Fist player leaving

[DireSickFish]

So I've seen a lot of rants on here about how DM's should handle there player and I'd just like to add another rant to that. Had my first player ever leave mid session.

I'm the primary DM for a rather large group that we have to split into two groups to run sessions. So we tend to all run very modular one shot adventures that any payer can drop in and out of. I've got the setup for the adventure as a Dwarf nobel needing someone to clear out an infestation in his quarry. He doesn't know why but if he has all of these walking plants killed more will appear overnight.

The opening goes well, they help out an unrelated group kill some slavers to keep my meta-plot going. Meet up with the Dwarf Noble in an inn while he's drinking and telling stories. When they get down to price the Wizard doesn't think the 50gp per person to do the job is enough. He rolls really well on diplomacy and makes a decent argument and gets it upped all the way to 100gp a person.

The next morning when they are leaving a femail pair of Dwarven barbarians are talking with the Dwarf Noble and are trying to get the job the party already took. The party recoginzes them from an adventure where they ended up fighting the barbarians. They are not happy to get a job snaked by the party.

So the party heads to the quarry. I'm still working on balancing encounters in 5th ed and am planning on using the Blighted Plants to have a tree grown from a vampire staked by the Dwarf Noble in his past. They are low CR creatures and I threw quite a few at the party, possibly to many for a lvl4 party of 4. Two players end up dropping to 0 during the fight, and after the dust clears the Wizard does -not- think the 100gp is enough. As he assumes it will only get more dangerous from here on out. I don't have the Dwarf Noble give and and he says he can just go higher the barbarians that wanted the job instead of the party.

It will be 1 day before he gets back and the Wizard wants to watch them fail. About evening I have them see great pillars of flame in the woods to the north. They go to investigate prompted by the party Cleric. It's an Archdruid who is being corned by a highly damaged blighted Shambling mound that breaks her leg. She drops exposition that the forest is being blighted and she is trying to find out why. Party doesn't care to much about the blight even with a druid so whatever.

Next day the barbarians show up and clean up some more blight creatures that fell into the pit. Suffice to say they did not fial. So the Wizard has had enough and with ought the increased payment decides theres nothing in it for him and wants to go home. One of the other players even gave him 100gp to go along with it but by that point he was done. I was a bit deflated but just told him he was done as the rest of the party wanted to follow the Barbarians and lend them a hand in stopping this. So the Wizards player left the game.

Don't think I made the wrong call and I'm sure we'll be gaming together in the future. It just sucks that I had a player quit mid session like that. Really got to me and I had to struggle to give the rest of the experience to the other players with the new setup. To my other players credit they really wanted to keep going and said at the end they enjoyed the session.

[OldTrees1]

Exercise:
How did this look from the player's point of view?

My guess:
It sounds like the PC was offered a paltry payment for a job. However the job turned out to be possibly harder than the PCs could be expected to survive. When the player made their concern known the paltry reward increased from paltry to paltry. This made the player frustrated at the lack of listening.


I do not know if you made the right call or not. You were caught in a serious PC-DM lack of communication but the other PCs also wanted to keep going. In this situation I would have placed one of the PCs in the DM chair (probably my brother since he knows me well enough to carry on my plots with a few quick notes) while I took time to listen to the Wizard player.

[DireSickFish]

You're right in that the player did not feel like he was being appropriately compensated for this. I had already upped the price more than I originally wanted but i just rolled with it. I was not going to let him have however much he wanted. It felt like he was unintentionally holding the game hostage and I was not going to let that happen. If I hadn't built an engaging enough adventure then that's on me. But we are running as a large group with multiple DM's and have not been handing out a ton of gold previously.

I wish I could provide an adventure that can draw anyone in and want to mess with it or see it to completion, and in that I failed. That doesn't mean I should bend over backwards to give my players whatever they want.

