Some background info:  I am a somewhat experienced player turned new DM for a group of new players.  We have play styles that run the gamut from "I really want an immersive experience"  to "Can we just go kill things now?  This RP is killing me."  I tend to lean towards the more narrative, roleplay style myself, but I've been trying my best to make sure everyone's having fun, with...varied success.

This last session was particularly rough:  After infiltrating a bandit hideout, and making a deal with the local guardian monster (Nothic) to help them, the players trick some bandits into thinking they are new recruits and get one of the bandits' servants to first guide them around parts of the dungeon, and then to turn on his master's completely.  This guide allows them to access secret doors and they get the drop on a couple of enemies--including the wizard who runs the hideout  (oneshot with a crit.  It was pretty cool.  They then loot the wizard's lab and quarters, and then one of them decides to go take the Nothic's treasure, provoking a fight.  It takes them a while to take it down.

I figure that, while they're doing all these things, maybe some of the other bandits don't stay put where the characters left them; maybe one or two of them take a walk through the hideout to stretch their legs; maybe one of them wonders what's taking the servant-turned-guide so long to get back and goes looking.  I roll perception for them.  One of them rolls a natural 20 and I figure maybe he hears the characters fighting with the Nothic, or at least something worth investigating, the end result being that the bandit notices the "new recruits" attacking their guardian-monster;  the bandit raises an alarm.  Three turns later, the Nothic dies, and I have a couple more enemies appear.  I tell the players that the hideout has been put on alert and the bandits are coming out of the woodwork for them.  Two or three turns after that, the party of 5 finds themselves facing a force of 12.  I figure they'll try and escape (I encourage retreating a few times) and have left avenues open to do that (though circumstances/positioning do make it more challenging for some than others); I have the guide stay there through the fighting to lead them in escaping, as they have yet to explore the totality of the dungeon. 

During my prep, I totally envision them being able to do it.  They fight for 3-4 more rounds, during which they all take significant damage.  When they do decide to run, I hold the majority of the forces back.  They almost make it; one does, and disappears into the forest.  Another fails a dex save and falls into a pit trap, going unconscious.  The others try to save him, during which their escape route is cut off.  They get attacked, start falling unconscious, two of them get stuck in the pit.  I let them know (both through an enemy NPC and just straight up telling them) that eventually they're going to be overwhelmed, but will be taken captive instead of killed.  They want to roll it out some more, so we do.  The situation gets worse (characters are close to dying dying).  I reiterate that I don't want a TPK, and that if we keep fighting it out, the bandits will end up knocking them out and taking them captive anyway.  They tell me that none of them really want to start as prisoners next session (or roleplay a capture-and-escape scenario) and instead opt to commit suicide and scrap the campaign altogether.

I'll admit, the combat itself was a slog, the retreat a dejected affair filled with frustration.  They did not have fun, and thus neither did I, and words were had at the end about how they thought the encounter was totally unbalanced/unfair (which is true I suppose, but I thought it made narrative sense, and my dice rolls backed it up).  I'll also admit that I got rather defensive and probably didn't explain myself very well.  I basically told them that yeah, crap happens; sometimes you get found out and outnumbered and overwhelmed; sometimes you get taken captive and then have to escape; that it's a role-playing game, and this--whether through the unintended consequences of their actions, or just sheer bad luck--are part of it.

Or maybe not.  I have a lot of mixed feeling about it all, including how I ran the encounter.  Am I in the wrong here?

I see several places where bad decisions were made. Betraying the Nothic for the sake of extra treasure was ultimately their undoing. However, raising an alarm that brings the whole complex down on them was also a DM decision that, no matter how realistic, would result in making the players feel helpless. It’s the feeling of possibility that makes D&D fun and exciting. Their unwillingness to retreat is very common, also due to the feeling that D&D gives players that ‘anything is possible.  We can still do this.’ But it was still a bad tactical decision. And their next move of killing themselves instead of being taken prisoner speaks to their mindset that was probably present before they attacked the Nothic, but probably actively running the show by the time the extra bandits showed up: They were just done.  You said they were new players. Maybe they don’t love D&D.  Maybe they don’t love their characters. Maybe they didn’t like the campaign, or maybe they didn’t like how you DMed. I don’t know. You might be a good DM in general, but they just don’t mesh well in your game style.

