I'm hoping for a little advice on the best way to move forward in a very messy flight.
It's my first time DMing, we're five sessions in. I have four players a barbarian, a ranger, a monk and a bard. They have all just rowed out on a small boat to a large shipwreck, that they know contains a serious threat.
My bard jumps in the water to investigate, but once there decides he wants to use a spore mushroom, so his bard can breathe underwater. Our barbarian says "But I have the spore mushrooms", the Bard says "Give me one", the barbarian says "No", so the Bard decides to cast sleep on the barbarian!!! Our Ranger now not happy about this kicks the Barbarian to wake them up.
The Bard decides now to try and Knock the Barbarian out and wants to cast Dissonant Whispers. This is now in my opinion a fight so before he can attack I have asked to roll for initiative. Our Bard rolls highest, followed by our monk, our Barbarian and then the Ranger. I allow the Bard to attack, he does so and causes 14 damage to the level two Barbarian! The Monk partly heals the Barbarian. The Barbarian throws a bottle on burning oil onto the deck of the boat and rows away, and Ranger also rows away 60ft total (30ft each). The Bard then tries another attack with a cross bow, does a small about more damage to the Barbarian. The monk now tries to persuade the barbarian to give the Bard a mushroom, (they roll a 7 on a persuasion check), the Bard says no and slaps the Monk in response (no damage). The Barbarian and Ranger continue to row away! The bard now decides to enter the boat and finds three Zombies! The Monk jumps overboard and starts swimming the now 120ft back to the boat! The Barbarian and Ranger continue to row away (now 180ft). The Zombies move closer to the bard but are still to far away to attack the Bard. The bard runs up to the main deck, shuts the hatch and covers it in a bunch of debris on the deck (traping the zombies below)! The Monk swims 20ft to the boat the barbarian and Ranger swim away!!
In an attempt to bring the party back together, I bring the treat into play and a harpy who has spotted the smoke from the fire on the boat. The Harpy sings its song and all but the Barbarian fail their wisdom saving throws. The Bard moves to the harpy, then succeeds on a wisdom saving throw at the end of his turn. The monk continues to swim towards the boat and the harpy. The barbarian rows away and the ranger rows back to the boat (no progress is made) (the ranger fails its wisdom saving throw!).
The harpy attacks the bard!, the bard disengages and runs away, the monk swims to the boat. The Barbarian grapples the ranger to stop them from rowing back to the boat! the ranger frees themselves and succeeds on a Wisdom saving throw and is free of the harpy's spell!
The harpy chases the bard, the monk swims, and the barbarian and ranger continue to row away! I decided to bring in the second harpy and attempt luring the song again! The ranger fails.
The harpy attacks the bard again, the bard tries to reason with the harpy (telling her she is here to serve but rolls poorly), and the monk gets to the boat! The Barbarian and ranger now exchange grapples again, the barbarian trying to stop the ranger who is under the spell form returning to the boat!
We leave the game there mid-fight as taken a long time!!
What are your thoughts?
The Bard is pretty much screwed if no one comes to help, should I let her die! The monk may die also if things carry on as they are! I feel like they kind of deserve to die if it were a real situation, but it would be a sad end to the game!
Should I find an external way to stop the harpies? Dragon comes to save them? Zombies break out come up and attack one of the harpies? Maybe send one of the harpies begrudgingly after the ranger and Barbarian?
This doesn't sound fun. Did your group decide that they would play a game that heavily featured PVP and interparty conflict? If not then you need to sit them all down and have a session zero pronto.
If they did decide on that...then. Attempting to bring the fighting party back together by adding more threats that split them apart wasn't the way to do it. If it were me I'd let the dice fall as they may - that probably means a tpk in this instance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
It's time for an out of game discussion about what the expectations on inter-party cooperation are. The bard is definitely in the wrong here, having attacked other PCs for no reason other than "you won't do what I want you to do". I am less clear about what the other PCs did (persuasion checks targeting other PCs are generally a bad idea, not sure what the barbarian was trying to do).
You can have a game where PCs are allowed to attack each other, but it tends to result in high PC mortality and a significant chance of bad feelings out of game.
Thanks yes, sounds like a Session Zero would have been good. Maybe a little late now, but all good lessons learned.
Oddly, it seems that half the party were oddly enjoying!!
If they're enjoying it, then great! But make sure all players are. It's never too late to have a session zero - I'd still do one ASAP and get all party members on the same wavelength.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
you can have a session zero at any point. you don't have to go into detail about a social contract if you don't want, and it doesn't have to take up a lot of time. just as long as you mention that this only works if everyone tries to make it work. i like to say we all bring our own plausible reasons for being in and staying in the party. additionally, you might mention that if anyone becomes mind controlled or otherwise convinced to antagonize party members long term that that character will become an npc. because the dm handles all the villains.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
There are several events here that should have been discussed by the group or decided by the DM before the campaign began. However, it is extremely common for many DMs, especially new ones, to not even think of these sorts of problems.
Things to discuss with the players and not the characters:
1) Do you want to allow PVP (player vs player) actions in the context of the game? Most games I have been in will significantly limit PVP. Groups are usually made up of friends or comrades working together towards common goals. Trying to kill your friends really makes NO sense in that context. Even a psychotic evil character relies on the party to keep them alive so why would the character want to kill another character in such a circumstance? Either way, PVP rarely adds anything really useful to a game.
