D&D 5E 2 year campaign down the drain?

[billd91]

Well, what's a D&D campaign without a little bit of player character mayhem? This sort of thing - players flying off the handle and events sliding out of control - is actually fairly common, in my experience. If there isn't an event where things get crazy at least once a campaign, then I'd feel I was doing something wrong as DM.

As far as problem 1 - your problem player - I hope things continue to develop well in this situation and that he has taken the discussion to heart for the long term. But be prepared for it to last a little while and slowly revert back to old, bad habits. It may take a while to really rehabilitate this guy.

For the rest of the issue - I would consider some of the advice in this thread extreme. Going all ultraviolent on a noble's gambling boat may not be the epitome of good, but it takes patterns of behavior to set someone's alignment - so don't overemphasize anything like that. Particularly if the PCs start trying to minimize the downstream effects of their night of craziness.
They should definitely NOT kill all the witnesses. In fact, that's where they can probably start to minimize the damage. They should really consider just turning them all loose - something that would imply that they just had a limited target - the gambling host. And using someone's real name - in the chaos going on, only a few witnesses are likely to really remember them so it's not like their name is shot in all civilized cities in the Forgotten Realms. Truth is - eyewitness accounts are usually unreliable. Some of the witnesses will have heard the name right, some will have heard it wrong, and that will murk up any investigation. Consider including that in any reports of a bounty - have some of the names/descriptions be right but have others be wrong. Then let the PCs figure out how much danger they're in and how they can minimize it.

I kind of like Bawylie's advice about keeping an eye to reputation and notoriety, the bounty. They can definitely change people's perspectives of them, particularly if they hie out of town, and lay low for a while and don't make the current matter any worse.

 

[Todd Roybark]

it does matter. There are a number of game effects that key off alignment. Book of Exhalted deeds, a unicorns lair, the Oathbreaker class etc.

Unless The Unicorn’s Lair is the name of a hidden exclusive tavern the players need to infiltrate, the meagre number of effects keyed off Alignment in 5e, leads to the conclusion that Alignment is no longer the stick, (or shtick), it was to compel certain behavior in players.

The DM saying “Alignment Change”, and all player shenanigans ceasing immediately is an antiquated modality.

Alignment is only a general descriptor of moral outlook, the devil is in the details....which is the Bonds, Flaws, and Ideals. You know the concrete details that people use to create performances from.

Flamey, you have put a substantial amount of thought into matters of ethics and Alignment, (and from everything I have read of your posts), have communicated well defined expectations of what behavior constitutes which Alignment.

It is not hard for me to imagine that someone new to the hobby, whom is not in their mid-forties plus’s.....as many of the usual suspects of this board are....might have a quite different view on the role Alignment performs in the game.

There are, (to my mind at minimum), less hammer like methods to in incentivize desired player behavior then announcing “ Alignment Changes for Everyone....Don’t accept it and the Game is OVER”.

 

[Pulakhell]

This may contain SPOILERS for SKT. If you haven't played it or are a player in my session PLEASE STOP READING NOW!!!!



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hey all! I'm a Dm for about 3 years now and have been doing a 5e run of SKT with some friends. We started as a group of 5 and grew over 2 years to a group of 8. Through that time my adventurers were going through the story making mostly good decisions. It was some players first D&D campaign so it took some getting used to as far as being in a world with repercussions. Initially our Drow Rogue stabbed and killed a horse because he thought the owner was being unfair to the player. Needless to say the group used all of their gold to buy the horse and left the town. Since this was early in the campaign they watched over him with caution (and all being RL friends we didn't want to kick him out of the campaign).

Well the campaign went on and the group went through the adventure. There was a point when the Drow Rogue was bit by a werewolf and the party needed to leave him in the service of a priest while they gathered the materials to cure the Lycanthropy. After he was cured, and realized the party went out of their way to help him, his demeanor changed. He began working with the group instead of against them. This continued until one of my longest friends, who I might add is a player that tries to test the limit of the game world, joined the game as a Bard. As a side note he was the first person I played D&D with years prior (I knew the way he played but decided to involve him because I figured he would see the way my game was being run and act accordingly with the players at the table). Of course that decision turned out to bite me in the ass as he began dismantling the game piece by piece. He began taking over all aspects of the game, when it came to decision making, what the optimal path would be, theft, lying and cheating whenever possible. He began to bully the other players into following his path and recruited the Drow Rogue to be his side kick. He would continue to crack jokes, not listen to narrative, use his phone and get drunk at the table. I would joke with my other players that "Maybe this session the Bard would mysteriously vanish" hoping one of them would speak out about what he was doing. But that never happened. He was sabotaging the game and I didn't want to kick him out of the campaign because I thought it would put a strain on our RL friendship. I didn't know what to do.

