Wrong? No, made a mistake with the group, sounds like it. Big deal? Depends on the group really. And "death before capture" is very common with players, it takes A LOT of prep work between DM and Players to have themselves "allowed" to be captured.
To an old timer, it sounds to me like a very simple and classic "mid school" encounter. Way back when, it was rare for any "encounters" to "bleed over" into the next room. It was how one could have a cave/room with kobolds just down the corridor/hall from an owlbear, which was just around the corner from a couple of ghouls. However, folks soon started putting together actual ecologies which were tied in thematically and also made encounters more "realistic" by having nearby denizens check to see if they noticed the ruckus down the hall. We saw encounter design "peak" at this with 4e where an encounter was often considered several rooms/areas together. In 5e doing this, especially from a published adventure, is very dangerous for the party. If going the more "intelligent dungeon" route, one needs to take into account the original authors wrote it as a "dumb dungeon". and adjust accordingly.
Here's why: In 5e, it is all about Action Economy. Whichever side has more realized actions in an encounter will tend to be victorious. If one side is going to have double or more realized actions, it is almost a guaranteed victory for that side. Realized actions are those actually taken, or the only reason they were not taken is because there were no more opponents to use them against.
So back to your encounter (which I know well as I have a beginner group of two just entered the locale) the party was already down 2-3 encounters worth of resources, and then you threw the rest of the dungeon on them, not all at once, but still, it cascaded to that point. It doesn't sound like the party were eliminating ANY of the opponents, during the initial rounds, which made it worse. You should have stopped at 5-6 opponents entering the fray, it would have given them a chance to barely defeat them or to be able to overcome a bad roll obstacle (pit trap). Once there were twice as many bandits, the party's fate was sealed, and everyone knew it.
Use the encounter builder here on DnDBeyond, start adding those bandits in one at a time, as soon as it hits Hard you should have stopped (since they already expended resources and shouldn't have had even a short rest yet) and absolutely stop at DEADLY, adding on after that is pretty much a guaranteed TPK. Especially considering the party doesn't have really ANY AoE spells yet.
So lessons which could be learned:
1. Homebrewing "on the fly" can have drastic consequences. (That would be your Perception check, which is not in the module's design) 2. Players prefer death over capture. 3. Err on the side of the Players when it comes to encounters, especially "ad hoc" encounters. 4. Nobody puts baby in a corner 5. Get feedback from the group, weigh the validity of the points they make, and then see what the next campaign is going to be. Perhaps it will simply be the next set of adventurers coming into the area, and though it will take a little work on your part to get them some initial adventure/level they could very well end up finding the previous party's remains, and stuff, either at that locale or somewhere else...
I disagree vehemently with #2.
I disagree vehemently with #4. That’s even why persuasion, deception, and intimidation are around.
to #1. It’s not in the modules design to have the nothic less you there either. It’s not in the modules design to be new recruits. It’s not in the modules design that every chest in the module gets opened. Or every goblin gets killed, or every goblin gets spared, etc etc. the module gives guidelines, not a strict design. And then the dm guides the PCs to be creative and do whatever they want on a canvass, the modules design just sets the size of the canvas players can use. And the DM makes sure players stay on the canvass and don’t go all over the place.
I think you played the encounter fairly. The way your players reacted strikes me as, in a word, batshit. But people are different and find fun in different places, so that’s fine I guess. But what this whole experience ought to have revealed is that their fun and your fun are simply not compatible. You don’t enjoy running the game they want to play, and they don’t enjoy playing the game you want to run. That’s not a condemnation of either party, it’s just an unfortunate reality.
I have very good friends whom I play alongside in other games but whom I very deliberately did not invite to the game I run because I know their kind of fun and my kind of fun are at odds in a way that would become unmanageable for one of us. That’s just how the dice fall sometimes.
