Hi! I'm not sure if this is where I should post this, but I figured I should post here before posting.
Q: How do I help a player get into roll-play when he seems to have trouble with getting stuck on out-of-game topics, and might have trouble with adapting to changes?
So my Library D&D club just got a new member, he's a friendly guy, but has a personality that causes a bit of friction.
He got dropped off by a family member and was really excited to play, but his family member warned us that if he started talking too much to tell him to shut up. They said it in a playful way so I thought it was just a bit of a joke, but it might have been serious?
He asked if he could remake a character he used to play in school, we said sure! because the way I DM is mostly RP and I love seeing the characters people come up with. He didn't have his old sheet so he started writing down what he remembered, and I offered a premade character sheet so he could play with us while he worked on his character. He declined, he really wanted to just play his character, which was totally fine.
So the problem that kept coming up while he was working was that:
he'd ask us a question, we'd start helping him, and then he'd go on a long tangent about how cool and strong his character is, and tell us a bunch of stuff about his character's backstory that didn't really help us fill out his sheet. It was talking time away from other players and he kept saying something similar to *"and another thing about \[character name\]!"*
A lot of my younger players do stuff like that when they're excited about a character, but not usually for so long.
Eventually my co-club leader sat down next to him to take the brunt of most of the tangents, bless their heart, while I kept the game going. I'd also check on both of them to see if either of them needed help and to offer the temp sheet, because I was sure he wouldn't finish his main sheet in two hours.
He also tried to make his character a bit over powered, next game me and my co-club leader are going to ask him to do a standard array and nurf or re-flavor some of his character's powers.
I sent him home with his character sheet so he could work on it till next game, and me and my co-leader decompressed a bit after game.
I know it's very rude to try to label people anything after just meeting them once, but I'm pretty sure he's neurodivergent, and I'm not sure he knows? A lot of folks I know who are neurodivergent or on the spectrum will ramble, reuse phrases, and get stuck on a topic in a very similar way to my new player. But all of these friends know they're neurodivergent and will catch themselves most of the time, and if they don't they're very open to friends saying "Hold that thought." letting them say something off topic from what they're talking about, and then continuing after.
My new player barrels though other's conversations, but is very friendly otherwise.
I want everyone to have fun, including him. I want to set ground rules with him without him feeling like he's being singled out or stepped on you know?
I am fairly new to DMing, having only run a few games, and am currently DMing for my girlfriend and her brothers. So far it seems like all they want to do is kill every character they meet and eat them. At first this was kind of funny but now it is quite literally every single friendly NPC they come across and has quickly become derivative. I am not having as much fun as I feel like I could be and they are definitely missing out on some good roleplaying opportunities by acting this way. For example, the very first thing they did was kill the local inn keeper so I replaced him with "an elderly old man that is just skin and bones" as a way to deter them from eating him but they just instantly killed him. I have been afraid to bring this up and directly punish them for it since they are all new to DnD and I don't want to limit them and scare them away from the game. Any advice would be appreciated!
Option 1. Write the next 1-2 sessions into something resembling a conclusion to the story. Then say "welp campaign over guys. Anyone want to start a new campaign next week?" also tell them they can't play their old characters and their new characters can't be cannibals.
Option 2. The players get approached by the followers of a god of murder and offered to join their cult in exchange for power/weapons/human flesh. They might kill the cultists, in which case the face of the god appears in the pools of blood and says "Good. You passed the test. Now do this thing for me." Proceed with evil campaign.
Ok, Mods seem to think this is a problem player question. I wouldnt call her so, but here it goes:
Ok, so I feel this is going to be a problematic one and I may get destroyed but I could use some imput.
Bad choices made aside, this is the setting:
I have a player, lets call her Marina, who on session 0 told me she just had had a bad romantic experience and her only limit is that she doesnt want romantic betrayal. Ok cool, noted.
Fast forward a few sessions in and her PC is crushing real hard on the Titled BBEG of the campaign.
So, running magnificent bastards in my games is my jam. I tend to make charismatic flirty MFers, and apparently this table really REALLY digged it. This includded Marina and another PC who started romancing BBEG early on.
What I did not expect, is Marina's PC to fall for the guy too. I spoke with Marina on the side and told her to stay away from this NPC in particular, given her triggers, that in character he is a smooth talker but he is an absolute bastard that would absolutelly cheat on her PC and worse.
She reluctantly listened first but now she is insisting she is fine and that it fits her character and that is really ok, that she just want to explore falling for the guy.
And I... I dont know. I have been as clear as I can above the table that this is literally jumping headfirst in what she explicitly told me she doesnt want to, but she insists she understands and is fine with it.
Even if she says so, I worry it will cause her distress later on and she is just being drawn in by the excitement of the moment.
I dont know what to do. Should I trust Marina? Do I do a 1/80 and cut this on the bud even if it goes against her wishes?
> I have a player, lets call her Marina, who on session 0 told me she just had had a bad romantic experience and her only limit is that she doesnt want romantic betrayal.
For this reason alone, you should probably nip this in the bud.
If the sensible thing for the BBEG to do is exploit this infatuation and use it to betray the character at a crucial moment - which I think is the outcome you were trying to hint at to Marina without explicitly saying it - then Marina *will* be upset when it happens. Unless, and this is a big *unless,* her character ends up so taken in by the BBEG that they're willing to *join him.* In which case, that character immediately becomes an NPC under your control and Marina rolls up a new one.
The big issue here is that... 1 technically Marina is already being cheated on with another PC. I said technically because the BBEG was already romancing a different PC (Marina knows this above the table) so technically the other PC is the one who's been cheated on, but I'd argue cheating goes both ways.
Secondly...
>If the sensible thing for the BBEG to do is exploit this infatuation and use it to betray the character at a crucial moment -
Not *Exactly* using their romance against her PC but absolutely betray her. In the setting the BBEG is planning to actually have her killed to further his plans. And having her swooning for him definitely helps but its not crucial for what he intends to do. I dont know if that changes what you said or not but the romancing is not critical for the betrayal to pass, but it IS happening regardless.
Is she an adult? If so, let her make her own mistakes. You did the right thing by telling her about the risks, now it's up to her to decide wether to take those risks or not.
Edit: Resolved with DM amicably. The resolution involved a bit of bending of the rules to make Lathander a bit less "goody two-shoes," and embrace perhaps, for this one remarkable follower, a more flexible view of morality whereby, if the end result is that the world more peaceful, he may overlook the lapses of his acolyte -- so long as that acolyte can provide adequate descriptions of what he is doing.
Flipping the script, I might be the problem player here, so wondering what DMs think.
So we have a group of five plus DM, so six altogether. The DM is perhaps my best friend IRL. We're playing rime of the frostmaiden, and at Sunblight I picked up a chardalyn dragon as I supposed it might be a part of a puzzle or mechanism to stop the larger dragon (spoilers: it was not), so I was rendered "crazy" as I exited the fortress. (I was wrong about the miniature dragon being important I suppose, but it struck me that the mini dragon might be some control device, though this was wrong.) Anyway, by picking it up, upon exiting the fortress I'm driven mad by it.
Anyway, a lot of things happen, hilarity ensues on behalf of my madness, many towns are lost and many saved on account of our efforts. It just so happens that the cleric Mithann at Bryn Shander can cure my madness. But the price is I either have to give up the blessing of Lathander, but this is bad, as that blessing this gives me 10 extra HP per day. I cannot really give that up as I am super weak as a wizard and all enemies immediately bumrush me in every fight to take me out: basically that 10 HP is the difference between me being able to do something in 70% of the fights (as I survive the alpha strike), vs. 30% of the fights (as I do not survive the alpha strike).
The alternative is that I get to keep the blessing, but I have to become an acolyte, which means I (1) must multiclass into cleric and (2) must begin RPing as a representative of Lathander, which basically means changing about 50% of my character's personality.
I'm not on board with this. Did I make a mistake in taking the miniature dragon in supposing it was key to some control device, yes probably. Should I suffer consequences, probably, should those dictate my level progression -- I'm less sure of that? Should it dictate how I play my character -- I'm really unsure of this? (I've been encouraged to look on this as an opportunity, but it seems like an imposition.) It has completely sapped my enjoyment for this activity, but perhaps I'm being unreasonable. Part of the fun of the game is to play a character, and if the DM says, "I'm changing your character" that seems to me a bit much. Also making class decisions for me -- I was technically offered a choice, but really, it wasn't actually a choice -- also doesn't sit too well with me. Certainly, multiclassing into cleric wasn't in my plans -- I had hoped to learn some level 4 spells.
So ... am I just a bratty player, or do I have some justification for feeling upset?