This went on for a few sessions until one night after the session the rogue, my wife and I had a talk with him. He claimed he didn't realize he was causing such discourse at the table and began to try to blame others. I know I was also to blame because I was creating this atmosphere of "DM v. Player" every session and not addressing the real issue. Eventually we came to an agreement that he had 4 levels of "Madness" and he needed to be cured in order to stop acting out. The party was able to conclude that the Bard was not acting right and they took him to a wizard to restore his sanity. This seemingly worked and we continued through the story with minimal bumps in the road.

My latest session was tonight, where the party needed to sneak onto a gambling riverboat dressed as noblemen/noblewomen, to find information about where the missing giant king was being held. The players tried to convince everyone that the Barbarian was nobility to gain access. They continued through the town and purchased fine/noble clothing and waited till the evening to board the ship. When they asked me if they could bring weapons and gear on the ship, of course I said "The guards wouldn't allow such things on the ship". There was an hour long discussion about how they were going to go about this and the players came up with this plan: They would put their weapons in a bag of holding, and carry their armor to the ship. When the guards told them they couldn't bring the armor on, they would try to deceive the guards (Which succeeded) that the inn was not secure enough for nobility and they would pay to keep their belongings on the ship (2g per article), they also bluffed what was in the bag of holding by pulling out gold and convincing the guard that It was their heavy coin purse. While the Drow Rogue Slight of Handed 2 daggers on his person... "just in case".

They were allowed on board and then the night began. The boat was filled with nobles, guards and the NPCs that they needed to interrogate. The group introduced themselves to the Lord who was in charge of the establishment as well as his bodyguard. The Lords only purpose for running such an operation was to further his rank politically, so when the Barbarian failed his Deception check to show interest in what the Lord is doing, he immediately lost interest in the groups affairs and told the guards to keep their eye on them. They tried to speak to the Lord and bodyguard again but to no avail because they kept rolling below DC10 on their checks. (Now looking back I feel like I should have just fudged the reactions so they didn't get to the point I'm about to describe) So they devised plan for the Druid and our other Arcane Trickster Rogue to infiltrate the room where they knew the Lords chamber to be. The Druid shape shifted to a fly, while also casting Pass Without Trace and the Arcane Trickster Rogue cast Invisibility. They make it to the room, without trying to check if the Lord was in there or not, and walk in. The Lord WAS in there and was startled. For some reason the Arcane Trickster Rogue began to throw books on the floor (I guess to scare him), to which he ran downstairs to his Bodyguard for help. She accompanied him upstairs, all while the Druid and Arcane Trickster Rogue stayed in the room to search it for any information. The Lord and Bodyguard got back to see the room has been gone through. The bodyguard casts Detect Thoughts and detected the Druids thoughts as he tried to flee as a fly. This spiraled the entire night into chaos.

The Arcane Trickster Rogue picks up a rapier in the Lords room and tried to attack the bodyguard. While this was going on the Druid shape shifted into a Polar Bear and killed the Lord in one attack. (The lord had all of the information about the disappearance of the Giant Lord) All of the guards at this point, knowing to keep an eye on the players who were acting weird the entire time on the ship, began to run to the sound of a giant Polar Bear roar on the second floor of the ship and needless to say the party manages to kill all but one guard, the captain and the bodyguard that all jumped overboard. The only PC that thought to use non lethal damage was our Fighter, to which he knocked out 2 guards and saved them for questioning. Meanwhile all of the nobles were terrified of this act aggression thinking they were going to be killed next. Our "quick thinking" Drow Rogue decided to use Deception to tell all of the guests that this was all the work of the cult of Elemental Evil by saying "Don't worry! We will release you all. Just remember this was the work of the Prince of Evil Airs!" Though he thought he was being witty, he didn't realize he was calling at least 2 of the PCs by their REAL names in front of all of the nobles! While this was all happening they decided to search the room of the Lord, to which I let them find his diary (That I made up) so they could figure out where the hell they needed to go to finish this campaign! They left the boat and at that point I called it a night.

Now here's where I am mentally. WHAT DO I DO?! I mean I try to run my game with integrity and logic. I ask myself "What would happen if this decision was made" then go with it. All of the decisions that the PCs made led them to this point with my thought process. But was I too harsh on those decisions? I feel like if I just let them succeed these rolls then they would think the story doesn't matter and not take anything seriously. Now I'm left in this story where our party murdered 4 guards, a Lord, kidnapped at least 50 nobles and 30 commoners, and commandeered a ship outside a major trade city! I mean wont they be wanted criminals now in every major city? The witnesses saw their faces and they heard 2 of their names. Any advice on how to salvage this campaign... at least until the story is over?!

Wow! I wrote that post before I went to sleep last night and woke up to so many awesome responses. I’m actually breathing a sigh of relief while reading these. I LOVE the idea of bounties/infamy and giving the PCs a choice of redemption or work for the underworld boss. I’m going to write some more info about my campaign below to answer any questions that we’re asked.

The PCs are not evil and the campaign is meant to be a heroic one. The PCs left the nobles/commoners on the boat, stranded near the river bank, and fled. I do think 8 is too many players, especially during combat when one fight could take well over an hour.

Could one way to remedy this large group be to split it into 2 separate sessions? Let’s say I run the next session having the PCs decide to follow a path to redemption or crime. If they’re split in their decisions maybe split the group and run the campaign on 2 separate days? (Of course this could totally backfire and everyone might choose one or the other) Anyone have any experience with something like this. Thanks again everyone for the awesome responses!

 

[jasper]

Boot your long time friend from the game. He is a problem player. Just because he is your best buddy, just not mean you two can always be on the same frequency.

 

[Flamestrike]

There are, (to my mind at minimum), less hammer like methods to in incentivize desired player behavior then announcing “ Alignment Changes for Everyone....Don’t accept it and the Game is OVER”.

Thats the last straw after session zero (explaining alignment and my interpretation to them, and gaining consensus), and warnings pre evil acts in game.

I mean, for me to pack up and quit as a DM it takes blatant undermining or wilful disregard of the social contract established at session zero (this campaign is intended to be a heroic campaign), followed by ignoring the not so subtle hint when the DM pauses the game and explains to you that 'murdering these townsfolk is an evil act' (as if such a thing needed to be explained).

If I've gotten to that point with the players and they're still whining and wanting to act like murder-hobos, then yeah. The campaign should end. There are wildly different expectations at the gable that even a session zero didnt seem to fix.

If a player sits down at a table and the DM explained that the campaign was a heroic one, explained his interpretation of alignments, and even paused before you committed an act that was totally beyond the pale to remind that player that 'yes mass murder/ rape/ torture is evil, and its against the session zero outline for this campaign' (as if such a thing needs to be explained to anyone other than an immature twit) that player is either a total disruptive asshat (and should be sacked from the game) or you need to find a different group to DM.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Boot your long time friend from the game. He is a problem player. Just because he is your best buddy, just not mean you two can always be on the same frequency.

jasper also wrote a book entitled: How to lose friends, and not influence people

The OP’s best friend was pushing the boundaries by suggesting and advocating strategies, the OP found “questionable”. The player was not using Charm Person to force compliance with the other players, was not engaging in PvP....he was persuading people in real life on how to coordinate the party’s actions.

When confronted by the OP, the bard player stopped.

My friends in real life are closer to me then blood relatives in many cases. So for each time a friend might annoy me in game, they are also just as likely to cause me delight.

The mighty sentient artifact, The Ban Hammer, must be really difficult to resist.....Just Ban them All.....play parcheesi instead!

 

[Flamestrike]

jasper also wrote a book entitled: How to lose friends, and not influence people

The OP’s best friend was pushing the boundaries by suggesting and advocating strategies, the OP found “questionable”. The player was not using Charm Person to force compliance with the other players, was not engaging in PvP....he was persuading people in real life on how to coordinate the party’s actions.

When confronted by the OP, the bard player stopped.

My friends in real life are closer to me then blood relatives in many cases. So for each time a friend might annoy me in game, they are also just as likely to cause me delight.

The mighty sentient artifact, The Ban Hammer, must be really difficult to resist.....Just Ban them All.....play parcheesi instead!

Yeah, Im a bit lost there too.

I see the Bard player was previously being an asshat, but that problem looks to have resolved itself, and it was the Rogue (and others) that instigated the murder and went off the rails this time.

Unless the OP is suggesting that his asshattery led to a lingering toxicity in the group?

