I've been playing with this DM and a group of 7 people for nearly 3 years, and recently started a new campaign. The DM had an idea in her head of how the game would progress, but it hasn't gone that way, and it has frustrated her. In particular, she has become combative with those she has deemed "over-powered" or who don't follow certain story arcs or interactions she wants pursued.
Problem areas in terms of role-play interactions have been that the party refuses to ally with evil. We've got a Crown Paladin of Tyr (LG), Cavalier Fighter (LG), Swashbuckler Rogue (NG), Life Cleric of Lathander (NG), Twilight Cleric of Sehanine Moonbow / Divine Soul Sorcerer (CG), and Lore Bard / Archfey Warlock (CG). The adventure plot she's designed seems to call for the party being willing to not only negotiate with evil, but ally themselves with it to advance. The Paladin, Cavalier, and Cleric(s) have no interest in bargaining with the likes of the Zhentarim or Red Wizards, let alone these scenarios that have come up...
A Night Hag wanted us to deliver babies for sacrifice. We were evidently supposed to use this to learn the location of their coven. We didn't "play along." We attacked the hag. She bamfed out and the DM had her torment the party for weeks of road travel and there was nothing we could do about it - a few players down to single digit max hit-point totals. We couldn't even outrun her on horseback (which is bs), and no town we came to had a greater restoration available. We were only able to defeat her by trading our only set of magic armor (breastplate, +1) for 2 uses of Oil of Etherealness so that the Cavalier & Sorcerer could go Ethereal when she started her Haunting and kill her on the Ethereal Plane (Counterspell stopped Plane Shift to get away). The Hag had no Heartstone (but was still able to go Ethereal), or wealth of any kind.
A Succubus / Incubus pair wanted us to deliver a local prince and his wife so they could impersonate them within the kingdom. If we did so we'd "unlock" the information of why there was fiendish activity in a given area. We didn't play along. We killed one of the demons (In the name of Tyr) and attempted to interrogate the other, and she pitched a fit and said we ruined the adventure. A 6-week arc resulted in no milestone level, no treasure (seriously, not a cp), and us being run out of town by some distant relative of the nobles who blamed us for their murder.
A Vampire was evidently supposed to be parleyed with instead of dispatched when we stumbled upon its lair an hour before dusk. Somehow in 2 rounds of indoor combat it became nightfall and the Vampire escaped outside as mist. It came back before dawn and attacked us while we were in a Tiny Hut, which we emphasized couldn't happen because: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/823774362293542912 - but all the DM said was, "I don't care, one of you are going to die tonight."
Pretty much every session consists of one or more players dropping to 0 hit points. But, at the same time, when it looks like a player is going to be lost, some miracle happens to fix things that shouldn't have gone sideways in the first place. Thing is, I can deal with that. I can deal with the fact that as 7th level characters (now) we still only have 2 magic weapons and 1 ring of protection as the only magic items in a party of 6. I can even deal with the tantrums. What has started to infuriate me is her dismissal of the rules. In particular, her taking away actions from players arbitrarily. Like causing the opening of an unlocked door to take a full action instead of being part of the movement during a combat. And denying the casters' ability to target enemies out of their visible light range of 40' even if another player with a light source is present next to the target. And perhaps one of the most frustrating things, outright ignoring passive perception, investigation, and insight and forcing everything to be rolled at arbitrarily high DCs. The "Observant" Cleric (23 Passive Perception) is not happy that he took a feat that's utterly useless because he still needs to roll every check against a 20 DC and she (the DM) won't allow the passive check to be used for anything. In one case in particular he got skewered by 5 Guard Drakes that all managed to surprise him and then combined pack tactics & surprise attack to do something like 65 damage and drop him.
Sadly, I think taking a break is my best option, because I don't know a way to reach her at this point, and it's ruining my enjoyment of the game. I'd rather be a passive observer laughing at the antics going on than be stuck in it and getting frustrated.
If all of the players agree with you, then the solution is clear . . . one of you take over as the new DM.
It sounds like your DM doesn't want to run an adventure, they want to write a novel. And that's fine. She'll have plenty of time to focus on that effort while the rest of you are playing your next D&D campaign.This is a game. We play because we enjoy it. If you're not enjoying it - why continue?
But please, don't quit the game just because of one person. There are lots of great games out there being played by lots of great people. Be one of those tables!
Sorry to hear the DM is behaving like this. Has the group talked to her out of game about what’s going on? If you did and she continued this way maybe as a group you should just refuse to play. Have your characters go to a tavern and have drinks the entire session. If she attacks you don’t react and let her TPK the party and say “ok, that campaign is over with. Anyone else want to take the DM chair?”
I mean, there really is little you can do if after discussing it calmly and rationally the DM continues on this path.
Rest assured, I have no intention of quitting D&D - just perhaps that game night. I'm currently in 3 total, and the other two are very enjoyable "where did all the time go" sessions that I can't get enough of. I think you're spot on in that she's determined to make her D&D campaign a novel. She already knows where she wants everything to evolve to, which creates a very closed world and a railroad plot. Which again, I can deal with. I mean, I've played Horde of the Dragon Queen... Heh. It's the "Your character can't do that because I say" in conflict with both the RAI & RAW that irks me. I'm very much a Lawful gamer. Rules are rules, and when the DM start dismissing or reinventing them on whims, we may as well just be making up stories instead of rolling dice and building characters...
Trying to steer the campaign using narrative devices is one thing. But if they appear to be lashing out by going outside the rules that people agree to play by, that's a bigger problem. If the rest of the group feels the same way you do, then you all need to get with the DM and have a talk about expectations for the game. If it's just you, then you'll have to decide if it's worth bringing to the whole group, or if it's simpler to just step away. If you do, I would suggest telling the DM why you want to leave, but be diplomatic about it. It isn't about whose way is the "right" way, but what's right for one person may not be right for another.
Judging by the listed alignments, whether by accident or design, the party seems to consist of goody-two-shoes characters. This isn't a bad thing; plenty of campaigns can and do thrive with such characters. And I can see what the DM is trying to do. The general plot structure is designed to test your characters. Your zealousness is preventing you from achieving more good in the world because you rush to judgment. Yes, the night hag is evil and needed to be stopped, but the rest of her coven is still out there causing problems. So not only are more children still in danger, but potential loot has been forgone as well. It may be hamfisted, but it makes sense. And while you all may just be playing your characters to the hilt, there's also a certain amount of buy-in that every game needs.
It sounds like you all have a different idea of what kind of game you wish to play. That warrants a conversation with the DM.
Judging by the listed alignments, whether by accident or design, the party seems to consist of goody-two-shoes characters. This isn't a bad thing; plenty of campaigns can and do thrive with such characters. And I can see what the DM is trying to do. The general plot structure is designed to test your characters. Your zealousness is preventing you from achieving more good in the world because you rush to judgment. Yes, the night hag is evil and needed to be stopped, but the rest of her coven is still out there causing problems. So not only are more children still in danger, but potential loot has been forgone as well. It may be hamfisted, but it makes sense. And while you all may just be playing your characters to the hilt, there's also a certain amount of buy-in that every game needs.
