Been running an adventure module nearly year and a half. There was an average eight player a week which whittled down to 5-6 on the regular after the first few months. There was a couple players that join mid game and dipped about 4-5 session after. The game is moving into the final few sessions and now I'm getting frequent "day of" excuses or no-shows without warning. The players are almost level 10. My question is at the bottom of this post.
Things that were obvious red flags for me:
•Exceptional paranoia.
I notice players trying to do skill checks they may have pb in but the class/sub class doesn't openly add any additional support for. They do these types of rolls and checks which inevitably fails maybe once or twice at certain moments then they basically swear off doing the skill, even against low CR creatures and NPCs.
Players assume every room and door is trapped. This slugs gameplay down immensely, they have passive investigation and perception higher than any trap currently set in the module but must insist to check anyways. The only things they can't really see is the magically invisible which is far and very few. They've only ever ran into two.
Players refuse to leave the main road. This started happening early in adventure: a player, who unfortunately knew the module to some extent, stirred the players away from investigating landmarks with possible encounters. Most of these landmarks contain plot clues or simply lore to understand the surroundings of the region. Without the knowledge for some kind of direction the players stuck to main cities, and even when banned or kicked out (no short of scarring the populace or blatant murder) refused to leave the area despite being outside of town. Some random events happen just off-road and I left the choice up to them. Bad or good, they didn't investigate any of these events, or avoided them completely.
•No direction.
I alluded to it. When the paranoia kicked in, the players had a hard mind set to refuse any sort of job that may seem like any amount of possible danger. They knew what they've fought already in the early random encounters of the region to be doable. What they didn't want was to walk into anything they knew nothing (even if arbitrarily believe they knew nothing). Reasonable. In early game they did very little scouting. Few players were new and I provided light suggestions they could use their familiars, stealth, wildshape, invisibility etc... They eventually picked it up mid game.
Knowing that little less than half of the party were new to open story telling and only experienced in video games, I gave light subtle suggestions on where the players should go next. When the players were wondering where to go (even after subtle hints), an NPC would drop by and give/ask to complete or aid in something, and the "group" ignore it. Best example was two NPCs dragged a player to the side and asked to help go investigate a troubled/missing person, 5-10 minutes later the player returns to the group and makes no mention of it. Most of these "side" quests were actually to help players explore the places they were intended to go to or get them back to the main plot. Mid to late game, the players kept running back and forth between two towns, and told me they don't know what to do. I made an open list of all the things people had asked them to do. They still didn't read it, until a late joining player made it a habit to grab their attention with the list.
I finally decided to look for some advice on how to invest the players into the module's lore, so I started shoving some background elements from every player's story into this. This was exceptionally difficult with a couple players, because they had open ended/blank backgrounds. When I asked "what would they like to see" they told me to do what I want or the other response "I don't know". I tried filling in the gaps, but I cannot read minds. In the end, the stuff I made for them didn't catch their interests. For the others that did catch their interests, it suddenly became too personal.
•Inner party conflict.
It is natural that players have different perspective on things, what I didn't realize the big disconnect going on between two PCs and the rest of the party. A schism had formed and I didn't catch the biased decisions another PC was making against the rest of the group for one, why another was constantly darting alone, nor the banter (which sounded fairly tamed) but seen as a personal attack despite making references at the PC and not the player. The player was again new to D&D and I feel I am at fault for not catching it earlier. I realized the animosity way to late. Eventually the new player came to me and mention the issue. I asked people in a later session to reduce the negativity and not knock any ideas. This appeared to have worked as players openly avoided anymore accusations. I still see a concern, but will not mention it here as it could possibly ID the individual.
Mistakes PCs had made in the past were brought up fairly often as a remainder. There were plenty and it's being held against them, which isn't fair to say the least considering the situations was not suppose to have a right or wrong answer.
Gray decisions, the module is set around it. People stake their personal morals into it and they feel it gets undervalued when a mistake happens, so they stop suggestion all together in fear the other PCs hold it against them.
•Inside box thinking.