2) Role playing. As I mentioned, characters form groups to adventure because they rely on each other for survival in the pursuit of rewards. Most characters wouldn't even think of harming a party member over a difference of opinion (never mind someone refusing to instantly give something to their character) - so the bard isn't really role playing with these actions.
3) Disrupting the game. If the bard isn't role playing ... what are they doing? In most cases like this, the player is being intentionally disruptive either because they are bored or maybe because they want to intentionally irritate the other players. Maybe the bard player was irritated that the barbarian player didn't instantly hand over the mushroom. Perhaps the bard player has been dominating the game, taking a lot of the attention and was about to go for a swim down into the wreck by themselves and hog the spotlight some more so the barbarian player said no because they wanted the party to stick together. The bard PLAYER, now irritated with the barbarian PLAYER who is spoiling his "fun" decides to have their character attack the barbarian character as payback (and disrupt the game completely in the meantime when they don't get their way).
This kind of behaviour can be all too common depending on the players involved. As DM, you're the only one who can assess how the players have been interacting, whether one is taking up more of the spotlight than the others or dominate the play with THEIR plans and ideas. How the players interact, and trying to give each player attention through the game is another thing that can be discussed in a session 0 ... e.g. The DM can say that they will make sure that every player will get a chance to contribute to the game - but then the DM needs to make sure that happens.
------------------
There are also a few rules issues that you could address.
- don't allow ANY attacks outside of initiative - everyone rolls - you could use a house rule that whoever made the first attack goes first but everything should be in initiative. In this case the fight started the INSTANT the bard said they were casting Sleep. They might get a chance to cast that first but there is no way the bard would be able to cast sleep then cast dissonant whispers before anyone else gets to do something.
- there is no surprise. The characters may not be expecting the spell but it has components that can be seen, both groups are aware of each other. The characters may not be expecting the attack but that doesn't mean that they should be considered "surprised" - that has a specific application involving being unaware of attackers.
- So in this case, roll initiative and if you want to use a house rule let the bard cast sleep - anyone with a higher initiative does not know they are going to cast it so there is no action they can reasonably take until the bard actually does something. Alternatively, RAW, since the turns are representative of 6 seconds of combat happening simultaneously, you could just say that the bard's intention to cast a spell is visible and anyone higher in the initiative can do as they like on their initiative.
- The next possible complication is the use of the sleep spell itself. Hopefully, it was resolved correctly, but the spell has a 20' radius, so the bard would need to be careful to place the center such that the only affected character was the barbarian and then they would need to roll more than the barbarian's hit points on 5d8 (average is 22.5). However, if all the characters are packed into a small boat, the bard would need to be very careful with the spell placement.
- the bard was not trying "knock out" the barbarian - don't sugar coat it. When the sleep spell failed, the bard decided to kill the barbarian and steal the mushroom. Only melee attacks can be used to do non-lethal damage, spells and ranged attacks do ONLY lethal damage. Casting dissonant whispers and firing a crossbow are both attempts to kill the barbarian character - not knock them out.
- ability checks and skills should NEVER be used on player characters. If the monk character wants to persuade the barbarian character to give up an item then the monk player needs to be persuasive ... unless you have decided to allow PVP use of skills too but then you have to think ... if I roll a 25 persuasion check (20 die roll + 5 for proficiency and stat) do I convince them to jump off the cliff into the lake with sharks? Do you let a high charisma bard take away all of the abilities of a player to make decisions for their character just because someone else's character happens to be persuasive? The answer is usually no - it is a role playing game - how a character reacts to the statements of another character isn't a skill check - it is a conversation, role played in game, between two characters.
So, no matter what the outcome, the monk shouldn't be rolling persuasion against the barbarian.
- Ideally, you would have stopped to discuss the situation before this - however, it gets even more chaotic as the harpies are introduced. The problem with this approach to "bringing them back together" is that it requires them all to fail saves AND to continue failing for 3-4 rounds since at a distance of 180' - it will take at least that long for these characters to get back. In addition, you saw what happened when they pass the save, the characters aren't going to run back to be eaten by a harpy and the barbarian has absolutely no motivation to assist a murderous party member who just finished trying to kill them and has left them badly wounded from the spell and ranged attack.
- the rest of the Harpy encounter continued pretty much as one might expect given the setup.
---------------------------
So what to do? I have some suggestions but you don't have to go with them ...
1) Before the start of the next session, discuss the entire situation with your players and find out why the players decided to make it go entirely sideways - it is not an accident, the decisions were intentional and had a reason whether boredom, humor (someone thought it would be funny) or the bard player decided that they don't really want to play anymore.
2) If the player tries to say "Its what my character would do" - don't accept that reason because it ISN'T what any reasonable character would do - even an evil one - under the circumstances. The character decided to murder one of the other characters because they refused to give them a mushroom.
3) Ask the players what kind of game they want to play. Do they want PVP where they can't trust other characters. Most characters would NEVER adventure with a group they don't trust unless they don't have a choice for some reason.
4) Ask the players if they are interested in continuing to play D&D. If they are bored or not enjoying it - you can't force folks to play a role playing game - there are too many ways to wreck the game for others (just look at what happened in your game).
