I have a very new party. I'm literally running the first-time game for 4 people. It's nuts.
So we have 4 1st level characters and 1 1st level NPC fighting a werewolf. An experienced group could probably handle it tactically, but an inexperienced group who hasn't even figured out where their powers are listed on their sheet is going to have problems with anything with 58 hit points.
So the NPC is trying to sacrifice himself so the party can escape. I planned this. This was the entire point. The point of the encounter was to teach them they CAN and sometimes SHOULD run away. So when the NPC runs into the fray yelling, "Go! Warn the village!"
Next turn, "umm... magic missile?" SMH.
SO... I actually stopped, got all of their attentions and said this;
"Look, I hate railroading, I don't want to dictate your actions, but the whole point of this encounter was to teach you that you can and should run sometimes. Retreat is a viable option. This dude is going to kill you, and if he doesn't, the three other werewolves about a 2 hours walk behind him will. You are welcome to continue, and you might actually succeed in taking this dude out, but it's not a good idea here. You need to learn when to quit."
Sometimes, you just need to give them an overwhelming encounter and just straight up meta-game tell them they don't have a chance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible." - Mark Twain
Hoo boy. Encounters with "structured lessons" for the party.
"Look, I hate railroading, I don't want to dictate your actions ... < proceeds to tell the party exactly what to do, and reveal that that there are backup bad guys to force the outcome the DM wants >"
The party isn't there to play out the story you think should happen, the people you think their characters should be, or the action you've predetermined they need to take at the pace you think the story should flow.
The party - in most groups - is there to roll dice, kill monsters, and be heroic badasses - not emulate the behavior of characters in the novel you've written in your head.
The fact that you use phrases like "I planned this", " This was the entire point", "the NPC runs into the fray yelling, 'Go! Warn the village!'" - tells me that you had the "correct" end of the scene all pictured in your head - you weren't going to allow the party to do anything different - and you literally broke the flow of the game to tell the players that they were getting it wrong, and what the correct action was.
You took 4 newbie players, with 1st level characters, and threw a Werewolf at them - and then not only railroaded the plot, but bullied away player agency from them on a individual choice/tactical level - and you needed to resort to meta-gaming to do it.
Were there other ways to "save" the party? Sure :
you could have had the party be rescued by a NPC which can then act as a bit of mentor character to get the newbies on their feet - but no, sorry, he can't solve the entire adventure for them, he has commitments elsewhere - "you'll have to deal with this one's clan, for they are pack animals and this was assuredly not the only one".
Or: suddenly there is a loud Eldritch cry, and a shadow passes over the clearing the Werewolf flinches and flees for the trees ( hint, something bad enough to scare the Werewolf who is kicking your ass just showed up, maybe you should run ).
Or: have the Werewolf show up on the shore of a river as the party is getting out of a boat, and your NPC not only yells "warn the villiage", but pushes the boat back out into the stream.
Or ....
You know - by using DM creativity.
Treating newbie players like errant stupid children wasn't it.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Agreed with Vex here; it definitely sounds like your players are stuck in 'video game' mode - which is pretty natural for new D&D players - but that doesn't mean you have to spell out what they should do.
New players often struggle with the total freedom they have. They're used to having a defined list of 'moves' that they can do, and in D&D, tend to lean on the few structured actions that are available. Which in encounters tends to be 'I attack' or 'I move.' It's a wonderful moment as a DM, when one brave player thinks outside of the structure to try something unique, yet totally in character.
In Lost Mines, when the newest player in the group tentatively spoke up in the midst of battle to suggest: 'Hey! Why don't I try shoving the bugbear into the fire pit? … Can I do that?' … I was overjoyed. This was a battle they'd have lost - the worst thing I could have done is hit 'pause' on the game and said: 'Guys. Look. You can run away. And you should. Otherwise you'll die. And if you don't die, there's another bugbear coming that WILL kill you. So run.'
The point of the encounter was to teach them they CAN and sometimes SHOULD run away. So when the NPC runs into the fray yelling, "Go! Warn the village!"
This was the problem in my mind. The first issue is you tried to teach your party a lesson by railroading them. Players naturally resist railroading anyway, whether they know it's happening or not. I have never been in a 'you're about to get arrested' situation where the players have all said 'Oh, alright then. We get arrested.' Even if they know that resisting means they'll be executed.
Why SHOULD they run away? If they're playing good-aligned characters, they might think leaving the NPC to their fate is abhorrent. It's such a trope: 'the minor character sacrifices themselves to give the 'real' heroes time to escape!'
I actually enjoy the fact they're rallying together to save the guy. Of course, it might lead to their deaths, but that would be the lesson - and they'd have died true to their characters. As a DM, our job isn't to pull punches; but play encounters with the same intelligence we want our players to use. If all we do is throw enemies at the party, and attack and move until they die, that's all our players are going to do. If the group of bandits surrounds the party, sneaks in, uses cover and terrain, tactically retreats, feints defeat, uses items and equipment in clever ways... then the players will get the idea.
But the big game mechanics should be taught out of session, in my opinion. Remind them that they have total freedom - that you're not looking for them to do anything in particular - and while there's an overarching story at play, the way they get from one plot point to another is entirely up to them. In this case, it sounds like you want to tell your story in your own specific way. In which case, write a book.
What you think you know is wrong. This wasn't a "game" or a "session," it was a series of scenarios designed to teach the game. I've done it for 16 years with every newbie group I've ever had. That's it. There was no story for this session. It was a session zero with sample gameplay. So thanks for assuming and being an ass about it.
What you think you know is wrong. This wasn't a "game" or a "session," it was a series of scenarios designed to teach the game. I've done it for 16 years with every newbie group I've ever had. That's it. There was no story for this session. It was a session zero with sample gameplay. So thanks for assuming and being an ass about it.
Then maybe you should describe your initial scenario with better clarity; If you can't communicate a scenario clearly, people will fill in the blanks.
Congratulations - your "session designed to teach them the game", just taught them "your choices don't matter - do what the DM wants".
If there really was nothing at stake in the long term - they could have played it out with player agency, with no long term repercussions, and no "DM railroading".
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have a very new party. I'm literally running the first-time game for 4 people. It's nuts.
So we have 4 1st level characters and 1 1st level NPC fighting a werewolf. An experienced group could probably handle it tactically, but an inexperienced group who hasn't even figured out where their powers are listed on their sheet is going to have problems with anything with 58 hit points.
So the NPC is trying to sacrifice himself so the party can escape. I planned this. This was the entire point. The point of the encounter was to teach them they CAN and sometimes SHOULD run away. So when the NPC runs into the fray yelling, "Go! Warn the village!"
Next turn, "umm... magic missile?" SMH.
SO... I actually stopped, got all of their attentions and said this;
"Look, I hate railroading, I don't want to dictate your actions, but the whole point of this encounter was to teach you that you can and should run sometimes. Retreat is a viable option. This dude is going to kill you, and if he doesn't, the three other werewolves about a 2 hours walk behind him will. You are welcome to continue, and you might actually succeed in taking this dude out, but it's not a good idea here. You need to learn when to quit."
Sometimes, you just need to give them an overwhelming encounter and just straight up meta-game tell them they don't have a chance.
"The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible."
- Mark Twain
Hoo boy. Encounters with "structured lessons" for the party.
"Look, I hate railroading, I don't want to dictate your actions ... < proceeds to tell the party exactly what to do, and reveal that that there are backup bad guys to force the outcome the DM wants >"
The party isn't there to play out the story you think should happen, the people you think their characters should be, or the action you've predetermined they need to take at the pace you think the story should flow.
The party - in most groups - is there to roll dice, kill monsters, and be heroic badasses - not emulate the behavior of characters in the novel you've written in your head.
The fact that you use phrases like "I planned this", " This was the entire point", "the NPC runs into the fray yelling, 'Go! Warn the village!'" - tells me that you had the "correct" end of the scene all pictured in your head - you weren't going to allow the party to do anything different - and you literally broke the flow of the game to tell the players that they were getting it wrong, and what the correct action was.
You took 4 newbie players, with 1st level characters, and threw a Werewolf at them - and then not only railroaded the plot, but bullied away player agency from them on a individual choice/tactical level - and you needed to resort to meta-gaming to do it.
Were there other ways to "save" the party? Sure :
You know - by using DM creativity.
Treating newbie players like errant stupid children wasn't it.
Edit: For spelling
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Agreed with Vex here; it definitely sounds like your players are stuck in 'video game' mode - which is pretty natural for new D&D players - but that doesn't mean you have to spell out what they should do.
New players often struggle with the total freedom they have. They're used to having a defined list of 'moves' that they can do, and in D&D, tend to lean on the few structured actions that are available. Which in encounters tends to be 'I attack' or 'I move.' It's a wonderful moment as a DM, when one brave player thinks outside of the structure to try something unique, yet totally in character.
In Lost Mines, when the newest player in the group tentatively spoke up in the midst of battle to suggest: 'Hey! Why don't I try shoving the bugbear into the fire pit? … Can I do that?' … I was overjoyed. This was a battle they'd have lost - the worst thing I could have done is hit 'pause' on the game and said: 'Guys. Look. You can run away. And you should. Otherwise you'll die. And if you don't die, there's another bugbear coming that WILL kill you. So run.'
This was the problem in my mind. The first issue is you tried to teach your party a lesson by railroading them. Players naturally resist railroading anyway, whether they know it's happening or not. I have never been in a 'you're about to get arrested' situation where the players have all said 'Oh, alright then. We get arrested.' Even if they know that resisting means they'll be executed.
Why SHOULD they run away? If they're playing good-aligned characters, they might think leaving the NPC to their fate is abhorrent. It's such a trope: 'the minor character sacrifices themselves to give the 'real' heroes time to escape!'
I actually enjoy the fact they're rallying together to save the guy. Of course, it might lead to their deaths, but that would be the lesson - and they'd have died true to their characters. As a DM, our job isn't to pull punches; but play encounters with the same intelligence we want our players to use. If all we do is throw enemies at the party, and attack and move until they die, that's all our players are going to do. If the group of bandits surrounds the party, sneaks in, uses cover and terrain, tactically retreats, feints defeat, uses items and equipment in clever ways... then the players will get the idea.
But the big game mechanics should be taught out of session, in my opinion. Remind them that they have total freedom - that you're not looking for them to do anything in particular - and while there's an overarching story at play, the way they get from one plot point to another is entirely up to them. In this case, it sounds like you want to tell your story in your own specific way. In which case, write a book.
to Vedexent
What you think you know is wrong. This wasn't a "game" or a "session," it was a series of scenarios designed to teach the game. I've done it for 16 years with every newbie group I've ever had. That's it. There was no story for this session. It was a session zero with sample gameplay. So thanks for assuming and being an ass about it.
"The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible."
- Mark Twain
Then maybe you should describe your initial scenario with better clarity; If you can't communicate a scenario clearly, people will fill in the blanks.
Congratulations - your "session designed to teach them the game", just taught them "your choices don't matter - do what the DM wants".
If there really was nothing at stake in the long term - they could have played it out with player agency, with no long term repercussions, and no "DM railroading".
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.