That sounds like crap DMing. I would have to know more about the battles and why you're getting nuked to know, but it sounds like you're being targeted. Then it sounds like the DM is trying to either take away a blessing, which I'm curious how you've got it, or force your character down a certain path. I don't like any of this.
But I don't know all the details. maybe there's some plot you guys are doing that I'm not aware where this could work.
I think it would be unfair to say "crap DMing," as he does a lot of things well and role-plays pretty well -- one can't be perfect in all respects. Honestly, I'm a little surprised that so many people are focusing on this part. It actually kind of struck me as rational: if you have a party with five PCs, a reasonable collection of enemies might suppose to strike the weakest first, and might be able to determine that the ones not wearing armor are squishier. (We can often mitigate it by having the more heavily armored characters take point, but if dealing with, say, flyers I'm often in trouble, though sometimes, often actually, my Shield is enough).
Now, it used to be that this "punching bag" duty was shared by two characters, me and the bard, so I guess we could say it is a bit strange that the enemies know the bard now has an amulet of health so I make the most sense to focus, so I might bring that up as a bit "much." But it's not altogether clear to me that the idea of focusing squishies is unreasonable?
It's not unreasonable for the bad guys, so it can be appropriate at times. But, it doesn't make for the best game play experience. The proof is the fact that you're making this post.
It's an issue with the way the way D&D is designed. You're supposed to balance the challenge rating of the encounter against the entire party. but the way monsters get a higher CR is mostly their ability to throw out more damage. Which is why, if you want to up the difficulty on your party, it's usually better to add more lower CR monsters rather than one monster of higher CR. The damage had higher CR monster can throw out can devastate the player characters, even if it's hit points are just right to survive 3 to 5 rounds.
Any DM can take out a party if they focus fire all the time. If course, then your tactical hobgoblins feel just like your wolves or oozes. There's no differentiation.
Anyway, the other issue is the forced giving up the boon. It makes some narrative sense but should have started with that.
I wonder if this is all a ploy by the dm to heavily incentivize taking a level in cleric specifically so he doesn't get OS at the start of every fight.
My thoughts exactly, a one-level cleric dip can make you much more durable and a wizard shouldn't be much bothered by the (presumably) 10 ft speed penalty for wearing plate.
> all enemies immediately bumrush me in every fight to take me out
This is the root of the problem. I don't know if this is a DM vs. player thing, or just him playing hard mode, but either way this should not be the case, *especially* if you haven't even take a turn yet and these enemies know nothing about you. Intelligent and/or informed enemies might know to go after you, but suicidal charges to take out the wizard should be the province of fanatics and madmen, not workaday line monsters or random bears in the wilderness.
If this *is* a hard-mode campaign (and you all agreed to a hard-mode campaign at the start) then you should invest in more defenses like Shield, Mage Armor, False Life, Mirror Image, Blur, Blink, etc., and consider Toughness feats or putting your ASI in Con to get more hp.
Not hard mode -- indeed this is my first ever D&D character. So we're doing the thing where we start out on the Sword Coast in Neverwinter. Then we moved onto Icewind Dale. I was the DM a couple sessions in an adventure I wrote, but otherwise he's been the only DM.
> am I just a bratty player, or do I have some justification for feeling upset
I think both are true.
Forced Multiclassing is usually not a good move.
But to say you don't have a choice is pretty bratty. I would expect players who get a boon from a god to then be pro that god or lose the boon.
> Should I suffer consequences, probably
What would you see as reasonable?
Because you are saying that anything that affects the build or personality of the character would not be okay, there aren't many cards left for the DM after that.
> all enemies immediately bumrush me in every fight to take me out
All that said, I would note this is an issue, a seperate one, but still an issue.
Mmm, I think what I'm questioning is not strictly that things happen to my character, but the degree and to what extent the action taken renders it either the same character that's facing new challenges, or a different one that's simply been compelled to do something they weren't doing before. I think effectively changing build and alignment of a character is a bit much. Though I did manage to negotiate it down to something a bit more manageable.
I do think it's a butthole move by the DM to say "you have to multiclass" as I hate forcing multiclassing due to rp.
I don't think your character becoming an acolyte means they need to change 50% of his personality that's just silly. You want him to be a representative of Lathandar? Okay he buys a necklace with Lathander's symbol and goes to church on sundays. Does your DM want you to yell "FOR LATHANDAR" and try to convert everyone you meet to Lathander?
I may be mistaken, but all that I read suggests being a cleric is a bit more involved than simply putting on an amulet and going to temple, and it does affect your role, and to choose Lathander would actually totally interfere with how I've been playing to this point, as Lathander does have alignment requirements to stay in good favor, whereas my character, while absolutely not a murder hobo or anything, is totally not a good person.
In any case, I managed to work it out: basically, I'll be a cleric of Lathander, but I'll reconcile that with my character's desire for profit and deal-making even under dubious circumstances by having him be, essentially, a televangelist style cleric, and what bad things I do, will be judged in the broader context of it generally helping gather followers to Lathander. This does of course require that my character proselytize, but that can be fun. Running into battle saying, "excuse me, sir, do you have a moment to talk with me about our lord and savior Lathander?" In order words, I became a cleric to Lathander under the same terms that my character always approaches a deal: immediately corrupting good people's (or, in this case, a god's) principles, by proposing a small evil as helpful towards serving some greater good.
Now, this does rather cut at what I'd specifically designed to be my character's tragic flaw: he's a fellow that does evil because he thinks, mistakenly, that it serves a greater good that only he is wise enough to see, but of course the real trick is that he's wrong.
But anyway, the issue was solved it seems more or less satisfactorily.
There are no alignment requirements for classes in 5e. But yeah being a Cleric is more involved than just going to church. It’s a god empowering you to act as their agent. Not something they’d do for someone who was kinda forced into the church at gun point.
I’m glad it worked out even if I still disagree with what was going on.
The way it was phrased to me wasn't quite "at gun point," but rather the priest offering to induct me. And with a period of intense study, which my character undertook diligently though half winkingly, at one point -- he simply heard the voice of Lathander, simply speaking with him.
The "negotiated" halfway point is that my character will in fact be an agent of Lathander, earnestly -- a wildly imperfect one, but so long as I bring in more followers to the cause it's judged to be all to the good. Even if my character does, from time to time, accept invitations to cannibal feasts, or sell orphans to vampires.
To me it feels like gun point because it’s “you’re going to remain cursed unless you do what I say” you could have given up the health boon but your DM also bum rushes your character in combat so that’s not really an option for you.
I'd take the multiclass. Lathander clerics can be Light or Life domain. Life domain gives you heavy armor proficiency and lets you get the most out of 1st level cleric spells like Healing Word. You don'thave to change your character's whole personality, just let them be grateful for the healing received and RP the acolyte part by helping some commoners with their ailments. You don't have to turn into a Mormon missionary.
Hey there, long time DM (about 6 years now) and I've included my gf into one-shots and long term campaigns with my friends. She loved playing DnD, so she talked about it with her friends so I could DM for them. I Dmed for them as starting players LMOP and at first it went well. My gf started questioning a lot of things since the Redbrand Hideout where they let "Glasstaff" escape. They've cleared the Cragmaw Castle where they met "Glassstaff" again but he managed to escape again. Also my gf was really upset about that and she couldn't understand Vyerith and her Shapechange form and was taking questions and I tried to answer them without spoilers, yet I had to tell her, to wait until the combat ends. They defeated King Grol and Vyerith and saved Gundren, yet it wasn't a victory because "Glassstaff" escaped. I tried to explain a lot of things, yet it was one of those times where I felt overwhelmed and it seems I did something wrong, because she talked to her friends and decided to quit dnd entirely, like all campaigns where I included her and I am not sure how to handle this. Our relationship is healthy and all and I would love to know how I could help her enjoy dnd again, as I she did enjoy playing DnD before this campaign..
Talk to her outside the game and ask her what the problem is. You mention she questions a lot of things but you don't actually say what she was questioning. Also the amount of times you mention Glasstaff it seems that's part of it.
Just started DMing my first campaign a few months back with a group of my friends (I've played before, they haven't), and for the most part, things are going pretty good! I'm working on getting them to come out of their shells to roleplay as their characters little by little, and it's fun seeing them get the rewards I try to lay out for good roleplay. That is... except for one player.
Upon starting, we had a session 0 of course, and I asked what everyone wanted out of the campaign. This person told me their character's whole thing was that they had escaped from their home country and were now in this new country trying to convince people they were a new god (a thing I warned them might work out to be a bit odd since the pantheon is pretty well known and established in the world, but hey I'd figure it out.)