5) Do the players want the game to contain situations in which their players can die? Most players do want the risk. However, if you decide to include it, the DM has to be willing to allow characters to die if things go badly. Some DMs don't like character's dying and will act to prevent it from happening and eventually the players will notice and begin to take extremely risky actions forcing the DM to either allow them or likely kill the character (which the DM has already indicated that they are generally unwilling to do). This situation is also a lose-lose for the game - so if the players agree that death is a possibility in the game then the DM needs to be willing to allow it to happen if it comes up (it isn't that common unless the DM goes overboard on a challenge).
When you have the real life situation resolved, you can then decide how to resolve the in game situation.
1) The barbarian and ranger escape and seek new party members with a similar supportive outlook.
2) The barbarian and ranger manage to rescue the monk and flee.
3) The players pretend the bard didn't try to kill the barbarian and the barbarian and ranger attempt to rescue both the bard and monk.
4) You discuss it with the players and they decide that they didn't want it to go that way - they don't want PVP, want to work together, and don't want to die. You redo the entire thing as a prophetic vision coming from the sunken ship ... just before the bard jumps into the water ... the entire party sees the bard ask for the mushroom, the barbarian refuse, the attacks, and how it ends with the bard being rended in two by the Harpy. The monk flees and escapes with the barbarian and the ranger, the bard dies.
The waters around the ship are cursed to induce anger and hatred. Perhaps, the vision could have come from a creature imprisoned by undead on the ship. Every time creatures have come that could free it - they kill themselves or flee before they even get onto the wreck.
As DM, you can rewrite the narrative however you like if the players decide that they really don't want the session to go the way it did. This kind of correction is something you'd only use once but it is a tool to fix things once everyone is on the same page on how they want to play.
Alternatively, the players might be fine with how it is turning out - let it play out and what happens happens - if the bard dies, they die knowing it was their fault. :) As long as the player is cool with it, it isn't a problem.
...having said that, if someone still insists on playing a character who is chaotic to a fault, then get creative. give that character a powerful foil to keep them in check. perhaps an evil warlock has somehow landed a powerful celestial patron who will throttle their magic and turn them blind if they harm a good-aligned creature (even with words!). seems heavy handed at a glance, but the intent isn't to control them. rather this gives the character something to push against. they can still have all the evil and greedy thoughts they want, but they have to be clever and sneaky about actions. or a barbarian who is haunted by scolding ghostly relatives every time they attack something and they just hate that! but, conveniently enough, when the cards are down and the party needs protecting they can focus their rage at these prattling ancestors who it turns out support the barbarian when they're making choices that benefit their 'tribe' of friends. they can still do dumb things and attack the wrong stuff but with (self-imposed) disadvantage. also, although they're maybe looking for an exorcist to cure this, no other party members can see the "ghosts." that could be fun.
translating this to a bard, perhaps saddle them with an escort mission to take a rich baron's dainty son on an adventure that'll look good to paladin recruiters down the road. to get the magic harp or pile of gold or whatever, the bard must rely on the son reporting back favorably that the bard acted with honor and grace on top of keeping him safe. so, intimidate the monk and others and lose some gold. charm or steal from too many others and he'll report it to the paladins. so, the bard can acknowledge those urges and yet still have fun reeling them in because the player might find that challenging and suitably dramatic while the character is obviously thinking only of the fat payout.
i guess what i'm saying is that there's just some players you can't tell not to barge into people's houses and start smashing pots for rupies and arrows. well, you could tell them or you could even have them chased around by the authorities in-game. BUT. what if you just incentivized them not to? they get to have the same thoughts, start down that path, but then turn around. they get to suggest and commit the drama they seek plus extra drama as, grr and drat!, i'm chained by this burden! oooh, but one day...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
I will say that the response to "It's what my character would do" from the bard is "It's what my character would do" from the barbarian and ranger when they leave the bard to get eaten by harpies. A lot of problematic behavior comes from players violating unspoken norms and expecting the rest of the party to continue following those norms.
It’s fascinating to me that commenters seem to have decided the bard is the troublemaker in this scenario. The bard shouldn’t attack the barbarian for not sharing but why is the barbarian withholding valuable resources in the first place? What better time is there to hand over a mushroom that lets characters breathe underwater than when the bard is exploring a shipwreck? Pointing out that they are carrying the mushrooms and then refusing to give one to the bard is d-bag behaviour. Slapping the monk when they suggest the barbarian give the bard the mushroom to defuse the situation and focus on the threat posed to the entire party by the zombies and harpies is doubling down on that. None of this would have happened if the barbarian had given the bard the mushroom when asked.
It’s fascinating to me that commenters seem to have decided the bard is the troublemaker in this scenario. The bard shouldn’t attack the barbarian for not sharing but why is the barbarian withholding valuable resources in the first place?
The bard is a troublemaker. It's not clear if he's the only one. Saying 'no' is not necessarily unreasonable, though it might be.
I will say that the response to "It's what my character would do" from the bard is "It's what my character would do" from the barbarian and ranger when they leave the bard to get eaten by harpies. A lot of problematic behavior comes from players violating unspoken norms and expecting the rest of the party to continue following those norms.
Agreed ... but honestly ... the barbarian leaving was a reasonable (and even mild) role playing response to another character in the group suddenly trying to kill them without any real apparent reason. The barbarian could have responded in kind but chose to leave rather than kill the former party member in response.
