I'm a relatively new DM returning to play after about an 8 year hiatus. I recently started playing with a group of all brand new players and I'm having some trouble managing their expectations of the game. Basically when it comes down to it, they all got interested in playing D&D because they played BG3 and they think the game plays the same way. quite often at the table I'll hear (well in baldurs gate I can do x thing). To give an example from our most recent session; party member wanted to attack an NPC that they were currently engaged in dialogue with and when the conversation wasn't going their way they decided to attack. I called for initiative to be rolled and my player got upset that I didn't allow them to essentially make a free attack action prior to the initiation of combat. their argument was that in that game an attack can be done to initiate combat so it doesn't make sense that it doesn't work the same way. I explained how surprise works and the difference between intent verse execution and ultimately the rule stood but the disappointment from my players is obvious. This problem arises almost every session and I'm at a loss for what to do. I can tell that it's making it less fun for them and it's also very frustrating for me when they constantly want to argue the rules causing the game to derail. I've had talks with them in the past but nothing seems to land and the problem just continues, I really just want to make it an enjoyable experience for them and also for myself. Again I'm not a very experienced dm so any insight you guys can give me here would be very welcome so that we can get to a place where we all are having fun.
Frustrate your table by inflexibly holding them to the rules as written.
Option 2:
Amend the rules so that your players have enough that they stick around and you can do some storytelling.
Listen, I like going by the rules as a starting point and then making up stuff on the fly to handle new situations. You could request that everyone at the table read the Playing the Game chapter, and the “combat” section in particular. If then entire table wants BG3, then you should be prepared to cater to that at least in part. There can be compromise on both sides.
For the situation you described, I might go with one of these:
Option 1:
Monsters can also decide to simply attack the PCs without provocation. No initiative roll. They might not like the reversal.
Option 2:
A person could give away their intention to attack, such that the enemy is not surprised. Maybe their stance changes or they start to reach for a weapon. You could roll Deception vs Insight, Sleight of Hand or Stealth vs Perception, or some other skill contest.
Have a session 0 discussion. Everyone together hashes out what kind of game you want to play, so you can all agree on one thing going forward. As far as BG3, you might ask how they’ll feel about losing their action when they are revived from being unconscious, if they want to go that route. (It sucks in tabletop, even worse than in the game.) Or, more realistically, explain that BG3 was the video game version, and it used some conventions that don’t work in tabletop. Much like how a book needs to be changed when they make it a movie, different media need different sets of rules. Additionally, there is no reference for the BG3 rules. If there’s a question, it’s far better to stick with what’s in print so you all have a common reference point you can refer to.
But whatever you decide, do it as a group so everyone can feel invested in the process. Maybe some BG3 rules will actually work for your table.
I'm a relatively new DM returning to play after about an 8 year hiatus. I recently started playing with a group of all brand new players and I'm having some trouble managing their expectations of the game. Basically when it comes down to it, they all got interested in playing D&D because they played BG3 and they think the game plays the same way. quite often at the table I'll hear (well in baldurs gate I can do x thing). To give an example from our most recent session; party member wanted to attack an NPC that they were currently engaged in dialogue with and when the conversation wasn't going their way they decided to attack. I called for initiative to be rolled and my player got upset that I didn't allow them to essentially make a free attack action prior to the initiation of combat. their argument was that in that game an attack can be done to initiate combat so it doesn't make sense that it doesn't work the same way. I explained how surprise works and the difference between intent verse execution and ultimately the rule stood but the disappointment from my players is obvious. This problem arises almost every session and I'm at a loss for what to do. I can tell that it's making it less fun for them and it's also very frustrating for me when they constantly want to argue the rules causing the game to derail. I've had talks with them in the past but nothing seems to land and the problem just continues, I really just want to make it an enjoyable experience for them and also for myself. Again I'm not a very experienced dm so any insight you guys can give me here would be very welcome so that we can get to a place where we all are having fun.
Welcome to the world of those that think D&D is a video game. It is not. It never was.
You have to explain to them, as you have been doing, that D&D is NOT a movie they might have watched, nor the video game you mentioned. You are in for a hard road, I fear. Because it sounds like your table is full of young people, as you said, who have never been exposed to D&D. You are very likely going to be faced with unpleasant choices.
