I'm somewhat new to DMing and I've run into a problem. I've been running a homebrew campaign for a couple of months and in between quests some of my players decided to rob this rich noble. I had told them that he is powerful, influential and dangerous, so a head on conflict would end poorly. They tend to solve everything with violence and I wanted them to have to do something different.
Because its D&D, shenanigans ensue and they wind up nearly getting caught. It starts a game of Cat-and-Mouse any time they return to the city. They have to try to outsmart this villain and he tries to figure out who robbed him.
When the noble starts to hone in on them, they panic and only one player, our bard, has any idea of what to do. He comes up with a really good plan. He's going to meet with the noble and using other events in the story, weave a lie that permanently clears the party from suspicion. Since they're all new players, I was really excited when they all started pitching in, casting guidance and the Fox's Cunning so help with rolls. Everything was going great.
Some players wait on top of a nearby roof and the bard meets with the noble, its a tense meeting, but the player sticks to the plan. He clears 3 big persuasion/deception rolls and the noble buys the whole story. The noble even asks the town guard if what they're saying about the other story events are true and the town guard backs up the players. They have essentially won.
Then the noble asks a small question about getting back his bird that they also stole while they were robbing him, and the player messes up and says that it flew off during the robbery. Due to a previous event the noble knows that's not true, he secretly gives the signal for his men to break into the tavern where the players are staying to look for the bird, but he keeps talking to the player.
Outside, a group of thieves attack the players, thinking that they know where the bird is. The players outside panic. They shoot through the window and try to hit the noble. Then they retreat from the thieves (who mind, are not a serious threat giving the level of the players). I bend the logic a bit to give the bard a chance to recover the situation, but the other players tell him he's about to die so he wastes a scroll of dimension door to get away.
I try really hard to not give advice while I'm DMing, so I didn't react to the stupidity while it was happening. After the session I asked them why they panicked so hard, and most of them responded that it was because they knew I was about to kill them. I was confused and pointed out that if I was about to kill them for a single, tiny mistake (In a side story no less) then I'm a terrible DM, which they don't think I am.
What I realized is that they think I'm a good DM, they just don't trust me. If I say there's a shining crystal, flickering in the dark, they turn and run away because they're convinced that its a giant anglerfish that I've handcrafted to kill them. It doesn't make any sense, because if anything I lean toward being too lenient with the rules and events because they are all new players. They forget that they have an ability, I roll back the events and let them use it. They forget that they should know something, I remind them. There's uncertainty, I round out in their favor. But for some reason they just don't seem to trust that my objective is to help them have fun. When I look back at the campaign as a whole this has been a consistent problem.
Now, they are trying to come up with a plan to kill this noble, which if it works will mean that they will have to flee this town or go underground. But I feel trapped because I already setup this villain to be hard to kill. Logically this villain has so many ways he can win this encounter easily that this is probably going to end in a party wipe. The worst part is the Bard player who came up with the plan feels like they screwed everything up, which isn't true at all. They told me they might just want to quit, which is infuriating because they've taken to the game more than anyone and they actually trust me even when they roll bad.
Now I either let them face the consequences of their actions (which will further hurt my Bard Player) or I let them break the entire logic of the story and kill this well protected noble without any repercussions.
I'm sure more experienced DMs are going to read this and laugh. I'm sure I'll think of some way to keep the story flowing without too much friction. Honestly, I just needed to vent.
I'm feeling really burnt out as a DM. My players tell me all the time that I'm really good at it. A lot of them didn't think they'd like D&D but they say that I've really made it fun. But on my end I'm just constantly disappointed that nothing I work on ever gets realized because my players think I'm their enemy. If I give them a lead, they run. If I make a character mysterious they attack them right away. It's not like I'm over-writing the scenario either. I just want there to be logical set pieces, characters - factions - lore. But my players are so paranoid that they are getting maybe 20% of what's in front of them.
We're halfway through the campaign, but I think I might be done. I don't think I can keep up the levels of enthusiasm needed to DM without a trusting group of players. It's tiring me out.
Bad experiences with past DMs is probably the hardest thing to break. However, I don't think the players/PCs overreacted in this instance.
They are unaware of what the rolls were and realize the player messed up with the bird. They are then attacked. Makes perfect sense for the PC on the roof to dimension door away at that point. I'm not 100% sure how the other players warned him. That may have been metagaming or obviously there are hundreds other ways in the game.
I think most of this might be best to handle out of game. Remind the Players that you aren't in opposition to them and that generally encounters are going to be balanced. Those that aren't you'll have clues, etc. to warn them something might be too powerful.
But you can also introduce a flee mechanic. Or make it easier for players to flee. Such as telling them at any point they decide to flee as a group, you'll utilize a skill challenge to see if they make it away, rather than movement.
Id also point out to them that actions have consequences.
But definitely talk to them out of game about it. My current group also has played with people out to get them so much they don't trust me sometimes and I'm not that bad.
I would have this conversation with your players out of game. A lot of people have heard of, or just naturally assume the "player vs dm" adversarial relationship, so maybe clear the air on that. Tell them that you consider the game a collaborative storytelling experience, and while you try to challenge them, your goal isn't to destroy/defeat them. That simple fact gets overlooked by a lot of casual players, and telling them how you play could be a revelatory conversation for them. You can then see if the game improves, or if you're still feeling the burnout.
D&D is at least originally supposed to be a simple fantasy adventure game about rising heroes who start out as nobodies and pursue power, fame, and fortune through their exploits and become somebodies. Its a game about overcoming obstacles.
Now I use the word "supposed to" based on a very simple premise and observation, not as objective fact. Modern gamers try very hard to write stories and bring this elevated level of "theatrics" to the game but in the end, while a small percentage find some level of success, most of the time what happens is what you are describing here.
It's not your fault and it's not really your player's fault either, it's that the sort of game you are trying to run requires players to surrender the fantasy adventure and clearly they are still holding on to it. They don't want to accept the theatrical reality that this noble is powerful, they see that character in fantasy adventure terms (bad guy, obstacle, person to kill). It's normal in a fantasy adventure, it's not normal if you are running a theatre/play.
So this is the inherent problem DM's face, the two principles, theatre vs. fantasy adventure game, two concepts that cannot coexist in the same role-playing campaign because they are polar opposites.
One, the theatre, requires a sense of realism and acceptance of the circumstances of the story, the place of the character in culture, society, setting, political position, economic positions, backstories... things that drive expected behavior and realism of the world. Aka, this is a powerful noble, the characters know that if they try to take him down they will certainly fail, it's not a question of a good plan, it's a story guarantee that they must accept as part of the setting, as part of the story. In a theatre RPG, accepting the setting and core "positions" of characters and powers in the game is a key thing.
For example if you are playing Blade Runner and you are a Blade Runner in the game, you are a cop. You must obey the law, you have rules to follow, procedures to follow, you have a boss. You can't just decide that your going to kill the Chief of Police and take over the police force. It is illogical... you must accept your place in the world.