It sounds like you all have a different idea of what kind of game you wish to play. That warrants a conversation with the DM.
i can agree with this. the campaign will have results/effects depending on the decisions you make. it seems like she runs morally ambiguous or straight evil at times...which is fine to a degree and of course she could listen to the players a bit more. but know that your decisions have story consequences and some of those will be bad.
also she seems a bit antagonistic ie. wanting to kill the players. i'd say have a talk with her about the theme of the game and the antagonistic nature.
i do disagree with "And perhaps one of the most frustrating things, outright ignoring passive perception, investigation, and insight and forcing everything to be rolled at arbitrarily high DCs. The "Observant" Cleric (23 Passive Perception) is not happy that he took a feat that's utterly useless because he still needs to roll every check against a 20 DC and she (the DM) won't allow the passive check to be used for anything." passive checks are not for the players to decide and do not qualify for every instance of that skill. passive and active checks are two separate things.
one other thing is the players never "deserve" loot, loot is an aspect of the game yes. but don't go in expecting a vorpal sword or some other loot. that could throw off bounded accuracy real quick.
Like causing the opening of an unlocked door to take a full action instead of being part of the movement during a combat. And denying the casters' ability to target enemies out of their visible light range of 40' even if another player with a light source is present next to the target. And perhaps one of the most frustrating things, outright ignoring passive perception, investigation, and insight and forcing everything to be rolled at arbitrarily high DCs. The "Observant" Cleric (23 Passive Perception) is not happy that he took a feat that's utterly useless because he still needs to roll every check against a 20 DC and she (the DM) won't allow the passive check to be used for anything.
Not much of this is beyond the pale for house ruling. Did the Cleric not notice the DM wasn’t using passive perception rules before he took Observant? Or consider discussing it with the DM? Rules lawyering your DM at the table is really not cool. DMs have a lot to keep track of. They make mistakes. There are ambiguous and obscure rules. It’s fine to remind the DM of your opinion of how the rules work, but the DM has the final say. Otherwise you can end up spending your entire session debating rules. Make your case briefly, then live with the DM’s ruling.
I’m more concerned with the limited options the DM gives you for victory. But this is still not railroading. The DM is simply giving you the opportunity to be evil. You didn’t take it, and yet the campaign still goes on, right? The only problem is if you want to play good characters and your DM isn’t giving you enough options to be good. The DM isn’t doing anything wrong. They’re running the campaign they want to run. That’s their privilege for putting in the effort of running the game. It’s just not the game you want to play.
If other players feel the same way, talk to the DM and see if they want to change up their plot to be fun for the kind of characters you want to play. If they’re not interested in that kind of campaign, then either put up with the campaign they’re running, quit, or run your own game.
Like causing the opening of an unlocked door to take a full action instead of being part of the movement during a combat. And denying the casters' ability to target enemies out of their visible light range of 40' even if another player with a light source is present next to the target. And perhaps one of the most frustrating things, outright ignoring passive perception, investigation, and insight and forcing everything to be rolled at arbitrarily high DCs. The "Observant" Cleric (23 Passive Perception) is not happy that he took a feat that's utterly useless because he still needs to roll every check against a 20 DC and she (the DM) won't allow the passive check to be used for anything.
Not much of this is beyond the pale for house ruling. Did the Cleric not notice the DM wasn’t using passive perception rules before he took Observant? Or consider discussing it with the DM? Rules lawyering your DM at the table is really not cool. DMs have a lot to keep track of. They make mistakes. There are ambiguous and obscure rules. It’s fine to remind the DM of your opinion of how the rules work, but the DM has the final say. Otherwise you can end up spending your entire session debating rules. Make your case briefly, then live with the DM’s ruling.
I’m more concerned with the limited options the DM gives you for victory. But this is still not railroading. The DM is simply giving you the opportunity to be evil. You didn’t take it, and yet the campaign still goes on, right? The only problem is if you want to play good characters and your DM isn’t giving you enough options to be good. The DM isn’t doing anything wrong. They’re running the campaign they want to run. That’s their privilege for putting in the effort of running the game. It’s just not the game you want to play.
If other players feel the same way, talk to the DM and see if they want to change up their plot to be fun for the kind of characters you want to play. If they’re not interested in that kind of campaign, then either put up with the campaign they’re running, quit, or run your own game.
I unfortunately disagree. This is an example of a DM trying to force a railroad and taking a hissy fit with the rules when the players actually role play and don't go along with the planned plot. Read the actions the DM took. Having a vampire escape into mist during the day, coming back and attacking the characters inside a Leomund's Tiny Hut. DMs and players usually sit down and agree to playing in a world covered by some common logic. The DM will bend and break those occasionally at times for plot reasons perhaps but vindictively doing so just because the players don't follow the plot is not a sign of a decent DM.
In addition, continually presenting a party of good characters with evil plot tasks - displaying out of game pique when the characters/players don't go along and then coming up with in game events to punish the characters and make it less fun is also not the sign of a good DM. The DM in this case seems to have a plot agenda in mind and expects the characters to follow it or else - not with in game consequences related to the actions they take but through non-sequiturs that punish the characters for their actions.
Not awarding levels after weeks of game play is a method of punishing the players for not following the intended story arc. Did the characters do nothing during that arc? No they defeated some evil creatures and reacted as their characters would be expected to react to the plot being presented. Withholding character rewards because the plot arc didn't turn out the way the DM wants it to is also wrong.
Honestly, there are so many bad DM elements in this story that I wouldn't play with them.
However, some parts are completely within the DMs discretion.
- Finding magic items - completely up to the DM and the campaign - some campaigns are high magic, others aren't. Players like magic items honestly so many DMs put them in for the fun of it but a good campaign doesn't need them.
- Passive skills - a lot of DMs don't know how to use them and require rolls for every check. It makes feats like observant pretty useless and should be mentioned during session 0 as one of the ways the DM runs the game but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it.
- Being haunted by a hag is nasty and irritating but could fit the plot. The party was able to resolve it by trading a magic item for potions to allow them to ambush the hag in the ethereal plane. Sounded like a good plan and a good way to deal with the problem. The main issue is that the hag was a plot symptom since until the party acquired potions there was no way for them to deal with it - luckily the DM took pity and decided that the hag haunting wasn't getting the party to agree to follow her plot.
2) The only real solution is to have a chat with the DM out of game, ideally with all the players involved. Explain that the characters that everyone is playing don't role play well with the plot she has envisaged. They just don't go together - the party won't take evil actions to abet evil creatures. As a result, the players aren't having a great time with this plot line. What can we do together to change things a bit so that everyone has fun?
If she wants to stick to this plot line then she needs to create an over-arcing reason for the characters to work with evil creatures. I don't think they would every work with fiends, hags or undead necessarily but if the world is presented with an existential threat where many innocents might die AND the characters can not solve the situation by themselves ... would the characters let thousands of innocents die over moral qualms about working with evil creatures (Like Red Wizards or Zhentarim)? Phrased this way, the DM might be able to get the party to work with evil creatures as allies of necessity on a temporary basis (but delivering babies for sacrifice, kidnapping innocents for fiends to impersonate and other similar things are just actions the party won't take no matter what the motivation).
