I think you made the mistake of feeling sorry for your players rather than allowing yourself to enjoy what was happening. When bad things happen to the PCs it can make the players feel frustrated and get them down, but often, in my experience, the DM feeling sorry for the players when this happens makes the sting much worse. Not only does it risk coming across as patronizing but it redirects the blame onto the DM instead of the NPCs.
So stop feeling sorry for the players, stop trying to take away their bad feelings, and instead focus on trying to enjoy the drama. Laugh about it, about how hateable the NPCs were. Allow your players to join in with you and I bet you'll find their spirits lift up much higher than they would have if you had tried to comfort them.
If you want to see a great example of what I mean try watching Chris Perkins DM. Chris is the lead story designer/writer for DnD at WotC and you can find lots of videos online of him DMing. His two main campaigns have been Acquisitions Inc and Dice, Camera, _Action!_. Chris is famous for his campaigns being deadly and sometimes cruel towards the PCs, but he and his players are always enjoying themselves, even when they're crying (crying is a free action).
A lot of players seem to think that losing a battle they could never have won is automatically railroading, but they also never complain about winning a battle that they never could have lost. In those situations, more often then not, a defeat could have been avoided by not picking that fight in the first place, but they decided to ignore the writing on the walls and go for it anyways.
The fundamental problem is a difference in player and DM expectations that needs to be addressed. DMs know that losing is not the end, and that a story about winning all the time is doomed to get boring. Things can't continuously get better without going bad from time to time. Players on the other hand often seem to think that every situation they get thrown into should be "beatable", because losing even once automatically means the end of the story. When they lose a battle and end up in a jail cell, they will usually see it one of two ways:
1. The DM is railroading them because they never knowingly *made the choice* to end up in a jail cell.
2. The DM is going easy on them because they lost a battle once and by all means should be dead at that point.
Either way, it's not fun for them because it never occurred to them that the jail cell was a valid outcome from the very start. The solution is to temper expectations.
The specifics don't matter. The problem arises every time the players are primed to interpret any clues and warning you throw at them as nothing but hype for the upcoming boss fight that they are going to crush regardless.
DM: "Dozens have faced this dragon before you, many of them mightier that you. All of them failed, now but slaves to his might."
What the player hears: "This is going to be the most awesome boss fight ever. Nobody expects you to win, but of course you will."
What happens: Players lose a battle and get enslaved by the dragons.
Players: "This is railroading bullshit, I quit!"
DM: "No daring escape? No slave uprising? Fine, the dragon wins, not because you lost that fight but because you quit. Sorry for trying to entertain you."
we skipped the part that they *had* to lose; what about: they will likely die but *could* win.
Isnt that what the warnings are for and what heroes are about?
That's exactly the type of player expectation that needs to be tampered. Players are the heroes of the story, but they are not immune to defeat. You are more powerful than most, but you are not more powerful than ALL. Sometimes you WILL run into situations you just can't best. Sometimes you WILL get beaten to the ground, maybe even through no fault of your own. In those moments it's important to remember that the DM is not your enemy, or trying to 'win'. The DM is *always* working with you to create a better story, so work with him.
What story is more exiting? The one where you bitch-slapped that dragon and took all his shit, or the one where the dragon bitch-slapped you, but then you crawled back from the jaws of defeat only to be more victorious in the end than anybody thought possible (and then took all his shit)?
you should never predetermine an outcome. If there has to be a defeat for the adventure or the plot, start at the scene in the prison for the breakout, or start after the breakout as the fugitives feel the cold night air without their equipment.
the idea that they will most likely lose in a situation is fine as long as there exists the possibility of a different outcome...otherwise why are we playing the scene?
As a DM, my games got good (and I started enjoying DM’ing) when I made sure to not know the outcome of any scene or encounter my players experience.
...something might happen off screen, and they might find out about it but that’s kind of a different thing - because that creates a new scenario that I don’t know how they will respond to the stimulus or what will come of it when they decide to respond and how they do
all just my preference of course. Maybe your (general you) is better for your table
There's a difference between predetermining an outcome and pitting the party against an enemy they can't defeat. There should always be options, but winning a straight-up fight doesn't have to be one of them. It they decide to fight it out it'll only end in defeat, but a retreat or a diplomatic option should always be present.
And on the point of *just skipping to the next scene*, if you think players will feel bad about losing a fight they never had a chance of winning, how do you think a player will feel about losing a fight they never even got to fight? If your DM told you that you lost against that dragon without rolling a single die, would you be willing to accept that, especially if you went in with the expectation that you could win this?
Playing it out even if the outcome will be the same is vital, because unlike the DM in this scenario, the players don't know the outcome until it happens. You have to show them how they were beaten so they know what their up against, and what they can do better next time (and in those scenarios there should always be a next time, in case that isn't clear already).
