This is long so I apologize up front.

I am a DM returning after a 20+ year break. I have so many amazing memories of the games, players, stories, adventures, and the general fun we had back then. To somehow recapture that time again would be amazing. First task to accomplish that was to learn the new 5e rules and some of the source material. So, I buy all the books, including digital versions, plus software (CHA-CHING$$$), join a few games, play some face to face Adventurers League games, learn Fantasy Grounds, and play a long series of adventures that way.

Ok, I think I am ready. So, over the period of a couple of months I update the old campaign and world using all the latest tools, then convert everything over to the latest game version.

• Hand drawn game world, cities, and dungeons now all digital. Check!
• Updated NPC stats from 2.5 to 5e. Check!
• Updated several starter adventures to 5e. Check!
• Buy a ton of DMSGuild adventures to have some readymade content available. Check!
• Learned the basics of Fantasy Grounds. Check!
• Build an incredible gaming room in my home for a face to face group. Check!

Disaster strikes! COVID happens, making face to face games impossible for a while. So, I guess Fantasy Grounds it is for now. Just need to find some players. I figure I should start off slow in the beginning.  So, I invite a DM who I played under during the games mentioned above. It is someone I also happened to work with on the professional side of life over the past couple years, so I consider him at least a partial friend. Anyway, I explain to him my goal of learning how to DM with Fantasy Grounds, of which he is a master of, and explain that the starting module is a simple one-shot, story based module. He says he is excited to be able to play for the first time in 10 years instead of always DM’ing. Awesome, an excited player!

Game Session 1 (two hours):  Player continually, intentionally ignores the modules ‘quest this way’ clues and begins telling me that it feels like I am railroading him into doing certain things. The module has milestones that he is ignoring for some reason. So now I am thinking "is he not even trying to play the one-shot?" That is my first clue something may be wrong. He is helpful in learning Fantasy Grounds though so that’s a plus.

Game Session 2 (three hours):  Much better this time. Starts following the modules clues, discovering things, investigating things, etc. He manages to get through several milestones but then claims I failed to tell him some relevant fact, when in fact I am sure I did because it was a major clue milestone. That is my second clue something is not right Toto! A disagreement begins over that, which he eventually drops, and we proceed. He still intentionally ignores clues for whatever reason and occasionally pops off with sarcastic ‘on the rails again’ comments. To be honest I am confused why he is intentionally making this game so difficult.  It is a short one-shot... runs 2-3, maybe 4 hours max, yet here we are, five hours into it and barely halfway.

Game Session 3 (30 min): The player is on a role tonight! Telling me that all I am doing is railroading him in this and that, etc. He then tried to tell an NPC that he was going to do something, whether the NCP liked it or not, and of which the player had no authority or ability to do (Story: Player is trying to tell an NPC Paladin ally (twice the players level) that he can’t do something that the Paladin's order specifically told the Paladin to do. After he keeps pushing the issue the Paladin responds “Who the hell are you to dictate how my order operates or what its members can and can’t do? Piss off buddy.”). This evolves into him expressing how bad I am at DM’ing, that my style is what only the worse kind DM’s do, rant, rant, “railroading”, rant, rant, more claims of "railroading", etc. He even goes on to claim that the DM’s job is to ensure the party has a fun experience, and that the DM’s desire to also enjoy the game is irrelevant. Which apparently means I am there to serve him. Oh really…you want fries with that buddy? At this point I feel personally attacked and angry for trusting this guy. I am so upset that I end the game and close the session. We are done!  I cannot deal with him anymore.

And before anyone claims I was disrupting his “player agency”, I gotta tell ya that I strongly disagree with that whole “player agency” PC crap. I agree that a DM should give the players every reasonable freedom to figure out what they want to do and not “railroad” them into forced decisions. It is super old school man, no need to yell.  But I also know that that forest over there has some really high level monsters that call it home sweet home, and if I give the party/player the clues that suggest, or outright tell them, to avoid going in there, and they ignore those clues due to "player agency" then guess what? Those high level monsters are gonna stay right there. They don't care about the players "player agency". It's the monsters home/lair and they are not going anywhere just because you are "lower level". "Wander in here if you want buddy." says the monster boss "Bring some twigs with you. We'll need them for toothpicks when we are done with ya."  While this was just some fictional word fun, it is how my world works. You fail to plan you plan to fail. Go cry on your player agency's shoulder when you do.  Maybe your new character will pay the hell attention.

Anyway, I got off track with eating the players. Sorry about that.  What I wanted to add was that I also know that the DM is the guide, and sometimes (frequently even) has to guide the party along when they are lost, confused, or just aimless. Who the hell enjoys being aimless, seriously? Are we talking about the homeless in L.A.? Asking for a friend.