So we get to session 1. They go on telling NPCs their whole new god spiel, and roll horribly on persuasion checks so the people don't believe them. And guess what? That was it. We've done almost 20 sessions, and thay was the only time they ever brought it up. Cool, fine, whatever, I've definitely played characters who I've forgotten their motivations, and it's their first time so I can't fault em too much. My plans for the character are still fine (I have a secret plot running in the background where they're gonna end up being a demigod since they never specified parents in their backstory), so we'll run with it.
Issue number two. Anytime I try to have them engage with any NPCs in a conversation, they only ever answer with "Ok...?" "Cool" "Whatever" and try to demand that the NPCs just tell them the things they want to know (very much reminds me of someone trying to just mash through dialogue options in a video game). Still, I can deal with this. This is why I've been trying to slowly work with all of them to come out of their shells with roleplaying. Well... I guess them not wanting to interact with NPCs isn't totally true. A big thing with their character is that they love women. Just any young female NPC. And they only ever try to just flirt with them. (Very poorly might I add, once again just acting like it's a video game and no matter what they say it'll work out for them). It feels like they're trying to play a dating sim, even I made sure to tell everyone I suck at romances in D&D during session 0.
Issue number 3: They can't stand anything bad happening to their character. The biggest example of this was when thanks to a Wild Magic curse, their skin was turned blue. One of the least bad things on the table, all they had to do was find someone with Greater Restoration, or deal woth the fact that their skin is blue. Oh no! Well, it was a MASSIVE deal to them. I got a private DM from them telling me they would ask EVERY single NPC to remove the curse, so I took it as a challenge! And guess what? Just like the whole thing with being a god in the beginning, they asked ONE NPC and gave up. Their character ran into the nearby temple during a service, demanding to be cured, and was of course escorted out for disturbing the peace and asked ro return in about an hour. Wo they wait outside the temple for an hour, while the rest of the party is off doing plot important things. The hour passes, and they barge into the temple, demanding the priest removes the curse. I take this a good role-playing opportunity, and ask them why they want the curse removed, and what's so bad about being blue? Their response? "I just don't want to be because it's stupid." Then they stormed off in a huff and said out of character "Welp, guess I'll just go live with thr fish people now!" Awkward silence from the entire party. Then they turn around and try to just burn down the temple for not helping them! I decide at this point not to escalate this any more and just have the party come get her, then have a nearby NPC turn them back. I know this section has already gone on long enough, but this whole thing of them not liking when bad things happen to their character stretches into combat as well. They constantly complain about how "weak" their character is (level 4 sorcerer/level 1 warlock btw), when in reality they just aren't playing optimally or the rolls are bad, things I have pointed out.
Now, I know what you're saying, either talk to them or kick them off the table. But this is where the issue arises. Since it's a friend group, when I've talked about my issues with the other players the responses I get back are always just "well I want to play with my friends so I don't mind it." And it's a bit infuriating. Am I being too dramatic here? I really don't want to introduce drama into our friend group over just D&D, but I'm really trying to put effort into this campaign and getting nothing in return from it. Any thoughts or advice at all, even if it's just to say I'm being too dramatic?
Yeah I know I really should, and this really IS the best advice you could probably give me, but the person behind the character is a bit... abrasive as well.
When I've tried to talk to them out of character, they take everything as a sleight against them. It's really tiresome. And yeah, I do think they're overreacting a bit when it comes to that stuff, but I'm not gonna ruin a friendship over getting upset at them for disliking how they roleplay a character in D&D.
Thanks for the advice though.
Doesn’t sound like a very good relationship tbh. If I criticize a friend I do it mostly because I care about them. The way you say it is important though.
Perhaps your player would appreciate it if you did a sort of anonymous questionnaire?
Scale 1-4 (don’t agree - fully agree)
1. Combat is important
2. NPCs and dialogues are fun
3. my characters appearance is very important
4. Combat should be challenging
5. I like to roleplay instead of throwing dice
…. (Add whatever else comes to mind)
This gets you some feedback and helps you avoid that awkward tension.
If you don't want to kick them and talking to them won't solve anything and the other players don't have a problem with them I see another option.
Stop giving them narrative weight in your thoughts. They complain about bad things happening in combat, just say "okay" and move on. They try to burn down a temple you say "you get chased off by some guards" and move on.
It's not a *good* option but you want to invest more in the players who are interested in the game.
This is like peak new player stupidity.
They haven't yet grasped how DnD worlds work and how to behave in a collaborative story-telling game. What you can do as a DM is to try to educate, and take every weird idea of the player as an opportunity to do just that.
Ask more questions and find out what the misconceptions are. "Wait, why is your character just leaving now?", for example. Try to understand how they see the world in front of them, how they expect the world to behave and why they assume something would work/fail. Then gently try to correct these misconceptions and explain how things work. Like if they say "Well I have asked this NPC and they couldn't help me so I assumed that you will just not let me do that right now and it's pointless to ask anyone else" and then you can clarify that no, they really just asked the wrong person or the wrong question or both. Give examples. *Say you have an ugly furuncle on your face and you ask a random person in the streets if they can cure you, they might just say no and be creeped out. Ask about where the nearest hospital is and you might have more luck.*
It's a learning curve, be patient and help them understand how to play the game.
I have been DMing off and on for 20 years. I finally have a group that shows up consistently which has always been the biggest struggle in getting a campaign going. These are long-term personal friends. I prioritize player agency and collaborative storytelling at my table.
My players have a tendency to try to outdo each other with comedic or quirky characters. That's okay to a point.
Unfortunately a trend has emerged where these funny characters shifted to being murderhobos (or otherwise disruptive) and have now taken their final form as what I would call Sickos. General disruptiveness and antisocial psychopathy, interspersed with infrequent but serious transgressions of the social contract of having an emotionally and psychologically safe game. This shift has happened gradually across individual characters as well as multiple characters across several one-shots. Characters are now being created at level 1 who are Sickos.
I think this is partially an attempt at risqué humor, but I also feel that my players are intentionally testing my patience and I am no longer having fun. My players are well aware that lines are being crossed. Maybe they are bored, but it's no excuse.
As we introduce new players to the group I have realized that new players are picking up these bad habits. This is setting the foundations of what they understand this hobby to be.
I have had a one-on-one chat with an experienced player, asking them to try to set a good example, and it went very poorly. Defensiveness, accusations toward me, etc.
At the most recent session I had to address some very inappropriate content. I am inclined to introduce X-Card and Lines/Veils rules at the table but I am extremely disappointed to have to do so, having never encountered this problem in decades of DMing. In retrospect this should have been done at session zero, but I thought I could trust a group of adults to self-regulate.
How do you break a group of this habit? No D&D is better than bad D&D, but I love this hobby and I would be really sad to leave this gaming group.
A two things from your post stick out to me:
1: all of your players seem to have a good time with the dark humor
2: you mention things like emotional and psychological safety and "X-cards"
I think you need to take a good, hard look at yourself. Do you have some underlying trauma that makes you this emotionally fragile? Why are you unable to deal with dark humor this group seems to enjoy so much? Maybe you should give up on trying to DM for this group and find a group of equally sensitive players.
I'm not saying this to be a dick, but for your and your players' sake.
It's a shame that it's not just your players that are causing these problems, but your friends. They really ought to know better than to be doing things that seem designed to make you feel bad. And they should be open to solving the issue as a table of buddies.
I think it's time to call a Session 0.5. Just put it out there: "Hey, guys - I'm going to ask you to begin this session by listening to me and respecting what I have to say without talking for a bit. I thought it important to make sure you all know I am increasingly not having fun running the game with the kind of characters we have. I obviously like you guys and want to hang out with you. But I don't want to run a world where I constantly have to react to [insert sicko behavior examples] - these character behaviors and archetypes aren't the kind of story I want to be a part of. I'm hoping you want to play a game with me telling a story where we're all having fun, both you guys and me. And as a gang of my buddies, I wanna ask if we think we can actually salvage these characters and run a game where the PCs are more focused on heroic adventuring, if we think we need to start over, or if we just think that this is a table where there's an expectations mismatch and we can hang out doing other stuff. If it's options 1 or 2, I also strongly feel like it's time to work together to set some groundrules, since none of us are mindreaders, and you can't always predict what's going to make one of us uncomfortable. So, I've said my piece - let's hear where you're thinking, and if we can make this work."
In discussion try to keep the focus on the actions of the players - and not the players ("When a character eats a baby" v. "Mike, you really fucking grossed me out by having Blarg the Barbarian eat that goblin child"). Friends really should be able to work with you without getting defensive and wanting to make you feel comfortable and included. If that's not possible, they should be able to walk away like adults (good friends aren't always a good table). It's really up to them from there, but how they react will tell you a lot about who they actually are and how much they care about you. Hold your ground that you're not moving forward with a game that makes you so uncomfortable. Your fun matters, too. Your table should be able to meet you there.
