Ok so for context, first time DM, running a smaller campaign of death games and trials. In my next session, I'm intending for the group to complete a trial in which they will be setting pyres on fire as the closing ceremonies for a festival-themed village. However, there is a larger story of the person running the games having utmost political power in the land, and so I have a bunch of unknown "traitor" NPCs trapped inside the pyre that will burn and die when my players complete their mission. The goal is to help them understand the dark underbelly of these games and the harm that their cooperation with this leader and his games can cause.
BUT I don't want my players to feel despondent or upset with me as a DM, feeling as if the decision were taken out of their hands. They are aware that there are hostages of some kind trapped in the area and the opportunity was available for them to investigate the pyres to learn that there's people inside, they just didn't take that path so it might be a shock? Is this a reasonable thing to worry about, do I need to reconsider this path? Or is this just new DM anxiety?
First question: Have you talked about how "dark" this campaign could potentially be in a session zero? Or do they understand how dire "consequences", in general, can be?
Second question: Are you sure you gave the players the hints they needed to really investigate? A lot of times a DM will think they've dropped the most obvious hints but they actually completely flew right over the players' heads. Since it seems like you are between sessions now, you could get the players to recap the last session and see what they noticed and what they missed. If they very clearly missed any and all signs that there might be people in the pyres, you could give them one final chance right before they light them.
If the answer to both of those questions is "yes", I say go for it.
Honestly, for a new DM I'd advise against trying to run deep layers like this. As was said above, it's easy to overestimate how strong of signals you're sending out for these things, and especially for a group that doesn't know you and/or doesn't have a strong working rapport with you as a DM, you really don't want to give the sense that you're going to railroad them into stuff they won't appreciate being made party to. If you're going to set up a twist like this in for a group like yours, I'd strongly suggest you don't leave a little thread you need to trust the players to spot/figure out. Throw some very obvious "there's sketchy stuff going on here" or "I have something you need to hear" points up, let them follow the trail.
If nothing else, you need to have been very explicit that their characters can end up accomplices to some really bad stuff if they make the wrong choices in this campaign. This isn't something you want to save for a sudden completely cold reveal, because people can easily self insert enough with their characters to take the character ending up party to something this dark reallyreally badly.
I love having some twisted villains. Makes taking them down all the more satisfying. I remember the very first session of D&D I played we met an NPC and her son. Our fighter bonded with the kid, giving him a toy wooden sword. And we slept in their barn. Come morning and the villain had attacked the farm, murdered the kid, and kidnapped the mother. It filled us with a resolve to TAKE. HIM. DOWN. And it was awesome!
But on the flip side it is something that depends on the group. Whereas I love twisted villains others don't. So it might be worth checking with the players, "Hey, how gritty do we want to get?"
If you find from that that the party might not be inclined towards "OMG. We just lit a man on fire." Then perhaps a way to keep the kind of twist is for them to light the pyre as part of the closing ceremony. But then the villain brings out the traitors a-la Roman Coliseums to be eaten by lions while the pyre burns. And then the players have to make a decision if they want to try saving the captives or if they have to wait.
Ok so for context, first time DM, running a smaller campaign of death games and trials. In my next session, I'm intending for the group to complete a trial in which they will be setting pyres on fire as the closing ceremonies for a festival-themed village. However, there is a larger story of the person running the games having utmost political power in the land, and so I have a bunch of unknown "traitor" NPCs trapped inside the pyre that will burn and die when my players complete their mission. The goal is to help them understand the dark underbelly of these games and the harm that their cooperation with this leader and his games can cause.
BUT I don't want my players to feel despondent or upset with me as a DM, feeling as if the decision were taken out of their hands. They are aware that there are hostages of some kind trapped in the area and the opportunity was available for them to investigate the pyres to learn that there's people inside, they just didn't take that path so it might be a shock? Is this a reasonable thing to worry about, do I need to reconsider this path? Or is this just new DM anxiety?
The act of being a DM and telling a story that the players walk through doesn't guarantee they will like the story or get a "positive result" from the story, but you have to keep writing and playing out stories. That's the point of the game and so inevitably players will like some stories and they will hate others, it's.... inevitable. You can't curate this or somehow anticipate or prepare them for it.