In a fantasy adventure, players are never required to accept anything. Any obstacle of a fantasy adventure is about creating and executing a plan. It's an expectation that there is a solution, a way to succeed to overcome anything the players see as an obstacle and whatever the players want to do, there is not only a chance of success, but its kind of a premise of the game that they will probably succeed because... its an adventure, they are supposed to succeed. Maybe they need to level up first, maybe they need get better weapons, more henchmen, find a special gadget or whatever, but in a fantasy adventure game obstacles exist to be overcome and this is a meta understanding of how a game works, players have this expectation. A DM that doesn't allow players to overcome an obstacle that they presented to them in a fantasy adventure out of stubbornness or some attempt to enforce some sort of theatrical reality, is going to fail horribly. Players in a fantasy adventure will not accept an obstacle they cannot overcome.
So the question is, are you running a fantasy adventure game or are you running a theater play and how clear have you been about that with your players?
Most people, I would say 90% of people who sit down to play D&D by default are assuming they are going to play a Fantasy Adventure Game simply because this is how D&D is described in the rulebook, its how its described in novels, video games, movies. Everything anyone has ever read or seen, instructs them that D&D is a fantasy adventure game so its very hard to do what Critical Role does for example and turn the game into Theatre, you really need to establish that very firmly long before you ever have the first session and you should never make the assumption that this is the default way people play. Fantasy adventure is the default and fantasy adventure is about getting a quest, going to some mysterious location to explore, fighting monsters, looting the place, finding magical items and gaining notoriety, wealth and power. This is the normal game loop of D&D.
And no I'm not saying you are "supposed to" play it this way, you can do whatever you want, but I am saying that this is going to be the assumption from most players in regards to what D&D is and what is going to happen. You creating a "god mode" noble is that really in the spirit of a fantasy adventure game. He is a bad guy, the players are the good guys, and they are supposed to take him down.. that is what your players are thinking.
This is a venting post, so I get some of the frustration in it, but you really fail to encourage any empathy or sympathy given your absolutely uncharitable commentary on your players that steps over the line into decidedly unkind commentary.
They tend to solve everything with violence and I wanted them to have to do something different.
This is something you should have addressed in Session 0. The players are in control of how they play, not you. If you wanted them to play a different way, you should have explained very clearly in Session 0 what is the 'wrong way to play' at your table.
They have essentially won.
This is a major problem for the very next sentence.
Then the noble asks a small question about getting back his bird that they also stole while they were robbing him, and the player messes up and says that it flew off during the robbery. Due to a previous event the noble knows that's not true, he secretly gives the signal for his men to break into the tavern where the players are staying to look for the bird, but he keeps talking to the player.
Why are you circumventing the successful rolls of your players? That is exactly what this is. The players succeeded on their rolls, and you had the NPC work around the player's success to punish the player's for their previous behavior. You want to know why the players don't trust you? Start right here.
Outside, a group of thieves attack the players, thinking that they know where the bird is. The players outside panic.
This is an appropriate response to the DM turning a well-executed plan sideways. If the players tried the non-violent way that you wanted, and you find a way to work around that plan to attack them anyway, this is the response that you, the DM, elicited with your choices. It is not the player's fault for resorting to violence when you pushed them away from the non-violent option into the violent option.
so I didn't react to the stupidity while it was happening.
This is not a stupid response. This is the only option you left for them, and now you are blaming them for the disaster that you created. I recommend introspection around your thoughts and feelings regarding your players.
In agreement with both the above responses, I think the trouble here is that you are looking at the story with your knowledge of what is going on and your players at looking at the story with their lack of knowledge of what is going on and reaching completely different conclusions.
The most important thing to remember when DMing is that the players cannot read your mind, they don't know what you want them to do unless you communicate that to them, and they don't know what is going on unless you tell that to them.
For instance let's look at the scene you described from the player's perspective:
They came up with a plan, they used every ability they could to ensure it succeeded, these came together so they rolled really high on the requested rolls. Then suddenly out of nowhere they get attacked by henchmen of a very powerful noble. It makes perfect sense for them to panic because they don't know what the noble does/doesn't know so they are justified in thinking that the noble might know they are the thieves and is about to take the Bard prisoner, they don't know how powerful or not the henchmen are, since you have set up the noble as a powerful adversary so they are justified in assuming the henchmen can defeat them since they aren't prepared to fight.
Now that they tried being diplomatic and failed despite using everything they had and getting really good rolls and that failed and to their perspective almost got them all killed, of course they aren't going to try to be diplomatic again and instead will try violence. Because to their perspective the noble might already know that they are the ones who robbed him and the noble might be planning to kidnap / kill the party. So their only option is to try to kill the noble first.
Now then, you have set up your game world as one where the party isn't particularly powerful, and where there are steep consequences to one's actions. So why are you surprised if the party avoids anything that they don't know what it is and assume it could be something super dangerous? Of course they would because that's how people act in real life. If you have realistic consequences you have to expect realistic decision making, and it's not realistic for people to just wander into a dark cave because there is a mysterious light inside of it.
Can you see the contradictions in what you want and what you are teaching your players to expect / do? If you want players to explore that requires them to take risks, which means your world has to make those risks not actually be that risky.
Edited to add:
In terms of suggestions, I'd recommend asking one of the players to write a recap of the previous session. This not only helps them keep notes but also gives you a window on how the players are interpreting your world so you can adjust by having NPCs (or other ways) give information when the PCs have misinterpreted something or missed something. Or if the players are lacking confidence to explore something you can add in an NPCs who will help them out that's familiar with the thing to be explored. Or you can just talk to them at the start of the next session to clear up something they have misunderstood.
Especially with new players they don't necessarily know what a "plot hook" is so will just walk past it or run away from it rather than realize it is something you want them to investigate.
I'm somewhat new to DMing and I've run into a problem. I've been running a homebrew campaign for a couple of months and in between quests some of my players decided to rob this rich noble. I had told them that he is powerful, influential and dangerous, so a head on conflict would end poorly. They tend to solve everything with violence and I wanted them to have to do something different.
All right, we're falling at the first hurdle here. D&D is a game about violence; the overwhelming majority of its rules are dedicated to the various ways violence can be applied by and to characters. By pushing your players away from that, you're pushing them to the fringes of the system, where things get very fuzzy and players become unsure about the relationship between their actions and their outcomes.
Players are often bolder in combat than outside of it, because the rules of combat are very clear-cut. When you make an attack, you roll a die and add your modifier. If that number is higher than the target's AC, the target takes damage. If it takes enough damage, it falls unconscious or dies. Extremely concrete progression from A to B to C.
Outside combat doesn't work like this; instead you're making skill checks against unclear DCs for unclear effects. You said the Bard passed 3 very difficult skill checks, then still botched the scenario because of a misplaced lie about a bird. That's why your players are scared of everything outside combat; there's no consistency to how the game works. They can do almost everything right, as best as they can tell, and still fail because of a single small mistake. Worse yet, you've made it clear to them that fighting this noble is pointless, so they know they can't fall back on the one thing they're sure they know how to do. That's why they think they're going to die.