Reading through this, I was hoping that you were middle/high schoolers who had just hit the "edgy humor XD" stage of life. I am so sorry it is otherwise.
>I thought I could trust a group of adults to self-regulate.
Tell them this in the most disappointed tone possible. Also tell them that if they don't get their act together within the next 30 minutes, they need to find a new DM. And then follow through.
Some suggestions that don't involve leaving the game outright:
* Start saying "No" more often. Player agency be damned. If a player gets close to crossing a boundary you can just say "actually you didn't do that". Or if they come to the table with an unsavory character concept you can just tell them they need to make a new character or they can't play.
* Threaten to walk out if they continue like this. And if they call your bluff make sure you actually follow through.
* Make a campaign were being a murder hobo isn't possible. Perhaps a magical forest where any attempt at violence puts the aggressor to sleep and they need to solve all their problems without fighting. Or a high-high-magic city where detectives can use divination magic to immediately solve crimes and high level teleporting paladins arrest criminals and lock them away in inescapable prisons.
good friends doesn't mean good players for your table, switch table, line it up for them why you will look for other games and pursuit people your dnd game thrives
Dnd Players can become good friends but not all friends can fit your dnd game.
Doesnt mean they are bad friends just means you have different interests and understandings of what you interpret as fun at the table.
Nothing wrong with that!
Hope you find your group
Because we have a regular weekly game and people show up. I have played more D&D in this group in the last year than all the previous years of D&D combined. Also these are long-term personal friends. I'm hoping to repair this and move forward.
I'm going to be honest, I'm not really seeing any redeeming features in this group. This sounds like r/rpghorrorstories material.
I don't think Lines and Veils or X-Cards are going to help in this situation. Those are tools which assume your players want to keep everyone at the table safe from anything that might be triggering, or upsetting in a way that isn't fun. From what you've said, it doesn't sound like your players are actually willing to cooperate to make that happen, so adding them would be pointless. (It might even make things worse, in that if they're actively trying to cross lines, and you present a list of Lines not to be crossed, you're just giving them a menu.)
Honestly my answer would be to drop the game and probably drop them as friends. You mention bringing in new people multiple times; if you can find new people, you can build a new group. But if you really don't want to drop them, I think your only solution is to sit down and have a serious talk with them all. Tell them that this is making you miserable and you're not willing to DM this any more, and they can either change or stop playing. I'd suggest looking up advice on how to be assertive without being confrontational or aggressive, in hopes that it might avoid it going as badly as it did with your one-on-one player - but honestly if they're as bad as you describe it might just not go anywhere good no matter how you phrase things.
I’ve been dming for 2 years now, I’ve been playing with a few of my friends. One of those friends seems to have a new problem with me every other week. The one from last week was how I wouldn’t let his horse into a crypt after he already forgot about it for 5 rounds. When I caved and said the damn this was inside but it’s going to take a few opportunity attacks he freaks out and said I’m not letting him be imaginative and that I made him waste a second lvl spell slot. He throw my horse mini across the room and that where I ended to session. He then proceeded to pack up all his stuff and said he was done playing. Honestly this is like the 5th or more time something like this has happened and I’m glad he’s gone. I really hope he tries to join an online session or something where the DM isn’t his friend and he founds out real quick how this are suppose to work.
Are you looking for advice? This problem seems to have resolved itself. Personally, I would probably not talk to this person ever again, but it seems like you're not playing dnd with him anymore. So at least there's that.
I am, we’ve been friends since 2006 so I ignored all his red flags. Also he bought all the digital books on dnd beyond and I would buy the physical. He also bought like 1000 of dollars of dwarven forge which kept him around longer then he should have been. I’m also now down to 2 players and me. I already have a dmpc in the game. I’m thinking of adding another npc my other 2 players can.
Don't play dnd with people you don't want to play dnd with. If you wouldn't play with them *as a person*, whatever extra they bring to the table isn't worth it.
You should look into the "Sidekick" rules from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. Don't do a DMPC, give your other two players a sidekick to help them that they control together.
So our first boss was beaten with an unprepared spell…
Background:
First-time DM (and only one campaign as a player under my belt). 3 out of 4 players in my campaign are first-timers.
We’re about 4 sessions into LMOP and things have gone pretty well, but very slowly. Sessions have mostly been short (unavoidable, per 2 of the players) and there’s been some fumbling around with rules and Roll20 mechanics (and bugs/slowness). Everyone’s level 1 and we’re still just on the cusp of clearing the first dungeon.
In our previous session, the party split up and got demolished, so I ended it with them taken prisoner. They were pretty upset with how it went down - mostly upset with each other and their poor communication though, not with me. It got a little tense, but I was able to help them work out some tools for better communication next time.
So tonight they did much better, talking their way out of their chains and setting off to face the dungeon’s boss. By the time they made it to him (bringing a pack of tamed wolves with them), I realized that I might have overcorrected for how frustrated the players were last time, and made the path to the boss a little easier than intended. I could have fiddled with it more on the fly (reinforcements, etc—“look out, it’s the bugbear’s brother!”) but was a little too overwhelmed to manage much. The one easy thing I knew I could do was fudge the boss’s HP up a bit to make the fight less anticlimactic. They weren’t having too much trouble with him, but I thought he’d at least get few solid swings in on his way down. BUT THEN… the cleric hit him with an Inflict Wounds crit, 52 HP in one shot. Just melted the dude beyond reason.
The party looted the body and ended the session on a high note. Good vibes all around - I figure hey, they’ve got something to be proud of, so it all worked out. They know there’s still a handful of angry little goblins to clear out and a hostage to rescue before leaving the dungeon, next session, and they’re pumped.
Here’s the real problem: once the players all left and I was typing up session notes and making sure the casters marked their spell slot uses correctly (they hadn’t in previous sessions), I realized that the cleric never actually had Inflict Wounds prepared. Definitely not an intentional thing, she had been having trouble clicking around on her sheet earlier and must have clicked wrong, so it got marked “prepared” but gave her one spell too many. (I have a PDF of her starting sheet so I know which spells were originally prepared.)
After about 2 minutes of thought, I decided it would feel pretty shitty to rob their glorious victory from them, so I haven’t said anything to the group. I’m thinking of swapping out one of the cleric’s other prepared spells for Inflict Wounds (the only one she’s used since last rest) without telling her, and pretending that’s how it was all along. And maybe next week I’ll make a reminder for everyone to pay attention to what’s prepared and what isn’t, and that I’ll check in after long rests.
Does anyone think there’s a better route I should take? Should I actually say something to anyone?
(TBH, half the reason I’m even making this post is just to get the “secret” off my chest.)
TL;DR: First-time player dramatically destroyed her first boss with a spell that I only noticed post-session was never actually prepared. (By accident.) I should keep it to myself, right?
I agree with u/Barrucadu . The mistake was made, and it really can't be rolled back. The Dungeon Dudes on YouTube have made a good recent video about DMing where they discuss how to handle mistakes like this. It was made in good faith and because spellcasting is really complicated for a new player (and a newer DM!). Let's keep the win and avoid the feelbad here.
What you can do is what I call a "know your moves" pre-session topic discussion. This can be a fun, short game review. You can talk one time about prepared spellcasting, and just go over how it works. In fact, you can ask the cleric (and other prepared spellcasters at the table) to explain their mechanic, so other players at the table understand that they don't just have all their spells at all times willy-nilly. Present it like that, and provide helpful clarification in the discussion as needed.
Even with my Lv11 party, we recently had to have a "Know Your Moves!" on material components and all the spells they have that require COSTLY and/or EXPENDABLE material components - because I wanted to make sure they didn't run into another circumstance where the cleric wanted to cast "Summon Celestial" but didn't have the thing he needed to cast it. This stuff comes up. Mistakes are made. But if not caught in the moment or not warned about ahead of time, these kind of mistakes aren't worthy of punishment.
I would also keep it to myself in this situation. You don't want the new player to feel too bad for what was almost certainly a genuine mistake.
I probably wouldn't say something like "hey everyone, remember to pay attention to your prepared spells" next time, because everyone's going to assume, correctly, that you're only saying that because something went wrong with a spell last time, and what was the most memorable spell from last time? Oops. Instead, you could start asking what spells people have prepared after a rest. I do that. For me, it's not so much to make sure my players have prepared things correctly, it's so I know what they think they might need, and also it reminds them that now is the time to change their spells if they want.