Either some or all of your players will self-select out of your game, because D&D is not what they expected, or you will have to cut some number of them loose, if they will not adapt to the game rules. Either way, you will be faced with the dilemma of finding replacements for some or all of the players. The ease of doing that relies on some luck, and if the game is in person or not. It can be daunting to find players that are in-synch with whatever type of game you are running, and you will likely go through a number of players until you get a full table that you are comfortable with and that is comfortable with you.
Remember, you are not a service provider, your enjoyment is more important that anybody else's, as there is no game without a DM.
I would just let them make the attack as a free action, then roll for initiative and proceed. This doesn't seem so complicated, am I missing something?
"If you're surprised, you can't move or take an action on your first turn of the combat, "
I would rule the first round of combat to be out of initiative and only pertain to the attacker and defender. Then everyone rolls init. and proceeds....which is what the rules state.
What are you referring to when you're talking about intent vs execution?
Game balance is not a concern in Baldur's Gate. The developers put players specifically in situations that are balanced heavily against them all the time because, as a video game, it's based more heavily around resource management, strategy, and overcoming obstacles than it is on collaborative storytelling. Basically they don't need to worry about what happens when one player outshines the others in power because that is explicitly what Tav's whole purpose is to begin with.
They let you cast multiple leveled spells in a turn and shower you in magic items because nearly every serious encounter is beyond deadly, just getting through it is the challenge, and (this is the biggest design difference) you can save and re-load when you die, so things are MUCH more lethal.
Your players might might've convinced themselves that they want to play dnd like Baldur's Gate 3, but they really don't.
I feel that the intent of the player is perfectly achievable whilst upholding the rules, with minor changes in how it's handled (but not the mechanics).
Standard rules for 5e:
They say "I attack.". You roll initiative, and everyone except the attacker is surprised. Initiative goes down through everyone until it gets to the attacker, who gets to do anything because they're not surprised, then rolls on down until it gets back to the top, where initiative restarts and surprise is gone. Net result, the attacker makes an attack, then initiative goes from top to bottom as normal.
Alternative handling:
They say "I attack", you let them attack, then you roll initiative and start from the top, without surprise. Net result, the attacker makes an attack, then initiative goes from top to bottom as normal.
Given the way surprise works, I think the main objective of it is to avoid weird effects clashing, like "target is stunned until the end of their next turn" or "taget may make a save at the end of their turns" lasting 2 rounds because of a surprise "round". Thus having a "turn", even one which doesn't let them do anything, can end such an effect. As long as you bear this in mind, there is no functional difference when allowing them to make that attack before the initiative roll.
Regarding their expectations that this works like in Baldur's Gate, D&D doesn't have any rule restrictions regarding character behaviour. "I hit them mid-conversation" is entirely valid in this game, which is why it was included in BG3. However, the players need to accept that there is a level of abstraction in any TTRPG which means sometimes the world pauses to allow rolls and rules to take place to facilitate the actions.
The fact they want to argue with you about how Baldur's Gate does it only when the thing comes up in a session indicates to me that they are expecting to be able to just do things and have the computer (read: you) sort out the results. That's an extremely unhealthy approach to real live TRPG play and you'll want to nip it in the bud as soon as possible.
Make it clear to your players they are not playing a video game; at the table they are expected to be full participants, which is to say, they're expected to know how the rules work. If they want to argue that some rule should be some other way, the middle of a session isn't the time to do that; that's a conversation you can have before a session, but it could only come up if the player knows what rule they want to modify. That means they're going to have to read the rules for themselves and try their best to actually learn them.
This will lead to less disappointment for your players, because they'll understand how an action will resolve before they decide to take the action, and it'll lead to less frustration for you, because you won't constantly have to administer rules in ways your players don't expect.
They are new, and it is no crime that they expect the tabletop game to work as their only personal reference (the computer game). To keep their energy high, I'd suggest taking the path of "Yes, but..."
"I'm going to let you do that, but I want you to know that the rules for the table game would invoke Surprise, which works this way..." <rules info> "After this encounter, we'll stick to the book rules. I want the game to respond to your actions in ways you anticipate, but we aren't playing the video game, so things will differ as we learn together."
