PDA

View Full Version : Have I messed up as a DM?



SarcasticDom
2016-02-27, 04:37 AM
I don't want to talk about my friends behind my back, but honestly something has been gnawing at me slightly. So here's my story...

Some friends from a drama group I'm in were interested in D&D. Most of them had never played before, with the only player with experience having very little. I've been into RPGS for a year and a half(?) now, so I offered to DM 5e. This would be my first time DMing with D&D, as well as my first time DMing an inexperienced group and a rather large group (6 players compared to the 3 I've DMed before in Dark Heresy)

Anyway they roll up characters, with varying levels of sensibility. The one who has caused issues in this party is the Gnome Fighter, who is CN and his ideal is "whatever makes the most interesting story". In hindsight I should have put my foot down and told him "No, give him a real motive". We also have a Tiefling greedy-arse rogue/warlock, but he hasn't been too bad.

First session goes rather well, with a little stupidity coming from the Gnome Warrior and Tiefling Rogue. They retrieve the artifact they were looking for, save the villages and so on. Second session comes along and one of our players, our Lawful Evil Tiefling Cleric, can't make it so (in hindsight this was a terrible decision but it sounded fun at the time) I have him arrested.

It was this session where I started to notice the... sociopathic nature of our Gnome Fighter. I had a scenario set up where a town's fish supply had been poisoned and as the party were the only neutral group, the town cleric hires them to investigate the town. Most of the party do their jobs (with varying levels of competence; one essentially catches the perpretator immediately and one doesn't even talk to his suspect about the night of the crime) but the Gnome Fighter who has befriended the town Sheriff goes a different route. He approaches the Sheriff and straight up tells him he knows its one person. With a good deception roll he convinces the Sheriff and they get a lynch mob going.

However this person is quite clearly innocent and has befriended the party's bard... who is also a 6ft6 Dragonborn. So she stands in the inn's doorway (suspect was the wife of the innkeeper) and rolls a nat 20 on intimidate to scare off the lynch mob. At this point the Tiefling Rogue reveals who it actually is and the party go to stop them.

Next session, the party has been summoned by the local Head of Justice to see their friend (who is in this session). They've been framed for a lot of crimes so I not so-sublty hinted that there were some shady individuals doing this framing. The party's leader (who is the leader as he is the only sane man) decided they should go find them. And then those morons had to go be morons.

Before they could do that, the Tiefling Rogue tries to break into the jailhouse IN BROAD DAYLIGHT. He would of succeeded... if there weren't five guys on guard in the jailhouse. He gets chased out of the castle, momentarily distracting us all as one of our players goes up to get water.

For the record on this next bit, I acknowledge several mistakes on my own part were made...

I congratulate our Gnome Wizard on finally making a decision, before off-handedly remarking "Yeah it was either this or a jailbreak." Our Gnome Fighter's player heard this...

So as play resumes, with everyone ignoring the Gnome Wizard (the Cleric talking to his jailfriends, the Rogue constantly trying to get attention back onto him, and the Half-Elf Ranger and Dragonborn Bard planning a very well desighned jailbreak involving Disguise Self and disguise kits) then suddenly the Gnome Fighter asks "Who is well dressed?" I tell him the Paladin of the castle and his wife. "Ok, I grab his wife."

What?

"I hold my sword at her throat and take her as a hostage." Everyone goes nuts. Cleric and Rogue are just laughing, the Wizard is horrified and (this actually hurt me a little inside) you could see how annoyed the players of the Ranger and Bard were that their plan (WHICH WAS GOOD), wasn't going ahead. The Paladin rises with his maul and a small stand off begins. "I'll kill her. Let my friend (who intially got arrested for this guy's actions) go!" The Paladin has an oath of justice, and charges. The wife's throat is sliced and combat begins.

To cut the rest of the story short, the rogue uses this distraction to break out the Cleric, and as a 6 man party they beat the level-5 Paladin and his guards, escaping from the castle.

Now, rather jubilantly, the Gnome Fighter's player is proud of himself and keeps going on about how he's going to "**** with your campaign". I know I've messed up. But should I talk to his player (who is my best friend btw)?

Angelmaker
2016-02-27, 05:05 AM
Taking away player agency ( arresting cleric in absence of player ): mistake.
Multiple sessions with people returning: well done, mate! People are having fun.
Letting the story roll and unfold to the wishes of the players: players fault for messing it up. There are different kind of playstyles and yours is NOT THE WORST.

