I had a dispute with a player after the last session. Things to keep in mind...
1) While I want a neutral opinion, I myself am not neutral so if there is any ambiguity in my facts, you should err on the side of my player since I am probably telling you a biased version of the story.
2) This player and I have had some back and forth on "evil" vs "neutral" recently. He always plays CN characters but plays them as though they have no alignment (ie. he will do virtuous things or heinous things depending on what he thinks is best for the character in that moment). I have argued with him that murdering a town to get some gold, but then sharing a portion of that with poor war veterans, does not equal a neutral act. The evil murders weigh heavier than the small charitable offering. Player disagrees. This has been a passive aggressive back and forth.
So anyway, here is the setup. He has just made a new character for an existing campaign. Most of my players' party is either dead or in hiding after a questionable plan to unleash a devil to frame enemies. So they rolled up a new group and are going to approach the story from a different direction. This player is a plot bloodhound and always plays sherlock holmes/batman type detective rogues or wizards.
SYNOPSIS
(Your group encounters a small merchant caravan. 2 wagons, 2 merchants and 4 more guards on horseback)
Player: What's the perception or insight DC? I want to see if they look suspicious. Remember im a Keen Observer."
(Rolls and is successful. The guards and merchants look nervous as you approach)
Player: "I knew it. Something is up. I'm going to interrogate these guys."
(Player proceeds to question the merchant caravan at length. He has some success on his rolls but learns little. They are scared of him and the party. He wants to look through their wagons but they refuse. Persuasion and intimidation checks fail. He learns one of the wagons is full of lamp oil and is combustible. The guards and merchants don;t want him to go anywhere near it)
Player: "They are clearly hiding something. I'm going into that wagon."
(Combat ensues. Rest of the party supports the player and they kill everyone but keep one merchant alive for questioning. Upon examining the wagons, one is indeed full of lamp oil. The other is full of spice, textiles and colored glass pieces. That wagon also has a large chest full of coins and silver bars.)
Player: "Knew it. What are these merchants doing with all this silver? I'm going to question this surviving 'merchant' severely until he tells me everything."
(Player proceeds to torture this merchant. He succeeds repeatedly/ He learns they were indeed just merchants. They were nervous because this strange group of heavily armed humans and orcs [the party] rolled up on them and started questioning them. They were afraid you were bandits)
So now the player is pissed at me. He says I tricked him into doing something evil. He says he never would have done any of that if I hadn't told him the merchants looked nervous. I argued i told him they looked nervous 1) because they were nervous at the approach of the heavily armed strangers and 2) he asked, rolled, and succeeded to notice they were nervous. He says I am trying to pigeonhole him into playing a paranoid murderer again. I politely explained if he stopped creating paranoid murderers and playing them as such, he would stop having that problem.
FTR, I don't care if he murders 100 merchants. I've got a limitless supply of NPCs. But I do take offense at him claiming I MADE him do any of this or tricked him or "set him up." It was not my intent, and I think there are dozens of ways they could have avoided what happened, including just ignoring the merchants and riding on.
So... based on this limited snapshot... who's to blame here?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
PC - Ethel - Human - Lvl 4 Necromancer - Undying Dragons * Serge Marshblade - Human - Lvl 5 Eldritch Knight - Hoard of the Dragon Queen
DM -(Homebrew) Heroes of Bardstown *Red Dead Annihilation: ToA *Where the Cold Winds Blow : DoIP * Covetous, Dragonish Thoughts: HotDQ * Red Wine, Black Rose: CoS * Greyhawk: Tides of War
The only thing that would sway me either way is knowing how "combat ensues" happened. Did he try to investigate the cart and all of a sudden all these scared merchants attacked and fought to the death over their few goods? in that case, I would side with the player in saying that he was forced to fight (and kill since they didn't surrender).
OOOOOOORRRRR! Did he attack first saying "these guys are suspicious, lets beat them up and torture their leader" in that case I would TOTALLY side with you. He wasn't forced by any means, he could have just walked away
Good beings don’t go around interrogating random wagons at every level. Level 0 Merchants are of course hiding things. Their wares! They don’t just let anyone know everything they have!
Part of this is on the party as well for endorsing the behavior, but the player is always responsible for their actions. Period. You don’t have control over what they do, you create a narrative and they indulge in said narrative.
I think the key point here is “Nervous”. Not everyone who is nervous is hiding something, nervous can mean a lot of things. If the dude is so interested in getting to the plot, you can’t just read into everything as being related to the plot. Some things are just parts of the world.
Oh wow, this is the same group with the ice devil plan. I suspect the player is of the opinion "If it wasn't important, you wouldn't have had the encounter to start with".
I would put this as his fault, but with a good insight roll you could help by pointing out "You think they're worried that you're bandits".
- WRT to how "combat ensued"... Fair question. As I recall, Player pushed passed the two guards at that wagon and hopped up on the back. The guards seized him and tried to grapple him and failed. Other two guards then drew their weapons. I believe that is when one of the additional PC's drew his bow and fired the first shot though I don't remember which guard. I think they killed everyone within 2 rounds.
- WRT to this player's overall behavior... I don't "discourage" it. He is the unquestioned leader of our game in all of its incarnations. I think the rest of the group would just wander aimlessly through whatever dungeon I sent them This player is the only one working to connect all the plot threads. So in a way I "need" his paranoia.
The problem is that despite creating these kinds of characters and playing them this way, the player has a burning need to believe his character is "the good guy." Whatever awful thing he does he always has it justified in his own mind. And when I smirk and say, "Hmmn, yeah ok" when he explains how murdering the 5 year old son of that evil dragon cultist is "good" because the apple doesn't fall far from the tree and for all we know the kid could be the vessel for some evil spirit, it drives him crazy and he thinks I am judging him.
Again, i see this player's paranoia as an acceptable evil as in many ways it keeps the story going. But, I also cannot help but eyeroll when he performs mental gymnastics to explain why some heinous act "is really in everybody's best interest."
