's not going to be fun in the future.
You can patch things up with the DM, you can just suck it up and just get on with it or you can just give up on that group. But it seems soemwhat premature to be abandoning the game (D&D) entirely, because I don't think it's the game that's really the problem. If it keeps happening with different DMs and parties...then it might be time to say it's not for you.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It sounds like you need to talk this through with the DM. Because the only Thing it sounds like you really hated was not being told when things were happening so you could react to it (and the ruling on ritually cast spells) so that you could use some strategy in it.
I get the feeling if he is a dm worth his salt then he won’t see that as an unreasonable thing.
if you are after more mechanics in a fight that’s also a perfectly reasonable request and something he may have fun planning with you.
either way I’d like to stress that by no means is D&D anything as rigid as that. In fact there are so many different ways to play it that it’s hard to put it into words. If this particular style is starting to frustrate then I am confident you will find one that works for you elsewhere
It sounds to me like your DM doesn't have enough 5e experience to be running a 5e campaign. I would hope your DM had AD&D experience and thought they could transition into a newer system on the fly. I wouldn't want to do that because I don't believe I could handle the transition well. I have no earthly idea why they would jump to 3.5e before jumping into 5e.
I am sure your DM is trying to do their best. It sounds like the players may not have much experience either. So you are are struggling to keep it straight what should be happening from one moment to the next. I don't want to cast any shade on which specific things happened that I wouldn't let go if it happened in my game. I would discuss it immediately after the session with the DM and not stop the session cold to hash it out. The DM does have the final say.
I encourage you to stay with this game and talk with your sister about how you feel, and also talk to your DM separately about how you feel. D&D is a rich game, and the fact that you stuck it out through some speed bumps shows me there is a good chance that with the right table full of players you will have a good time. Good luck.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I don't think lacking experience with 5E has to be an issue for an aspiring 5E DM, but it would almost certainly require putting in more prep work to make up for it.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It sounds less like a lack of experience with 5E and more like not actually reading 5E's rules and instead trying to run the game based on older rules.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Could be, clearly I wasn't there, but it feels to me like looking up the creatures he was going to use beforehand would have fixed a lot of the problems. The thing with not dispelling the ritual is annoying, but it's a ruling I suppose I could live with for the sake of the story (though I'd have let the player take a mulligan on using an action to cast Dispel Magic). Not realizing the difficulties of the various encounters is just a result of not enough and/or shoddy preparation work though. And aside from that, reading the rules would constitute prep work for someone not familiar (enough) with them.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Going by what the OP said, it just sounds a lot like the same thing that happened to a group I was in with a GM who was used to 2E trying to run a game without bothering to read up on 5E rules. I suppose you could call it prep work, but I consider it a bit more basic than that.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
A 9 year campaign with such a slow progress in terms of leveling? I thought I leveled my players slowly.
It does sound that you are in a bad dnd campaign, do you and your sister have any other friends that would like to play? You could talk to them and see about starting your own game.
Two years at a weekly sitting. As a parent, I couldn't manage weekly meetings with those outside the home. We do ours once every two weeks, which can be a push. Between work/school, we can do evenings or weekends. Except, weeknights don't work very well for us. So weekends? However, Sundays are busy, and we don't want to give up every Saturday for D&D, we have other family to visit, day trips, we need to work on the house, they have their own schedules as well. So we do a session roughly once a fortnight, although we might squeeze in another occasionally. It's not hard to see someone deciding once a month, though. Especially if D&D is just one thing amongst several that they do.
So, to do 100-115 sessions, let's take the average of that which 107.5 sessions, doing 12 sessions a year, that's...pretty much spot on 9 years.
I don't see a problem.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
These are the key issues I see. Anything else that I have not highlight is not a real game issue, it's perhaps just a DM error, e.g. he forgot about it mid-combat, which happens.
This is poor DM'ing, because the DM has told you that there is no real point to doing the quests, which is going to limit motivation, but also because the DM is forcing your characters to do content that they have prepped regardless of your choices. There's a kind of contract between players and DM: the DM will make stuff, the players will do their best to find motivations to do it. Outright rejection of the content is not good playing on your part: the DM has put time and effort into making it for you to play. You need to change your mindset here, and try to make sure you engaging with the content. You don't have to do everything, or do it in the order the DM thinks, but if the DM has spent time planning a dungeon and provided a story reason to go there, then you should do your part and ensure that time hasn't been wasted.
Don't split the party in dangerous situations. Any encounter designed for 6 players becomes extremely deadly if the party is split, especially given the state of levelling up (see below).
The DM can play an NPC (a DMPC) but the DM must not use that NPC to try to advise, control or change player actions. If they do this then you are essentially hearing The Voice of God directing your actions with prior knowledge, or else you're purposefully being fed wrong information. I have a DMPC in my campaign; I roleplay her through the downtime with the players, I let one of the players control her in combat so that I don't let her take actions based on the knowledge I have, and she never suggests where to go, what to do next etc. You should tell the DM that the NPC Bard is a problem if it is used as the DM's in-game mouth piece, and it feels like you're being instructed on what to do without being able to make up your own mind. Your choices become limited: in-game, your character wants to enter the dark forest. The Bard pipes up "I think that looks too dangerous for us without resting first." Instantly, as a player you know that the DM is giving you information you shouldn't have. This limits your player agency.
