I've been a dm for the same group of players for several years now. I have never played a game as a player. So I have limited knowledge on a lot of basic things. I usually just make a decision and go with it.
My current campaign is abnormal. My players played out their backstories, starting as friends and or siblings in a small town. Gradually they learned certain abilities and feats until they reached a point in the game to where they needed to officially level up to 1. This took months of sometimes multiple games a week.
Recently one of my players, who is a good player but real needy. Center of attention type players, was having a series of bad rp and dice rolls.
We reached a part in the campaign where they were doing solo missions to raise an army to fight an army. This particular player came up with an idea to petition a bronze dragon for help. I was reluctant as they are level 4 but after a series of dice rolls and good rp I allowed it.
While going to find this dragon he happened to roll on a random encounter and it was for a child to wander into camp who was lost. This fit into the story well and I figured this would be a good way to help him earn trust with the local village he needed to go through anyways..sort of a secret keeper of the dragon type place.
So I made the child be part of that village only for the player to then not help him. A series of dice rolls and the child was killed in the night.
When the player reached the village they were obviously looking for the child and he came clean with it. More dice rolls and they were furious. Told him to leave.
He did find and petition the dragon however the dragon would not help him with the knowledge he knew of the player not helping the child.
The player was seriously upset and almost stopped playing.
As this dragon could shift into human form I had it be a bard at the local in who was already introduced and kind of a information exchanger. This fit really well with the bronze dragon so felt it made sense.
I let the player speak to the now bard/dragon where it was revealed the bard was the dragon and kind of patched it up. Not only for the player but the other players.
Should I have done this? A dragon is powerful and the player did chose to ignore the child? What do you think.
I often second guess myself because of my experience level and never playing the game personally. Sorry about the long read.
Even though you are the DM you cannot guess how your players will actually react and you do not know the future. Your fixing the problem was neither good or bad.
The one potential bad thing is what the player (not the character) thinks.
If the player is remorseful and will help children in the future then all is well. If the player thinks that if he made a future bad choice, you will change things to fix that bad choice then it is wrong.
In the near future ( say March) send a kid in again, see how he reacts. A few months later (~August) do it again. See how he reacts. Then you know if he learned a lesson or he has not changed.
Lastly have a one shot planned were someone else is DM and you are a player. Playing a few games will make you a better DM as you better understand how the other half lives. Someone else might want to try their hand at DM. It is not a bad strategy to have a few DMs to rotate.
Great advice. I will test him and see how he reacts. I know part of it has to be that he thought it was a trick.
It's better to address social issues, which this is, outside the game. "Testing" him has a good chance of exacerbating the issue. (Indeed, it was triggered by a blatant in-game test.)
Just a simple, private, "is everything cool?" conversation is much more likely to settle things down. Finding out if he knows what about the situation upset him would be helpful,
It is possible, but far from guaranteed, that he felt you were setting him up to fail, even after the previous successes. It's also possible that it had nothing to do with the game, and more to do with unrelated events in his personal life making him touchy. Or many other possibilities.
(Not a solution for this problem, but general GMing advice -- when the players get partway along a path, sudden cutoffs, especially surprise ones or "roll well or fail", generally don't feel good. Partial success, or success with additional consequences, are usually a better plan, unless they really botch it hard.)
Great advice. I will test him and see how he reacts. I know part of it has to be that he thought it was a trick.
I have tried to have guest DM's so that I could see how others do at as Im sure no two are the same. Nothing has worked out so far.
Thanks for the reply.
Opinion on OP's Decision With that out of the way I personally think that yes, you did the right thing. At my tables character actions have consequences. Some are small, others are meaningful. You don't get to insult an NPC of importance in a settlement and then go about your day as normal. The NPCs of that settlement will respond. D&D is very much structured to be in the player's favour 60% or more of the time. By having RP consequences to actions (or inaction), it restores some sort of balance to the game where players can't just power game. Honestly, I think it'll be good for your player with Main Character Syndrome too. They'll learn that not everything goes their way. If they pick up on that it'll ultimately make them a better player. One of the bigger problems with Main Character Syndrome is that they are often writing the story of their character independent of what happens within a session or group, and so when something doesn't go the way they expected it to, they act like spoilt toddlers.
An option that might have avoided this Now, if you do want to tweak things, and give players a bit more of an influence in the way the plot of the adventure unfolds, the 2014 DMG is the better DMG to read because it's DM's workshop is far superior. Although many WotC fanboy DMs yell about how well laid out the 2024 DMG was, it lacks a lot of the options and potential solutions that the 2014 DMG gives. One such feature that you might wish to utilise is Plot Points (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/dmg-2014/dungeon-masters-workshop#PlotPoints).
