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

[Raunalyn]

If one player is frustrated, there's a good chance others are as well. Not everyone is vocal about it however.

Obviously I wasn't there, but the events as described are indicative of the players not getting, or retaining, enough information from the DM (aside from their poor planning which I've already addressed). Hussar is saying he didn't understand that the father and the spymaster were one and the same person. How many other players might have that same understanding? If everyone at the table didn't realize they were one and the same person, then you haven't hit them over the head with that piece of information enough times.

Did you ever tell the players that they see people walking around with pictures of their likenesses?
Did you bring it up multiple times?
Did the players even know the guards had pictures of their likenesses, or did they just find some pictures of themselves somewhere out of context?
How many times did you tell them this piece of information?
If the answer is less than 3 times, then you are likely overestimating your players' ability to remember these things.

Did you ever tell the players that they see people walking around with pictures of their likenesses? Yes
Did you bring it up multiple times? Yes
Did the players even know the guards had pictures of their likenesses, or did they just find some pictures of themselves somewhere out of context? Yes, they had an encounter where they were attacked by several guards who all had their likenesses
How many times did you tell them this piece of information? Multiple times, as well as asking on more than one occasion if they wanted to disguise themselves.

 

[Raunalyn]

I suppose a bit of self reflection is in order. I know that I tend to be really goal oriented in play. Doesn't matter what the goal is, but, if we have a goal then I don't have a lot of patience for extraneous stuff.

For the current scenario, as far as I'm concerned, getting to the manor was largely pointless. We learned very little of consequence and the whole point of the exercise was getting into the house, talking to the NPC and then moving on. Thus, my frustration. We spent an entire session trying to get to the point of the scenario only to have it fall apart on a die roll. Sorry, three consecutive die rolls, the failure of any of which flushed out plans down the toilet.

If the goal was to go in and kill everyone then fine. But that was never the goal and we spent all that time trying to avoid it. Only to have a 1 in 4 chance of success. Did we make a mistake? Well obviously from @Raunalyn's point of view. From mine, we did everything reasonable with the information we had and still had very little chance of success.

So now we get to spend another hour of table time resolving a combat that we were trying not to have all the way along.

I think you're missing what I've been saying, @Hussar. There were different items that happened throughout the night that caused these consequences. Remember earlier in the evening when we were discussing skill checks? Why do you think I was rolling all of those dice? Things don't happen in a vacuum, and the 1 in 4 chance of failure is both inaccurate and wildly incorrect. It was the consequences of your actions that caused the enemy to become aware of you. It raised the level of alertness. It was the fact that you didn't bother to scout or to follow several of the very reasonable suggestions of several of your party members to cause a distraction. The result is that there is now higher drama in that you were spotted by the patrolling guards that you didn't look for. This is not me setting anyone up for failure, nor is it me against you guys. You don't think that anything that led up to where you are at means anything? I disagree...things would have been much, much worse if you guys had not come up with the plan to sneak into the rich district. You planned well, you got through...that simple. Everything you have been doing in the city has lead up to where you are now, and the dramatic tension is now very high.

This is not just some random fight, but it is the result of your lack of preparation. It is the result of no one answering when I ask, "Do you think maybe you guys should disguise yourselves?" or "Do you guys want to scout around the manor?" or the sorcerer asking, "Should we make a distraction?"

You could have quite easily avoided this encounter, but as far as I can tell from my previous sentence, you chose not to.

So, what am I supposed to do here? Would it make you feel better if I reveal everything that you are about to encounter?

In your defense, I can completely understand that perhaps you may have forgotten some of the previous session, especially considering that it had been a little while since we played last. I accept that and understand that. Which was why I went back, set up a few different scenarios to let you know that they were aware you were in the city, and that it would be difficult to get into the manor.

If I was out to get you, then there would be a dragon in there waiting for you...now, it's just a large number of mobs who you guys will probably beat, which will deplete your resources when you enter the manor. Just like in a normal dungeon, you fight the boss's minions to deplete your resources before you reach the boss. Nothing is different here.

But, it's all cool...I've accepted the fact that it's the DM's fault that the party chose not to prepare. I get it.

 

[Sunseeker]

We want to talk to the paladin's father is the goal. Random fight with house guards has nothing to do with that goal, so for me, it's just something to play through until we get to the interesting bits.

I get you but there's really multiple sides to this, not just "getting to play at all" and "getting to play a certain way".

Everyone at the table has preferences, even when all your preferences align there will still be differences. Some people may enjoy the story, but want to resolve the problems through social events. Others may think wading knee-deep through blood and gore is the way to go. Some more may want to avoid the talking and the killing and use their sneaky skills to get the job done. And what it comes down to is that the DM has to provide a little bit of all of this to make everyone at the table happy and have fun.

And there is always going to some amount of the bits you like the least, ALWAYS. Maybe that's killing (for me it's sneaking), maybe it's social stuff, maybe it's something else. But there's ALWAYS going to be some of that as that's what makes a game well-rounded. Maybe certain elements are minimized to produce a certain feel, but they still exist and you're still going to have to put up with them.

Sure, some people are happy just to get to play I've been there, and now I'm not. Most people start there, and move away from it.

And I get it, in another game we've come to a similar situation where it seems all our planning is for naught but that feels distinctly more of "the DM is purposefully attempting to undercut our attempts to move the game forward". Your complaints feel more along the lines of "I really don't enjoy the manner in which we're approaching this problem."

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is not me setting anyone up for failure, nor is it me against you guys.

I think this is a big part of it - it kind of boils down to trust.

It doesn't matter what the DM does, if a player views the game through the lens of
"the DM is setting us up for failure and looking to screw us over," there's no trust there, and whatever happens will be seen through that lens. There is nothing any DM can do to prove they're not out to screw you over, if you don't simply trust that they're not.

Alternately, if a player views the game through the lens of "the DM is being basically fair and reasonable," there's trust there, and even when the DM ISN'T being fair and reasonable (happens to everyone!), it's OK, in moderation.

That might be why Hussar and I are on different sides of this - it sounds like maybe we have differing levels of trust here.

 

[Hussar]

How were we supposed to scout out the house? When we suggested entering the area as workmen, that got flat out shut down.

Since none of us has any skill in disguise, how did you expect us to diguise ourselves?

I assumed they had pictures of us because we were wanted by the armies after events in Balifor. I never made any connection between what we were doing now and the pictures. I just assumed there would be pictures of us pretty much everywhere.

We DID scout the house. We spent a fair amount of time hidden and observing. But, yup we didn't specifically state we were going to the other side of the house. So yup totally on us.

As far as distractions go, I don't actually recall anyone brining that up. I do recall stating that we wait until the patrols are at their farthest point before jumping the wall. Apparently farthest point meant twenty feet.

This whole plan had zero chance of success. It was inevitable that you would roll a failed skill check and that's all it took.

Anyway, I'm digging a hole here that isn't necessary. You're getting the dirty end of the stick because this has been a common refrain for months.

Sneak through the sewers to sneak into the house - fisrt room has a dozen guards in it and everything blows up.

Sneak into the swamp castle, bluffing to the best of our ability, ten minutes later everything blows up.

Sneak into the wizard's lair, touch one chest and everything blows up.

Sneak into the flying castle, and ten minutes later everything blows up.

Sneak to the manor, make it less than one round and everything blows up.

Am I really the only one seeing a trend here?

That's been our gaming track record since about last October. 100% failure rate. This has bugger all to do with trust and everything to do with frustration.

 

[Hussar]

Let me ask things a bit differently. You guys have been thinking about the scenarios for weeks. We have minutes to come up with something that could plausibly succeed. How perfect do our plans have to be to have a reasonable chance of success?

It is not implausible that we entered that house without a check. We took reasonable precautions to not be caught although certainly not watertight. Why did you force that last check? There was no particular reason for it. We hadn't done anything too bad. It's not like we walked in in broad daylight. We were trying to be sneaky. Was it Batman? Nope. Not even close. But it was plausible.

What's wrong with just letting us succeed? Why force check after check? What's wrong with "Say Yes"?

 

[Raunalyn]

I'm going to try to avoid snark here...one of my pet peeves is someone omitting key bits of information (whether intentional or not) to shift the blame elsewhere. That's what it looks like here...you are looking to blame the DM. The DM (in this case, myself and @I'm A Banana) is now defending himself and trying to help you see things from his perspective. So let's do that here...let's discuss the scenarios in full. Let's also identify the key players, shall we?

Two different campaigns. Campaign 1 (mine) campaign 2 (Banana's) Campaign 1: A paladin, a knight, a dragon sorcerer, a wild sorcerer, a ranger (murder hobo 1) and a fighter/thief (murder hobo 2)

Campaign 2: A druid, a wizard, a monk, a bard (me), a warlock (murder hobo 1) and a fighter (murder hobo 2)

How were we supposed to scout out the house? When we suggested entering the area as workmen, that got flat out shut down. Since none of us has any skill in disguise, how did you expect us to diguise ourselves?

This is campaign 1. What is being omitted here is that you were attempting to enter the district as road workers (your plan). The plan to enter the area was shut down for a few reasons. One; there wasn't any roadwork being done in the noble district at the time and two; I don't know about you, but road workers enter mansions all the time so that they can do roadwork... Soon after this, the paladin came up with the plan to enter the noble district because, hey...he's a noble. What happened? You were successful. Before all of that, though...no one thought to disguise themselves, were roaming around the city, not bothering to hide their movements, not pulling their hoods up, not checking to see if anyone was following or watching...all while being in an enemy occupied city.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt here and say that there was a quite a bit of time between sessions. When three of the party goes out to do some scouting, they spot a small patrol of enemies who harass them. The party (the dragon sorcerer, murder hobo 1 and murder hobo 2) proceeds to kill the patrol, take their stuff...and then leave their bodies in the middle of the street. That wouldn't bring any notice on you, would it?

I assumed they had pictures of us because we were wanted by the armies after events in Balifor. I never made any connection between what we were doing now and the pictures. I just assumed there would be pictures of us pretty much everywhere.

See above.

We DID scout the house. We spent a fair amount of time hidden and observing. But, yup we didn't specifically state we were going to the other side of the house. So yup totally on us.

Yes. You guys spent time observing one side of the house...the west side. You were able to see a patrol roaming the grounds, staying in that general area. You saw another patrol to the north. You didn't send the scout (murder hobo 1) to the south to see who was there, nor to the east portion of the house to see what was there, either. That's what a scout should do, yes?

As far as distractions go, I don't actually recall anyone brining that up. I do recall stating that we wait until the patrols are at their farthest point before jumping the wall. Apparently farthest point meant twenty feet.

See above. Not to sound snarky, but maybe the reason you didn't hear him was because you were talking right over him?

This whole plan had zero chance of success. It was inevitable that you would roll a failed skill check and that's all it took.

The only reason that you think that whole plan had zero chance of success is because you and your party set yourselves up for failure, not me.

Anyway, I'm digging a hole here that isn't necessary. You're getting the dirty end of the stick because this has been a common refrain for months.

Yes, and it's important that I help you understand where I am coming from.

Sneak through the sewers to sneak into the house - fisrt room has a dozen guards in it and everything blows up.

This is campaign 1: What you fail to mention is the riot you guys caused in order to pull the enemy away from the mansion so that you could sneak into the mansion. This prevented those inside the mansion from calling in reinforcements. Not only that, but you let one of them escape the room and warn the rest of the mansion. Then, quite wisely, you blocked the door for a few rounds so that you could clear the enemy from the banquet hall and focus on those beating on the door. Lastly, you failed to mention that this was a boss fight

Sneak into the swamp castle, bluffing to the best of our ability, ten minutes later everything blows up.

This is campaign 2: The party got split up. The cleric (me at the time) and murder hobo 1 were in one group, and the rest of the party in another (though the monk was stuck in the kitchens). We could have waited, observing, until we were able to join back together. But, the cleric was not going to let the bullywugs bully the party's lizardmen allies, so when we went out on patrol, we got rid of the bullywugs, ran back to the castle and convinced a group of them that there were enemies out in the swamp (while being egged on by murder hobo 1). Rinse, repeat. We did this several times (and Banana let it happen because it was funny) and cleared out almost one entire section of the castle before the alarm went up. Conclusion: Party, not DM

Sneak into the wizard's lair, touch one chest and everything blows up.

Campaign 2: Both murder hobos split off from the party and opened a chest without the rest of the party being in the room, thus triggering the encounter. Conclusion: Party, not DM

Sneak into the flying castle, and ten minutes later everything blows up.

One group goes upstairs to talk to the cloud giant. Second group (the monk and murder hobo 1) stays downstairs and starts trouble. Conclusion: Party, not DM

Sneak to the manor, make it less than one round and everything blows up.

Addressed above.

Am I really the only one seeing a trend here?

Yes...maybe it's your party, not your DM?

 

[Raunalyn]

Let me ask things a bit differently. You guys have been thinking about the scenarios for weeks. We have minutes to come up with something that could plausibly succeed. How perfect do our plans have to be to have a reasonable chance of success?

It is not implausible that we entered that house without a check. We took reasonable precautions to not be caught although certainly not watertight. Why did you force that last check? There was no particular reason for it. We hadn't done anything too bad. It's not like we walked in in broad daylight. We were trying to be sneaky. Was it Batman? Nope. Not even close. But it was plausible.

What's wrong with just letting us succeed? Why force check after check? What's wrong with "Say Yes"?

Ok, I addressed this in my previous comment, but let's go one step further.

You did not take reasonable precautions, because you didn't even bother to check to see if there were more enemies on the other side of the house!

Hussar, this is going to sound snarky, and believe me, it's not intended that way.

It sounds like you want me to hold your hand and just let you succeed no matter what. You want easy mode. You want me to hand over all of the patrol paths, plans, maps, schemes, etc.

It seems to me that you're ignoring the successes and only focusing on the perceived failures.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Let me ask things a bit differently. You guys have been thinking about the scenarios for weeks. We have minutes to come up with something that could plausibly succeed. How perfect do our plans have to be to have a reasonable chance of success?

It is not implausible that we entered that house without a check. We took reasonable precautions to not be caught although certainly not watertight. Why did you force that last check? There was no particular reason for it. We hadn't done anything too bad. It's not like we walked in in broad daylight. We were trying to be sneaky. Was it Batman? Nope. Not even close. But it was plausible.

What's wrong with just letting us succeed? Why force check after check? What's wrong with "Say Yes"?

You're misunderstanding "Say Yes."

The principle isn't about simply standing there while someone else tells you what they do. It's about not denying input.

So when we moved around to the back of the house and the guards noticed us anyway, that's still "Say Yes." The principle doesn't mean that we automatically succeed in our attempt, just that the DM doesn't shut down our attempt arbitrarily.

Indeed, it's a great example of "Yes, and..." Because "Yes, you climb over the wall AND you run into a patrol!" is a much more interesting scenario than "Yes, you climb over the wall and perfectly infiltrate the house." The latter has no DM presence in it, no additional details, no new information. It's frankly a little dull.

The rest of this seems to come through the distortion of trust. You see the last check we failed as a consequence of doing something "bad", I see it as one last chance to not fail. You see no reasonable chance of success, I just see a reasonable chance of failure.

If you don't trust your DM not to screw you over...

 

[TwoSix]

This is campaign 1. What is being omitted here is that you were attempting to enter the district as road workers (your plan). The plan to enter the area was shut down for a few reasons. One; there wasn't any roadwork being done in the noble district at the time and two; I don't know about you, but road workers enter mansions all the time so that they can do roadwork... Soon after this, the paladin came up with the plan to enter the noble district because, hey...he's a noble. What happened? You were successful. Before all of that, though...no one thought to disguise themselves, were roaming around the city, not bothering to hide their movements, not pulling their hoods up, not checking to see if anyone was following or watching...all while being in an enemy occupied city.

This particular bit feels like somewhat of a communication issue. I, personally, as a player would never assume I had to tell the DM my character was taking basic precautions like that. After all, they already knew they were in an enemy city AND that their pictures were being distributed. Obviously, it's a different story if they aggressively denied they needed to do anything like that. My default assumption as a DM is that the characters act like competent adventurers unless the player specifically states otherwise.

Yes. You guys spent time observing one side of the house...the west side. You were able to see a patrol roaming the grounds, staying in that general area. You saw another patrol to the north. You didn't send the scout (murder hobo 1) to the south to see who was there, nor to the east portion of the house to see what was there, either. That's what a scout should do, yes?

I don't know...if I say "My character goes ahead to scout the manor", I wouldn't expect I need to tell the DM which side. I would assume I scout the whole area, and if something prevents me from doing so, that the DM would make it clear. Something like:

"OK, you've made it to the west wall of the manor complex, the one closest to the party. A patrol is walking back and forth along the wall, preventing you from moving to check the other sides of the complex. The manor is small enough that patrols on any of the other walls would be have line of sight to you if you entered the complex."

Once you decide to do Metal Gear Solid missions in your D&D, I'm a big proponent of making sure to spell out the consequences of what the players see, not just a visual description. Players just don't have access to enough information to make the inferences that the DM might think obvious.