You definitely built yourself into this situation, but it's not entirely your fault. The game 5e is as written is a completely different game from the one people expect 5e to be from media like Critical Role. It does not lend itself well to games of faction intrigue or subtle social manoeuvring. You need to keep things in the realm of play where the seriousness of an outcome is directly proportional to your players ability to predict it, and that means most serious outcomes should hinge on the most comprehensible aspect of the game: combat. If you don't like that, I would highly recommend trying a different game. Blades in the Dark might suit what you're trying to do a little better.
In future similar situations, consider letting the answer about the bird slide. The player said the wrong thing while roleplaying but you reported that their rolls were excellent. This should mean that the character didn’t screw it up even though the player did. Holding this player to their words despite good skill checks is like making your rogue’s player do a cartwheel and basing the character’s success on that rather than the dice. Or letting your silver-tongued player who says all the right things successfully navigate a social situation even though the character has 8 cha and their rolls were ass.
In terms of suggestions, I'd recommend asking one of the players to write a recap of the previous session. This not only helps them keep notes but also gives you a window on how the players are interpreting your world so you can adjust by having NPCs (or other ways) give information when the PCs have misinterpreted something or missed something. Or if the players are lacking confidence to explore something you can add in an NPCs who will help them out that's familiar with the thing to be explored. Or you can just talk to them at the start of the next session to clear up something they have misunderstood.
Especially with new players they don't necessarily know what a "plot hook" is so will just walk past it or run away from it rather than realize it is something you want them to investigate.
I think this is an amazing suggestion, if you can get a player to do it. (You can offer them inspiration or something as bait if you think it will help.) If they write it first person with what the character was thinking even better.
I agree with the others on this thread that as you'd presented it, if I were your player, I would have done much the same, even though my group doesn't tend to choose violence if it sees another way. We take the potential for death and mayhem seriously and we are always a little bit afraid. :-)
With respect to the bird: don't ask questions where you're not prepared for the answer/failure. If you are satisfied as DM that the players have Won, then no more dice rolls, no more opportunities for failure or complications.
From what I can see, the response of the players to the situation isn't surprising. I think the issue comes down to "new DM" though it sounds like you run a generally fun game.
As DM, you are responsible for the logic of the situation and from what I can tell, you chose to completely and intentionally derail the plan due to a response to a minor question that doesn't even seem to be a logical one ...
When the noble starts to hone in on them, they panic and only one player, our bard, has any idea of what to do. He comes up with a really good plan. He's going to meet with the noble and using other events in the story, weave a lie that permanently clears the party from suspicion. Since they're all new players, I was really excited when they all started pitching in, casting guidance and the Fox's Cunning so help with rolls. Everything was going great.
So, the bard has a cool plan to rephrase events so the party is exonerated.
Some players wait on top of a nearby roof and the bard meets with the noble, its a tense meeting, but the player sticks to the plan. He clears 3 big persuasion/deception rolls and the noble buys the whole story. The noble even asks the town guard if what they're saying about the other story events are true and the town guard backs up the players. They have essentially won.
The bard succeeds on three difficult persuasion checks and with the assistance of the town guards, the bard manages to convince the noble of their version of events. Whatever that entailed. At this point the noble believes them, is convinced that they didn't do it.
Then the noble asks a small question about getting back his bird that they also stole while they were robbing him, and the player messes up and says that it flew off during the robbery. Due to a previous event the noble knows that's not true, he secretly gives the signal for his men to break into the tavern where the players are staying to look for the bird, but he keeps talking to the player.
Why did the noble even ASK about a small bird? If he is as convinced as you describe, there is no reason to ask the characters about the bird unless he didn't really believe them. Pretending to believe was a ruse. How does the noble know the bird did not fly off during the robbery? Does he know it was in possession of the players later or was it only spotted later? If he knows the characters had his bird, why is he believing them at all - he already has proof. If he didn't know the characters had his bird then WHY would he suspect that it didn't fly off during the robbery and was recovered by someone else unrelated to either the noble or the party?
The DM has to carefully divide the omniscient knowledge they have from the knowledge the characters have and the knowledge individual NPCs have. There are indications that perhaps the noble's decisions in this case were because the DM thought it would be fun to introduce more problems rather than go with the already established success. This actually reduces the fun and success of the bard character with their plan.
In addition, why did the noble have a gang of thieves ready to attack the tavern where the characters were staying to recover the bird. If he knows the characters have the bird then it should have been covered in the story by the bard AND the noble would have asked about it implying that he knows the characters have the bird since presumably whatever the characters have said so far was enough to convince the noble of their innocence. If it wasn't enough, why did you bother with the skill test if you were going to have them fail anyway?
Outside, a group of thieves attack the players, thinking that they know where the bird is. The players outside panic. They shoot through the window and try to hit the noble. Then they retreat from the thieves (who mind, are not a serious threat giving the level of the players). I bend the logic a bit to give the bard a chance to recover the situation, but the other players tell him he's about to die so he wastes a scroll of dimension door to get away.
Ok. The noble signals an attack. You have a bunch of thieves attack them stating "are not a serious threat" - YOU know that, the DM knows that, the players do NOT unless you tell them. "It looks like a bunch of journeyman thieves want to search your quarters." ... this causes a vastly different reaction than "a bunch of nasty looking thieves break into the tavern and attack you". However, you said the thieves are looking for the bird ... why would they attack the characters. The characters/players are ONLY panicking BECAUSE of the information you have given them. "A really powerful noble who can kill you all suddenly doesn't believe the story you convinced him to believe because of some bird and has sent a gang of thieves to wipe you out and take back the bird". There is nothing you have said in this description that would indicate that the thieves are not a threat. In addition to that, the noble knows the characters, is aware of their capabilities if he has been watching them. it makes no sense for him to send incompetent thieves after the characters since they would likely not succeed at whatever task was set. This is what the PLAYERS will think based on everything you have told them about the NPC. In this case, the party is likely to run if they are smart.
In addition, since you railroaded the successful checks into a failed encounter because that is what you chose to do, it isn't surprising that the characters feel that all they can do is flee and try to kill the noble or leave town since after the diplomatic option failed - they are out of choices.
I try really hard to not give advice while I'm DMing, so I didn't react to the stupidity while it was happening. After the session I asked them why they panicked so hard, and most of them responded that it was because they knew I was about to kill them. I was confused and pointed out that if I was about to kill them for a single, tiny mistake (In a side story no less) then I'm a terrible DM, which they don't think I am.
From my perspective, very little of this was stupidity on the part of the players. The DM is a neutral adjudicator between the player actions and the NPCs and events happening in the game world. The DM neither provides a soft landing nor makes the adventures too deadly (though some DMs like to make deadly adventures since they think they are more fun - personal preference for DM and the players at their table). The DM isn't on their side and you are not a terrible DM if they die due to making poor decisions. The problem with this case though is that it is the NPC that seems to have been set up with thieves on call ready to hunt down a bird for some reason that the players might not even have - and then after being convinced of the players innocence he asks the players "where is my bird?" If he believed the players were innocent why would he not believe that it had flown off during the robbery? And if he knows the players have the bird how could the noble possibly believe any of their story without them explaining why they have the bird?