In the real world, one player could be wondering why the other player has their character attacking them. However, it doesn't appear that they attempted to address the issue in the real world (which is where the problem lies) but rather had their characters react in game in a relatively appropriate way. (i.e. the bard's character wasn't "doing what their character would do" while the barbarian's response likely was "what their character would do" in response to the actions of the bard.
It’s fascinating to me that commenters seem to have decided the bard is the troublemaker in this scenario. The bard shouldn’t attack the barbarian for not sharing but why is the barbarian withholding valuable resources in the first place?
The bard is a troublemaker. It's not clear if he's the only one. Saying 'no' is not necessarily unreasonable, though it might be.
There are a lot of reasons to say no to the mushroom request.
How many mushrooms are there?
Maybe the barbarian thinks they should talk about who uses the mushroom? Maybe the barbarian wants to use the mushroom. Why does the bard get to use the mushroom and why would folks expect the barbarian just to hand it over when asked?
It's true that the barbarian could have just handed the item over, but it is unclear what else might be going on that none of us are aware of that would cause the barbarian to refuse the request. If I had to guess, it is a limited resource and the barbarian player wasn't sure the bard was the right character to make use of it so they said no but there is no way to know for sure. The barbarian player may not like the bard player much and just said no to be irritating. If so, the game has bigger problems, but only the DM will know for sure.
It’s fascinating to me that commenters seem to have decided the bard is the troublemaker in this scenario. The bard shouldn’t attack the barbarian for not sharing but why is the barbarian withholding valuable resources in the first place? What better time is there to hand over a mushroom that lets characters breathe underwater than when the bard is exploring a shipwreck? Pointing out that they are carrying the mushrooms and then refusing to give one to the bard is d-bag behaviour. Slapping the monk when they suggest the barbarian give the bard the mushroom to defuse the situation and focus on the threat posed to the entire party by the zombies and harpies is doubling down on that. None of this would have happened if the barbarian had given the bard the mushroom when asked.
the barbarian, a class known for driving one's enemies before them and hearing the lamentations of their women, opened by using their words.
the bard, a class known for charismatic diplomacy, jumped directly into using violence to solve a problem.
we don't have to always march lockstep with our stereotypes to have 'appropriate' fun, but the contrast above is too absurd not to point out. certainly more telling than a 'both sides' argument suggesting what both did was equal. the bard wasn't trying to save everyone from zombies and harpies by slapping the monk, they were punishing the monk for taking sides. this is cartoon energy. this is order five drinks and appetizers and then suggest everyone split the restaurant bill equally since everyone partook while the people who ordered only a half-sandwich and a water roll their eyes energy.
Maybe just as a final thought on this - if it hasn't yet been resolved, or if someone has a similar problem they're looking to quash:
If/when a problematic player says "it's what my character would do", then you should always respond by saying "why did you make a character who fights the party"/does whatever it is they did. Get them to realize that they need to make characters with group cohesion or else most DND groups will fail.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Maybe just as a final thought on this - if it hasn't yet been resolved, or if someone has a similar problem they're looking to quash:
If/when a problematic player says "it's what my character would do", then you should always respond by saying "why did you make a character who fights the party"/does whatever it is they did. Get them to realize that they need to make characters with group cohesion or else most DND groups will fail.
Building on this I now clarify at my games that:
You as a player have a responsibility to find the reason for your character to be motivated to be part of the party. If at any point you can't see a reason for that character to remain with the party we can write them out of the story and introduce a replacement character for you.
Being this explicit helps. Too many players seem to think they don't have a responsibility - it also tends to limit the level to which players will do self destructive things in terms of party cohesion.
It’s fascinating to me that commenters seem to have decided the bard is the troublemaker in this scenario. The bard shouldn’t attack the barbarian for not sharing but why is the barbarian withholding valuable resources in the first place? What better time is there to hand over a mushroom that lets characters breathe underwater than when the bard is exploring a shipwreck? Pointing out that they are carrying the mushrooms and then refusing to give one to the bard is d-bag behaviour. Slapping the monk when they suggest the barbarian give the bard the mushroom to defuse the situation and focus on the threat posed to the entire party by the zombies and harpies is doubling down on that. None of this would have happened if the barbarian had given the bard the mushroom when asked.
the barbarian, a class known for driving one's enemies before them and hearing the lamentations of their women, opened by using their words.
the bard, a class known for charismatic diplomacy, jumped directly into using violence to solve a problem.
we don't have to always march lockstep with our stereotypes to have 'appropriate' fun, but the contrast above is too absurd not to point out. certainly more telling than a 'both sides' argument suggesting what both did was equal. the bard wasn't trying to save everyone from zombies and harpies by slapping the monk, they were punishing the monk for taking sides. this is cartoon energy. this is order five drinks and appetizers and then suggest everyone split the restaurant bill equally since everyone partook while the people who ordered only a half-sandwich and a water roll their eyes energy.
The bard didn’t slap the monk at all and what right does anyone, be it the bard or the barbarian, have to “punish” the monk or anyone else in the party? Also note that I didn’t assign blame to either, I noted that most commenters seem to overlook the barbarian’s questionable behaviour. Why might “it’s what my character would do” be a good enough reason for the barbarian not to share if it’s specifically called out as not a good enough reason for the bard to attack? How is only the bard mentioned by respondents as deserving censure?
I could be way off base but this reads to me like young players who don’t really get along outside of the game having a juvenile power struggle in game. The time where one wants the glue simply because the other kid wants it too is further behind some of us than others. Flat refusal to share resources to achieve the group’s common goal is as egregious as attacking a party member in my books. Work together or find a different table. On the off chance I’m the odd man out and the table is ok with fighting over resources, whether verbally or physically in character, I’ll happily find a different game.
My main concern is that OP doesn’t act on the advice offered and go crap all over the bard while saying nothing to the barbarian. They both need to straighten up and fly right unless this is a PVP game.
it literally says "the Bard says no and slaps the Monk in response..." but reading it again i think it was supposed to have been the barbarian? maybe? although he's in a separate rowboat at this point maybe? i'll admit to having some trouble keeping up with the theater of the mind with this one.
as for assigning blame, the barbarian arguing and the bard attacking are not equal. not even under the purview of "it's what my character would do." i kinda don't think what we're missing here is dialog where the barbarian said "no, and furthermore you'll have to fight me to get it, dweeb! engarde!!" without that i get the feeling that "no" was a hook into additional discussion. more of a "no, let's talk first." but who knows.
i'll certainly agree with you that this sounds like the sort of table where the players aren't unfamiliar with plastic safety scissors and washing glitter out of their hair.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Hi All,
I'm hoping for a little advice on the best way to move forward in a very messy flight.
It's my first time DMing, we're five sessions in. I have four players a barbarian, a ranger, a monk and a bard. They have all just rowed out on a small boat to a large shipwreck, that they know contains a serious threat.
My bard jumps in the water to investigate, but once there decides he wants to use a spore mushroom, so his bard can breathe underwater. Our barbarian says "But I have the spore mushrooms", the Bard says "Give me one", the barbarian says "No", so the Bard decides to cast sleep on the barbarian!!! Our Ranger now not happy about this kicks the Barbarian to wake them up.
The Bard decides now to try and Knock the Barbarian out and wants to cast Dissonant Whispers. This is now in my opinion a fight so before he can attack I have asked to roll for initiative. Our Bard rolls highest, followed by our monk, our Barbarian and then the Ranger. I allow the Bard to attack, he does so and causes 14 damage to the level two Barbarian! The Monk partly heals the Barbarian. The Barbarian throws a bottle on burning oil onto the deck of the boat and rows away, and Ranger also rows away 60ft total (30ft each). The Bard then tries another attack with a cross bow, does a small about more damage to the Barbarian. The monk now tries to persuade the barbarian to give the Bard a mushroom, (they roll a 7 on a persuasion check), the Bard says no and slaps the Monk in response (no damage). The Barbarian and Ranger continue to row away! The bard now decides to enter the boat and finds three Zombies! The Monk jumps overboard and starts swimming the now 120ft back to the boat! The Barbarian and Ranger continue to row away (now 180ft). The Zombies move closer to the bard but are still to far away to attack the Bard. The bard runs up to the main deck, shuts the hatch and covers it in a bunch of debris on the deck (traping the zombies below)! The Monk swims 20ft to the boat the barbarian and Ranger swim away!!
In an attempt to bring the party back together, I bring the treat into play and a harpy who has spotted the smoke from the fire on the boat. The Harpy sings its song and all but the Barbarian fail their wisdom saving throws. The Bard moves to the harpy, then succeeds on a wisdom saving throw at the end of his turn. The monk continues to swim towards the boat and the harpy. The barbarian rows away and the ranger rows back to the boat (no progress is made) (the ranger fails its wisdom saving throw!).
The harpy attacks the bard!, the bard disengages and runs away, the monk swims to the boat. The Barbarian grapples the ranger to stop them from rowing back to the boat! the ranger frees themselves and succeeds on a Wisdom saving throw and is free of the harpy's spell!
The harpy chases the bard, the monk swims, and the barbarian and ranger continue to row away! I decided to bring in the second harpy and attempt luring the song again! The ranger fails.
The harpy attacks the bard again, the bard tries to reason with the harpy (telling her she is here to serve but rolls poorly), and the monk gets to the boat! The Barbarian and ranger now exchange grapples again, the barbarian trying to stop the ranger who is under the spell form returning to the boat!
We leave the game there mid-fight as taken a long time!!
What are your thoughts?
The Bard is pretty much screwed if no one comes to help, should I let her die! The monk may die also if things carry on as they are! I feel like they kind of deserve to die if it were a real situation, but it would be a sad end to the game!
Should I find an external way to stop the harpies? Dragon comes to save them? Zombies break out come up and attack one of the harpies? Maybe send one of the harpies begrudgingly after the ranger and Barbarian?
This doesn't sound fun. Did your group decide that they would play a game that heavily featured PVP and interparty conflict? If not then you need to sit them all down and have a session zero pronto.
If they did decide on that...then. Attempting to bring the fighting party back together by adding more threats that split them apart wasn't the way to do it. If it were me I'd let the dice fall as they may - that probably means a tpk in this instance.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
It's time for an out of game discussion about what the expectations on inter-party cooperation are. The bard is definitely in the wrong here, having attacked other PCs for no reason other than "you won't do what I want you to do". I am less clear about what the other PCs did (persuasion checks targeting other PCs are generally a bad idea, not sure what the barbarian was trying to do).
You can have a game where PCs are allowed to attack each other, but it tends to result in high PC mortality and a significant chance of bad feelings out of game.
Thanks yes, sounds like a Session Zero would have been good. Maybe a little late now, but all good lessons learned.
Oddly, it seems that half the party were oddly enjoying!!
If they're enjoying it, then great! But make sure all players are. It's never too late to have a session zero - I'd still do one ASAP and get all party members on the same wavelength.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
you can have a session zero at any point. you don't have to go into detail about a social contract if you don't want, and it doesn't have to take up a lot of time. just as long as you mention that this only works if everyone tries to make it work. i like to say we all bring our own plausible reasons for being in and staying in the party. additionally, you might mention that if anyone becomes mind controlled or otherwise convinced to antagonize party members long term that that character will become an npc. because the dm handles all the villains.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
There are several events here that should have been discussed by the group or decided by the DM before the campaign began. However, it is extremely common for many DMs, especially new ones, to not even think of these sorts of problems.
Things to discuss with the players and not the characters:
1) Do you want to allow PVP (player vs player) actions in the context of the game? Most games I have been in will significantly limit PVP. Groups are usually made up of friends or comrades working together towards common goals. Trying to kill your friends really makes NO sense in that context. Even a psychotic evil character relies on the party to keep them alive so why would the character want to kill another character in such a circumstance? Either way, PVP rarely adds anything really useful to a game.
2) Role playing. As I mentioned, characters form groups to adventure because they rely on each other for survival in the pursuit of rewards. Most characters wouldn't even think of harming a party member over a difference of opinion (never mind someone refusing to instantly give something to their character) - so the bard isn't really role playing with these actions.
3) Disrupting the game. If the bard isn't role playing ... what are they doing? In most cases like this, the player is being intentionally disruptive either because they are bored or maybe because they want to intentionally irritate the other players. Maybe the bard player was irritated that the barbarian player didn't instantly hand over the mushroom. Perhaps the bard player has been dominating the game, taking a lot of the attention and was about to go for a swim down into the wreck by themselves and hog the spotlight some more so the barbarian player said no because they wanted the party to stick together. The bard PLAYER, now irritated with the barbarian PLAYER who is spoiling his "fun" decides to have their character attack the barbarian character as payback (and disrupt the game completely in the meantime when they don't get their way).
This kind of behaviour can be all too common depending on the players involved. As DM, you're the only one who can assess how the players have been interacting, whether one is taking up more of the spotlight than the others or dominate the play with THEIR plans and ideas. How the players interact, and trying to give each player attention through the game is another thing that can be discussed in a session 0 ... e.g. The DM can say that they will make sure that every player will get a chance to contribute to the game - but then the DM needs to make sure that happens.
------------------
There are also a few rules issues that you could address.
- don't allow ANY attacks outside of initiative - everyone rolls - you could use a house rule that whoever made the first attack goes first but everything should be in initiative. In this case the fight started the INSTANT the bard said they were casting Sleep. They might get a chance to cast that first but there is no way the bard would be able to cast sleep then cast dissonant whispers before anyone else gets to do something.
- there is no surprise. The characters may not be expecting the spell but it has components that can be seen, both groups are aware of each other. The characters may not be expecting the attack but that doesn't mean that they should be considered "surprised" - that has a specific application involving being unaware of attackers.
- So in this case, roll initiative and if you want to use a house rule let the bard cast sleep - anyone with a higher initiative does not know they are going to cast it so there is no action they can reasonably take until the bard actually does something. Alternatively, RAW, since the turns are representative of 6 seconds of combat happening simultaneously, you could just say that the bard's intention to cast a spell is visible and anyone higher in the initiative can do as they like on their initiative.
- The next possible complication is the use of the sleep spell itself. Hopefully, it was resolved correctly, but the spell has a 20' radius, so the bard would need to be careful to place the center such that the only affected character was the barbarian and then they would need to roll more than the barbarian's hit points on 5d8 (average is 22.5). However, if all the characters are packed into a small boat, the bard would need to be very careful with the spell placement.
- the bard was not trying "knock out" the barbarian - don't sugar coat it. When the sleep spell failed, the bard decided to kill the barbarian and steal the mushroom. Only melee attacks can be used to do non-lethal damage, spells and ranged attacks do ONLY lethal damage. Casting dissonant whispers and firing a crossbow are both attempts to kill the barbarian character - not knock them out.
- ability checks and skills should NEVER be used on player characters. If the monk character wants to persuade the barbarian character to give up an item then the monk player needs to be persuasive ... unless you have decided to allow PVP use of skills too but then you have to think ... if I roll a 25 persuasion check (20 die roll + 5 for proficiency and stat) do I convince them to jump off the cliff into the lake with sharks? Do you let a high charisma bard take away all of the abilities of a player to make decisions for their character just because someone else's character happens to be persuasive? The answer is usually no - it is a role playing game - how a character reacts to the statements of another character isn't a skill check - it is a conversation, role played in game, between two characters.
So, no matter what the outcome, the monk shouldn't be rolling persuasion against the barbarian.
- Ideally, you would have stopped to discuss the situation before this - however, it gets even more chaotic as the harpies are introduced. The problem with this approach to "bringing them back together" is that it requires them all to fail saves AND to continue failing for 3-4 rounds since at a distance of 180' - it will take at least that long for these characters to get back. In addition, you saw what happened when they pass the save, the characters aren't going to run back to be eaten by a harpy and the barbarian has absolutely no motivation to assist a murderous party member who just finished trying to kill them and has left them badly wounded from the spell and ranged attack.
- the rest of the Harpy encounter continued pretty much as one might expect given the setup.
---------------------------
So what to do? I have some suggestions but you don't have to go with them ...
1) Before the start of the next session, discuss the entire situation with your players and find out why the players decided to make it go entirely sideways - it is not an accident, the decisions were intentional and had a reason whether boredom, humor (someone thought it would be funny) or the bard player decided that they don't really want to play anymore.
2) If the player tries to say "Its what my character would do" - don't accept that reason because it ISN'T what any reasonable character would do - even an evil one - under the circumstances. The character decided to murder one of the other characters because they refused to give them a mushroom.
3) Ask the players what kind of game they want to play. Do they want PVP where they can't trust other characters. Most characters would NEVER adventure with a group they don't trust unless they don't have a choice for some reason.
4) Ask the players if they are interested in continuing to play D&D. If they are bored or not enjoying it - you can't force folks to play a role playing game - there are too many ways to wreck the game for others (just look at what happened in your game).
5) Do the players want the game to contain situations in which their players can die? Most players do want the risk. However, if you decide to include it, the DM has to be willing to allow characters to die if things go badly. Some DMs don't like character's dying and will act to prevent it from happening and eventually the players will notice and begin to take extremely risky actions forcing the DM to either allow them or likely kill the character (which the DM has already indicated that they are generally unwilling to do). This situation is also a lose-lose for the game - so if the players agree that death is a possibility in the game then the DM needs to be willing to allow it to happen if it comes up (it isn't that common unless the DM goes overboard on a challenge).
When you have the real life situation resolved, you can then decide how to resolve the in game situation.
1) The barbarian and ranger escape and seek new party members with a similar supportive outlook.
2) The barbarian and ranger manage to rescue the monk and flee.
3) The players pretend the bard didn't try to kill the barbarian and the barbarian and ranger attempt to rescue both the bard and monk.
4) You discuss it with the players and they decide that they didn't want it to go that way - they don't want PVP, want to work together, and don't want to die. You redo the entire thing as a prophetic vision coming from the sunken ship ... just before the bard jumps into the water ... the entire party sees the bard ask for the mushroom, the barbarian refuse, the attacks, and how it ends with the bard being rended in two by the Harpy. The monk flees and escapes with the barbarian and the ranger, the bard dies.
The waters around the ship are cursed to induce anger and hatred. Perhaps, the vision could have come from a creature imprisoned by undead on the ship. Every time creatures have come that could free it - they kill themselves or flee before they even get onto the wreck.
As DM, you can rewrite the narrative however you like if the players decide that they really don't want the session to go the way it did. This kind of correction is something you'd only use once but it is a tool to fix things once everyone is on the same page on how they want to play.
Alternatively, the players might be fine with how it is turning out - let it play out and what happens happens - if the bard dies, they die knowing it was their fault. :) As long as the player is cool with it, it isn't a problem.
...having said that, if someone still insists on playing a character who is chaotic to a fault, then get creative. give that character a powerful foil to keep them in check. perhaps an evil warlock has somehow landed a powerful celestial patron who will throttle their magic and turn them blind if they harm a good-aligned creature (even with words!). seems heavy handed at a glance, but the intent isn't to control them. rather this gives the character something to push against. they can still have all the evil and greedy thoughts they want, but they have to be clever and sneaky about actions. or a barbarian who is haunted by scolding ghostly relatives every time they attack something and they just hate that! but, conveniently enough, when the cards are down and the party needs protecting they can focus their rage at these prattling ancestors who it turns out support the barbarian when they're making choices that benefit their 'tribe' of friends. they can still do dumb things and attack the wrong stuff but with (self-imposed) disadvantage. also, although they're maybe looking for an exorcist to cure this, no other party members can see the "ghosts." that could be fun.
translating this to a bard, perhaps saddle them with an escort mission to take a rich baron's dainty son on an adventure that'll look good to paladin recruiters down the road. to get the magic harp or pile of gold or whatever, the bard must rely on the son reporting back favorably that the bard acted with honor and grace on top of keeping him safe. so, intimidate the monk and others and lose some gold. charm or steal from too many others and he'll report it to the paladins. so, the bard can acknowledge those urges and yet still have fun reeling them in because the player might find that challenging and suitably dramatic while the character is obviously thinking only of the fat payout.
i guess what i'm saying is that there's just some players you can't tell not to barge into people's houses and start smashing pots for rupies and arrows. well, you could tell them or you could even have them chased around by the authorities in-game. BUT. what if you just incentivized them not to? they get to have the same thoughts, start down that path, but then turn around. they get to suggest and commit the drama they seek plus extra drama as, grr and drat!, i'm chained by this burden! oooh, but one day...