I'm reminded of the Judge from Caddyshack. "I've sent boys your age to the gas chamber. I didn;t want to do it, but I felt I... owed it to them."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
PC - Ethel - Human - Lvl 4 Necromancer - Undying Dragons * Serge Marshblade - Human - Lvl 5 Eldritch Knight - Hoard of the Dragon Queen
DM -(Homebrew) Heroes of Bardstown *Red Dead Annihilation: ToA *Where the Cold Winds Blow : DoIP * Covetous, Dragonish Thoughts: HotDQ * Red Wine, Black Rose: CoS * Greyhawk: Tides of War
Player: What's the perception or insight DC? I want to see if they look suspicious. Remember im a Keen Observer."
One question I have in terms of how you run the game -- why is this player demanding to know the DC of a skill check? As a DM, you set the DC, but you are under no obligation to tell him, and I certainly don't. Additionally, he's not allowed to call for a perception or insight check -- the DM calls for those skill checks when appropriate.
It sounds to me like you are letting the player have too much control of the table. You should establish that you, the DM, decide what rolls happen and when. And make sure you don't tell him "you succeed" on his check, but rather, tell him "The guards seem truthful" -- he doesn't get to know, for certain (though sometimes an extremely high or low roll will give a hint) that the guard is truthful. Either they are truthful and his insight check succeeded, or they are lying but his insight check failed. He's not supposed to know for sure which -- only the DM knows.
It sounds to me like one of the problems here is that you are giving the players too much control of the die rolls. The DM controls the die rolls, not the players. Checks are made when YOU call for them. At no other time. And DCs are set, and known, only to you. No one else knows them. He certainly shouldn't be allowed to know the DC before he makes the roll. That would let him employ OOC knowledge to do things like conspire to "get advantage on a really high DC check" and that sort of thing, which you should not be letting them do using OOC knowledge.
So now the player is pissed at me. He says I tricked him into doing something evil. He says he never would have done any of that if I hadn't told him the merchants looked nervous. I argued i told him they looked nervous 1) because they were nervous at the approach of the heavily armed strangers and 2) he asked, rolled, and succeeded to notice they were nervous. He says I am trying to pigeonhole him into playing a paranoid murderer again. I politely explained if he stopped creating paranoid murderers and playing them as such, he would stop having that problem.
Having only read your side of the story, I agree with your take on this. The second I read that they were nervous, I assumed they were nervous because the party was making them nervous. He clearly never really attempted to find out WHY they were nervous because if he had, I'm sure you would have RPed the NPCs as saying, "Well you're armed and dangerous!" or something.
Players often do not think about just how scary-looking and intimidating their party can be to the unarmed normal people in the world.
I find it really odd that someone who wants to be seen as "the good guy" would deliberately play CN characters... but he seems to think that CN = "the ends justify the means". Unfortunately for him, "ends justify the means" tends to be associated in most people's minds with evil.
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.
Player: What's the perception or insight DC? I want to see if they look suspicious. Remember im a Keen Observer."
One question I have in terms of how you run the game -- why is this player demanding to know the DC of a skill check? As a DM, you set the DC, but you are under no obligation to tell him, and I certainly don't. Additionally, he's not allowed to call for a perception or insight check -- the DM calls for those skill checks when appropriate.
It sounds to me like you are letting the player have too much control of the table. You should establish that you, the DM, decide what rolls happen and when. And make sure you don't tell him "you succeed" on his check, but rather, tell him "The guards seem truthful" -- he doesn't get to know, for certain (though sometimes an extremely high or low roll will give a hint) that the guard is truthful. Either they are truthful and his insight check succeeded, or they are lying but his insight check failed. He's not supposed to know for sure which -- only the DM knows.
It sounds to me like one of the problems here is that you are giving the players too much control of the die rolls. The DM controls the die rolls, not the players. Checks are made when YOU call for them. At no other time. And DCs are set, and known, only to you. No one else knows them. He certainly shouldn't be allowed to know the DC before he makes the roll. That would let him employ OOC knowledge to do things like conspire to "get advantage on a really high DC check" and that sort of thing, which you should not be letting them do using OOC knowledge.
So now the player is pissed at me. He says I tricked him into doing something evil. He says he never would have done any of that if I hadn't told him the merchants looked nervous. I argued i told him they looked nervous 1) because they were nervous at the approach of the heavily armed strangers and 2) he asked, rolled, and succeeded to notice they were nervous. He says I am trying to pigeonhole him into playing a paranoid murderer again. I politely explained if he stopped creating paranoid murderers and playing them as such, he would stop having that problem.
Having only read your side of the story, I agree with your take on this. The second I read that they were nervous, I assumed they were nervous because the party was making them nervous. He clearly never really attempted to find out WHY they were nervous because if he had, I'm sure you would have RPed the NPCs as saying, "Well you're armed and dangerous!" or something.
Players often do not think about just how scary-looking and intimidating their party can be to the unarmed normal people in the world.
I find it really odd that someone who wants to be seen as "the good guy" would deliberately play CN characters... but he seems to think that CN = "the ends justify the means". Unfortunately for him, "ends justify the means" tends to be associated in most people's minds with evil.
Well you are creeping dangerously close to a related topic: I don't know what the hell I am doing running a D&D campaign. I've run CoC in the past but that's a different animal... its a horror story where the players all know going in they are going to lose... its just a question of how awful they die. D&D... the players are hell bent on "winning" which with my group seems to mean ROFLstomping monsters and accumulating their own dragon hoards.
My group are big time meta gamers (across this campaign they all rely on facts and information they learned out of game or look up monster stats in the books to strategize how to attack mid-combat). That is just something I need to accept because trying to change that or more tightly enforce RAW would not fly with this group.
The idea of not telling them the DC on their rolls... LOL they would all quit and I would probably be disinvited from Thanksgiving. But I can live with that. That doesn't mean I don't understand what you mean... since I discovered this forum I have been amazed at how much authority other DM's are able to wield in their games. Its just not what any of my players are looking for. They don't have fun when they lose because of a dice roll. But, if they lose because they did something stupid and were seen murdering someone or that guy they just sold that artifact to? He was the BBEG? Those kinds of "losses" are fun for the players. Maybe its a "control freak" thing. Failing a skill check really bothers my players... but making the wrong choice and facing consequences is enjoyable to them.
