I am currently DM for the first time and am running a custom campaign, it's not super Indepth but basically just to get the players to learn the rules and how the game works as it is their first time too. Most of the campaign has been going well so far but i am having problems with players trying to meta game or switch up their decisions if there is sudden consequences. For instance, they recently kidnapped a corrupt mayor in a town of about 40% evil cultist, that's not really a problem. But they see that a neighbor of the mayor saw them do this from their house window, one player precedes to dimension door into this person's house, once they do that, they see that the neighbor is quickly escaping through the back door of the house, this player now tries to say that instead of using dimension door to enter the house the first time, they will just use it to go straight to the neighbor. This is the problem and leads me to explaining that they would not know the neighbor was escaping through the backdoor unless they used dimension door the first time.
The second problem are things like the players changing what they do on the spot or saying that is not what they wanted to do. For instance, they recently were investigating a mine about some miners disappearing. I had the monsters they were going to fight in the mine be mimics that mimic a dead/unconscious person. They entered the first floor of the mine and find many of these "dead" miners laying around, one of the players asked to investigate the body and i asked what exactly they are looking for? i say "what exactly are you doing? what are you looking for? are you wanting to rifle through the cloths pocket?" this player being a rouge I figured he might they looking for valuables. When i said "do you want to look through the pockets?" they responded sure. If i remember right the investigation was not a high enough roll to perceive that there was something off about this body before it surprised the rouge and got first attack (It missed anyway). The rouge, once it is revealed that the bodies are mimics said they actually just wanted to see if there was shown to be any cause of death or any sign of injury on the bodies, which was not stated at all beforehand and i think they thought i was unfair.
The same thing happens with traps: 1. they dont look for traps, 2. players says they want to go to a specific spot in the room, 3. I describe how they missed the trap and how they set it off, 4. The player responds, "oh i don't do that then", 5. i describe how they can't turnback time and metagame a trap now knowing here is one.
I will admit some of these times especially at the start are my fault of being too vague and not detailed enough. But i do feel like there is not enough communication sometimes with the players, and often times they will not ask additional questions to get a better picture about what they see. Or they will be very vague about what they do and then backtrack on what they do or say they actually wanted to do something else if consequences arise even if they didn't specify at all.
I just need some advice here; I am really just trying to get better at being a DM and am trying to reduce confusion all around.
Probably the most important thing you can do is ask players to clarify their action before stating what happens. It sounds like you mostly did this in the example of the Rogue searching the miners, other than perhaps instead of saying "Do you do X?" you could try asking "HOW do you do X?", because sometimes there can be a discrepancy between what the Player thinks they're describing and what you hear them saying.
For the most part it sounds like you're doing things right, and you just need to hold firm on your descriptions of what happened, and hopefully your players can come around to the fact that not everything has to go perfectly to be fun. Once they trust you that things will still turn out to be fun even if bad stuff happens, they'll stop worrying about it and just embrace the chaos
One final thing to think about is whether you're overdoing the surprise ambushes. Traps and Mimics are staples of DnD but also get lame fast. No one wants to play in a group where the players are super carefully examining every single thing to the Nth degree because they don't want to get ambushed. Any time you use ambushes like traps or mimics or stealthed NPCs, you should assume your players will always trigger it, and ask yourself if that adds to the fun (often it can when it adds to the overall story or ambiance)
There are many experienced DMs on this site; so, I'm sure you'll hear some of their insights. Here are few of my own:
Be thoughtful and thorough in your descriptions. If a player makes a potentially harmful decision because you were vague, then be merciful. Very merciful.
Ask questions if you are uncertain what the player intends, but don't ask leading questions (the kind that put ideas in a player's head).
Embrace the idea that you are the judge and jury of the game. Be humble, open-minded, and ready to admit your mistakes, but be ready to say no when a player attempts to reverse a decision that he/she/they made.
Have your players consider how they would feel if you suddenly reversed/undid the actions of the NPC's and monsters after the players made their intentions known.
Oftentimes, the negative consequences of players' decisions lead to some of the most suspenseful, interesting, and memorable parts of the game. Remind them of this.
Lastly, don't play another minute of the game until you've discussed (calmly, of course) the above with your players.
"For instance, they recently kidnapped a corrupt mayor in a town of about 40% evil cultist, that's not really a problem. But they see that a neighbor of the mayor saw them do this from their house window, one player precedes to dimension door into this person's house, once they do that, they see that the neighbor is quickly escaping through the back door of the house, this player now tries to say that instead of using dimension door to enter the house the first time, they will just use it to go straight to the neighbor. This is the problem and leads me to explaining that they would not know the neighbor was escaping through the backdoor unless they used dimension door the first time."
For the above, you are right in your declaration that they wouldn't have known the direction of the fleeing NPC until they used dimension door the first time. not to mention they might not have been privy to the fact that the house even had a back door. I would just ask them to keep their actions to the now, and not to the before. Unless they have a spell or ability, or item that allows them to travel back in time they are not able to engage in that activity. Then I would stress that the NPC is getting away to attempt to get their attention back to the current activity so hopefully they get back on track.