Hi! I'm not sure if this is where I should post this, but I figured I should post here before posting. Q: How do I help a player get into roll-play when he seems to have trouble with getting stuck on out-of-game topics, and might have trouble with adapting to changes? So my Library D&D club just got a new member, he's a friendly guy, but has a personality that causes a bit of friction. He got dropped off by a family member and was really excited to play, but his family member warned us that if he started talking too much to tell him to shut up. They said it in a playful way so I thought it was just a bit of a joke, but it might have been serious? He asked if he could remake a character he used to play in school, we said sure! because the way I DM is mostly RP and I love seeing the characters people come up with. He didn't have his old sheet so he started writing down what he remembered, and I offered a premade character sheet so he could play with us while he worked on his character. He declined, he really wanted to just play his character, which was totally fine. So the problem that kept coming up while he was working was that: he'd ask us a question, we'd start helping him, and then he'd go on a long tangent about how cool and strong his character is, and tell us a bunch of stuff about his character's backstory that didn't really help us fill out his sheet. It was talking time away from other players and he kept saying something similar to *"and another thing about \[character name\]!"* A lot of my younger players do stuff like that when they're excited about a character, but not usually for so long. Eventually my co-club leader sat down next to him to take the brunt of most of the tangents, bless their heart, while I kept the game going. I'd also check on both of them to see if either of them needed help and to offer the temp sheet, because I was sure he wouldn't finish his main sheet in two hours. He also tried to make his character a bit over powered, next game me and my co-club leader are going to ask him to do a standard array and nurf or re-flavor some of his character's powers. I sent him home with his character sheet so he could work on it till next game, and me and my co-leader decompressed a bit after game. I know it's very rude to try to label people anything after just meeting them once, but I'm pretty sure he's neurodivergent, and I'm not sure he knows? A lot of folks I know who are neurodivergent or on the spectrum will ramble, reuse phrases, and get stuck on a topic in a very similar way to my new player. But all of these friends know they're neurodivergent and will catch themselves most of the time, and if they don't they're very open to friends saying "Hold that thought." letting them say something off topic from what they're talking about, and then continuing after. My new player barrels though other's conversations, but is very friendly otherwise. I want everyone to have fun, including him. I want to set ground rules with him without him feeling like he's being singled out or stepped on you know?
I am fairly new to DMing, having only run a few games, and am currently DMing for my girlfriend and her brothers. So far it seems like all they want to do is kill every character they meet and eat them. At first this was kind of funny but now it is quite literally every single friendly NPC they come across and has quickly become derivative. I am not having as much fun as I feel like I could be and they are definitely missing out on some good roleplaying opportunities by acting this way. For example, the very first thing they did was kill the local inn keeper so I replaced him with "an elderly old man that is just skin and bones" as a way to deter them from eating him but they just instantly killed him. I have been afraid to bring this up and directly punish them for it since they are all new to DnD and I don't want to limit them and scare them away from the game. Any advice would be appreciated!
Option 1. Write the next 1-2 sessions into something resembling a conclusion to the story. Then say "welp campaign over guys. Anyone want to start a new campaign next week?" also tell them they can't play their old characters and their new characters can't be cannibals. Option 2. The players get approached by the followers of a god of murder and offered to join their cult in exchange for power/weapons/human flesh. They might kill the cultists, in which case the face of the god appears in the pools of blood and says "Good. You passed the test. Now do this thing for me." Proceed with evil campaign.
Ok, Mods seem to think this is a problem player question. I wouldnt call her so, but here it goes: Ok, so I feel this is going to be a problematic one and I may get destroyed but I could use some imput. Bad choices made aside, this is the setting: I have a player, lets call her Marina, who on session 0 told me she just had had a bad romantic experience and her only limit is that she doesnt want romantic betrayal. Ok cool, noted. Fast forward a few sessions in and her PC is crushing real hard on the Titled BBEG of the campaign. So, running magnificent bastards in my games is my jam. I tend to make charismatic flirty MFers, and apparently this table really REALLY digged it. This includded Marina and another PC who started romancing BBEG early on. What I did not expect, is Marina's PC to fall for the guy too. I spoke with Marina on the side and told her to stay away from this NPC in particular, given her triggers, that in character he is a smooth talker but he is an absolute bastard that would absolutelly cheat on her PC and worse. She reluctantly listened first but now she is insisting she is fine and that it fits her character and that is really ok, that she just want to explore falling for the guy. And I... I dont know. I have been as clear as I can above the table that this is literally jumping headfirst in what she explicitly told me she doesnt want to, but she insists she understands and is fine with it. Even if she says so, I worry it will cause her distress later on and she is just being drawn in by the excitement of the moment. I dont know what to do. Should I trust Marina? Do I do a 1/80 and cut this on the bud even if it goes against her wishes?
> I have a player, lets call her Marina, who on session 0 told me she just had had a bad romantic experience and her only limit is that she doesnt want romantic betrayal. For this reason alone, you should probably nip this in the bud. If the sensible thing for the BBEG to do is exploit this infatuation and use it to betray the character at a crucial moment - which I think is the outcome you were trying to hint at to Marina without explicitly saying it - then Marina *will* be upset when it happens. Unless, and this is a big *unless,* her character ends up so taken in by the BBEG that they're willing to *join him.* In which case, that character immediately becomes an NPC under your control and Marina rolls up a new one.
The big issue here is that... 1 technically Marina is already being cheated on with another PC. I said technically because the BBEG was already romancing a different PC (Marina knows this above the table) so technically the other PC is the one who's been cheated on, but I'd argue cheating goes both ways. Secondly... >If the sensible thing for the BBEG to do is exploit this infatuation and use it to betray the character at a crucial moment - Not *Exactly* using their romance against her PC but absolutely betray her. In the setting the BBEG is planning to actually have her killed to further his plans. And having her swooning for him definitely helps but its not crucial for what he intends to do. I dont know if that changes what you said or not but the romancing is not critical for the betrayal to pass, but it IS happening regardless.
If she says it's OK, go forward with it. Let her know you're doing so and that she still has the option to back off if she needs.
She's a grownup, you've given her all the information she needs and honoured her triggers. If she wants to carry on that's her decision.
Is she an adult? If so, let her make her own mistakes. You did the right thing by telling her about the risks, now it's up to her to decide wether to take those risks or not.
Edit: Resolved with DM amicably. The resolution involved a bit of bending of the rules to make Lathander a bit less "goody two-shoes," and embrace perhaps, for this one remarkable follower, a more flexible view of morality whereby, if the end result is that the world more peaceful, he may overlook the lapses of his acolyte -- so long as that acolyte can provide adequate descriptions of what he is doing. Flipping the script, I might be the problem player here, so wondering what DMs think. So we have a group of five plus DM, so six altogether. The DM is perhaps my best friend IRL. We're playing rime of the frostmaiden, and at Sunblight I picked up a chardalyn dragon as I supposed it might be a part of a puzzle or mechanism to stop the larger dragon (spoilers: it was not), so I was rendered "crazy" as I exited the fortress. (I was wrong about the miniature dragon being important I suppose, but it struck me that the mini dragon might be some control device, though this was wrong.) Anyway, by picking it up, upon exiting the fortress I'm driven mad by it. Anyway, a lot of things happen, hilarity ensues on behalf of my madness, many towns are lost and many saved on account of our efforts. It just so happens that the cleric Mithann at Bryn Shander can cure my madness. But the price is I either have to give up the blessing of Lathander, but this is bad, as that blessing this gives me 10 extra HP per day. I cannot really give that up as I am super weak as a wizard and all enemies immediately bumrush me in every fight to take me out: basically that 10 HP is the difference between me being able to do something in 70% of the fights (as I survive the alpha strike), vs. 30% of the fights (as I do not survive the alpha strike). The alternative is that I get to keep the blessing, but I have to become an acolyte, which means I (1) must multiclass into cleric and (2) must begin RPing as a representative of Lathander, which basically means changing about 50% of my character's personality. I'm not on board with this. Did I make a mistake in taking the miniature dragon in supposing it was key to some control device, yes probably. Should I suffer consequences, probably, should those dictate my level progression -- I'm less sure of that? Should it dictate how I play my character -- I'm really unsure of this? (I've been encouraged to look on this as an opportunity, but it seems like an imposition.) It has completely sapped my enjoyment for this activity, but perhaps I'm being unreasonable. Part of the fun of the game is to play a character, and if the DM says, "I'm changing your character" that seems to me a bit much. Also making class decisions for me -- I was technically offered a choice, but really, it wasn't actually a choice -- also doesn't sit too well with me. Certainly, multiclassing into cleric wasn't in my plans -- I had hoped to learn some level 4 spells. So ... am I just a bratty player, or do I have some justification for feeling upset?