[Doomchild]

Yeah, I mean, the player, in game, in character, said, "Nah, guys, I don't want to do this adventure anymore," and everyone else was like, "Dude, you should do it! We're gonna do it!" and he stuck to his guns and said, "I'm not doing it for 100gp." That's on him. I would have talked to him out of game to ask the player himself if he still wanted to play his character and do something else while the others did the Barbarian/blight adventure, but maybe the player just wanted to quit the campaign.

[LaserFace]

It's been a long time since I've had to deal with this kind of player, but I will offer my perspective in hope that it helps.

It's my understanding that regardless of RP, there is a bit of a social contract shared by everyone at the table: the game experience is a shared one. It means your party finds way to bend their characters in ways that keeps the game moving, instead of stubbornly holding up the game because everything isn't the way one person wants it. It also means the DM compromises with the party's desires, and the party doesn't cause needless complications for their DM.

When someone is really dissatisfied - to the level at which playing has become difficult, for any reason - I don't think it should be resolved in-character. From an out-of-character perspective, you can make clear cases for a character's actions or beliefs, to which other people can weigh-in and the whole table can participate in finding compromise.

The important thing is having an open discussion about what's going on. People coming to play at your table should be at least somewhat friendly with you, and all parties ought to be willing to bend for each-other. If everyone is making an effort, you'll probably get somewhere. If someone isn't making that effort, those people probably shouldn't be playing together, and a departure, however it might make you second-guess yourself, is probably for the best.

[OldTrees1]

It's been a long time since I've had to deal with this kind of player, but I will offer my perspective in hope that it helps.

This is less a "kind of player" and more a "unfortunate circumstance"(correspondence bias / actor–observer bias). As you said, extreme dissatisfaction should be resolved OOC. However the sudden appearance of extreme dissatisfaction tends to imply the earlier signs of the dissatisfaction felt ignored.

I do agree with your "group focused on cooperative compromise" philosophy. I think the OP mishandled the issue as it was building but handled it well when it hit a boil.

[niks97cobra]

Maybe the player was insulted he had to play through the bottom level of the Sunless Citadel again... :smallbiggrin:

[Lokiare]

I have a player that did this. The key is just to turn their character into an NPC and tell them to make a new character with a tie in that will keep them with the party and with the objectives of the campaign.

Maybe they are related to one of the other party members.

Maybe they were saved from death by one of the other party members and doesn't want that kind of thing hanging out their head so they must save the other character from death to even it out.

Maybe they had a fortune teller spout some nonsense about staying with a group that has specific features which the party just so happens to match.

Basically build it into their background so that they have reasons other than money to stick with the party.

[LaserFace]

This is less a "kind of player" and more a "unfortunate circumstance"(correspondence bias / actor–observer bias). As you said, extreme dissatisfaction should be resolved OOC. However the sudden appearance of extreme dissatisfaction tends to imply the earlier signs of the dissatisfaction felt ignored.

I do agree with your "group focused on cooperative compromise" philosophy. I think the OP mishandled the issue as it was building but handled it well when it hit a boil.

It might have been presumptuous of me to put the player in the wrong here, but I'm working under the assumption people gather to play D&D more for the social interaction than in-game rewards. If my DM said the reward for an adventure isn't 100gp but 100 inches of increased anal circumference, I'm still probably there to play the game. I'm not going to just walk out because I think that's a stupid reward. I'd have a conversation with my DM about it. If the DM offered that as a reward, they probably will continue to think it's fine unless I gave them an argument as to why it's not what I want. If he couldn't be swayed, but I am still more or less with friends, I'll shrug and play the game. If I can't do that, why am I even there?

[Daishain]

I have a player that did this. The key is just to turn their character into an NPC and tell them to make a new character with a tie in that will keep them with the party and with the objectives of the campaign.

Maybe they are related to one of the other party members.

Maybe they were saved from death by one of the other party members and doesn't want that kind of thing hanging out their head so they must save the other character from death to even it out.

Maybe they had a fortune teller spout some nonsense about staying with a group that has specific features which the party just so happens to match.