"They entered the first floor of the mine and find many of these "dead" miners laying around, one of the players asked to investigate the body and i asked what exactly they are looking for? i say "what exactly are you doing? what are you looking for? are you wanting to rifle through the cloths pocket?" this player being a rouge I figured he might they looking for valuables. When i said "do you want to look through the pockets?" they responded sure. If i remember right the investigation was not a high enough roll to perceive that there was something off about this body before it surprised the rouge and got first attack (It missed anyway). The rouge, once it is revealed that the bodies are mimics said they actually just wanted to see if there was shown to be any cause of death or any sign of injury on the bodies, which was not stated at all beforehand and i think they thought i was unfair. " For the second issue you are talking about. One thing I would try to do is remove limit leading questions from my vocabulary. As a DM you want to leave your communication open. So for example, instead of asking "do you want to go through the pockets?" Just ask them how they would like to investigate the body. That way they tell you the method of their interaction and then you can make determinations regarding the result of that interaction. This should help alleviate miscommunication, and remember if your unsure, you can always ask for clarification.
"The same thing happens with traps: 1. they dont look for traps, 2. players says they want to go to a specific spot in the room, 3. I describe how they missed the trap and how they set it off, 4. The player responds, "oh i don't do that then", 5. i describe how they can't turnback time and metagame a trap now knowing here is one."With traps, generally I record the players passive perception score and keep in mind environmental factors that might affect that score (lighting, speed of movement, etc) If the traps DC is low enough that their passive perception score allows them to detect its presence I will let that player know (in private) that they notice something amiss and give them a hint or some detail of the visual they might be picking up on. For example, if a floor of a room is an illusion then perhaps they notice that dust in the room doesn't seem to be as thick in that area as the rest of the room, or debris on the floor doesn't seem to reflect the light from light sources as it would if it was real as the reflected light would change if the light source was moving.
As for how your handling the interaction here. First thing is I would refrain from telling a player how they missed a trap. As that can make them feel like you are telling them they failed or were to stupid to notice and might have a tendency to create a Player vs. DM dynamic. Your main job as a DM is to relay to the players the environment and contents within it and how those react to the players choices. As for how they set it off, again not as important as the fact that they did set it off and what happens now that they have.
If you want anymore help feel free to send a message I will try to respond ASAP.
Especially with traps and surprise attacks, newer players might feel like they have to "beat the game" by doing everything successfully and avoiding negative consequences. New players also tend not to know what to do with a given room/situation/task. Wanting to retcon their actions after learning what they could/should have done is kind of in line with the "beat the game" mindset. D&D doesn't have quicksaves, though, and that might be a concept your players will need to learn with repetition and familiarity.
In the meantime, here are a couple tips that haven't already been mentioned:
- Give more hints. Have NPCs gossip about the Thing in the sewers. Narrate scorch marks where a flamethrower trap might have roasted some foolhardy adventurers in the past. Describe the fresh footprints of a large quadruped in the snow. Direct your players' attention to potential danger until they are trained to look for it themselves. Relying solely on good rolls and the players' initiative makes the learning curve steeper.
- Ask more questions. Players will constantly surprise you - like the rogue wanting to make a medicine check, not a steal-some-loot check. "What are you looking for/doing?" can be a good start, but again, with inexperienced players they might not know or feel confident enough to describe their plan. Asking other clarifying questions like, "What are you hoping to learn? What is your character thinking right now? How do you go about that?" can provide more context.
- Lean into the party's strengths, too. "Gotcha" moments like mimics and traps are fun for the DM, less so for players. I'm not advocating taking these out of the campaign, but I will say that it's good to pepper them in-between opportunities to let the characters shine, in combat and out of it. You can use passive scores, backgrounds, backstories, and classes as excuses to give PCs special insights:
"Rogue, as the party is about to enter the crypt, you notice a symbol on the archway. It's Thieves' Cant: a warning of danger ahead." "Cleric, something about this altar seems off to you. There's almost an emptiness inside you whenever you look at it." "Druid, you've been in forests like these before. You know owlbears usually migrate for the winter, so it's weird to find tracks this time of year."
- Consider variety with your consequences. One way to help players learn to embrace bad rolls is to make some of the outcomes funny or endearing rather than dangerous. If every bad roll or overlooked check is a trap or a mimic, your players will become paranoid and want to retcon all the more. On the flipside, if there are fun or lighthearted things to discover with skill check rolls (a beautiful melody on the wind, a gold coin stuck between floorboards, a little kid making faces at his mom while she's haggling for fish), your players will learn that there are pleasant surprises to uncover, too. I will echo Man of Dust's advice to talk to your players about retcons and metagaming. Open communication is never a bad thing at D&D tables.
Don't be a "gotcha" DM. The DM is all knowing since they are setting the scene. The characters would have a lot of information since they are IN the scene. There are obvious things the characters would notice either due to the character's skills or because the character can see everything in the room. On the other hand, the PLAYERS are neither. Players rely on the DM description of the scene to decide what to do and rely on the DM describing all the relevant details of a scene.
Frequently, the DM can't describe everything the characters can see and isn't expected to ... however, when a player decides what the character will do based on the DM description and the players are not picturing the scene the same way then it can often happen that the players either forget to mention something obvious that their character would have likely done, or decides to do something that doesn't seem to make much sense from the DM perspective (typically something the DM thinks has a risk or might not be a good decision) - in which case, the DM should really first ask themselves "Did I miss giving some important information that is causing the player to make this choice?" or "Is the action that the player forgot to mention something the character would be doing anyway?" (checking for traps can sometimes fit in this territory - especially if a player usually says "I'll check for traps" ... the time the player forgets to say it is NOT the time to gleefully proclaim "HAHA gotcha, you didn't SAY you were checking for traps and set off this nasty trap". Instead ask the character to make a perception check and narrate whether they notice the trap or the consequences of not noticing based on the die roll.
