So.
Tonight is my biweekly DM game with a group that strongarmed me into DMing with them. I enjoy the play experience, but I'm lukewarm about these players. They're by no means bad people--but I recognized early on that their playstyle doesn't really sync with what I enjoy in games. Still, I relented because I believe it's important to learn how to play and accommodate many kinds of players.
Today, I received an e-mail from their "regular" DM. He's the one that drives gaming in their group, and he seems to be the center of their social economy. He's a likeable guy--but I can see that he's very particular and wants things to go according to plan--like he's used to being right, or at the very least getting his own way.
He was unhappy with the amount of XP I'm awarding the party, and he was particularly unhappy with the way the last combat went.
The XP is according to the maths of the game (So 6 zombies= (50*6)/6, but the "xp" threshold was something like (300*1.5=400 XP threshold from pg. 82 of DMG)
The party was also in front of an area where a Mummy was locked up. The mummy couldn't get out without player interference. They detected magic, recognized something evil, knew there was something sentient and malicious, yadda yadda.
The combat with the zombies begins--and one of the players decides to free the mummy.
Obviously, they didn't know the mummy was a mummy--but they knew something bad was behind "Door numbah 1."
Which brings me to the e-mail. This member of my party is saying I shouldn't have constructed a combat which was so lethal for a party of level one characters (nobody died, but two were cursed). He went on to tell me how to construct a challenge.
I already composed my response, but what I'm frustrated by is that I *did not* construct the challenge they created. I constructed a zombie fight, and I created the threat of something more--and a player chose in the middle of combat to explore that threat. This was a risk, and I knew it was a possibility--but I did not force their hand to release the mummy. They had been warned.
I know, I know, I could have made the mummy stay inert, and I could have done a million other things to *not* have made that conflict--but if I build up a potential threat, promise danger, and then not deliver on that danger when it's engaged, doesn't that turn that players decision into a non-choice? If I took away the threat of that decision in the moment which that decision was made because it was inconvenient for the rest of the players, then aren't I just rail-roading the whole group into saying "this one challenge is all that matters?"
If I don't honor my player's decisions, then what's the point?
I'm trying to approach this with a grain of salt--they're new to me and I'm new to them. I will not leave them stuck with two parties slowly dying from mummy rot, but they don't necessarily know that yet.
The language in the e-mail isn't rude, but I just feel like this player's decision to bring this up outside of the context of the group, in an e-mail, the day of gaming rather than at the table with the rest of the players, and as a dialogue so we can ALL talk about it and see what we want says something about the way he sees my relationship with him/his group.
Meh.
You have to acknowledge that you put the zombies and the "mysterious, probably bad thing behind a door" right next to each other and that it could appear to a player that you did so because you wanted them to interact with both at the same time.
I'm not saying you have to accept that you "made them" do what they did - just that you have to be aware as a DM that the players only have what you give them to work with, and in their trying to work out what to do can easily get the wrong idea about what they "should" do or what want them to do - so you should be mindful of this and not present situations to players that you aren't sure they will understand appropriately, or at the very least telegraph your dangers much better so that it is actually clear to the players (which it would seem it wasn't in this particular case).
As for the email vs. at the table discussion? Yeah, no - bringing it up with everybody there to "gang up on you" is the thing typically seen as the rude or inappropriate way to handle such a discussion, and a private and discreet conversation in polite language is the preferred (though usually preferred to be done in person, one-on-one, rather than via email). You inviting the group of players to discuss how thing went is fine, but I guarantee the group of them would feel like they were bullying you if they launched into complaints unsolicited and while outnumbering you.
It is your job to put up obstacles, and the players job to figure out solutions. If they choose to make their solution "Lets open more doors during a fight", that is their choice. If it were me, I would have been more likely to barricade the other door until the fight was over. I don't care if you did intend for us to fight them all at the same time.... there is no need for me to do that.
Now, if you set it up so that door seemed like an escape route, or safe haven, or whatever.... then that is a different story. But if they new more baddies were behind that door.... that is completely on them. (though I would not phrase it that way when talking with them 
)
As for the email, I think it was a better choice than them 'surprising' you when it could feel like they are ganging up on you. I would thank him for letting you know about his concerns; and explain that you had designed two *separate* encounters; and were not anticipating the players deciding to fight them all at the same time. Explain that they could have dispatched the zombies, then recuperated a bit before moving onto the mummy.
As for XP, is he expecting more, or less? The RAW of it is they would get to split the 300Xp from the zombies, not the 450XP from the encounter difficulty.
Also, either they are really good, or really lucky, because a group of 1st level should likely TPK from 6 zombies and a mummy..... the mummy can pretty much one-shot any first level PC it hits...
(Of course, this is probably all too late, since you are already gaming.... let us know how it turned out.)
A piece of advice: e-mail is psychotic. It is incredibly easy to sound insulting, rude, goofy or whatever without ever intending to be. Make sure you're not just reading more into it. Could he actually trying to be helpful? Maybe he forgot they released the mummy? Maybe they actually missed the clue you thought was totally obvious?
just advising you not to overreact to e-mails. Real easy to read them the wrong way.
Is this a rude player? It's too soon to know. As you say, you're new to the group, and social dynamics can take a while to stabilize. If this guy is still second-guessing you after several more sessions, then you've got an problem.
The issue of "how/when would it be appropriate for this guy to voice his concerns?" is a tricky one. As AaronOfBarbaria noted, this email may have been your player's way of making sure you didn't feel embarrased or attacked in front of the whole group. When it comes to communication styles, everyone has different preferences. Unless you have already specifically told the group that you want to discuss issues like this only when everyone is present, then you should give your new players the benefit of the doubt.
Which brings me to the e-mail. This member of my party is saying I shouldn't have constructed a combat which was so lethal for a party of level one characters (nobody died, but two were cursed). He went on to tell me how to construct a challenge.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Noon wrote:
I agree with Coredump00 on this one.
#1. It's DMs job to provide challenges, not solutions. If a player decides to "wander off" and do something else in the middle of combat, then that's his fault. I mean, really? Opening doors in the middle of combat? Does that guy open chests and loot bodies while his companions are dying, too? Jeez.
#2. I had the same initial thought about the e-mail, as well. He was probably just trying not to call you out in front of the others. So, yes, it does "say something" about how he feels ... but maybe it says he respects you and values your presence enough to be discreet.
#3. 300 XPs.
It's very easy to misread email. There's no tone in text. The phrase "hey man, you messed up." could be said in a jovial way converying a meaning of "No big deal, we all mess up sometimes" or it could be said in a terse, mean way placing all the blame on you. That's just an example sentence, I don't think you really messed up. So you could be reading more blame into the e-mail than what he intends.
My dad had some good advice: critique in private, praise in public. So him sending the e-mail to start with was probably the nice play. If you'd like to discuss this openly at the next game, you should. Try to keep things as civil as possible.
I believe you use the total xp / number of characters. So in this case it would be 300/6 = 50 for the zombies. And 700/6 = 116 xp for the Mummy.
Also. How the hell did 6 1st level characters walk away from this? Zombies are freaking hard to kill in this edition. Without smart tactics, I just don't see it happening. And if part of their tactics is to open doors with evil crap behind it DURING COMBAT, than I'm not really seeing smart tactics here.
Many groups are used to dealing with everything as a problem they're supposed to handle. Let's say you do a little foreshadowing for a 1st level party and mention a troll that's terrorizing the countryside. This was supposed to just be some backdrop to make the world a little more real, and maybe when they gain a few levels they can deal with it. Now the fighter is pooling the parties money to buy all the oil flasks in town...
- Eck
It does seem odd to me that they would have the potential to face a mummy at level 1, and it should have been pretty hard to do so if you ask me, but you do have on your side the principle that the player was making a reckless move. If there were maybe some more zombies lying in wait on the other side, why wouldn't they join in on the fun? And two rooms with zombies isn't very farfetched. A player, or more importantly, their character, should expect that sort of thing. Though maybe their exit was sealed, and the door in front of them was the only way out? Which would change things. It would be someone's first act in running away.
But anyway, if the other DM is getting involved, either they're extremely rude, or they are genuinely trying to help. If you're a newer 5e DM, perhaps they're just trying to give you pointers, like people do on this site. If they are criticizing and not critiquing, there is a problem.
Heck, when they opened the door and saw the mummy, I would have shut the darn door.... Then used a metal spike to keep it closed.
fepriest wrote:
As someone learning to DM, and as part of a group learning 5e, I talk to my players weekly about how the game is going and if I am meeting expectations. My thinking- if one player isn't satisfied, and everyone else is, keep up the good work. If the majority of the players aren't satisfied, it's time to stop and look at what's not working. Maybe you can fix it, or maybe someone else needs to take over and run the game. That's how I got the DM'ing gig- the players weren't happy and the DM wasn't happy, so we agreed to make a change. It hasn't been a complete success, but we are having fun again and no one is worried about the group collapsing.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Noon wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
akaddk wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Noon wrote:
akaddk wrote:
Noon wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
"No plan survives contact with the enemy."
Well, the players and GM aren't enemies, but the same concept applies. I personally feel that games need to be flexible. If players won't take the hint (because they missed something), then make something different up on the fly that they can handle. Maybe have the Mummy in question bound and still trying to escape, and make a challenge out of fleeing.
In my experience, flexible plans in reaction to player "mistakes" (they're not really) are better. I've come to Con games with a full plot, but the players, within 10 minutes, go in a completely different direction than the three paths I planned out and gave them. I had to ad lib the entire thing, start to finish. Everyone had a blast.
The point is that players don't always do what you expect them to, so you should always be ready for things to not go your way. You can't plan for everything, but being ready that you may have to alter parts of your game on the fly is usually a good step.
Don't be upset by the email, because, for all you know, the guy is simply not communicating what he feels the issues are very well. Open communication in games like this is important. Learning experiences are important. Knowing what your group wants is important. None of these things lead to problem players.
Now, I would suggest talking with him before the game starts. Then, bring things up with the entire group (carefully not to point fingers at why its brought up) about what the group felt happened last session, and how you can up your game. Feedback is critical for successful GMs.
I really appreciate the feedback from y'all. With hindsight/distance I can see my suspicions were definitely a byproduct of the "in-group/out-group" nature of my relationship with the group. I'm still getting a feel for them, and it says something about my own comfort level that I still feel guarded. So for those of you reading against my initial reaction, thank you for playing the sane (wo)men in my head.
As for the challenge/threat: I see from both sides of the argument why placing a potential threat in a room with a more immediate threat creates the exact play experience which occurred. AaronofBarbaria's observation about communicating cues is a really apt one, and part of my response to the Player was to show him an Article from the Critical Hits blog which suggests creating the potential monsters in a game using an "ecological" method, which is how I concocted this dungeon. The players actively avoided a room because I described it as smelling sweet (for whatever reason, olfactory sensation seems to terrify this party), but that room has a brief explanation of the state of the dungeon: a wizard packed up his abortive attempt at creating a wizarding school in the area and shoved it all in his old bodyguard's keep in a fit of despair, and because he didn't give instructions for how things should have been packed/organized, some of the material components and spell triggers "Crossed wires" to bad effect.
The mummy was one of the Wizard's apprentices who'd gone on to make a living in a larger city after plagiarizing the Wizard's spell book and selling his work to said Wizard's rivals. The Wizard, who'd invested everything he'd made as an adventurer into his aborted school and was running from debtors, eventually caught up with his old apprentice, and <SKIPPING INFORMATION FOR THE SAKE OF SPEED> killed him, teleported to the keep, and stuffed the apprentices body into a closet along with all the copies of the Wizard's spells in the apprentices possession. (the mummy was just a mummy from the book, so despite its background as a magical being it doesn't have any perks).
Had they known that, I wonder how the players would have reacted differently (I ommitted information for the sake of brevity, but there are several other pieces of info they've had in their hands and only connected a few of the dots). But that's moot--the knowledge of the monster doesn't change the encounter, just the context of the encounter. I still hope they stumble into the story of the dungeon--they were hired to help clean this place out by the nobility in charge of the city after the Wizard died, but that's only the exigence for the adventure, not the "reason for adventuring" itself--since I want them to understand the nature of the space they're in, but I really want to honor the idea of choice in the game. I could arrange for every action in the game to lead the players into the right exposition for the moment--but then I'm just offering an illusion of a choice.
But enough rambling about the game. Thank y'all for taking the time to respond and talk about the situation at hand.
MechaPilot wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
This thread is on FIIIIIREEEEE!!!
Personally, I don't think you (the OP) did anything wrong. I believe encounters should be created based on what makes sense for the story, not what's politically correct to the particular players for a challenge. That said, no DM really wants to kill their players. They want the threat there to make the story more intense. So you kind of have to have stuff that IS threatening sometimes. I personally don't feel that the player who emailed you was being rude, but I do feel like he is trying to take control of your game in a way that makes more sense to him. IMO I think this guy should more readily accept his role as a player in your game. Not to say he can't dicuss things with you like this. But to me it sounds like he came to you with an agenda on how you need to DM the game differently, which isn't really cool. As a DM myself, I know I've been frustrated with the way other people run games in some instances, but I know everyone has a different way of running the game. First and foremost people should try to be enjoying the why and what of the story in each game, and less so on the mechanics. I really feel like the game is more fun when the story is the focus and we can allow the mechanics to become background noise. The caveat is of course when the mechanics fail to support the story, but to me this situation does not seem like it is about mechanics failing to support a good story. It seems like a player (who is also a DM) is focusing more on the mechanics than the story.
Noon wrote:
My take on this thread is that you are an angel for DMing for your new friends, and they are lucky if you keep DMing for them.
That is a little biased because I would say the same thing to most anyone willing to DM.
There are a lot of good tidbits here though.
My experience is that most gamers are prone to have quirks and eccentricities. Mix up a table of dorks with a DM whos style they arent used to yet, and it is hard to imagine them NOT derailing whatever you had hoped they would do.
---by default anything you specifically point out as special will immediately become a focus of attention, and a lot of gamers are a bit socially retarded and just will not understand normal social queues.
Also our 3rd level party almost got TPKed by 6 zombies. They are way more dangerous than their CR would suggest. Although our DM let them save to stay alive an unlimited number of times which might have made a slight difference ;)
FWIW, I'm new to D&D (played as a PC for about 6 months now), and have just started DM'ing for my personal friend group who are also new to D&D (apart from one who played years ago). Here's my take on the situation:
* Everyone keeps saying, repeatedly, that the players didn't do what the GM "wanted", which I think is an inaccurate way of looking at the situation. The OP didn't "want" them to do anything, he presented them with a challenge, and a mystery (that happened to hold a greater challenge), and then the payers interacted with these things how they saw fit.. I personally think he handled it fine - allowed the players to find out information about the threat, presented them with the choice of confronting it after the more immediate danger etc...
If the players choose to confront the mystery in the middle of combat, then that's their choice. Sure, this is D&D, but this isn't a fairytail: I'm keen not to let my own players think they can just do whatever they want on a whim and not face any kind of consequences ever. Sure, I'd try to make sure they didn't all die, but hindsight is a powerful teacher, and I'd want them to learn from their experience.
In this instance: "Next time: Let's *not* open the door with the evil presence behind it while also fighting zombies".
With regards to the XP... I mean you can only give the XP that the monsters have, but maybe award bonus XP if the players do something note worthy? But I'd stand your ground on that one.
* Re: the email. A lot of good advice on this already - don't read too much into it just yet. If he keeps doing it, then maybe you have a problem, but I'd personally stand your ground on your choices in how you constructed the scenario. Speaking about these things in private is probably best for the moment though, although yeah email is not the optimum format for it.
As a side note, I'm always fiddling with stat blocks HP and damage on the fly. I stick to the CR ratings as much as possible, but sometimes I just want an interesting baddie in there, and if I have to tone down his HP,Damage etc... a little, then the players don't need to know - they still have a fun challenge. Not sure how well it's working but the only minor complaints I've had so far is that I may not be running the mobs properly in terms of tactics, but I can work on that.
This is just a matter of different styles of gaming. Some players like their characters to actually be safe but feel like they're in danger, some like to actually be in danger. That group sounds like the former.
For what it's worth I think that the encounter design was fine though on the deadly side. You gave multiple hints of a greater danger which required player interaction to inject into the already difficult encounter. A player didn't heed the warnings and the greater danger came into play at an unfortunate time. I've had this happen before in my own campaigns and I'm sure it'll happen again. A quick example:
a party is having a difficult time with an encounter and one of the players decides to open the large wooden doors on the other side of the room even though I gave him hints like "you hear heavy breathing on the other side of the door and some kind of argument over which part of a dwarf is best eaten last" and what not. That would have merged 2 encounters into one and potentially caused a TPK. So I just had one of the 3 large Ogres stare down the player.... and slowly close the door. It made for some confusion at first when the doors were opened and then turned into stress relief laughter. The actions of the player provided an advantage for the party when they did get to that encounter so it was all good. But sometimes you just can't account for a player's rash decision during a stressful moment.
I would bring up the issue at the start of the next session and talk about it in the open as a group. You can go over all of the clues you gave the party about the bigger threat and explain that you didn't expect one of the player's to ignore them and unleash it on the party, but that the encounter was designed to still be defeated even if that did happen, which is what your party managed to do. Talk about it as a group and resolve problems together.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Noon wrote:
After reading all the newer replies, my opinion on the subject has not changed ...
Kayal wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I run my games on the risky side, darker than most games.
I didn't find the slightest thing wrong with your decision to have the Mummy attack.
If the players go around thinking all threats HAVE to be CR appropriate regardless of the stupidiy of their actions, then they hang themselves frankly.
A good game has just the right amount of danger in it to feel dangerous, with the decisions of the PCs really beng the deciding factor between success and failure or serious setback. In that way the players feel they are mnore in charge of their destiney. Any game where all combat encounters can be beaten purely by dice rolling are boring, frankly.
CR numbers are guidance, not a straight jacket. If you are fair in giving characters an opportunity to avoid a high level threat (as you did) then if the players decide to blunder into it (as they did) then the consequences are on them.
If the other GM disagrees then you need to stop GM'ing rather than continue with a group who expect to be wrapped in cotton wool, or, wrap them in cotton wool and resign yourself to that type of game. It all depends whether you could enjoy running a game without an edge of risk?
It's not required for a GM to care about how an encounter they design turns out, in advance.
It's IS the GM's job to make sure the players have a fun time - on a campaign scale, not a session scale - regardless of whether they cakewalk over the monsters or die a horrible fiery death.
So did this little episode, even if it wasn't fun for some players that night, set the groundwork for a more enjoyable overall campaign?
Noon wrote:
Okay ... first off, remember one very very important fact.
YOU are the DM. Not your players. It's YOUR rules and decisions players need to follow. There's nothing wrong with accepting some constructive criticism, but when you put your foot down, it's up to them to comply. If your former DM wants to make the decisions, then let HIM run the game. If he wants you to run the game, then he has to accept what you say. Period.
Now to address individual concerns:
- It's 300 XP. They get rewarded for the monsters they kill, not the difficulty of the encounter. The difficulty scaling is just there to ensure you don't accidentally kill your players. That being said, you are the DM and you control the pacing of XP. So if you want to give them more to level them up faster, you can. But that's your call.
- A good story means having the players face challenges that may be way above their pay grade. It's a matter of them realizing that even they can't steam roll everything, and sometimes, discretion is indeed the better part of valor. You gave them plenty of warning that there was something evil and dangerous behind that door. THEY chose to open it in the middle of another fight, which is incredibly darwin award of them. If they nearly died, it was their own doing. You didn't open that door. They did. Next time, they'll pay more attention to the warning signs.
Unfortunately, it seems that part of DMing is dealing with players who want to try and control the game and rules for you. DO NOT LET THAT HAPPEN! Your job is to be fair, but firm. If you let them dictate how you DM, your stint as DM is effectively over.
KarlB wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
KarlB wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ranthalan wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Noon buddy, I think you should re-read Aaron's posts, you seem to be making assumptions. Maybe from a previous conversation you've had?
Aaron's point is spot on.
The only person you have control over is yourself. If you want to improve the game it's got to start with you.
Orethalion wrote:
Theros wrote:
Aaron, is this a fair dumbed-down example of your point?
In a campaign, the players are fighting against the agents of an evil cult. The cult leaders (not the rank and file, but the ones ultimately in charge) are all scarred in a specific manner, a pair of cross-shaped scars on each cheek.
The players eventually discover this identifying mark. Not from direct observation, but from an account by a captured henchman.
The DM in this campaign has described other NPCs in this campaign as being scarred. These other NPCs were not described as having dual paired cross-scars, nor the DM did not mean for these other random NPCs to be associated with this evil cult.
So later, the players encounter a beggar following them. The beggar has dual paired cross-scars. This occurs after the players have learned "dual paired cross-scars = evil cult head honcho".
But the DM never actually describes the nature of the beggar's scars. In his mind, it's been so long since any of his NPCs were described as having scars that any reference he gives now to a scarred individual should be taken as a reference to the most recent scar-related plot point he gave. I.e., any reference to a scarred individual is aasumed by the DM to be a reference to an evil cult head honcho.
But to the players, scarred individuals occured so often before the evil cult arc of the campaign that it makes little sense to assume that they've all disappeared simply because it's the dual paired cross-scarred individuals that are the current focus. So if an individual is described as "scarred" but not "dual paired cross-scarred", that individual is not assumed to be one of the evil cult head honchos they're chasing after.
So if the players then find that their every move has been anticipated thanks to the intelligence gathered by the beggar-looking honcho, intelligence that he only gained because the players chose to ignore him as a non-threat, do they then have cause to be displeased with how events have turned out?
Theros wrote:
Noon wrote:
Regarding the original post, I'd personally, as a player, would have no problem with how that encounter went down. No characters were killed but two were cursed? I like it. A curse is a pretty significant matter for a low level character, they tend to lack the resources to easily remove a curse. It has some gravitas' and potential story material for future sessions. As DM, I've no problem with the potential danger of the encounter, assuming you provided all the clues as described, the players had to be aware it was a risk to introduce the unknown and likely dangerous evil into the mix.
What I think is a bit odd, is the player talking it so seriously. It's a game after all, and making a big fuss about it, I think is a bit immature.
Gwaithador wrote: