D&D 5E Boy, that escalated quickly...

[Raunalyn]

And, again, to jump on the other side of the table, I just want to clearly state that I am enjoying the heck out of both campaigns and both DM's really are fantastic. Two of the best DM's I've played with, ever, bar none. So, please, don't take my pissing and moaning to mean that I'm hating the game and think these guys suck. They don't. At all.

On a tangent, it does strike me that it's very difficult to give feedback to the DM that is both constructive, and, perhaps critical, without being a dick. I obviously failed my diplomacy roll in this thread.

But, how do you tell someone, "Hey, I don't like this one specific thing" without it coming out as "I hate everything you do"?

It's not that, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]...I understand your frustration, and the next portion of the scenario will be quite different after this particular story arch is complete. The frustration from me comes from the fact that, as a DM, I have to take into account all actions of all PC's in the party when I evaluate and create my narrative. One person wants to be stealthy and try to sneak in? Great! Let me try to appeal to that James Bondsy vibe there and give him a little infiltration (party dresses as nobles and servants and sneaks past a heavily fortified gate). I also have to appeal to those who love to murder hobo and take their actions into account (the murder hobos left several dragonarmy officers dead in the middle of the street).

There is a difference between the campaign that [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] is running and mine; he's working from established material (Hoard of the Dragon Queen), whereas I'm writing almost all of my material. I have to take the actions of all characters into consideration when constructing my narrative. Hence the comment about nothing happening in a vacuum.

It wasn't just one action that alerted the guards, but a string of actions throughout the session that alerted them to your presence.

The thing that I'm frustrated about here is that it seems that you are blaming the DM for the party's failures and not taking into account the actions of the party. If your expectations are one way, this needs to be addressed with the rest of your party so that they can understand. I, in return, will change my narrative to fit that. I'm frustrated because you don't seem to understand that.

In other words...if you want to change the narrative and quit having these scenarios, talk to the party instead of complaining that the DM is being a big ol' meany.

 

[Al2O3]

On a tangent, it does strike me that it's very difficult to give feedback to the DM that is both constructive, and, perhaps critical, without being a dick. I obviously failed my diplomacy roll in this thread.

But, how do you tell someone, "Hey, I don't like this one specific thing" without it coming out as "I hate everything you do"?

Not doing it in writing could be a good idea. If doing it face to face so it is possible to see body language, all the better. These suggestions are obviously to late for this case.

In a situation where one first realises what you dislike and then start the discussion (rather than the other way around as in this thread) I guess it could be good to start off with " I really like your campaign, but there is one thing that bothers/annoys/frustrates me, would you mind to talk about that?"

And I totally agree that it can be hard to give feedback without coming off bad. I once came off a little like "I hate everything you do" after we had the characters losing out on a year in-game with setting-changing stuff going on and no prior warning (this was while updating from 4e to 5e). I was upset, I made the DM upset and for a few days things sucked.

One good thing to do in this kind of conflict/disagreement /whatever is to focus on "when X happened I felt/experienced Y" while not arguing that someone else should not feel Z and realise that maybe everyone else felt Z. I won't try to claim that this focus has or has not been in place in this thread.

One last thing: consider if the input from those of us not in the group but in this thread is useful or if it is better to just take time in the session and discuss this. Not having an audience whole having the option of input for solutions from everyone else in the gaming group could be good.

 

[MurderHobo1]

Meh

As one of the MurderHobos in the group, I finally decided to register to chime in.

I sent our Dragonlance campaign DM some of my thoughts in an e-mail. I'll cover some of it here and address some other thoughts left out of that e-mail.

I see Hussar's point but think it is 100% subjective. He even alluded to it early on speaking to his expectation about advancing directly towards goals and being frustrated by obstacles that don't lead straight to an objective. That is a preferred gamestyle and one I'd argue few players or DM's share. Even as a murderhobo, I don't see it as "realistic" to go from goal to goal without "life" interrupting, whether it be random encounters, layers of guards to be defeated, land to be explored and traveled, contacts to be sought out, etc.

That said, is there something to Hussar's point that every encounter that promotes infiltration yet will "ALWAYS" result in mass combat at some point? I think so. Arguably, where was the scenario that would allow the players infiltrate all the way to the objective and then allow the players to extricate themselves with little or no combat if they play it well? In hindsight, I don't think any of those scenarios that Hussar is complaining about, would have provided that opportunity. So I think it can be somewhat fairly argued that the DMs in question MAY be guilty of relying a little bit on a cliched scenario that's becoming quickly tiring (for Hussar).

What Hussar is missing however is that much of the goal-delaying components of the story were successfully avoided (e.g. getting past the guard gate) because we did take actions to avoid them.

Another component Hussar seems to be missing is that while our plans have failed, they have typically failed not because of planning (plans could have been better) but typically failed due to rolls. He is quick, as others in the party are, to identify being f***ed by the die roller (we play via Fantasy Grounds) in combat. Yet he seems to have failed to lay blame on the die roller when it f***ed us on skill checks in these general alarm situations and instead has faulted the DMs (both of whom allow group checks vs. individual).

One of the suggestions I provided the Dragonlance DM in my e-mail came from reviewing this thread. Telegraphing. I think one barrier to the game is the inability for the players to see what's in the DM's mind. No matter how well the DM paints a picture with words and maps, we won't always see what is in his mind either because his words translate in our heads to something else or we "SQUIRREL!!!" for a second and miss a key component in the description. We often see players saying after it's too late, "Oh I thought X" or "Oh you meant, Y" when all along the player was thinking "Z." It's just a part of the game. Telegraphing would help to overcome the gaps between what the DM sees and what the players see. Both DMs are good about telegraphing most of the time but I think it would be fair to say there are times they either choose not to telegraph or fail to telegraph when they ought to. I'm not saying it's something worth assigning blame. No DM (or player) is perfect. I simply state it so they can consider working on it.

Another suggestion I made was had to do with what was just mentioned a couple posts above and that is the DM speaking on behalf of the characters. Good DMs are rarely reluctant to step in when a player metagames or does something that is inconsistent with their character when such behavior would benefit the character. They are, however, seemingly reluctant to step in when the player does something inconsistent that harms the character and are more than willing to let the player punish their self.

A good example is the repeated reminders about the party leaving bodies in the street. I will not argue it was dumb but I would argue that it resulted from a couple of things that reflects the players and not the characters.

First, I'd argue that we commonly hand wave the transition of ending one encounter and moving on towards the next for the sake of expediting our limited gameplay. "Yeah, no treasure, nothing of interest, room exits are..." This sometimes conditions the players to sometimes prematurely end their actions in an encounter when the DM is still expecting the players to continue it. Who's to "blame" in such a situation? I'm not sure.

Second, none of the characters in that scenario would have been dumb enough to leave bodies in the street (even if the players were) and I think DM should have stepped in to save the characters from the (in)actions of the players. If you step in when players are playing the characters wrong to their own benefit, I'd say, for the sake of logical consistency, a DM is just as obligated to step in when the players are playing characters wrong to their own detriment.

All that said, we have a good group of players and good DMs. I've been playing with both the DMs and players for somewhere between a couple years to well over 5 years. This is mostly just a moment of frustration, poorly relayed expectations, and normal(?) D&D drama. Not all play styles are the same and no one is 100% consistent in their play. It leads to a little friction.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

In other words...if you want to change the narrative and quit having these scenarios, talk to the party instead of complaining that the DM is being a big ol' meany.

But... but... but... you are a big ol' meany.

And, yes, there is certainly more than enough blame to go around. A lot of this is just me venting, and you guys being convenient targets. As I've repeatedly said, this is stemming from the fact that we've had very, very similar scenarios back to back to back that have all played out pretty much exactly the same way, regardless of what we've done.

 

[Shayuri]

Arr, well, we've developed our skills and tactics around that basic pattern...so now we tend to approach situations from the self-fulfilling prophecy that it will happen, and we'll be ready for it.

Adapting new tactics is difficult, especially since our arcanists are sorcerers, not wizards. We've picked our spells and that's that. We can't memorize lots of sneak-enhancing utilities, skill-check enhancing buffs. Instead we have fireballs and cones of cold, hypnotic patterns and counterspells.

Those of us who aren't arcanists are, with a noteable exception, tromping around in heavy armor, and would lose the vast majority of their defenses if they weren't.

From the get-go, our team is designed to be a group that kicks in doors, makes rooms explode, and then meets the oncoming horde head on. And because every problem looks like a nail to a hammer...well...we hammer a lot of nails.

I don't mean to say that's all we're ever ever capable of ever, and nothing else can ever happen. But it is our default position, and it is what we excel at. I'm open to the idea of branching out...but that takes time when you only get to select new tricks every level.

 

[Herobizkit]

IMXP, Stealth missions are terrible for players (because they can balloon out of control in an instant, like Hussar said) and DMs alike (because players will never know or prepare for every single detail that the DM expects them to).

As a player in my home group, we've communicated to our DM that long Stealth missions are a pain to play through, especially if one failed Stealth roll means we're fighting everyone anyway. I get that some players are more of a "SEAL" sneak to target area -breach door - throw explosive - clear room kinds of players, and [MENTION=4936]Shayuri[/MENTION] 's anecdotes indicate that their group is like that...

I would feel frustrated were I forced to play D&D in a fashion for which my group was not prepared, then made to do so for multiple games on top of that. That said, in staggered chunks, I do enjoy having to stretch my imagination for ways to make plans outside of my group's abilities... much to the chagrin of my DM.

 

[Hussar]

Hrm, giving this a bit of thought.
[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] mentioned earlier that it would be more realistic to have one or two stealth oriented characters do any sort of infiltration scenario. And that's absolutely true. From a strict realism point of view, that's true. But, it runs into the Decker Effect (from the Shadowrun RPG where only Deckers could do anything on the Net) where you have one or two players playing and the rest of the group sitting on their thumbs. D&D is not a spectator sport and that gets old really quickly. Heck, I've seen players that cannot even wait five minutes to let the thief scout out an area before starting to move forward. Expecting the players to wait an hour or two while one or two players play is perhaps a bit unrealistic.

So, I think that if I'm going to design infiltration scenarios going forward, I will try to follow the following advice:

1. Infodump. This is perhaps the biggest thing. Don't be parsimonious with information. If you look at any "heist" style story, James Bond, Oceans 11, whatever, one thing is always common - the protagonists have mountains of information. Not that there can't be surprises down the line (see below), but, before the infiltration even starts, the protagonists have a ton of information. On a side note, I'd point out that if your players are actually taking the time to delve down and come up with plausible plans, that means they are interested enough in your scenario and setting to do so - nurture that. Feed the monster. Give them so much information that it hurts. Always err on the side of too much rather than too little.

2. Realism needs to take something of a back seat to playability. We talked about this earlier. The DM has lots of time designing the scenario. He knows all the information. Everything is perfectly clear. The players have minutes to come up with a plausible plan of attack to deal with the scenario. No one should expect the players to spend hours and hours on a plan, which, in real life, it would likely take. The players are always going to be far more Austin Powers and far less James Bond. It's inevitable. And it behooves the DM to step back, perhaps just a bit, and recognise that.

3. Die rolling isn't necessarily a good thing. Look, we're all D&D players. We LOVE rolling dice. Everything the players try, we roll the dice to see if they succeed. Thing is, in this kind of scenario, that's really not going to work. If every action requires a check, it's inevitable that some of those checks are going to fail and if failure means mass combat, then mass combat is inevitable. Yes, it means that maybe realism is nipping around the corner for a cigarette from time to time, but, in the name of game play, it's necessary to allow things to just succeed. Sometimes. And this is far more art than science. When do we roll? Well, 10 feet into the infiltration is perhaps a bad idea IMO.

4. Complications are a good thing, but, complications need clear and plausible avenues of resolution that don't necessarily result in complete failure. The players get the patrol schedules and time their infiltration to avoid the guards. BUT! There's a random guard taking a leak against a tree. What do you do? Good complication. OTOH, the players get the patrol schedules and time their infiltration to avoid the guards. BUT! There's a random guard taking a leak agains a tree and his ten buddies are fifteen feet away with clear lines of sight. Bad complication. There's no plausible way to deal with this really. It's far too easy for this to go pear shaped. As DM's we have to recognise that complications are interesting, but, what seems blindingly obvious to us is anything but to the players.

5. Recognise that mass combat is a failure. The whole point of this exercise is to avoid that outcome. Now, that being said, if the party Leroy Jenkins the scenario, have at them and no problem. Obviously they weren't interested in any sort of subtlety and it's not like you can force them to be subtle. But, if the party comes up with a plan that is plausible (note, plausible here is vague and very, very fuzzy) or at least plausible to them, then let it work. I remember a module I ran years ago, and I cannot for the life of me remember which one it was, but, the DMing advice in the module always stuck with me - it went something like, "so long as the player's plan can work, it works. Don't get stuck on the details."

Not for everyone I think, but, not bad advice IMO.

 

[S'mon]

Hrm, giving this a bit of thought.

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] mentioned earlier that it would be more realistic to have one or two stealth oriented characters do any sort of infiltration scenario. And that's absolutely true. From a strict realism point of view, that's true. But, it runs into the Decker Effect (from the Shadowrun RPG where only Deckers could do anything on the Net) where you have one or two players playing and the rest of the group sitting on their thumbs. D&D is not a spectator sport and that gets old really quickly. Heck, I've seen players that cannot even wait five minutes to let the thief scout out an area before starting to move forward. Expecting the players to wait an hour or two while one or two players play is perhaps a bit unrealistic.

I can usually resolve Thief/Rogue scouting within a few minutes. In the scenario under discussion it would likely take only a minute or two of Stealthing for the Rogue to reach the sister's bedroom and talk with her. He'd be the only PC able to converse unless he was able to get her out of the mansion (at 12th level, maybe possible via magic). I don't see a problem with this if the activity is all chosen by the players themselves. The Shadowrun Decker effect is a big problem because (a) it takes a good bit of time and (b) The PCs are given the mission-of-the-week from on high.
But if the players themselves decide on a course of action that can only involve one PC, and it can be resolved fairly briskly, I don't think it's a problem.

I do think if you want a stealth-based campaign you need to ensure all the PCs have the tools to be stealthy - and can justify group stealth checks as the team working together. Also would not hurt to have a Basil Exposition NPC along, an experienced advisor who can also point out what should be obvious problems with the plan.

 

[pemerton]

My expectation would be that if you want to infiltrate while avoiding combat, you send in a single Stealth Rogue

I'm with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], though, that this raises issues with playability for the typical D&D group.

In combat, a single failed check (eg missed attack, failed save) doesn't make everything fall over - the PCs (and hence players) can still recover and come back to win.

From the mechanical point of view, a stealth mission shouldn't be any more vulnerable to total failure due to a single failed roll. Unfortunately D&D doesn't implement that very well.

 

[Rhenny]

Here are a couple of things to try for that stealth mission type adventure:

1) if players come up with a plan that seems interesting give advantage to rolls or award inspiration to the group.
2) allow inspiration to be rolled after a failure and let it stack so PC can carry 2 instead of just one. (1 &2 above nearly gives everyone the lucky feat)
3) Use group checks.
4) Don't make the consequence of failure so bad. Throw in a complication that if handled will pu the party back on track not derail them.

I agree with many of the posters that say the breakdown of stealth missions often becomes a source of frustration.