What I realized is that they think I'm a good DM, they just don't trust me. If I say there's a shining crystal, flickering in the dark, they turn and run away because they're convinced that its a giant anglerfish that I've handcrafted to kill them. It doesn't make any sense, because if anything I lean toward being too lenient with the rules and events because they are all new players. They forget that they have an ability, I roll back the events and let them use it. They forget that they should know something, I remind them. There's uncertainty, I round out in their favor. But for some reason they just don't seem to trust that my objective is to help them have fun. When I look back at the campaign as a whole this has been a consistent problem.
No. The players aren't supposed to "trust" the DM to be anything except fair. In this case, you let the players know that the noble was a powerful foe with lots of resources and that things would not go well for the players if they attacked him. So they came up with a cool diplomatic plan, pulled it off, and subsequent decisions by the DM completely shot it down leaving the players facing a powerful enemy who has sent forces to attack them. The players can't trust the DM that the opponents are easy and that the party can deal with them UNLESS the DM explicitly foreshadows it in the encounter description.
Anyway, the take away here is that the players almost never have exactly the same image/impression/idea of a situation unless the DM goes to some lengths to make sure that they state some relevant details. Otherwise, the players do what they think is best based on what they know from the game. This is often the source of greatest fun as the players do some completely unexpected things but it is also completely expected.
Now, they are trying to come up with a plan to kill this noble, which if it works will mean that they will have to flee this town or go underground. But I feel trapped because I already setup this villain to be hard to kill. Logically this villain has so many ways he can win this encounter easily that this is probably going to end in a party wipe. The worst part is the Bard player who came up with the plan feels like they screwed everything up, which isn't true at all. They told me they might just want to quit, which is infuriating because they've taken to the game more than anyone and they actually trust me even when they roll bad.
So, as DM you need to make the situation clear to the players ... maybe now is the time to leave town for a few months or a year, set up a different base of operations, perhaps grow in strength and resources to a point where they could either challenge the noble or perhaps offer him an apology so that everyone gets to walk away .. but that is going to take time AND you will have to make it clear to the players that almost any plan to attempt to take the life of the noble may or may not succeed but it seems likely that some or all of the party will be lost in the attempt.
You are also correct that the bard player didn't screw up :) ... they executed their really good plan, succeeded on several diplomacy/persuasion checks, convinced the noble of their innocence - and then the DM decided that an out of context question about a bird addressed to people he was already convinced were innocent and if they were innocent would not know the answer about the bird then triggers a bunch of thieves to invade the tavern looking for the bird.
Honestly, that last bit sounds more like DM improvisation that anything else, where the DM just takes the story and runs with it even when it might not really make sense. Perhaps because the DM didn't think that success at a bunch of persuasion checks should be sufficient to resolve the situation? Perhaps it felt a bit anti-climactic to the DM? I don't know. I can assure you that the players were probably REALLY happy with resolving the situation with some team work and talking and were probably quite sad when somehow the entire situation went sideways.
Now I either let them face the consequences of their actions (which will further hurt my Bard Player) or I let them break the entire logic of the story and kill this well protected noble without any repercussions.
No. Have them leave town for the long term. Its the only real option you have left them. Perhaps you have created adventures in this town you wanted to play ... just take them and modify them to fit in another town. Or have the players disguise themselves and join a caravan heading somewhere far away which then turns into an ongoing adventure of its own. The fact that you see only two solutions seems to me to imply that as a DM you are very invested in the town rather than the ongoing adventure wherever it may lead them.
I'm sure more experienced DMs are going to read this and laugh. I'm sure I'll think of some way to keep the story flowing without too much friction. Honestly, I just needed to vent.
Happens to everyone sometime and No, the more experienced DMs don't laugh, they have done similar things. I once ran a campaign in which I didn't like the idea of killing characters. Characters would survive sometimes by thin margins for one reason or another. However, one of the players realized this and started taking riskier actions. As long as I avoided applying appropriate consequences, they took more and more outrageous actions. (It actually fit their character). However, I learned from that game that I need to be an impartial and neutral adjudicator of resolving interactions. If the players want to do things that might kill their characters then it is not my job to stop them ... HOWEVER, I am careful to make sure that the characters are provided with all the information they need to make an informed decision. My descriptions will often contain some hints about how challenging an opponent is and if there is an encounter where the character would know it is a lost cause, I TELL the players. e.g. "The group of 3 drow matron mothers, 5 drow archmages, and a dozen drow elite warriors does not look like a group you think you could defeat even on your best day." CHARACTERS are training every day, they know many details that the players do not and when it is relevant I make sure that appropriate character knowledge is passed along to the players so that they can make informed decisions.
I'm feeling really burnt out as a DM. My players tell me all the time that I'm really good at it. A lot of them didn't think they'd like D&D but they say that I've really made it fun. But on my end I'm just constantly disappointed that nothing I work on ever gets realized because my players think I'm their enemy. If I give them a lead, they run. If I make a character mysterious they attack them right away. It's not like I'm over-writing the scenario either. I just want there to be logical set pieces, characters - factions - lore. But my players are so paranoid that they are getting maybe 20% of what's in front of them.
We're halfway through the campaign, but I think I might be done. I don't think I can keep up the levels of enthusiasm needed to DM without a trusting group of players. It's tiring me out.
It's your call on whether you continue. Trust what your players are telling you - their feedback is most useful and if they like it and are having a good time then you are doing it correctly. Players will only pick up on the lore you tell them and won't usually listen to pages of description. Keep descriptions short, flavorful and to the point - including whatever motivations the NPCs might have for their actions based on what the characters can observe. Last thing I would suggest is to try not to get stuck on specific set pieces, specific encounters, things that have to happen or even more challenging decisions that the characters need to make since honestly, they may never make those decisions.
In my home game for example, a couple of months ago, the party had to decide whether they really wanted to follow a major plot line of world importance (they are level 18 now after playing for over 4 years) but I was ready to abandon the plot line that had been developing since about level 5 if the characters had decided that they felt others might be better at the tasks that they were now realizing lay before them. Free will was one of the provisos I inserted somewhere around level 6 before they (or I honestly) had any idea of what was ahead. Anyway, point of that is that it is ultimately the player decisions that guide the story. :)
Many others have given very good advice about how this situation played out and why the players made the choices they did given the information they had. Regarding the noble and potential tpk, it’s only a possibility if you let it be. You literally control it all. You could, for example: let them kill him and let another related or entirely different bbeg step into the story. They might be captured, exiled, sent by him on some mission to redeem themselves. A mysterious patron, an enemy of the noble might step in before, during or after the confrontation and/or capture. , this might be a new, powerful ally, or a new bbeg only revealed as such later on, after they end up indebted. There are an infinite number of things that can happen other than a tpk. It might not be the story you envisioned, but it was never your exclusive story in the first place.
Long time player and DM here - this is the problem when Dm's vision and the players playstyle don't align.
Many tables love hack and slash - most stats and spells in D&D are combat related. Burning your way through a campaign is a totally reasonable course of action. The hardcore RP'ers and political intrigue players are a small subset of the player base.
If the DM wants to RP and tell stories and have complex plots this premise should be laid out prior to session zero - many player will not join that game.
I would make the fight with the noble tough - make it a 50-50 let them get some loot if they win. then have an OOC talk with the players about the direction of the campaign.
If they want to burn villages and slaughter towns - honestly what's the big deal? Make the campaign more combat focused give them a clear clue/goal for every session then set up 2-3 maps with combats and be done with it. A much better time will be had by everyone.
Edit - Having the bard need to make 3 persuasion rolls is way out of hand and then circumventing his rolls is even worse. He could use suggestion once or persuasion once to convince the noble and be done with it right then right there. I would not trust a DM that pulled a stunt like that either.
Having thought about this both groups I currently DM would likely have persuaded the noble using the player with the 2nd highest charisma so they could stack buffs (Guidance, Bardic Insp. and possibly Enhance ability) that they where his true friends and for a mere x amount of gold they could help him track down the true thieves and fleeced the noble again. I totally would have let it happen - they are chaotic parties with some evil members why not lol.
Likely the reason you are feeling burnt out is because you keep trying to move the game where the players do not want to go. Its a team sport follow their lead on this. You will find it much easier.
Many others have given very good advice about how this situation played out and why the players made the choices they did given the information they had. Regarding the noble and potential tpk, it’s only a possibility if you let it be. You literally control it all. You could, for example: let them kill him and let another related or entirely different bbeg step into the story. They might be captured, exiled, sent by him on some mission to redeem themselves. A mysterious patron, an enemy of the noble might step in before, during or after the confrontation and/or capture. , this might be a new, powerful ally, or a new bbeg only revealed as such later on, after they end up indebted. There are an infinite number of things that can happen other than a tpk. It might not be the story you envisioned, but it was never your exclusive story in the first place.
These are all good suggestions. You don't even need to wait for the party to attempt to attack the noble, it seems like from the last encounter the noble has enough information to either know for certain or highly suspect the party robbed him. The question now is what does that noble do with that information? The noble could use it to blackmail the party into working for him, the noble could hand that information over to the city guards to arrest & put the party on trial, the noble could send assassins to kidnap or kill the party, the noble could set a trap to humiliate the party and demand they return the stolen items and/or some gold to repay him for what they stole. It is entirely up to you to decide, there's no law of the universe or rule to say the noble has to try to kill the party.
Also you can always ask the players to make an Intelligence or Wisdom check to give them information that their characters would know / think to guide them to a more reasonable course of action. Something like Intelligence check DC 10 means that their characters would know that in this particular city, this noble is so powerful they are untouchable, but outside of this city the noble has far less power. Or Wisdom check DC 5 means that their characters would realize trying to assassinate a powerful person in broad daylight is a bad idea.
I'm somewhat new to DMing and I've run into a problem. I've been running a homebrew campaign for a couple of months and in between quests some of my players decided to rob this rich noble. I had told them that he is powerful, influential and dangerous, so a head on conflict would end poorly. They tend to solve everything with violence and I wanted them to have to do something different.
Because its D&D, shenanigans ensue and they wind up nearly getting caught. It starts a game of Cat-and-Mouse any time they return to the city. They have to try to outsmart this villain and he tries to figure out who robbed him.
When the noble starts to hone in on them, they panic and only one player, our bard, has any idea of what to do. He comes up with a really good plan. He's going to meet with the noble and using other events in the story, weave a lie that permanently clears the party from suspicion. Since they're all new players, I was really excited when they all started pitching in, casting guidance and the Fox's Cunning so help with rolls. Everything was going great.
Some players wait on top of a nearby roof and the bard meets with the noble, its a tense meeting, but the player sticks to the plan. He clears 3 big persuasion/deception rolls and the noble buys the whole story. The noble even asks the town guard if what they're saying about the other story events are true and the town guard backs up the players. They have essentially won.
Then the noble asks a small question about getting back his bird that they also stole while they were robbing him, and the player messes up and says that it flew off during the robbery. Due to a previous event the noble knows that's not true, he secretly gives the signal for his men to break into the tavern where the players are staying to look for the bird, but he keeps talking to the player.
Outside, a group of thieves attack the players, thinking that they know where the bird is. The players outside panic. They shoot through the window and try to hit the noble. Then they retreat from the thieves (who mind, are not a serious threat giving the level of the players). I bend the logic a bit to give the bard a chance to recover the situation, but the other players tell him he's about to die so he wastes a scroll of dimension door to get away.
I try really hard to not give advice while I'm DMing, so I didn't react to the stupidity while it was happening. After the session I asked them why they panicked so hard, and most of them responded that it was because they knew I was about to kill them. I was confused and pointed out that if I was about to kill them for a single, tiny mistake (In a side story no less) then I'm a terrible DM, which they don't think I am.
What I realized is that they think I'm a good DM, they just don't trust me. If I say there's a shining crystal, flickering in the dark, they turn and run away because they're convinced that its a giant anglerfish that I've handcrafted to kill them. It doesn't make any sense, because if anything I lean toward being too lenient with the rules and events because they are all new players. They forget that they have an ability, I roll back the events and let them use it. They forget that they should know something, I remind them. There's uncertainty, I round out in their favor. But for some reason they just don't seem to trust that my objective is to help them have fun. When I look back at the campaign as a whole this has been a consistent problem.
Now, they are trying to come up with a plan to kill this noble, which if it works will mean that they will have to flee this town or go underground. But I feel trapped because I already setup this villain to be hard to kill. Logically this villain has so many ways he can win this encounter easily that this is probably going to end in a party wipe. The worst part is the Bard player who came up with the plan feels like they screwed everything up, which isn't true at all. They told me they might just want to quit, which is infuriating because they've taken to the game more than anyone and they actually trust me even when they roll bad.
Now I either let them face the consequences of their actions (which will further hurt my Bard Player) or I let them break the entire logic of the story and kill this well protected noble without any repercussions.
I'm sure more experienced DMs are going to read this and laugh. I'm sure I'll think of some way to keep the story flowing without too much friction. Honestly, I just needed to vent.
I'm feeling really burnt out as a DM. My players tell me all the time that I'm really good at it. A lot of them didn't think they'd like D&D but they say that I've really made it fun. But on my end I'm just constantly disappointed that nothing I work on ever gets realized because my players think I'm their enemy. If I give them a lead, they run. If I make a character mysterious they attack them right away. It's not like I'm over-writing the scenario either. I just want there to be logical set pieces, characters - factions - lore. But my players are so paranoid that they are getting maybe 20% of what's in front of them.
We're halfway through the campaign, but I think I might be done. I don't think I can keep up the levels of enthusiasm needed to DM without a trusting group of players. It's tiring me out.
Bad experiences with past DMs is probably the hardest thing to break. However, I don't think the players/PCs overreacted in this instance.
They are unaware of what the rolls were and realize the player messed up with the bird. They are then attacked. Makes perfect sense for the PC on the roof to dimension door away at that point. I'm not 100% sure how the other players warned him. That may have been metagaming or obviously there are hundreds other ways in the game.
I think most of this might be best to handle out of game. Remind the Players that you aren't in opposition to them and that generally encounters are going to be balanced. Those that aren't you'll have clues, etc. to warn them something might be too powerful.
But you can also introduce a flee mechanic. Or make it easier for players to flee. Such as telling them at any point they decide to flee as a group, you'll utilize a skill challenge to see if they make it away, rather than movement.
Id also point out to them that actions have consequences.
But definitely talk to them out of game about it. My current group also has played with people out to get them so much they don't trust me sometimes and I'm not that bad.
I would have this conversation with your players out of game. A lot of people have heard of, or just naturally assume the "player vs dm" adversarial relationship, so maybe clear the air on that. Tell them that you consider the game a collaborative storytelling experience, and while you try to challenge them, your goal isn't to destroy/defeat them. That simple fact gets overlooked by a lot of casual players, and telling them how you play could be a revelatory conversation for them. You can then see if the game improves, or if you're still feeling the burnout.
D&D is at least originally supposed to be a simple fantasy adventure game about rising heroes who start out as nobodies and pursue power, fame, and fortune through their exploits and become somebodies. Its a game about overcoming obstacles.
Now I use the word "supposed to" based on a very simple premise and observation, not as objective fact. Modern gamers try very hard to write stories and bring this elevated level of "theatrics" to the game but in the end, while a small percentage find some level of success, most of the time what happens is what you are describing here.
It's not your fault and it's not really your player's fault either, it's that the sort of game you are trying to run requires players to surrender the fantasy adventure and clearly they are still holding on to it. They don't want to accept the theatrical reality that this noble is powerful, they see that character in fantasy adventure terms (bad guy, obstacle, person to kill). It's normal in a fantasy adventure, it's not normal if you are running a theatre/play.
So this is the inherent problem DM's face, the two principles, theatre vs. fantasy adventure game, two concepts that cannot coexist in the same role-playing campaign because they are polar opposites.
One, the theatre, requires a sense of realism and acceptance of the circumstances of the story, the place of the character in culture, society, setting, political position, economic positions, backstories... things that drive expected behavior and realism of the world. Aka, this is a powerful noble, the characters know that if they try to take him down they will certainly fail, it's not a question of a good plan, it's a story guarantee that they must accept as part of the setting, as part of the story. In a theatre RPG, accepting the setting and core "positions" of characters and powers in the game is a key thing.
For example if you are playing Blade Runner and you are a Blade Runner in the game, you are a cop. You must obey the law, you have rules to follow, procedures to follow, you have a boss. You can't just decide that your going to kill the Chief of Police and take over the police force. It is illogical... you must accept your place in the world.
In a fantasy adventure, players are never required to accept anything. Any obstacle of a fantasy adventure is about creating and executing a plan. It's an expectation that there is a solution, a way to succeed to overcome anything the players see as an obstacle and whatever the players want to do, there is not only a chance of success, but its kind of a premise of the game that they will probably succeed because... its an adventure, they are supposed to succeed. Maybe they need to level up first, maybe they need get better weapons, more henchmen, find a special gadget or whatever, but in a fantasy adventure game obstacles exist to be overcome and this is a meta understanding of how a game works, players have this expectation. A DM that doesn't allow players to overcome an obstacle that they presented to them in a fantasy adventure out of stubbornness or some attempt to enforce some sort of theatrical reality, is going to fail horribly. Players in a fantasy adventure will not accept an obstacle they cannot overcome.
So the question is, are you running a fantasy adventure game or are you running a theater play and how clear have you been about that with your players?
Most people, I would say 90% of people who sit down to play D&D by default are assuming they are going to play a Fantasy Adventure Game simply because this is how D&D is described in the rulebook, its how its described in novels, video games, movies. Everything anyone has ever read or seen, instructs them that D&D is a fantasy adventure game so its very hard to do what Critical Role does for example and turn the game into Theatre, you really need to establish that very firmly long before you ever have the first session and you should never make the assumption that this is the default way people play. Fantasy adventure is the default and fantasy adventure is about getting a quest, going to some mysterious location to explore, fighting monsters, looting the place, finding magical items and gaining notoriety, wealth and power. This is the normal game loop of D&D.
And no I'm not saying you are "supposed to" play it this way, you can do whatever you want, but I am saying that this is going to be the assumption from most players in regards to what D&D is and what is going to happen. You creating a "god mode" noble is that really in the spirit of a fantasy adventure game. He is a bad guy, the players are the good guys, and they are supposed to take him down.. that is what your players are thinking.
This is a venting post, so I get some of the frustration in it, but you really fail to encourage any empathy or sympathy given your absolutely uncharitable commentary on your players that steps over the line into decidedly unkind commentary.
This is something you should have addressed in Session 0. The players are in control of how they play, not you. If you wanted them to play a different way, you should have explained very clearly in Session 0 what is the 'wrong way to play' at your table.
This is a major problem for the very next sentence.
Why are you circumventing the successful rolls of your players? That is exactly what this is. The players succeeded on their rolls, and you had the NPC work around the player's success to punish the player's for their previous behavior. You want to know why the players don't trust you? Start right here.
This is an appropriate response to the DM turning a well-executed plan sideways. If the players tried the non-violent way that you wanted, and you find a way to work around that plan to attack them anyway, this is the response that you, the DM, elicited with your choices. It is not the player's fault for resorting to violence when you pushed them away from the non-violent option into the violent option.
This is not a stupid response. This is the only option you left for them, and now you are blaming them for the disaster that you created. I recommend introspection around your thoughts and feelings regarding your players.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
In agreement with both the above responses, I think the trouble here is that you are looking at the story with your knowledge of what is going on and your players at looking at the story with their lack of knowledge of what is going on and reaching completely different conclusions.
The most important thing to remember when DMing is that the players cannot read your mind, they don't know what you want them to do unless you communicate that to them, and they don't know what is going on unless you tell that to them.
For instance let's look at the scene you described from the player's perspective:
They came up with a plan, they used every ability they could to ensure it succeeded, these came together so they rolled really high on the requested rolls. Then suddenly out of nowhere they get attacked by henchmen of a very powerful noble. It makes perfect sense for them to panic because they don't know what the noble does/doesn't know so they are justified in thinking that the noble might know they are the thieves and is about to take the Bard prisoner, they don't know how powerful or not the henchmen are, since you have set up the noble as a powerful adversary so they are justified in assuming the henchmen can defeat them since they aren't prepared to fight.
Now that they tried being diplomatic and failed despite using everything they had and getting really good rolls and that failed and to their perspective almost got them all killed, of course they aren't going to try to be diplomatic again and instead will try violence. Because to their perspective the noble might already know that they are the ones who robbed him and the noble might be planning to kidnap / kill the party. So their only option is to try to kill the noble first.
Now then, you have set up your game world as one where the party isn't particularly powerful, and where there are steep consequences to one's actions. So why are you surprised if the party avoids anything that they don't know what it is and assume it could be something super dangerous? Of course they would because that's how people act in real life. If you have realistic consequences you have to expect realistic decision making, and it's not realistic for people to just wander into a dark cave because there is a mysterious light inside of it.