Write stories you think are good and let the chips fall where they may.
Just play it out and see what happens. They will either like it or they won't...
Did you go over this kind of stuff in session zero? It seems like a big part of the story. I mean, there’s a difference I think between spoiling it and making your characters aware of what they signed up for.
I think the concept is fine, but as others mentioned, you need to know your party very well. If you tried this story with my wife, for instance, she'd probably never play with you again. On the other hand, my D&D group would probably react in exactly the way you're probably looking for. We're playing Strahd, and they just got psychologically tortured because they had the choice to fight him or let him slaughter a load of innocent civilians in...and they were not strong enough to win a fight against him. You could cut the air with a knife. It was a very tense, dramatic and just fantastic moment.
But, I knew they would enjoy it (not at the time, but afterwards when the tension was released). I knew them and how they would take it, particularly the tension of the question, do they want to be heroes, or do they want to survive? I also know that my wife would hate that tension...so I would never pull that one on her. Neither is right or wrong, just different tastes and preferences.
Them being tricked into killing innocents isn't itself a bad ploy. It can really give the campaign a kick and make the whole thing work. But you really need to know the desires and tastes of your party, know how they'll feel and react. Ideally, you'll already know because you got to know them as people and also set out expectations in session 0.
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.
One of the possibilities is to do a perception check - if they pass, they notice some movement and noise coming from inside as they set it on fire. They then have an extended task to complete in a time limit, should they remember their heroic natures.
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.
Never ever assume the players have picked up on your hints. Always assume any conclusions they do pick up is 180 degrees from what you expect them to think. Many times the DM needs to hit the players with a 2x4 before they pick up on a clue, but then don't expect them to have the same conclusion as you.
The reason the PCs never pick up on clues is the lack of context. The DM may give a great description etc. but still can't convey the full context so they have different interpretation.
The goal is to help them understand the dark underbelly of these games and the harm that their cooperation with this leader and his games can cause.
Do the players actually understand this goal/context?
Why would the players understand the dark underbelly. What have you explicitly given them for them to even comprehend there even is a dark underbelly?
That is why sabin76 has great advice. Find out what the players know (not PCs) so far.
How do the characters not see or hear these trapped prisoners? I'd imagine they are going to make a lot of noise and also try to wriggle out. What's the setup that doesn't let the characters see it before it's too late?
That's the bit I am struggling with. A Wicker Man twist could be fun but I'm not sure of the logistics and why the characters don't get a check to realize what's happening before it's too late.
My characters have killed plenty of innocents, and it shapes them and I'm fine with that. I would find it especially horrible though to burn innocent, aware people to death with no knowledge or clue that the people were in there or chance to consider trying to save them. This is perhaps accelerated by the fact that I happen to live in a place that has been touched by deadly wildfires.
If they didn't investigate the pyres beforehand, it means they had no clue that there was some point to doing so.
You could maybe get your same darkness by having them light it and then become instantly aware of the problem, with a path to save the people. Or, if you were open to them investigating the pyres, drop another clue that they should.
How much does having the player characters be responsible for starting the fires actually add to the game vs simply having them being present when someone else starts them?
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.
One of the possibilities is to do a perception check - if they pass, they notice some movement and noise coming from inside as they set it on fire. They then have an extended task to complete in a time limit, should they remember their heroic natures.
This was my thought. Let them know what’s happening. Tricking the players is not fun — honestly, it’s not even a challenge owing to the information imbalance inherent in the way the game works. As DM, you can just do it and it doesn’t really show anything to anyone. Giving them information and letting them make choices is where the fun is, imo.
So they go to one of these pyres and see people are in there. The king or whoever assures the party that these people inside are evil. The worst of the worst. They are simply receiving justice for their crimes after having gone through the appropriate legal processes. (And from our king’s pov, this is simply factual, no deception check required.) Now what do the characters do? Refuse knowing that someone else will set the fires? Try to free the people? Take the king’s word? Something else? To me, that’s much more interesting and also allows the player’s agency in what the characters are doing.