On the other hand, it could be that the DM is trying to write a novel/plot line in which the goody goody characters are corrupted by evil, follow along a plot line to greater evil, defeats a great evil and in the end redeems themselves. NOT going to happen with this party. A DM should never create a plot that requires the characters to make specific decisions in order for the plot to proceed in the direction they want it to go. That is a definition of railroad. The players/characters should be free to decide how they want to proceed at any point in time. DMs will present players with situations that don't have any realistic alternatives and yes these are railroads as well - sometimes brought on by prior player decisions - but planning an on-going plot arc dependent on the players/characters performing evil acts isn't going to happen unless the players and DM agreed on it in advance during a session 0.
Anyway, the bottom line is to talk to the DM, politely and with others present to see what everyone thinks. You've been playing with this DM for quite a while so presumably they are usually pretty good - it sounds like a bit of plot line obsession on the part of the DM which can usually be remedied by chatting and politely pointing it out. DMs tend to have a very different view of the game world since they know everything that is going on ... players don't ... so events that can make sense to a DM can look ridiculous from the player perspective. In this case, there may be some over arcing evil plot line involving all of these events that the DM may think should be motivating the players to get to the bottom of it ... but the players don't know what is going on and probably would not agree to these actions even if they did.
3) If the situation can't be resolved then just take a break from the game.
House ruling is well within the prevue of the DM. That being said, with the group playing for 3 years, has moving through unlocked doors never come up? In a combat situation, maybe not. But if the rule worked one way in the past and all of a sudden it changes because of the DM’s whim it can be an issue. If there was a reason for the change I can understand that, but arbitrarily changing rules can cause confusion on what is allowed and what not.
And I did not think of it, but glad someone did, I can see maybe these situations being used to put the party in a position where they have to make tough decisions and then deal with the consequences. The Hag example being one where I would be fine with the party refusing to help and then being harassed while they travel by the Hag. I just don’t know if I would take it so far to the point the party is selling off precious magic items to defeat the Hag, but I’m not a DM, I’m a player, and hate giving up good loot :)
That being said, I disagree with the idea that committing an evil act (gathering up babies to sacrifice) to prevent further evil acts (finding the coven and destroying it) isn’t a bad thing. And I can see why the party refused to do it. I don’t know if the DM just wants the players to make tough choices or if the theme of the campaign wasn’t sufficiently discussed beforehand and it ended up being a complete mismatch of party/campaign synergy.
As for the passives, my DM never uses passive checks so I wouldn’t bother taking feats to improve it. But considering the group has been playing 3 years, I would think the player would know if it would be useful to go this route or not. So I can understand the frustration, on the players part, if Passive checks were being used for 3 years and then, when you spend an ASI for a feat to excel at passive checks, the DM just throws that out the window. I don’t know the whole story so I can’t say if there is fault on either side, or just miscommunication.
But if the DM really said, when dealing with the Tiny Hut, that someone was going to die that night, I find a little troubling, especially if they went through with it. The OP didn’t say.
After 3 years of playing, this is the first time this has happened, I really think it’s a case of Player/DM Campaign incompatibility for this particular campaign. Seems like previous campaigns have been better. Or maybe the DM is getting burned out and someone else needs to step up and give the DM a break.
Judging by the listed alignments, whether by accident or design, the party seems to consist of goody-two-shoes characters. This isn't a bad thing; plenty of campaigns can and do thrive with such characters. And I can see what the DM is trying to do. The general plot structure is designed to test your characters. Your zealousness is preventing you from achieving more good in the world because you rush to judgment. Yes, the night hag is evil and needed to be stopped, but the rest of her coven is still out there causing problems. So not only are more children still in danger, but potential loot has been forgone as well. It may be hamfisted, but it makes sense. And while you all may just be playing your characters to the hilt, there's also a certain amount of buy-in that every game needs.
It sounds like you all have a different idea of what kind of game you wish to play. That warrants a conversation with the DM.
I second this to an extent. The way your DM is lashing out is immature and unwarranted, but I can say I (as DM) have become similarly frustrated when I have put narrative driving characters in front of my PCs just to have them killed off before they can get more than a few words out. For example, I had an evil NPC vampire who had usurped power in a town before the party arrived. She had kept her vampirism a secret, and hired the party to dispatch a monster outside of town to "test" them and see if they are up for the task at hand. After the party dispatched the monster and returned to the vampire, she revealed her true nature (not attacking the party mind you). Before she had a chance to discuss why she took interest in the party and what plans she had, one of my PCs immediately grabbed their weapon and attacked her.
This is of course an expected route. I put a monster in front of them so it makes sense they would want to kill it. I was just disappointed that after having put time into establishing this character as a sort of dark ruler who wanted the party for "something" that they PCs might at least try to figure out what that "something" was before deciding to kill her.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
It's a derail, but if my party did that, I'd probably just say, "Good job beating the boss," and never reveal the secret they didn't learn. I try to adapt my plot to the players' style, so if they're not interested in intrigue and interrogating the enemy NPCs, I don't force them.
If you feel like you should take a break from a game table, you probably should. Continuing to play when you really don't want to (with this DM) is only going to make things worse. If this person has been DM for 3 years and did one campaign and is now doing a second, maybe that was part of the mistake. The DM should probably have asked someone else to go next so as to take a break and recharge the batteries. I know for sure when my campaign, however long it goes (where getting to a year now, and probably 1/4 of the way done, LOL) is over, I will say "Who wants to DM next?" And I will strongly resist DMing a 2nd long campaign in a row. You need breaks.
Also, although I agree with some of the others who have said that the DM seems to be trying to put you folks into moral quandaries, the "dilemmas" she has put you into are not good ones for a party like yours. For a mostly-neutral party (on the G/E axis), yes. But asking a unanimously good party to hand over babies to hags or to hand over a local ruler to demons just to "unlock information" -- these are not good dilemmas. The party appears to be composed of true-blue heroes -- you give heroes dilemmas by giving them two equal choices that they will want to do. Save this baby OR that baby, is a good moral dilemma. Give me babies and maybe you learn the location of my coven, is not a good dilemma.
Think of great moral temptations in movies with heroes... Superman (1978) has to promise Miss Teschmacher to save New Jersey first, which risks Lois Lane and Jimmy Olson in California, or she won't take the Kryptonite off his neck... Save Lois or Save No One... Spider-Man is given the choice by Green Goblin: Mary Jane or a cable-car full of children. These are good dilemmas, because the hero has to choose between a person he loves, and a larger # of people he doesn't know. Are you going to sacrifice that whole cable car just for MJ? And what will she think of you when she finds out you let all those kids die for her? Will she appreciate it, or say "You should have saved them instead?"
But also, in both those cases and in most cases when the hero has a dilemma like this, there is also a Third Way -- a way the hero comes up with that allows him to somehow save both. In the Superman movie, Superman turns back time and saves Lois anyway. A lot of people hate that ending, but it is classical heroic dilemma-solving, and it also showed the Superman was willing to break the rules his father laid down, to save Lois Lane: Love is more important than the rules. In Spider-Man, he uses his acrobatics to save both, even though the setup is that he "can't."
This is how you present dilemmas to heroes. So the heroes do something like, polymorph two of their members into "babies" to give to her, and then when she takes the "babies" back to her coven (with the rest of the party sneakily following) and the location is revealed, the spell is canceled and out pop two fully grown adventurers, plus their friends ambushing, and the coven eats pavement. But to just say, "Give me babies or else the plot is hosed," that is not a dilemma for heroic characters.