I am currently DM for the first time and am running a custom campaign, it's not super Indepth but basically just to get the players to learn the rules and how the game works as it is their first time too. Most of the campaign has been going well so far but i am having problems with players trying to meta game or switch up their decisions if there is sudden consequences. For instance, they recently kidnapped a corrupt mayor in a town of about 40% evil cultist, that's not really a problem. But they see that a neighbor of the mayor saw them do this from their house window, one player precedes to dimension door into this person's house, once they do that, they see that the neighbor is quickly escaping through the back door of the house, this player now tries to say that instead of using dimension door to enter the house the first time, they will just use it to go straight to the neighbor. This is the problem and leads me to explaining that they would not know the neighbor was escaping through the backdoor unless they used dimension door the first time.
The second problem are things like the players changing what they do on the spot or saying that is not what they wanted to do. For instance, they recently were investigating a mine about some miners disappearing. I had the monsters they were going to fight in the mine be mimics that mimic a dead/unconscious person. They entered the first floor of the mine and find many of these "dead" miners laying around, one of the players asked to investigate the body and i asked what exactly they are looking for? i say "what exactly are you doing? what are you looking for? are you wanting to rifle through the cloths pocket?" this player being a rouge I figured he might they looking for valuables. When i said "do you want to look through the pockets?" they responded sure. If i remember right the investigation was not a high enough roll to perceive that there was something off about this body before it surprised the rouge and got first attack (It missed anyway). The rouge, once it is revealed that the bodies are mimics said they actually just wanted to see if there was shown to be any cause of death or any sign of injury on the bodies, which was not stated at all beforehand and i think they thought i was unfair.
The same thing happens with traps: 1. they dont look for traps, 2. players says they want to go to a specific spot in the room, 3. I describe how they missed the trap and how they set it off, 4. The player responds, "oh i don't do that then", 5. i describe how they can't turnback time and metagame a trap now knowing here is one.
I will admit some of these times especially at the start are my fault of being too vague and not detailed enough. But i do feel like there is not enough communication sometimes with the players, and often times they will not ask additional questions to get a better picture about what they see. Or they will be very vague about what they do and then backtrack on what they do or say they actually wanted to do something else if consequences arise even if they didn't specify at all.
I just need some advice here; I am really just trying to get better at being a DM and am trying to reduce confusion all around.
While running hoard of the dragon queen for a group I had repeatedly informed them on numerous occasions that the brush on the sides of a river was dense. The players never interacted with the brush or investigated further. Skip to a short time later and the group has an encounter on a road and one of the players wanted to cut through the brush to get on the other side of the encounter creatures. They dragged their token (on roll20) to their desired location and I moved them back to the first 5ft. section of the brush and told them that due to how dense the brush was that it impeded their movement significantly and that, that was as far as they could get with their regular movement. Unless they wanted to take further action to go further. And their response was to then tell me, "Oh, well then I don't do that."
So when you talk about players trying to take back their chosen course of actions due to learning the consequences I totally understand where your coming from. Eventually the player had to be removed from the game.
As to "Oh I don't do that then." Ok - You can stop what you have already done. And reverse course. Thats fine. But here is what happens in the meantime while you deal with what you already SAID did. Maybe nothing, maybe something. Everyone wants to have fun including the DM. But in any RPG there are consequences and rewards. Accept both. As a new DM you will struggle. So will new players. And everything is a learning experience. Learn and move on. YOU and the PLAYERS. If need be, talk it out. Bottom line is YOU are the DM. They have to respect and accept that. Don't have to be a tyrant. But be stern. Likewise be open to players "arguments" if they feel as if they have been wronged, or misunderstood. It happens.
Don't give up and take what happens and try not to have that happen again. But it will. And when it does. You'll be better prepared. If the player(s) wont drop it. Then give in and make them happy. Then have the party attacked by something terrible. Almost kill everybody. With no treasure. That will make you happy.
While running hoard of the dragon queen for a group I had repeatedly informed them on numerous occasions that the brush on the sides of a river was dense. The players never interacted with the brush or investigated further. Skip to a short time later and the group has an encounter on a road and one of the players wanted to cut through the brush to get on the other side of the encounter creatures. They dragged their token (on roll20) to their desired location and I moved them back to the first 5ft. section of the brush and told them that due to how dense the brush was that it impeded their movement significantly and that, that was as far as they could get with their regular movement. Unless they wanted to take further action to go further. And their response was to then tell me, "Oh, well then I don't do that."
So when you talk about players trying to take back their chosen course of actions due to learning the consequences I totally understand where your coming from. Eventually the player had to be removed from the game.
a player misunderstanding the difficult terrain in front of their character seems like just what david42 was talking about in that follow-up comment. would the character have marched like a wind up toy against a wall and wasted their turn on purpose? there might have been other issues and incompatibilities, but I don't think that was an example of one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
While running hoard of the dragon queen for a group I had repeatedly informed them on numerous occasions that the brush on the sides of a river was dense. The players never interacted with the brush or investigated further. Skip to a short time later and the group has an encounter on a road and one of the players wanted to cut through the brush to get on the other side of the encounter creatures. They dragged their token (on roll20) to their desired location and I moved them back to the first 5ft. section of the brush and told them that due to how dense the brush was that it impeded their movement significantly and that, that was as far as they could get with their regular movement. Unless they wanted to take further action to go further. And their response was to then tell me, "Oh, well then I don't do that."
So when you talk about players trying to take back their chosen course of actions due to learning the consequences I totally understand where your coming from. Eventually the player had to be removed from the game.