On a somewhat related note... running this campaign has led me to suspect that my cousins and I all suffer from some serious personality disorders.
PC - Ethel - Human - Lvl 4 Necromancer - Undying Dragons * Serge Marshblade - Human - Lvl 5 Eldritch Knight - Hoard of the Dragon Queen
DM -(Homebrew) Heroes of Bardstown *Red Dead Annihilation: ToA *Where the Cold Winds Blow : DoIP * Covetous, Dragonish Thoughts: HotDQ * Red Wine, Black Rose: CoS * Greyhawk: Tides of War
It feels like the player likes the CN alignment because he thinks that this one allows him to do anything he wants. Which is weird because unless he plays a paladin or a cleric, he CAN do whatever the hell he wants. I guess calling him on it and requesting change in character sheet is perceived as "fail" for him.
Seeing how you relinquished your control of the game to your players by allowing them to metagame and giving them all the DC and rolls they ask for, it leads me to ask you a question: will whatever we say here matter at all? It feels like you are ready to give in just in order to keep your players but at some point this is going to bite you in the ass hard. As time passes, there will be more similar situations if you enable this sort of behavior.
Maybe let's put it other way - are you having fun? Just in general, playing with them? Would saying that you are currently tired/out of time/burned out and dropping the responsibility something you'd consider? Or is this something you are willing to put up with because you don't have a way of playing otherwise?
It feels like the player likes the CN alignment because he thinks that this one allows him to do anything he wants. Which is weird because unless he plays a paladin or a cleric, he CAN do whatever the hell he wants. I guess calling him on it and requesting change in character sheet is perceived as "fail" for him.
Seeing how you relinquished your control of the game to your players by allowing them to metagame and giving them all the DC and rolls they ask for, it leads me to ask you a question: will whatever we say here matter at all? It feels like you are ready to give in just in order to keep your players but at some point this is going to bite you in the ass hard. As time passes, there will be more similar situations if you enable this sort of behavior.
Maybe let's put it other way - are you having fun? Just in general, playing with them? Would saying that you are currently tired/out of time/burned out and dropping the responsibility something you'd consider? Or is this something you are willing to put up with because you don't have a way of playing otherwise?
Oh, I'm having a blast. One player was a major problem but we kept him around because we're afraid he's turning (IRL) into a crazed hermit. But he finally quit and now its enjoyable again. This is a family game and its a chance to get together and socialize. Plus in my youth I tried my hand at writing but couldn't produce realistic dialogue... so this satisfies my itch to write and the players do all the talking. So yeah, I have fun and I really don't care if the players control the table. And my wife and kids have seen to it that I no longer believe in the foolish fantasies of agency or control.
Regarding whether what you guys say will matter.... I think so. I was mostly looking to confirm that I wasn't violating some unwritten rule or being a jerk. I've found in life that often when it seems like someone else is being unreasonable, in reality I have done something bad and they are just reacting to me. So I thought I would share the scenario and see if people agree with me or the player (but selected a forum of other DM's so I had a better than even chance of reinforcement of my side :)).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
PC - Ethel - Human - Lvl 4 Necromancer - Undying Dragons * Serge Marshblade - Human - Lvl 5 Eldritch Knight - Hoard of the Dragon Queen
DM -(Homebrew) Heroes of Bardstown *Red Dead Annihilation: ToA *Where the Cold Winds Blow : DoIP * Covetous, Dragonish Thoughts: HotDQ * Red Wine, Black Rose: CoS * Greyhawk: Tides of War
Well you are creeping dangerously close to a related topic: I don't know what the hell I am doing running a D&D campaign. (SNIP)
D&D... the players are hell bent on "winning" which with my group seems to mean ROFLstomping monsters and accumulating their own dragon hoards.
It sounds like they just want to do an old school dungeon crawl. There is nothing wrong with this. If that is the case and you are OK with it, then I would not bother with making any sort of subtle NPC interactions like the one with the merchants. Just make a massive dungeon in the old school vein -- these go down level by level and get harder and harder and there is some "dungeon boss" at the end that you have to be really high level and have accumulated all the magic items in the upper level in order to beat. There is no good story-based reason why this dungeon exists like this -- it's just that way to allow the players to play the dice-rolling game of D&D. RP takes a back seat or occurs only between the PCs (for the most part). There is nothing wrong with this type of D&D game and in fact in an ideal world, I would play in 3 games (if I had the people/time) -- game 1 would be the one I am DMing, game 2 would be a more RP-heavy game, and game 3 would be a classic dungeon crawl.
My group are big time meta gamers (across this campaign they all rely on facts and information they learned out of game or look up monster stats in the books to strategize how to attack mid-combat). That is just something I need to accept because trying to change that or more tightly enforce RAW would not fly with this group.
If that's how you guy want to play, it's fine.
However, you need to understand that there are consequences. Telling players what the DC is, and allowing them to know monster stats, and even more so letting them decide when to make a skill check and when not to, is going to have a major effect on how the game is played, and on your role as the DM. It's perfectly OK to play it this way -- just as to play the extreme opposite way in which players don't know any stats, not even what is on their character sheet, and all game-based items are controlled by the DM (this is called a "limited information campaign"). No one way is right for everyone.
BUT... just like running a LIC is going to have consequences (if the player doesn't even know for sure that his character is a ranger, this will lead to very different play from a player who knows his PC's class and level), running a players-know-the-stats-and-DCs campaign (not sure there is a name for it) will also have consequences. The games will play very different.
And the other thing is: some of what you are complaining about, is the result of the fact that your table considers meta-gaming and ignoring RAW to be part of the deal. You are seeing him do the things that you dislike because of the choice to play the game this way. Before you say "that's how we all play," remember, you came to the DDB forum and made a post about this. Which means on some level, you're not entirely OK with the way things are going.
As far as them not liking to fail due to die rolls but being OK with failing due to mistakes they made -- I wonder if D&D is the right game for you. You might want to look into one of the "diceless" RPGs like the old Amber game (based on the Chronicles of Amber) or another game where randomness is not so integral to the game system. D&D relies on randomness as part of the storytelling model, and if your players are not OK with improv'ing a response to a bad die roll... I am not sure how that really fits with D&D.