You could talk to your DM about this... but I think realistically, taking a break is probably a good idea. It sounds like maybe you all need a bit of a break after 3 years. Why not suggest playing some board games or something together, or if you are online, pick an MMO you all would like and can play together co-op, and do that for a couple of months and then come back to the campaign fresh.
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.
It's a derail, but if my party did that, I'd probably just say, "Good job beating the boss," and never reveal the secret they didn't learn. I try to adapt my plot to the players' style, so if they're not interested in intrigue and interrogating the enemy NPCs, I don't force them.
Agreed.
Arguably the second rule of DMing (after 'Remember you are there to entertain the players') is 'Anything the players do not know is freely editable.' So always try to avoid volunteering additional information the characters would not otherwise have any reasonable way to simply know. What you so freely say can and will bind you from developing a more entertaining plot continuing on.
Plus it just makes you look awesome when they think everything that happened was your plan all along, and not a furious adaptation to their unexpected twists.
I and 2 other players have left the campaign. We tried to have a conversation and it just went poorly, and despite trying to give it another try afterward, the DM's response was to make all spells and class abilities start randomly failing when she wanted, seemingly arbitrarily. No Cleric spells worked anymore because we'd somehow all offended our deities. Paladin auras failed. The warlock's patron denied him his Eldritch Blasts.
It may have been what she viewed as a temporary arc, but it was the straw that broke the camel's proverbial back. Everyone was miserable. She became more and more hostile as players started making comments like, "Well, seems like I'm playing a 7th level commoner, guess I'll go open a shop." I myself said, "Liz, you control the whole world. The monsters, the terrain, the structures, the plot. Everything. Except what our PCs can do. If you're going to dictate what we do and have our abilities randomly fail for plot purposes, you're not being a DM, you're being an author."
I appreciate all the advice offered, but it seems it wasn't a situation that could be remedied. Hopefully the 3 players that remain enjoy things and find an improved relationship with the DM.
Leaving was clearly the best course of action -- no D&D is better than bad D&D.
However, I will say this:
"Well, seems like I'm playing a 7th level commoner, guess I'll go open a shop." -- this is not constructive criticism, it is sarcastic and borders on being openly hostile. I am not sure that I would react well to such a statement either, although I hope I am thick-skinned enough not to get hostile back. This is not the type of comment you should make if you want to have the DM come around to your way of thinking (not saying you made it -- based on your statement it sounds like someone else did it).
"Liz, you control the whole world. The monsters, the terrain, the structures, the plot. Everything. Except what our PCs can do. If you're going to dictate what we do and have our abilities randomly fail for plot purposes, you're not being a DM, you're being an author." Again, I think this is overly aggressive. Telling a DM they are being an author and not a DM, even if accurate, is clearly going to be viewed as insulting by the DM.
I'm also not 100% sure it is an accurate statement that the spells are "randomly" failing. Random fail would be if she asked you to roll 1d6 every time you cast a spell and said you fail on a nat 6. She thinks there is a purpose to these failures -- in her interpretation (with which I have said I don't necessarily agree), you clerics and paladins have broken your oaths to your gods, and so the gods are not responding when asked for divine power. This is not only NOT random, it is theoretically what the DM is supposed to do if the cleric or paladin has in fact gone back on the teachings of their own god.
Now, did you go back on those teachings? I don't think so. But given that we know the DM's interpretation is that you have, it is not defensible to say that the spells are "randomly" failing. Rather, she seems to have assigned a % fail chance based on the severity of what she believes is the sinfulness or transgression level of your PCs. Disagree with her about the interpretation of whether your PC has sinned or not, but don't call it "random." It is not random.
Again, it's clear the DM was not running a game fun for you, and I am not trying to say you should have stayed -- clearly leaving is warranted. And I think there were better ways to run things than she did. But I think the DM may have become hostile because of the tone that was taken with her, and the fact that although you knew why your spells were failing (you told us why in your own post) you insisted on claiming that the spells were "randomly" failing, which is not the case. She had her reasons, whether you agree with them or not.
For example, in my campaign, a few Roman towns have fallen to an unknown and apparently implacable enemy. My players have not yet divined the pattern to these town-attacks but they are close to doing so. Until they do, though, it may well seem as though I am having towns "randomly" be destroyed. But if a player complained "You're just randomly destroying towns and we can't stop it -- this is unfair!" I would not be receptive to this argument either. I'm not randomly destroying towns. I have a plan (or rather, the BBEG has a plan) and I am letting him follow that plan until such time as the PCs do something to interrupt it. The fact that they don't see the pattern yet to interrupt it doesn't mean it's random.
Anyway... you clearly made the right decision. Just next time, try to be a little less, er, pointed, and maybe more constructive, in your criticism.
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 hear you, but sadly it was a lost cause. We had no control over our characters. It was just unfun. I'd probably have enjoyed it more had she just written it as a short story and read it that way. I think what she really wanted to do was create a Dragonlance - but she already had her story set. It wasn't one that was to be developed in free form through organic character exploration, and she couldn't adapt to players doing things that deviated from how her story went.
Since my post she actually reached out to me with a scathing reply about us being unsupportive of her vision and that we "ruined years of effort and world building with our selfishness." I replied politely that I wish her well, and I hope she write the story of the campaign one day and that I'd love to read it, but that I just wasn't enjoying being a part of it. To me, her email only justifies that I made the right decision in leaving, if only from a purely mental health perspective. We have so little outside interaction given the pandemic, and to feel dread before playing D&D, and angst afterward is not how I wanted to spend Sunday nights anymore.
One thing I respectfully disagree with though is that suppressing a player's abilities being part of a good game. The only thing the players control are their own actions. Once a DM subjectively starts narrating a player's abilities regardless of what they want to or are capable of doing, it's not longer a collaborative game. It's now just a story, and that's not ok. It's not what any good role-play system is about. The PC's abilities aren't toys to be taken away when the DM doesn't get their way or the story takes a turn the DM doesn't want. Such suppressions need to be done in-game with reason and meaning behind them, if at all.
For example: "You call upon your deity to smite the wraith before you, but there is a presence in the area that seems to be preventing you from channeling your deity's power." or "You call forth the power of your deity and find no answer, but instead get the impression of sinful deeds that need atonement." All she did was, "Nope. It fails. You lose your spell slot." with her arms crossed a scowl on her face. And why? Because again, we didn't choose to do a damned Mummy Lord's bidding, and she wanted to make sure a few of us bit it before some plot-point turned the tide.
Thing is, I can see if the LG Paladin of Tyr killed a bunch of babies - then it makes sense - but punishing that character for refusing to corroborate with evil? We all established our moral codes for our characters in Session-0 and adhered to throughout. So no, it's not valid, and it's not cool. To me, DM'ing like that is near the equivalent of knocking a controller out of a player's hand when they're about to beat you in a console game.
The root of the problem is that she didn't want to be a DM, she wanted to be a narrator. What pains me is that her message was so venom filled I think I may have effectively ended a friendship by leaving the campaign.
"Just next time, try to be a little less, er, pointed, and maybe more constructive, in your criticism."