So you said they were scrapping the campaign.  Does that mean a restart with new characters? Letting you start new adventure for them elsewhere? Or just “thanks for your time. We’ll each find someone else to play with going forward.” 

Wrong?  No, made a mistake with the group, sounds like it.  Big deal?  Depends on the group really.  And "death before capture" is very common with players, it takes A LOT of prep work between DM and Players to have themselves "allowed" to be captured.

To an old timer, it sounds to me like a very simple and classic "mid school" encounter.  Way back when, it was rare for any "encounters" to "bleed over" into the next room.  It was how one could have a cave/room with kobolds just down the corridor/hall from an owlbear, which was just around the corner from a couple of ghouls.  However, folks soon started putting together actual ecologies which were tied in thematically and also made encounters more "realistic" by having nearby denizens check to see if they noticed the ruckus down the hall.  We saw encounter design "peak" at this with 4e where an encounter was often considered several rooms/areas together.  In 5e doing this, especially from a published adventure, is very dangerous for the party.  If going the more "intelligent dungeon" route, one needs to take into account the original authors wrote it as a "dumb dungeon". and adjust accordingly.

Here's why:
In 5e, it is all about Action Economy.  Whichever side has more realized actions in an encounter will tend to be victorious.  If one side is going to have double or more realized actions, it is almost a guaranteed victory for that side.  Realized actions are those actually taken, or the only reason they were not taken is because there were no more opponents to use them against.

So back to your encounter (which I know well as I have a beginner group of two just entered the locale) the party was already down 2-3 encounters worth of resources, and then you threw the rest of the dungeon on them, not all at once, but still, it cascaded to that point.  It doesn't sound like the party were eliminating ANY of the opponents, during the initial rounds, which made it worse.  You should have stopped at 5-6 opponents entering the fray, it would have given them a chance to barely defeat them or to be able to overcome a bad roll obstacle (pit trap).  Once there were twice as many bandits, the party's fate was sealed, and everyone knew it.  

Use the encounter builder here on DnDBeyond, start adding those bandits in one at a time, as soon as it hits Hard you should have stopped (since they already expended resources and shouldn't have had even a short rest yet) and absolutely stop at DEADLY, adding on after that is pretty much a guaranteed TPK.  Especially considering the party doesn't have really ANY AoE spells yet.

So lessons which could be learned:  

1.  Homebrewing "on the fly" can have drastic consequences.  (That would be your Perception check, which is not in the module's design)
2.  Players prefer death over capture.
3.  Err on the side of the Players when it comes to encounters, especially "ad hoc" encounters.  
4.  Nobody puts baby in a corner
5.  Get feedback from the group, weigh the validity of the points they make, and then see what the next campaign is going to be.  Perhaps it will simply be the next set of adventurers coming into the area, and though it will take a little work on your part to get them some initial adventure/level they could very well end up finding the previous party's remains, and stuff, either at that locale or somewhere else...

I have no problem with the way you ran this session. I think the players messed up multiple times. 

First, they betrayed the Nothic for greed. IMO, this opens them up to whatever bad consequences may come their way. It is 100% reasonable to give the bandits perception checks to hear what is going on (i.e., to hear the fight that was triggered by the party's betrayal of their ally). I would probably warn the players that the fight is getting loud and might be overheard, but other than that, if the bandits hear it, like what you did, I'm sending them in. Again, the players are acting on selfishness and greed, they are betraying an NPC creature that helped them -- if they die from that, IMO, that is their own darn fault.

You gave them several outs. You even told them ahead of time that the bandits were going to try and capture not kill. Then their decision is, "We want to die instead" --??? This sounds like a group of players who may want to be able to just pull stuff and not ultimately suffer consequences.

I think you need to have a session 0 at this point, even though it may be mid-campaign, and talk honestly with each other about what each of you wants out of a campaign. You, as DM, need to put onto the table that (from what I can tell given your post) that you expect actions like betrayal to result in consequences. And you need to ask them if they are OK with a campaign like this, or do they want to have a campaign in which they can pull all kinds of crazy stuff and they are not going to really suffer consequences for it? If they want that, are you OK with DMing that sort of a game? (I would not be!).

I suspect you're going to find that what you want out of the game is different from what they want, and you folks will need to negotiate with each other to get to some sort of compromise.

But for me, as a DM -- Actions have consequences. Don't betray your allies next time, punks.... (Or at least, if you're going to betray the nothic, wait until AFTER you have cleaned out the rest of the dungeon before you turn on it.)

BTW, Matt Colville does this kind of thing (the whole base coming down on the heads of the players) to his party enough that his players have a name for it: it's called the "Colville screw." If they by-pass most of a dungeon and then they alert the guards, he brings the whole unfought dungeon down on them. It's not an invalid way to do things. Again, actions have consequences.

I think you played the encounter fairly. The way your players reacted strikes me as, in a word, batshit. But people are different and find fun in different places, so that’s fine I guess. But what this whole experience ought to have revealed is that their fun and your fun are simply not compatible. You don’t enjoy running the game they want to play, and they don’t enjoy playing the game you want to run. That’s not a condemnation of either party, it’s just an unfortunate reality.

I have very good friends whom I play alongside in other games but whom I very deliberately did not invite to the game I run because I know their kind of fun and my kind of fun are at odds in a way that would become unmanageable for one of us. That’s just how the dice fall sometimes.

Sounds like you have a mixed bag of players. If I were you I would try to bring the players who want to “Hack n Slash” into line with the more Roleplay focused bunch if that’s what you’re looking for. Otherwise it’s always going to turn out like this. 

I think the problem you are having is creating a direct line of PC to the player. Players are so quick to “Fight to the last breath!” Because its “Heroic” but you should give them opportunity to really get them involved with their character. If you want them to have characters that survive things like this. If players have no care for their PC then they think why not just roll over and over to try to hit 10 nat 20s in a row if they die oh well the deck was stacked against me unfair boohoo if they succeed then they are the chosen hero they knew they were as can continue to loot and pillage as desired. 

No, I don’t think you’re at fault. You played the game off of a living event in your world. The only fault I would place with you is if this event is rare for your campaigns that you don’t always play enemies this smart so it send your players for a loop then that is a little unfair. Next time just read the room if you have more players that want to smash and grab loot then play a campaign more suited to that. 

Quote from Velroc >>

Sounds like you have a mixed bag of players. If I were you I would try to bring the players who want to “Hack n Slash” into line with the more Roleplay focused bunch if that’s what you’re looking for. Otherwise it’s always going to turn out like this.  

This hardly ever works. People who just want to hack and slash things and don't have any interest in roleplay might change over time as they watch other people having fun roleplaying -- maybe. But there is no way to "get them to do it" -- either you get lucky and it happens on its own, or it doesn't happen. Trying to get hack-slashers to RP is not going to lead to fun for anyone, because it is not what they want to do.

The first thing that jumps out at me is that you say you lean toward RP focus with the campaign, but that you have (more than one?) player who just wants to kill things.  That right there is a compatibility problem that will likely color any other issue that may arise.  Going forward, you probably need to make an evaluation as to whether or not you've hit the right balance for the player group in question.  You may need to just up-front have a conversation with the players, individually or together, to see how they feel.  If most people are happy, but 1 or 2 are bored to tears, then maybe they just don't mesh well into the group.  It's nobody's fault, it's just how the pieces fit together (or don't).  You might try and make accommodations, but that may or may not work.

Moving to the second thing, which may be somewhat related...  you say 1 player in particular stole the Nothic's treasure?  Was it one of the "let me kill things" players, or was it a "it's what my character would do" Rogue?  I'm guessing there wasn't a backstory or class specific reason.  Either way, this was the thing that started the cascade into oblivion.  Technically you could have put the breaks on here with that nat 20 perception check -- I'm assuming you rolled behind the screen, allowing you to fudge or reroll or whatever -- but frankly, at that point there wasn't a reason to, because while the party had passed the point of no return, they were not yet in danger from that action.

This leads to the next thing.  I don't have the layout of your dungeon to know if it would make sense or not, how deep in they were located, etc.  However...  After only another 2 or 3 turns, they're already facing 12 guys?  That seems a little fast, unless they happened to be near the common room or wherever the bulk of the bandits happened to be.  As Pedroig explained, that's 12 attacks from the Bandits to the 5ish attacks from the party.  Depending on how different the stats are, that might already be extremely deadly to the party.  And this after having already taken on a miniboss (the mage leader who got 1 shot, plus entourage), then the Nothic (a bit more than your average bear).  You probably should have fed the bandits in more slowly.  By all means , use all of them, but don't just dump that on the players that quickly.  I assume that prior to this point, the party was still onboard with the idea of escaping, yes?  That's when you use the narrative capacity of the DM, between sounds heard (shouting and footsteps from THIS corridor) and the urging of their NPC guide ("hurry, THIS way!" to lead them out, as you intended.  If the party moves too slowly, have a few more bandits catch them for another small scuffle, but keep the momentum going of making the escape.  Throwing 12 guys at them at once puts the players into the mindset that this is just another fight and they are expected to stick around and fight, not flee.  Nevermind that players flat out hate fleeing from a battle, but more than that they assumed this was leading to something after they got that lucky crit on the Wizard and then slew the Nothic.  They were running on that adrenaline rush, not realizing they had already killed the big boss, and were expecting something more.  Where as you were practically begging them to get out because they had done all there was to do.  But they couldn't hear that over their victories.

The forth speedbump was the pit trap.  ...was that necessary?  Had they already passed this way, and knew it was there?  Because if they hadn't, meaning it was unknown to them...  well, then what happened after that is kind of your fault.  It sounds like they were actively trying to escape now.  No more dragging their feet, probably someone at critical health with others halfish, most spell slots and features expended.  So as the DM, why would you stop them like that with the trap?  They were doing exactly what you wanted them to do -- escape.  And they had a guide there to either deactivate the trap, or instruct them on how to avoid it.  And ultimately, this was the final thing that doomed the party, because someone fell in and the others stopped to help them.  This was faux pa on your part, and from the player perspective it was probably what made them lose interest.

Next, you don't say whether or not you had planned ahead of time for the party to be captured or not.  Was that the goal?  Because that would explain the pit trap.  But based on the need to ask about how the players feel in the first thing, I'd say it was not the best decision to take the campaign that direction.  Getting players to buy into the whole prison escape thing is difficult.  And depending on the party makeup (was there a Wizard, Warlock, or Sorcerer?) it can be anything from agonizing to soul crushing.  Having to work with next to nothing in resources is simply put not fun.  "Oh, look at all these things I WANT to do, and could NORMALLY do, but can't because I don't have my thingamajig".  And it may also depend on what RPing your players had already been doing -- there are a half a dozen different plausible character reasons, depending on backgrounds, class, and backstory, that would make sense for Death before Dishonor tactics (group suicide).  It requires a certain mindset before hand for it to work out.  But again, you don't say what your intentions were regarding the completion of the session.  Perhaps you put the idea together on-the-fly, as the players dragged you along by the seat of your pants.  Can't really say without knowing which.

And for the final thing, regarding where to go from here.  You are a bit vague on what the sentiment was after the suicides.  Do they want to keep playing, just not that campaign?  Were some people less-than-amazed with their characters?  Was that group mesh thing from the first thing leading to uncertainty?  Sounds like you have some data to collect from your group.  Maybe they all do want to try again, which is great!  But it's also an opportunity for you to better read their expectations, and then when working the next campaign, better match and manage them.

Knowing when to fail/retreat is a slightly more advanced concept for people new to the game. Not because they're dumb or anything, it just takes a while to get bored of being the heroes who always win (in fairness, because that is hella fun!), so when DMing for new players, I'd keep it simple to start out. Even if that means running a less "realistic" game where the bandits are content to sit and wait around while the players are dealing with the nothic. The players won't notice, cause they've got their hands full, and then they'll be more able to deal with problems one at a time in a straightforward manner. 

Basically, new players want to rescue damsels, find lost treasure, maybe work in something from their backstories, and be the heroes. If you think they may want to mix things up a little from there after they get a little more experience under their belts, I'd ask them if they're interested in taking the game in a more strategic and complex direction. The only big mistake you made was not making sure you had player buy-in on your big bandit cave escape adventure. 

Quote from CharlesThePlant >>

Knowing when to fail/retreat is a slightly more advanced concept for people new to the game.

Maybe, but even an utter novice should know that stealing treasure from the enslaved demon-creature who's been helping you fight the bandits is a bad idea.

There's been a pretty lively discussion already, but one thing I haven't seen yet (or missed reading),  is that as DMs none of us are perfect and mistakes happen.

I'm sure most (all?) of us, having a day to reflect on a session, would have things we would change.  We do as best as we can with what we have at the time.  Some on the spot decisions may be less than ideal, but we try to improve so that mistakes are less likely (or at least different ones) the next time.  Experience teaches us a lot.