It sounds to me that your players think that D&D is a video game, where they can save and restart situations. It is not. You have to tell them that D&D is like chess, and once a course of action is settled on, there is no going back.
Oh, I agree except the brush wasn't a wall and specifically stated they only make it 5 feet for their movement as it is thick and restricts their movement and progress through it. And the fact they didn't actually investigate the brush and that I had mentioned it numerous times in the description of surroundings and terrain meant that the players weren't "running into an obvious wall" but through interaction learning how difficult the brush would be to move through.
There are circumstances where as a DM you can allude to an environmental detail but really shouldn't tell them every single detail unless the players actually choose to investigate closer/further.
The most common one I get nowadays is: - The players declare the target of their attack. - I inform them the attack will be at disadvantage (dodge, or other reasons) - They then decide to not target that target and choose a different one.
To curb this I am moving to where once a desired course of action is decided upon they can't then change that action.
Justafarmer hit it on the head. Think about this. If your being chased by a few orcs hell bent on killing you and being chased down a steep hill, at full speed, and where it levels out you see a small thicket of bushes. You may think "Hey I can hide or confuse the orcs by running in there. As you get to the bottom with fear, trying not to fall, run as fast as you can,stay in one direction, and what your next 5 moves has to be, you only realize at last second its a thorn thicket. Well nobody willingly runs into that. But your not gonna stop and say "Well I don't do that" - Does NOT work that way in the game nor real life. Your gonna take some damage, like it or not. New players playing tabletop or VTT have to understand somethings are "just because" or " thats how this works" and accept sometimes maybe THEY didn't understand. Likewise new DM's have the same obstacle.
Oh, I agree except the brush wasn't a wall and specifically stated they only make it 5 feet for their movement as it is thick and restricts their movement and progress through it. And the fact they didn't actually investigate the brush and that I had mentioned it numerous times in the description of surroundings and terrain meant that the players weren't "running into an obvious wall" but through interaction learning how difficult the brush would be to move through.
There are circumstances where as a DM you can allude to an environmental detail but really shouldn't tell them every single detail unless the players actually choose to investigate closer/further.
I think that this situation was an example of player and DM imaging the scene differently. If the player had realized that it was thick heavy brush with even the possibility of reducing movement then the player would likely have decided to do something else.
The DM mentions brush by the river. What makes that the same as the brush by the road? Does the player need to assume that all brush is thick and impenetrable or did the DM say that the brush by the road looks just as thick and impenetrable as the brush by the river and is likely to take some significant effort to move through?
"While running hoard of the dragon queen for a group I had repeatedly informed them on numerous occasions that the brush on the sides of a river was dense. The players never interacted with the brush or investigated further. Skip to a short time later and the group has an encounter on a road and one of the players wanted to cut through the brush to get on the other side of the encounter creatures."
I never penalize a players choice of actions for cases when the player clearly misunderstands the situation. I just describe it again in more detail until the player has enough information to make a reasonable decision in the circumstances.
The fact the DM mentioned it previously is irrelevant. The fact that the characters could have investigated the bushes to determine exactly how much of an impediment to movement they might be is irrelevant ... WHO does that? If you were walking along a hedgerow beside a river would you try to wander into them to discover if it would take 6 seconds to move 5' or whether it was more like 6 seconds for 15'? Nope. Most characters would glance at the bushes and easily determine that the spacing was close enough that it would be a lot of effort to push through.
Finally, if someone isn't paying attention then use this as an example of why they need to pay more attention. They miss details. However, you don't penalize the player IN game for an OUT of game problem. Being on their phone or not paying attention isn't something you solve by penalizing the character or saying "HAHA gotcha, the bushes are so close together that it will take all of your movement to move 5' and there was no way you could possibly see from 5' away that the bushes would impede your movement without trying to enter them. You said you were moving into them, done, next player. <haha>" (Not - unless it really was impossible to see that the bushes were really close together due to magic). Without that, the character can probably see that the bushes are close together that it would take a lot of effort to push through from no more than 10' or 15' and the player should be given that information.
Ideally, the DM should SAY .. "the bushes are really close together and will impede your movement, you can't tell how much without entering." .. then leave it up to the player to decide what the character does based on the DM and player having the same understanding of the conditions.
In a case, like the thorns example, where the thorns aren't visible until the last second, the DM can say as the character approaches the bush "you see the bushes are covered with tiny thorns" ..the player can then choose whether to run on by fleeing the orcs or jump into the bushes knowing they will likely take some damage from the thorns.
In my opinion, it is the DM's job (as much as possible) to give players all the information that their character perceives. The players then decide what the character does. This may mean that the character WILL notice a trap if they have a high enough passive perception. So be it ... that is what WOULD happen. Or the character would notice that the bushes are thick enough to impede movement even if they don't know how much. Or the character notices that there is actually a ravine beside the road so that the player doesn't say they run to flank on the right and suddenly fall in the ravine because the DM didn't describe the scene correctly or with sufficient detail.
I find that any decision the player makes that doesn't make sense, wastes their turn, burns too many resources, let's a team mate die or come to significant harm ... is most often because I failed to describe the scene as completely as necessary for the players to make decisions. If the player decides on a course of action when they have all the facts then we all have fun with it and the player/character live with the consequences but a player that makes a decision because there is obviously something they don't know that they should know and the DM says "well, you said you did it so you did", even though the player didn't have the information needed to make a reasonable decision (perhaps because they weren't paying attention) ... is usually a game I won't play for long.