I hear you, and we were. For 30+ weeks we endured this with polite discussion about our character's morals and beliefs, and that we felt like some outcomes were meant to punish us rather than being a realistic outcome of our actions. She even acknowledged, on more than one occasion, that she was trying to push the character towards decisions she wanted them to make in the planning of the campaign. Looking back now, I wish we'd just ended it back in August when the adversarial relationship between the DM & gamers started becoming evident.
Yeah, "years of worldbuilding" is a red flag. Clearly the DM had a lot of expectations coming into this, and wasn't going to let the players' preferences stand in her way. I am reminded of young children who are willing to share their toys only to declare, "That's not how you play this," when your imagination goes a different direction than theirs. They don't want playmates; they want actors in their play.
Since my post she actually reached out to me with a scathing reply about us being unsupportive of her vision and that we "ruined years of effort and world building with our selfishness."
I agree with Pav, that is a red flag. She clearly had a very deep love for some pre-determined course of things going a certain way with her world and she did not leave open the possibilities that the PCs might do anything different from what she had imagined. Again, leaving was probably the best course of action here.
One thing I respectfully disagree with though is that suppressing a player's abilities being part of a good game. The only thing the players control are their own actions. Once a DM subjectively starts narrating a player's abilities regardless of what they want to or are capable of doing, it's not longer a collaborative game.
Uh... I'm not sure what you mean here, but it's actually down in the rules that under some circumstances player abilities get suppressed. For example, certain spells or abilities may not work on other planes -- it says this in the rules, so if circumstances cause your party to go into those planes, your abilities would be suppressed. Also, sometimes just the effect of other environmental factors may dictate that players are unable to use certain of their abilities. Are you telling me that if you had a Lawful Good character who ended up deep inside the Chaotic Evil plane of the Abyss, that you would legit be angry that your LG powers didn't work exactly as printed in the PHB? I'm sorry but I think it is a bit much to expect your LG character's abilities to work as printed deep inside the Abyss, a plane of supernatural power that is diametrically opposed to your abilities. In fact, I would expect, as a player, to have some of my stuff not work.
I readily agree with you that the DM did not do things properly. But this idea that your abilities should always work as printed and if they don't it's "not a collaborative game" is not something I can get on board with.
I've been playing with this DM and a group of 7 people for nearly 3 years, and recently started a new campaign. The DM had an idea in her head of how the game would progress, but it hasn't gone that way, and it has frustrated her. In particular, she has become combative with those she has deemed "over-powered" or who don't follow certain story arcs or interactions she wants pursued.
Problem areas in terms of role-play interactions have been that the party refuses to ally with evil. We've got a Crown Paladin of Tyr (LG), Cavalier Fighter (LG), Swashbuckler Rogue (NG), Life Cleric of Lathander (NG), Twilight Cleric of Sehanine Moonbow / Divine Soul Sorcerer (CG), and Lore Bard / Archfey Warlock (CG). The adventure plot she's designed seems to call for the party being willing to not only negotiate with evil, but ally themselves with it to advance. The Paladin, Cavalier, and Cleric(s) have no interest in bargaining with the likes of the Zhentarim or Red Wizards, let alone these scenarios that have come up...
A Night Hag wanted us to deliver babies for sacrifice. We were evidently supposed to use this to learn the location of their coven. We didn't "play along." We attacked the hag. She bamfed out and the DM had her torment the party for weeks of road travel and there was nothing we could do about it - a few players down to single digit max hit-point totals. We couldn't even outrun her on horseback (which is bs), and no town we came to had a greater restoration available. We were only able to defeat her by trading our only set of magic armor (breastplate, +1) for 2 uses of Oil of Etherealness so that the Cavalier & Sorcerer could go Ethereal when she started her Haunting and kill her on the Ethereal Plane (Counterspell stopped Plane Shift to get away). The Hag had no Heartstone (but was still able to go Ethereal), or wealth of any kind.
A Succubus / Incubus pair wanted us to deliver a local prince and his wife so they could impersonate them within the kingdom. If we did so we'd "unlock" the information of why there was fiendish activity in a given area. We didn't play along. We killed one of the demons (In the name of Tyr) and attempted to interrogate the other, and she pitched a fit and said we ruined the adventure. A 6-week arc resulted in no milestone level, no treasure (seriously, not a cp), and us being run out of town by some distant relative of the nobles who blamed us for their murder.
A Vampire was evidently supposed to be parleyed with instead of dispatched when we stumbled upon its lair an hour before dusk. Somehow in 2 rounds of indoor combat it became nightfall and the Vampire escaped outside as mist. It came back before dawn and attacked us while we were in a Tiny Hut, which we emphasized couldn't happen because: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/823774362293542912 - but all the DM said was, "I don't care, one of you are going to die tonight."
Pretty much every session consists of one or more players dropping to 0 hit points. But, at the same time, when it looks like a player is going to be lost, some miracle happens to fix things that shouldn't have gone sideways in the first place. Thing is, I can deal with that. I can deal with the fact that as 7th level characters (now) we still only have 2 magic weapons and 1 ring of protection as the only magic items in a party of 6. I can even deal with the tantrums. What has started to infuriate me is her dismissal of the rules. In particular, her taking away actions from players arbitrarily. Like causing the opening of an unlocked door to take a full action instead of being part of the movement during a combat. And denying the casters' ability to target enemies out of their visible light range of 40' even if another player with a light source is present next to the target. And perhaps one of the most frustrating things, outright ignoring passive perception, investigation, and insight and forcing everything to be rolled at arbitrarily high DCs. The "Observant" Cleric (23 Passive Perception) is not happy that he took a feat that's utterly useless because he still needs to roll every check against a 20 DC and she (the DM) won't allow the passive check to be used for anything. In one case in particular he got skewered by 5 Guard Drakes that all managed to surprise him and then combined pack tactics & surprise attack to do something like 65 damage and drop him.
Sadly, I think taking a break is my best option, because I don't know a way to reach her at this point, and it's ruining my enjoyment of the game. I'd rather be a passive observer laughing at the antics going on than be stuck in it and getting frustrated.
If all of the players agree with you, then the solution is clear . . . one of you take over as the new DM.
It sounds like your DM doesn't want to run an adventure, they want to write a novel. And that's fine. She'll have plenty of time to focus on that effort while the rest of you are playing your next D&D campaign.This is a game. We play because we enjoy it. If you're not enjoying it - why continue?
But please, don't quit the game just because of one person. There are lots of great games out there being played by lots of great people. Be one of those tables!
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
Sorry to hear the DM is behaving like this. Has the group talked to her out of game about what’s going on? If you did and she continued this way maybe as a group you should just refuse to play. Have your characters go to a tavern and have drinks the entire session. If she attacks you don’t react and let her TPK the party and say “ok, that campaign is over with. Anyone else want to take the DM chair?”
I mean, there really is little you can do if after discussing it calmly and rationally the DM continues on this path.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Thanks for the reply AnzioFaro.
Rest assured, I have no intention of quitting D&D - just perhaps that game night. I'm currently in 3 total, and the other two are very enjoyable "where did all the time go" sessions that I can't get enough of. I think you're spot on in that she's determined to make her D&D campaign a novel. She already knows where she wants everything to evolve to, which creates a very closed world and a railroad plot. Which again, I can deal with. I mean, I've played Horde of the Dragon Queen... Heh. It's the "Your character can't do that because I say" in conflict with both the RAI & RAW that irks me. I'm very much a Lawful gamer. Rules are rules, and when the DM start dismissing or reinventing them on whims, we may as well just be making up stories instead of rolling dice and building characters...