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.
I'd consider changing how you run your game. If they want to know the DC on a skill, just don't tell them. What are they going to do about it? "You have to tell us or else!" That would be about the time I pack up my stuff and leave. It's not a wimp move, it's a GMs don't have to put up with that kind of crap move.
Have them roll and narrate the result. If the roll is good enough, you climb up the wall with no problem. If the roll is bad, your hand slips out of a crack and you tumble to the ground.
Checking monster stats is something I don't really have a problem with. If the party has encountered the creatures many time, no big deal. If the party has never seen a certain beast before, then don't name it. Just give the description. And even if they guess correctly, change it. That's not cheating, it's GMing. "It's a troll burn it!" "Fire doesn't seem to bother it" "What?!"
If you are genuinely having fun, take them on a Diablo style dungeon crawl. That seems to be what they want - speaking of which, Diablo has mega tons of creatures that are not listed in the Monster Manual so they can't look it up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I'd consider changing how you run your game. If they want to know the DC on a skill, just don't tell them. What are they going to do about it? "You have to tell us or else!" That would be about the time I pack up my stuff and leave. It's not a wimp move, it's a GMs don't have to put up with that kind of crap move.
Although I agree with the principle that the DM should run the game as the DM sees fit, in general -- I don't see the need to be adversarial. If the DM thinks the game would be more fun without telling them the DC, then the DM should explain this to the players at the table and they should have a conversation about the kind of game they all want to play.
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.
I'd consider changing how you run your game. If they want to know the DC on a skill, just don't tell them. What are they going to do about it? "You have to tell us or else!" That would be about the time I pack up my stuff and leave. It's not a wimp move, it's a GMs don't have to put up with that kind of crap move.
Although I agree with the principle that the DM should run the game as the DM sees fit, in general -- I don't see the need to be adversarial. If the DM thinks the game would be more fun without telling them the DC, then the DM should explain this to the players at the table and they should have a conversation about the kind of game they all want to play.
True but the OP made it sound like the players demand knowing the DC for checks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
This sounds like a very long explanation as to what a Murder Hobo is and does, to me.
To that I say, to some extent you have to play to your audience. If it’s not what you want to DM ( which sounds like the case) then don’t. Tell the players you don’t want to preside over a game based in just torturing and murdering their way through the countryside.
Sounds like you and the players need to decide what type of game you want to play. Torturing\killing merchants without provocation would get the party a nice bounty on their heads at our table. If the players have zero interest in RP or playing in a world where there are laws and repercussions they can just play a old time dungeon crawl and hack and slash their way for fun.
Nothing wrong with either, but the player in question is playing chaotic-stupid and blaming the DM for their actions. Doesn't work that way unless the game is intended to be that way by all invovled.
I appreciate all the advice. It's funny to me because it sounds like the way my game runs, all of you would say "Nope", take your dice and leave. But its the only D&D game I've ever known so it doesn't seem that bad to me... to the point that withholding DC's seems crazy even to me... maybe if we ever play again I will hold a new zero session and give the "real" rules a try. But we are too deep down the rabbit hole now. And now that the one really obstructive player is gone I have fun and for the most part so does everyone else.
And it isn't that I have a problem with my players being accidental bandits. Its their game and if they want to side with BBEG and destroy the world... awesome. Thats up to them. And frankly, I often sit in stunned amazement at some of the horrible ideas they come up. At higher levels they really are something like a ticking time bomb sitting in my poor unsuspecting NPC's cities and towns. They aren't torturing people for fun... it legitimately seems like a struggle for them. But they are SO convinced that every NPC I introduce them to might be a minion of evil that they murder first, ask questions maybe later. And wind up doing more evil than the bad guys.
The reason I brought this up is one of the player's thought I was trying to railroad him into massacring some innocent NPCs and I thought the whole thing was his doing. I wanted to see if the collected wisdom of the forum agreed with me, or if there was some hidden evil railroading in my storytelling that I was blind to. I don't think a murder hobo would feel as bad as this guy does. He regrets doing it. But he also blames me. And that - I thought - was a copout.
And in reality there was probably no need for this thread. But I only recently discovered this forum and after making up DM'ing on the fly with no one to bounce ideas off but myself, this place is like Disneyland to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
PC - Ethel - Human - Lvl 4 Necromancer - Undying Dragons * Serge Marshblade - Human - Lvl 5 Eldritch Knight - Hoard of the Dragon Queen
DM -(Homebrew) Heroes of Bardstown *Red Dead Annihilation: ToA *Where the Cold Winds Blow : DoIP * Covetous, Dragonish Thoughts: HotDQ * Red Wine, Black Rose: CoS * Greyhawk: Tides of War
I appreciate all the advice. It's funny to me because it sounds like the way my game runs, all of you would say "Nope", take your dice and leave. But its the only D&D game I've ever known so it doesn't seem that bad to me...
In the old days, as in the 1970s when D&D first came out, nobody had any idea how to play other than what the rules said in the three original books, and there wasn't any forum or anyone to ask, so every game group did it their own way. There isn't a "wrong" way to play D&D if you are having fun. However, as I said above, you felt the need to come onto this forum and post about it, which means that maybe you are starting to have an issue with what is happening at the table.
And the thing is it is all of one piece... you cannot separate the various components of play and just try to correct one. Some of what is happening... occurs because of the entire package of how you play. It's not wrong to play that way but it does have consequences.
to the point that withholding DC's seems crazy even to me... maybe if we ever play again I will hold a new zero session and give the "real" rules a try. But we are too deep down the rabbit hole now. And now that the one really obstructive player is gone I have fun and for the most part so does everyone else.
You don't have to withhold DCs. It's more common to do so but there is nothing in the rules that says you can't as a DM, tell your players the DCs.
But again, if you are getting frustrated that they are doing crazy, maybe out of character, things, you must understand that this is partly caused by telling them the DC. If they know they have +8 and only need to roll a 4 or higher on d20, they're much more likely to do something crazy than if they don't know the DC.
