I thought I was a good DM...

[Zombie-a-GoGo]

...and, alas, I think I was wrong.

The last time I DMed, back in the day 'round five years past or so, I had the players eating out of my hand. I played fast and loose with the rules (2nd ed., it was practically a requirement) and focused on the story. I never railroaded; gave the PCs an earthshaking plot, a number of different factions they could align with, lots or politicking, betrayals, epic quests and a cosmos-changing endgame. They loved it. They told me how great I was. I believed them.

Stopped D&D for a while, got back into the game recently, and with an all-new group of players, all-new ruleset, I thought that I could weave that DM Magic O Mine once again.

Heh. You know what they say, the best laid plans and all that...

Two sessions into the game, I feel like I've been run over by an infernal steamroller. I've done no railroading, so far as I can see, but my players insist that "The Guard wouldn't act like that" or "the thieves' guild wouldn't do that" and, the worst: "It doesn't matter what we do. You're just trying to get us arrested so you can force us to go on your adventure."

AAARGH!

After the game last night, I felt like a complete failure. Worse, I felt like I had let my players down. Noting felt cohesive; it seemed (from my side of the screen) as though everything that had happened to the PCs was completely arbitrary on my part.

Example: The cleric of Pelor accused the town guard of wanting to steal the goods they had brought from the abbey to market. The officer present, a fervent follower of St. Cuthbert, was highly offended and, already having reason to suspect the PCs of a crime (a murder victim found outside the local church where the PCs were storing the goods until market day), demanded that the cleric come to the guardhouse for further questioning. In chains. The Cleric said no, made some more disparaging remarks about the guard which further incensed the officer, and finally the officer drew steel and told him not to resist arrest or he would cut him down.

So of course the Cleric said "go ahead." Note that the cleric had no weapons or armor - town law that such things cannot be carried within the city. So the officer attacked with the flat of his blade and knocked the cleric out. Captain of the Watch is summoned and the PCs try tot talk their way out of being taken to the dungeon to await trial.

Now, to my way of thinking, there was no way they were getting out of going to trial. Insulting the honor of the guard, refusing an order of the guard, and then there was the fight with the guard - if you can really call it a fight. But when their attempts to weasel their way out of going to the dungeons failed, they accused me of railroading them. "Oh, it doesn't matter what we say, we're going to go to jail anyway because that's what the DM wants to happen."

I was stung! But things went on, and when we wrapped up for the night I felt like a failure. I felt guilty for not allowing them to talk their way out of the repercussions for their actions.

This happen to anyone else? Am I a railroading DM and just don't realize it? Someone say something, anything; right now I feel like a pretty poor DM.

 

[Paka]

Zombie,

A new group is a whole different ball of wax. I've read that the first session of a game isn't about setting up adventure or story or feel but what it really should be about is setting up trust. It sounds like the group is operating on assumptions they've garnered from past DM's.

Having a talk about the game, about how you aren't out to get them but to tell a good story with them and what you expect from them as players in order to achieve that might work. I notice alot of people are scared to talk out of game to their players but give it a shot.

The relationship between a DM and the players and the game is a symbiotic one. You feed each other and through that inter-play is a great game made. Make sure they know what you want and you know what they want.

Good luck.

 

[Buttercup]

Your choices sound reasonable to me. Actions must have consequences, or what's the point? Why do the PCs think their characters can act like jerks with no repercussions? Is it possible they're new players, or used to video games or something?

 

[bubbalin]

You're not a bad DM. In fact, I think that you probably did a very good job, and honestly, if you think that you weren't railroading, then you aren't. What if they hadn't gotten into the fight, what would have happened? If you can tell me that, then you obviously weren't railroading.

I don't play D&D, but I got really annoyed one time. I had been my group's DM for ages, and I wanted a break, so another guy took over. Anyway, he had the most railroaded plot ever, with a qhole sequence of events that could only happen if specific precursors had happened. (give him a break, it was his first try) Anyway, one of the players then went on to say that it had been the best game ever. That really hurt, especially since he had been the loudest complainer in my game.

So yeah, players sometimes don't know what they're talking about. But perhaps what you may want to think about is if you had a conversation about expectations from the game. Perhaps they weren't getting what they expected, whatever that was, and as such felt like they were being 'railroaded' into a campaign style they didn't enjoy...

Good luck anyway. Hope it all goes well, but ask them what they want from the game. Might fix some problems.

 

[Flyspeck23]

My players feel railroaded too, when in fact they aren't. There are events they aren't involved in (yet), and there are events they could have prevented or changed - although neither players nor characters know that.