People forget this is a story telling game with the probability of success is based on a dice roll. Me, being something of a rules lawyer, did not help with this problem as the players only assumed they could do the set things within the book. I made it clear several times about homebrew and improvised actions; allowed but caveats.
I was willing to work the PCs on anything they would like to see added within reason (magic or otherwise). However, I've set the bar on outside "good" homebrew very high, as I constantly reference the DMG to make sure damage, skills, and bonuses were within normal rates. I've tacked posts to the campaign to let players know what was good or reasonable. I found out midway they didn't read these posts and I've decided to give some incentives to reading them (in retrospect this wasn't a good thing). I was reminded again not long ago that no one reads these posts. In the end, someone tossed me 6-7 homebrew classes to read through that were underrated and then never mentioned again by the player. (Personally, not a fan of how the public database is handled for homebrew content)
Players took some of videogame knowledge and tried applying it in D&D... from mechanical combat, awesome! For RP, not so much... Players proved time and time again they were very proficient in combat despite me throwing some mid to high level CR monsters their way. When it came to RP like gathering resources, talking to NPCs (and hostile ones) for info... they did nothing else from those two options, until very recently late game. It took some work for the players to realize they could have NPCs as allies rather alienating everyone. They generally ignored "populace NPCs", which unfortunately by design of the module, all carried some random nugget of information. Again, this is something they realized late game due to new players joining with said information they got from the local populace. They were also not aware you could in fact hire people, buy property, become a tyrant of a village, or basically anything outside of those two actions. I couldn't figure out why they stopped initially trying anything as they did when they first started playing the campaign. I've realized it was the culminations of the previous issues in this list that slowly gave descent into this routine. Doing the same thing all the time is not really fun, it becomes a chore at some point.
More than enough times did things not line up logically when players had the occasional discussions of clue and facts. I let these ride out early game, and treated the situation as the module prescribed (implied). This was mistake one. Players got lost and confused frequently. This led to the side quest idea to get them back on track, then I realized the second mistake. Players have varying degrees of taking notes or remembering things, some may even forget within 5 seconds (I'm guilty of this as well). Starting mid to late game, I figured I hand them whole clues and several possible connections to what these hints could possibly lead. That was mistake THREE. Some players took this as an insult and others relied on it heavily. This also took out any mystery behind these events, so no intrigue. MISTAKE FOUR. If I didn't say it, it must of not be possible or even feasible, a direct result of mistake three.
TLDR: Couple new players, rapid guest players, biases and constant negativity, survival paranoia, routine/bad habits, and my RL bad insight.
Less than obvious BS that only made sense in hindsight.
I didn't realize there was intentional sabotage. Those few "low participating players" that had cause massive in game hysteria and drama, then proceeded to dip out... I can conclude now there was no good will behind it. Fun? Maybe. Not for the group as a whole though.
The one min-maxer setup was difficult to deal with out feeling like I was punishing the entire party for changing the monsters to fit this enigma. I notice some players started feeling like they did not matter as the min-maxer was the only one capable of doing anything in most situations. They stole a lot of spot light in and out of combat.
The lone hunter scenario, I shot them down from splitting from the group after the third time, but they left after that. It's a shame.
The rules lawyer, which one that I cannot compare. Got into a +30 minute argument over something exceptionally silly for RAW versus gray values, which got labeled as homebrew by said rules lawyer. Player left after. Homebrew or not, second time I got into brought into DM court and watch the gallery dying behind me waiting for a recession to go back to the adventuring table.
The +1. Never again. Again I'm not the best on insight of people. When someone claims to have played D&D for 2 or 3 years, but still doesn't know what a character sheet is and rarely participates; this should be a no brainier. I felt bad for multiple reasons, ultimately they dropped as well.
Some players have quirks, which I realized only far to late. Not all of them are beneficial to the player themselves but at the same-time I wonder how I sound to the players. I got told, maybe a little late that when "you talk, they don't listen". It more or less reconfirmed my fears personally about how I speak, tone, tempo, the words I used (which are repetitive), and things I say which includes the implicit and the direct within the same sentence. There was more context behind that quote. Players tend to miss things I say because I personally do not sound memorable or the things I describe sound rather plain.