What I would do in this instance is to have another talk with them laying out this following points:
- acknowledge that they are more familiar with BG3 than which is based on but not identical to the TTRPG version, thus there will be times that BG3 and the TTRPG version of rules will be in conflict.
- When conflicts arise, you will allow them to explain the BG3 version and you will explain the TTRPG version and that you will consider whether HBing to allow the BG3 version would be ok or not. But you will be the one making the decision.
- If you choose to use the TTRPG version you will allow them to "retcon" their decision with their new knowledge of how the rules work.
- If they continue to argue the rules you will simply refuse to DM and one of them can run the game however they like.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm a relatively new DM returning to play after about an 8 year hiatus. I recently started playing with a group of all brand new players and I'm having some trouble managing their expectations of the game. Basically when it comes down to it, they all got interested in playing D&D because they played BG3 and they think the game plays the same way. quite often at the table I'll hear (well in baldurs gate I can do x thing). To give an example from our most recent session; party member wanted to attack an NPC that they were currently engaged in dialogue with and when the conversation wasn't going their way they decided to attack. I called for initiative to be rolled and my player got upset that I didn't allow them to essentially make a free attack action prior to the initiation of combat. their argument was that in that game an attack can be done to initiate combat so it doesn't make sense that it doesn't work the same way. I explained how surprise works and the difference between intent verse execution and ultimately the rule stood but the disappointment from my players is obvious. This problem arises almost every session and I'm at a loss for what to do. I can tell that it's making it less fun for them and it's also very frustrating for me when they constantly want to argue the rules causing the game to derail. I've had talks with them in the past but nothing seems to land and the problem just continues, I really just want to make it an enjoyable experience for them and also for myself. Again I'm not a very experienced dm so any insight you guys can give me here would be very welcome so that we can get to a place where we all are having fun.
Option 1:
Frustrate your table by inflexibly holding them to the rules as written.
Option 2:
Amend the rules so that your players have enough that they stick around and you can do some storytelling.
Listen, I like going by the rules as a starting point and then making up stuff on the fly to handle new situations. You could request that everyone at the table read the Playing the Game chapter, and the “combat” section in particular. If then entire table wants BG3, then you should be prepared to cater to that at least in part. There can be compromise on both sides.
For the situation you described, I might go with one of these:
Option 1:
Monsters can also decide to simply attack the PCs without provocation. No initiative roll. They might not like the reversal.
Option 2:
A person could give away their intention to attack, such that the enemy is not surprised. Maybe their stance changes or they start to reach for a weapon. You could roll Deception vs Insight, Sleight of Hand or Stealth vs Perception, or some other skill contest.
Have a session 0 discussion. Everyone together hashes out what kind of game you want to play, so you can all agree on one thing going forward.
As far as BG3, you might ask how they’ll feel about losing their action when they are revived from being unconscious, if they want to go that route. (It sucks in tabletop, even worse than in the game.)
Or, more realistically, explain that BG3 was the video game version, and it used some conventions that don’t work in tabletop. Much like how a book needs to be changed when they make it a movie, different media need different sets of rules. Additionally, there is no reference for the BG3 rules. If there’s a question, it’s far better to stick with what’s in print so you all have a common reference point you can refer to.
But whatever you decide, do it as a group so everyone can feel invested in the process. Maybe some BG3 rules will actually work for your table.
Welcome to the world of those that think D&D is a video game. It is not. It never was.
You have to explain to them, as you have been doing, that D&D is NOT a movie they might have watched, nor the video game you mentioned. You are in for a hard road, I fear. Because it sounds like your table is full of young people, as you said, who have never been exposed to D&D. You are very likely going to be faced with unpleasant choices.
Either some or all of your players will self-select out of your game, because D&D is not what they expected, or you will have to cut some number of them loose, if they will not adapt to the game rules. Either way, you will be faced with the dilemma of finding replacements for some or all of the players. The ease of doing that relies on some luck, and if the game is in person or not. It can be daunting to find players that are in-synch with whatever type of game you are running, and you will likely go through a number of players until you get a full table that you are comfortable with and that is comfortable with you.
Remember, you are not a service provider, your enjoyment is more important that anybody else's, as there is no game without a DM.
I would just let them make the attack as a free action, then roll for initiative and proceed. This doesn't seem so complicated, am I missing something?