The PC's choices set the stage. If (as in your example) they get into a position where there's only one logical way out, well... then be it.
Don't let them get away with everything

If you must, talk with your players about it. If you make it clear to them that the situation is directly related to their behavior (and could have been avoided if they acted differently) they shouldn't accuse you of railroading anymore. If they still do... they are munchkins

On the other hand, I won't talk to my players about it. It's their problem, not mine (they are enjoying the game sessions - if that wouldn't be the case I'd talk with them about it)

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't see anything wrong in what you did. You have played with the group only two session, so don't worry and see that the things will go better given time. There will be many other occasions for them to notice how much they can change the plot with their actions.

Perhaps try to let them know that there was indeed a couple of right things to do to avoid being captured, but they just missed them; don't tell them which, of course, they should find them out by themselves.

It can help greatly to have PCs roll for Diplomacy/Intimidate/Bluff checks here and there, instead of resolving everything through roleplay. You can still roleplay all, but add cha-based rolls to check HOW the PCs were able to be convincing (the players decide WHAT the PCs say, but it's the PC's voice who sound convincing or trembling): this way your players know that it doesn't depend all on the DM's will, since the dice also play a part. You can still rule that the dice result must be hidden if that's not true

 

[Zombie-a-GoGo]

Good advice so far, from everyone, and I thank you for it... I think that what I need to do is craft some sort of "Mission Statement" or something like that. Let the players know what assumptions are inherent in my style of DMing. and what have you.

The group is not "brand-new," by the way; we've been gaming together since summer, but this is my first time DMing them; I came in as a player and after the group gave up on RttToEE I slid into the DM seat. I do realize, now, that my style and ideas of "what a game should be" are likely quite diffferent from what my players have come to expect. I can only hope that this will come to be a good thing and not a bad one. Previously everything was focused, and well defined - we were going to defeat the evil in the Temple. No questions, no options (I hate to say that because it implies a discontent among the players for being unable to do anything but follow the module, but everyone enjoyed it, so that doesn't really matter, now does it?), and a clear beginning/end in sight.

On the other hand, my game thus far has set up an orcish army invading the next nation over, rumors of why the rest of the nations aren't helping fight off the orcs, and a fairly-complex web of alliances/hatreds between different power groups. My intention over the first few sessions was to let the players get a feel for the setting, let them know who the power groups were, give them choices as to what problem they wanted to tackle, who they wanted to throw their cards in with, and let them have at it.

Only now do I realize that with no clear goal set before them, they are kinda flailing about, unsure of what they want to do - unsure of what they can do, really.

My problems compound. I've already given them a seven-page booklet on the setting and some prevalent rumors in the nation they reside in, and I have a feeling that few of them have actually read it. I don't want to say "look, you have to read this to know what's going on" because we all have job, kids, etc., yet at the same time all I can hink of right now is to give them yet more handouts and information to plow through, in the fervent hope that maybe something will gel for them.

 

[Vaxalon]

Good advice so far, from everyone, and I thank you for it... I think that what I need to do is craft some sort of "Mission Statement" or something like that. Let the players know what assumptions are inherent in my style of DMing. and what have you.

And there's your "lesson learned"... every game with new people should have this.

 

[Shallown]

A technique that may haelp is one you also use in retail or dealing with most any sort of conflict. Ask the players what do you think the guard should have done and why. Then you can explore the guards side of things with them. Reason it is related to retail is you ask a customer when there is a problem "what do you think I should do to fix the problem" puts the shoe on the other foot and forces them to reason out why something can or cannot happen. Doesn't mean they will be reasonable but it at least gives you some indisght into their expectations. Expalin what the guard felt even if it is meta information the your reasoning is more important to build trust between you and the players. Two things make up a game to me. Trust and communication between players and GM. This sometime takes effort and out of Character discussion to reolves/build.

Hope that helps some.

Later

 

[Henry]

ZaGG, another point to make: In my experience, rarely will you find a group of players willing to read a 7-page background paper, even if given plenty of time before the game to do so. I keep all my reading material to one page, because that is enough to digest at the game table, at a lunch break at work beforehand, etc.

It sounds to me like you're not a bad DM, but that "mission statement" idea does sound pretty good. Just keep it simple, and let them know that you are not out to get them, but all actions, including violent or disrespectful choices their characters make, will have consequences. You are working for a self-consistent, plausible game, but one with player choice on goals and objectives, and they need to know this.

Lastly, a good DM is defined by me as one who can entertain their players; NOT one who gives them what they want, but who entertains them. Some players just want to kill things and take loot; try to find a way to cater to as many types of play styles as you can, because there's always room for a good talk, as well as a few orcish head-busts.

Good luck.