I am running a campaign of my own design, first time and we are down to the 7th session. As DM i am challenging my players, experimenting with how far i can take what is too much. I dont mean to intentionally kill them ofcourse because that would seriously ruin the fun. However i cherish the idea of them being able to do whatever they please. So i prepare about 10 different encounters per session and a main encounter that will happen no matter where they go, the main encounter is like medium threat. The other encounters happen by the roll of 1d10 or depending on where they decide to go, so difficulty of the encounters can vary from easy to deadly or even being a fake which will put the players in a bad situation (losing all equipment or such) But it all comes down to what they decide to do and I try to form the session taking in consideration what has happened before and during this session.
Because i want to make the game interesting, which means they should not feel safe anywhere but inside a major city. However, i read the signs in the group and they seem to believe that i play DM part as if i am trying to kill them intentionally. For instance 5th session they gave some coins to a beggar, he gave them a warning not to go to close to what is rumored to be a haunted ruined monastery. So ofcourse they went there. As they where searching the catacombs of the ruin they encountered undeads such as ghost, banshee, skeletons, topi and such. The ghost made some of them age 40 years, which they thought was too much to handle and they didnt like this at all.
To me, i would say they brought it on themselves, because they went there even though they were warned. They encountered NPC that on their behalf helped open the sealed catacomb and they went down there to explore. If one goes straight into a haunted catacomb you are expected to find undead i believe or does this make me a bad DM? Should i have gone easy on them and not use the actions the monster has? What if the group would encounter a monster that could kill them instantly with an action, should i as a DM choose not to do that, even though they may have searched for this monster in the first place? I think that in all combats, you always have the option to retreat right?
I'm ok with most of what you say and it all makes sense logically, but I do have some thoughts.
First, logical sense doesn't always prevail. We all want our players invested and enthousiastic while playing, and that means passion takes over. Retreat sucks for players. It feels the same as defeat. Defeat should have a place at most tables, certainly, and without the possibility of defeat victory would lose meaning but players are still going to hate it. As such, moderation is probably important, and if you decide what encounters the players run into on a given adventuring day based on blind (bad) luck you have to be prepared for the possibility that they're going to have the worst day possible at some point or be ready to nudge their fate in a less catastrophic direction. Players tend to believe that if the DM puts something in the world for them to encounter, it's something they can handle. I think warning your players about the monastery was the right call, but sometimes you won't get through to them as fully as you might hope for. This is a key part of a session zero for me: getting expectations in line is vital if you want to have a great campaign everyone enjoys. It's one thing to tell the players you're not out to kill their characters but that you won't pull punches either and that sometimes they're going to want to cut their losses and run, it's another to actually convince them of this.
Specifically about monsters that can kill PCs with a single action: that's a bad idea in my book. Sure, it might be the players being stubborn and careless and just plain dumb that lands their characters in boiling hot water, but that still doesn't make for a fun gaming session. Outmatched is one thing, six seconds between shining health and becoming a splatter of blood on the rug is another. I'd make it next to impossible for the PCs to get into such a situation. To get to the archfiend you need to get past the minions first, and they can be hard enough to dissuade the players. Finding the ancient wyrm's lair should be very difficult - that dragon doesn't want its hoard to be found - so if they go looking they'll likely simply fail. And so on. Just don't put them in that position, is my advice.
A couple of thoughts from a long time player: the players don’t know anything about the world that you don’t tell them. Why are they learning about anything that is specifically intended NOT for their interaction? Gaming isn’t about the cool people, places and things the DM can create for the players to only view, or worse, remain completely ignorant of; it’s about what the characters do. Every place they learn of should be one they can go to and interact with. As well, the characters are extraordinary specimens compared to most everyone they encounter. Because of this, a warning from a street beggar to stay away from a place that is “very dangerous” is highly unlikely to serve as a warning to your players. It’s going to seem a lot more like an invitation. It may even seem like they are beholden as heroes to eliminate the threat to those less capable. I think you should not even mention places that are too deadly for them to visit. Keep their plates full with appropriate challenges instead.
First, the beggar gave them a plot hook. It was so bright and shiny that you may as well have rolled out a red carpet for the players! D&D is a cooperative game, not only between the players but also between the players and the DM. Part of that cooperation is the players bite on obvious plot hooks. Permanently harming the PCs when they bite on a plot hook is something that you as the DM shouldn’t do.