This is similar to the house rule that many people use, that nat 20 on a skill check is a crit/auto success. I have watched streams where they use this and the players do all kinds of insane things that would never have a real chance of working, but the DM allows them to try. He doesn't tell them the DC but when they roll a nat 20, he, by the tradition of their table, has to let them succeed. So they do crazy stuff that most other players would never attempt -- you know, things like a persuasion check to get the king to give up his crown to them for a single gold piece - because they know there is a 1 in 20 chance of this game-breakingly insane thing working no matter how crazy it is. Just by luck
Again, there is nothing strictly wrong with playing this way, and the people on the stream clearly are having a blast and they love doing these crazy nat-20 rolls and everyone laughs and cheers. I roll my eyes at it because to me it breaks verisimilitude, but I am not at their table, and whether I like it or not does not matter. They like it.
However, if the DM came on here and complained that his players pull all kinds of world-breaking, immersion-wrecking insanity every session, there is a reason -- the nat-20 rule is giving them a way to try wild stuff and know that there is a 5% chance not matter how impossible it is, the DM will have to let it succeed. The craziness is a direct result of the house rule.
Similarly, some of your players' behavior is a direct result of you declaring the DC, and you allowing them to call for skill checks instead of you. If you like it, and they like it, and you're having fun, that's all that matters. But if it's starting to not be fun for you, that they are doing these behaviors, it's important to realize why. You're not going to stop the behaviors while continuing to run a game the way you are running it.
And it isn't that I have a problem with my players being accidental bandits. Its their game and if they want to side with BBEG and destroy the world... awesome. Thats up to them. And frankly, I often sit in stunned amazement at some of the horrible ideas they come up. At higher levels they really are something like a ticking time bomb sitting in my poor unsuspecting NPC's cities and towns. They aren't torturing people for fun... it legitimately seems like a struggle for them. But they are SO convinced that every NPC I introduce them to might be a minion of evil that they murder first, ask questions maybe later. And wind up doing more evil than the bad guys.
Have the bad guys duped the players a lot with evil NPCs disguised as normal citizens? If so then they might be justified to think this.
The reason I brought this up is one of the player's thought I was trying to railroad him into massacring some innocent NPCs and I thought the whole thing was his doing. I wanted to see if the collected wisdom of the forum agreed with me, or if there was some hidden evil railroading in my storytelling that I was blind to. I don't think a murder hobo would feel as bad as this guy does. He regrets doing it. But he also blames me. And that - I thought - was a copout.
Well, see, it all depends on what has been going on in your game sessions. It depends on how many other times he has been justified to start the firefight with other NPCs who actually had it in for the PCs. Without having seen what has happened in previous sessions, it is hard to know.
In a generic D&D session, with average types of game-play, I agree with you. However, based on your clarifications of how your table works, I am not so sure. Maybe he was justified in thinking they were dangerous? Hard to say.
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.
I had a dispute with a player after the last session. Things to keep in mind...
1) While I want a neutral opinion, I myself am not neutral so if there is any ambiguity in my facts, you should err on the side of my player since I am probably telling you a biased version of the story.
2) This player and I have had some back and forth on "evil" vs "neutral" recently. He always plays CN characters but plays them as though they have no alignment (ie. he will do virtuous things or heinous things depending on what he thinks is best for the character in that moment). I have argued with him that murdering a town to get some gold, but then sharing a portion of that with poor war veterans, does not equal a neutral act. The evil murders weigh heavier than the small charitable offering. Player disagrees. This has been a passive aggressive back and forth.
So anyway, here is the setup. He has just made a new character for an existing campaign. Most of my players' party is either dead or in hiding after a questionable plan to unleash a devil to frame enemies. So they rolled up a new group and are going to approach the story from a different direction. This player is a plot bloodhound and always plays sherlock holmes/batman type detective rogues or wizards.
SYNOPSIS
(Your group encounters a small merchant caravan. 2 wagons, 2 merchants and 4 more guards on horseback)
Player: What's the perception or insight DC? I want to see if they look suspicious. Remember im a Keen Observer."
(Rolls and is successful. The guards and merchants look nervous as you approach)
Player: "I knew it. Something is up. I'm going to interrogate these guys."
(Player proceeds to question the merchant caravan at length. He has some success on his rolls but learns little. They are scared of him and the party. He wants to look through their wagons but they refuse. Persuasion and intimidation checks fail. He learns one of the wagons is full of lamp oil and is combustible. The guards and merchants don;t want him to go anywhere near it)
Player: "They are clearly hiding something. I'm going into that wagon."
(Combat ensues. Rest of the party supports the player and they kill everyone but keep one merchant alive for questioning. Upon examining the wagons, one is indeed full of lamp oil. The other is full of spice, textiles and colored glass pieces. That wagon also has a large chest full of coins and silver bars.)
Player: "Knew it. What are these merchants doing with all this silver? I'm going to question this surviving 'merchant' severely until he tells me everything."
(Player proceeds to torture this merchant. He succeeds repeatedly/ He learns they were indeed just merchants. They were nervous because this strange group of heavily armed humans and orcs [the party] rolled up on them and started questioning them. They were afraid you were bandits)
So now the player is pissed at me. He says I tricked him into doing something evil. He says he never would have done any of that if I hadn't told him the merchants looked nervous. I argued i told him they looked nervous 1) because they were nervous at the approach of the heavily armed strangers and 2) he asked, rolled, and succeeded to notice they were nervous. He says I am trying to pigeonhole him into playing a paranoid murderer again. I politely explained if he stopped creating paranoid murderers and playing them as such, he would stop having that problem.
FTR, I don't care if he murders 100 merchants. I've got a limitless supply of NPCs. But I do take offense at him claiming I MADE him do any of this or tricked him or "set him up." It was not my intent, and I think there are dozens of ways they could have avoided what happened, including just ignoring the merchants and riding on.
So... based on this limited snapshot... who's to blame here?