Trying to steer the campaign using narrative devices is one thing. But if they appear to be lashing out by going outside the rules that people agree to play by, that's a bigger problem. If the rest of the group feels the same way you do, then you all need to get with the DM and have a talk about expectations for the game. If it's just you, then you'll have to decide if it's worth bringing to the whole group, or if it's simpler to just step away. If you do, I would suggest telling the DM why you want to leave, but be diplomatic about it. It isn't about whose way is the "right" way, but what's right for one person may not be right for another.
Judging by the listed alignments, whether by accident or design, the party seems to consist of goody-two-shoes characters. This isn't a bad thing; plenty of campaigns can and do thrive with such characters. And I can see what the DM is trying to do. The general plot structure is designed to test your characters. Your zealousness is preventing you from achieving more good in the world because you rush to judgment. Yes, the night hag is evil and needed to be stopped, but the rest of her coven is still out there causing problems. So not only are more children still in danger, but potential loot has been forgone as well. It may be hamfisted, but it makes sense. And while you all may just be playing your characters to the hilt, there's also a certain amount of buy-in that every game needs.
It sounds like you all have a different idea of what kind of game you wish to play. That warrants a conversation with the DM.
i can agree with this. the campaign will have results/effects depending on the decisions you make. it seems like she runs morally ambiguous or straight evil at times...which is fine to a degree and of course she could listen to the players a bit more. but know that your decisions have story consequences and some of those will be bad.
also she seems a bit antagonistic ie. wanting to kill the players. i'd say have a talk with her about the theme of the game and the antagonistic nature.
i do disagree with "And perhaps one of the most frustrating things, outright ignoring passive perception, investigation, and insight and forcing everything to be rolled at arbitrarily high DCs. The "Observant" Cleric (23 Passive Perception) is not happy that he took a feat that's utterly useless because he still needs to roll every check against a 20 DC and she (the DM) won't allow the passive check to be used for anything." passive checks are not for the players to decide and do not qualify for every instance of that skill. passive and active checks are two separate things.
one other thing is the players never "deserve" loot, loot is an aspect of the game yes. but don't go in expecting a vorpal sword or some other loot. that could throw off bounded accuracy real quick.
Not much of this is beyond the pale for house ruling. Did the Cleric not notice the DM wasn’t using passive perception rules before he took Observant? Or consider discussing it with the DM? Rules lawyering your DM at the table is really not cool. DMs have a lot to keep track of. They make mistakes. There are ambiguous and obscure rules. It’s fine to remind the DM of your opinion of how the rules work, but the DM has the final say. Otherwise you can end up spending your entire session debating rules. Make your case briefly, then live with the DM’s ruling.
I’m more concerned with the limited options the DM gives you for victory. But this is still not railroading. The DM is simply giving you the opportunity to be evil. You didn’t take it, and yet the campaign still goes on, right? The only problem is if you want to play good characters and your DM isn’t giving you enough options to be good. The DM isn’t doing anything wrong. They’re running the campaign they want to run. That’s their privilege for putting in the effort of running the game. It’s just not the game you want to play.
If other players feel the same way, talk to the DM and see if they want to change up their plot to be fun for the kind of characters you want to play. If they’re not interested in that kind of campaign, then either put up with the campaign they’re running, quit, or run your own game.
A couple of points ...
1) I
I unfortunately disagree. This is an example of a DM trying to force a railroad and taking a hissy fit with the rules when the players actually role play and don't go along with the planned plot. Read the actions the DM took. Having a vampire escape into mist during the day, coming back and attacking the characters inside a Leomund's Tiny Hut. DMs and players usually sit down and agree to playing in a world covered by some common logic. The DM will bend and break those occasionally at times for plot reasons perhaps but vindictively doing so just because the players don't follow the plot is not a sign of a decent DM.
In addition, continually presenting a party of good characters with evil plot tasks - displaying out of game pique when the characters/players don't go along and then coming up with in game events to punish the characters and make it less fun is also not the sign of a good DM. The DM in this case seems to have a plot agenda in mind and expects the characters to follow it or else - not with in game consequences related to the actions they take but through non-sequiturs that punish the characters for their actions.
Not awarding levels after weeks of game play is a method of punishing the players for not following the intended story arc. Did the characters do nothing during that arc? No they defeated some evil creatures and reacted as their characters would be expected to react to the plot being presented. Withholding character rewards because the plot arc didn't turn out the way the DM wants it to is also wrong.
Honestly, there are so many bad DM elements in this story that I wouldn't play with them.
However, some parts are completely within the DMs discretion.
- Finding magic items - completely up to the DM and the campaign - some campaigns are high magic, others aren't. Players like magic items honestly so many DMs put them in for the fun of it but a good campaign doesn't need them.
- Passive skills - a lot of DMs don't know how to use them and require rolls for every check. It makes feats like observant pretty useless and should be mentioned during session 0 as one of the ways the DM runs the game but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it.
- Being haunted by a hag is nasty and irritating but could fit the plot. The party was able to resolve it by trading a magic item for potions to allow them to ambush the hag in the ethereal plane. Sounded like a good plan and a good way to deal with the problem. The main issue is that the hag was a plot symptom since until the party acquired potions there was no way for them to deal with it - luckily the DM took pity and decided that the hag haunting wasn't getting the party to agree to follow her plot.
2) The only real solution is to have a chat with the DM out of game, ideally with all the players involved. Explain that the characters that everyone is playing don't role play well with the plot she has envisaged. They just don't go together - the party won't take evil actions to abet evil creatures. As a result, the players aren't having a great time with this plot line. What can we do together to change things a bit so that everyone has fun?
If she wants to stick to this plot line then she needs to create an over-arcing reason for the characters to work with evil creatures. I don't think they would every work with fiends, hags or undead necessarily but if the world is presented with an existential threat where many innocents might die AND the characters can not solve the situation by themselves ... would the characters let thousands of innocents die over moral qualms about working with evil creatures (Like Red Wizards or Zhentarim)? Phrased this way, the DM might be able to get the party to work with evil creatures as allies of necessity on a temporary basis (but delivering babies for sacrifice, kidnapping innocents for fiends to impersonate and other similar things are just actions the party won't take no matter what the motivation).
On the other hand, it could be that the DM is trying to write a novel/plot line in which the goody goody characters are corrupted by evil, follow along a plot line to greater evil, defeats a great evil and in the end redeems themselves. NOT going to happen with this party. A DM should never create a plot that requires the characters to make specific decisions in order for the plot to proceed in the direction they want it to go. That is a definition of railroad. The players/characters should be free to decide how they want to proceed at any point in time. DMs will present players with situations that don't have any realistic alternatives and yes these are railroads as well - sometimes brought on by prior player decisions - but planning an on-going plot arc dependent on the players/characters performing evil acts isn't going to happen unless the players and DM agreed on it in advance during a session 0.