Basically build it into their background so that they have reasons other than money to stick with the party.
If I'm reading this right, doing what you describe would just get the player out the door even faster.

It really sounds like this guy is just a bit too focused on the rewards, not the character, the player. If it was just an aspect of the character, he likely would have asked the DM about safe money making opportunities in town for a beginning wizard, and just gone off and done that. Maybe the player has spells he wants to copy, or is saving up for a coveted magic item. Regardless, if I'm right, he's letting loot obsession get in the way of actually playing the game, and I'm not sure he'd be worth the hassle of keeping around.

[Doomchild]

If I'm reading this right, doing what you describe would just get the player out the door even faster.

It really sounds like this guy is just a bit too focused on the rewards, not the character, the player. If it was just an aspect of the character, he likely would have asked the DM about safe money making opportunities in town for a beginning wizard, and just gone off and done that. Maybe the player has spells he wants to copy, or is saving up for a coveted magic item. Regardless, if I'm right, he's letting loot obsession get in the way of actually playing the game, and I'm not sure he'd be worth the hassle of keeping around.

It depends on the player. I had a very roleplaying focused player once whose character was entirely self-serving, in it for riches and power, and who left the party because they were doing stuff that he didn't think was good for him. I didn't know what to do with that, so I ended the session and talked to him about it afterward. He told me he was just honestly playing the character he created. I explained that I have three players that want to do one thing and you who doesn't, which is fine, I just don't want to run a solo game in tandem with the game I was planning to run. DMing is hard enough as is (in fact the player in question was usually a DM). He agreed that sounded like a lot of work just for one character and I suggested he create a new character that had more of a reason to pal around with the party and we went over possibilities for that character. I didn't tell him ultimately what he should create, I did relegate his former PC to NPC status (he later became a recurring villain), he did, on his own, create a new, memorable character with goals that lined with the rest of the party and their adventures.

[Daishain]

It depends on the player. I had a very roleplaying focused player once whose character was entirely self-serving, in it for riches and power, and who left the party because they were doing stuff that he didn't think was good for him. I didn't know what to do with that, so I ended the session and talked to him about it afterward. He told me he was just honestly playing the character he created. I explained that I have three players that want to do one thing and you who doesn't, which is fine, I just don't want to run a solo game in tandem with the game I was planning to run. DMing is hard enough as is (in fact the player in question was usually a DM). He agreed that sounded like a lot of work just for one character and I suggested he create a new character that had more of a reason to pal around with the party and we went over possibilities for that character. I didn't tell him ultimately what he should create, I did relegate his former PC to NPC status (he later became a recurring villain), he did, on his own, create a new, memorable character with goals that lined with the rest of the party and their adventures.
That's the thing. If it was just the character being a greedy git, the player should at least have been reasonable enough to explain himself prior to the point of just walking out.

[Muenster Man]

I'm working under the assumption people gather to play D&D more for the social interaction than in-game rewards. If my DM said the reward for an adventure isn't 100gp but 100 inches of increased anal circumference, I'm still probably there to play the game.
I was really tempted to ask if I could sig this, but then I realized I don't want the phrase 'anal circumference' written on every single comment I write

[Daishain]

I was really tempted to ask if I could sig this, but then I realized I don't want the phrase 'anal circumference' written on every single comment I write
Probably a good call

[OldTrees1]

It might have been presumptuous of me to put the player in the wrong here, but I'm working under the assumption people gather to play D&D more for the social interaction than in-game rewards. If my DM said the reward for an adventure isn't 100gp but 100 inches of increased anal circumference, I'm still probably there to play the game. I'm not going to just walk out because I think that's a stupid reward. I'd have a conversation with my DM about it. If the DM offered that as a reward, they probably will continue to think it's fine unless I gave them an argument as to why it's not what I want. If he couldn't be swayed, but I am still more or less with friends, I'll shrug and play the game. If I can't do that, why am I even there?