PC - Ethel - Human - Lvl 4 Necromancer - Undying Dragons * Serge Marshblade - Human - Lvl 5 Eldritch Knight - Hoard of the Dragon Queen
DM - (Homebrew) Heroes of Bardstown * Red Dead Annihilation: ToA * Where the Cold Winds Blow : DoIP * Covetous, Dragonish Thoughts: HotDQ * Red Wine, Black Rose: CoS * Greyhawk: Tides of War
The only thing that would sway me either way is knowing how "combat ensues" happened. Did he try to investigate the cart and all of a sudden all these scared merchants attacked and fought to the death over their few goods? in that case, I would side with the player in saying that he was forced to fight (and kill since they didn't surrender).
OOOOOOORRRRR!
Did he attack first saying "these guys are suspicious, lets beat them up and torture their leader" in that case I would TOTALLY side with you. He wasn't forced by any means, he could have just walked away
I personally think the player is to blame here. He was being rather paranoid and looking at the scenario, there wasn't much reason for it.
Good beings don’t go around interrogating random wagons at every level. Level 0 Merchants are of course hiding things. Their wares! They don’t just let anyone know everything they have!
Part of this is on the party as well for endorsing the behavior, but the player is always responsible for their actions. Period. You don’t have control over what they do, you create a narrative and they indulge in said narrative.
I think the key point here is “Nervous”. Not everyone who is nervous is hiding something, nervous can mean a lot of things. If the dude is so interested in getting to the plot, you can’t just read into everything as being related to the plot. Some things are just parts of the world.
Oh wow, this is the same group with the ice devil plan. I suspect the player is of the opinion "If it wasn't important, you wouldn't have had the encounter to start with".
I would put this as his fault, but with a good insight roll you could help by pointing out "You think they're worried that you're bandits".
A lot of great feedback.
- WRT to how "combat ensued"... Fair question. As I recall, Player pushed passed the two guards at that wagon and hopped up on the back. The guards seized him and tried to grapple him and failed. Other two guards then drew their weapons. I believe that is when one of the additional PC's drew his bow and fired the first shot though I don't remember which guard. I think they killed everyone within 2 rounds.
- WRT to this player's overall behavior... I don't "discourage" it. He is the unquestioned leader of our game in all of its incarnations. I think the rest of the group would just wander aimlessly through whatever dungeon I sent them This player is the only one working to connect all the plot threads. So in a way I "need" his paranoia.
The problem is that despite creating these kinds of characters and playing them this way, the player has a burning need to believe his character is "the good guy." Whatever awful thing he does he always has it justified in his own mind. And when I smirk and say, "Hmmn, yeah ok" when he explains how murdering the 5 year old son of that evil dragon cultist is "good" because the apple doesn't fall far from the tree and for all we know the kid could be the vessel for some evil spirit, it drives him crazy and he thinks I am judging him.
Again, i see this player's paranoia as an acceptable evil as in many ways it keeps the story going. But, I also cannot help but eyeroll when he performs mental gymnastics to explain why some heinous act "is really in everybody's best interest."
I'm reminded of the Judge from Caddyshack. "I've sent boys your age to the gas chamber. I didn;t want to do it, but I felt I... owed it to them."
PC - Ethel - Human - Lvl 4 Necromancer - Undying Dragons * Serge Marshblade - Human - Lvl 5 Eldritch Knight - Hoard of the Dragon Queen
DM - (Homebrew) Heroes of Bardstown * Red Dead Annihilation: ToA * Where the Cold Winds Blow : DoIP * Covetous, Dragonish Thoughts: HotDQ * Red Wine, Black Rose: CoS * Greyhawk: Tides of War
One question I have in terms of how you run the game -- why is this player demanding to know the DC of a skill check? As a DM, you set the DC, but you are under no obligation to tell him, and I certainly don't. Additionally, he's not allowed to call for a perception or insight check -- the DM calls for those skill checks when appropriate.
It sounds to me like you are letting the player have too much control of the table. You should establish that you, the DM, decide what rolls happen and when. And make sure you don't tell him "you succeed" on his check, but rather, tell him "The guards seem truthful" -- he doesn't get to know, for certain (though sometimes an extremely high or low roll will give a hint) that the guard is truthful. Either they are truthful and his insight check succeeded, or they are lying but his insight check failed. He's not supposed to know for sure which -- only the DM knows.
It sounds to me like one of the problems here is that you are giving the players too much control of the die rolls. The DM controls the die rolls, not the players. Checks are made when YOU call for them. At no other time. And DCs are set, and known, only to you. No one else knows them. He certainly shouldn't be allowed to know the DC before he makes the roll. That would let him employ OOC knowledge to do things like conspire to "get advantage on a really high DC check" and that sort of thing, which you should not be letting them do using OOC knowledge.
Having only read your side of the story, I agree with your take on this. The second I read that they were nervous, I assumed they were nervous because the party was making them nervous. He clearly never really attempted to find out WHY they were nervous because if he had, I'm sure you would have RPed the NPCs as saying, "Well you're armed and dangerous!" or something.
Players often do not think about just how scary-looking and intimidating their party can be to the unarmed normal people in the world.
I find it really odd that someone who wants to be seen as "the good guy" would deliberately play CN characters... but he seems to think that CN = "the ends justify the means". Unfortunately for him, "ends justify the means" tends to be associated in most people's minds with evil.
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.
Well you are creeping dangerously close to a related topic: I don't know what the hell I am doing running a D&D campaign. I've run CoC in the past but that's a different animal... its a horror story where the players all know going in they are going to lose... its just a question of how awful they die. D&D... the players are hell bent on "winning" which with my group seems to mean ROFLstomping monsters and accumulating their own dragon hoards.
My group are big time meta gamers (across this campaign they all rely on facts and information they learned out of game or look up monster stats in the books to strategize how to attack mid-combat). That is just something I need to accept because trying to change that or more tightly enforce RAW would not fly with this group.
The idea of not telling them the DC on their rolls... LOL they would all quit and I would probably be disinvited from Thanksgiving. But I can live with that. That doesn't mean I don't understand what you mean... since I discovered this forum I have been amazed at how much authority other DM's are able to wield in their games. Its just not what any of my players are looking for. They don't have fun when they lose because of a dice roll. But, if they lose because they did something stupid and were seen murdering someone or that guy they just sold that artifact to? He was the BBEG? Those kinds of "losses" are fun for the players. Maybe its a "control freak" thing. Failing a skill check really bothers my players... but making the wrong choice and facing consequences is enjoyable to them.
On a somewhat related note... running this campaign has led me to suspect that my cousins and I all suffer from some serious personality disorders.
PC - Ethel - Human - Lvl 4 Necromancer - Undying Dragons * Serge Marshblade - Human - Lvl 5 Eldritch Knight - Hoard of the Dragon Queen
DM - (Homebrew) Heroes of Bardstown * Red Dead Annihilation: ToA * Where the Cold Winds Blow : DoIP * Covetous, Dragonish Thoughts: HotDQ * Red Wine, Black Rose: CoS * Greyhawk: Tides of War
It feels like the player likes the CN alignment because he thinks that this one allows him to do anything he wants. Which is weird because unless he plays a paladin or a cleric, he CAN do whatever the hell he wants. I guess calling him on it and requesting change in character sheet is perceived as "fail" for him.
Seeing how you relinquished your control of the game to your players by allowing them to metagame and giving them all the DC and rolls they ask for, it leads me to ask you a question: will whatever we say here matter at all? It feels like you are ready to give in just in order to keep your players but at some point this is going to bite you in the ass hard. As time passes, there will be more similar situations if you enable this sort of behavior.
Maybe let's put it other way - are you having fun? Just in general, playing with them? Would saying that you are currently tired/out of time/burned out and dropping the responsibility something you'd consider? Or is this something you are willing to put up with because you don't have a way of playing otherwise?
Oh, I'm having a blast. One player was a major problem but we kept him around because we're afraid he's turning (IRL) into a crazed hermit. But he finally quit and now its enjoyable again. This is a family game and its a chance to get together and socialize. Plus in my youth I tried my hand at writing but couldn't produce realistic dialogue... so this satisfies my itch to write and the players do all the talking. So yeah, I have fun and I really don't care if the players control the table. And my wife and kids have seen to it that I no longer believe in the foolish fantasies of agency or control.
Regarding whether what you guys say will matter.... I think so. I was mostly looking to confirm that I wasn't violating some unwritten rule or being a jerk. I've found in life that often when it seems like someone else is being unreasonable, in reality I have done something bad and they are just reacting to me. So I thought I would share the scenario and see if people agree with me or the player (but selected a forum of other DM's so I had a better than even chance of reinforcement of my side :)).
PC - Ethel - Human - Lvl 4 Necromancer - Undying Dragons * Serge Marshblade - Human - Lvl 5 Eldritch Knight - Hoard of the Dragon Queen
DM - (Homebrew) Heroes of Bardstown * Red Dead Annihilation: ToA * Where the Cold Winds Blow : DoIP * Covetous, Dragonish Thoughts: HotDQ * Red Wine, Black Rose: CoS * Greyhawk: Tides of War
It sounds like they just want to do an old school dungeon crawl. There is nothing wrong with this. If that is the case and you are OK with it, then I would not bother with making any sort of subtle NPC interactions like the one with the merchants. Just make a massive dungeon in the old school vein -- these go down level by level and get harder and harder and there is some "dungeon boss" at the end that you have to be really high level and have accumulated all the magic items in the upper level in order to beat. There is no good story-based reason why this dungeon exists like this -- it's just that way to allow the players to play the dice-rolling game of D&D. RP takes a back seat or occurs only between the PCs (for the most part). There is nothing wrong with this type of D&D game and in fact in an ideal world, I would play in 3 games (if I had the people/time) -- game 1 would be the one I am DMing, game 2 would be a more RP-heavy game, and game 3 would be a classic dungeon crawl.
If that's how you guy want to play, it's fine.
However, you need to understand that there are consequences. Telling players what the DC is, and allowing them to know monster stats, and even more so letting them decide when to make a skill check and when not to, is going to have a major effect on how the game is played, and on your role as the DM. It's perfectly OK to play it this way -- just as to play the extreme opposite way in which players don't know any stats, not even what is on their character sheet, and all game-based items are controlled by the DM (this is called a "limited information campaign"). No one way is right for everyone.
BUT... just like running a LIC is going to have consequences (if the player doesn't even know for sure that his character is a ranger, this will lead to very different play from a player who knows his PC's class and level), running a players-know-the-stats-and-DCs campaign (not sure there is a name for it) will also have consequences. The games will play very different.
And the other thing is: some of what you are complaining about, is the result of the fact that your table considers meta-gaming and ignoring RAW to be part of the deal. You are seeing him do the things that you dislike because of the choice to play the game this way. Before you say "that's how we all play," remember, you came to the DDB forum and made a post about this. Which means on some level, you're not entirely OK with the way things are going.
As far as them not liking to fail due to die rolls but being OK with failing due to mistakes they made -- I wonder if D&D is the right game for you. You might want to look into one of the "diceless" RPGs like the old Amber game (based on the Chronicles of Amber) or another game where randomness is not so integral to the game system. D&D relies on randomness as part of the storytelling model, and if your players are not OK with improv'ing a response to a bad die roll... I am not sure how that really fits with D&D.
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'd consider changing how you run your game. If they want to know the DC on a skill, just don't tell them. What are they going to do about it? "You have to tell us or else!" That would be about the time I pack up my stuff and leave. It's not a wimp move, it's a GMs don't have to put up with that kind of crap move.
Have them roll and narrate the result. If the roll is good enough, you climb up the wall with no problem. If the roll is bad, your hand slips out of a crack and you tumble to the ground.
Checking monster stats is something I don't really have a problem with. If the party has encountered the creatures many time, no big deal. If the party has never seen a certain beast before, then don't name it. Just give the description. And even if they guess correctly, change it. That's not cheating, it's GMing. "It's a troll burn it!" "Fire doesn't seem to bother it" "What?!"