Second, PCs are better than average. While you’re doing the right thing by throwing challenges at them that make them struggle, you should also give them encounters that they can easily win but that would challenge a normal commoner. That gives them the emotional feeling that their characters are better than average commoners.
Well, this was not the only option they had, i presented like three other options apart from this dungeon and there was seven other options to discover.
Even though they knew this and out of game they know i make alot of work with my sessions in creating options because i told them they are fred to do whatever and go anywhere, they decided to go there, even though they had been warned. And it wasnt really deadly all in all. To be honest i would put it as a hard encounter at most.
But should i not use monster actions just because my players think it is ”too much”? I am a player in some of their RPGs where they are DM and i got kickad from one campaign and in the other i lost all my weapons the first session and i am not complaining about that, because in game anything happens. Good or bad, you got to adjust to whatever goes down and try to make the best of it. Both as DM and as a player.
Being a D&D player is a lot like being one of the five blind guys trying to describe an elephant. You only have the most immediate information and almost never see the big picture. Being the DM is like being the sighted guy who can see the elephant and it is your job to help the blind guys grasp the big picture. What you know for a fact, the players may be entirely ignorant of. You have to shovel information repeatedly at them before they catch on. Warnings from the DM are not so much warnings as plot hooks, especially when they come from street beggars who are nowhere near as formidable as the characters. It’s like expecting adults to stay out of closets because children say there are monsters there…ya right. Not to mention that the dangerous places are the places adventurers go, not places adventurers avoid.
What you have to realize is that, as the DM, you can kill the characters on a whim. There is no challenge in that. The challenge is metering encounters so that they are thrilling for the players, risky for the characters and fun for everyone involved. It may be fun for you when the game is very dangerous but your players are signalling you that they are not having as much fun as they would like. Some players enjoy a very adversarial game. Some don’t. Seems like yours may belong to the latter group. If you keep on the way you are now, you run the risk of having a group of adventurers that twiddle their thumbs in the local tavern because they are terrified of and feel powerless in the world you have created for them.
Perhaps, but they had other options as well. As i wrote earlier i create about ten different things each game for them to explore and encounter. The other things i gave them as options even had rewards, but they wanted to go there. They met NPC’s and small group of monsters before this happened. they talked it over as a group and decided to go there, even though they were warned. Even though they knew there was no reward.
But what is the purpose of a game if everything is supposed to be easy? RPG is all about being a character in a game where anything could happen, in my opinion that is the thrill of the game. If a stranger told me to stay away from a place because it is dangerous, i would stay away from it and find the thrill from something less dangerous. if anything they could’ve tried to learn something about that dungeon before entering it. they hade several wins up until that dungeon, no one actually died but something made a twist in the game, that gives the players opportunity to create a sidequest to find a cure for the aging.
ofcourse it is a bad idea but of we are not supposed to use such monsters as DMs, why were they even created in the first place. I would never create a quest that has an instakill monster but if they Explore the land i think it is appropriate to have them be able to encounter those if they want to.
I would let them encounter like:
As you struggle through the mosquitoinfested svamp you see a strange creature at a distance. It has large body with a long tail and it has a long thin neck with a large head raised not far from the ground. (Catoblepas) What do you do?
this creature could be deadly, but it only attacks if it gets threatened by something coming too close. this way they can choose to attack it, get near to it or completely ignore it. If they would attack it and die, thats their fault in my opinion.
Yeah i get that, i know i could koll them easily but i dont do that because i want them to have fun. An adventure you will 100% returnera without setbacks, is not an adventure if you Ask me. In that case one could call going to the local store an adventure, but even that isnt 100% safe anymore..
Maybe i am just not cut to be a DM. because in my opinion RPG is about exploring a world you dont know and you are free to do whatever you want, but whatever you do could end up in consequences just like in real life. If RPG has become a game where you just find quests on billboards and go from one battle to another with the smallest amount of NPC encounter. Then i suppose this isnt the game i thought it would be.
I wouldn't say you aren't cut out to DM. First and foremost, don't be hard on yourself. Just remember, this game is about having fun (you have fun building the world and telling your story, and they have fun by adventuring/leveling/rpging), and yes danger and the excitement that goes with it can be fun for players. The thing you have to remember is that it can't become adversarial (DM vs Players) because the players have to trust that the DM is looking out for their enjoyment. You also can't build in these choices with a couple of choices being deadly encounters and just let the chips fall. It's up to you to constantly adjust and scale the encounters on the fly so that the consequences aren't game breaking. DnD is a slow game and most people are lucky to get 2 sessions in a month. So when something happens to a player (death, permanent stat decrease, loss of items, etc), that consequence may only span a few sessions, but that is months in real time that the player broods on it.
