D&D 5E Is my brother a problem player? Or am I just a bad DM?

[The Green Hermit]

Mate they're lucky im not DMing.

I would have made them redo their PCs with point buy as 13th level PCs with drastically reduced magic items- 1 rare, 1 very rare and (1 uncommon, or 5 potions of healing) each.

Theyre all packing legendary items (multiple ones) and god knows what else the prior DM let them do.

And the Ki riin thing would never have happened. He can be a ki rin but I don't allow the shellcasting trait with polymorph so it would be pointless.

This would be a good option as well. Maybe let the players vote on if they want to do a semi-reset like this or start completely from scratch.

 

[Flamestrike]

This would be a good option as well. Maybe let the players vote on if they want to do a semi-reset like this or start completely from scratch.

Vote?

It's 'accept this is the way it's going to be, or I am not DMing.' Then pick up the TV remote, turn on Family Guy and let them decide what to do next - agree to your terms, or watch TV with you.

You have to be firm at times with your players. Its a fair request by a prospective new DM taking over a campaign.

I wouldnt complain as a player, and as a DM I would be wary of a player that argued against it, likely not entertaining such arguments for very long.

 

[prabe]

Vote?

It's 'accept this is the way it's going to be, or I am not DMing.' Then pick up the TV remote, turn on Family Guy and let them decide what to do next - agree to your terms, or watch TV with you.

You have to be firm at times with your players. Its a fair request by a prospective new DM taking over a campaign.

I wouldnt complain as a player, and as a DM I would be wary of a player that argued against it, likely not entertaining such arguments for very long.

I think @The Green Hermit was thinking of letting them decide between starting over or soft-resetting. I can see players preferring a clean slate to radically changing the characters they've been playing.

 

[The Green Hermit]

Vote?

It's 'accept this is the way it's going to be, or I am not DMing.' Then pick up the TV remote, turn on Family Guy and let them decide what to do next - agree to your terms, or watch TV with you.

You have to be firm at times with your players. Its a fair request by a prospective new DM taking over a campaign.

I wouldnt complain as a player, and as a DM I would be wary of a player that argued against it, likely not entertaining such arguments for very long.

If both options are acceptable to the DM, then yes, let them vote. Player buy-in is important.

 

[The Green Hermit]

I think @The Green Hermit was thinking of letting them decide between starting over or soft-resetting. I can see players preferring a clean slate to radically changing the characters they've been playing.

Exactly. At the same time, though, they may be more invested in the storyline than in their particular characters.

 

[Zardnaar]

I would say something like.
." Hey guys I can't run this so I'm quitting as DM. I'm willing to run a new game level 1(or 3 etc)".
If be firm that you're leaving the DM seat. You don't need to provide a reason and be firm so they don't pressure you into staying.

Then one of them has the choice of DMing themselves, most if them won't want to. Or they can start again.

 

[Dausuul]

I think it would be a bad mistake to try and salvage this campaign in any way. A 13th-level campaign is insane even if you strip away all magic items; just the native abilities of the PCs, particularly the spellcasters, results in high-octane craziness. Running such a game requires the DM to make a ton of judgment calls, and that in turn requires a lot of trust between players and DM. That trust clearly does not exist here.

I'm on the fence about whether it's worth even trying to salvage this playgroup. But if OP is determined to try, they should absolutely start fresh at a much lower level. 3rd would be my recommendation.

 

[prabe]

I think it would be a bad mistake to try and salvage this campaign in any way. A 13th-level campaign is insane even if you strip away all magic items; just the native abilities of the PCs, particularly the spellcasters, results in high-octane craziness. Running such a game requires the DM to make a ton of judgment calls, and that in turn requires a lot of trust between players and DM. That trust clearly does not exist here.

I'm on the fence about whether it's worth even trying to salvage this playgroup. But if OP is determined to try, they should absolutely start fresh at a much lower level. 3rd would be my recommendation.

I agree that high-level play requires a lot of trust between the players and the DM. I'm running a campaign where the PCs are 14th-level, and I'm having a blast with it (and so are the players) but I wouldn't want to start there, and it absolutely wouldn't work without mutual trust (and unresolved story lines).

 

[Krachek]

Nice story so far, play it as you feel it.
TPK will allow you to redo from start,
otherwise PC will win an epic fight which is cool too.
No harm!

 

[Benjamin Olson]

To answer the title question: If you are accurately characterizing his behavior clearly the Ki-Rin/Artificer player (I'm not 100% clear if that is your brother) is a problem player. I mean we have "shouting" at you for "half an hour", having a "tantrum" over a clearly broken magical item, and complaining about his power level when he is 13th level and hybridized with a magical creature, which is more power than most 5e D&D characters will ever see. He also seems to have spent a round in an obviously critical fight complaining melodramatically rather than doing anything productive, which I wouldn't care about as a DM but which I would being pretty irked by as a fellow player.

This doesn't mean that you can't play with him, that he can never get better, or that he doesn't have redeeming qualities as a player. It also doesn't mean nothing is your fault here. But if you are characterizing things reasonably accurately then sure, we have a "problem player", whatever that is.

The Artfificer moaned that with his passive he would have been able to see them(didn't actually say if I had rolled stealth), but I thought that since these devils had the sole purpose of getting the jump on someone, they would know how to hide from people. Is that my fault for making a wrong call? Naturally I'm biased on it., and would love to hear your opinions.

The proper "spirit of 5e" approach is generally to roll stealth. Rolling with advantage and/or proficiency they don't otherwise have might be appropriate if this stealth mission is their whole deal as you seem to say, but best practice is still generally to roll and maybe they fail miserably. That said, just deciding on a fixed DC to detect enemies on a specific location is also acceptable. Regardless of what you did or didn't do, I wouldn't put up with a player whining about their passive perception not being respected unless they had made specific investments in it like the Alert feat or getting expertise in perception.

How do I solve the definitely deadly encounter they are in.

Unless you feel like you railroaded them into it, it's not your responsibility to save the party. Sometimes D&D characters lose fights. It may be time to end this campaign which clearly has a variety of issues. An unplanned TPK is never going to be the satisfying way to do that, but it is sometimes the one necessary to emphasize that D&D takes place in a world of danger and consequences.

If you want to make it go on I recommend just having the enemy capture them. If you want to do this you may want to have more enemy minions arrive to induce them to just surrender or to ensure that they all get taken down before one or more can fail too many saving throws.