I am working under the assumption that people like doing something they enjoy with people they like. This is the social interaction you are talking about. You do not consider the in game reward to matter, but I think it is more than the reward that mattered to the wizard player. I think it was "the DM is using abnormally difficult encounters and barely giving rewards".

If so, the player might have felt like they were doing something they didn't enjoy with people they like. Since this is 1 for 2 they might have complained but continued for a while to give it a chance to change. When it did not change they made their lack of enjoyment clearer.

If the OP was the player, then the forum would be criticizing the DM just like the forum is currently criticizing the player. I do not think we are observing a black and white situation. This is not a greedy player or a power hungry DM. This sounds like 2 friends that had insufficient communication as a problem was building.

[DireSickFish]

This player actually hates loot drama as well, and has routinely spouted that it's the players job to find there own reason to be going on an adventure. So him walking out over gold really miffed me.

The hook for the entire group of players is they are part of a surviving floating Nethril city that is slowly losing power and they are trying to make ties in the area for when they inevitably land. The player was also a DM for the campaign but recently stepped down because he couldn't think of good sessions to run. I'm going to talk with him about it and I'm sure we'll be gaming at the same table soon, he's usually a good player.

[LaserFace]

I am working under the assumption that people like doing something they enjoy with people they like. This is the social interaction you are talking about. You do not consider the in game reward to matter, but I think it is more than the reward that mattered to the wizard player. I think it was "the DM is using abnormally difficult encounters and barely giving rewards".

If so, the player might have felt like they were doing something they didn't enjoy with people they like. Since this is 1 for 2 they might have complained but continued for a while to give it a chance to change. When it did not change they made their lack of enjoyment clearer.

If the OP was the player, then the forum would be criticizing the DM just like the forum is currently criticizing the player. I do not think we are observing a black and white situation. This is not a greedy player or a power hungry DM. This sounds like 2 friends that had insufficient communication as a problem was building.

I appreciate you're trying to see all sides here, but I read the sequence of events as:
-"I'm not getting enough out of this, my Wizard goes home."
-Other player says "My character will pay you more GP because he wants you here."
-"Nope, done."
-Deflated DM says "Well the rest of the group wants to do this, so I guess we do this without the Wizard."

I'm not saying the player is an insane prick. I'm saying this is what the OP's words convey to me, and I'm not going to waste time thinking about how they might be giving an inaccurate depiction. The person who has the problem should be the one to explain what their problem is, and how they'd like it to be resolved. The other players didn't seem to have a big deal with it. At least one tried to keep this person in the game. If this guy doesn't want to cooperate, that seems to be leaving the realm of DM responsibility.

And, you don't know who forum-goers would be criticizing if the tables were turned, because we don't know how that hypothetical argument would be made by the OP.


This player actually hates loot drama as well, and has routinely spouted that it's the players job to find there own reason to be going on an adventure. So him walking out over gold really miffed me.

The hook for the entire group of players is they are part of a surviving floating Nethril city that is slowly losing power and they are trying to make ties in the area for when they inevitably land. The player was also a DM for the campaign but recently stepped down because he couldn't think of good sessions to run. I'm going to talk with him about it and I'm sure we'll be gaming at the same table soon, he's usually a good player.

From this, it doesn't sound like the payment was at the heart of the issue. Maybe it was something else. At any rate, talking is the best thing you can do, hopefully things work out.

[BW022]

DireSickFish,

There is nothing you can do in this case. The only think I would recommend now is contact the player, let him know that you are sorry that he didn't enjoy the game and that you wish him luck.

If any player expects something from a game (other than fun, socialization with friends, etc.) then it isn't something you can fix. Merely giving more treasure isn't the solution -- the player then wants more. Too much treasure can also cause power-level issues when groups now have insanely good weapons, armour, consumables, etc. and you get into an "arms race" needing to put in more challenged monsters which tend to make encounters unbalanced.

Players also need to realize that in any new edition, campaign, or setting that DMs (especially new ones) might not have the treasure/balance ratio set. Some DMs (and players) also like low-treasure campaigns -- such that actually treasure is worth more and players can't buy their way out of trouble. Many DMs put treasure in intelligently. Wolves, skeletons, or giant spiders... often don't have piles of gold. However, smart players might be able to collect pelts, weapons, or giant spider eggs for a few gold. Finally, players have to realize that not all rewards are just piles of gold. The favour of that dwarf or his guild might be work a lot more than 100gp sometime in the future. Maybe at 8th-level some that PC wants to build a wizard tower of his own. Stone at half price... might be work a heck of a lot more than 100gp.

I've played in campaigns where my 4th-level character literally never had 100gp -- players were literally fighting to get food for the week. I've also played in games where my 4th-level character had a vorpal weapon. I respected both campaigns for different reasons. One was insanely gritty and realistic. The other silly, childish, and high adventure. Both were fun, in different ways.

However, it isn't up to you to convince a player of this if they are simply in the "now" mind-set. You need to let them go play elsewhere and learn by themselves.

IMO, think him for showing up, let him know you are sorry it wasn't his type of campaign, and keep playing with the group you have.

[DireSickFish]

Well I talked with him a week afterward. He seemed to think that everything I was doing was railroading him. The fact that I had him just say that he was going to go higher someone else instead of saying "ya know,what this place has been turning a loss for eight years, I barely have enough money to keep my home much less pay you.". Made him feel like he was "a McDonalds worker being replaced by scabs while striking for better pay".

And the danger was to high after the first encounter "I'm level four, my base pay should be more than this just cuz I'm level four, not even taking into account the danger and I just about got killed along with [the Hafling], this is NOT worth 100 gold".

When I mentioned the magic items I was handing out that session as well he said that he sees magic items as part of leveling up and not associated with player wealth. He also needs wealth to be able to fix a mansion he reclaimed in another adventure. And he pointed out how our fighters arn't anywhere near being to buy fullplate yet to the scale of gold being handed out in adventures. I told him I was not going to be handing out tons of gold.

I admitted I was being railroad on the gold, because I did not want to hand out any more than that and he admited he didn't understand why I was being so hard on that rule.

So we'll play together still but I don't think we came to a compromise or anything. My DM style as far as gold does not match what he feels like he deserves and expects from adventures. I've always played in very loot poor and low gold games so that might be part of it, meeting a player who's had a higher gold D&D experience.

[Shadow]

He's expecting way, WAY WAY too much.

Expenses in the PHB lists 1gp/day for a moderate living.
That's 100 days of moderate lifestyle. Or, if you prefer, almost a third of a year.
To put it in today's terms, multiply that by four for the party (or eight if both of them groups were doing it), and that's the equivalent of somewhere between $40,000-$60,000 that he convinced the dwarf to pay (or $80k-120k for all eight). And that's estimating on the light side.
Then he complained that it wasn't enough and left?!?!?

50gp each was more than enough at level four.
Tell Greedy McGreederson to get bent.

[OldTrees1]

-snip-

Ah, now we are getting somewhere.
The player is not being greedy, they are merely not used to how 5E differs from 3E and 4E in this regard. Just as you might not be used to the difference.

In 3E (and even more so in 4E) there was a WBL treadmill that PCs needed to stay on to make the math work. 5E has almost none of this. Non Dex characters need gold sunk into improving AC. (But at a much slower rate than your player is used to) Also some creatures require the PCs have magic weapons. So rewards of magic weapons and the gold for armor is part of leveling. However 5E also put a lot of emphasis on non leveling based expenditures of gold. Players should be expecting gold above that needed for leveling so that they can fund their character's goals (like the mansion).

However 5E also decreased the expected coinage value of PC wealth. So while a 3E player might expect 500-1000GP each for a routine 4th level mission(4 normal encounters. which is easier than your quest), a 5E player should be expecting less. (Just as 2000 Atk is normal in Yugioh but would be WTF in MtG).