Anyway, the bottom line is to talk to the DM, politely and with others present to see what everyone thinks. You've been playing with this DM for quite a while so presumably they are usually pretty good - it sounds like a bit of plot line obsession on the part of the DM which can usually be remedied by chatting and politely pointing it out. DMs tend to have a very different view of the game world since they know everything that is going on ... players don't ... so events that can make sense to a DM can look ridiculous from the player perspective. In this case, there may be some over arcing evil plot line involving all of these events that the DM may think should be motivating the players to get to the bottom of it ... but the players don't know what is going on and probably would not agree to these actions even if they did.
3) If the situation can't be resolved then just take a break from the game.
A few things.
House ruling is well within the prevue of the DM. That being said, with the group playing for 3 years, has moving through unlocked doors never come up? In a combat situation, maybe not. But if the rule worked one way in the past and all of a sudden it changes because of the DM’s whim it can be an issue. If there was a reason for the change I can understand that, but arbitrarily changing rules can cause confusion on what is allowed and what not.
And I did not think of it, but glad someone did, I can see maybe these situations being used to put the party in a position where they have to make tough decisions and then deal with the consequences. The Hag example being one where I would be fine with the party refusing to help and then being harassed while they travel by the Hag. I just don’t know if I would take it so far to the point the party is selling off precious magic items to defeat the Hag, but I’m not a DM, I’m a player, and hate giving up good loot :)
That being said, I disagree with the idea that committing an evil act (gathering up babies to sacrifice) to prevent further evil acts (finding the coven and destroying it) isn’t a bad thing. And I can see why the party refused to do it. I don’t know if the DM just wants the players to make tough choices or if the theme of the campaign wasn’t sufficiently discussed beforehand and it ended up being a complete mismatch of party/campaign synergy.
As for the passives, my DM never uses passive checks so I wouldn’t bother taking feats to improve it. But considering the group has been playing 3 years, I would think the player would know if it would be useful to go this route or not. So I can understand the frustration, on the players part, if Passive checks were being used for 3 years and then, when you spend an ASI for a feat to excel at passive checks, the DM just throws that out the window. I don’t know the whole story so I can’t say if there is fault on either side, or just miscommunication.
But if the DM really said, when dealing with the Tiny Hut, that someone was going to die that night, I find a little troubling, especially if they went through with it. The OP didn’t say.
After 3 years of playing, this is the first time this has happened, I really think it’s a case of Player/DM Campaign incompatibility for this particular campaign. Seems like previous campaigns have been better. Or maybe the DM is getting burned out and someone else needs to step up and give the DM a break.
As always, politely talk with your DM.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I second this to an extent. The way your DM is lashing out is immature and unwarranted, but I can say I (as DM) have become similarly frustrated when I have put narrative driving characters in front of my PCs just to have them killed off before they can get more than a few words out. For example, I had an evil NPC vampire who had usurped power in a town before the party arrived. She had kept her vampirism a secret, and hired the party to dispatch a monster outside of town to "test" them and see if they are up for the task at hand. After the party dispatched the monster and returned to the vampire, she revealed her true nature (not attacking the party mind you). Before she had a chance to discuss why she took interest in the party and what plans she had, one of my PCs immediately grabbed their weapon and attacked her.
This is of course an expected route. I put a monster in front of them so it makes sense they would want to kill it. I was just disappointed that after having put time into establishing this character as a sort of dark ruler who wanted the party for "something" that they PCs might at least try to figure out what that "something" was before deciding to kill her.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
It's a derail, but if my party did that, I'd probably just say, "Good job beating the boss," and never reveal the secret they didn't learn. I try to adapt my plot to the players' style, so if they're not interested in intrigue and interrogating the enemy NPCs, I don't force them.
If you feel like you should take a break from a game table, you probably should. Continuing to play when you really don't want to (with this DM) is only going to make things worse. If this person has been DM for 3 years and did one campaign and is now doing a second, maybe that was part of the mistake. The DM should probably have asked someone else to go next so as to take a break and recharge the batteries. I know for sure when my campaign, however long it goes (where getting to a year now, and probably 1/4 of the way done, LOL) is over, I will say "Who wants to DM next?" And I will strongly resist DMing a 2nd long campaign in a row. You need breaks.
Also, although I agree with some of the others who have said that the DM seems to be trying to put you folks into moral quandaries, the "dilemmas" she has put you into are not good ones for a party like yours. For a mostly-neutral party (on the G/E axis), yes. But asking a unanimously good party to hand over babies to hags or to hand over a local ruler to demons just to "unlock information" -- these are not good dilemmas. The party appears to be composed of true-blue heroes -- you give heroes dilemmas by giving them two equal choices that they will want to do. Save this baby OR that baby, is a good moral dilemma. Give me babies and maybe you learn the location of my coven, is not a good dilemma.
Think of great moral temptations in movies with heroes... Superman (1978) has to promise Miss Teschmacher to save New Jersey first, which risks Lois Lane and Jimmy Olson in California, or she won't take the Kryptonite off his neck... Save Lois or Save No One... Spider-Man is given the choice by Green Goblin: Mary Jane or a cable-car full of children. These are good dilemmas, because the hero has to choose between a person he loves, and a larger # of people he doesn't know. Are you going to sacrifice that whole cable car just for MJ? And what will she think of you when she finds out you let all those kids die for her? Will she appreciate it, or say "You should have saved them instead?"
But also, in both those cases and in most cases when the hero has a dilemma like this, there is also a Third Way -- a way the hero comes up with that allows him to somehow save both. In the Superman movie, Superman turns back time and saves Lois anyway. A lot of people hate that ending, but it is classical heroic dilemma-solving, and it also showed the Superman was willing to break the rules his father laid down, to save Lois Lane: Love is more important than the rules. In Spider-Man, he uses his acrobatics to save both, even though the setup is that he "can't."
This is how you present dilemmas to heroes. So the heroes do something like, polymorph two of their members into "babies" to give to her, and then when she takes the "babies" back to her coven (with the rest of the party sneakily following) and the location is revealed, the spell is canceled and out pop two fully grown adventurers, plus their friends ambushing, and the coven eats pavement. But to just say, "Give me babies or else the plot is hosed," that is not a dilemma for heroic characters.
You could talk to your DM about this... but I think realistically, taking a break is probably a good idea. It sounds like maybe you all need a bit of a break after 3 years. Why not suggest playing some board games or something together, or if you are online, pick an MMO you all would like and can play together co-op, and do that for a couple of months and then come back to the campaign fresh.
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.
Plus it just makes you look awesome when they think everything that happened was your plan all along, and not a furious adaptation to their unexpected twists.
Follow up on this...
I and 2 other players have left the campaign. We tried to have a conversation and it just went poorly, and despite trying to give it another try afterward, the DM's response was to make all spells and class abilities start randomly failing when she wanted, seemingly arbitrarily. No Cleric spells worked anymore because we'd somehow all offended our deities. Paladin auras failed. The warlock's patron denied him his Eldritch Blasts.
It may have been what she viewed as a temporary arc, but it was the straw that broke the camel's proverbial back. Everyone was miserable. She became more and more hostile as players started making comments like, "Well, seems like I'm playing a 7th level commoner, guess I'll go open a shop." I myself said, "Liz, you control the whole world. The monsters, the terrain, the structures, the plot. Everything. Except what our PCs can do. If you're going to dictate what we do and have our abilities randomly fail for plot purposes, you're not being a DM, you're being an author."