This ordeal is... stressful.
It doesn't get any easier with the game coming to it's rising conclusion. Morality is turning very gray for the players as majority are invested in an NPC, Objective, PC, or a background PC. The combat is no longer trivial, strategies I've been holding back on are getting put into play, which from the player perspective seems almost cheesy (I've been mostly throwing brutish type/melee types until the last three fights). A date (whether it has any sort of baring) is slightly looming in the back of their minds as the end times.
I have made several DM taboos during this campaign. Here are some not captured above:
Opposing/neutral player faction. I admit to this, the player wanted out of it and I tried offering solutions but I saw no progress or effort to leave. To my dismay multiple players had figured out this player's deal and also made no visible effort to help, it only continued to fester and create dissent. Only when I decided to pull the plug on this the players retaliated against this faction.
Building a key scenario that involves "a" PC. Multiple times, almost as if they had a sixth sense, the player(s) I needed to be in the session had cancelled. Which made scheduling less flexible in some cases.
Favoritism. It was something I was trying to avoid since the very beginning. I realized that I've hit the same two players up most of the time when it came to group decisions. Even more so when a player was doing opposite faction stuff. Again, even after writing this I was more aware of it the last few sessions, yet the damage is already done.
No session 0. This wasn't intentional. This module extended from a one-shot. People had ignored the guidelines (in bloody text no less) I've set up during the character creation process which meant not all players had the same level of choice at the beginning. It was supposed to be a one-shot, so I ignored it.
The question I want to pose is this: should we continue the module?
Several key items were collected, at the BBEG door step, the players are near maximum level for this (given the circumstances of events don't change), probably 2-3 session left out of a 30+ game.
Two players want to complete this as it is something that was left unfinished from a previous game. (One joined mid-game, the other closer to the end)
Three players have been in since the very beginning. (Their participation has become more spotty as of late)
One is new, but far exceeds any expectation I have of a new player to D&D. (Joined late game)
Most of the individuals listed in the BS hindsight section are gone. (They are not coming back, and to be honest I would keep it that way)
I too wish to see this completed. To give the players their dues, to have this story come to a close and hopefully in a satisfying manner.
I would hate to see this come to an inconclusive end before the module/campaign wraps up. I will be too busy for the rest of the year to focus on this. Maybe a short hiatus to reduce the stress? Or should I cut losses at this point? A non-D&D get together?
Venting a little, laying out thoughts, any outside opinions are welcome...
It sounds like what you really need is the delayed session 0 you should have had to clear the air and let your remaining players decide what they want to do. In the end it is their decision after all not yours.
It sounds like what you really need is the delayed session 0 you should have had to clear the air and let your remaining players decide what they want to do. In the end it is their decision after all not yours.
I guess that would be the best way to handle it.
Though, not clearly stated, the people who are from the very beginning acted they wanted to do a session that weekend and had dipped out day off. It would seem like typical scheduling conflict, but I know this isn't the truth. It's been happening more frequently as the game is nearing the end and becoming more stressful. I was made aware as to why, which I had hope keeping the anonymity amongst the group while addressing problems as they propped. However, I can tell that people are jumping instantly in retaliation even when there's benign talk. So, if the party isn't going to be truthful in group chat, then I figured a more executive decision needs to be made.
a player, who unfortunately knew the module to some extent, stirred the players away from investigating landmarks with possible encounters.
If it was at all possible, I wouldn't play with the type of people to both read the module and publicly metagame using that knowledge. These are the absolute worst people to have at the table, and I can't trust anything they say after they've established themselves as this dishonest and lame. We're playing an incredibly low-stakes narrative-based game with friends, and you still can't stop yourself from cheating? Revolting.
After years of playing and DMing I have learned to NEVER let a group start to attack each other inside or outside the game.
The trouble makers go. No matter what.
In our present game I am running a Gnome with a distrust if not a slight hate of Orcs and we have an Orc in the group. We are both playing it very well. He is working on building my trust and I am working on trusting him. If you have players actively working at harming other players and it does not fit their back story its time for them to change or go.