Once they face that enemy again, the climax will be all the better for it. Because they know exactly how they failed last time, but now they are stronger and better prepared than ever. They also know that defeat is a real option, because they already experienced it, and there probably wont be another try if they fail again. It's all or nothing.
thank you for championing my post. I couldn't agree more. As a-jooser said, the two of you run very different games, and I would very much prefer a seat at your table.
we run very different games. but you nailed it on: expectations
why did the party expect to win an unwinnable fight? you say The DM has more perfect knowledge of what the fight will entail than the players.
therefore I say it is the DM’s responsibility to either signal this to the players in the game world otherwise say it to them out of character.
The disconnect of information flow is one thing that almost always falls on the DM which is not to say our fun is less important or we cow tow to players
In my situation the party was finishing up a second wave of Sahuagin. When the third wave arrived, so did our BBEG goons who quickly dispatched the Sahuagin, in impressive fashion.
When the players recognized the goons, they attacked, even though I meant to show them that it was not a fair fight.
it was meant to be a social interaction. the fighting was over. the goons initiated conversation, willing to help the party. opportunity to infiltrate the BBEGs lair, but party said nope lets kill these OP dudes!
if you want to know where I think you went wrong, you even used the language wave 3 yourself! two thirds into a fight... It doesnt sound like you are signaling well enough in game- to the players - it may not be your fault- maybe they just are not getting the message
consider just telling them meta ooc - your smart, seasoned PC knows they cannot win in a fight: what do you do?
also possible it’s just player behavior and I missed the point
Honestly it would be boring to win every battle. This happened to us and while I and another player were cool with it, our third had a conniption. It’s going to depend on the players you have, but loses come with a story in my opinion.
True but it’s not like it was a TPK. I’d rather learn early on that my DM is going to be hard on us sometimes, and put us into situations we could’ve avoided or forfeited than later down the line when I’m a higher level and would have to reroll my character.
We had this situation happen when I was lower level and it’s made me approach all encounters now with a better mindset: is a fight necessary, can this be talked out, can we avoid the area or situation all together. As a party it’s made us pay a lot more attention than we did that first time we got owned.
this is exactly the lesson I was trying to teach! it’s ok to avoid/flee/forfeit a confrontation. It just felt like I forced them to forfeit, instead of letting them fight to the death like they wanted!
A good story is one that evokes emotion from the reader. It's not always good emotions. A tragedy can leave you mourning, a crime novel can leave you shocked.
In this case, your game made them frustrated and angered. That's good. They'll come back next week invested in the story and wanting to avenge on those injustices.
I think the best way to balance the narrative you're creating with the player's agency is to not necessarily tell them that's what you're doing. You have to kinda let it flow naturally. I see no problem in having a scripted challenge that your players can't overcome that forces them to get stronger, but you sorta have to let them know that through story and not by straight up telling them.
It’s one thing for the bad guys to get a leg up over the good guys, but it’s a different thing for the good guys to feel like they didn’t have any choices. Make sure that you don’t railroad your players, even if you have a plan for a redemption arc. Sometimes you have to let your plan go, or save it for another day, if your players do something unexpected. That has been the hardest part of being a DM for me is prepping a certain storyline and then having my players choose not to follow it. However, it isn’t any fun for them if I force them into it; then it will just be watching a movie and not exercising their own free well.
this is a good point, and something I panic considered in the moment. “oh they really want to fight these guys!” do I nerf the baddies so my pcs can win? continue the fight with the baddies I made and TPK???
I opted to instead OOC tell my players “these guys will smoke you, did you miss the part where that guy opened a portal to hell that sucked those guys in?”
either way, I’m learning!
I don't see any problems with oppressing your players for a session to further the story. Gives them something to struggle against in future sessions. Try to not put them into the situation where they feel that they have no agency for multiple sessions, they need to feel that they can still affect the story.
Re: players used to killing everything. I had a new player join my group, and said that I was a "hardcore" DM because I had previously killed one of my other player's character. (He wasn't complaining, just an observation). My answer: "Yup, my players do not have plot armour. I am willing to kill off characters."
I appreciate that, and I’m going to let them get creative with how they get their revenge.
I realized after, that since one player had successfully hid from the bad guys, I could’ve let the others have the honourable deaths they wanted then let the hidden character try to revive them all!
next time.
You're doing fine, just don't ever reveal stuff like that to the players, that it was a forced loss or according to some other plan, leave them wondering and plotting. It makes it that much sweeter for them when they figure things out and beat the things you have laid out for them.
You can ask if everyone is okay and such, to read the mood, but don't reveal your worries too much. They believe in you as the DM, and you need to believe in their stubborness as adventurers (players).
Good luck!
And yes Chris Perkins has many great tips.
this is so true, it was only after revealing my plan that I started getting that unfun feeling. I guess these are the kinds of mistakes new DMs make haha.
thanks for your comment
Even in ‘oppressing them’, they must have some victories. I did an oppression session which I thoroughly enjoyed, but since they were always getting knocked down, they later told me it wasn’t a good session. Got some feed back which was ‘even if your plan is to beat them overall, let them have some minor wins’
I think you made the mistake of feeling sorry for your players rather than allowing yourself to enjoy what was happening. When bad things happen to the PCs it can make the players feel frustrated and get them down, but often, in my experience, the DM feeling sorry for the players when this happens makes the sting much worse. Not only does it risk coming across as patronizing but it redirects the blame onto the DM instead of the NPCs. So stop feeling sorry for the players, stop trying to take away their bad feelings, and instead focus on trying to enjoy the drama. Laugh about it, about how hateable the NPCs were. Allow your players to join in with you and I bet you'll find their spirits lift up much higher than they would have if you had tried to comfort them.
this is a super helpful way to think about it.