In conclusion: You and your player are adjusting to 5E's changes. You should be able to see each others sides with a little more discussion. Make sure that you talk about "leveling wealth and RP wealth" and double check to see if the player had any other railroad concerns (feeling railroaded in one area usually causes other railroading to feel more irritating). In the end you might want to increase the payment slightly provided you can convince the player to leave the high-end(under bounded accuracy) armor to when the bounded accuracy expects high-end stuff to be obtained.

Sidenote: I have not bought the printed 5E adventure. However it half sounded like the player made a mathematical comparison between the wealth rewarded by your campaign vs the printed adventure. If so, that would be a good place to double check to see if the Monster Manuel is assuming a faster/slower armor progression than you are funding.


He's expecting way, WAY WAY too much.

50gp each was more than enough at level four.
Tell Greedy McGreederson to get bent.

Calm down, you are being unfair. Mislabeling a misunderstanding/misscommunication as a negative character trait will only cement the misunderstanding.

[Shadow]

Calm down, you are being unfair.

The player thinks that a year to a year and a half's salary for half of the party isn't enough for what basically amounts to a level four exterminator call.... and I'm the one that's being unfair?
Screw that guy. Tell him to get bent.

[OldTrees1]

The player thinks that a year to a year and a half's salary for half of the party isn't enough for what basically amounts to a level four exterminator call.... and I'm the one that's being unfair?
Screw that guy. Tell him to get bent.

It is impossible to objectively evaluate when you are not calm. Your first mistake(first instance of being unfair) is to presume malice(greed) in a case that is equally or more likely explained by ignorance(misconceptions).

So I reiterate, please calm down.

Adventuring is a dangerous job(usually paid much higher) with a much shorter life expectancy(paid higher) that is in high demand/low supply (paid higher). To top it all off, this job turned out to be much more dangerous than a normal extermination call due to the DM's mistake (even more danger = even more pay). Yes the player's expectations are too high, but not as high as you claim(second instance of being unfair). Furthermore, having bad expectations is not the same as being a greedy person.

[Shadow]

Nope.
He'd already convinced the dwarf to pay twice as much as was originally offered. And then he claimed it wasn't enough. He's being bloody greedy. End of story.
And worse than that, not only is he being bloody greedy, but he did so in a manner which upset the flow of the game. Not only was he being greedy, but he was also being disruptive and selfish.

The group already has so many players that they have to run two tables. If he never comes back, they won't even miss him. And they'd be better off if he never came back because he's willing to be disruptive and selfish and leave the game over something as trivial as an imaginary reward.
He should be concerned about finding a reason for his character to want to run the quest instead of finding a reason not to.
Greedy. Disruptive. Selfish. That's three strikes in one session. He's exactly the kind of player that you don't want at your table.
If that were my game, I'd be saying good riddance to that dude.

[rlc]

It might have been presumptuous of me to put the player in the wrong here, but I'm working under the assumption people gather to play D&D more for the social interaction than in-game rewards.

Yeah, I definitely agree here and don't think he left the game because he wasn't getting enough make believe money. Plus, that could be solved pretty easily anyway by saying they found some money or items on the way. There was definitely something else going on here. Maybe the guy just didn't like not being listened to. Maybe it was something else.

[DireSickFish]

I think there is more to it than just the gold. But it does seem like he feels entitled to a certain amount of wealth and insulted he didn't get it. I can't really change his expectations.

[rlc]

Tell him there's no wealth by level system in this edition and that he should let the other adventure take care of his mansion.

[Occasional Sage]

Fist player leaving




100 inches of increased anal circumference


:smalleek:

Can we all just agree that we know what link should be embedded here?

[MeeposFire]

I do think that there is another issue here as leaving a game over an in game reward found lacking (specifically the amount of gold given by the NPC on top of whatever you might find in the adventure salvage rightsw are worth a lot you know) seems frankly childish.

Heck in Baldurs Gate 100GP was a common reward for doing something like this and your character could easily be 4th level (you could be less or even more than that too) and it was fine.

