Recently, my campaign abruptly ended primarily due to a schedule conflict, but for other reasons which were my fault. Also, my first campaign ended before that one due to problems that were entirely my fault, but I noticed something in both campaigns that was a bit frustrating. I have a big problem with my players giving criticism to improve the campaign. I would ask them if there's anything they want changed with the campaign, and then I would get a response such as "Everything is good" or something very vague. After the campaigns ended, they listed reasons why they didn't like it. I'm a relatively new DM, so there are problems inside of campaigns, but why did they not tell me during the campaign? How could I get people to tell me the issues plaguing my campaign so I can fix them so the campaign does not become ruined?
My first question is what were their complaints? And a lot of times you have to make people comfortable. An anonymous online questionnaire may end up with more feedback than asking people in person.
The campaign is entirely online. They complained about too much railroad the first time, so I fixed that in my second campaign, making the story more diverse. Then, after the second campaign ended, the largest complaint was that there wasn't enough combat, so it wasn't fun for them; this was all told to me after the campaign ended.
Don't ask general questions to a group. Find a way to have one-on-one conversations. Whether voice chat on discord or phone or meet in person for a coffee or a meal. Ask specific questions about what the players want in a campaign / combat / roleplay. What they really liked either in your campaign or someone elses? During the campaign, reach out about these issues too. Get a feeling on specific topics and ask about how they feel their character is doing in the setting. Now, you don't want it to feel like they have to schedule another night just to talk about things but the occasional conversation can help.
Sometimes players just wont tell you. I have the same issue. They always say everything is great, even when you can tell there's something they're not loving. Maybe they love the campaign in general and don't want to sound mean telling you details, so they only say it once everything is over.
What works for me, and it might help you because it seems your situation is the same, is to be the first one to point out something that wasn't great or could be better. Nobody wants to be the first one, but once it starts, they feel more comfortable saying things they didn't like. For example, if you realize one combat dragged too long and it wasn't necessary at all, tell them. "I know this combat dragged a little too long and it was boring at the end." Then ask them what they thought about that. And after that, ask what else they think can improve.
This isn't always gonna work, but in my experience, players are more open about saying their criticism once someone else pointed something out, even if it was the DM.
So, based on what the OP said I'm going to give some thoughts here. I may well have made some assumptions about the OP so please do correct if they are wrong.
1. I am going to assume that you've never run Lost Mine of Phandelver, or Dragon of Icespire Peak. I assume this because you appear to have made assumptions and then tried to correct with your next campaign. I would highly advise you to run an 'official' adventure. The reason, simply put, is to give you an idea of the game as it is designed. Then, I'd suggest branching out to some of the adventures that have a different feeling to them. Curse of Strahd is a great 'advanced' adventure for players with a bit of experience because it takes the core design of the game and alters them in cool ways. These give you models and example to assist you when designing your own campaigns and adventures. Dragon of Icespire Peak in particular does a great job of teaching DMs how to DM. If you look at the way it creates of an example of an adventure it makes it so much easier to design your own adventures from.
2. I'm also going to assume that these were two different sets of players. Here's hard won experience from decades of play and GMing a ton of different systems - no two tables are the same. Every time you assemble a new set of players, or even the same players for a different adventure or campaign - the dynamic will be different. There will be different expectations and playstyles that appear. You can't simply take the feedback from a previous group and apply it to a new group - that won't work. Every table is different. Session Zero can help to understand some of the expectations, but it is allowed, and indeed should be encouraged that there will be a learnign curve while the table learns each other's playstyles. Lean into that. Express that it'll take a little bit of time to understand what appeals to each player at the table. And when assembling new groups, don't assume that there is a single correct way to run a table. Some GMs love getting lists of desired magic items from players. I personally hate it. I know where the adventure is heading, and if it's heading underground then boots of flying might not be helpful to the player asking for them. However, that doesn't make the GM who enjoys getting lists of magic items wrong. It means that they have a different play style. And that is 100% cool.
3. I'm going to assume you haven't read the Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG). I assume this from the 'not enough combat' comment. D&D 5e (the 2014 books) operates from some assumptions of how many encoutners there are in an adventuring day. It operates from some assumptions about the size of the party. D&D 5e was designed with a lot of assumptions in mind. Those DMs that have never read the DMG tend not to be aware of these assumptions and frequently struggle with designing satisfying games. A bit like point 1, reading and understanding the core materials will help you better design your own adventures and your own worlds. If you put in say 6 encounters in an adventuring day, but the players complain that it is far too many, you also then have the DMG to fall back on and explain that this is how the system is designed. As you grow with experience, you'll be able to move away from these things. You'll develop a sense of what will work and what won't. Until you've got that experience and understanding though, it can be difficult.
Ultimately, if the assumptions I've made are correct - you are trying to run before you have learnt to walk. Running a starter adventure might seem boring, but there is a reason that people advise it. Reading the DMG might suck (seriously the 'writers' should be ashamed of how badly written it is), but it contains loads of useful information.
If for whatever reason my assumptions are wrong, let's for a moment assume that both your campaigns were Lost Mine of Phandelver, then it is likely that you're trying to modify that adventure to your own tastes and likes. Don't. Run the adventure as written. Try to take note of what it's trying to teach you as a DM. Try to notice how the players respond.
Honestly, being advised to run a starter adventure and read the DMG made me a better DM. I think the same would apply to most DMs.
I don't normally have this problem personally. I've been with my main group since we were all around 13, and have had a lot of practice with stuff like that. However, I have played with a number of other groups, and when my main group first started, we had this problem time and time again. I would ask my players what they liked and didn't like, and they said it was all great, and they were loving it. After, they would start talking about what they didn't like. And I wasn't an exception. When I was a player, I did the same thing. It took a year or two before we were able to fix this. ever since I was around 15, we have never had this problem. If the players didn't like something that was happening, or really liked something and wanted it to keep happening or something like that, they would tell me. Either mid session, or when that session was over. I don't really have anything to add to what martintheactor said, since that was spot on. Using started adventures is great, and can truly help you become a better DM. And not just when you're learning, though that never stops. I can think of several groups that have been playing for 20+ years, and still use published adventures every now and again. Reading the DMG is also great. When I was starting, I was a little overly obsessed with D&D, (and still am) and read the PHB, DMG, and MM all the way through, not missing a word. I have actually gone back and done that several times, though maybe not as intensely. But really. The DMG is a great resource for DMs of any experience. Though like martintheactor said, it is really badly written and designed. Good luck in the future!
If for whatever reason my assumptions are wrong, let's for a moment assume that both your campaigns were Lost Mine of Phandelver, then it is likely that you're trying to modify that adventure to your own tastes and likes. Don't. Run the adventure as written. Try to take note of what it's trying to teach you as a DM. Try to notice how the players respond.
I'm gonna strongly disagree with this. Running Lost Mine of Phandelver as written can be extremely deadly, especially for new players. I don't know Dragon of Icespire Peak, I've never ran it, but I've hear great things about it, so I won't comment on that. But Lost Mine of Phandelver is full of issues. I'm not saying no DM has ever ran it successfully as written. This campaign has probably be ran thousands and thousands of times, so of course sometimes it works. But especially with inexperienced players and DMs, this campaign can very easily TPK the party multiple times.
I'm not saying this campaign shouldn't be ran, just...not as written. I'm not going to go into detail because that's not the point of the thread, but since the advice here is specifically against modifying the adventure, I'll just throw in my own opinion and say that modifying it is the best way to run it. If the DM is inexperienced then they can go online and find multiple places where experienced DMs explain what's wrong with it and how to run it instead. But running it as written can (of course won't be the case every single time) be way too difficult for an inexperienced group. If the group is experienced, and only the DM isn't, then maybe that can work, although I'd still modify it. It was the first campaign they wrote for 5e and you can tell.
If for whatever reason my assumptions are wrong, let's for a moment assume that both your campaigns were Lost Mine of Phandelver, then it is likely that you're trying to modify that adventure to your own tastes and likes. Don't. Run the adventure as written. Try to take note of what it's trying to teach you as a DM. Try to notice how the players respond.
I'm gonna strongly disagree with this. Running Lost Mine of Phandelver as written can be extremely deadly, especially for new players. I don't know Dragon of Icespire Peak, I've never ran it, but I've hear great things about it, so I won't comment on that. But Lost Mine of Phandelver is full of issues. I'm not saying no DM has ever ran it successfully as written. This campaign has probably be ran thousands and thousands of times, so of course sometimes it works. But especially with inexperienced players and DMs, this campaign can very easily TPK the party multiple times.
In which case you aren't running the adventure as designed, or don't understand the underlying design of the game. Once past level 1, the adventure is an easy introduction to 5e. Yes, the initial Goblin ambush can feel deadly but it really isn't. Beyond that, the adventure isn't that tricky.
Don't forget that LMoP was designed for a specific party of a Wizard, 2 Fighters, Rogue, Cleric. If you're playing with a party of a different composition that can alter the way in which the adventure plays out.
Most DMs who complain that LMoP is deadly have never actually run it as written from what I have seen.
Especially for a new DM players don't want to be too critical because they don't want to turn you off from DMing or cause you to get burned out or stressed about the campaign not going perfectly. Some tactics to get feedback would be to instead of asking what's wrong or bad, ask them what sessions they enjoyed the most or what they most enjoyed about a session. Or if there is some aspect of the campaign that they would like more of or to explore more deeply. It's much easier for a player to say they liked the sessions with a lot of combat in them than to say they didn't like the sessions with talking to lots of quirky shopkeepers. Also like the above said, don't ask them as a group because no body wants to be seen to be the "whiner" instead ask them individually via e-mail or DMs or something.
Its hard to have anything constructive to say as we do not know your level of experience or that of your players, both of which are hugely important in diagnosing what could have potentially been improved on.
A few rules of thumb.
Clear expectations - preferably discussed at session zero. - Is it a combat heavy campaign? a RP heavy campaign? is it a paper and pencil crowd or a digital crowd? Is there buy in on whatever the rules are you set for character creation? Is everyone comfortable with the comm system Meet - Discord whatever? Is everyone comfortable with the VTT? A mock skirmish @ session zero is a great tool to work out kinks for newer DM's - learn the players characters etc. Even as an experienced DM I tend to keep session one light if there are lots of players I do not know just to get a feel for how the table operates. D&D Is a team sport and there should be broad consensus about what a group is getting themselves into. The whole I am the DM and what I say goes thing can lead to pretty empty tables pretty fast. (Particularly if they know the rules better than you do and you happen to be wrong)
Mechanically - Are you prepared for every session mob stat blocks rolled and ready to go maps done - story line done - room to accommodate player crazy done? Do you roll up all your mobs in D&D beyond so the table is not waiting for you forever to roll dice on 4 sets of mobs, fumble around and remember what their bonuses are etc?
Stylistically - is it a crowd that wants letter of the law game management - do they want a more happy go lucky style - with broad discretion given instead of a 20 min debate about the letter of the rule? Or are they so new they do not even know the rule?
These are just all questions and basics - I wish you the best of luck in future campaigns keep at it!
Everything in my personal gaming experience tells me the same thing when I read this sort of post.
Great games don't come from a committee, discussion or input, they come from inspiration and vision, in short, your players don't really matter at all in your creative process. They play no part in the game you create, they are their to experience your creation. Their only decisions or input is "do I join it or not" and their character in story, ultimately the only real consideration in your process.
Being a DM is an artistic expression and the best you can hope for as a creative DM, or perhaps better to say, the best game you will ever run is going to be the one that you are passionate about, it has to be about your vision, its about your creative energy and love you put into it for yourself, for the expression of the story you want to tell... those things are going to be what results in you creating a great game, in the end it will be this passion that inspires the players as it will shine through.
Whether your players ultimately like that or not, whether they appreciate it or complain about, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that you got to create the game you wanted to create.
Its very much the same with writing, art, music or any other sort of abstract creative endeavour. You should not be selling out your vision for people's approval nor letting people's approval or review dictate your next creation.
Create the game YOU think is awesome and I promise you (35+ years of experience talking here), you will end up creating much better games. Your players will see your passion in it and you will end up getting their approval and then some anyway.
The biggest mistake GM's make, in particular new ones is that they don't trust themselves and believe their to be a "right way" or "answer" to how this is done. There isn't and while you can certainly learn a lot from other DM's, you have to realize and this is important that the overwhelming majority of DM's you run into, are not going to be good at it very specifically because they create based on "player preferences". When I say this is a "common problem", it really is, most DM's suffer from the idea that they have to please their players and they compromise their games in that endevour and its ALWAYS a mistake. The best DM's are always the ones that speak from a position of confidence and authority, this is something that develops from success, but you can simply make a conscious decision to do it anyway. Fake it, till you make it. Will you always succeed, I wish I could say yes, but the answer is no. You will definitely still fail, but doing it on your own terms is going to drive you to your next endeavor.
Fear, doubt, worrying about what your players think... these are all poison to a creative person. Give everyone the finger and do your own thing and I promise you that what you will create will be a 1,000x better than taking advice or feedback from some player-backseat-pilots who think they know what it takes to run a good game. They don't know anything more than you do, the difference is that you are the pilot of your own game and if you create with vision and heart... it will be awesome. Trust yourself.
Everything in my personal gaming experience tells me the same thing when I read this sort of post.
Great games don't come from a committee, discussion or input, they come from inspiration and vision, in short, your players don't really matter at all in your creative process. They play no part in the game you create, they are their to experience your creation. Their only decisions or input is "do I join it or not" and their character in story, ultimately the only real consideration in your process.
Being a DM is an artistic expression and the best you can hope for as a creative DM, or perhaps better to say, the best game you will ever run is going to be the one that you are passionate about, it has to be about your vision, its about your creative energy and love you put into it for yourself, for the expression of the story you want to tell... those things are going to be what results in you creating a great game, in the end it will be this passion that inspires the players as it will shine through.
Whether your players ultimately like that or not, whether they appreciate it or complain about, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that you got to create the game you wanted to create.
Its very much the same with writing, art, music or any other sort of abstract creative endeavour. You should not be selling out your vision for people's approval nor letting people's approval or review dictate your next creation.
Create the game YOU think is awesome and I promise you (35+ years of experience talking here), you will end up creating much better games. Your players will see your passion in it and you will end up getting their approval and then some anyway.
The biggest mistake GM's make, in particular new ones is that they don't trust themselves and believe their to be a "right way" or "answer" to how this is done. There isn't and while you can certainly learn a lot from other DM's, you have to realize and this is important that the overwhelming majority of DM's you run into, are not going to be good at it very specifically because they create based on "player preferences". When I say this is a "common problem", it really is, most DM's suffer from the idea that they have to please their players and they compromise their games in that endevour and its ALWAYS a mistake. The best DM's are always the ones that speak from a position of confidence and authority, this is something that develops from success, but you can simply make a conscious decision to do it anyway. Fake it, till you make it. Will you always succeed, I wish I could say yes, but the answer is no. You will definitely still fail, but doing it on your own terms is going to drive you to your next endeavor.
Fear, doubt, worrying about what your players think... these are all poison to a creative person. Give everyone the finger and do your own thing and I promise you that what you will create will be a 1,000x better than taking advice or feedback from some player-backseat-pilots who think they know what it takes to run a good game. They don't know anything more than you do, the difference is that you are the pilot of your own game and if you create with vision and heart... it will be awesome. Trust yourself.
Bingo. The first person the DM has to make happy is the DM. DM's are NOT service providers. DM's are the engine that IS the game.
Now, that being said, there are good DM's and there are bad DM's, just like there are good players and bad players. The real trick is for a bad DM to recognize they are indeed a bad one, and where the DM can improve. That on;y comes with experience. This DM should simply let this group of players walk away, assuming that they have not already done so. There are STILL more players looking for DM's than DM's looking for players. Get a new group, run the game, and see what happens. If the pattern repeats, the DM should then do some self-analysis.
In a different vein to the above. It also isn't the job of the players to fix their DM or fix the campaign. As a general rule for life: The only way to truly improve yourself is to learn to critique yourself.
You can't rely on other people to tell you what you are doing wrong, you need to be able to self-reflect and figure out for yourself what is going well and what is going poorly. You need to be aware of your players and how engaged they act in different scenes in your game, look at the characters they build and pay attention to how they play them to see what parts of the game they enjoy. If they are building perfectly designed killing machines with no social skills you can infer that they like combat and don't care about roleplay. If they are building weird characters with mediocre combat abilities but lots of unusual skills or stats you can infer they like roleplay. If they build the world's greatest detective, they would probably be into a murder-mystery subplot, if they build the greatest performer the land has ever seen they'd probably love a Battle-of-the-Bands side quest.
If for whatever reason my assumptions are wrong, let's for a moment assume that both your campaigns were Lost Mine of Phandelver, then it is likely that you're trying to modify that adventure to your own tastes and likes. Don't. Run the adventure as written. Try to take note of what it's trying to teach you as a DM. Try to notice how the players respond.
I'm gonna strongly disagree with this. Running Lost Mine of Phandelver as written can be extremely deadly, especially for new players. I don't know Dragon of Icespire Peak, I've never ran it, but I've hear great things about it, so I won't comment on that. But Lost Mine of Phandelver is full of issues. I'm not saying no DM has ever ran it successfully as written. This campaign has probably be ran thousands and thousands of times, so of course sometimes it works. But especially with inexperienced players and DMs, this campaign can very easily TPK the party multiple times.
In which case you aren't running the adventure as designed, or don't understand the underlying design of the game. Once past level 1, the adventure is an easy introduction to 5e. Yes, the initial Goblin ambush can feel deadly but it really isn't. Beyond that, the adventure isn't that tricky.
Don't forget that LMoP was designed for a specific party of a Wizard, 2 Fighters, Rogue, Cleric. If you're playing with a party of a different composition that can alter the way in which the adventure plays out.
Most DMs who complain that LMoP is deadly have never actually run it as written from what I have seen.
Have you seen the statblock of Venomfang? Let's think about a party with a Wizard, 2 Fighters, Rogue, Cleric. If Venomfang hits them with its breath weapon, the most likely outcome is that the Wizard and the Rogue will die. Not drop to 0 HP and start making death saves, no, they'll straight up die. It's a DC 14 CON save, so the Wizard and Rogue will have a higher chance of failing it than succeeding it. The average damage of the breath weapon is 42, that's enough to kill them both. The Fighters will have a better chance at succeeding on the roll, but it's still not a given. They might not die if they fail the save, but they'll still end up at 0 HP. The Cleric is also more likely to fail, and they'll either die or end up with 0 HP.
This combat is super deadly for the party. It's not just the breath weapon (which is a HUGE deal). Sure, it has only half its HP, but it's still a good amount. And with an AC of 18, attack rolls will be more likely to miss than hit. I'm not saying it's impossible for the party to win, but if they're a bit unlucky, it could easily end up in a TPK. This combat is very much deadly.
If for whatever reason my assumptions are wrong, let's for a moment assume that both your campaigns were Lost Mine of Phandelver, then it is likely that you're trying to modify that adventure to your own tastes and likes. Don't. Run the adventure as written. Try to take note of what it's trying to teach you as a DM. Try to notice how the players respond.
I'm gonna strongly disagree with this. Running Lost Mine of Phandelver as written can be extremely deadly, especially for new players. I don't know Dragon of Icespire Peak, I've never ran it, but I've hear great things about it, so I won't comment on that. But Lost Mine of Phandelver is full of issues. I'm not saying no DM has ever ran it successfully as written. This campaign has probably be ran thousands and thousands of times, so of course sometimes it works. But especially with inexperienced players and DMs, this campaign can very easily TPK the party multiple times.
In which case you aren't running the adventure as designed, or don't understand the underlying design of the game. Once past level 1, the adventure is an easy introduction to 5e. Yes, the initial Goblin ambush can feel deadly but it really isn't. Beyond that, the adventure isn't that tricky.
Don't forget that LMoP was designed for a specific party of a Wizard, 2 Fighters, Rogue, Cleric. If you're playing with a party of a different composition that can alter the way in which the adventure plays out.
Most DMs who complain that LMoP is deadly have never actually run it as written from what I have seen.
Please give me page numbers of in LMOP or Shattered where it states the idea party line up. Sookie_99 has already mentioned Venomfang. And in the hideout if the group starts putting the pedal to the metal, they can die.
OP, If they not mentioning until after the campaign. Don't worry about it. Think of the gripes as an after action report and take some notes. I been playing 40 plus years and still people will wait to gripe three months after the campaign.
The hubris in some of these replies is breathtaking. ME ME ME ME ME o and what else is important ME!
The DM is a player and akin to the captain of the team, the intent is to make the game enjoyable for everyone including but not only the DM.
The players creativity and passion for the game and goals for their characters and wonky crazy fun things they like to do are also very important - they just committed to 80 or a 100 hours.
If you really think D&D is all about the DM just get a few mirrors and interact with yourself for 4 hours and be done with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Recently, my campaign abruptly ended primarily due to a schedule conflict, but for other reasons which were my fault. Also, my first campaign ended before that one due to problems that were entirely my fault, but I noticed something in both campaigns that was a bit frustrating. I have a big problem with my players giving criticism to improve the campaign. I would ask them if there's anything they want changed with the campaign, and then I would get a response such as "Everything is good" or something very vague. After the campaigns ended, they listed reasons why they didn't like it. I'm a relatively new DM, so there are problems inside of campaigns, but why did they not tell me during the campaign? How could I get people to tell me the issues plaguing my campaign so I can fix them so the campaign does not become ruined?
My first question is what were their complaints? And a lot of times you have to make people comfortable. An anonymous online questionnaire may end up with more feedback than asking people in person.
The campaign is entirely online. They complained about too much railroad the first time, so I fixed that in my second campaign, making the story more diverse. Then, after the second campaign ended, the largest complaint was that there wasn't enough combat, so it wasn't fun for them; this was all told to me after the campaign ended.
Don't ask general questions to a group. Find a way to have one-on-one conversations. Whether voice chat on discord or phone or meet in person for a coffee or a meal. Ask specific questions about what the players want in a campaign / combat / roleplay. What they really liked either in your campaign or someone elses? During the campaign, reach out about these issues too. Get a feeling on specific topics and ask about how they feel their character is doing in the setting. Now, you don't want it to feel like they have to schedule another night just to talk about things but the occasional conversation can help.
You should talk about it before hand, and make sure they know what it ACTUALLY is. But you can't really change that. THEY have to.
The one who wants to hug quite literally everyone, for no reason whatsoever. Get him to an Asylum.
Just some guy who likes memes and DND!
Some may know me as a particularly goofy vermin if you play a Sonic game where you commit blasts of robo...2...
(online Monday-Friday from 8:00 to 3:00) (Most of the time.)
First ACTUAL RP character as a SHEET!!! He's a foxfolk.
Hewwo! ^w^ You wanna see a surprise? :3
Sometimes players just wont tell you. I have the same issue. They always say everything is great, even when you can tell there's something they're not loving. Maybe they love the campaign in general and don't want to sound mean telling you details, so they only say it once everything is over.
What works for me, and it might help you because it seems your situation is the same, is to be the first one to point out something that wasn't great or could be better. Nobody wants to be the first one, but once it starts, they feel more comfortable saying things they didn't like. For example, if you realize one combat dragged too long and it wasn't necessary at all, tell them. "I know this combat dragged a little too long and it was boring at the end." Then ask them what they thought about that. And after that, ask what else they think can improve.
This isn't always gonna work, but in my experience, players are more open about saying their criticism once someone else pointed something out, even if it was the DM.
So, based on what the OP said I'm going to give some thoughts here. I may well have made some assumptions about the OP so please do correct if they are wrong.
1. I am going to assume that you've never run Lost Mine of Phandelver, or Dragon of Icespire Peak. I assume this because you appear to have made assumptions and then tried to correct with your next campaign. I would highly advise you to run an 'official' adventure. The reason, simply put, is to give you an idea of the game as it is designed. Then, I'd suggest branching out to some of the adventures that have a different feeling to them. Curse of Strahd is a great 'advanced' adventure for players with a bit of experience because it takes the core design of the game and alters them in cool ways. These give you models and example to assist you when designing your own campaigns and adventures. Dragon of Icespire Peak in particular does a great job of teaching DMs how to DM. If you look at the way it creates of an example of an adventure it makes it so much easier to design your own adventures from.
2. I'm also going to assume that these were two different sets of players. Here's hard won experience from decades of play and GMing a ton of different systems - no two tables are the same. Every time you assemble a new set of players, or even the same players for a different adventure or campaign - the dynamic will be different. There will be different expectations and playstyles that appear. You can't simply take the feedback from a previous group and apply it to a new group - that won't work. Every table is different. Session Zero can help to understand some of the expectations, but it is allowed, and indeed should be encouraged that there will be a learnign curve while the table learns each other's playstyles. Lean into that. Express that it'll take a little bit of time to understand what appeals to each player at the table. And when assembling new groups, don't assume that there is a single correct way to run a table. Some GMs love getting lists of desired magic items from players. I personally hate it. I know where the adventure is heading, and if it's heading underground then boots of flying might not be helpful to the player asking for them. However, that doesn't make the GM who enjoys getting lists of magic items wrong. It means that they have a different play style. And that is 100% cool.
3. I'm going to assume you haven't read the Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG). I assume this from the 'not enough combat' comment. D&D 5e (the 2014 books) operates from some assumptions of how many encoutners there are in an adventuring day. It operates from some assumptions about the size of the party. D&D 5e was designed with a lot of assumptions in mind. Those DMs that have never read the DMG tend not to be aware of these assumptions and frequently struggle with designing satisfying games. A bit like point 1, reading and understanding the core materials will help you better design your own adventures and your own worlds. If you put in say 6 encounters in an adventuring day, but the players complain that it is far too many, you also then have the DMG to fall back on and explain that this is how the system is designed. As you grow with experience, you'll be able to move away from these things. You'll develop a sense of what will work and what won't. Until you've got that experience and understanding though, it can be difficult.
Ultimately, if the assumptions I've made are correct - you are trying to run before you have learnt to walk. Running a starter adventure might seem boring, but there is a reason that people advise it. Reading the DMG might suck (seriously the 'writers' should be ashamed of how badly written it is), but it contains loads of useful information.
If for whatever reason my assumptions are wrong, let's for a moment assume that both your campaigns were Lost Mine of Phandelver, then it is likely that you're trying to modify that adventure to your own tastes and likes. Don't. Run the adventure as written. Try to take note of what it's trying to teach you as a DM. Try to notice how the players respond.
Honestly, being advised to run a starter adventure and read the DMG made me a better DM. I think the same would apply to most DMs.
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.
I don't normally have this problem personally. I've been with my main group since we were all around 13, and have had a lot of practice with stuff like that. However, I have played with a number of other groups, and when my main group first started, we had this problem time and time again. I would ask my players what they liked and didn't like, and they said it was all great, and they were loving it. After, they would start talking about what they didn't like. And I wasn't an exception. When I was a player, I did the same thing. It took a year or two before we were able to fix this. ever since I was around 15, we have never had this problem. If the players didn't like something that was happening, or really liked something and wanted it to keep happening or something like that, they would tell me. Either mid session, or when that session was over.
I don't really have anything to add to what martintheactor said, since that was spot on. Using started adventures is great, and can truly help you become a better DM. And not just when you're learning, though that never stops. I can think of several groups that have been playing for 20+ years, and still use published adventures every now and again. Reading the DMG is also great. When I was starting, I was a little overly obsessed with D&D, (and still am) and read the PHB, DMG, and MM all the way through, not missing a word. I have actually gone back and done that several times, though maybe not as intensely. But really. The DMG is a great resource for DMs of any experience. Though like martintheactor said, it is really badly written and designed.
Good luck in the future!
I'm gonna strongly disagree with this. Running Lost Mine of Phandelver as written can be extremely deadly, especially for new players. I don't know Dragon of Icespire Peak, I've never ran it, but I've hear great things about it, so I won't comment on that. But Lost Mine of Phandelver is full of issues. I'm not saying no DM has ever ran it successfully as written. This campaign has probably be ran thousands and thousands of times, so of course sometimes it works. But especially with inexperienced players and DMs, this campaign can very easily TPK the party multiple times.
I'm not saying this campaign shouldn't be ran, just...not as written. I'm not going to go into detail because that's not the point of the thread, but since the advice here is specifically against modifying the adventure, I'll just throw in my own opinion and say that modifying it is the best way to run it. If the DM is inexperienced then they can go online and find multiple places where experienced DMs explain what's wrong with it and how to run it instead. But running it as written can (of course won't be the case every single time) be way too difficult for an inexperienced group. If the group is experienced, and only the DM isn't, then maybe that can work, although I'd still modify it. It was the first campaign they wrote for 5e and you can tell.
In which case you aren't running the adventure as designed, or don't understand the underlying design of the game. Once past level 1, the adventure is an easy introduction to 5e. Yes, the initial Goblin ambush can feel deadly but it really isn't. Beyond that, the adventure isn't that tricky.
Don't forget that LMoP was designed for a specific party of a Wizard, 2 Fighters, Rogue, Cleric. If you're playing with a party of a different composition that can alter the way in which the adventure plays out.
Most DMs who complain that LMoP is deadly have never actually run it as written from what I have seen.
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.
Especially for a new DM players don't want to be too critical because they don't want to turn you off from DMing or cause you to get burned out or stressed about the campaign not going perfectly. Some tactics to get feedback would be to instead of asking what's wrong or bad, ask them what sessions they enjoyed the most or what they most enjoyed about a session. Or if there is some aspect of the campaign that they would like more of or to explore more deeply. It's much easier for a player to say they liked the sessions with a lot of combat in them than to say they didn't like the sessions with talking to lots of quirky shopkeepers. Also like the above said, don't ask them as a group because no body wants to be seen to be the "whiner" instead ask them individually via e-mail or DMs or something.
Its hard to have anything constructive to say as we do not know your level of experience or that of your players, both of which are hugely important in diagnosing what could have potentially been improved on.
A few rules of thumb.
Clear expectations - preferably discussed at session zero. - Is it a combat heavy campaign? a RP heavy campaign? is it a paper and pencil crowd or a digital crowd? Is there buy in on whatever the rules are you set for character creation? Is everyone comfortable with the comm system Meet - Discord whatever? Is everyone comfortable with the VTT? A mock skirmish @ session zero is a great tool to work out kinks for newer DM's - learn the players characters etc. Even as an experienced DM I tend to keep session one light if there are lots of players I do not know just to get a feel for how the table operates. D&D Is a team sport and there should be broad consensus about what a group is getting themselves into. The whole I am the DM and what I say goes thing can lead to pretty empty tables pretty fast. (Particularly if they know the rules better than you do and you happen to be wrong)
Mechanically - Are you prepared for every session mob stat blocks rolled and ready to go maps done - story line done - room to accommodate player crazy done? Do you roll up all your mobs in D&D beyond so the table is not waiting for you forever to roll dice on 4 sets of mobs, fumble around and remember what their bonuses are etc?
Stylistically - is it a crowd that wants letter of the law game management - do they want a more happy go lucky style - with broad discretion given instead of a 20 min debate about the letter of the rule? Or are they so new they do not even know the rule?
These are just all questions and basics - I wish you the best of luck in future campaigns keep at it!
Everything in my personal gaming experience tells me the same thing when I read this sort of post.
Great games don't come from a committee, discussion or input, they come from inspiration and vision, in short, your players don't really matter at all in your creative process. They play no part in the game you create, they are their to experience your creation. Their only decisions or input is "do I join it or not" and their character in story, ultimately the only real consideration in your process.
Being a DM is an artistic expression and the best you can hope for as a creative DM, or perhaps better to say, the best game you will ever run is going to be the one that you are passionate about, it has to be about your vision, its about your creative energy and love you put into it for yourself, for the expression of the story you want to tell... those things are going to be what results in you creating a great game, in the end it will be this passion that inspires the players as it will shine through.