(party is unbalanced, we have a level 8, level 7, three six's and two tens, and the three six's have leveled up one time in this campaign and no one else has leveled since I started playing)
This is such a problem. A level 10 PC with level 5 spells is so much stronger than a level 6 PC that the level 6 PC is basically just a tag-along. Lack of levelling is also an issue, and removes a core part of the game - I have literally played in a campaign that ended after 3 years because we only reached level 7 and hadn't advanced from 7 to 8 in a year of playing. Advise the DM that the low level PCs all need to level up to reach 10, and then you should expect to level up every 20-25 hours of gameplay (or whatever you think is fair based on campaign style) thereafter. If the DM does not want to run a game with levelling up, then I advise you to find a new table to play at.
I also advise that each player retires one character and you run one character each. I do not see an in-game benefit to running two characters each.
but the DM kept trying to say we should handle it.
As with the Bard, the DM should not be advising you on what you can and cannot handle, or what course of action you should take. You on the other hand need to be able to trust the groundwork in-game clues the DM has laid out to tell you whether you should be going to a particular location. As a general rule, if they planned it, then you should probably be able to handle it. But...
we found a lich
And herein lies a major problem. The DM has not balanced the game appropriately (a level 6 character is dead meat against a lich). So it's not surprising you're reluctant to plunge on into dungeons where you could meet a CR21 monster without warning. Tell your DM that the game feels too dangerous for the characters to undertake the content the DM is building, and that there needs to be some kind of warning sign of ultra-dangerous, high CR monsters. Ask them to use the Encounter Builder tool, erring on the side of caution until they get used to the 5e combat encounter balancing if they are still adjusting. Point out that the challenges are exciting and feel dangerous, but that due to the high level of danger from the creatures you encounter, you feel like your character isn't equipped to deal with them and would not want to go on adventuring.
He than let his Lich cast mirror image without letting me know he was going to use that spell (which was the lichs next regular action and therefore was not counterspelled like he said he wouldr
This could just be combat-error, or session fatigue. The DM should have retconned and allowed the counterspell. The DM should declare that the lich starts casting a spell as it has verbal and somatic components to allow your reaction.
The DM used lair actions and we didn't know they were happening
The DM should declare that a lair action is being used at initiative count 20, but they don't have to tell you what is happening if your character wouldn't reasonably know. They can describe the effects and ask for rolls without giving you all the information.
10th level after 100-115 sessions?
Omg that made me laugh so hard.
No, just no.
I dunno. Gonna go against the flow here and agree that maybe DnD isn't for you. It is a team game and I don't really get "team player" off of you. Sure, I can agree that you don't have the greatest DM on the planet. You also don't have to endure anything you don't find enjoyable during the course of an activity that is supposed to be fun but the problems you report are not anything that would incite me to walk away from the game. Your dissatisfaction really seems to boil down the DM and the others in the group not doing the things that you wanted to do, when you wanted to or the way that you wanted to do them. To be frank, this isn't bad gaming, this is poor sportsmanship on your part.
If you do decide to stick with the game, consider cutting your DM some slack. DM'ing is difficult; way more difficult than playing, most would agree. Or maybe you want to give DM'ing a go if you're so deeply disappointed in the way the game is run for you?
Just hit level 8 in an SKT weekly campaign my group has been playing since the beginning of September last year. I expect to see level 10 sometime in the spring, maybe April or May. So yes, it's very possible. Not every table plays at the same pace.
This is objectively bad gaming and has nothing to do with sportsmanship. A basic minimum requirement for DMing is knowing how the monsters you chose to put in your adventure work. It's fine to put in challenges that are too strong for the party, but not if you're pushing them both in and out of the game to take them on.
There's only so much incompetence a person can take before the game is not fun. When your death - or your triumph for that matter - isn't ever based on any decisions you made as a player but rather how much the DM screwed up, the game is broken.
If a seven-year-old quit a little league game because the other team's coach "unknowingly" subbed in a team of adult pro players, that's not bad sportsmanship. It's not wanting to play a stupidly unbalanced game. Even if the pro players imposed a bunch of limits on themselves to try to readjust the game to being fair, it would be those actions that determined the outcome of the game.
Now it's true that DMing is always like this. We always have Tiamat sitting on the bench. Our power is unlimited and ultimately it's how much of that power we leverage against the PCs that determines whether they have a chance of succeeding or not. But being thoughtful about setting up encounters and setting the challenge level so that the players can win or lose based on their own merits and choices makes for a much more satisfying game. You don't end an encounter like that with the same feeling as you would taking out a lich at level 6, being keenly aware that it was pulling punches the whole fight. And that feeling that the players won or lost based on their own choices? That's like the heart of the game. That's why we play D&D.
I totally get behind the notion of rolling with it when the DM stumbles - I certainly appreciate it in my players when I screw up - but there is a point where you just need to stop the game and set the ultimatum that the DM either meet the minimum standards of the game or it's time to find a new DM. I don't think OP has necessarily reached that point, but I do think a break might be a good idea. And the DM definitely needs to get some feedback.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm