D&D 5E DM campaign disputes.

[Aaron Woolsey]

After the end of a game session the DM started another game session involving the same campaign and players but without us even being aware. The new players ambushed our party nearly killing two PC's and killing an NPC vital to the campaign in addition to having several powerful items stolen. Of everyone involved in the original campaign only the DM was present and aware of the situation.

 

[aco175]

If the DM added more players to the table without your knowing and they caused problems, then you should talk to the DM. I would have no problem asking those new player to not come back and restart the game from where the new players caused the problem. If my main group is not having fun, then I should be correcting it so we all have fun.

If there was another secret game going on with other players and they got to a story point where they interact with the main group, then that is fine and the DM should be congratulated with combining the games to try and make it more fun for all. If the fun did not happen, try to not make it a big deal and ask him to not do that again.

 

[rgoodbb]

I'm tempted to say: Find a new DM, or better yet, become one, and vow never to do that to another player.

But I'm sooo thinking:

Totally
Rude
Over
Lord
Lunacy

 

[Aaron Woolsey]

This was the first introduction of the new players and we did not interact. It was done without anyone present to defend themselves or make their own decisions.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

After the end of a game session the DM started another game session involving the same campaign and players but without us even being aware. The new players ambushed our party nearly killing two PC's and killing an NPC vital to the campaign in addition to having several powerful items stolen. Of everyone involved in the original campaign only the DM was present and aware of the situation.

That is exactly the kind of mistake that a new DM would make. It can be hard to bring new players into an existing campaign, and this sort of thing solves the problem of getting everyone in the same location, but it doesn't serve the vital purpose of giving everyone a reason to work together on the same team.

Probably the best thing would be to talk it over with the DM, explain that it's super lame of them to play your PCs for you while you're not there, and maybe you can come to an agreement about a different way to move forward. Maybe your characters didn't get beaten up, and the NPC wasn't killed, and you subdued the other PCs instead. Or else you could reset to before the ambush, and you could take over playing from that point, and avoid the bad stuff happening.

 

[thethain]

Yeah.. I don't think I would want to continue playing a campaign in which our characters are literally attacked while not even present (were the original player's even made aware of the new players game to attempt to protect themselves?)

Unless you were told up front this would be an adversarial campaign, this is really a weird situation.

Pack your toys and go home, sorry.If the DM even considered this an OK thing to happen then he's probably going to pull similar crap in the future.

 

[aco175]

After the end of a game session the DM started another game session involving the same campaign and players but without us even being aware. The new players ambushed our party nearly killing two PC's and killing an NPC vital to the campaign in addition to having several powerful items stolen. Of everyone involved in the original campaign only the DM was present and aware of the situation.

BTW, welcome to the message boards.

I was just reading your post and it looks like the DM ended your game and started another with another group of players. The new group ambushed your parties characters, while you were not playing them, killed half of you and stole your stuff.

There are 2 points of thought. First, if the DM killed your actual characters without your being able to do anything or even know it was happening, then that is not cool and call BS on him. If the DM used your characters as NPCs that the other group was attacking and your game was unaffected, then that is not a big deal. As long as your characters and stuff are not affected.

Several times in the past I have had my group fight themselves, usually a shadow clone or such of themselves with slightly altered magic. I'm always amazed at the glee the players like to attack each other since I have them each play both their character and their shadow clone.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So not only did these new players "affect the campaign", they directly attacked your original group and the DM ran your characters for you as if they were NPCs?

If that is the case then I would wish the DM well with his new campaign and players, start my own campaign and invite the rest of the old crew and move on.

 

[guachi]

The DM can do anything he wants in the game world. That doesn't mean he should or that it's wise.

There is nothing preventing you or other players from taking your PCs and starting or continuing the game elsewhere. In a sense, you are invalidating what the DM did as you ask in your original post.

 

[Blue]

The DM can do anything he wants in the game world.

You know, normally I'd agree with this, but I think I found my limit.

Playing the PCs characters as NPCs without their knowledge or consent, and then expecting those changes (such as the loss of items) to "stick" is outside what I would allow a DM to do.

Now, killing the vital NPC is a seriously poor move that I would talk to him about, but that's within the DM's purview. And if I let him run my character if I was absent and something happened I'd go along with it. But that's only half.

As a side note, a GM for a Champion's game that's been going on for decades that I haven't played in for years occasionally asks me about using my old characters in a plot. I've always said yes, even when it's bad for them. But it's the point that he recognizes that out of all the world that is his, the characters are mine. When we play an RPG we tacitly agree to changes happening, but that doesn't translate to changes happening outside of my play without my knowledge or consent.