Whether your players ultimately like that or not, whether they appreciate it or complain about, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that you got to create the game you wanted to create.
Its very much the same with writing, art, music or any other sort of abstract creative endeavour. You should not be selling out your vision for people's approval nor letting people's approval or review dictate your next creation.
Create the game YOU think is awesome and I promise you (35+ years of experience talking here), you will end up creating much better games. Your players will see your passion in it and you will end up getting their approval and then some anyway.
The biggest mistake GM's make, in particular new ones is that they don't trust themselves and believe their to be a "right way" or "answer" to how this is done. There isn't and while you can certainly learn a lot from other DM's, you have to realize and this is important that the overwhelming majority of DM's you run into, are not going to be good at it very specifically because they create based on "player preferences". When I say this is a "common problem", it really is, most DM's suffer from the idea that they have to please their players and they compromise their games in that endevour and its ALWAYS a mistake. The best DM's are always the ones that speak from a position of confidence and authority, this is something that develops from success, but you can simply make a conscious decision to do it anyway. Fake it, till you make it. Will you always succeed, I wish I could say yes, but the answer is no. You will definitely still fail, but doing it on your own terms is going to drive you to your next endeavor.
Fear, doubt, worrying about what your players think... these are all poison to a creative person. Give everyone the finger and do your own thing and I promise you that what you will create will be a 1,000x better than taking advice or feedback from some player-backseat-pilots who think they know what it takes to run a good game. They don't know anything more than you do, the difference is that you are the pilot of your own game and if you create with vision and heart... it will be awesome. Trust yourself.
Bingo. The first person the DM has to make happy is the DM. DM's are NOT service providers. DM's are the engine that IS the game.
Now, that being said, there are good DM's and there are bad DM's, just like there are good players and bad players. The real trick is for a bad DM to recognize they are indeed a bad one, and where the DM can improve. That on;y comes with experience. This DM should simply let this group of players walk away, assuming that they have not already done so. There are STILL more players looking for DM's than DM's looking for players. Get a new group, run the game, and see what happens. If the pattern repeats, the DM should then do some self-analysis.
In a different vein to the above. It also isn't the job of the players to fix their DM or fix the campaign. As a general rule for life: The only way to truly improve yourself is to learn to critique yourself.
You can't rely on other people to tell you what you are doing wrong, you need to be able to self-reflect and figure out for yourself what is going well and what is going poorly. You need to be aware of your players and how engaged they act in different scenes in your game, look at the characters they build and pay attention to how they play them to see what parts of the game they enjoy. If they are building perfectly designed killing machines with no social skills you can infer that they like combat and don't care about roleplay. If they are building weird characters with mediocre combat abilities but lots of unusual skills or stats you can infer they like roleplay. If they build the world's greatest detective, they would probably be into a murder-mystery subplot, if they build the greatest performer the land has ever seen they'd probably love a Battle-of-the-Bands side quest.
A few2 tips from my personal experience:Why'd you spoil it?
Have you seen the statblock of Venomfang? Let's think about a party with a Wizard, 2 Fighters, Rogue, Cleric. If Venomfang hits them with its breath weapon, the most likely outcome is that the Wizard and the Rogue will die. Not drop to 0 HP and start making death saves, no, they'll straight up die. It's a DC 14 CON save, so the Wizard and Rogue will have a higher chance of failing it than succeeding it. The average damage of the breath weapon is 42, that's enough to kill them both. The Fighters will have a better chance at succeeding on the roll, but it's still not a given. They might not die if they fail the save, but they'll still end up at 0 HP. The Cleric is also more likely to fail, and they'll either die or end up with 0 HP.
This combat is super deadly for the party. It's not just the breath weapon (which is a HUGE deal). Sure, it has only half its HP, but it's still a good amount. And with an AC of 18, attack rolls will be more likely to miss than hit. I'm not saying it's impossible for the party to win, but if they're a bit unlucky, it could easily end up in a TPK. This combat is very much deadly.
Please give me page numbers of in LMOP or Shattered where it states the idea party line up. Sookie_99 has already mentioned Venomfang. And in the hideout if the group starts putting the pedal to the metal, they can die.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
OP, If they not mentioning until after the campaign. Don't worry about it. Think of the gripes as an after action report and take some notes. I been playing 40 plus years and still people will wait to gripe three months after the campaign.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
The hubris in some of these replies is breathtaking. ME ME ME ME ME o and what else is important ME!
The DM is a player and akin to the captain of the team, the intent is to make the game enjoyable for everyone including but not only the DM.
The players creativity and passion for the game and goals for their characters and wonky crazy fun things they like to do are also very important - they just committed to 80 or a 100 hours.
If you really think D&D is all about the DM just get a few mirrors and interact with yourself for 4 hours and be done with it.