"If you're surprised, you can't move or take an action on your first turn of the combat, "
I would rule the first round of combat to be out of initiative and only pertain to the attacker and defender. Then everyone rolls init. and proceeds....which is what the rules state.
What are you referring to when you're talking about intent vs execution?
Regarding "but you can do it in Baldur's Gate":
Game balance is not a concern in Baldur's Gate. The developers put players specifically in situations that are balanced heavily against them all the time because, as a video game, it's based more heavily around resource management, strategy, and overcoming obstacles than it is on collaborative storytelling. Basically they don't need to worry about what happens when one player outshines the others in power because that is explicitly what Tav's whole purpose is to begin with.
They let you cast multiple leveled spells in a turn and shower you in magic items because nearly every serious encounter is beyond deadly, just getting through it is the challenge, and (this is the biggest design difference) you can save and re-load when you die, so things are MUCH more lethal.
Your players might might've convinced themselves that they want to play dnd like Baldur's Gate 3, but they really don't.
I feel that the intent of the player is perfectly achievable whilst upholding the rules, with minor changes in how it's handled (but not the mechanics).
Standard rules for 5e:
They say "I attack.". You roll initiative, and everyone except the attacker is surprised. Initiative goes down through everyone until it gets to the attacker, who gets to do anything because they're not surprised, then rolls on down until it gets back to the top, where initiative restarts and surprise is gone. Net result, the attacker makes an attack, then initiative goes from top to bottom as normal.
Alternative handling:
They say "I attack", you let them attack, then you roll initiative and start from the top, without surprise. Net result, the attacker makes an attack, then initiative goes from top to bottom as normal.
Given the way surprise works, I think the main objective of it is to avoid weird effects clashing, like "target is stunned until the end of their next turn" or "taget may make a save at the end of their turns" lasting 2 rounds because of a surprise "round". Thus having a "turn", even one which doesn't let them do anything, can end such an effect. As long as you bear this in mind, there is no functional difference when allowing them to make that attack before the initiative roll.
Regarding their expectations that this works like in Baldur's Gate, D&D doesn't have any rule restrictions regarding character behaviour. "I hit them mid-conversation" is entirely valid in this game, which is why it was included in BG3. However, the players need to accept that there is a level of abstraction in any TTRPG which means sometimes the world pauses to allow rolls and rules to take place to facilitate the actions.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
The fact they want to argue with you about how Baldur's Gate does it only when the thing comes up in a session indicates to me that they are expecting to be able to just do things and have the computer (read: you) sort out the results. That's an extremely unhealthy approach to real live TRPG play and you'll want to nip it in the bud as soon as possible.
Make it clear to your players they are not playing a video game; at the table they are expected to be full participants, which is to say, they're expected to know how the rules work. If they want to argue that some rule should be some other way, the middle of a session isn't the time to do that; that's a conversation you can have before a session, but it could only come up if the player knows what rule they want to modify. That means they're going to have to read the rules for themselves and try their best to actually learn them.
This will lead to less disappointment for your players, because they'll understand how an action will resolve before they decide to take the action, and it'll lead to less frustration for you, because you won't constantly have to administer rules in ways your players don't expect.
They are new, and it is no crime that they expect the tabletop game to work as their only personal reference (the computer game). To keep their energy high, I'd suggest taking the path of "Yes, but..."
"I'm going to let you do that, but I want you to know that the rules for the table game would invoke Surprise, which works this way..." <rules info> "After this encounter, we'll stick to the book rules. I want the game to respond to your actions in ways you anticipate, but we aren't playing the video game, so things will differ as we learn together."
View my StartPlaying.Games profile to see my games!
What I would do in this instance is to have another talk with them laying out this following points:
- acknowledge that they are more familiar with BG3 than which is based on but not identical to the TTRPG version, thus there will be times that BG3 and the TTRPG version of rules will be in conflict.
- When conflicts arise, you will allow them to explain the BG3 version and you will explain the TTRPG version and that you will consider whether HBing to allow the BG3 version would be ok or not. But you will be the one making the decision.
- If you choose to use the TTRPG version you will allow them to "retcon" their decision with their new knowledge of how the rules work.
- If they continue to argue the rules you will simply refuse to DM and one of them can run the game however they like.