I do think there is a disconnect for many people about how much a gold piece is worth in this edition compared to some other editions and also how the gold is meant to be spent. Right now gold seems to be back to a more AD&D and basic D&D type game were money buys power, comfort, and land. This is in start contrast to the last two editions where most of your money was spent running the item treadmill. While I do think some magical items can be found for sale it does seem less common than before (and less necessary).

[Occasional Sage]

While I do think some magical items can be found for sale it does seem less common than before (and less necessary).

I find this clear, as math has been done showing that a +3 weapon increases a character's damage output by more than 50%, while bounded accuracy means a character without magical gear can (generally) still hit reliably.

[MeeposFire]

I find this clear, as math has been done showing that a +3 weapon increases a character's damage output by more than 50%, while bounded accuracy means a character without magical gear can (generally) still hit reliably.

This problem will continue to come up for some veteran players who are unable to see that things are similar bu not the same. For instance at higher levels this same player may expect to find a +5 weapon as a reward and may be upset because he only gets a +3 weapon instead despite the fact the +3 weapon in 5e is worth more mathematically in many cases than the +5 weapon.

Heck let us look just at weapons and their expectations between editions at their uppermost levels of power (standard rules so not epic in 3e for instance just to keep to a limit and not artifacts)

AD&D, Basic- Uppermost levels you would likely see +5 weapons with minor bonuses on top
3e- level 20 you could have a +10 weapon (if you count all the bonuses together)+ possibly additional abilities on top.
4e-+6 weapon at level 30 with a special ability. At level 20 probably a +4 weapon with minor special abilities or +3 with really nice special abilities (going off of memory here).

5e-probably a +3 weapon with some special abilities (just a guess but this seems to be the case)


As you can see with the numbers being lower a player who does not understand that the lower number is actually worth more in this edition (in terms of relative effectiveness) may be upset since their rewards will look smaller. The most likely to be upset would be a player who knows only 3e since it offers the largest gap and had the easiest access to getting that kind of item (easy item creation). 4e players may not notice as much (but will probably at least notice) because at level 20 they may only have a +4 weapon so they may not notice the drop so much though they too may have a hard time dealing with the relative rarity of those magic items in game (they too are used to level based magic drops like 3e and the even easier to use magic crafting rules). AD&D and basic players may notice though they may not. Those editions made no guarantees about what items you were going to get and a +3 weapon was considered very nice back then and while a +5 item did not have to be an artifact it was pretty close in many ways. The generally harder crafting rules also made them used to the idea of having to find items and not expecting anything in particular (in terms of basic leveling gear) so that is not as much of an issue either.

[Gnomes2169]

Maybe the player was insulted he had to play through the bottom level of the Sunless Citadel again... :smallbiggrin:

No.

Nononononononononononononoooooooooooooo!!!!!!1!!11 1'qbbbbone

Never again.

Anyway, onto the subject of the thread, yeah it sounds like your player is more used to the 3.5/ 4e style of "Every single one of us is worth an entire continent" wealth by level. Try to explain to him that wealth by level is not actually a construct in this edition, and that leveling up only means that you can go after the more dangerous/ better paid jobs, but that level 4 (literally 2 levels away from being adventurers in training) is both bearly remarkable and as such will not be paid all too highly.

This being said, while looking through the adventure path I have (Hoard of the Dragon Queen), the offered request reward (base) from the half elf in your level 3 campaign section is either double what you are currently being paid by the mayor (or 150 gold which, if played right, gets added on to the payment from the mayor (225 gold from just the people from your level 2/3 quests... And you can convince each of them to increase that reward. So up to 350 gold if I'm doing the math right... Not all that much compaired to previous editions, but a sight more than a base of 50. Oh, and then the treasure you can find throws everyone up near 1000 gold each character at level 3. So you aren't exactly swimming in the stuff, but you do have enough to get your basic high-end things. Once you finish the 4th dungeon (and typically hit level 4), there is actually a rather high chance of everyone getting 1-2000 more gold, or items to sell for gold, as there are rather quite a few chests/ treasure stores on that map... So even by 5e standards, I could see why 50 gold for a level 4 party would seem stingy, as at level 3 you're getting at least twice that much from just accetping and completing that much (with some possible chances of sweet lewt) from one of the standard adventure paths.