Instead of investing time in trying to get a bunch of randos on the internet to agree with your POV in this matter, you would, IMHO, be far better served by listening to your players. They are giving you feedback. They have indicated that your actions make them feel like you are actively trying to kill them. They are telling you the type of game they want and it’s not exactly this.
I think it would be constructive to start by abandoning the idea that any encounter that isn’t deadly is too easy. There is a vast swath of territory between killing the characters and giving them a cakewalk. Figuring out where on that spectrum your game belongs and making constant adjustments to ensure it remains in that sweet spot is absolutely the most pressing, most difficult task to tackle as a DM.
Or you can go back to your group, explain that the randos on the internet had no compelling arguments and the game will continue on as deadly as it has been thus far. They’ll have to suck it up or figure out another way to make the game more enjoyable for themselves. Just be aware that this sometimes entails players deciding they don’t want to play your game anymore.
Thats the thing, i asked for feedback and i only got that the campaign i am running is not what they are used too. They didnt say what is good or what is bad really. But the complain about minor things otherwise, when i give them opportunity to actually say what they think they give me like nothing.
I am asking people on this forum because i believe you have a better experience in thisgame than i do and i am asking as kind of last resort because i have tried talking to my group but get nothing in return. Being DM is difficult as it is, but it doesnt get any better when one doesnt give any feedback when it is requested.
I decided not to plan another session until they ask for it, that way i can clearly see if they want to continue or not. Will still finish the prework so it is ready if they'd ask for another session.
Getting useable feedback is the most challenging part of being a GM in my experience. There is the Stars and Wishes methods that I used with reasonable success, but it is always a challenge. I noticed that I do get better feedback when I give feedback in the very same format to the players first.
I would suggest starting like this: (I do this usually via Discord messages, because I want to be able to review my feedback before sending it out. Criticism, even if constructive, is always difficult to accept. Therefore I like to make sure that it is articulated as non-accusatory as possible.)
Things I liked in our last adventure:
The way you found a creative solution for this one challenge I presented to you.
They way you acted in accordance with your background in that one situation.
The way the characters started to become a group and interpersonal relationships begin to form.
Maybe more, but two or three points should be enough.
Things I want more of:
You seem to have very little trust in NPCs in general. I know it is a trope of DnD that the more friendly an NPC is, the more likely it is that he/she will betray you, but your stories can become so much more interesting if you get invested in the world around you.
It is a little bit of work, but it might pay off.
Regarding your beggar situation. I would address that very directly. Just talk to your playes about that very situation and tell them how you indented the situation to come across, and which reactions you were anticipating from the characters. Then ask how the situation came across and how the players interpreted what was presented to them. If there is a big disconnect between your intentions and their perceptions, ask them how you should have presented the situation in order for them to react the way you were hoping. Use that feedback to tailor your GM style to the players you are playing with.
Perhaps, but they had other options as well. As i wrote earlier i create about ten different things each game for them to explore and encounter. The other things i gave them as options even had rewards, but they wanted to go there. They met NPC’s and small group of monsters before this happened. they talked it over as a group and decided to go there, even though they were warned. Even though they knew there was no reward.
But what is the purpose of a game if everything is supposed to be easy? RPG is all about being a character in a game where anything could happen, in my opinion that is the thrill of the game. If a stranger told me to stay away from a place because it is dangerous, i would stay away from it and find the thrill from something less dangerous. if anything they could’ve tried to learn something about that dungeon before entering it. they hade several wins up until that dungeon, no one actually died but something made a twist in the game, that gives the players opportunity to create a sidequest to find a cure for the aging.
You've replied multiple times to people who have given you the sensible advice "A beggar warning the characters of a dangerous haunted mansion is an invitation to go there" telling them they are wrong, which implies that you are not looking for discussion on this or for people's opinions, but rather you are looking to be told that you are a good DM and what you did was right. The fact that your players have come away dissatisfied is a bad thing. It doesn't mean that you necessarily did anything wrong, but they were dissatisfied enough for you to ask the question, meaning you suspect you did something wrong but don't want to be told that you did.