Ok so for context, first time DM, running a smaller campaign of death games and trials. In my next session, I'm intending for the group to complete a trial in which they will be setting pyres on fire as the closing ceremonies for a festival-themed village. However, there is a larger story of the person running the games having utmost political power in the land, and so I have a bunch of unknown "traitor" NPCs trapped inside the pyre that will burn and die when my players complete their mission. The goal is to help them understand the dark underbelly of these games and the harm that their cooperation with this leader and his games can cause.
BUT I don't want my players to feel despondent or upset with me as a DM, feeling as if the decision were taken out of their hands. They are aware that there are hostages of some kind trapped in the area and the opportunity was available for them to investigate the pyres to learn that there's people inside, they just didn't take that path so it might be a shock? Is this a reasonable thing to worry about, do I need to reconsider this path? Or is this just new DM anxiety?
Other folks have already stressed how important it is to talk about tone in a session 0, make sure your players picked up on your hints, etc.
HOWEVER, even if you think you've checked all those boxes, still get to the big reveal and your players are genuinely upset at you for what you've made their PCs unwitting accomplices to... there's still an out
Have the tyrant give a little speech about the traitors that met justice in the pyres. Have the characters/players be horrified at the "goodwill" they just earned, and who from. Then... have them be contacted by a member of the resistance to the tyrant (there is a resistance movement, right?), who lets the party know (maybe after judging their reaction to what they just participated in) that the hostages were actually rescued via underground tunnels (or whatever means might make sense), and corpses substituted in their place to try and fool the authorities
The players still get the message you're sending, but don't feel like murderers if that's not a line they wanted to cross in the campaign
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
We are not the people you should be talking to about this.
Talk to your players and make sure they are ok with this level of dark. Also if you do go through with this, don't punish them with alignment changes or broken oaths, or marks of sin or whatnot because they did not choose evil, they were tricked into it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
Never ever assume the players have picked up on your hints. Always assume any conclusions they do pick up is 180 degrees from what you expect them to think. Many times the DM needs to hit the players with a 2x4 before they pick up on a clue, but then don't expect them to have the same conclusion as you.
The reason the PCs never pick up on clues is the lack of context. The DM may give a great description etc. but still can't convey the full context so they have different interpretation.
The goal is to help them understand the dark underbelly of these games and the harm that their cooperation with this leader and his games can cause.
Do the players actually understand this goal/context?
Why would the players understand the dark underbelly. What have you explicitly given them for them to even comprehend there even is a dark underbelly?
That is why sabin76 has great advice. Find out what the players know (not PCs) so far.
Remember, any clues you leave will always seem obvious to you, since you already have the answer. I used to game with someone who could never figure that fact out, even when multiple gaming groups in our area (gamers TALK) used his name as shorthand for a clue that provides no context to the mystery even after everything is known.
And for an example many posters would be familiar with, Robert Jordan insisted until his death that a certain character death should have had an obvious killer from the page where it happened, yet it took the eventual reveal from the estate for the overwhelming majority to figure it out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok so for context, first time DM, running a smaller campaign of death games and trials. In my next session, I'm intending for the group to complete a trial in which they will be setting pyres on fire as the closing ceremonies for a festival-themed village. However, there is a larger story of the person running the games having utmost political power in the land, and so I have a bunch of unknown "traitor" NPCs trapped inside the pyre that will burn and die when my players complete their mission. The goal is to help them understand the dark underbelly of these games and the harm that their cooperation with this leader and his games can cause.
BUT I don't want my players to feel despondent or upset with me as a DM, feeling as if the decision were taken out of their hands. They are aware that there are hostages of some kind trapped in the area and the opportunity was available for them to investigate the pyres to learn that there's people inside, they just didn't take that path so it might be a shock? Is this a reasonable thing to worry about, do I need to reconsider this path? Or is this just new DM anxiety?
First question: Have you talked about how "dark" this campaign could potentially be in a session zero? Or do they understand how dire "consequences", in general, can be?