As for the players not having the courage to go exploring off of the main path of the story then they need to see a reward for checking out new places and things. Cash, magic or experience. Figuring out a mystery is a part of the game and should be rewarded accordingly. Even if they do not figure out the mystery in real life give them the investigation roll (after they get the clues)for a chance then just tell them when they pass.
Taking a group day off for stress relief is a great idea. Offer some suggestions to the group and let them pick or come up with their own. My group goes out drinking or target shooting or just something as simple as a visit to the zoo. Just try to make it a group event with no game talk.
This is a tough one as there are multiple options.
after a year and a half, I think the easiest and fairest way is to expedite the end. Cut a few corners and make one or two sessions the final ones. Get everyone the ending and start fresh. Session zero but late probably won’t help this late in the game. Habits have formed. Boundaries are set and if it’s close to the end I think you need to just push through, or stop entirely.
If people miss the finale that’s on them. But YOU don’t feel like you are having fun. And the saying no D&D is better than bad is absolutely true. And you count towards that. End it. One way or the other. Either a hiatus, an expedited end, or the use of epilogues (which is probably not the best option imho but it’s a viable one).
But at the least this is stuff you know to watch for now next time. It sounds like you had an unlucky amount of problem players in the game
a player, who unfortunately knew the module to some extent, stirred the players away from investigating landmarks with possible encounters.
If it was at all possible, I wouldn't play with the type of people to both read the module and publicly metagame using that knowledge. These are the absolute worst people to have at the table, and I can't trust anything they say after they've established themselves as this dishonest and lame. We're playing an incredibly low-stakes narrative-based game with friends, and you still can't stop yourself from cheating? Revolting.
a player, who unfortunately knew the module to some extent, stirred the players away from investigating landmarks with possible encounters.
If it was at all possible, I wouldn't play with the type of people to both read the module and publicly metagame using that knowledge. These are the absolute worst people to have at the table, and I can't trust anything they say after they've established themselves as this dishonest and lame. We're playing an incredibly low-stakes narrative-based game with friends, and you still can't stop yourself from cheating? Revolting.
Agreed! I've been playing D&D for decades and I've been DM'ing for a couple of years. I know a lot of things about the monsters that we're fighting that my characters don't know. There are several times when I've made poor choices in combat like casting a cold spell against an opponent that was resistant to cold damage because it's what my character would have done. Playing the character is a lot more fun than using my knowledge and experience to "win" is.
I appreciate some of the advice and I did view the polls. So, there will be an attempt to finish the campaign, but I definitely want to incorporate a get together that isn't D&D. If not simply to relieve the stress, as well as to remind everyone that Player ≠ PC. Almost our entire interaction as a group so far has been DM and players.
TPK and invite selected people to roll up a new character
I have considered it. With the current set of players I have I would prefer it happen naturally. If that moment comes, I would ask them how would they like to die? Goofy, epic, or with melancholy?
One of the things my in person group does (all adults) is a monthly lunch at a restaurant. We change the venue each month trying to sample the best our area has - at least at a price range we can all afford. This event is not just for the players - family members are invited too.
I did not vote, because none of the answers suit what really needs done.
Talk to your players. Openly. All together. Tell them how you feel and what you've noticed and allow them to make their cases for or against continuing. Find your table's consensus and go with that answer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Been running an adventure module nearly year and a half. There was an average eight player a week which whittled down to 5-6 on the regular after the first few months. There was a couple players that join mid game and dipped about 4-5 session after. The game is moving into the final few sessions and now I'm getting frequent "day of" excuses or no-shows without warning. The players are almost level 10. My question is at the bottom of this post.
Things that were obvious red flags for me:
•Exceptional paranoia.
I notice players trying to do skill checks they may have pb in but the class/sub class doesn't openly add any additional support for. They do these types of rolls and checks which inevitably fails maybe once or twice at certain moments then they basically swear off doing the skill, even against low CR creatures and NPCs.
Players assume every room and door is trapped. This slugs gameplay down immensely, they have passive investigation and perception higher than any trap currently set in the module but must insist to check anyways. The only things they can't really see is the magically invisible which is far and very few. They've only ever ran into two.
Players refuse to leave the main road. This started happening early in adventure: a player, who unfortunately knew the module to some extent, stirred the players away from investigating landmarks with possible encounters. Most of these landmarks contain plot clues or simply lore to understand the surroundings of the region. Without the knowledge for some kind of direction the players stuck to main cities, and even when banned or kicked out (no short of scarring the populace or blatant murder) refused to leave the area despite being outside of town. Some random events happen just off-road and I left the choice up to them. Bad or good, they didn't investigate any of these events, or avoided them completely.
•No direction.
I alluded to it. When the paranoia kicked in, the players had a hard mind set to refuse any sort of job that may seem like any amount of possible danger. They knew what they've fought already in the early random encounters of the region to be doable. What they didn't want was to walk into anything they knew nothing (even if arbitrarily believe they knew nothing). Reasonable. In early game they did very little scouting. Few players were new and I provided light suggestions they could use their familiars, stealth, wildshape, invisibility etc... They eventually picked it up mid game.
Knowing that little less than half of the party were new to open story telling and only experienced in video games, I gave
lightsubtle suggestions on where the players should go next. When the players were wondering where to go (even after subtle hints), an NPC would drop by and give/ask to complete or aid in something, and the "group" ignore it. Best example was two NPCs dragged a player to the side and asked to help go investigate a troubled/missing person, 5-10 minutes later the player returns to the group and makes no mention of it. Most of these "side" quests were actually to help players explore the places they were intended to go to or get them back to the main plot. Mid to late game, the players kept running back and forth between two towns, and told me they don't know what to do. I made an open list of all the things people had asked them to do. They still didn't read it, until a late joining player made it a habit to grab their attention with the list.I finally decided to look for some advice on how to invest the players into the module's lore, so I started shoving some background elements from every player's story into this. This was exceptionally difficult with a couple players, because they had open ended/blank backgrounds. When I asked "what would they like to see" they told me to do what I want or the other response "I don't know". I tried filling in the gaps, but I cannot read minds. In the end, the stuff I made for them didn't catch their interests. For the others that did catch their interests, it suddenly became too personal.
•Inner party conflict.
It is natural that players have different perspective on things, what I didn't realize the big disconnect going on between two PCs and the rest of the party. A schism had formed and I didn't catch the biased decisions another PC was making against the rest of the group for one, why another was constantly darting alone, nor the banter (which sounded fairly tamed) but seen as a personal attack despite making references at the PC and not the player. The player was again new to D&D and I feel I am at fault for not catching it earlier. I realized the animosity way to late. Eventually the new player came to me and mention the issue. I asked people in a later session to reduce the negativity and not knock any ideas. This appeared to have worked as players openly avoided anymore accusations. I still see a concern, but will not mention it here as it could possibly ID the individual.
Mistakes PCs had made in the past were brought up fairly often as a remainder. There were plenty and it's being held against them, which isn't fair to say the least considering the situations was not suppose to have a right or wrong answer.
Gray decisions, the module is set around it. People stake their personal morals into it and they feel it gets undervalued when a mistake happens, so they stop suggestion all together in fear the other PCs hold it against them.
•Inside box thinking.
People forget this is a story telling game with the probability of success is based on a dice roll. Me, being something of a rules lawyer, did not help with this problem as the players only assumed they could do the set things within the book. I made it clear several times about homebrew and improvised actions; allowed but caveats.
I was willing to work the PCs on anything they would like to see added within reason (magic or otherwise). However, I've set the bar on outside "good" homebrew very high, as I constantly reference the DMG to make sure damage, skills, and bonuses were within normal rates. I've tacked posts to the campaign to let players know what was good or reasonable. I found out midway they didn't read these posts and I've decided to give some incentives to reading them (in retrospect this wasn't a good thing). I was reminded again not long ago that no one reads these posts. In the end, someone tossed me 6-7 homebrew classes to read through that were underrated and then never mentioned again by the player. (Personally, not a fan of how the public database is handled for homebrew content)
Players took some of videogame knowledge and tried applying it in D&D... from mechanical combat, awesome! For RP, not so much... Players proved time and time again they were very proficient in combat despite me throwing some mid to high level CR monsters their way. When it came to RP like gathering resources, talking to NPCs (and hostile ones) for info... they did nothing else from those two options, until very recently late game. It took some work for the players to realize they could have NPCs as allies rather alienating everyone. They generally ignored "populace NPCs", which unfortunately by design of the module, all carried some random nugget of information. Again, this is something they realized late game due to new players joining with said information they got from the local populace. They were also not aware you could in fact hire people, buy property, become a tyrant of a village, or basically anything outside of those two actions.
I couldn't figure out why they stopped initially trying anything as they did when they first started playing the campaign. I've realized it was the culminations of the previous issues in this list that slowly gave descent into this routine. Doing the same thing all the time is not really fun, it becomes a chore at some point.
More than enough times did things not line up logically when players had the occasional discussions of clue and facts. I let these ride out early game, and treated the situation as the module prescribed (implied). This was mistake one. Players got lost and confused frequently. This led to the side quest idea to get them back on track, then I realized the second mistake. Players have varying degrees of taking notes or remembering things, some may even forget within 5 seconds (I'm guilty of this as well). Starting mid to late game, I figured I hand them whole clues and several possible connections to what these hints could possibly lead. That was mistake THREE. Some players took this as an insult and others relied on it heavily. This also took out any mystery behind these events, so no intrigue. MISTAKE FOUR. If I didn't say it, it must of not be possible or even feasible, a direct result of mistake three.
TLDR: Couple new players, rapid guest players, biases and constant negativity, survival paranoia, routine/bad habits, and my RL bad insight.
Less than obvious BS that only made sense in hindsight.
I didn't realize there was intentional sabotage. Those few "low participating players" that had cause massive in game hysteria and drama, then proceeded to dip out... I can conclude now there was no good will behind it. Fun? Maybe. Not for the group as a whole though.
The one min-maxer setup was difficult to deal with out feeling like I was punishing the entire party for changing the monsters to fit this enigma. I notice some players started feeling like they did not matter as the min-maxer was the only one capable of doing anything in most situations. They stole a lot of spot light in and out of combat.
The lone hunter scenario, I shot them down from splitting from the group after the third time, but they left after that. It's a shame.
The rules lawyer, which one that I cannot compare. Got into a +30 minute argument over something exceptionally silly for RAW versus gray values, which got labeled as homebrew by said rules lawyer. Player left after. Homebrew or not, second time I got into brought into DM court and watch the gallery dying behind me waiting for a recession to go back to the adventuring table.
The +1. Never again. Again I'm not the best on insight of people. When someone claims to have played D&D for 2 or 3 years, but still doesn't know what a character sheet is and rarely participates; this should be a no brainier. I felt bad for multiple reasons, ultimately they dropped as well.
Some players have quirks, which I realized only far to late. Not all of them are beneficial to the player themselves but at the same-time I wonder how I sound to the players. I got told, maybe a little late that when "you talk, they don't listen". It more or less reconfirmed my fears personally about how I speak, tone, tempo, the words I used (which are repetitive), and things I say which includes the implicit and the direct within the same sentence. There was more context behind that quote. Players tend to miss things I say because I personally do not sound memorable or the things I describe sound rather plain.
This ordeal is... stressful.
It doesn't get any easier with the game coming to it's rising conclusion. Morality is turning very gray for the players as majority are invested in an NPC, Objective, PC, or a background PC. The combat is no longer trivial, strategies I've been holding back on are getting put into play, which from the player perspective seems almost cheesy (I've been mostly throwing brutish type/melee types until the last three fights). A date (whether it has any sort of baring) is slightly looming in the back of their minds as the end times.
I have made several DM taboos during this campaign. Here are some not captured above:
The question I want to pose is this: should we continue the module?
I would hate to see this come to an inconclusive end before the module/campaign wraps up. I will be too busy for the rest of the year to focus on this.