You didn't one-shot the party, and if you made an error it was that your warning was delivered by a beggar; presumably a level 0 commoner. Why tell the PCs about the haunted ruins if you didn't intend them to go there? Maybe if the beggar says "An adventuring party went there and got wiped out, and ten of the king's knights disappeared there too" then that can give the right level of threat.
Some things to consider about monster abilities that I'd recommend never using:
Banshees, for example, can kill a whole party in one action if they all fail their saving throws. In a game I ran some years ago, 3 of 4 characters went to 0 hit points leaving just a cleric standing in the first round of combat. I will never use a Banshee again.
Permanently debilitating conditions that function like death and cannot be resolved through taking a long rest are not fun for a low level party. Gorgon's petrifying breath and Intellect Devourer's brain eating are two good examples. One bad roll and your PC dies? I don't even understand why these creatures have these abilities. They feel like a throwback to older editions, and should have gone out the door with wraiths draining levels.
Effects like permanent aging are upsetting for players - just don't use those either. Players feel attached to their characters. They don't want their spunky 20 year old ranger to appear like a 70 year old. Removing aging is almost impossible in D&D.
Remove all the effects that say "If they reduce a character to 0 hit points, they are killed/absorbed/rise as a zombie." gibbering mouther and finger of death fall into this category, although Finger is up there for higher level play and players potentially have more solutions by then.
Be wary of any effects that affect how a character controls their character. Nothing upsets players more than being forced to take actions they don't want to. It can be quite fun attacking your party members under a Dominate Person but don't allow any effect of this type to become even semi-permanent.
Your best bet is to provide an easy solution to the aging. You put in monsters that could cause massively negative effects that the players don't like, with no way of them really avoiding them, and you fed them a bread crumb trail to tell them to walk right into them. A good option would be to de-age them by 10 years per day until they are back to normal.
ofcourse it is a bad idea but of we are not supposed to use such monsters as DMs, why were they even created in the first place. I would never create a quest that has an instakill monster but if they Explore the land i think it is appropriate to have them be able to encounter those if they want to.
I would let them encounter like:
As you struggle through the mosquitoinfested svamp you see a strange creature at a distance. It has large body with a long tail and it has a long thin neck with a large head raised not far from the ground. (Catoblepas) What do you do?
this creature could be deadly, but it only attacks if it gets threatened by something coming too close. this way they can choose to attack it, get near to it or completely ignore it. If they would attack it and die, thats their fault in my opinion.
or am i wrong?
Assuming that they have never read about a catoblepas in the appropriate book, how would they have any idea about its ultra-lethal death ray? There is no foreshadowing there. But even so, there is an unspoken contract between DM and player that goes like so:
The DM has total control of the environment. They can kill all players by exploding the planet whenever they want to.
The game is fun when the players are challenged, and have to overcome the challenge. The players trust the DM to only include challenges that they can overcome (assuming they don't play stupidly)
The players trust the DM to foreshadow any highly dangerous adversary, trap or event. They accept that if they see a bunch of adventurers like statues around a cave, maybe there's a medusa or gorgon inside. They can then take precautions against highly dangerous elements.
The players trust that the DM will not just spring massive damage or instant death on them at the roll of a single die. Knowing how hit points and death saving throws work, players expect that being reduced to 0 hit points and then failing death saves will be how their character dies.
In your catoblepas example, if it's not that threatening to the party then it's no real issue. But if that death ray could potentially kill a player in one turn, all they know is that they've see a cow-like creature in a swamp. They have no warning as to what it is. It could be a CR5 monster, a CR10 monster, or a CR20 monster. They trust in the DM that if a combat breaks out that simply choosing to walk up to it won't one-shot them.
If you do play it like that, then the players are forced to treat every potential NPC as though they might be level 20, every monster as though it might be a polymorphed red dragon. They simply don't know what the power levels are, and have to trust you not to set them impossible challenges.
You can run your game as you want, but as you said, it seems to mismatch your players' expectations.
One way to keep them generally safe is to make sure that any encounters in the area they start the campaign are suited for a level 1 party. Slightly beyond that, they become difficult enough for a level 2 party. The idea is that they are never too surprised by the difficulty of an encounter. They learn when they encounter an almost deadly encounter that maybe they should turn back. You can also ramp up the difficulty of encounters as they delve deeper into a dungeon.
