I have a party of 6. 5 of them are along for the ride and even when the worst happens, they roll with it. Bad luck, no problem. Made a bad choice? Eh, we'll fix it next time. Even a TPK? Well, time for new characters! The thing is that the players have had some immense success and I've pointed out every session how much I love their ingenuity and good spirits and celebrate their successes with them.

Its that one other player that sours it. If another player makes a decision they don't like, it's a huge ordeal. They get charmed and have to roleplay it? "Taking away player agency" is the name of the game. Even when they pick a fight they never should, it's the DM fault for letting them. The player is friends with 3 of the others so it could cause strain if they were to simply not be part of the party.

For transparency, I was running the end of Waterdeep Dragon Heist and they ended up picking a fight with Jarlaxle. The players REALLY wanted to throw hands as soon as they saw him pop up at the vault entrance. Now, during session zero, and multiple points through the campaign so far, I warned them that high level enemies exist that would be an utter death sentence if they chose to pick a fight with them, but I would never force them into a fight they couldn't win. Death is a very distinct possibility. I never wanted them to be set up for failure so I always give them multiple outs if possible. So naturally, I had Jarlaxle give them every opportunity to leave without consequences. His goals of delivering the dragons to Silverhand aligns with the party so he tells them that he'll do it if they just go at the cost of getting the Dragonstaff. They absolutely refused to let him do it and attacked him. Jarlaxle defends himself. Still holding back to give them an opportunity to run when they realize they don't stand a chance at level 4, they double down and fight to the death. So then at that point, Jarlaxle gets serious since the party won't back down. 

At this point, they are going to die. Jarlaxle can easily take them out in one hit if he gets his Sneak Attack. It's easy to see since they won't run so I've kinda just leaned into running the Alterdeep from Dungeon of the Mad Mage to keep the party alive and going after this upcoming TPK. Even if they fall, they can still play on. I don't want their adventures to end. The five other players are like "we made a bad choice but oh well" while that one blames me as the DM for them jumping into the hornets nest and "dying".  If at any point they ran, I would have celebrated their success at avoiding a death trap. I don't know what else I could do that would have been acceptable other than never let them face any possibility of death.

After this scene, I even immediately jumped into setting up the Alterdeep to let them know this is continuing if they want it to.

What else can I do? I constantly feel like I'm failing as a DM because of this one player. I want to set up player success but even celebrate their failures but can't find a way to remedy a players reaction to this.

First of all, you're not a failure. You sound like you're doing great as a DM if you're keeping five of your players coming back for more! It's not you at all - it's the player.

The best thing to do about the situation is to handle it diplomatically and responsibly. You can't go on with a problem player at your table, but you also can't just send them off. After a session or otherwise outside of the game (not during game time to avoid making the problem player or their friends uncomfortable) I would discuss the issue one-on-one. Make it clear (1) what the problem is and (2) what steps you would like the player to take to remedy it. Have this discussion again a couple times if it doesn't work on attempt one.

If discussion doesn't work, it's time to consider removing the player. I'd bring this possibility up with the other players, too, so they aren't left in the dark. Explain calmly that problem player's idea of a good game simply does not line up with the requirements of the table. Chances are, your players will agree that the problem player, as good as a friend they are, is being a bit of a party pooper. Once again, be open and clear, and listen to what everyone involved has to say. Also bear in mind that since the problem player is getting so annoyed so much, they probably aren't enjoying the game either, so finding a group that matches their playstyle would be good for them, too.

Finally, I want to mention that your decision to remove a player shouldn't change things between you as people. It's nothing personal, and you can still be good friends. I hope you found this advice helpful and, whether you continue with or without the player, have a good rest of your campaign.

Major agreement with Panda_wat on this. This is not at all your failure as a DM. It may not even be a failure as a player from that person. It's more than likely a matter of differing expectations and differing goals from the game.

Many people these days have certain expectations when it comes to games. It sounds like you and most of your players go into D&D with the understanding and expectation that failure is a real possibility. Many people like not having this safety net. It can make D&D feel "real" versus a video game. Some players though, go into D&D wanting a safe time. They want the power trip that comes from going on an adventure and conquering obstacles. Neither of these approaches are wrong but when people's expectations become extreme enough, they aren't usually compatible.

Like Panda_wat said, ultimately, it becomes an issue of having a conversation with the problem player. We all know how awkward that can be. Trust me, I've been there too. My advice is don't approach that talk like "hey Player, you're a problem. How do we fix you?" and instead, approach it from the angle of "it sounded like you were frustrated about what happened in that session. Can we talk about what happened and how to move forward with the game?" If you think it will help, maybe let them behind the DM screen just a bit and explain to them why things happened the way they did. Maybe they aren't used to D&D and didn't pick up on the hints you were dropping about Jarlaxle being too strong for them. Sometimes players just need a conversation about those expectations and that could resolve the problem right there.

Ultimately though, if that player wants a power trip adventure but that's not what the rest of the group wants, you've got to draw that line in the sand. No need to be mean about it, just explain that this is the kind of game that everyone else signed up for. If that isn't going to work for problem player, then this likely isn't the table for them. Try and always make sure this is a conversation and not you ban hammering them unless it absolutely has to come to that. Maybe they can suggest something reasonable that could be done to help. Who knows?

It's always a tough thing to have these conversations but when it's hurting the enjoyment for others (including you! Your enjoyment matters too!) that's a problem that needs to be handled because it only ends with a party meltdown or your burnout.