Can you see the contradictions in what you want and what you are teaching your players to expect / do? If you want players to explore that requires them to take risks, which means your world has to make those risks not actually be that risky.
Edited to add:
In terms of suggestions, I'd recommend asking one of the players to write a recap of the previous session. This not only helps them keep notes but also gives you a window on how the players are interpreting your world so you can adjust by having NPCs (or other ways) give information when the PCs have misinterpreted something or missed something. Or if the players are lacking confidence to explore something you can add in an NPCs who will help them out that's familiar with the thing to be explored. Or you can just talk to them at the start of the next session to clear up something they have misunderstood.
Especially with new players they don't necessarily know what a "plot hook" is so will just walk past it or run away from it rather than realize it is something you want them to investigate.
All right, we're falling at the first hurdle here. D&D is a game about violence; the overwhelming majority of its rules are dedicated to the various ways violence can be applied by and to characters. By pushing your players away from that, you're pushing them to the fringes of the system, where things get very fuzzy and players become unsure about the relationship between their actions and their outcomes.
Players are often bolder in combat than outside of it, because the rules of combat are very clear-cut. When you make an attack, you roll a die and add your modifier. If that number is higher than the target's AC, the target takes damage. If it takes enough damage, it falls unconscious or dies. Extremely concrete progression from A to B to C.
Outside combat doesn't work like this; instead you're making skill checks against unclear DCs for unclear effects. You said the Bard passed 3 very difficult skill checks, then still botched the scenario because of a misplaced lie about a bird. That's why your players are scared of everything outside combat; there's no consistency to how the game works. They can do almost everything right, as best as they can tell, and still fail because of a single small mistake. Worse yet, you've made it clear to them that fighting this noble is pointless, so they know they can't fall back on the one thing they're sure they know how to do. That's why they think they're going to die.
You definitely built yourself into this situation, but it's not entirely your fault. The game 5e is as written is a completely different game from the one people expect 5e to be from media like Critical Role. It does not lend itself well to games of faction intrigue or subtle social manoeuvring. You need to keep things in the realm of play where the seriousness of an outcome is directly proportional to your players ability to predict it, and that means most serious outcomes should hinge on the most comprehensible aspect of the game: combat. If you don't like that, I would highly recommend trying a different game. Blades in the Dark might suit what you're trying to do a little better.
In future similar situations, consider letting the answer about the bird slide. The player said the wrong thing while roleplaying but you reported that their rolls were excellent. This should mean that the character didn’t screw it up even though the player did. Holding this player to their words despite good skill checks is like making your rogue’s player do a cartwheel and basing the character’s success on that rather than the dice. Or letting your silver-tongued player who says all the right things successfully navigate a social situation even though the character has 8 cha and their rolls were ass.
I think this is an amazing suggestion, if you can get a player to do it. (You can offer them inspiration or something as bait if you think it will help.) If they write it first person with what the character was thinking even better.
I agree with the others on this thread that as you'd presented it, if I were your player, I would have done much the same, even though my group doesn't tend to choose violence if it sees another way. We take the potential for death and mayhem seriously and we are always a little bit afraid. :-)
With respect to the bird: don't ask questions where you're not prepared for the answer/failure. If you are satisfied as DM that the players have Won, then no more dice rolls, no more opportunities for failure or complications.
Idk I've known DMs who easily put CR 10 bad guys in play and expect you to run.
From what I can see, the response of the players to the situation isn't surprising. I think the issue comes down to "new DM" though it sounds like you run a generally fun game.
As DM, you are responsible for the logic of the situation and from what I can tell, you chose to completely and intentionally derail the plan due to a response to a minor question that doesn't even seem to be a logical one ...
So, the bard has a cool plan to rephrase events so the party is exonerated.
The bard succeeds on three difficult persuasion checks and with the assistance of the town guards, the bard manages to convince the noble of their version of events. Whatever that entailed. At this point the noble believes them, is convinced that they didn't do it.
Why did the noble even ASK about a small bird? If he is as convinced as you describe, there is no reason to ask the characters about the bird unless he didn't really believe them. Pretending to believe was a ruse. How does the noble know the bird did not fly off during the robbery? Does he know it was in possession of the players later or was it only spotted later? If he knows the characters had his bird, why is he believing them at all - he already has proof. If he didn't know the characters had his bird then WHY would he suspect that it didn't fly off during the robbery and was recovered by someone else unrelated to either the noble or the party?
The DM has to carefully divide the omniscient knowledge they have from the knowledge the characters have and the knowledge individual NPCs have. There are indications that perhaps the noble's decisions in this case were because the DM thought it would be fun to introduce more problems rather than go with the already established success. This actually reduces the fun and success of the bard character with their plan.
In addition, why did the noble have a gang of thieves ready to attack the tavern where the characters were staying to recover the bird. If he knows the characters have the bird then it should have been covered in the story by the bard AND the noble would have asked about it implying that he knows the characters have the bird since presumably whatever the characters have said so far was enough to convince the noble of their innocence. If it wasn't enough, why did you bother with the skill test if you were going to have them fail anyway?
Ok. The noble signals an attack. You have a bunch of thieves attack them stating "are not a serious threat" - YOU know that, the DM knows that, the players do NOT unless you tell them. "It looks like a bunch of journeyman thieves want to search your quarters." ... this causes a vastly different reaction than "a bunch of nasty looking thieves break into the tavern and attack you". However, you said the thieves are looking for the bird ... why would they attack the characters. The characters/players are ONLY panicking BECAUSE of the information you have given them. "A really powerful noble who can kill you all suddenly doesn't believe the story you convinced him to believe because of some bird and has sent a gang of thieves to wipe you out and take back the bird". There is nothing you have said in this description that would indicate that the thieves are not a threat. In addition to that, the noble knows the characters, is aware of their capabilities if he has been watching them. it makes no sense for him to send incompetent thieves after the characters since they would likely not succeed at whatever task was set. This is what the PLAYERS will think based on everything you have told them about the NPC. In this case, the party is likely to run if they are smart.
In addition, since you railroaded the successful checks into a failed encounter because that is what you chose to do, it isn't surprising that the characters feel that all they can do is flee and try to kill the noble or leave town since after the diplomatic option failed - they are out of choices.
From my perspective, very little of this was stupidity on the part of the players. The DM is a neutral adjudicator between the player actions and the NPCs and events happening in the game world. The DM neither provides a soft landing nor makes the adventures too deadly (though some DMs like to make deadly adventures since they think they are more fun - personal preference for DM and the players at their table). The DM isn't on their side and you are not a terrible DM if they die due to making poor decisions. The problem with this case though is that it is the NPC that seems to have been set up with thieves on call ready to hunt down a bird for some reason that the players might not even have - and then after being convinced of the players innocence he asks the players "where is my bird?" If he believed the players were innocent why would he not believe that it had flown off during the robbery? And if he knows the players have the bird how could the noble possibly believe any of their story without them explaining why they have the bird?