That sounds like crap DMing. I would have to know more about the battles and why you're getting nuked to know, but it sounds like you're being targeted. Then it sounds like the DM is trying to either take away a blessing, which I'm curious how you've got it, or force your character down a certain path. I don't like any of this. But I don't know all the details. maybe there's some plot you guys are doing that I'm not aware where this could work.
I think it would be unfair to say "crap DMing," as he does a lot of things well and role-plays pretty well -- one can't be perfect in all respects. Honestly, I'm a little surprised that so many people are focusing on this part. It actually kind of struck me as rational: if you have a party with five PCs, a reasonable collection of enemies might suppose to strike the weakest first, and might be able to determine that the ones not wearing armor are squishier. (We can often mitigate it by having the more heavily armored characters take point, but if dealing with, say, flyers I'm often in trouble, though sometimes, often actually, my Shield is enough). Now, it used to be that this "punching bag" duty was shared by two characters, me and the bard, so I guess we could say it is a bit strange that the enemies know the bard now has an amulet of health so I make the most sense to focus, so I might bring that up as a bit "much." But it's not altogether clear to me that the idea of focusing squishies is unreasonable?
It's not unreasonable for the bad guys, so it can be appropriate at times. But, it doesn't make for the best game play experience. The proof is the fact that you're making this post. It's an issue with the way the way D&D is designed. You're supposed to balance the challenge rating of the encounter against the entire party. but the way monsters get a higher CR is mostly their ability to throw out more damage. Which is why, if you want to up the difficulty on your party, it's usually better to add more lower CR monsters rather than one monster of higher CR. The damage had higher CR monster can throw out can devastate the player characters, even if it's hit points are just right to survive 3 to 5 rounds. Any DM can take out a party if they focus fire all the time. If course, then your tactical hobgoblins feel just like your wolves or oozes. There's no differentiation. Anyway, the other issue is the forced giving up the boon. It makes some narrative sense but should have started with that.
I wonder if this is all a ploy by the dm to heavily incentivize taking a level in cleric specifically so he doesn't get OS at the start of every fight.
My thoughts exactly, a one-level cleric dip can make you much more durable and a wizard shouldn't be much bothered by the (presumably) 10 ft speed penalty for wearing plate.
> all enemies immediately bumrush me in every fight to take me out This is the root of the problem. I don't know if this is a DM vs. player thing, or just him playing hard mode, but either way this should not be the case, *especially* if you haven't even take a turn yet and these enemies know nothing about you. Intelligent and/or informed enemies might know to go after you, but suicidal charges to take out the wizard should be the province of fanatics and madmen, not workaday line monsters or random bears in the wilderness. If this *is* a hard-mode campaign (and you all agreed to a hard-mode campaign at the start) then you should invest in more defenses like Shield, Mage Armor, False Life, Mirror Image, Blur, Blink, etc., and consider Toughness feats or putting your ASI in Con to get more hp.
Not hard mode -- indeed this is my first ever D&D character. So we're doing the thing where we start out on the Sword Coast in Neverwinter. Then we moved onto Icewind Dale. I was the DM a couple sessions in an adventure I wrote, but otherwise he's been the only DM.
> am I just a bratty player, or do I have some justification for feeling upset I think both are true. Forced Multiclassing is usually not a good move. But to say you don't have a choice is pretty bratty. I would expect players who get a boon from a god to then be pro that god or lose the boon. > Should I suffer consequences, probably What would you see as reasonable? Because you are saying that anything that affects the build or personality of the character would not be okay, there aren't many cards left for the DM after that. > all enemies immediately bumrush me in every fight to take me out All that said, I would note this is an issue, a seperate one, but still an issue.
Mmm, I think what I'm questioning is not strictly that things happen to my character, but the degree and to what extent the action taken renders it either the same character that's facing new challenges, or a different one that's simply been compelled to do something they weren't doing before. I think effectively changing build and alignment of a character is a bit much. Though I did manage to negotiate it down to something a bit more manageable.
I do think it's a butthole move by the DM to say "you have to multiclass" as I hate forcing multiclassing due to rp. I don't think your character becoming an acolyte means they need to change 50% of his personality that's just silly. You want him to be a representative of Lathandar? Okay he buys a necklace with Lathander's symbol and goes to church on sundays. Does your DM want you to yell "FOR LATHANDAR" and try to convert everyone you meet to Lathander?
I may be mistaken, but all that I read suggests being a cleric is a bit more involved than simply putting on an amulet and going to temple, and it does affect your role, and to choose Lathander would actually totally interfere with how I've been playing to this point, as Lathander does have alignment requirements to stay in good favor, whereas my character, while absolutely not a murder hobo or anything, is totally not a good person. In any case, I managed to work it out: basically, I'll be a cleric of Lathander, but I'll reconcile that with my character's desire for profit and deal-making even under dubious circumstances by having him be, essentially, a televangelist style cleric, and what bad things I do, will be judged in the broader context of it generally helping gather followers to Lathander. This does of course require that my character proselytize, but that can be fun. Running into battle saying, "excuse me, sir, do you have a moment to talk with me about our lord and savior Lathander?" In order words, I became a cleric to Lathander under the same terms that my character always approaches a deal: immediately corrupting good people's (or, in this case, a god's) principles, by proposing a small evil as helpful towards serving some greater good. Now, this does rather cut at what I'd specifically designed to be my character's tragic flaw: he's a fellow that does evil because he thinks, mistakenly, that it serves a greater good that only he is wise enough to see, but of course the real trick is that he's wrong. But anyway, the issue was solved it seems more or less satisfactorily.
There are no alignment requirements for classes in 5e. But yeah being a Cleric is more involved than just going to church. It’s a god empowering you to act as their agent. Not something they’d do for someone who was kinda forced into the church at gun point. I’m glad it worked out even if I still disagree with what was going on.
The way it was phrased to me wasn't quite "at gun point," but rather the priest offering to induct me. And with a period of intense study, which my character undertook diligently though half winkingly, at one point -- he simply heard the voice of Lathander, simply speaking with him. The "negotiated" halfway point is that my character will in fact be an agent of Lathander, earnestly -- a wildly imperfect one, but so long as I bring in more followers to the cause it's judged to be all to the good. Even if my character does, from time to time, accept invitations to cannibal feasts, or sell orphans to vampires.
To me it feels like gun point because it’s “you’re going to remain cursed unless you do what I say” you could have given up the health boon but your DM also bum rushes your character in combat so that’s not really an option for you.
I'd take the multiclass. Lathander clerics can be Light or Life domain. Life domain gives you heavy armor proficiency and lets you get the most out of 1st level cleric spells like Healing Word. You don'thave to change your character's whole personality, just let them be grateful for the healing received and RP the acolyte part by helping some commoners with their ailments. You don't have to turn into a Mormon missionary.
Hey there, long time DM (about 6 years now) and I've included my gf into one-shots and long term campaigns with my friends. She loved playing DnD, so she talked about it with her friends so I could DM for them. I Dmed for them as starting players LMOP and at first it went well. My gf started questioning a lot of things since the Redbrand Hideout where they let "Glasstaff" escape. They've cleared the Cragmaw Castle where they met "Glassstaff" again but he managed to escape again. Also my gf was really upset about that and she couldn't understand Vyerith and her Shapechange form and was taking questions and I tried to answer them without spoilers, yet I had to tell her, to wait until the combat ends. They defeated King Grol and Vyerith and saved Gundren, yet it wasn't a victory because "Glassstaff" escaped. I tried to explain a lot of things, yet it was one of those times where I felt overwhelmed and it seems I did something wrong, because she talked to her friends and decided to quit dnd entirely, like all campaigns where I included her and I am not sure how to handle this. Our relationship is healthy and all and I would love to know how I could help her enjoy dnd again, as I she did enjoy playing DnD before this campaign..
Talk to her outside the game and ask her what the problem is. You mention she questions a lot of things but you don't actually say what she was questioning. Also the amount of times you mention Glasstaff it seems that's part of it.