In my opinion, the big next step would be to have a conversation with your players.  Talk things out and communicate.  It's a great opportunity to grow together as a gaming table.

Good luck!

The key mistake the players made is that they tried to sneak past guards (meaning those guards were still behind them), and then got into a brawl (with a risk of raising an alert). Players who want to crash around killing everything in sight should not try to sneak because it will eventually result in a TPK. It does sound like what your players want out of the game might not match up with what you want to run, but it's not clear that it can.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

The key mistake the players made is that they tried to sneak past guards (meaning those guards were still behind them), and then got into a brawl (with a risk of raising an alert). Players who want to crash around killing everything in sight should not try to sneak because it will eventually result in a TPK. It does sound like what your players want out of the game might not match up with what you want to run, but it's not clear that it can.

I agree with this.

I think inexperience plays a role... experienced players know to 'clean out the dungeon' as they go, or risk something coming up from behind them and wiping them out. New players might not have thought of that.

But also I think you are right.. the players seem to want to do what you are describing and not suffer consequences for it (and then when made to suffer consequences, respond by effectively quitting).

I also agree with the post above about DMs making mistakes. Boy do we ever. You have to make a quick call based on what you remember or can quickly look up about the rule, and then move the session along. 100% of the time, the day after a session (or even the hour after) I will see things I did not do correctly and wish I could take back.

A *good* DM doesn't make zero mistakes. A *good* DM will see the mistakes as such and correct them. And don't be afraid to go back to the players and say "Hey, I just realized that the way we have been playing this is all wrong, here's what I want to do to fix it."

Quote from BioWizard >>

Quote from CharlesThePlant >>

Knowing when to fail/retreat is a slightly more advanced concept for people new to the game.

 

Maybe, but even an utter novice should know that stealing treasure from the enslaved demon-creature who's been helping you fight the bandits is a bad idea.

 Yeah but new players often come in with the video- game-mentality of "they wouldn't put it in the game if it was unbeatable." They're not necessarily prepared for no-win scenarios, and by the time they realize there isn't another shoe that's gonna drop and turn an encounter in their favor, it's already too late and they probably feel kinda cheated. 

Fair enough.

The video game mentality also lends itself to the whole "Open every chest, take every single item you can" mentality because that is often not only not penalized in video games but flat out required to have enough treasure to succeed.

That’s why “Session 0” is so important, especially for newer players. 

Session 0 is important but you can't catch everything in it. Especially for a new DM, who might not think of the fact that his players might be in "video game" mentality. 

I mean, it didn't even occur to me to discuss that -- I said that actions have consequences, but we did not talk about "cleaning out every room of all loot" or any of that. We only have 1 new player, who is not a video gamer, so it would not have occurred to me for it to be an issue. But it easily could have been (so far, 2 sessions in, it is not).

It happens a lot with younger people -- as you point out in terms of the maturity level. 

An awful lot of nonsense went on in my group when we were in high school, not so much with D&D, but more so with Champions. In those days we pretty much followed the rules as written for AD&D, even though they said you could make "DM calls," perhaps because of Gygax's very authoritarian writing style that did not appear to admit optional interpretations. But Champions was explicitly flexible and left a lot more to the GM's call, and we made a lot of bad calls back then, and did a lot of stupid and abusive things.

Quote from EgilThunderfist >>

Some background info:  I am a somewhat experienced player turned new DM for a group of new players.  We have play styles that run the gamut from "I really want an immersive experience"  to "Can we just go kill things now?  This RP is killing me."  I tend to lean towards the more narrative, roleplay style myself, but I've been trying my best to make sure everyone's having fun, with...varied success.

This last session was particularly rough:  After infiltrating a bandit hideout, and making a deal with the local guardian monster (Nothic) to help them, the players trick some bandits into thinking they are new recruits and get one of the bandits' servants to first guide them around parts of the dungeon, and then to turn on his master's completely.  This guide allows them to access secret doors and they get the drop on a couple of enemies--including the wizard who runs the hideout  (oneshot with a crit.  It was pretty cool.  They then loot the wizard's lab and quarters, and then one of them decides to go take the Nothic's treasure, provoking a fight.  It takes them a while to take it down.