Again, this is in no way your fault. Everyone who DM's for any length of time has experienced something similar. Particularly with new players, fear of player death is a common concern. One thing that can help in future games is addressing situations like this in a session zero, if you aren't already doing so. It sounds like you had discussed the dangers of the scenario with your players so this may be redundant but the more explicit you can be, the better, in my experience. Making sure that everyone at the table has the opportunity to be clear about their expectations is immensely helpful. In case you aren't familiar with session zero's, there are tons of great YouTube videos discussing how to run one. I recommend searching for session zero tutorials from Seth Skorkowsky and the Dungeon Dudes, in particular.

You're already a champ for DMing a game with 6 people in it. That is a mighty feat. Don't let this get you down.

Talk with problem player. Group council the problem player. If still problem, Problem player is invited to Taco Tuesday but not game night.  We all have friends who are not a good fit with all our fun activities. And I don't go to football games with my gamer friends.

Quote from Jayvir66>>

They get charmed and have to roleplay it? "Taking away player agency" is the name of the game.

I'm going to weigh in on this one point.

The correct answer is, "Yes, this is taking away agency, for a short time. By choosing to play in a game where charm magic exists, you gave me permission to do this. If this is unacceptable to you then may I suggest the Apocalypse World game at the next table?"

sounds like your table needs a safe word / phrase. I read somewhere one DM likes to briefly describe waking up to strong sensory descriptions each morning, emphasizing something like the smell of blueberry muffins. Later if the party wipes they can wake up in their beds to the same smells, having merely drifted back to sleep. Your trouble player would probably hate the "it was all just a dream" excuse (and likely having to repeat the play session). However, if you used it preemptively maybe no one would have to "wake up." You dip one toe into the murky water and suddenly you're overwhelmed with the smell of blueberry muffins. do you continue? More in the spirit of the game, perhaps an old crone or a blind beggar or the warlock's patron (talking through unsuspecting innkeepers and shop workers) predicts that they should flee the sounds of a raven and a bell.

"Your adventure need not end here, my fine adversaries," Jarlaxle warns you. Following his words you hear the faint call of a raven and a bell, muffled but not overly distant as if beyond a thin veil.

You're not a bad DM. You're working on providing a cool fun experience for a group of people, each of whom is different which is an awesome and challenging thing to do. :)

However, there is clearly a difference in expectations between some of the players and the DM and perhaps an issue of communication.

In your Jarlaxle encounter you say several things but three stick out:

- you say you have made it entirely clear to the party, through session zero and other reminders that there are NPCs that they can NOT defeat and which they may encounter.

- you have also said "I would never force them into a fight they couldn't win"

- the party decided to attack

Clearly something was misunderstood. For some reason, the players felt that they had NO choice but to fight. Basically, your definition of "forced" and the players definition are not the same. You expect the players to run away, leaving behind all the treasure, possible rewards and give up/fail the quest that has been motivating much of the module. Why would the players ever make such a choice on their own?

If I recall WDH, the quest the character's are on is to recover the treasure - if they return it they get a finders fee which I think was 10% and if they don't then they will be hunted by the Lords of Waterdeep and whoever else wants a cut. So their quest, goal, raison d'etre is to recover the treasure - it doesn't matter if Jarlaxle will give it to the same person - that wasn't their goal throughout the entire module. They are responsible for returning it (or perhaps seeing it returned). The PCs don't know Jarlaxle, they don't know whether he is lying or telling the truth, they don't know how powerful he is - all they know is that this NPC has been placed to prevent them from achieving the goal they have had since early on in the module.

Given that context, what party of adventurers would not fight to the death to achieve the goal they have been trying to reach since the beginning? If you wanted to give them a way out without fighting then Jarlaxle should have said "You may accompany me to deliver the treasure to Silverhand". If they still fight an NPC who is essentially just ensuring that the PCs are successful at their quest then that is on them. However, from your description, that isn't what happened. Jarlaxle was taking the treasure for himself and just saying "I will give it to Silverhand". For such a fundamental quest, that isn't good enough.

It sounds like the DM put them in a situation of - Fight this NPC or fail at the quest which is fundamental to the module (keep in mind that Jarlaxle saying that he will deliver the treasure isn't good enough). From the player perspective, the DM is forcing the PCs to fight or fail the quest. They chose fight which is hardly surprising since the DM said that he wouldn't force them into a fight they couldn't win. They die. Most players say WTF, oh well, $%# happens. One player is upset. It actually sounds to me like the one "problem" player may actually the most invested. They actually seem to care about what their character has to do or say while the others couldn't care less.

Anyway, clearly the party did not understand that this NPC would kill the entire party. In a situation like this, where the DM doesn't actually want a fight, they need to be extremely straightforward and tell the players that attacking will NOT work. It will result in the party dying.

Keep in mind, is information about Jarlaxle something that the CHARACTERS would know? Have the characters heard stories about the great Jarlaxle, how powerful he is? He is pretty legendary in Waterdeep. If the CHARACTERS would not have attacked because the characters would know they would die - then you have to ask why would the PLAYERS choose to attack and the reason is either that the players do NOT have the same information that the characters have and thought they could win OR the players are tired with the campaign and want to kill off their characters. Personally, I would guess the former - the players did NOT know that this was a no-win situation because the DM didn't tell them information that the characters would likely know.

Anyway, in a case like this, where the DM wants to strongly discourage combat, then the DM has to be very explicit and state to the players that the characters KNOW that this NPC is extremely powerful and if the party attacks they WILL die.