With Plot Points a player has the option to effectively add something to the adventure, and to the situation as a whole. In this case the player could have spent a plot point and built on what happened by saying, but as it turns out that child was in fact a Hag or other such creature with their own evil scheme. Success rate with Plot Points are variable, and they really do benefit a party that act as a team more than a group of individuals. However, options like this from the 2014 DMG can really make a cool difference to 5e.
Some general advice for the OP beyond what was directly asked As an aside. As with so very, very, very many posts I appear to be reading lately, it feels as though you're a DM who hasn't run an official adventure. Please don't take that as an insult, that's not how it's meant. I very well remember being so eager to jump in, and it's not a bad thing for doing that. I'm going to give the same advice I usually do - read some official adventures. Run them if you can, but reading them helps just as much. Libraries exist and there are places you can find all the adventures to read for free. It feels very much like you've tried to run before you can walk so to speak. You admit yourself having a less good knowledge of the basic things. Reading published adventures is one of the best things possible for helping you identify what works and what doesn't. Take this as just general advice, go and read. Like people who want to be writers, if you aren't writing, if you aren't reading other writing, you'll never be able to develop a more independent style that is your DM style.
Kind of in the same boat as jl8e, i think a conversation on the side about it will go a lot better than a test in game would. The in session situation for me is fine. It's not going out of your way to punish someone, it's well within reason that an action will have a reaction. The double punish on it was probably a bit harsh, but still within reason. Think instead of a hard no from the dragon, it's a "i will be the judge of your character" and treat it like death saves where the player has rolled a failure to start, and create time for the player to make better decisions going forward in game.
If the player doesn't want to help a child and the child dies, that's their fault! It came out like that and the dragon judged the character for it. That makes lots of sense to me and I don't think that you should have to change what your original ruling was because a player didn't like it.
I also think that getting yourself some player experience is a great idea. I actively make sure I'm always playing one campaign and try to always DM one, though that doesn't always work out. It can be very helpful to think like a player sometimes when building and playing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He doesn't have much besides the skin on his bones. Me: I'll take the skin on his bones, then.
"You see a gigantic, monstrous praying mantis burst from out of the ground. It sprays a stream of acid from it's mouth at one soldier, dissolving him instantly, then it turns and chomps another soldier in half with it's- "
"When are we gonna take a snack break?"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've been a dm for the same group of players for several years now. I have never played a game as a player. So I have limited knowledge on a lot of basic things. I usually just make a decision and go with it.
My current campaign is abnormal. My players played out their backstories, starting as friends and or siblings in a small town. Gradually they learned certain abilities and feats until they reached a point in the game to where they needed to officially level up to 1. This took months of sometimes multiple games a week.
Recently one of my players, who is a good player but real needy. Center of attention type players, was having a series of bad rp and dice rolls.
We reached a part in the campaign where they were doing solo missions to raise an army to fight an army. This particular player came up with an idea to petition a bronze dragon for help. I was reluctant as they are level 4 but after a series of dice rolls and good rp I allowed it.
While going to find this dragon he happened to roll on a random encounter and it was for a child to wander into camp who was lost. This fit into the story well and I figured this would be a good way to help him earn trust with the local village he needed to go through anyways..sort of a secret keeper of the dragon type place.
So I made the child be part of that village only for the player to then not help him. A series of dice rolls and the child was killed in the night.
When the player reached the village they were obviously looking for the child and he came clean with it. More dice rolls and they were furious. Told him to leave.
He did find and petition the dragon however the dragon would not help him with the knowledge he knew of the player not helping the child.
The player was seriously upset and almost stopped playing.
As this dragon could shift into human form I had it be a bard at the local in who was already introduced and kind of a information exchanger. This fit really well with the bronze dragon so felt it made sense.
I let the player speak to the now bard/dragon where it was revealed the bard was the dragon and kind of patched it up. Not only for the player but the other players.
Should I have done this? A dragon is powerful and the player did chose to ignore the child? What do you think.
I often second guess myself because of my experience level and never playing the game personally. Sorry about the long read.
Even though you are the DM you cannot guess how your players will actually react and you do not know the future. Your fixing the problem was neither good or bad.
The one potential bad thing is what the player (not the character) thinks.
If the player is remorseful and will help children in the future then all is well. If the player thinks that if he made a future bad choice, you will change things to fix that bad choice then it is wrong.
In the near future ( say March) send a kid in again, see how he reacts. A few months later (~August) do it again. See how he reacts. Then you know if he learned a lesson or he has not changed.