I figure that, while they're doing all these things, maybe some of the other bandits don't stay put where the characters left them; maybe one or two of them take a walk through the hideout to stretch their legs; maybe one of them wonders what's taking the servant-turned-guide so long to get back and goes looking.  I roll perception for them.  One of them rolls a natural 20 and I figure maybe he hears the characters fighting with the Nothic, or at least something worth investigating, the end result being that the bandit notices the "new recruits" attacking their guardian-monster;  the bandit raises an alarm.  Three turns later, the Nothic dies, and I have a couple more enemies appear.  I tell the players that the hideout has been put on alert and the bandits are coming out of the woodwork for them.  Two or three turns after that, the party of 5 finds themselves facing a force of 12.  I figure they'll try and escape (I encourage retreating a few times) and have left avenues open to do that (though circumstances/positioning do make it more challenging for some than others); I have the guide stay there through the fighting to lead them in escaping, as they have yet to explore the totality of the dungeon. 

During my prep, I totally envision them being able to do it.  They fight for 3-4 more rounds, during which they all take significant damage.  When they do decide to run, I hold the majority of the forces back.  They almost make it; one does, and disappears into the forest.  Another fails a dex save and falls into a pit trap, going unconscious.  The others try to save him, during which their escape route is cut off.  They get attacked, start falling unconscious, two of them get stuck in the pit.  I let them know (both through an enemy NPC and just straight up telling them) that eventually they're going to be overwhelmed, but will be taken captive instead of killed.  They want to roll it out some more, so we do.  The situation gets worse (characters are close to dying dying).  I reiterate that I don't want a TPK, and that if we keep fighting it out, the bandits will end up knocking them out and taking them captive anyway.  They tell me that none of them really want to start as prisoners next session (or roleplay a capture-and-escape scenario) and instead opt to commit suicide and scrap the campaign altogether.

I'll admit, the combat itself was a slog, the retreat a dejected affair filled with frustration.  They did not have fun, and thus neither did I, and words were had at the end about how they thought the encounter was totally unbalanced/unfair (which is true I suppose, but I thought it made narrative sense, and my dice rolls backed it up).  I'll also admit that I got rather defensive and probably didn't explain myself very well.  I basically told them that yeah, crap happens; sometimes you get found out and outnumbered and overwhelmed; sometimes you get taken captive and then have to escape; that it's a role-playing game, and this--whether through the unintended consequences of their actions, or just sheer bad luck--are part of it.

Or maybe not.  I have a lot of mixed feeling about it all, including how I ran the encounter.  Am I in the wrong here?

 A certain module, gone wrong it seems like.  From my point of view: you made ample adjustments and concessions and gave them a ton of leeway and flexibility. You are not in the wrong. The players just made choices, maybe the pc’s personality is greedy, maybe it’s the character they play, type of deal. If they did not have fun, it’s because they learned that there are consequences to actions. Actions that seemed like they were NOT forced upon them either, but consequences made by THEIR OWN CONSCIOUS CHOICES.

🤷🏼‍♂️ As a DM, you learn what kinds of groups you like running games for and what kinds you don’t. Sometimes groups just don’t mesh well.

for me, as both a player and a DM, I’m not particularly fond of being in groups with “murderhobos”. I personally feel like there’s less overall story, there’s less overall plot hooks and side quests, and less time to actually play your character/NnPCs. Instead you get to spend more time rolling dice for combat, and waiting until the next time to roll dice for combat. I personally feel if I want to roll dice that much I’d play risk, monopoly, or craps.

Quote from CharlesThePlant >>

Quote from BioWizard >>

Quote from CharlesThePlant >>

Knowing when to fail/retreat is a slightly more advanced concept for people new to the game.

 

Maybe, but even an utter novice should know that stealing treasure from the enslaved demon-creature who's been helping you fight the bandits is a bad idea.

 Yeah but new players often come in with the video- game-mentality of "they wouldn't put it in the game if it was unbeatable." They're not necessarily prepared for no-win scenarios, and by the time they realize there isn't another shoe that's gonna drop and turn an encounter in their favor, it's already too late and they probably feel kinda cheated. 

 “No win scenarios”

.... what was to stop them from leaving? Or staying in the dorms, and doing it later, when less people were awake/around?

there’s a plethora of ways they could of done it differently, to not raise alarms, if they really wanted the chest that badly.