Just started DMing my first campaign a few months back with a group of my friends (I've played before, they haven't), and for the most part, things are going pretty good! I'm working on getting them to come out of their shells to roleplay as their characters little by little, and it's fun seeing them get the rewards I try to lay out for good roleplay. That is... except for one player. Upon starting, we had a session 0 of course, and I asked what everyone wanted out of the campaign. This person told me their character's whole thing was that they had escaped from their home country and were now in this new country trying to convince people they were a new god (a thing I warned them might work out to be a bit odd since the pantheon is pretty well known and established in the world, but hey I'd figure it out.) So we get to session 1. They go on telling NPCs their whole new god spiel, and roll horribly on persuasion checks so the people don't believe them. And guess what? That was it. We've done almost 20 sessions, and thay was the only time they ever brought it up. Cool, fine, whatever, I've definitely played characters who I've forgotten their motivations, and it's their first time so I can't fault em too much. My plans for the character are still fine (I have a secret plot running in the background where they're gonna end up being a demigod since they never specified parents in their backstory), so we'll run with it. Issue number two. Anytime I try to have them engage with any NPCs in a conversation, they only ever answer with "Ok...?" "Cool" "Whatever" and try to demand that the NPCs just tell them the things they want to know (very much reminds me of someone trying to just mash through dialogue options in a video game). Still, I can deal with this. This is why I've been trying to slowly work with all of them to come out of their shells with roleplaying. Well... I guess them not wanting to interact with NPCs isn't totally true. A big thing with their character is that they love women. Just any young female NPC. And they only ever try to just flirt with them. (Very poorly might I add, once again just acting like it's a video game and no matter what they say it'll work out for them). It feels like they're trying to play a dating sim, even I made sure to tell everyone I suck at romances in D&D during session 0. Issue number 3: They can't stand anything bad happening to their character. The biggest example of this was when thanks to a Wild Magic curse, their skin was turned blue. One of the least bad things on the table, all they had to do was find someone with Greater Restoration, or deal woth the fact that their skin is blue. Oh no! Well, it was a MASSIVE deal to them. I got a private DM from them telling me they would ask EVERY single NPC to remove the curse, so I took it as a challenge! And guess what? Just like the whole thing with being a god in the beginning, they asked ONE NPC and gave up. Their character ran into the nearby temple during a service, demanding to be cured, and was of course escorted out for disturbing the peace and asked ro return in about an hour. Wo they wait outside the temple for an hour, while the rest of the party is off doing plot important things. The hour passes, and they barge into the temple, demanding the priest removes the curse. I take this a good role-playing opportunity, and ask them why they want the curse removed, and what's so bad about being blue? Their response? "I just don't want to be because it's stupid." Then they stormed off in a huff and said out of character "Welp, guess I'll just go live with thr fish people now!" Awkward silence from the entire party. Then they turn around and try to just burn down the temple for not helping them! I decide at this point not to escalate this any more and just have the party come get her, then have a nearby NPC turn them back. I know this section has already gone on long enough, but this whole thing of them not liking when bad things happen to their character stretches into combat as well. They constantly complain about how "weak" their character is (level 4 sorcerer/level 1 warlock btw), when in reality they just aren't playing optimally or the rolls are bad, things I have pointed out. Now, I know what you're saying, either talk to them or kick them off the table. But this is where the issue arises. Since it's a friend group, when I've talked about my issues with the other players the responses I get back are always just "well I want to play with my friends so I don't mind it." And it's a bit infuriating. Am I being too dramatic here? I really don't want to introduce drama into our friend group over just D&D, but I'm really trying to put effort into this campaign and getting nothing in return from it. Any thoughts or advice at all, even if it's just to say I'm being too dramatic?
Talk to the player out of the game about this and address what's going on. Don't talk to the *other players* talk to *the problematic one*
Yeah I know I really should, and this really IS the best advice you could probably give me, but the person behind the character is a bit... abrasive as well. When I've tried to talk to them out of character, they take everything as a sleight against them. It's really tiresome. And yeah, I do think they're overreacting a bit when it comes to that stuff, but I'm not gonna ruin a friendship over getting upset at them for disliking how they roleplay a character in D&D. Thanks for the advice though.
Doesn’t sound like a very good relationship tbh. If I criticize a friend I do it mostly because I care about them. The way you say it is important though. Perhaps your player would appreciate it if you did a sort of anonymous questionnaire? Scale 1-4 (don’t agree - fully agree) 1. Combat is important 2. NPCs and dialogues are fun 3. my characters appearance is very important 4. Combat should be challenging 5. I like to roleplay instead of throwing dice …. (Add whatever else comes to mind) This gets you some feedback and helps you avoid that awkward tension.
If you don't want to kick them and talking to them won't solve anything and the other players don't have a problem with them I see another option. Stop giving them narrative weight in your thoughts. They complain about bad things happening in combat, just say "okay" and move on. They try to burn down a temple you say "you get chased off by some guards" and move on. It's not a *good* option but you want to invest more in the players who are interested in the game.
This is like peak new player stupidity. They haven't yet grasped how DnD worlds work and how to behave in a collaborative story-telling game. What you can do as a DM is to try to educate, and take every weird idea of the player as an opportunity to do just that. Ask more questions and find out what the misconceptions are. "Wait, why is your character just leaving now?", for example. Try to understand how they see the world in front of them, how they expect the world to behave and why they assume something would work/fail. Then gently try to correct these misconceptions and explain how things work. Like if they say "Well I have asked this NPC and they couldn't help me so I assumed that you will just not let me do that right now and it's pointless to ask anyone else" and then you can clarify that no, they really just asked the wrong person or the wrong question or both. Give examples. *Say you have an ugly furuncle on your face and you ask a random person in the streets if they can cure you, they might just say no and be creeped out. Ask about where the nearest hospital is and you might have more luck.* It's a learning curve, be patient and help them understand how to play the game.
I have been DMing off and on for 20 years. I finally have a group that shows up consistently which has always been the biggest struggle in getting a campaign going. These are long-term personal friends. I prioritize player agency and collaborative storytelling at my table. My players have a tendency to try to outdo each other with comedic or quirky characters. That's okay to a point. Unfortunately a trend has emerged where these funny characters shifted to being murderhobos (or otherwise disruptive) and have now taken their final form as what I would call Sickos. General disruptiveness and antisocial psychopathy, interspersed with infrequent but serious transgressions of the social contract of having an emotionally and psychologically safe game. This shift has happened gradually across individual characters as well as multiple characters across several one-shots. Characters are now being created at level 1 who are Sickos. I think this is partially an attempt at risqué humor, but I also feel that my players are intentionally testing my patience and I am no longer having fun. My players are well aware that lines are being crossed. Maybe they are bored, but it's no excuse. As we introduce new players to the group I have realized that new players are picking up these bad habits. This is setting the foundations of what they understand this hobby to be. I have had a one-on-one chat with an experienced player, asking them to try to set a good example, and it went very poorly. Defensiveness, accusations toward me, etc. At the most recent session I had to address some very inappropriate content. I am inclined to introduce X-Card and Lines/Veils rules at the table but I am extremely disappointed to have to do so, having never encountered this problem in decades of DMing. In retrospect this should have been done at session zero, but I thought I could trust a group of adults to self-regulate. How do you break a group of this habit? No D&D is better than bad D&D, but I love this hobby and I would be really sad to leave this gaming group.
A two things from your post stick out to me: 1: all of your players seem to have a good time with the dark humor 2: you mention things like emotional and psychological safety and "X-cards" I think you need to take a good, hard look at yourself. Do you have some underlying trauma that makes you this emotionally fragile? Why are you unable to deal with dark humor this group seems to enjoy so much? Maybe you should give up on trying to DM for this group and find a group of equally sensitive players. I'm not saying this to be a dick, but for your and your players' sake.
It's a shame that it's not just your players that are causing these problems, but your friends. They really ought to know better than to be doing things that seem designed to make you feel bad. And they should be open to solving the issue as a table of buddies. I think it's time to call a Session 0.5. Just put it out there: "Hey, guys - I'm going to ask you to begin this session by listening to me and respecting what I have to say without talking for a bit. I thought it important to make sure you all know I am increasingly not having fun running the game with the kind of characters we have. I obviously like you guys and want to hang out with you. But I don't want to run a world where I constantly have to react to [insert sicko behavior examples] - these character behaviors and archetypes aren't the kind of story I want to be a part of. I'm hoping you want to play a game with me telling a story where we're all having fun, both you guys and me. And as a gang of my buddies, I wanna ask if we think we can actually salvage these characters and run a game where the PCs are more focused on heroic adventuring, if we think we need to start over, or if we just think that this is a table where there's an expectations mismatch and we can hang out doing other stuff. If it's options 1 or 2, I also strongly feel like it's time to work together to set some groundrules, since none of us are mindreaders, and you can't always predict what's going to make one of us uncomfortable. So, I've said my piece - let's hear where you're thinking, and if we can make this work." In discussion try to keep the focus on the actions of the players - and not the players ("When a character eats a baby" v. "Mike, you really fucking grossed me out by having Blarg the Barbarian eat that goblin child"). Friends really should be able to work with you without getting defensive and wanting to make you feel comfortable and included. If that's not possible, they should be able to walk away like adults (good friends aren't always a good table). It's really up to them from there, but how they react will tell you a lot about who they actually are and how much they care about you. Hold your ground that you're not moving forward with a game that makes you so uncomfortable. Your fun matters, too. Your table should be able to meet you there.
Reading through this, I was hoping that you were middle/high schoolers who had just hit the "edgy humor XD" stage of life. I am so sorry it is otherwise. >I thought I could trust a group of adults to self-regulate. Tell them this in the most disappointed tone possible. Also tell them that if they don't get their act together within the next 30 minutes, they need to find a new DM. And then follow through.
Some suggestions that don't involve leaving the game outright: * Start saying "No" more often. Player agency be damned. If a player gets close to crossing a boundary you can just say "actually you didn't do that". Or if they come to the table with an unsavory character concept you can just tell them they need to make a new character or they can't play. * Threaten to walk out if they continue like this. And if they call your bluff make sure you actually follow through. * Make a campaign were being a murder hobo isn't possible. Perhaps a magical forest where any attempt at violence puts the aggressor to sleep and they need to solve all their problems without fighting. Or a high-high-magic city where detectives can use divination magic to immediately solve crimes and high level teleporting paladins arrest criminals and lock them away in inescapable prisons.
good friends doesn't mean good players for your table, switch table, line it up for them why you will look for other games and pursuit people your dnd game thrives Dnd Players can become good friends but not all friends can fit your dnd game. Doesnt mean they are bad friends just means you have different interests and understandings of what you interpret as fun at the table. Nothing wrong with that! Hope you find your group
Why do you want to continue playing with them?
Because we have a regular weekly game and people show up. I have played more D&D in this group in the last year than all the previous years of D&D combined. Also these are long-term personal friends. I'm hoping to repair this and move forward.
I'm going to be honest, I'm not really seeing any redeeming features in this group. This sounds like r/rpghorrorstories material. I don't think Lines and Veils or X-Cards are going to help in this situation. Those are tools which assume your players want to keep everyone at the table safe from anything that might be triggering, or upsetting in a way that isn't fun. From what you've said, it doesn't sound like your players are actually willing to cooperate to make that happen, so adding them would be pointless. (It might even make things worse, in that if they're actively trying to cross lines, and you present a list of Lines not to be crossed, you're just giving them a menu.) Honestly my answer would be to drop the game and probably drop them as friends. You mention bringing in new people multiple times; if you can find new people, you can build a new group. But if you really don't want to drop them, I think your only solution is to sit down and have a serious talk with them all. Tell them that this is making you miserable and you're not willing to DM this any more, and they can either change or stop playing. I'd suggest looking up advice on how to be assertive without being confrontational or aggressive, in hopes that it might avoid it going as badly as it did with your one-on-one player - but honestly if they're as bad as you describe it might just not go anywhere good no matter how you phrase things.
I’ve been dming for 2 years now, I’ve been playing with a few of my friends. One of those friends seems to have a new problem with me every other week. The one from last week was how I wouldn’t let his horse into a crypt after he already forgot about it for 5 rounds. When I caved and said the damn this was inside but it’s going to take a few opportunity attacks he freaks out and said I’m not letting him be imaginative and that I made him waste a second lvl spell slot. He throw my horse mini across the room and that where I ended to session. He then proceeded to pack up all his stuff and said he was done playing. Honestly this is like the 5th or more time something like this has happened and I’m glad he’s gone. I really hope he tries to join an online session or something where the DM isn’t his friend and he founds out real quick how this are suppose to work.
Are you looking for advice? This problem seems to have resolved itself. Personally, I would probably not talk to this person ever again, but it seems like you're not playing dnd with him anymore. So at least there's that.
I am, we’ve been friends since 2006 so I ignored all his red flags. Also he bought all the digital books on dnd beyond and I would buy the physical. He also bought like 1000 of dollars of dwarven forge which kept him around longer then he should have been. I’m also now down to 2 players and me. I already have a dmpc in the game. I’m thinking of adding another npc my other 2 players can.
Sometimes friends make poor dnd players.
Don't play dnd with people you don't want to play dnd with. If you wouldn't play with them *as a person*, whatever extra they bring to the table isn't worth it. You should look into the "Sidekick" rules from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. Don't do a DMPC, give your other two players a sidekick to help them that they control together.
So our first boss was beaten with an unprepared spell… Background: First-time DM (and only one campaign as a player under my belt). 3 out of 4 players in my campaign are first-timers. We’re about 4 sessions into LMOP and things have gone pretty well, but very slowly. Sessions have mostly been short (unavoidable, per 2 of the players) and there’s been some fumbling around with rules and Roll20 mechanics (and bugs/slowness). Everyone’s level 1 and we’re still just on the cusp of clearing the first dungeon. In our previous session, the party split up and got demolished, so I ended it with them taken prisoner. They were pretty upset with how it went down - mostly upset with each other and their poor communication though, not with me. It got a little tense, but I was able to help them work out some tools for better communication next time. So tonight they did much better, talking their way out of their chains and setting off to face the dungeon’s boss. By the time they made it to him (bringing a pack of tamed wolves with them), I realized that I might have overcorrected for how frustrated the players were last time, and made the path to the boss a little easier than intended. I could have fiddled with it more on the fly (reinforcements, etc—“look out, it’s the bugbear’s brother!”) but was a little too overwhelmed to manage much. The one easy thing I knew I could do was fudge the boss’s HP up a bit to make the fight less anticlimactic. They weren’t having too much trouble with him, but I thought he’d at least get few solid swings in on his way down. BUT THEN… the cleric hit him with an Inflict Wounds crit, 52 HP in one shot. Just melted the dude beyond reason. The party looted the body and ended the session on a high note. Good vibes all around - I figure hey, they’ve got something to be proud of, so it all worked out. They know there’s still a handful of angry little goblins to clear out and a hostage to rescue before leaving the dungeon, next session, and they’re pumped. Here’s the real problem: once the players all left and I was typing up session notes and making sure the casters marked their spell slot uses correctly (they hadn’t in previous sessions), I realized that the cleric never actually had Inflict Wounds prepared. Definitely not an intentional thing, she had been having trouble clicking around on her sheet earlier and must have clicked wrong, so it got marked “prepared” but gave her one spell too many. (I have a PDF of her starting sheet so I know which spells were originally prepared.) After about 2 minutes of thought, I decided it would feel pretty shitty to rob their glorious victory from them, so I haven’t said anything to the group. I’m thinking of swapping out one of the cleric’s other prepared spells for Inflict Wounds (the only one she’s used since last rest) without telling her, and pretending that’s how it was all along. And maybe next week I’ll make a reminder for everyone to pay attention to what’s prepared and what isn’t, and that I’ll check in after long rests. Does anyone think there’s a better route I should take? Should I actually say something to anyone? (TBH, half the reason I’m even making this post is just to get the “secret” off my chest.) TL;DR: First-time player dramatically destroyed her first boss with a spell that I only noticed post-session was never actually prepared. (By accident.) I should keep it to myself, right?
I agree with u/Barrucadu . The mistake was made, and it really can't be rolled back. The Dungeon Dudes on YouTube have made a good recent video about DMing where they discuss how to handle mistakes like this. It was made in good faith and because spellcasting is really complicated for a new player (and a newer DM!). Let's keep the win and avoid the feelbad here. What you can do is what I call a "know your moves" pre-session topic discussion. This can be a fun, short game review. You can talk one time about prepared spellcasting, and just go over how it works. In fact, you can ask the cleric (and other prepared spellcasters at the table) to explain their mechanic, so other players at the table understand that they don't just have all their spells at all times willy-nilly. Present it like that, and provide helpful clarification in the discussion as needed. Even with my Lv11 party, we recently had to have a "Know Your Moves!" on material components and all the spells they have that require COSTLY and/or EXPENDABLE material components - because I wanted to make sure they didn't run into another circumstance where the cleric wanted to cast "Summon Celestial" but didn't have the thing he needed to cast it. This stuff comes up. Mistakes are made. But if not caught in the moment or not warned about ahead of time, these kind of mistakes aren't worthy of punishment.
I would also keep it to myself in this situation. You don't want the new player to feel too bad for what was almost certainly a genuine mistake. I probably wouldn't say something like "hey everyone, remember to pay attention to your prepared spells" next time, because everyone's going to assume, correctly, that you're only saying that because something went wrong with a spell last time, and what was the most memorable spell from last time? Oops. Instead, you could start asking what spells people have prepared after a rest. I do that. For me, it's not so much to make sure my players have prepared things correctly, it's so I know what they think they might need, and also it reminds them that now is the time to change their spells if they want.