Lastly have a one shot planned were someone else is DM and you are a player. Playing a few games will make you a better DM as you better understand how the other half lives. Someone else might want to try their hand at DM. It is not a bad strategy to have a few DMs to rotate.
Great advice. I will test him and see how he reacts. I know part of it has to be that he thought it was a trick.
I have tried to have guest DM's so that I could see how others do at as Im sure no two are the same. Nothing has worked out so far.
Thanks for the reply.
It's better to address social issues, which this is, outside the game. "Testing" him has a good chance of exacerbating the issue. (Indeed, it was triggered by a blatant in-game test.)
Just a simple, private, "is everything cool?" conversation is much more likely to settle things down. Finding out if he knows what about the situation upset him would be helpful,
It is possible, but far from guaranteed, that he felt you were setting him up to fail, even after the previous successes. It's also possible that it had nothing to do with the game, and more to do with unrelated events in his personal life making him touchy. Or many other possibilities.
(Not a solution for this problem, but general GMing advice -- when the players get partway along a path, sudden cutoffs, especially surprise ones or "roll well or fail", generally don't feel good. Partial success, or success with additional consequences, are usually a better plan, unless they really botch it hard.)
Opinion on OP's Decision
With that out of the way I personally think that yes, you did the right thing. At my tables character actions have consequences. Some are small, others are meaningful. You don't get to insult an NPC of importance in a settlement and then go about your day as normal. The NPCs of that settlement will respond. D&D is very much structured to be in the player's favour 60% or more of the time. By having RP consequences to actions (or inaction), it restores some sort of balance to the game where players can't just power game. Honestly, I think it'll be good for your player with Main Character Syndrome too. They'll learn that not everything goes their way. If they pick up on that it'll ultimately make them a better player. One of the bigger problems with Main Character Syndrome is that they are often writing the story of their character independent of what happens within a session or group, and so when something doesn't go the way they expected it to, they act like spoilt toddlers.
An option that might have avoided this
Now, if you do want to tweak things, and give players a bit more of an influence in the way the plot of the adventure unfolds, the 2014 DMG is the better DMG to read because it's DM's workshop is far superior. Although many WotC fanboy DMs yell about how well laid out the 2024 DMG was, it lacks a lot of the options and potential solutions that the 2014 DMG gives. One such feature that you might wish to utilise is Plot Points (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/dmg-2014/dungeon-masters-workshop#PlotPoints).
With Plot Points a player has the option to effectively add something to the adventure, and to the situation as a whole. In this case the player could have spent a plot point and built on what happened by saying, but as it turns out that child was in fact a Hag or other such creature with their own evil scheme. Success rate with Plot Points are variable, and they really do benefit a party that act as a team more than a group of individuals. However, options like this from the 2014 DMG can really make a cool difference to 5e.
Some general advice for the OP beyond what was directly asked
As an aside. As with so very, very, very many posts I appear to be reading lately, it feels as though you're a DM who hasn't run an official adventure. Please don't take that as an insult, that's not how it's meant. I very well remember being so eager to jump in, and it's not a bad thing for doing that. I'm going to give the same advice I usually do - read some official adventures. Run them if you can, but reading them helps just as much. Libraries exist and there are places you can find all the adventures to read for free. It feels very much like you've tried to run before you can walk so to speak. You admit yourself having a less good knowledge of the basic things. Reading published adventures is one of the best things possible for helping you identify what works and what doesn't. Take this as just general advice, go and read. Like people who want to be writers, if you aren't writing, if you aren't reading other writing, you'll never be able to develop a more independent style that is your DM style.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Kind of in the same boat as jl8e, i think a conversation on the side about it will go a lot better than a test in game would. The in session situation for me is fine. It's not going out of your way to punish someone, it's well within reason that an action will have a reaction. The double punish on it was probably a bit harsh, but still within reason. Think instead of a hard no from the dragon, it's a "i will be the judge of your character" and treat it like death saves where the player has rolled a failure to start, and create time for the player to make better decisions going forward in game.
All of this is really good advice. thanks for the replies.
If the player doesn't want to help a child and the child dies, that's their fault! It came out like that and the dragon judged the character for it. That makes lots of sense to me and I don't think that you should have to change what your original ruling was because a player didn't like it.
I also think that getting yourself some player experience is a great idea. I actively make sure I'm always playing one campaign and try to always DM one, though that doesn't always work out. It can be very helpful to think like a player sometimes when building and playing.
He doesn't have much besides the skin on his bones. Me: I'll take the skin on his bones, then.
"You see a gigantic, monstrous praying mantis burst from out of the ground. It sprays a stream of acid from it's mouth at one soldier, dissolving him instantly, then it turns and chomps another soldier in half with it's- "
"When are we gonna take a snack break?"