If your players are not interested in cooperative play (rogue clearly perpetrating an unlawful act and busting the other players plans) then end the session right there before pvp commences and congratulating everyone on playing their characters as best as they could. Tell a little story about how the group could have progressed ( rogue was fended off and became a crimelord , paladin continued to life an honest life, yadda yadda) and ask if they would like to run another campaign with different characters that are able to work together.

It is the PLAYER's responsibility to find reasons for their characters to work together. Conflicts are good for drama but should always handled in a way by all players that it can be resolved and not bring the group down.

If a DM has to heavy handedly enforce group cohesion each and every time, then it's just non fun for all involved.

SarcasticDom
2016-02-27, 05:11 AM
Taking away player agency ( arresting cleric in absence of player ): mistake.
Multiple sessions with people returning: well done, mate! People are having fun.
Letting the story roll and unfold to the wishes of the players: players fault for messing it up. There are different kind of playstyles and yours is NOT THE WORST.

If your players are not interested in cooperative play (rogue clearly perpetrating an unlawful act and busting the other players plans) then end the session right there before pvp commences and congratulating everyone on playing their characters as best as they could. Tell a little story about how the group could have progressed ( rogue was fended off and became a crimelord , paladin continued to life an honest life, yadda yadda) and ask if they would like to run another campaign with different characters that are able to work together.

It is the PLAYER's responsibility to find reasons for their characters to work together. Conflicts are good for drama but should always handled in a way by all players that it can be resolved and not bring the group down.

If a DM has to heavy handedly enforce group cohesion each and every time, then it's just non fun for all involved.

Thanks for your reply! I've certainly learnt my lesson over player agency. I doubt PVP will ever happen as they seem to work together no matter what, although the advice on that seems solid. My issue is that one party member has frequently displayed sociopathic actions (causing a shift from CN to CE) and the others (including the NG (Now TR) Wizard and CG Ranger) just go along with it. I'm not going to do a mass-agency steal and leave it up to them, and I've now planned several different ways for them to go. However after mentioning this the Gnome Fighter's player (jokingly) said he'd try and find something I hadn't planned for

Darth Ultron
2016-02-27, 10:44 AM
Arresting the pic was a bad idea. But, even if you do it, it should have ended immediately at the start of the game where the player showed up.

The easy thing to do is not let the gnome fighter ruin things. Remember you control the game world and anything can happen.

Let's take your example: you have a deception roll equal creating a lynch mob. Why? Bit of a stretch. Even if the gnome got sheriff to believe him....how did you jump to murder? That your mistake.

A good way to stop crazy players is to have a crazy world. Like try this law: any gnome that is part of any lynch mob must be killed. Crazy law, right? But it's possible.....Google some real world laws. Or for a less "racist " law, how about: any non towns folk part of a lynch mob must be killed.

Or you make the stuff they do not matter. Like having the five guards pose for a selfe, drawn by scroll, when the guy tries breaking into the jail.

KillianHawkeye
2016-02-28, 08:06 PM
Honestly, if I had somebody who openly states on multiple occasions that their only goal is to mess up the game, I would not run a game for that person. They are not being a player. A player is someone who wants to play the game, not destroy it. I would ask that person why they want to destroy my game when everyone else seems to be enjoying it.

johnbragg
2016-02-28, 08:55 PM
Before they could do that, the Tiefling Rogue tries to break into the jailhouse IN BROAD DAYLIGHT. He would of succeeded... if there weren't five guys on guard in the jailhouse. He gets chased out of the castle, momentarily distracting us all as one of our players goes up to get water.

Ok, so the Tiefling rogue is now declared guilty of some capital crime or another


The wife's throat is sliced and combat begins.

And the Gnome Fighter is declared guilty of Murder.


To cut the rest of the story short, the rogue uses this distraction to break out the Cleric, and as a 6 man party they beat the level-5 Paladin and his guards, escaping from the castle.

The Cleric, although innocent of whatever he was arrested for, is now under a death sentence for Escaping Prison, as well as conspiring with the Tiefling rogue and the Gnome Fighter. (Which is hard luck for the Cleric player, but the Dragonborn Bard, Gnome Wizard and whoever are in the same boat.


Now, rather jubilantly, the Gnome Fighter's player is proud of himself and keeps going on about how he's going to "**** with your campaign". I know I've messed up. But should I talk to his player (who is my best friend btw)?

Yes, talk to him. Let him know that he has, in fact, ****ed up the campaign for the non Chaotic Stupid players. The Tiefling Rogue and Gnome Fighter are under a death sentence for their particular crimes, and the rest of the party is in the same boat for conspiring with them.

The campaign is now about the party eluding the authorities of City X, including motivated pursuit by the Paladin. PAladin is now a major plot antagonist.

denthor
2016-02-28, 08:59 PM
The cleric is LE He should be horrified at the way he was broken out of prison but happy with the results.

The fighter Gnome is CN(E)

The thief is C?

Bard ?

What are the only problem I see is that the party supported the Gnome fighter against the Paladin.

I ding them and start a slide to evil RED FEL where are ye on this thought?

Over all no mistakes made during play just not used to how to judge the actions and give out results

Squibsallotl
2016-02-28, 10:45 PM
There's a few points to be made here. I don't know your group as well as you do, but from your description it seems that the actions of the gnome fighter and to a lesser extent the tiefling rogue is negatively impacting the fun of your other players, negating their plans and doing Stupid Stuff(tm) that just causes trouble.

Firstly, I'll echo the other posters and say try to avoid things like jailing a character just because they couldn't attend the session. Say instead that the cleric was summoned to his church for some reason. Maybe even provide him a small amount of XP or a boon for the downtime spent trying to "attain enlightenment", so that he doesn't feel so far behind the other characters.

Secondly, that fighter is now guilty of the pre-meditated murder of a paladin's wife. The first repercussion is to immediately change the character's alignment to Evil. The second is that even if the party defeat and kill said paladin, his whole Order is going to mobilize to avenge their own. This is a heinous crime that should have repercussions.

Note that this doesn't necessarily need to end in the gnome fighter's death though. A fun twist could be to get hunted down by said paladins, have them defeat the party resoundingly, then place a Geas on the fighter to atone for his crimes by doing good and not seeking anything in return. The penalty for breaking the Geas is death, and the murder victim's next of kin will decide when he has sufficiently atoned.

That should shove some sense up the player's backside. At that point he can either choose to follow his geas and earn redemption (and he has achieved his goal, it is a "good story"), or he can continue doing Stupid Stuff(tm), at which point the geas triggers and kills him. He then gets to reroll a new character, and you insist the new character has a proper backstory and motivation.

All actions in a D&D game should have repercussions, but ideally they shouldn't be immediately lethal for the PCs. A clown who does Stupid Stuff(tm) should quickly stop when he realizes that he risks getting beaten/hunted/jailed/exiled/robbed/killed/incinerated by his actions. Give them a non-lethal negative outcome first as a warning (e.g. the Geas), and then if the behaviour repeats, get progressively more hardline onto death.

dps
2016-02-28, 11:31 PM
Honestly, if I had somebody who openly states on multiple occasions that their only goal is to mess up the game, I would not run a game for that person. They are not being a player. A player is someone who wants to play the game, not destroy it. I would ask that person why they want to destroy my game when everyone else seems to be enjoying it.

Yeah, I'd be like, "Dude, it's as much your game as mine; why do you want to **** it up? I thought that you wanted to play. If you don't, why don't you just drop out, and let the rest of us play?"

Anonymouswizard
2016-02-29, 02:54 AM
You made one mistake, which you admitted. This proves that you are, at the very least, on your way to being a good GM.

For the Gnome Fighter (hereafter GF), let's play count the evil acts.
1) attempt to convict an innocent (as far as I can tell for the lulz, not even to make this job easier)
2) unwarranted escalation to a hostage situation, including murder of the hostage.
3) killing a paladin, by definition a force for good.

Oh, and the jerk actions.
1) the above list.
2) taking an ideal meant to cause disruption.
3) ignoring the plans of other players (seriously doesn't he know how rare it is to come up with a good plan).
4) playing Chaotic Neutral as 'lolrandom' (seriously, nobody acts like that, although there are legitimate philosophical reasons to be CN).

Yeah, it's clearly GF who's the problem. You at least tried to make up for your mistake with plot, although you should have come up with a way for the Tiefling to be with the party (Geas to not leave the city?), and even allowed them to instead work to break out their team member. Not great on your part, but I've played under worse GMs.

neonchameleon
2016-02-29, 06:10 AM
Have you messed up as DM? Yes.

Is it serious? Does everyone involved want to continue the campaign? I believe so. Have you learned from your mistakes? Apparently so. Therefore you've messed up but not seriously. Apologise to the cleric player, say you won't do that again (and mean it) and it's water under the bridge.


Now, rather jubilantly, the Gnome Fighter's player is proud of himself and keeps going on about how he's going to "**** with your campaign".

This needs dealing with both OOC and IC. OOC you need to talk to the gnome fighter's player and ask him why he wants to sabotage your campaign and whether it would be better for him not to play. IC if there were any survivors the gnome fighter needs to find "Wanted, Dead or Alive" notices with his face and name on them. And a lesser reward for the rest of the party. If there weren't survivors there should be a group of paladins rolling into town next session trying to investigate what happened.

BigNorm
2016-02-29, 08:53 AM
You made a mistake as you know with Jailing the cleric for not showing up. Water under the bridge. Move on. My friends and I as player characters have threatened several times to sell another of the party into slavery if he ever doesn't show again. (He has a bad habit of calling us telling us he won't be making it as we are sitting around the table waiting for him.) But it's all in fun and he would take it as the joke it is if he found his character chained to an oar contemplating his life sins.

As far as your friend intentionally messing with the campaign. Don't let him. Let him be responsible for his actions. If he acts foolhardy and does stupid things then let the dice decide the story. Don't create things to destroy him but just let his actions affect those around him and see where it leads. It sounds like he has his hands full with a paladin now so let that story play out and most of all have fun.

I liked your story by the way. Keep up the good work.

Red Fel
2016-02-29, 11:00 AM
I ding them and start a slide to evil RED FEL where are ye on this thought?

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/3552074/you-rang-o.gif

You rang?


Now, rather jubilantly, the Gnome Fighter's player is proud of himself and keeps going on about how he's going to "**** with your campaign". I know I've messed up. But should I talk to his player (who is my best friend btw)?

Yes, unequivocally.

As others have stated, you made a minor mistake - jailing a character to explain his absence. In the future don't do that; just relegate an absent player's character to the background, or suggest that each player entrust a character to another player in case of absence. But that was a minor mistake.

This guy's response? Disproportionate dingus.

He may be your bestest best buddy. But best buddies don't screw around with things that are important to you. If I showed a friend my treasured collection of models, and he proceeded to systematically dismantle several while I was in the other room, I'd be understandably peeved. You should absolutely talk to him. Because...


Honestly, if I had somebody who openly states on multiple occasions that their only goal is to mess up the game, I would not run a game for that person. They are not being a player. A player is someone who wants to play the game, not destroy it. I would ask that person why they want to destroy my game when everyone else seems to be enjoying it.

Yeah, I'd be like, "Dude, it's as much your game as mine; why do you want to **** it up? I thought that you wanted to play. If you don't, why don't you just drop out, and let the rest of us play?"

These. There is an assumption, when a player joins a game, that they want to play the game. Unless part of the game is attempting to dismantle it - which is an assumption in some games, to be fair - trying to wreck things is just a dingus move. It's not okay.

As an additional note:


Taking away player agency ( arresting cleric in absence of player ): mistake.
Multiple sessions with people returning: well done, mate! People are having fun.
Letting the story roll and unfold to the wishes of the players: players fault for messing it up. There are different kind of playstyles and yours is NOT THE WORST.

This. Look, the big question is whether the players are having fun. If the non-psycho PC players are enjoying the deranged antics of the psycho PCs, and you're willing and able to handle it, it's a good game. As long as players and DM are having fun, there's no reason to change things.

If you're not having fun, or if the non-psycho PC players aren't having fun, it's time to step back and have a conversation. But if that's not the case, feel free to play out this terrifying and bizarre buddy comedy featuring paragons of justice and murderous sociopaths, traveling the world and killing everyone they meet.

SarcasticDom
2016-03-01, 10:49 AM
Thanks everyone for the advice.

As some of you have suggested, there will be in-game repercussions for the actions of the party including bounties and the paladin's order hunting them. As for the players themselves, I intend to talk with the Ranger and the Bard's players as they were the two with the plan. I'll ask them if the Gnome Fighter's actions detracted from their enjoyment of the session. I'll apologise to the Cleric, and I've learnt from this. If there are complaints about the Gnome Fighter, I'll talk to his player; if everyone is enjoying his mischief then I'll let it slide for now, and if it gets worse I will talk to him.

Once again thank you everyone.

dps
2016-03-09, 09:44 PM
If there are complaints about the Gnome Fighter, I'll talk to his player; if everyone is enjoying his mischief then I'll let it slide for now, and if it gets worse I will talk to him.


I'd advise you to be proactive here; even if the other players haven't complained about his IC antics, you need to talk to him about his OOC comments about ****ing your campaign up. Don't wait for him do something that does tick off your other players.