I thought I was a good DM...

[clark411]

Two things that strike me as odd- the first being the town guard wanting to throw every party member in jail because one of them (the Cleric of Pelor.. I'm assuming he's a party member) gave lip to the Cuthbertian guard. I know of guilt by association, but I can still see the other players complaining about all being carted off to jail for the actions of one of their number.

The second thing is that these players feel they are flailing about with no direction and, to top it all, have been implicated in a murder case by the second game because a person was found dead outside a temple. That, being compounded with a wary town guard + a shifty member of their numbers getting into hostile mode with PCs for what might be an accurate accusation can easily equate to a bunch of players thinking "Man, not only do we have no clue as to what we're doing, but we're being set up." It might be correct that they are, according to your plot, and it might be wrong for them to assume that it's you (The DM) setting them up when they should be looking at the case itself, but well- it does seem there may be a whole lot of problems being heaped on that is pushing them towards inevitable jail time.

Of course, none of this may be true- as I'm just trying to channel the potentially grossly inaccurate views of your players. The only real thing I can say in their defense, is that DMs regularly try to mask players from the truth- be it with mysteries or "Who's the guy at the end of the dungeon?" plots and other sorts of nebulous things like the reasons behind dead people appearing on their temple steps. This is no justification for them lacking in maturity and taking it out of game to say "Hey man, you suck" but it does say something for their frustrations.

Perhaps your players are a bit too eager to throw around heavy words like "railroading," but that doesn't make them wrong necessarily if you are having the world try to keep them all together (possibly for nifty big events to play out before them). Players don't always like being considered a party, especially in social situations where their opinions might differ... they almost always hate the idea of suffering the consequences of their mate's stubbornness.

To say the least, in regards to their regular objections about how you're presenting your world, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they are simply testing how much they can get away with, and how much they can change their character's fates in out of game discussion and objections. If this is the case, and it doesn't work for you, say so- a stonewalling DM who adamantly thinks the ownership of the gameworld and all its NPCs is solely his can be seen as quite antagonistic and stubborn to some roleplayers- and this will just heighten frustrations. When it seems they cannot affect change with what they say or how they roll in game, and they cannot work out of game to explain what they're getting at... when none of it works- there is some validity in saying that no matter what they do, what you, the DM, wants to happen, will. Choo choo.

You mentioned your history of being a great DM... what about their histories beyond giving up Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil? Are they used to DMs who pause, consider their points, and retcon happenings? Have they had past opportunities to design minor "nobody" NPCs to suit the way they want things to go? Finally and most importantly, do they have much baggage as players? I know that in my social circle, the sins of one DM will be transposed on another DM at the slightest hint of their presence. I've seen guys raise holy heck for character deaths when they've suffered high casualty rates in other games.

 

[Mandeville]

Sometimes, the best players need a little hand holding or gentle nudging to keep the game moving. The illusion of free will/reign in a campaign should be just that, an illusion. Ultimately, you really don’t want the players to do whatever they want. You want the players to follow one of the multitudes of possible paths you have set up and prepared for. Yet, you don’t want to feel like you are telling them what to do so you drop subtle hints in the form of rumors and seven page background note and hope that they latch on to one of them on their own. Some players don’t take subtly very well.

I believe that the choices a party makes should be as clear as choosing a path in a dungeon. For the party to choose a path, they first need you (the DM) to tell them what is there. A large wooden door in the north, a cave entrance in the east and a marble hallway to the west. The players know what their choices are. This is how I run my current game. I let my players wander around for a while and they were going nowhere. I want them to stay within the confines of the story I have worked on (like the confines of a dungeon) so I present to them the path that lay before them (through an npc or two). They could head down south to the front lines of a massive war that is brewing, they could head west and infiltrate the evil baron’s court and act like spies or they can go north and act as diplomats and find other counties to join the cause. The players now know how the world works and what things they can do while they are in it. It’s not railroading because they can choose whatever they want. Every decision will have a consequence. And what is best, the players will be letting you know what type of game they are looking to play for awhile.

In time, the players may feel comfortable in your world and choose to make their own path. Maybe they don’t like the three paths in front of them, or think that they could be of better use doing something else? Maybe they want to tunnel through the south wall. Maybe they want to travel to the hinterlands and form an upstart city-state to challenge the gathering evil. Then it is up to you to allow it. But at least it is a direction.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Two comments.

One, I agree with everyone that said you need a "mission statement". Personally I prefer to use the first session to make characters and talk about what kind of game people want to play, as well as let them know what kind of game I want to play. I vastly prefer to do it in person rather than in writing - it's more personable and more likely to be listened to and responded to.

Two, you mentioned you've gamed with them since the summer. To me that does sound like it's a relatively new group. I know it took me at least a year to really get the feel for what kind of game my friends wanted to play, what kind of gamers they were, and the like. And these were my close friends, not just people I'd started gaming with for six months.

Personally, if they're saying these sorts of things out loud in a derogatory manner, I'd (again, personally, what I would do, not everyone) consider just leaving the group. That just reeks of people being jerks. I have no problem with people telling me what their problems are, or what my problems are, as long as it's done in a civil manner. That sort of hostility (if there is indeed that hostility), to me, portends bigger problems down the line, and I'm not sure I'd want to stick around for that. There's no reason to put up with that, because that's not fun for a DM, it makes you feel bad (as it did in this situation), and that's not the point of playing this game.