D&D 5E Need an outsider's perspective here.

[Shiroiken]

This is how it appears to me, from the player's perspective: We have a map to an old lair. It used to have a witch, but she was killed by adventurers hundreds of years ago. Let's go get easy loot.

I see a huge number of plot holes in this from the player's perspective. Why would there still be treasure there if adventurers were already there (they would have presumably taken the loot)? Why hadn't the bandits already gone and taken up this "easy loot," rather than still working as bandits? This should have tipped them off that something else was up.

As for the attitude, some players feel entitled to do things simply because they're "the good guys" (even if they aren't). This is a good example for the players that they can't do whatever they want without consequences. I'm going to assume that they are new players (probably younger), as this can be a more common problem for them. I'd explain that you can't always win, but this wasn't that bad a loss, as they survived (for now) and have a chance to correct things.

 

[Rhenny]

I think the witch is in the right. Sure, she is keeping souls for herself, but she is using them to get more evil souls. Kind of an end-justifies-the-means case, IMO. If it were me, I would make it obvious that the witch is good, and killing her would be the wrong thing to do. That omen to the Paladin would be a warning against further transgressions.

Cool. That would be an interesting twist, but is it "good" to use evil souls as animated scarecrows?

Either way, once the players/PCs solve the threat/problem, that's when they should be rewarded. If they are not rewarded by roleplaying or story advancement, give them something material that signifies they've accomplished something.

 

[Lanliss]

Cool. That would be an interesting twist, but is it "good" to use evil souls as animated scarecrows?

Either way, once the players/PCs solve the threat/problem, that's when they should be rewarded. If they are not rewarded by roleplaying or story advancement, give them something material that signifies they've accomplished something.

It depends on the use, IMO. Using them to kidnap children, bad. Using them to punish wrongdoers, and defend herself at the same time, sounds like a good thing to me. No reason the PCs have to be the only vigilantes in the world.

 

[Krachek]

It is an old Dnd dilemma.
The players want to have fun.
The DM want to have fun.
and both don't just meet.

Some players just don't want any in game frustration. They got enough In their life.
Complex situation or investigation don't appeal them.
They just want action to roll.

But the DM want a world with meaning and guts.

let you some time to understand each other.

 

[randrak]

They are not new players, they have been playing with me for 2-3 years.

The whole point WASN'T to ignore the map, but to approach it carefully. They thought the witch was dead and that was alright, they stole and all killed the witch's watchdogs. The problem came when they decided to ignore the witch they heard on the top floor (they heard her chanting a ritual), continued to steal from her, chose to sleep in her home anyway and when caught they acted like they were entitled and didn't do anything wrong. That was their biggest mistake.

When the witch showed up, a tiefling warlock, the wizard especially acted badly all the way. When the witch mentioned the stolen books, the wizard excsed her actions with "As a fellow magic user, you should understand one's need for knowledge." and when the witch pointed out that they were still stealing her books, the wizard responded with "Alright, what do you want from us then? Get to the point." They then give everything back, getting angry when the witch demanded everything be put exactly where it had been taken from. When she tells them to apologize, the wizard said that she could never give an honest apology, because she didn't think she did anything wrong. The paladin also admitted that she didn't think they were in the wrong and that the witch was going overboard by not letting them go after they returned everything.

I mentioned that this is the same as you being home, two people break into your house, kill your guard-dog, steal your stuff, sleep on your floor and then get angry because you didn't just let them off with a warning. Tell me the logic in this...

The witch only demanded that they replace the lost soul with another because they acted impertinent in the first place, rather than as punishment for killing it. The witch understands that if someone wanders into the field, they will be attacked and need to protect themselves.

When I made the scenario I envisioned it being solved one of four ways:
- They reach the tower, discover the witch mid ritual and kill her (possible as I would give them a free round on her as she was in a trance), earning them plenty of loot. However, this would release the binding on the scarecrows and they would escape into the nearest town and cause mayhem.
- They reach the tower, steal her stuff and then make their escape before the witch finished her ritual with the stole goods. Less loot, but no risk of fighting the witch and no released scarecrows.
- They try to communicate with the witch and would find out that she wasn't evil and if they played their cards right they could gain a valuable friendly NPC. Worst case scenario, she'd just kick them out and she would have no reason to kill them.
- They fight the scarecrows and try to leave the area altogether as it would be too dangerous.

In true player fashion, they did not follow any of the envisioned scenarios, but that was alright. That's how the dice roll, but if you are going to act impertinent to an entity stronger than you when you are clearly in the wrong, then there are consequences to be had.