If you are genuinely having fun, take them on a Diablo style dungeon crawl. That seems to be what they want - speaking of which, Diablo has mega tons of creatures that are not listed in the Monster Manual so they can't look it up.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Although I agree with the principle that the DM should run the game as the DM sees fit, in general -- I don't see the need to be adversarial. If the DM thinks the game would be more fun without telling them the DC, then the DM should explain this to the players at the table and they should have a conversation about the kind of game they all want to play.
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.
True but the OP made it sound like the players demand knowing the DC for checks.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
This sounds like a very long explanation as to what a Murder Hobo is and does, to me.
To that I say, to some extent you have to play to your audience. If it’s not what you want to DM ( which sounds like the case) then don’t. Tell the players you don’t want to preside over a game based in just torturing and murdering their way through the countryside.
good luck!
Sounds like you and the players need to decide what type of game you want to play. Torturing\killing merchants without provocation would get the party a nice bounty on their heads at our table. If the players have zero interest in RP or playing in a world where there are laws and repercussions they can just play a old time dungeon crawl and hack and slash their way for fun.
Nothing wrong with either, but the player in question is playing chaotic-stupid and blaming the DM for their actions. Doesn't work that way unless the game is intended to be that way by all invovled.
I appreciate all the advice. It's funny to me because it sounds like the way my game runs, all of you would say "Nope", take your dice and leave. But its the only D&D game I've ever known so it doesn't seem that bad to me... to the point that withholding DC's seems crazy even to me... maybe if we ever play again I will hold a new zero session and give the "real" rules a try. But we are too deep down the rabbit hole now. And now that the one really obstructive player is gone I have fun and for the most part so does everyone else.
And it isn't that I have a problem with my players being accidental bandits. Its their game and if they want to side with BBEG and destroy the world... awesome. Thats up to them. And frankly, I often sit in stunned amazement at some of the horrible ideas they come up. At higher levels they really are something like a ticking time bomb sitting in my poor unsuspecting NPC's cities and towns. They aren't torturing people for fun... it legitimately seems like a struggle for them. But they are SO convinced that every NPC I introduce them to might be a minion of evil that they murder first, ask questions maybe later. And wind up doing more evil than the bad guys.
The reason I brought this up is one of the player's thought I was trying to railroad him into massacring some innocent NPCs and I thought the whole thing was his doing. I wanted to see if the collected wisdom of the forum agreed with me, or if there was some hidden evil railroading in my storytelling that I was blind to. I don't think a murder hobo would feel as bad as this guy does. He regrets doing it. But he also blames me. And that - I thought - was a copout.
And in reality there was probably no need for this thread. But I only recently discovered this forum and after making up DM'ing on the fly with no one to bounce ideas off but myself, this place is like Disneyland to me.
PC - Ethel - Human - Lvl 4 Necromancer - Undying Dragons * Serge Marshblade - Human - Lvl 5 Eldritch Knight - Hoard of the Dragon Queen
DM - (Homebrew) Heroes of Bardstown * Red Dead Annihilation: ToA * Where the Cold Winds Blow : DoIP * Covetous, Dragonish Thoughts: HotDQ * Red Wine, Black Rose: CoS * Greyhawk: Tides of War
In the old days, as in the 1970s when D&D first came out, nobody had any idea how to play other than what the rules said in the three original books, and there wasn't any forum or anyone to ask, so every game group did it their own way. There isn't a "wrong" way to play D&D if you are having fun. However, as I said above, you felt the need to come onto this forum and post about it, which means that maybe you are starting to have an issue with what is happening at the table.
And the thing is it is all of one piece... you cannot separate the various components of play and just try to correct one. Some of what is happening... occurs because of the entire package of how you play. It's not wrong to play that way but it does have consequences.
You don't have to withhold DCs. It's more common to do so but there is nothing in the rules that says you can't as a DM, tell your players the DCs.
But again, if you are getting frustrated that they are doing crazy, maybe out of character, things, you must understand that this is partly caused by telling them the DC. If they know they have +8 and only need to roll a 4 or higher on d20, they're much more likely to do something crazy than if they don't know the DC.
This is similar to the house rule that many people use, that nat 20 on a skill check is a crit/auto success. I have watched streams where they use this and the players do all kinds of insane things that would never have a real chance of working, but the DM allows them to try. He doesn't tell them the DC but when they roll a nat 20, he, by the tradition of their table, has to let them succeed. So they do crazy stuff that most other players would never attempt -- you know, things like a persuasion check to get the king to give up his crown to them for a single gold piece - because they know there is a 1 in 20 chance of this game-breakingly insane thing working no matter how crazy it is. Just by luck
Again, there is nothing strictly wrong with playing this way, and the people on the stream clearly are having a blast and they love doing these crazy nat-20 rolls and everyone laughs and cheers. I roll my eyes at it because to me it breaks verisimilitude, but I am not at their table, and whether I like it or not does not matter. They like it.
However, if the DM came on here and complained that his players pull all kinds of world-breaking, immersion-wrecking insanity every session, there is a reason -- the nat-20 rule is giving them a way to try wild stuff and know that there is a 5% chance not matter how impossible it is, the DM will have to let it succeed. The craziness is a direct result of the house rule.
Similarly, some of your players' behavior is a direct result of you declaring the DC, and you allowing them to call for skill checks instead of you. If you like it, and they like it, and you're having fun, that's all that matters. But if it's starting to not be fun for you, that they are doing these behaviors, it's important to realize why. You're not going to stop the behaviors while continuing to run a game the way you are running it.
Have the bad guys duped the players a lot with evil NPCs disguised as normal citizens? If so then they might be justified to think this.
Well, see, it all depends on what has been going on in your game sessions. It depends on how many other times he has been justified to start the firefight with other NPCs who actually had it in for the PCs. Without having seen what has happened in previous sessions, it is hard to know.
In a generic D&D session, with average types of game-play, I agree with you. However, based on your clarifications of how your table works, I am not so sure. Maybe he was justified in thinking they were dangerous? Hard to say.
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.
sadly it seems like he was overly paranoid, so no question on what my thought is on this...
You're fine
Rogue Shadow, the DM (and occasional) PC with schemes of inventive thinking