Retreating isn't always a practical option, especially for lower level characters. Say you are in melee range. You can Disengage as an action and move your movement speed. Assuming your enemy has the same movement speed, they can move and attack you. Repeat until you are dead. Or, you can skip the Disengage, take an opportunity attack, move, and double your move with the Dash action. Your enemy also Dashes and arrives back in melee range. Next round repeat and take another opportunity attack until you are dead. Of course, one of your PCs can make a noble sacrifice and lead the enemy one way while the others run the other direction.
There are, instead, optional chase rules in the DMG. Another way to give your players an option to escape is to create an entrance to a monster lair that's too small for the monster to pass through. That way, as long as the PCs can get that far without getting killed, they're home free.
If I were you, I wouldn't fully flesh out 10 different random encounters. Think about it this way. Instead of rolling during the game, you can roll ahead of time, and then you know which encounters you need to fully build. Maybe if they spend more time wandering around, you'll need more rolls, but 2-4 encounters is probably enough, and if they need more, you can just replay one. If you're wandering around the same area, you're likely to encounter the same dangers multiple times. In fact that will drive home the point that continuing to waste time will just lead to neverending attacks.
Foreshadowing: As others have said, you need a way to signal to the players that this is a difficult encounter. If you think they'll get into bother, you could have them make an appropriate check (e.g. nature, arcana, perception, etc) and depending on the roll, feed them appropriate information. Maybe it reminds them of something they've been told, or they notice a particular feature that looks 'wierd'.
Session Prep: Prepping 10 encounters is a lot of work. I tend to ask my players what they want to do next session, then prepare for that. And make sure you recycle unused encounters, again to save you time. DM burnout becomes a thing.
Campaign Style: a simple way to signal that the campaign could be deadly is to require the players have a backup character! But this is also something that should be discussed in session 0.
The Specific Issue: They don't like ageing 40 years? You've just created a new quest to find the wizard (for whatever) who can undo the curse. He or she might require something more than gold to do it though, so there's another adventure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello everyone!
I am running a campaign of my own design, first time and we are down to the 7th session.
As DM i am challenging my players, experimenting with how far i can take what is too much. I dont mean to intentionally kill them ofcourse because that would seriously ruin the fun.
However i cherish the idea of them being able to do whatever they please. So i prepare about 10 different encounters per session and a main encounter that will happen no matter where they go, the main encounter is like medium threat.
The other encounters happen by the roll of 1d10 or depending on where they decide to go, so difficulty of the encounters can vary from easy to deadly or even being a fake which will put the players in a bad situation (losing all equipment or such) But it all comes down to what they decide to do and I try to form the session taking in consideration what has happened before and during this session.
Because i want to make the game interesting, which means they should not feel safe anywhere but inside a major city. However, i read the signs in the group and they seem to believe that i play DM part as if i am trying to kill them intentionally.
For instance 5th session they gave some coins to a beggar, he gave them a warning not to go to close to what is rumored to be a haunted ruined monastery. So ofcourse they went there.
As they where searching the catacombs of the ruin they encountered undeads such as ghost, banshee, skeletons, topi and such.
The ghost made some of them age 40 years, which they thought was too much to handle and they didnt like this at all.
To me, i would say they brought it on themselves, because they went there even though they were warned. They encountered NPC that on their behalf helped open the sealed catacomb and they went down there to explore.
If one goes straight into a haunted catacomb you are expected to find undead i believe or does this make me a bad DM?
Should i have gone easy on them and not use the actions the monster has?
What if the group would encounter a monster that could kill them instantly with an action, should i as a DM choose not to do that, even though they may have searched for this monster in the first place?
I think that in all combats, you always have the option to retreat right?
I'm ok with most of what you say and it all makes sense logically, but I do have some thoughts.
First, logical sense doesn't always prevail. We all want our players invested and enthousiastic while playing, and that means passion takes over. Retreat sucks for players. It feels the same as defeat. Defeat should have a place at most tables, certainly, and without the possibility of defeat victory would lose meaning but players are still going to hate it. As such, moderation is probably important, and if you decide what encounters the players run into on a given adventuring day based on blind (bad) luck you have to be prepared for the possibility that they're going to have the worst day possible at some point or be ready to nudge their fate in a less catastrophic direction. Players tend to believe that if the DM puts something in the world for them to encounter, it's something they can handle. I think warning your players about the monastery was the right call, but sometimes you won't get through to them as fully as you might hope for. This is a key part of a session zero for me: getting expectations in line is vital if you want to have a great campaign everyone enjoys. It's one thing to tell the players you're not out to kill their characters but that you won't pull punches either and that sometimes they're going to want to cut their losses and run, it's another to actually convince them of this.