Look, the DM is investing his time into creating fun experiences for the players. That requires some structure, forethought, and a time investment sink of varying degrees by the DM to make it happen. So, to be PC correct, let us call it “DM agency” to appease the PC crowd. If the players (or player) thinks it is the job of the DM to entertain them, in any way they want to be entertained, then sorry, the DM is not their personal hooker. Find someone else to "please you". "DM agency" you see.

The bottom line is that the DM has equal right to get enjoyment from the game just as much as the players. He/she did all the really hard work after all. DM’s need to stop babying their players by accommodating their every wish and temper tantrum. Enough is enough!  Besides, there are a crap ton of players out there to choose from, and there is a severe shortage of DM’s. DM’s have the advantage don't ya know!

Edit:  I just realized this "player agency" thing sounds like a familiar cultural issue. Many HR departments are struggling with younger employees that act like the company awes them everything. Where they got those expectations no one really knows...maybe from D&D? But I can assure you, they are getting some seriously rude wake-up calls in the real world. They are having to check their "player agency" at the door!

/Another Frustrated DM

It sounds like the two of you are butting heads a lot. If I understand the story, it is just you and this one player? It can be VERY hard to DM for just one player character. The player only has you to RP with and not the other players, which is a lot of work for both of you. The player can't sit back for a few minutes and let one of the other players take the lead while he relaxes for a few... You can't sit back and let the players RP with each other and rest for a few... it's all both of you, all the time. I think you might be better off with 2 or 3 players instead of just one.

Also, it sounds like the player who used to be a DM may have a common DM affliction - not being able to turn off "DM mode", constantly assessing how you are doing and comparing it to how he would do if he were DMing. It is super hard NOT to do this if you are used to being a DM and it might take him a while to let go of this. For me, I don't know if I was EVER able to let go of it once I GMed Champions for 2 years straight. Years later I still think like a GM even while playing.

All of that said, clearly, you two need to have a player-to-player, out-of-character, conversation about what you want out of the game. Discuss with each other what you mean by "on the rails" and "player agency." For example, your anecdote about the forest of high level monsters, and you warn the players that there are high level monsters over there and they go over anyway and get stomped... that to me is the definition of player agency. "On the rails" would be if you said "somehow you are not able to go into the woods at this time, go somewhere else." But that's how I think of rails -- not everyone would agree. If your former-DM-player thinks that if he goes into the woods and gets his butt stomped that it is "on rails" then he clearly has a different definition and you should discuss that with him.

I would ask him, why is he doing this? Is there something wrong? Is he purposely trying to screw up the adventures for some reason? Would he be happier if he were just the DM instead of you? Things like this. It sounds like you are both being aggressive with each other, and that's not the way to play a D&D game.

Conversation is the key here. Have a non-adversarial discussion with him. Tell him that you want him to enjoy things but you want to enjoy them also. And that the two of you need to come to some sort of compromise so that you both can.

There are perhaps a few points to consider.

1) D&D works much better with more than one player. The game tends to be balanced around a party both from a mechanics point of view (action economy) but also from a social point of view. The objectives of the party tend to keep the individuals more on track when an single person can potentially wander off and do whatever they want.

2) A concept that seems to be newer is holding a "session 0". In session 0 the DM and the players have a frank discussion about how the world functions, the general sort of creatures that can be found, how cosmopolitan it is, how civilized. They discuss the rules mechanics including any and every house rule that the DM uses. There are a couple of reasons for this, it sets the tone for the type of campaign that will be run ... is it high fantasy, gritty reality, realistic, semi-realistic ... do you track encumbrance? Ammo? Specific gear? Is there a protocol so everyone can have a turn and express their ideas?

It is also the time to discuss exactly how sandboxy your campaign will be. I've run complete sandbox games where the world is full of stuff and the players just choose which way to go and what to do. They run into clues, hints, ideas, information that may or may not lead to something else. Some people love this and others want to be more lead. On the other hand, I don't think there is a single published module that is written like this. Every module ASSUMES that the players buy into the plot line and offer up enough willing suspension of disbelief in order to follow the module and ignore all the gaping plot holes and reasons to do something else.

Put a sandbox player in a module and you get someone who complains about railroading and player agency just due to the nature of the content. A person who wants to play in a sandbox leaves one module and jumps into the one up the street without noticing a transition and this is accommodated by the DM who is running a sandbox world and simply lets the player encounter whatever content the player runs into.

However, in a sandbox world the DM does need to discuss with the players (session 0 again) explaining that warnings are meaningful. If the players hear rumors of a deadly beast in the woods then the chances are it really is DEADLY and significant caution is required if they choose to investigate. Emphasize that just because the DM provides them with information does NOT mean that this information leads to a level appropriate challenge (if you don't make that clear, many players assume that anything the DM says is a clue leading to something intended for the players ... in some games that is true, others not .. but the DM needs to make this extremely clear what sort of world they are running from the very beginning).

3) Someone who has DMed for 10 years without playing  ... there may be a reason for that. They may enjoy DMing but there is the possibility that they just aren't a great player. It happens. They can be too demanding, can't get their head out of the DM mindset even when playing, second guess the DMs interpretations and rulings when they aren't what YOU would do. Sometimes it is easier to play when you have never DMed since the DM perspective always brings into the situation how YOU would choose to run things differently.

4) Finally, as mentioned above, playing a module (more than regular content) requires a "buy-in" from the players to live with the module objectives, that the character will be trying to do their best to succeed at the module and accept that as part of they character's goals when role playing. Some folks have difficulty with this "Why would my character do THAT for only 10gp ... no way! Why would my character help this <specific NPC> when I am a chaotic neutral, looks out for themselves first rogue?". The problem with this type of "role-playing" is that the player is right ... their character would never do these things UNLESS the player invents an explanation for why they ARE doing these things. The point is that the player is playing the module, the player KNOWS they are playing a module, the player AGREED to play a module, so the player NEEDS to invent that reason why their character has bought into the module or the entire module is going to feel like a railroad since the character has no reason to be invested in this content otherwise.

Anyway, most of this can be resolved with clear and concise discussion during a session 0 before the game starts ... but I would set the priority as having at least 3 players to start with.

I've seen some great responses so far.  I appreciate all of them. 

One misconception I see that needs to be cleared up is that this module was intended to help ME, myself, and I learn Fantasy Grounds DM'ing and this expert FG DM knew that and agreed to help.  It was not a group, is was a solo, short, one off adventure I could learn to build in FG and play out (test play).  The problem really came into focus when the player started in with all his sandbox/railroad comments.  He knew this was not a sandbox game, nor a campaign.  Just a one time "test".  It left me very confused why he acted the way he did the entire time, then his final breakdown during the 3rd session.

Your comments on his likely inability to be a good player is probably spot on.

Some additional background on this DM.  This DM, when he ran our 7 player group via FG previously, started showing signs of cracking.  We had a pair of murder hobos, a secretive player, and the rest were like me, who just wanted to follow the module the DM had designed.  It finally reached a climax where the final boss and his minions were way more then our group could handle and he TPK'd the entire group.  Everyone was at a loss as to why he did that to us.  As a result the game dissolved immediately and we've never played together again.

Quote from Shadeflayer >>

I've seen some great responses so far.  I appreciate all of them. 

One misconception I see that needs to be cleared up is that this module was intended to help ME, myself, and I learn Fantasy Grounds DM'ing and this expert FG DM knew that and agreed to help.  It was not a group, is was a solo, short, one off adventure I could learn to build in FG and play out (test play).  The problem really came into focus when the player started in with all his sandbox/railroad comments.  He knew this was not a sandbox game, nor a campaign.  Just a one time "test".  It left me very confused why he acted the way he did the entire time, then his final breakdown during the 3rd session.

Your comments on his likely inability to be a good player is probably spot on.

Some additional background on this DM.  This DM, when he ran our 7 player group via FG previously, started showing signs of cracking.  We had a pair of murder hobos, a secretive player, and the rest were like me, who just wanted to follow the module the DM had designed.  It finally reached a climax where the final boss and his minions were way more then our group could handle and he TPK'd the entire group.  Everyone was at a loss as to why he did that to us.  As a result the game dissolved immediately and we've never played together again.

I think the last bit is a good warning sign that something might be up.

For a good DM, TPKs occur either when the players do something incredibly wrong that was telegraphed as being wrong and they do it anyway (there is a point where if the player's want a Darwin award, the DM just has to let it happen) ... or the dice gods decide they hate the players. Having the NPCs roll several crits in a row, or all the player fail an important save, can turn an encounter to an unexpected TPK. However, otherwise it just shouldn't happen and the players should be as aware of why it is happening as the DM.In this case, it almost sounds like the TPK was intentional.

Bad dice can be mitigated if the DM does not publicly share dice rolls and can adjust as needed (personally, I play with open dice rolls). Otherwise the DM has to be judicious in deciding what actions the NPCs take. (One example - I had the party encounter some harpies - I could have all of them try to sing and charm the characters on turn 1. It is only a DC 11 or so wis save but with 3 saves in the same round most characters will fail and what is a relatively easy encounter could get nasty quickly so I ended up having them sing on consecutive turns. Still offers some tension since a few still failed their saves but it wasn't as risky as the all or nothing first turn option.)

Anyway, I would still recommend a session 0 even in this case since it seems to me that the person involved was somehow expecting to play rather than mostly help in a tutorial getting you up to speed with Fantasy Grounds.

Very cool.  Thanks for the encouragement.  Not familiar with Talespire so will have to look into it.