Describe the brush accurately. Impassable brambles LOOK different than thick brush even if you don’t try to push through them. Difficult terrain is an established term with established implications in the game. If you tell your players something is difficult terrain and they try to move through it using double movement only to have you tell them they can’t because of some house rule you just created for terrain somewhere more than difficult but less than obviously impassable, your players are not the problem
Describe the opponents accurately. Dodge LOOKS like something. Conditions that give your players disadvantage on a roll are all readily apparent to their characters participating in the action. If your players choose a target only to have you tell them they are at disadvantage for some reason you just created and that provokes them to want to change targets, your players are not the problem.
if a new dm were to take the above 'impassible bush' tangent as a learning opportunity, I'd say the lesson is first and foremost have a session zero discussion about table etiquette. the whole bush situation seems like it would have been much less memorable if the player had just pointed and said "I want to end up here. can I?" rather than moving their mini first thing. same could be said for learning chess. now, is that something reasonable to expect even for an online game (where you can't just lean over and literally point)? I'd argue yes, but at a cost to play speed. you set the slider on that scale.
asking the players to own their moves is as old as the game. used to be that players had to do their own mapping even and woe betide they who step over a cliff that wasn't properly recorded. if a dm wants to treat dnd as a game of skill and survival, then that's their prerogative. it is a valid way to play. however, that must be clear from the onset. most players don't want to fight the dm every step. most players aren't looking for a video game either, but rather a decent story and a chance to feel clever. the DMG has a whole section on meta gaming, taking back a move, and how heavily to rely on dice.
as a side note, make sure players aren't getting the impression during play that things can be changed with a word. make your calls and stick to them, dm.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
asking the players to own their moves is as old as the game. used to be that players had to do their own mapping even and woe betide they who step over a cliff that wasn't properly recorded.
There's a difference between owning your move and having the GM force a player to have their PC blindly walk off a cliff like a cartoon lemming because it wasn't marked on the map and the player forgot about it. The PC can see that there's a cliff there and it's the GM's job to remember obstacles and remind players of their presence.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I only allow players to change things if they spend a point of something -- and usually that's a roll (actually, come to think of it, it is always a roll -- the change sometimes enables a different kind of roll).
Other than that, what they say they do is what they do. I enforce this -- even in combat.
Now, I do give the ways to alter outcomes, but that's actually part of the way the setting works (They can spend inspiration or hero points or even milestone points, and each does a different thing), and thus a house rule.
But outside of that, they are stuck. Add to that the whole timer thing we do to keep combat moving fast, and it really drives home the whole "sometimes we make mistakes and stuff happens' thing about the game.
When I ask them them what they do, they have to tell me. And that's what they do. If they forget something in the moment, then they forget something in the moment. So if they said "I examine the body" I am going to take it as they look at the body cautiously and from different angles. No touching. If they say I search the body" then they are patting it down and looking in pockets and the like.
As others have said, the "gotcha" thing is fine, but don't overuse it. I might give them some advice if they are still new to the game: "Do you check for traps?" But for the most part, I am playing with people who are already aware of such things. I would do it a few times, until they got the hint, but only in different scenarios, and only when it would be a good idea. Like 3 or four total, to get them into the awareness of "we are in a place that could have traps, be careful".
It does sound like all of you are still new to the game, so they may not have the knowledge yet to do so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
asking the players to own their moves is as old as the game. used to be that players had to do their own mapping even and woe betide they who step over a cliff that wasn't properly recorded.
There's a difference between owning your move and having the GM force a player to have their PC blindly walk off a cliff like a cartoon lemming because it wasn't marked on the map and the player forgot about it. The PC can see that there's a cliff there and it's the GM's job to remember obstacles and remind players of their presence.
How does this scenario fall in your view of a "gotcha DM".
PC moves down a corridor at full speed, the player does not declare the PC is looking for traps, floor gives way, and PC falls into a pit of poisoned spikes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am currently DM for the first time and am running a custom campaign, it's not super Indepth but basically just to get the players to learn the rules and how the game works as it is their first time too. Most of the campaign has been going well so far but i am having problems with players trying to meta game or switch up their decisions if there is sudden consequences. For instance, they recently kidnapped a corrupt mayor in a town of about 40% evil cultist, that's not really a problem. But they see that a neighbor of the mayor saw them do this from their house window, one player precedes to dimension door into this person's house, once they do that, they see that the neighbor is quickly escaping through the back door of the house, this player now tries to say that instead of using dimension door to enter the house the first time, they will just use it to go straight to the neighbor. This is the problem and leads me to explaining that they would not know the neighbor was escaping through the backdoor unless they used dimension door the first time.
The second problem are things like the players changing what they do on the spot or saying that is not what they wanted to do. For instance, they recently were investigating a mine about some miners disappearing. I had the monsters they were going to fight in the mine be mimics that mimic a dead/unconscious person. They entered the first floor of the mine and find many of these "dead" miners laying around, one of the players asked to investigate the body and i asked what exactly they are looking for? i say "what exactly are you doing? what are you looking for? are you wanting to rifle through the cloths pocket?" this player being a rouge I figured he might they looking for valuables. When i said "do you want to look through the pockets?" they responded sure. If i remember right the investigation was not a high enough roll to perceive that there was something off about this body before it surprised the rouge and got first attack (It missed anyway). The rouge, once it is revealed that the bodies are mimics said they actually just wanted to see if there was shown to be any cause of death or any sign of injury on the bodies, which was not stated at all beforehand and i think they thought i was unfair.