Second question: Are you sure you gave the players the hints they needed to really investigate? A lot of times a DM will think they've dropped the most obvious hints but they actually completely flew right over the players' heads. Since it seems like you are between sessions now, you could get the players to recap the last session and see what they noticed and what they missed. If they very clearly missed any and all signs that there might be people in the pyres, you could give them one final chance right before they light them.
If the answer to both of those questions is "yes", I say go for it.
Honestly, for a new DM I'd advise against trying to run deep layers like this. As was said above, it's easy to overestimate how strong of signals you're sending out for these things, and especially for a group that doesn't know you and/or doesn't have a strong working rapport with you as a DM, you really don't want to give the sense that you're going to railroad them into stuff they won't appreciate being made party to. If you're going to set up a twist like this in for a group like yours, I'd strongly suggest you don't leave a little thread you need to trust the players to spot/figure out. Throw some very obvious "there's sketchy stuff going on here" or "I have something you need to hear" points up, let them follow the trail.
If nothing else, you need to have been very explicit that their characters can end up accomplices to some really bad stuff if they make the wrong choices in this campaign. This isn't something you want to save for a sudden completely cold reveal, because people can easily self insert enough with their characters to take the character ending up party to something this dark really really badly.
Just my opinion, but this sounds awesome.
I love having some twisted villains. Makes taking them down all the more satisfying. I remember the very first session of D&D I played we met an NPC and her son. Our fighter bonded with the kid, giving him a toy wooden sword. And we slept in their barn.
Come morning and the villain had attacked the farm, murdered the kid, and kidnapped the mother. It filled us with a resolve to TAKE. HIM. DOWN. And it was awesome!
But on the flip side it is something that depends on the group. Whereas I love twisted villains others don't. So it might be worth checking with the players, "Hey, how gritty do we want to get?"
If you find from that that the party might not be inclined towards "OMG. We just lit a man on fire." Then perhaps a way to keep the kind of twist is for them to light the pyre as part of the closing ceremony. But then the villain brings out the traitors a-la Roman Coliseums to be eaten by lions while the pyre burns. And then the players have to make a decision if they want to try saving the captives or if they have to wait.
This is a signature. It was a simple signature. But it has been upgraded.
Belolonandalogalo Malololomologalo Tumagalokumagalo, Sunny
Eggo Lass, Bone and Oblivion
Tendilius Mondhaven Paxaramus, Drakkenheim
Silverwood Group 1 | Silverwood Group 2 | Hacking the Hackett
Get rickrolled here. Awesome music here. Track 50, 9/23/25, The Mystery of Your Gift
The act of being a DM and telling a story that the players walk through doesn't guarantee they will like the story or get a "positive result" from the story, but you have to keep writing and playing out stories. That's the point of the game and so inevitably players will like some stories and they will hate others, it's.... inevitable. You can't curate this or somehow anticipate or prepare them for it.
Write stories you think are good and let the chips fall where they may.
Just play it out and see what happens. They will either like it or they won't...
Did you go over this kind of stuff in session zero? It seems like a big part of the story. I mean, there’s a difference I think between spoiling it and making your characters aware of what they signed up for.
I think the concept is fine, but as others mentioned, you need to know your party very well. If you tried this story with my wife, for instance, she'd probably never play with you again. On the other hand, my D&D group would probably react in exactly the way you're probably looking for. We're playing Strahd, and they just got psychologically tortured because they had the choice to fight him or let him slaughter a load of innocent civilians in...and they were not strong enough to win a fight against him. You could cut the air with a knife. It was a very tense, dramatic and just fantastic moment.
But, I knew they would enjoy it (not at the time, but afterwards when the tension was released). I knew them and how they would take it, particularly the tension of the question, do they want to be heroes, or do they want to survive? I also know that my wife would hate that tension...so I would never pull that one on her. Neither is right or wrong, just different tastes and preferences.
Them being tricked into killing innocents isn't itself a bad ploy. It can really give the campaign a kick and make the whole thing work. But you really need to know the desires and tastes of your party, know how they'll feel and react. Ideally, you'll already know because you got to know them as people and also set out expectations in session 0.