I appreciate all the advice offered, but it seems it wasn't a situation that could be remedied. Hopefully the 3 players that remain enjoy things and find an improved relationship with the DM.
Leaving was clearly the best course of action -- no D&D is better than bad D&D.
However, I will say this:
"Well, seems like I'm playing a 7th level commoner, guess I'll go open a shop." -- this is not constructive criticism, it is sarcastic and borders on being openly hostile. I am not sure that I would react well to such a statement either, although I hope I am thick-skinned enough not to get hostile back. This is not the type of comment you should make if you want to have the DM come around to your way of thinking (not saying you made it -- based on your statement it sounds like someone else did it).
"Liz, you control the whole world. The monsters, the terrain, the structures, the plot. Everything. Except what our PCs can do. If you're going to dictate what we do and have our abilities randomly fail for plot purposes, you're not being a DM, you're being an author." Again, I think this is overly aggressive. Telling a DM they are being an author and not a DM, even if accurate, is clearly going to be viewed as insulting by the DM.
I'm also not 100% sure it is an accurate statement that the spells are "randomly" failing. Random fail would be if she asked you to roll 1d6 every time you cast a spell and said you fail on a nat 6. She thinks there is a purpose to these failures -- in her interpretation (with which I have said I don't necessarily agree), you clerics and paladins have broken your oaths to your gods, and so the gods are not responding when asked for divine power. This is not only NOT random, it is theoretically what the DM is supposed to do if the cleric or paladin has in fact gone back on the teachings of their own god.
Now, did you go back on those teachings? I don't think so. But given that we know the DM's interpretation is that you have, it is not defensible to say that the spells are "randomly" failing. Rather, she seems to have assigned a % fail chance based on the severity of what she believes is the sinfulness or transgression level of your PCs. Disagree with her about the interpretation of whether your PC has sinned or not, but don't call it "random." It is not random.
Again, it's clear the DM was not running a game fun for you, and I am not trying to say you should have stayed -- clearly leaving is warranted. And I think there were better ways to run things than she did. But I think the DM may have become hostile because of the tone that was taken with her, and the fact that although you knew why your spells were failing (you told us why in your own post) you insisted on claiming that the spells were "randomly" failing, which is not the case. She had her reasons, whether you agree with them or not.
For example, in my campaign, a few Roman towns have fallen to an unknown and apparently implacable enemy. My players have not yet divined the pattern to these town-attacks but they are close to doing so. Until they do, though, it may well seem as though I am having towns "randomly" be destroyed. But if a player complained "You're just randomly destroying towns and we can't stop it -- this is unfair!" I would not be receptive to this argument either. I'm not randomly destroying towns. I have a plan (or rather, the BBEG has a plan) and I am letting him follow that plan until such time as the PCs do something to interrupt it. The fact that they don't see the pattern yet to interrupt it doesn't mean it's random.
Anyway... you clearly made the right decision. Just next time, try to be a little less, er, pointed, and maybe more constructive, in your criticism.
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 hear you, but sadly it was a lost cause. We had no control over our characters. It was just unfun. I'd probably have enjoyed it more had she just written it as a short story and read it that way. I think what she really wanted to do was create a Dragonlance - but she already had her story set. It wasn't one that was to be developed in free form through organic character exploration, and she couldn't adapt to players doing things that deviated from how her story went.
Since my post she actually reached out to me with a scathing reply about us being unsupportive of her vision and that we "ruined years of effort and world building with our selfishness." I replied politely that I wish her well, and I hope she write the story of the campaign one day and that I'd love to read it, but that I just wasn't enjoying being a part of it. To me, her email only justifies that I made the right decision in leaving, if only from a purely mental health perspective. We have so little outside interaction given the pandemic, and to feel dread before playing D&D, and angst afterward is not how I wanted to spend Sunday nights anymore.
One thing I respectfully disagree with though is that suppressing a player's abilities being part of a good game. The only thing the players control are their own actions. Once a DM subjectively starts narrating a player's abilities regardless of what they want to or are capable of doing, it's not longer a collaborative game. It's now just a story, and that's not ok. It's not what any good role-play system is about. The PC's abilities aren't toys to be taken away when the DM doesn't get their way or the story takes a turn the DM doesn't want. Such suppressions need to be done in-game with reason and meaning behind them, if at all.
For example: "You call upon your deity to smite the wraith before you, but there is a presence in the area that seems to be preventing you from channeling your deity's power." or "You call forth the power of your deity and find no answer, but instead get the impression of sinful deeds that need atonement." All she did was, "Nope. It fails. You lose your spell slot." with her arms crossed a scowl on her face. And why? Because again, we didn't choose to do a damned Mummy Lord's bidding, and she wanted to make sure a few of us bit it before some plot-point turned the tide.
Thing is, I can see if the LG Paladin of Tyr killed a bunch of babies - then it makes sense - but punishing that character for refusing to corroborate with evil? We all established our moral codes for our characters in Session-0 and adhered to throughout. So no, it's not valid, and it's not cool. To me, DM'ing like that is near the equivalent of knocking a controller out of a player's hand when they're about to beat you in a console game.
The root of the problem is that she didn't want to be a DM, she wanted to be a narrator. What pains me is that her message was so venom filled I think I may have effectively ended a friendship by leaving the campaign.
"Just next time, try to be a little less, er, pointed, and maybe more constructive, in your criticism."
I hear you, and we were. For 30+ weeks we endured this with polite discussion about our character's morals and beliefs, and that we felt like some outcomes were meant to punish us rather than being a realistic outcome of our actions. She even acknowledged, on more than one occasion, that she was trying to push the character towards decisions she wanted them to make in the planning of the campaign. Looking back now, I wish we'd just ended it back in August when the adversarial relationship between the DM & gamers started becoming evident.
Meh, you live, you learn...
Yeah, "years of worldbuilding" is a red flag. Clearly the DM had a lot of expectations coming into this, and wasn't going to let the players' preferences stand in her way. I am reminded of young children who are willing to share their toys only to declare, "That's not how you play this," when your imagination goes a different direction than theirs. They don't want playmates; they want actors in their play.
I agree with Pav, that is a red flag. She clearly had a very deep love for some pre-determined course of things going a certain way with her world and she did not leave open the possibilities that the PCs might do anything different from what she had imagined. Again, leaving was probably the best course of action here.
Uh... I'm not sure what you mean here, but it's actually down in the rules that under some circumstances player abilities get suppressed. For example, certain spells or abilities may not work on other planes -- it says this in the rules, so if circumstances cause your party to go into those planes, your abilities would be suppressed. Also, sometimes just the effect of other environmental factors may dictate that players are unable to use certain of their abilities. Are you telling me that if you had a Lawful Good character who ended up deep inside the Chaotic Evil plane of the Abyss, that you would legit be angry that your LG powers didn't work exactly as printed in the PHB? I'm sorry but I think it is a bit much to expect your LG character's abilities to work as printed deep inside the Abyss, a plane of supernatural power that is diametrically opposed to your abilities. In fact, I would expect, as a player, to have some of my stuff not work.
I readily agree with you that the DM did not do things properly. But this idea that your abilities should always work as printed and if they don't it's "not a collaborative game" is not something I can get on board with.
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.