The same thing happens with traps: 1. they dont look for traps, 2. players says they want to go to a specific spot in the room, 3. I describe how they missed the trap and how they set it off, 4. The player responds, "oh i don't do that then", 5. i describe how they can't turnback time and metagame a trap now knowing here is one.
I will admit some of these times especially at the start are my fault of being too vague and not detailed enough. But i do feel like there is not enough communication sometimes with the players, and often times they will not ask additional questions to get a better picture about what they see. Or they will be very vague about what they do and then backtrack on what they do or say they actually wanted to do something else if consequences arise even if they didn't specify at all.
I just need some advice here; I am really just trying to get better at being a DM and am trying to reduce confusion all around.
Probably the most important thing you can do is ask players to clarify their action before stating what happens. It sounds like you mostly did this in the example of the Rogue searching the miners, other than perhaps instead of saying "Do you do X?" you could try asking "HOW do you do X?", because sometimes there can be a discrepancy between what the Player thinks they're describing and what you hear them saying.
For the most part it sounds like you're doing things right, and you just need to hold firm on your descriptions of what happened, and hopefully your players can come around to the fact that not everything has to go perfectly to be fun. Once they trust you that things will still turn out to be fun even if bad stuff happens, they'll stop worrying about it and just embrace the chaos
One final thing to think about is whether you're overdoing the surprise ambushes. Traps and Mimics are staples of DnD but also get lame fast. No one wants to play in a group where the players are super carefully examining every single thing to the Nth degree because they don't want to get ambushed. Any time you use ambushes like traps or mimics or stealthed NPCs, you should assume your players will always trigger it, and ask yourself if that adds to the fun (often it can when it adds to the overall story or ambiance)
There are many experienced DMs on this site; so, I'm sure you'll hear some of their insights. Here are few of my own:
"For instance, they recently kidnapped a corrupt mayor in a town of about 40% evil cultist, that's not really a problem. But they see that a neighbor of the mayor saw them do this from their house window, one player precedes to dimension door into this person's house, once they do that, they see that the neighbor is quickly escaping through the back door of the house, this player now tries to say that instead of using dimension door to enter the house the first time, they will just use it to go straight to the neighbor. This is the problem and leads me to explaining that they would not know the neighbor was escaping through the backdoor unless they used dimension door the first time."
For the above, you are right in your declaration that they wouldn't have known the direction of the fleeing NPC until they used dimension door the first time. not to mention they might not have been privy to the fact that the house even had a back door. I would just ask them to keep their actions to the now, and not to the before. Unless they have a spell or ability, or item that allows them to travel back in time they are not able to engage in that activity. Then I would stress that the NPC is getting away to attempt to get their attention back to the current activity so hopefully they get back on track.
Especially with traps and surprise attacks, newer players might feel like they have to "beat the game" by doing everything successfully and avoiding negative consequences. New players also tend not to know what to do with a given room/situation/task. Wanting to retcon their actions after learning what they could/should have done is kind of in line with the "beat the game" mindset. D&D doesn't have quicksaves, though, and that might be a concept your players will need to learn with repetition and familiarity.
In the meantime, here are a couple tips that haven't already been mentioned:
- Give more hints. Have NPCs gossip about the Thing in the sewers. Narrate scorch marks where a flamethrower trap might have roasted some foolhardy adventurers in the past. Describe the fresh footprints of a large quadruped in the snow. Direct your players' attention to potential danger until they are trained to look for it themselves. Relying solely on good rolls and the players' initiative makes the learning curve steeper.
- Ask more questions. Players will constantly surprise you - like the rogue wanting to make a medicine check, not a steal-some-loot check. "What are you looking for/doing?" can be a good start, but again, with inexperienced players they might not know or feel confident enough to describe their plan. Asking other clarifying questions like, "What are you hoping to learn? What is your character thinking right now? How do you go about that?" can provide more context.
- Lean into the party's strengths, too. "Gotcha" moments like mimics and traps are fun for the DM, less so for players. I'm not advocating taking these out of the campaign, but I will say that it's good to pepper them in-between opportunities to let the characters shine, in combat and out of it. You can use passive scores, backgrounds, backstories, and classes as excuses to give PCs special insights:
"Rogue, as the party is about to enter the crypt, you notice a symbol on the archway. It's Thieves' Cant: a warning of danger ahead."
"Cleric, something about this altar seems off to you. There's almost an emptiness inside you whenever you look at it."
"Druid, you've been in forests like these before. You know owlbears usually migrate for the winter, so it's weird to find tracks this time of year."
- Consider variety with your consequences. One way to help players learn to embrace bad rolls is to make some of the outcomes funny or endearing rather than dangerous. If every bad roll or overlooked check is a trap or a mimic, your players will become paranoid and want to retcon all the more. On the flipside, if there are fun or lighthearted things to discover with skill check rolls (a beautiful melody on the wind, a gold coin stuck between floorboards, a little kid making faces at his mom while she's haggling for fish), your players will learn that there are pleasant surprises to uncover, too.
I will echo Man of Dust's advice to talk to your players about retcons and metagaming. Open communication is never a bad thing at D&D tables.
One more suggestion :)
Don't be a "gotcha" DM. The DM is all knowing since they are setting the scene. The characters would have a lot of information since they are IN the scene. There are obvious things the characters would notice either due to the character's skills or because the character can see everything in the room. On the other hand, the PLAYERS are neither. Players rely on the DM description of the scene to decide what to do and rely on the DM describing all the relevant details of a scene.