Maybe a short hiatus to reduce the stress? Or should I cut losses at this point? A non-D&D get together?
Venting a little, laying out thoughts, any outside opinions are welcome...
It sounds like what you really need is the delayed session 0 you should have had to clear the air and let your remaining players decide what they want to do. In the end it is their decision after all not yours.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I guess that would be the best way to handle it.
Though, not clearly stated, the people who are from the very beginning acted they wanted to do a session that weekend and had dipped out day off. It would seem like typical scheduling conflict, but I know this isn't the truth. It's been happening more frequently as the game is nearing the end and becoming more stressful. I was made aware as to why, which I had hope keeping the anonymity amongst the group while addressing problems as they propped. However, I can tell that people are jumping instantly in retaliation even when there's benign talk. So, if the party isn't going to be truthful in group chat, then I figured a more executive decision needs to be made.
TPK and invite selected people to roll up a new character
If it was at all possible, I wouldn't play with the type of people to both read the module and publicly metagame using that knowledge. These are the absolute worst people to have at the table, and I can't trust anything they say after they've established themselves as this dishonest and lame. We're playing an incredibly low-stakes narrative-based game with friends, and you still can't stop yourself from cheating? Revolting.
After years of playing and DMing I have learned to NEVER let a group start to attack each other inside or outside the game.
The trouble makers go. No matter what.
In our present game I am running a Gnome with a distrust if not a slight hate of Orcs and we have an Orc in the group. We are both playing it very well. He is working on building my trust and I am working on trusting him. If you have players actively working at harming other players and it does not fit their back story its time for them to change or go.
As for the players not having the courage to go exploring off of the main path of the story then they need to see a reward for checking out new places and things. Cash, magic or experience. Figuring out a mystery is a part of the game and should be rewarded accordingly. Even if they do not figure out the mystery in real life give them the investigation roll (after they get the clues)for a chance then just tell them when they pass.
Taking a group day off for stress relief is a great idea. Offer some suggestions to the group and let them pick or come up with their own. My group goes out drinking or target shooting or just something as simple as a visit to the zoo. Just try to make it a group event with no game talk.
This is a tough one as there are multiple options.
after a year and a half, I think the easiest and fairest way is to expedite the end. Cut a few corners and make one or two sessions the final ones. Get everyone the ending and start fresh. Session zero but late probably won’t help this late in the game. Habits have formed. Boundaries are set and if it’s close to the end I think you need to just push through, or stop entirely.
If people miss the finale that’s on them. But YOU don’t feel like you are having fun. And the saying no D&D is better than bad is absolutely true. And you count towards that. End it. One way or the other. Either a hiatus, an expedited end, or the use of epilogues (which is probably not the best option imho but it’s a viable one).
But at the least this is stuff you know to watch for now next time. It sounds like you had an unlucky amount of problem players in the game
Agreed! I've been playing D&D for decades and I've been DM'ing for a couple of years. I know a lot of things about the monsters that we're fighting that my characters don't know. There are several times when I've made poor choices in combat like casting a cold spell against an opponent that was resistant to cold damage because it's what my character would have done. Playing the character is a lot more fun than using my knowledge and experience to "win" is.
Professional computer geek
I appreciate some of the advice and I did view the polls. So, there will be an attempt to finish the campaign, but I definitely want to incorporate a get together that isn't D&D. If not simply to relieve the stress, as well as to remind everyone that Player ≠ PC. Almost our entire interaction as a group so far has been DM and players.
I have considered it. With the current set of players I have I would prefer it happen naturally. If that moment comes, I would ask them how would they like to die? Goofy, epic, or with melancholy?
One of the things my in person group does (all adults) is a monthly lunch at a restaurant. We change the venue each month trying to sample the best our area has - at least at a price range we can all afford. This event is not just for the players - family members are invited too.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I did not vote, because none of the answers suit what really needs done.
Talk to your players. Openly. All together. Tell them how you feel and what you've noticed and allow them to make their cases for or against continuing. Find your table's consensus and go with that answer.