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
I will say that the response to "It's what my character would do" from the bard is "It's what my character would do" from the barbarian and ranger when they leave the bard to get eaten by harpies. A lot of problematic behavior comes from players violating unspoken norms and expecting the rest of the party to continue following those norms.
It’s fascinating to me that commenters seem to have decided the bard is the troublemaker in this scenario. The bard shouldn’t attack the barbarian for not sharing but why is the barbarian withholding valuable resources in the first place? What better time is there to hand over a mushroom that lets characters breathe underwater than when the bard is exploring a shipwreck? Pointing out that they are carrying the mushrooms and then refusing to give one to the bard is d-bag behaviour. Slapping the monk when they suggest the barbarian give the bard the mushroom to defuse the situation and focus on the threat posed to the entire party by the zombies and harpies is doubling down on that. None of this would have happened if the barbarian had given the bard the mushroom when asked.
The bard is a troublemaker. It's not clear if he's the only one. Saying 'no' is not necessarily unreasonable, though it might be.
Agreed ... but honestly ... the barbarian leaving was a reasonable (and even mild) role playing response to another character in the group suddenly trying to kill them without any real apparent reason. The barbarian could have responded in kind but chose to leave rather than kill the former party member in response.
In the real world, one player could be wondering why the other player has their character attacking them. However, it doesn't appear that they attempted to address the issue in the real world (which is where the problem lies) but rather had their characters react in game in a relatively appropriate way. (i.e. the bard's character wasn't "doing what their character would do" while the barbarian's response likely was "what their character would do" in response to the actions of the bard.
There are a lot of reasons to say no to the mushroom request.
How many mushrooms are there?
Maybe the barbarian thinks they should talk about who uses the mushroom? Maybe the barbarian wants to use the mushroom. Why does the bard get to use the mushroom and why would folks expect the barbarian just to hand it over when asked?
It's true that the barbarian could have just handed the item over, but it is unclear what else might be going on that none of us are aware of that would cause the barbarian to refuse the request. If I had to guess, it is a limited resource and the barbarian player wasn't sure the bard was the right character to make use of it so they said no but there is no way to know for sure. The barbarian player may not like the bard player much and just said no to be irritating. If so, the game has bigger problems, but only the DM will know for sure.
the barbarian, a class known for driving one's enemies before them and hearing the lamentations of their women, opened by using their words.
the bard, a class known for charismatic diplomacy, jumped directly into using violence to solve a problem.
we don't have to always march lockstep with our stereotypes to have 'appropriate' fun, but the contrast above is too absurd not to point out. certainly more telling than a 'both sides' argument suggesting what both did was equal. the bard wasn't trying to save everyone from zombies and harpies by slapping the monk, they were punishing the monk for taking sides. this is cartoon energy. this is order five drinks and appetizers and then suggest everyone split the restaurant bill equally since everyone partook while the people who ordered only a half-sandwich and a water roll their eyes energy.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Maybe just as a final thought on this - if it hasn't yet been resolved, or if someone has a similar problem they're looking to quash:
If/when a problematic player says "it's what my character would do", then you should always respond by saying "why did you make a character who fights the party"/does whatever it is they did. Get them to realize that they need to make characters with group cohesion or else most DND groups will fail.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Building on this I now clarify at my games that:
You as a player have a responsibility to find the reason for your character to be motivated to be part of the party. If at any point you can't see a reason for that character to remain with the party we can write them out of the story and introduce a replacement character for you.
Being this explicit helps. Too many players seem to think they don't have a responsibility - it also tends to limit the level to which players will do self destructive things in terms of party cohesion.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
The bard didn’t slap the monk at all and what right does anyone, be it the bard or the barbarian, have to “punish” the monk or anyone else in the party? Also note that I didn’t assign blame to either, I noted that most commenters seem to overlook the barbarian’s questionable behaviour. Why might “it’s what my character would do” be a good enough reason for the barbarian not to share if it’s specifically called out as not a good enough reason for the bard to attack? How is only the bard mentioned by respondents as deserving censure?
I could be way off base but this reads to me like young players who don’t really get along outside of the game having a juvenile power struggle in game. The time where one wants the glue simply because the other kid wants it too is further behind some of us than others. Flat refusal to share resources to achieve the group’s common goal is as egregious as attacking a party member in my books. Work together or find a different table. On the off chance I’m the odd man out and the table is ok with fighting over resources, whether verbally or physically in character, I’ll happily find a different game.
My main concern is that OP doesn’t act on the advice offered and go crap all over the bard while saying nothing to the barbarian. They both need to straighten up and fly right unless this is a PVP game.
it literally says "the Bard says no and slaps the Monk in response..." but reading it again i think it was supposed to have been the barbarian? maybe? although he's in a separate rowboat at this point maybe? i'll admit to having some trouble keeping up with the theater of the mind with this one.
as for assigning blame, the barbarian arguing and the bard attacking are not equal. not even under the purview of "it's what my character would do." i kinda don't think what we're missing here is dialog where the barbarian said "no, and furthermore you'll have to fight me to get it, dweeb! engarde!!" without that i get the feeling that "no" was a hook into additional discussion. more of a "no, let's talk first." but who knows.
i'll certainly agree with you that this sounds like the sort of table where the players aren't unfamiliar with plastic safety scissors and washing glitter out of their hair.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Huh. So it does. My mind filled in barbarian because that’s what makes sense grammatically.