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.
One of the possibilities is to do a perception check - if they pass, they notice some movement and noise coming from inside as they set it on fire. They then have an extended task to complete in a time limit, should they remember their heroic natures.
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.
Never ever assume the players have picked up on your hints. Always assume any conclusions they do pick up is 180 degrees from what you expect them to think. Many times the DM needs to hit the players with a 2x4 before they pick up on a clue, but then don't expect them to have the same conclusion as you.
The reason the PCs never pick up on clues is the lack of context. The DM may give a great description etc. but still can't convey the full context so they have different interpretation.
Do the players actually understand this goal/context?
Why would the players understand the dark underbelly. What have you explicitly given them for them to even comprehend there even is a dark underbelly?
That is why sabin76 has great advice. Find out what the players know (not PCs) so far.
How do the characters not see or hear these trapped prisoners? I'd imagine they are going to make a lot of noise and also try to wriggle out. What's the setup that doesn't let the characters see it before it's too late?
That's the bit I am struggling with. A Wicker Man twist could be fun but I'm not sure of the logistics and why the characters don't get a check to realize what's happening before it's too late.
My characters have killed plenty of innocents, and it shapes them and I'm fine with that. I would find it especially horrible though to burn innocent, aware people to death with no knowledge or clue that the people were in there or chance to consider trying to save them. This is perhaps accelerated by the fact that I happen to live in a place that has been touched by deadly wildfires.
If they didn't investigate the pyres beforehand, it means they had no clue that there was some point to doing so.
You could maybe get your same darkness by having them light it and then become instantly aware of the problem, with a path to save the people. Or, if you were open to them investigating the pyres, drop another clue that they should.
How much does having the player characters be responsible for starting the fires actually add to the game vs simply having them being present when someone else starts them?
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.
Just make sure you and the players are playing the same game before you pull something like that.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
This was my thought. Let them know what’s happening. Tricking the players is not fun — honestly, it’s not even a challenge owing to the information imbalance inherent in the way the game works. As DM, you can just do it and it doesn’t really show anything to anyone. Giving them information and letting them make choices is where the fun is, imo.
So they go to one of these pyres and see people are in there. The king or whoever assures the party that these people inside are evil. The worst of the worst. They are simply receiving justice for their crimes after having gone through the appropriate legal processes. (And from our king’s pov, this is simply factual, no deception check required.) Now what do the characters do? Refuse knowing that someone else will set the fires? Try to free the people? Take the king’s word? Something else? To me, that’s much more interesting and also allows the player’s agency in what the characters are doing.
Other folks have already stressed how important it is to talk about tone in a session 0, make sure your players picked up on your hints, etc.
HOWEVER, even if you think you've checked all those boxes, still get to the big reveal and your players are genuinely upset at you for what you've made their PCs unwitting accomplices to... there's still an out
Have the tyrant give a little speech about the traitors that met justice in the pyres. Have the characters/players be horrified at the "goodwill" they just earned, and who from. Then... have them be contacted by a member of the resistance to the tyrant (there is a resistance movement, right?), who lets the party know (maybe after judging their reaction to what they just participated in) that the hostages were actually rescued via underground tunnels (or whatever means might make sense), and corpses substituted in their place to try and fool the authorities
The players still get the message you're sending, but don't feel like murderers if that's not a line they wanted to cross in the campaign
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
We are not the people you should be talking to about this.
Talk to your players and make sure they are ok with this level of dark. Also if you do go through with this, don't punish them with alignment changes or broken oaths, or marks of sin or whatnot because they did not choose evil, they were tricked into it.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
Remember, any clues you leave will always seem obvious to you, since you already have the answer. I used to game with someone who could never figure that fact out, even when multiple gaming groups in our area (gamers TALK) used his name as shorthand for a clue that provides no context to the mystery even after everything is known.
And for an example many posters would be familiar with, Robert Jordan insisted until his death that a certain character death should have had an obvious killer from the page where it happened, yet it took the eventual reveal from the estate for the overwhelming majority to figure it out.