Specifically about monsters that can kill PCs with a single action: that's a bad idea in my book. Sure, it might be the players being stubborn and careless and just plain dumb that lands their characters in boiling hot water, but that still doesn't make for a fun gaming session. Outmatched is one thing, six seconds between shining health and becoming a splatter of blood on the rug is another. I'd make it next to impossible for the PCs to get into such a situation. To get to the archfiend you need to get past the minions first, and they can be hard enough to dissuade the players. Finding the ancient wyrm's lair should be very difficult - that dragon doesn't want its hoard to be found - so if they go looking they'll likely simply fail. And so on. Just don't put them in that position, is my advice.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
A couple of thoughts from a long time player: the players don’t know anything about the world that you don’t tell them. Why are they learning about anything that is specifically intended NOT for their interaction? Gaming isn’t about the cool people, places and things the DM can create for the players to only view, or worse, remain completely ignorant of; it’s about what the characters do. Every place they learn of should be one they can go to and interact with. As well, the characters are extraordinary specimens compared to most everyone they encounter. Because of this, a warning from a street beggar to stay away from a place that is “very dangerous” is highly unlikely to serve as a warning to your players. It’s going to seem a lot more like an invitation. It may even seem like they are beholden as heroes to eliminate the threat to those less capable. I think you should not even mention places that are too deadly for them to visit. Keep their plates full with appropriate challenges instead.
Two comments.
First, the beggar gave them a plot hook. It was so bright and shiny that you may as well have rolled out a red carpet for the players! D&D is a cooperative game, not only between the players but also between the players and the DM. Part of that cooperation is the players bite on obvious plot hooks. Permanently harming the PCs when they bite on a plot hook is something that you as the DM shouldn’t do.
Second, PCs are better than average. While you’re doing the right thing by throwing challenges at them that make them struggle, you should also give them encounters that they can easily win but that would challenge a normal commoner. That gives them the emotional feeling that their characters are better than average commoners.
Professional computer geek
Well, this was not the only option they had, i presented like three other options apart from this dungeon and there was seven other options to discover.
Even though they knew this and out of game they know i make alot of work with my sessions in creating options because i told them they are fred to do whatever and go anywhere, they decided to go there, even though they had been warned. And it wasnt really deadly all in all. To be honest i would put it as a hard encounter at most.
But should i not use monster actions just because my players think it is ”too much”?
I am a player in some of their RPGs where they are DM and i got kickad from one campaign and in the other i lost all my weapons the first session and i am not complaining about that, because in game anything happens.
Good or bad, you got to adjust to whatever goes down and try to make the best of it. Both as DM and as a player.
Being a D&D player is a lot like being one of the five blind guys trying to describe an elephant. You only have the most immediate information and almost never see the big picture. Being the DM is like being the sighted guy who can see the elephant and it is your job to help the blind guys grasp the big picture. What you know for a fact, the players may be entirely ignorant of. You have to shovel information repeatedly at them before they catch on. Warnings from the DM are not so much warnings as plot hooks, especially when they come from street beggars who are nowhere near as formidable as the characters. It’s like expecting adults to stay out of closets because children say there are monsters there…ya right. Not to mention that the dangerous places are the places adventurers go, not places adventurers avoid.
What you have to realize is that, as the DM, you can kill the characters on a whim. There is no challenge in that. The challenge is metering encounters so that they are thrilling for the players, risky for the characters and fun for everyone involved. It may be fun for you when the game is very dangerous but your players are signalling you that they are not having as much fun as they would like. Some players enjoy a very adversarial game. Some don’t. Seems like yours may belong to the latter group. If you keep on the way you are now, you run the risk of having a group of adventurers that twiddle their thumbs in the local tavern because they are terrified of and feel powerless in the world you have created for them.
Perhaps, but they had other options as well. As i wrote earlier i create about ten different things each game for them to explore and encounter.
The other things i gave them as options even had rewards, but they wanted to go there. They met NPC’s and small group of monsters before this happened.
they talked it over as a group and decided to go there, even though they were warned. Even though they knew there was no reward.
But what is the purpose of a game if everything is supposed to be easy? RPG is all about being a character in a game where anything could happen, in my opinion that is the thrill of the game.