AND after the session ended I heard them discussing that now they can come back as level 3 and kill the witch rather than get her the evil soul. I know them well enough to realize that this isn't from the characters believing the witch is evil and shouldn't be helped, but rather because the players didn't like the witch and how they forced them into a task and just want to kill her in revenge and take her stuff anyway.

 

[Rhenny]

Not, sure, but did you actually call her a "witch"? If you did, that might have set up a false expectation. Most people associate witches wit devil/demon worship, etc. The players might just have been taken off guard that she would politely ask them to put back the stolen goods and apologize. They might have expected a more aggressive and clearly evil response.

 

[kalil]

This sounds like a great side quest that you unfortunatelly set up as a big "gotcha". The moral high ground of the witch is clearly debatable (binding spirits in scarecrows is evil in my book) and presenting her scripted good and overpowered was bound to create a very frustrating experience for your players.

 

[randrak]

This sounds like a great side quest that you unfortunatelly set up as a big "gotcha". The moral high ground of the witch is clearly debatable (binding spirits in scarecrows is evil in my book) and presenting her scripted good and overpowered was bound to create a very frustrating experience for your players.

I hate the "gotcha" term so much.
No, it was not set up as a gotcha. The witch isn't good, she's a neutral character with some morals. She seeks power through the use of souls, but is morally correct enough to not use souls of innocent people, thus she searches for evil ones. She is also not overpowered, she would be a hard encounter in a straight fight, yes...but nothing they can't handle with a bit of luck.

Not, sure, but did you actually call her a "witch"? If you did, that might have set up a false expectation. Most people associate witches wit devil/demon worship, etc. The players might just have been taken off guard that she would politely ask them to put back the stolen goods and apologize. They might have expected a more aggressive and clearly evil response.

They have roleplayed in my campaign setting for a long time and it has been stated time and again, a witch is simply a female warlock (in this setting at least) and not necessarily evil. A hag is usually the evil witch archtype but I always make a distinction. A witch/warlock has always been the same as a wizard, can be good or bad or neutral.


Also a quick update: While the paladin player accepted what happened and is looking forward to solving the issue, the wizard player doesn't want to deal with the consequences so he wants to reroll a new character and told the paladin to fix the issue herself.

 

[Satyrn]

I see 2 places where the players have different expectations than you.

1) They were treating this as a dungeon to loot, while you viewed it more as a roleplay encounter.
2) They seem to see resting as a sort of pause button, while you had the world continue moving.


I will tackle 2) first, with one question: During a dungeon crawl, do you also treat a rest as a sort of pause button?

As for 1) I feel like you reinforced the notion of this being a dungeon crawl by having them attacked on the way by that "guard dog" scarecrow, letting them enter the tower, letting them roam about the tower, all without any encounter with the witch or someone else to talk to. I understand that you had the witch engaged in something you decided she couldn't break from, but I feel like that was the pivotal decision point that "ruined" this side quest.

Had the witch investigated the attack, had she called off her "guard dogs" - had she done something to interact with the characters, your players could have clued into the idea that "oh, this isn't just a dungeon to loot." And then they might have been on the same page as you.


Please understand: I mean this as constructive criticism. If I'm right (or at least somewhat in the ballpark), this reflection should help you frame your future encounters more clearly

 

[randrak]

I see 2 places where the players have different expectations than you.

1) They were treating this as a dungeon to loot, while you viewed it more as a roleplay encounter.
2) They seem to see resting as a sort of pause button, while you had the world continue moving.


I will tackle 2) first, with one question: During a dungeon crawl, do you also treat a rest as a sort of pause button?

As for 1) I feel like you reinforced the notion of this being a dungeon crawl by having them attacked on the way by that "guard dog" scarecrow, letting them enter the tower, letting them roam about the tower, all without any encounter with the witch or someone else to talk to. I understand that you had the witch engaged in something you decided she couldn't break from, but I feel like that was the pivotal decision point that "ruined" this side quest.

Had the witch investigated the attack, had she called off her "guard dogs" - had she done something to interact with the characters, your players could have clued into the idea that "oh, this isn't just a dungeon to loot." And then they might have been on the same page as you.


Please understand: I mean this as constructive criticism. If I'm right (or at least somewhat in the ballpark), this reflection should help you frame your future encounters more clearly

1) Yes, in that I agree that I should have had the witch interact with them sooner. However, I wanted to give them the chance to also take the option of killing the witch without talking to her. By having her do the ritual and be in a trance, they could get a sneak attack on her and kill her easily. In hindsight, I think that having them talking would have been better. But even when she did interact with them, the wizard acted incredibly snooty to her.

2) It has never been treated as a pause button, I've had several cases where they were ambushed while resting in dangerous areas. The players do tend to treat it as a pause button often. They often rest in dangerous places, but I refuse to make it a pause button so they either deal with it or learn to stop treating it as such.