No. The players aren't supposed to "trust" the DM to be anything except fair. In this case, you let the players know that the noble was a powerful foe with lots of resources and that things would not go well for the players if they attacked him. So they came up with a cool diplomatic plan, pulled it off, and subsequent decisions by the DM completely shot it down leaving the players facing a powerful enemy who has sent forces to attack them. The players can't trust the DM that the opponents are easy and that the party can deal with them UNLESS the DM explicitly foreshadows it in the encounter description.
Anyway, the take away here is that the players almost never have exactly the same image/impression/idea of a situation unless the DM goes to some lengths to make sure that they state some relevant details. Otherwise, the players do what they think is best based on what they know from the game. This is often the source of greatest fun as the players do some completely unexpected things but it is also completely expected.
So, as DM you need to make the situation clear to the players ... maybe now is the time to leave town for a few months or a year, set up a different base of operations, perhaps grow in strength and resources to a point where they could either challenge the noble or perhaps offer him an apology so that everyone gets to walk away .. but that is going to take time AND you will have to make it clear to the players that almost any plan to attempt to take the life of the noble may or may not succeed but it seems likely that some or all of the party will be lost in the attempt.
You are also correct that the bard player didn't screw up :) ... they executed their really good plan, succeeded on several diplomacy/persuasion checks, convinced the noble of their innocence - and then the DM decided that an out of context question about a bird addressed to people he was already convinced were innocent and if they were innocent would not know the answer about the bird then triggers a bunch of thieves to invade the tavern looking for the bird.
Honestly, that last bit sounds more like DM improvisation that anything else, where the DM just takes the story and runs with it even when it might not really make sense. Perhaps because the DM didn't think that success at a bunch of persuasion checks should be sufficient to resolve the situation? Perhaps it felt a bit anti-climactic to the DM? I don't know. I can assure you that the players were probably REALLY happy with resolving the situation with some team work and talking and were probably quite sad when somehow the entire situation went sideways.
No. Have them leave town for the long term. Its the only real option you have left them. Perhaps you have created adventures in this town you wanted to play ... just take them and modify them to fit in another town. Or have the players disguise themselves and join a caravan heading somewhere far away which then turns into an ongoing adventure of its own. The fact that you see only two solutions seems to me to imply that as a DM you are very invested in the town rather than the ongoing adventure wherever it may lead them.
Happens to everyone sometime and No, the more experienced DMs don't laugh, they have done similar things. I once ran a campaign in which I didn't like the idea of killing characters. Characters would survive sometimes by thin margins for one reason or another. However, one of the players realized this and started taking riskier actions. As long as I avoided applying appropriate consequences, they took more and more outrageous actions. (It actually fit their character). However, I learned from that game that I need to be an impartial and neutral adjudicator of resolving interactions. If the players want to do things that might kill their characters then it is not my job to stop them ... HOWEVER, I am careful to make sure that the characters are provided with all the information they need to make an informed decision. My descriptions will often contain some hints about how challenging an opponent is and if there is an encounter where the character would know it is a lost cause, I TELL the players. e.g. "The group of 3 drow matron mothers, 5 drow archmages, and a dozen drow elite warriors does not look like a group you think you could defeat even on your best day." CHARACTERS are training every day, they know many details that the players do not and when it is relevant I make sure that appropriate character knowledge is passed along to the players so that they can make informed decisions.
It's your call on whether you continue. Trust what your players are telling you - their feedback is most useful and if they like it and are having a good time then you are doing it correctly. Players will only pick up on the lore you tell them and won't usually listen to pages of description. Keep descriptions short, flavorful and to the point - including whatever motivations the NPCs might have for their actions based on what the characters can observe. Last thing I would suggest is to try not to get stuck on specific set pieces, specific encounters, things that have to happen or even more challenging decisions that the characters need to make since honestly, they may never make those decisions.
In my home game for example, a couple of months ago, the party had to decide whether they really wanted to follow a major plot line of world importance (they are level 18 now after playing for over 4 years) but I was ready to abandon the plot line that had been developing since about level 5 if the characters had decided that they felt others might be better at the tasks that they were now realizing lay before them. Free will was one of the provisos I inserted somewhere around level 6 before they (or I honestly) had any idea of what was ahead. Anyway, point of that is that it is ultimately the player decisions that guide the story. :)
[Sorry for the wall of text :) ]
Many others have given very good advice about how this situation played out and why the players made the choices they did given the information they had. Regarding the noble and potential tpk, it’s only a possibility if you let it be. You literally control it all. You could, for example: let them kill him and let another related or entirely different bbeg step into the story. They might be captured, exiled, sent by him on some mission to redeem themselves. A mysterious patron, an enemy of the noble might step in before, during or after the confrontation and/or capture. , this might be a new, powerful ally, or a new bbeg only revealed as such later on, after they end up indebted. There are an infinite number of things that can happen other than a tpk. It might not be the story you envisioned, but it was never your exclusive story in the first place.
Long time player and DM here - this is the problem when Dm's vision and the players playstyle don't align.
Many tables love hack and slash - most stats and spells in D&D are combat related. Burning your way through a campaign is a totally reasonable course of action. The hardcore RP'ers and political intrigue players are a small subset of the player base.
If the DM wants to RP and tell stories and have complex plots this premise should be laid out prior to session zero - many player will not join that game.
I would make the fight with the noble tough - make it a 50-50 let them get some loot if they win. then have an OOC talk with the players about the direction of the campaign.
If they want to burn villages and slaughter towns - honestly what's the big deal? Make the campaign more combat focused give them a clear clue/goal for every session then set up 2-3 maps with combats and be done with it. A much better time will be had by everyone.
Edit - Having the bard need to make 3 persuasion rolls is way out of hand and then circumventing his rolls is even worse. He could use suggestion once or persuasion once to convince the noble and be done with it right then right there. I would not trust a DM that pulled a stunt like that either.
Having thought about this both groups I currently DM would likely have persuaded the noble using the player with the 2nd highest charisma so they could stack buffs (Guidance, Bardic Insp. and possibly Enhance ability) that they where his true friends and for a mere x amount of gold they could help him track down the true thieves and fleeced the noble again. I totally would have let it happen - they are chaotic parties with some evil members why not lol.
Likely the reason you are feeling burnt out is because you keep trying to move the game where the players do not want to go. Its a team sport follow their lead on this. You will find it much easier.
These are all good suggestions. You don't even need to wait for the party to attempt to attack the noble, it seems like from the last encounter the noble has enough information to either know for certain or highly suspect the party robbed him. The question now is what does that noble do with that information? The noble could use it to blackmail the party into working for him, the noble could hand that information over to the city guards to arrest & put the party on trial, the noble could send assassins to kidnap or kill the party, the noble could set a trap to humiliate the party and demand they return the stolen items and/or some gold to repay him for what they stole. It is entirely up to you to decide, there's no law of the universe or rule to say the noble has to try to kill the party.
Also you can always ask the players to make an Intelligence or Wisdom check to give them information that their characters would know / think to guide them to a more reasonable course of action. Something like Intelligence check DC 10 means that their characters would know that in this particular city, this noble is so powerful they are untouchable, but outside of this city the noble has far less power. Or Wisdom check DC 5 means that their characters would realize trying to assassinate a powerful person in broad daylight is a bad idea.