 

[Bawylie]

Wow! I wrote that post before I went to sleep last night and woke up to so many awesome responses. I’m actually breathing a sigh of relief while reading these. I LOVE the idea of bounties/infamy and giving the PCs a choice of redemption or work for the underworld boss. I’m going to write some more info about my campaign below to answer any questions that we’re asked.

The PCs are not evil and the campaign is meant to be a heroic one. The PCs left the nobles/commoners on the boat, stranded near the river bank, and fled. I do think 8 is too many players, especially during combat when one fight could take well over an hour.

Could one way to remedy this large group be to split it into 2 separate sessions? Let’s say I run the next session having the PCs decide to follow a path to redemption or crime. If they’re split in their decisions maybe split the group and run the campaign on 2 separate days? (Of course this could totally backfire and everyone might choose one or the other) Anyone have any experience with something like this. Thanks again everyone for the awesome responses!

Only you can say how best to organize your play group. I’ve done 8. I can do 8. I hate 8. I prefer never to go more than 6 (including myself).

For table management in combat - there are some very old practices and some new ones that move things along.

At 8 players, I use side-initiative every round. The party’s scout rolls a d6 + dexterity modifier and I roll a d6 + the fastest monster’s dexterity modifier. Whichever team wins acts immediately and then the other team goes. After that, we roll to see who goes first in round 2. Etc.

I also use a Foreman. The Foreman serves as the party’s representative to the DM. So all 8 players can brainstorm and discuss, but nothing is officially declared until the foreman says “Player A does this, Player B does that, etc.” The foreman does not decide how the players act - this is important - they just declare those actions to the DM. The actions can be as simple as “attacking, dodging, casting a spell.” This seems stupid but in practice your foreman keeps their side running smoothly.

I use a marching order. The scout is always up front and is always the target of any traps. The anchor/guard is in back and I always attack that position on the baddies’ first turn. The middle positions do the searching and mapping and all related checks. For 8 people, you try to put 2 in each of the 4 spots.

Why do I bother doing that? It front-loads a lot of decision-making. I know who I’m rolling against traps, I know who I’m attacking, I know who I’m describing the room to (the mapper), and I know who’s searching for traps and monsters and who’s searching for treasure and secrets. It’s the same every time. The guards know they’re getting attacked first, so they know they need to move up and take dodge actions or ready for incoming attacks. Etc.

And I also use flat damage for monsters. I tend to like one monster per player in a fight (or 1 tougher monster per 2 players). And flat damage speeds that along.

TL/DR - table management with large parties focuses on streamlining the process of declaring and resolving actions and relies on a sort of standard ops (marching order) to assume a lot of the routine decisions.

You don’t need to split. Just stick hard on ops.

 

[Flamestrike]

The PCs are not evil and the campaign is meant to be a heroic one.

I presume you had a session zero where you explained your expectations for the campaign to be heroic.

Why did you just sit back and let them murder people?

I do think 8 is too many players, especially during combat when one fight could take well over an hour.

Could one way to remedy this large group be to split it into 2 separate sessions? Let’s say I run the next session having the PCs decide to follow a path to redemption or crime. If they’re split in their decisions maybe split the group and run the campaign on 2 separate days? (Of course this could totally backfire and everyone might choose one or the other) Anyone have any experience with something like this. Thanks again everyone for the awesome responses!

Put the players on the clock in combat.

They get six or so seconds to tell you what their characters are doing or else they take the Dodge action and their turn ends.

Explain this rule to them clearly before implementing it.

Combats will go much faster, you'll simulate the chaos of battle much better, they'll all pay attention during combats (phones will be away etc), and it's just a crap load more fun.

 

[Pulakhell]

I presume you had a session zero where you explained your expectations for the campaign to be heroic.

Why did you just sit back and let them murder people?



Put the players on the clock in combat.

They get six or so seconds to tell you what their characters are doing or else they take the Dodge action and their turn ends.

Explain this rule to them clearly before implementing it.

Combats will go much faster, you'll simulate the chaos of battle much better, they'll all pay attention during combats (phones will be away etc), and it's just a crap load more fun.

I presume you had a session zero where you explained your expectations for the campaign to be heroic.

Why did you just sit back and let them murder people?



Put the players on the clock in combat.

They get six or so seconds to tell you what their characters are doing or else they take the Dodge action and their turn ends.

Explain this rule to them clearly before implementing it.

Combats will go much faster, you'll simulate the chaos of battle much better, they'll all pay attention during combats (phones will be away etc), and it's just a crap load more fun.

Yes I had a zero session explaining how I was running the campaign originally. I do like the idea about the timer in combat.