If you want to keep the campaign low-wealth, you can do so in a few ways without makinf each individual source seeming to be neutered. First, you can have the quest giver grant an actual large sum of gold (say, 4-500 gold base starting around level 5-7), but then severely reduce the amount of swee lewt found in the dungeon. Or you could work it the other way, making that sweet lewt a large sum of their salary, but having the quest giver grant them nothing for it (give them the quest via word-of-mouth or have then give the quest and say the party can keeo whatever they find as payment.) Either way will make the party feel like they are actually being paid or rewarded for their efforts enough that their characters can retire to a good life (or buy new healing potions/ armor) or anything else like that.

If you want a no-wealth campaign, well then you should ask your players what items they want, and then slowly disperse that equipment over the course of the adventure as rewards found on enemy corpses/ in armories: treasure hoards. No quest gold shoukd be given, ever, and the opportunity to sell/ find valubles should be rather low.

Just some tips.

[Mirakk]

I wish people would understand that things happen for a reason and not freak out about it immediately.


I had a scenario in a campaign I'm currently running wherein the party ends up turning in a wanted criminal to the town guard. The guard captain gives them a shoddy reward at best, and the general consensus was "Wow, that a D-bag". People didn't panic. They just wrote him off as a jerk and went on to looking for other prospects.

When someone suggested working for the town guard later, the party revealed that they didn't like the guy. They decided to investigate some missing persons down by the docks instead. Eventually, it became known that the Guard Captain was racist against non-humans, and in cahoots with a group of human supremacists that were kidnapping non-humans and either killing them, or selling them into slavery in order to "purify their city". They revealed that he was involved and it made his shoddy reward suddenly make sense in hindsight.

Being involved in a game is give-and-take. You can't just make flat demands and expect the DM to serve you because you're a "customer" or whatever. The DM is trying to tell a story, and involve you. Just stow it and have fun, you'll get the reward when you're done!

[Jlooney]

If my DM said the reward for an adventure isn't 100gp but 100 inches of increased anal circumference, I'm still probably there to play the game


I laughed way to hard at this. This made my day....I've been there before can I put this in my sig?

[Longcat]

100gp worth of treasure is seriously low balling it for a L4 group. Who cares what kind of lifestyle that money buys? Point is, it covers the cost of scribing a single 2nd level spell, and martials have our even worse, not even being able to afford better Armor.

I definitely think you should rethink the reward for a quest that is life threatening for a L4 group. More money will not unbalance the game as you can't buy magic items with it. An extra 1 AC for the martials also won't unbalance anything.

[Selkirk]

could have been deeper issues than just a 100gp walk off. i had a situation with my group where i nearly quit mid session (i'm good and we were being railroaded into doing all these missions for evil guys...playing them off against each other in a realpolitick sort of way) . it's like we couldn't make a choice without playing along with a scheme...

these things reach a slow boil where the split seems like it's over something inconsequential and trivial but actually point to larger problems with the campaign pacing/plotting and railroading . not saying this is what happened (player could have just been a dillweed) but if the player has been a good contributor maybe they had a point..

[DireSickFish]

The group is much smaller now. I'm down to a more managwble 4-5 consistent players. The player that left is not among them. He has some entitlement issues while playing and could not feel connected to the game because of the rotating GMs.

Nobody really liked the big group way we were doing things. I'm running into the problem of not having any known levers to pull or nobs to twist to get my players where I want them to go. I really want to close out my plot so I can put the game to bed. But I may just have to cut it off as the players don't seem all that interested in it. Much mor e interested in side quests and bit characters.