Frequently, the DM can't describe everything the characters can see and isn't expected to ... however, when a player decides what the character will do based on the DM description and the players are not picturing the scene the same way then it can often happen that the players either forget to mention something obvious that their character would have likely done, or decides to do something that doesn't seem to make much sense from the DM perspective (typically something the DM thinks has a risk or might not be a good decision) - in which case, the DM should really first ask themselves "Did I miss giving some important information that is causing the player to make this choice?" or "Is the action that the player forgot to mention something the character would be doing anyway?" (checking for traps can sometimes fit in this territory - especially if a player usually says "I'll check for traps" ... the time the player forgets to say it is NOT the time to gleefully proclaim "HAHA gotcha, you didn't SAY you were checking for traps and set off this nasty trap". Instead ask the character to make a perception check and narrate whether they notice the trap or the consequences of not noticing based on the die roll.
My first question is how old these players are.
To also add an example to this post:
While running hoard of the dragon queen for a group I had repeatedly informed them on numerous occasions that the brush on the sides of a river was dense. The players never interacted with the brush or investigated further. Skip to a short time later and the group has an encounter on a road and one of the players wanted to cut through the brush to get on the other side of the encounter creatures. They dragged their token (on roll20) to their desired location and I moved them back to the first 5ft. section of the brush and told them that due to how dense the brush was that it impeded their movement significantly and that, that was as far as they could get with their regular movement. Unless they wanted to take further action to go further. And their response was to then tell me, "Oh, well then I don't do that."
So when you talk about players trying to take back their chosen course of actions due to learning the consequences I totally understand where your coming from. Eventually the player had to be removed from the game.
As to "Oh I don't do that then." Ok - You can stop what you have already done. And reverse course. Thats fine. But here is what happens in the meantime while you deal with what you already SAID did. Maybe nothing, maybe something. Everyone wants to have fun including the DM. But in any RPG there are consequences and rewards. Accept both. As a new DM you will struggle. So will new players. And everything is a learning experience. Learn and move on. YOU and the PLAYERS. If need be, talk it out. Bottom line is YOU are the DM. They have to respect and accept that. Don't have to be a tyrant. But be stern. Likewise be open to players "arguments" if they feel as if they have been wronged, or misunderstood. It happens.
Don't give up and take what happens and try not to have that happen again. But it will. And when it does. You'll be better prepared. If the player(s) wont drop it. Then give in and make them happy. Then have the party attacked by something terrible. Almost kill everybody. With no treasure. That will make you happy.
And good luck!
a player misunderstanding the difficult terrain in front of their character seems like just what david42 was talking about in that follow-up comment. would the character have marched like a wind up toy against a wall and wasted their turn on purpose? there might have been other issues and incompatibilities, but I don't think that was an example of one.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
It sounds to me that your players think that D&D is a video game, where they can save and restart situations. It is not. You have to tell them that D&D is like chess, and once a course of action is settled on, there is no going back.
Oh, I agree except the brush wasn't a wall and specifically stated they only make it 5 feet for their movement as it is thick and restricts their movement and progress through it. And the fact they didn't actually investigate the brush and that I had mentioned it numerous times in the description of surroundings and terrain meant that the players weren't "running into an obvious wall" but through interaction learning how difficult the brush would be to move through.
There are circumstances where as a DM you can allude to an environmental detail but really shouldn't tell them every single detail unless the players actually choose to investigate closer/further.
The most common one I get nowadays is:
- The players declare the target of their attack.
- I inform them the attack will be at disadvantage (dodge, or other reasons)
- They then decide to not target that target and choose a different one.
To curb this I am moving to where once a desired course of action is decided upon they can't then change that action.
Justafarmer hit it on the head. Think about this. If your being chased by a few orcs hell bent on killing you and being chased down a steep hill, at full speed, and where it levels out you see a small thicket of bushes. You may think "Hey I can hide or confuse the orcs by running in there. As you get to the bottom with fear, trying not to fall, run as fast as you can,stay in one direction, and what your next 5 moves has to be, you only realize at last second its a thorn thicket. Well nobody willingly runs into that. But your not gonna stop and say "Well I don't do that" - Does NOT work that way in the game nor real life. Your gonna take some damage, like it or not. New players playing tabletop or VTT have to understand somethings are "just because" or " thats how this works" and accept sometimes maybe THEY didn't understand. Likewise new DM's have the same obstacle.
I think that this situation was an example of player and DM imaging the scene differently. If the player had realized that it was thick heavy brush with even the possibility of reducing movement then the player would likely have decided to do something else.
The DM mentions brush by the river. What makes that the same as the brush by the road? Does the player need to assume that all brush is thick and impenetrable or did the DM say that the brush by the road looks just as thick and impenetrable as the brush by the river and is likely to take some significant effort to move through?
"While running hoard of the dragon queen for a group I had repeatedly informed them on numerous occasions that the brush on the sides of a river was dense. The players never interacted with the brush or investigated further. Skip to a short time later and the group has an encounter on a road and one of the players wanted to cut through the brush to get on the other side of the encounter creatures."
I never penalize a players choice of actions for cases when the player clearly misunderstands the situation. I just describe it again in more detail until the player has enough information to make a reasonable decision in the circumstances.
The fact the DM mentioned it previously is irrelevant. The fact that the characters could have investigated the bushes to determine exactly how much of an impediment to movement they might be is irrelevant ... WHO does that? If you were walking along a hedgerow beside a river would you try to wander into them to discover if it would take 6 seconds to move 5' or whether it was more like 6 seconds for 15'? Nope. Most characters would glance at the bushes and easily determine that the spacing was close enough that it would be a lot of effort to push through.