First off, thanks for all the responses; a lot of questions have been asked and advice given, so I won't reply to it all, but I do appreciate it. This has definitely been a learning opportunity. After talking to my group, the problems--as some of you suspected--stemmed from clashing play-styles, miscommunication (both in terms of expectations and rules), and growing frustrations that weren't being adequately communicated (on all sides) that all came to a head at once. One of the more outspoken players (who decided to fight the Nothic for treasure and was the first to suicide their character) admitted that they had grown increasingly frustrated that other players didn't seem to know the basics of their character/the rules (of combat, in particular) which lead to impatience on their part, which lead to a miscommunication between us about just how dangerous picking a fight with this particular enemy in this particular area could be. Another player, who claimed at the beginning to be more into the role play aspect, had pretty much lowered those expectations in order to keep the peace; another player who liked immersion was on the verge of dropping out beforehand anyway(either partially or fully) because of some of the others' impatience; and another was really in it for the social aspect with the other players (which had changed significantly for them when we transitioned to online play). And one was frustrated because they felt they hadn't been told enough to adequately play/ didn't feel their character was contributing to the group in a meaningful way (though I take less responsibility for that one because I made sure to be available for questions and actively prompted them numerous times to think about their character and its features.)
On my end, I was also frustrated by the lack of interest that some showed in various aspects of the game/their character, such as engaging with personality/traits/flaws/backstory choices (or even coming up with any of the aforementioned) and in combat, I was consistently answering questions about what AC was or what they needed to roll for an attack, or the save DC of a racial feature, or where to look for that stuff--beyond just the normal "I'm a first player still learning the curve" type of thing. (I was trying to address that as tactfully as possible due to personal entanglements, but perhaps TOO tactfully). I was frustrated because those that had claimed to like role-playing seemed willing to let those that didn't rush them into the dungeon without even taking the time to buy health potions (though in retrospect, I totally should have figured that at least one of those was just trying to keep the peace) and that nothing I explained about the game as I saw it, and how i was planning on doing things, seemed to be sticking no matter how many different times/ways I tried. (I did try a 0 session, but got varying levels of attendance/engagement, and kept getting answers like "Let's just play" or "I don't care" or "I'll figure it out"--which turned out to be more true for some than others. I did not think about revisiting a zero session part way through the campaign, though, once they started seeing what D&D--and my DM style, which is quite frankly still developing--was actually like. Lesson learned.) All of which may have colored my judgments, and though I probably still would have given the bandits a chance to discover them fighting, there were definitely things I didn't take into consideration/ didn't adapt to very well.
And I think I also may have been unconsciously emulating the DMing style that I first experienced when I first started playing D&D (ok, Pathfinder). My first session of my first game, my first character got killed by a bear, even though we outnumbered it and it wasn't supposed to be a deadly fight. A combination of bad play choices on my part, and really crappy rolls (and good rolls on the bear's part) did me in and my DM looked at me and said "Sorry; it happens sometimes. Make a new character." And that's how I spent the rest of that session. I got to keep the same backstory, more or less (which is the part that I had worked on the hardest anyway), but still it wasn't exactly fun. From that moment on, however, I knew exactly what kind of game I was playing, and what the possible consequences for my actions were, and it's honestly something I'm not sure I would have fully understood otherwise. And I was certainly never consulted if things took a turn towards "Hey, you're being captured;" if that's how things went--again, based partially on how we played as a group--then that's how things went, and you could either roll with it and see what fun opportunities you could find in that situation, or you could complain and fight about it and just prolong the inevitable and not have fun. Which isn't to say I always had fun in such situations, but I at least opened myself up to the possibility that it could be fun. And so, while I didn't set out to "teach my players a lesson" per se, I may have unconsciously defaulted to a similar mindset and took for granted that everyone would roll with whatever happened
All that being said, at some point during our past conversations about expectations (where I thought I was clear about my own, but perhaps not as clear as I thought) I told them that if they ever, as a group, decided they wanted to play a different kind of game than what I was running, then someone could take my place as DM and I'd become a player, no hard feelings. No one took me up on it then, but after this blow out we came back together and decided to try something else with another, more experienced DM. Part of me is struggling a little bit to hold to that "No hard feelings" oath, but mostly I think that this will be good for everyone, and way less stress on me. We ran a session 0 earlier in the week and the other players all seemed to have adjusted their expectations/seemed more willing to engage with the game and their characters than before (the one that was in it for the socializing dropped out, possibly until we can get together again in person). Maybe the blowout is what we needed, lol, and so not a complete waste. In the meantime I've started up another group, with players that I already know are more interested in the RP and narrative aspects of D&D. Had our own 0 session yesterday and it went pretty well and I'm excited to get started.
I feel like things probably just got out of hand quickly. Its one of those things you just have to think "well that didnt go as planned. Lets move on".
Dont get bogged down in whos fault it is. If the players are too defensive and keep accusing you, just accept it and move on. Unhappy players will make for bad gameplay
Players who trust their DM, will roll with almost anything and let the DM take them somewhere they might not have normally wanted to go. Players who don't trust their DM will believe that to save their character, they have to resist every hint the DM gives them because "he is out to get us." It takes time and some experience (as well as maturity) for the DM and players to learn to trust each other. This happens over sessions, not right away. Especially if some or all of the group is inexperienced.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Yeah, from the sound of it, your players needed a blowout situation like this to make them realize that they actually have opinions and what they are. Knowing what they do now about what can happen when nobody takes the "what kind of game do you wanna play" discussion seriously, I'm sure you'll see things run more smoothly and more open in the future. Your players seem to have learned a lesson on the value of communicating as a group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I disagree vehemently with #2.
I disagree vehemently with #4. That’s even why persuasion, deception, and intimidation are around.
to #1. It’s not in the modules design to have the nothic less you there either. It’s not in the modules design to be new recruits. It’s not in the modules design that every chest in the module gets opened. Or every goblin gets killed, or every goblin gets spared, etc etc. the module gives guidelines, not a strict design. And then the dm guides the PCs to be creative and do whatever they want on a canvass, the modules design just sets the size of the canvas players can use. And the DM makes sure players stay on the canvass and don’t go all over the place.
#5. Absolutely should happen.
#3. depends.
Watch me on twitch
*applause*
this exactly. 100% agree. 100% accurate.
Watch me on twitch
First off, thanks for all the responses; a lot of questions have been asked and advice given, so I won't reply to it all, but I do appreciate it. This has definitely been a learning opportunity. After talking to my group, the problems--as some of you suspected--stemmed from clashing play-styles, miscommunication (both in terms of expectations and rules), and growing frustrations that weren't being adequately communicated (on all sides) that all came to a head at once. One of the more outspoken players (who decided to fight the Nothic for treasure and was the first to suicide their character) admitted that they had grown increasingly frustrated that other players didn't seem to know the basics of their character/the rules (of combat, in particular) which lead to impatience on their part, which lead to a miscommunication between us about just how dangerous picking a fight with this particular enemy in this particular area could be. Another player, who claimed at the beginning to be more into the role play aspect, had pretty much lowered those expectations in order to keep the peace; another player who liked immersion was on the verge of dropping out beforehand anyway(either partially or fully) because of some of the others' impatience; and another was really in it for the social aspect with the other players (which had changed significantly for them when we transitioned to online play). And one was frustrated because they felt they hadn't been told enough to adequately play/ didn't feel their character was contributing to the group in a meaningful way (though I take less responsibility for that one because I made sure to be available for questions and actively prompted them numerous times to think about their character and its features.)
On my end, I was also frustrated by the lack of interest that some showed in various aspects of the game/their character, such as engaging with personality/traits/flaws/backstory choices (or even coming up with any of the aforementioned) and in combat, I was consistently answering questions about what AC was or what they needed to roll for an attack, or the save DC of a racial feature, or where to look for that stuff--beyond just the normal "I'm a first player still learning the curve" type of thing. (I was trying to address that as tactfully as possible due to personal entanglements, but perhaps TOO tactfully). I was frustrated because those that had claimed to like role-playing seemed willing to let those that didn't rush them into the dungeon without even taking the time to buy health potions (though in retrospect, I totally should have figured that at least one of those was just trying to keep the peace) and that nothing I explained about the game as I saw it, and how i was planning on doing things, seemed to be sticking no matter how many different times/ways I tried. (I did try a 0 session, but got varying levels of attendance/engagement, and kept getting answers like "Let's just play" or "I don't care" or "I'll figure it out"--which turned out to be more true for some than others. I did not think about revisiting a zero session part way through the campaign, though, once they started seeing what D&D--and my DM style, which is quite frankly still developing--was actually like. Lesson learned.) All of which may have colored my judgments, and though I probably still would have given the bandits a chance to discover them fighting, there were definitely things I didn't take into consideration/ didn't adapt to very well.
And I think I also may have been unconsciously emulating the DMing style that I first experienced when I first started playing D&D (ok, Pathfinder). My first session of my first game, my first character got killed by a bear, even though we outnumbered it and it wasn't supposed to be a deadly fight. A combination of bad play choices on my part, and really crappy rolls (and good rolls on the bear's part) did me in and my DM looked at me and said "Sorry; it happens sometimes. Make a new character." And that's how I spent the rest of that session. I got to keep the same backstory, more or less (which is the part that I had worked on the hardest anyway), but still it wasn't exactly fun. From that moment on, however, I knew exactly what kind of game I was playing, and what the possible consequences for my actions were, and it's honestly something I'm not sure I would have fully understood otherwise. And I was certainly never consulted if things took a turn towards "Hey, you're being captured;" if that's how things went--again, based partially on how we played as a group--then that's how things went, and you could either roll with it and see what fun opportunities you could find in that situation, or you could complain and fight about it and just prolong the inevitable and not have fun. Which isn't to say I always had fun in such situations, but I at least opened myself up to the possibility that it could be fun. And so, while I didn't set out to "teach my players a lesson" per se, I may have unconsciously defaulted to a similar mindset and took for granted that everyone would roll with whatever happened
All that being said, at some point during our past conversations about expectations (where I thought I was clear about my own, but perhaps not as clear as I thought) I told them that if they ever, as a group, decided they wanted to play a different kind of game than what I was running, then someone could take my place as DM and I'd become a player, no hard feelings. No one took me up on it then, but after this blow out we came back together and decided to try something else with another, more experienced DM. Part of me is struggling a little bit to hold to that "No hard feelings" oath, but mostly I think that this will be good for everyone, and way less stress on me. We ran a session 0 earlier in the week and the other players all seemed to have adjusted their expectations/seemed more willing to engage with the game and their characters than before (the one that was in it for the socializing dropped out, possibly until we can get together again in person). Maybe the blowout is what we needed, lol, and so not a complete waste. In the meantime I've started up another group, with players that I already know are more interested in the RP and narrative aspects of D&D. Had our own 0 session yesterday and it went pretty well and I'm excited to get started.
Glad this has all worked out.
I know it's easy to say and hard to do but do not have hard feelings about this. Enjoy that you get to play instead of do the work of a DM.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I feel like things probably just got out of hand quickly. Its one of those things you just have to think "well that didnt go as planned. Lets move on".
Dont get bogged down in whos fault it is. If the players are too defensive and keep accusing you, just accept it and move on. Unhappy players will make for bad gameplay
Some of this has to do with trust.
Players who trust their DM, will roll with almost anything and let the DM take them somewhere they might not have normally wanted to go. Players who don't trust their DM will believe that to save their character, they have to resist every hint the DM gives them because "he is out to get us." It takes time and some experience (as well as maturity) for the DM and players to learn to trust each other. This happens over sessions, not right away. Especially if some or all of the group is inexperienced.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Yeah, from the sound of it, your players needed a blowout situation like this to make them realize that they actually have opinions and what they are. Knowing what they do now about what can happen when nobody takes the "what kind of game do you wanna play" discussion seriously, I'm sure you'll see things run more smoothly and more open in the future. Your players seem to have learned a lesson on the value of communicating as a group.