If a stranger told me to stay away from a place because it is dangerous, i would stay away from it and find the thrill from something less dangerous.
if anything they could’ve tried to learn something about that dungeon before entering it.
they hade several wins up until that dungeon, no one actually died but something made a twist in the game, that gives the players opportunity to create a sidequest to find a cure for the aging.
ofcourse it is a bad idea but of we are not supposed to use such monsters as DMs, why were they even created in the first place.
I would never create a quest that has an instakill monster but if they Explore the land i think it is appropriate to have them be able to encounter those if they want to.
I would let them encounter like:
As you struggle through the mosquitoinfested svamp you see a strange creature at a distance. It has large body with a long tail and it has a long thin neck with a large head raised not far from the ground. (Catoblepas) What do you do?
this creature could be deadly, but it only attacks if it gets threatened by something coming too close.
this way they can choose to attack it, get near to it or completely ignore it.
If they would attack it and die, thats their fault in my opinion.
or am i wrong?
Yeah i get that, i know i could koll them easily but i dont do that because i want them to have fun. An adventure you will 100% returnera without setbacks, is not an adventure if you Ask me.
In that case one could call going to the local store an adventure, but even that isnt 100% safe anymore..
Maybe i am just not cut to be a DM.
because in my opinion RPG is about exploring a world you dont know and you are free to do whatever you want, but whatever you do could end up in consequences just like in real life.
If RPG has become a game where you just find quests on billboards and go from one battle to another with the smallest amount of NPC encounter. Then i suppose this isnt the game i thought it would be.
I wouldn't say you aren't cut out to DM. First and foremost, don't be hard on yourself. Just remember, this game is about having fun (you have fun building the world and telling your story, and they have fun by adventuring/leveling/rpging), and yes danger and the excitement that goes with it can be fun for players. The thing you have to remember is that it can't become adversarial (DM vs Players) because the players have to trust that the DM is looking out for their enjoyment. You also can't build in these choices with a couple of choices being deadly encounters and just let the chips fall. It's up to you to constantly adjust and scale the encounters on the fly so that the consequences aren't game breaking. DnD is a slow game and most people are lucky to get 2 sessions in a month. So when something happens to a player (death, permanent stat decrease, loss of items, etc), that consequence may only span a few sessions, but that is months in real time that the player broods on it.
Instead of investing time in trying to get a bunch of randos on the internet to agree with your POV in this matter, you would, IMHO, be far better served by listening to your players. They are giving you feedback. They have indicated that your actions make them feel like you are actively trying to kill them. They are telling you the type of game they want and it’s not exactly this.
I think it would be constructive to start by abandoning the idea that any encounter that isn’t deadly is too easy. There is a vast swath of territory between killing the characters and giving them a cakewalk. Figuring out where on that spectrum your game belongs and making constant adjustments to ensure it remains in that sweet spot is absolutely the most pressing, most difficult task to tackle as a DM.
Or you can go back to your group, explain that the randos on the internet had no compelling arguments and the game will continue on as deadly as it has been thus far. They’ll have to suck it up or figure out another way to make the game more enjoyable for themselves. Just be aware that this sometimes entails players deciding they don’t want to play your game anymore.
Thats the thing, i asked for feedback and i only got that the campaign i am running is not what they are used too. They didnt say what is good or what is bad really. But the complain about minor things otherwise, when i give them opportunity to actually say what they think they give me like nothing.
I am asking people on this forum because i believe you have a better experience in thisgame than i do and i am asking as kind of last resort because i have tried talking to my group but get nothing in return. Being DM is difficult as it is, but it doesnt get any better when one doesnt give any feedback when it is requested.
I decided not to plan another session until they ask for it, that way i can clearly see if they want to continue or not. Will still finish the prework so it is ready if they'd ask for another session.
Getting useable feedback is the most challenging part of being a GM in my experience.
There is the Stars and Wishes methods that I used with reasonable success, but it is always a challenge. I noticed that I do get better feedback when I give feedback in the very same format to the players first.
I would suggest starting like this: (I do this usually via Discord messages, because I want to be able to review my feedback before sending it out. Criticism, even if constructive, is always difficult to accept. Therefore I like to make sure that it is articulated as non-accusatory as possible.)
Things I liked in our last adventure:
Things I want more of:
It is a little bit of work, but it might pay off.
Regarding your beggar situation.
I would address that very directly. Just talk to your playes about that very situation and tell them how you indented the situation to come across, and which reactions you were anticipating from the characters. Then ask how the situation came across and how the players interpreted what was presented to them.
If there is a big disconnect between your intentions and their perceptions, ask them how you should have presented the situation in order for them to react the way you were hoping.
Use that feedback to tailor your GM style to the players you are playing with.
You've replied multiple times to people who have given you the sensible advice "A beggar warning the characters of a dangerous haunted mansion is an invitation to go there" telling them they are wrong, which implies that you are not looking for discussion on this or for people's opinions, but rather you are looking to be told that you are a good DM and what you did was right. The fact that your players have come away dissatisfied is a bad thing. It doesn't mean that you necessarily did anything wrong, but they were dissatisfied enough for you to ask the question, meaning you suspect you did something wrong but don't want to be told that you did.
You didn't one-shot the party, and if you made an error it was that your warning was delivered by a beggar; presumably a level 0 commoner. Why tell the PCs about the haunted ruins if you didn't intend them to go there? Maybe if the beggar says "An adventuring party went there and got wiped out, and ten of the king's knights disappeared there too" then that can give the right level of threat.
Some things to consider about monster abilities that I'd recommend never using:
Your best bet is to provide an easy solution to the aging. You put in monsters that could cause massively negative effects that the players don't like, with no way of them really avoiding them, and you fed them a bread crumb trail to tell them to walk right into them. A good option would be to de-age them by 10 years per day until they are back to normal.
Assuming that they have never read about a catoblepas in the appropriate book, how would they have any idea about its ultra-lethal death ray? There is no foreshadowing there. But even so, there is an unspoken contract between DM and player that goes like so:
In your catoblepas example, if it's not that threatening to the party then it's no real issue. But if that death ray could potentially kill a player in one turn, all they know is that they've see a cow-like creature in a swamp. They have no warning as to what it is. It could be a CR5 monster, a CR10 monster, or a CR20 monster. They trust in the DM that if a combat breaks out that simply choosing to walk up to it won't one-shot them.
If you do play it like that, then the players are forced to treat every potential NPC as though they might be level 20, every monster as though it might be a polymorphed red dragon. They simply don't know what the power levels are, and have to trust you not to set them impossible challenges.
You can run your game as you want, but as you said, it seems to mismatch your players' expectations.
One way to keep them generally safe is to make sure that any encounters in the area they start the campaign are suited for a level 1 party. Slightly beyond that, they become difficult enough for a level 2 party. The idea is that they are never too surprised by the difficulty of an encounter. They learn when they encounter an almost deadly encounter that maybe they should turn back. You can also ramp up the difficulty of encounters as they delve deeper into a dungeon.
Retreating isn't always a practical option, especially for lower level characters. Say you are in melee range. You can Disengage as an action and move your movement speed. Assuming your enemy has the same movement speed, they can move and attack you. Repeat until you are dead. Or, you can skip the Disengage, take an opportunity attack, move, and double your move with the Dash action. Your enemy also Dashes and arrives back in melee range. Next round repeat and take another opportunity attack until you are dead. Of course, one of your PCs can make a noble sacrifice and lead the enemy one way while the others run the other direction.
There are, instead, optional chase rules in the DMG. Another way to give your players an option to escape is to create an entrance to a monster lair that's too small for the monster to pass through. That way, as long as the PCs can get that far without getting killed, they're home free.
If I were you, I wouldn't fully flesh out 10 different random encounters. Think about it this way. Instead of rolling during the game, you can roll ahead of time, and then you know which encounters you need to fully build. Maybe if they spend more time wandering around, you'll need more rolls, but 2-4 encounters is probably enough, and if they need more, you can just replay one. If you're wandering around the same area, you're likely to encounter the same dangers multiple times. In fact that will drive home the point that continuing to waste time will just lead to neverending attacks.
Foreshadowing: As others have said, you need a way to signal to the players that this is a difficult encounter. If you think they'll get into bother, you could have them make an appropriate check (e.g. nature, arcana, perception, etc) and depending on the roll, feed them appropriate information. Maybe it reminds them of something they've been told, or they notice a particular feature that looks 'wierd'.
Session Prep: Prepping 10 encounters is a lot of work. I tend to ask my players what they want to do next session, then prepare for that. And make sure you recycle unused encounters, again to save you time. DM burnout becomes a thing.
Campaign Style: a simple way to signal that the campaign could be deadly is to require the players have a backup character! But this is also something that should be discussed in session 0.
The Specific Issue: They don't like ageing 40 years? You've just created a new quest to find the wizard (for whatever) who can undo the curse. He or she might require something more than gold to do it though, so there's another adventure.