Finally, if someone isn't paying attention then use this as an example of why they need to pay more attention. They miss details. However, you don't penalize the player IN game for an OUT of game problem. Being on their phone or not paying attention isn't something you solve by penalizing the character or saying "HAHA gotcha, the bushes are so close together that it will take all of your movement to move 5' and there was no way you could possibly see from 5' away that the bushes would impede your movement without trying to enter them. You said you were moving into them, done, next player. <haha>" (Not - unless it really was impossible to see that the bushes were really close together due to magic). Without that, the character can probably see that the bushes are close together that it would take a lot of effort to push through from no more than 10' or 15' and the player should be given that information.
Ideally, the DM should SAY .. "the bushes are really close together and will impede your movement, you can't tell how much without entering." .. then leave it up to the player to decide what the character does based on the DM and player having the same understanding of the conditions.
In a case, like the thorns example, where the thorns aren't visible until the last second, the DM can say as the character approaches the bush "you see the bushes are covered with tiny thorns" ..the player can then choose whether to run on by fleeing the orcs or jump into the bushes knowing they will likely take some damage from the thorns.
In my opinion, it is the DM's job (as much as possible) to give players all the information that their character perceives. The players then decide what the character does. This may mean that the character WILL notice a trap if they have a high enough passive perception. So be it ... that is what WOULD happen. Or the character would notice that the bushes are thick enough to impede movement even if they don't know how much. Or the character notices that there is actually a ravine beside the road so that the player doesn't say they run to flank on the right and suddenly fall in the ravine because the DM didn't describe the scene correctly or with sufficient detail.
I find that any decision the player makes that doesn't make sense, wastes their turn, burns too many resources, let's a team mate die or come to significant harm ... is most often because I failed to describe the scene as completely as necessary for the players to make decisions. If the player decides on a course of action when they have all the facts then we all have fun with it and the player/character live with the consequences but a player that makes a decision because there is obviously something they don't know that they should know and the DM says "well, you said you did it so you did", even though the player didn't have the information needed to make a reasonable decision (perhaps because they weren't paying attention) ... is usually a game I won't play for long.
David42 correctly talked about gotcha DM’ing.
Describe the brush accurately. Impassable brambles LOOK different than thick brush even if you don’t try to push through them. Difficult terrain is an established term with established implications in the game. If you tell your players something is difficult terrain and they try to move through it using double movement only to have you tell them they can’t because of some house rule you just created for terrain somewhere more than difficult but less than obviously impassable, your players are not the problem
Describe the opponents accurately. Dodge LOOKS like something. Conditions that give your players disadvantage on a roll are all readily apparent to their characters participating in the action. If your players choose a target only to have you tell them they are at disadvantage for some reason you just created and that provokes them to want to change targets, your players are not the problem.
if a new dm were to take the above 'impassible bush' tangent as a learning opportunity, I'd say the lesson is first and foremost have a session zero discussion about table etiquette. the whole bush situation seems like it would have been much less memorable if the player had just pointed and said "I want to end up here. can I?" rather than moving their mini first thing. same could be said for learning chess. now, is that something reasonable to expect even for an online game (where you can't just lean over and literally point)? I'd argue yes, but at a cost to play speed. you set the slider on that scale.
asking the players to own their moves is as old as the game. used to be that players had to do their own mapping even and woe betide they who step over a cliff that wasn't properly recorded. if a dm wants to treat dnd as a game of skill and survival, then that's their prerogative. it is a valid way to play. however, that must be clear from the onset. most players don't want to fight the dm every step. most players aren't looking for a video game either, but rather a decent story and a chance to feel clever. the DMG has a whole section on meta gaming, taking back a move, and how heavily to rely on dice.
as a side note, make sure players aren't getting the impression during play that things can be changed with a word. make your calls and stick to them, dm.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
There's a difference between owning your move and having the GM force a player to have their PC blindly walk off a cliff like a cartoon lemming because it wasn't marked on the map and the player forgot about it. The PC can see that there's a cliff there and it's the GM's job to remember obstacles and remind players of their presence.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I only allow players to change things if they spend a point of something -- and usually that's a roll (actually, come to think of it, it is always a roll -- the change sometimes enables a different kind of roll).
Other than that, what they say they do is what they do. I enforce this -- even in combat.
Now, I do give the ways to alter outcomes, but that's actually part of the way the setting works (They can spend inspiration or hero points or even milestone points, and each does a different thing), and thus a house rule.
But outside of that, they are stuck. Add to that the whole timer thing we do to keep combat moving fast, and it really drives home the whole "sometimes we make mistakes and stuff happens' thing about the game.
When I ask them them what they do, they have to tell me. And that's what they do. If they forget something in the moment, then they forget something in the moment. So if they said "I examine the body" I am going to take it as they look at the body cautiously and from different angles. No touching. If they say I search the body" then they are patting it down and looking in pockets and the like.
As others have said, the "gotcha" thing is fine, but don't overuse it. I might give them some advice if they are still new to the game: "Do you check for traps?" But for the most part, I am playing with people who are already aware of such things. I would do it a few times, until they got the hint, but only in different scenarios, and only when it would be a good idea. Like 3 or four total, to get them into the awareness of "we are in a place that could have traps, be careful".
It does sound like all of you are still new to the game, so they may not have the knowledge yet to do so.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
How does this scenario fall in your view of a "gotcha DM".
PC moves down a corridor at full speed, the player does not declare the PC is looking for traps, floor gives way, and PC falls into a pit of poisoned spikes.