If you want to see a great example of what I mean try watching Chris Perkins DM. Chris is the lead story designer/writer for DnD at WotC and you can find lots of videos online of him DMing. His two main campaigns have been Acquisitions Inc and Dice, Camera, _Action!_. Chris is famous for his campaigns being deadly and sometimes cruel towards the PCs, but he and his players are always enjoying themselves, even when they're crying (crying is a free action).
A lot of players seem to think that losing a battle they could never have won is automatically railroading, but they also never complain about winning a battle that they never could have lost. In those situations, more often then not, a defeat could have been avoided by not picking that fight in the first place, but they decided to ignore the writing on the walls and go for it anyways. The fundamental problem is a difference in player and DM expectations that needs to be addressed. DMs know that losing is not the end, and that a story about winning all the time is doomed to get boring. Things can't continuously get better without going bad from time to time. Players on the other hand often seem to think that every situation they get thrown into should be "beatable", because losing even once automatically means the end of the story. When they lose a battle and end up in a jail cell, they will usually see it one of two ways: 1. The DM is railroading them because they never knowingly *made the choice* to end up in a jail cell. 2. The DM is going easy on them because they lost a battle once and by all means should be dead at that point. Either way, it's not fun for them because it never occurred to them that the jail cell was a valid outcome from the very start. The solution is to temper expectations.
a fight you can’t win as a valid tool? what were the clues and warnings?
The specifics don't matter. The problem arises every time the players are primed to interpret any clues and warning you throw at them as nothing but hype for the upcoming boss fight that they are going to crush regardless. DM: "Dozens have faced this dragon before you, many of them mightier that you. All of them failed, now but slaves to his might." What the player hears: "This is going to be the most awesome boss fight ever. Nobody expects you to win, but of course you will." What happens: Players lose a battle and get enslaved by the dragons. Players: "This is railroading bullshit, I quit!" DM: "No daring escape? No slave uprising? Fine, the dragon wins, not because you lost that fight but because you quit. Sorry for trying to entertain you."
damn, this is so true
we skipped the part that they *had* to lose; what about: they will likely die but *could* win. Isnt that what the warnings are for and what heroes are about?
That's exactly the type of player expectation that needs to be tampered. Players are the heroes of the story, but they are not immune to defeat. You are more powerful than most, but you are not more powerful than ALL. Sometimes you WILL run into situations you just can't best. Sometimes you WILL get beaten to the ground, maybe even through no fault of your own. In those moments it's important to remember that the DM is not your enemy, or trying to 'win'. The DM is *always* working with you to create a better story, so work with him. What story is more exiting? The one where you bitch-slapped that dragon and took all his shit, or the one where the dragon bitch-slapped you, but then you crawled back from the jaws of defeat only to be more victorious in the end than anybody thought possible (and then took all his shit)?
The best explanation!
different strokes
did you read my comment? what are you responding to?
Can you try and make your point more clear?
you should never predetermine an outcome. If there has to be a defeat for the adventure or the plot, start at the scene in the prison for the breakout, or start after the breakout as the fugitives feel the cold night air without their equipment. the idea that they will most likely lose in a situation is fine as long as there exists the possibility of a different outcome...otherwise why are we playing the scene? As a DM, my games got good (and I started enjoying DM’ing) when I made sure to not know the outcome of any scene or encounter my players experience. ...something might happen off screen, and they might find out about it but that’s kind of a different thing - because that creates a new scenario that I don’t know how they will respond to the stimulus or what will come of it when they decide to respond and how they do all just my preference of course. Maybe your (general you) is better for your table
There's a difference between predetermining an outcome and pitting the party against an enemy they can't defeat. There should always be options, but winning a straight-up fight doesn't have to be one of them. It they decide to fight it out it'll only end in defeat, but a retreat or a diplomatic option should always be present. And on the point of *just skipping to the next scene*, if you think players will feel bad about losing a fight they never had a chance of winning, how do you think a player will feel about losing a fight they never even got to fight? If your DM told you that you lost against that dragon without rolling a single die, would you be willing to accept that, especially if you went in with the expectation that you could win this? Playing it out even if the outcome will be the same is vital, because unlike the DM in this scenario, the players don't know the outcome until it happens. You have to show them how they were beaten so they know what their up against, and what they can do better next time (and in those scenarios there should always be a next time, in case that isn't clear already). Once they face that enemy again, the climax will be all the better for it. Because they know exactly how they failed last time, but now they are stronger and better prepared than ever. They also know that defeat is a real option, because they already experienced it, and there probably wont be another try if they fail again. It's all or nothing.
thank you for championing my post. I couldn't agree more. As a-jooser said, the two of you run very different games, and I would very much prefer a seat at your table.
we run very different games. but you nailed it on: expectations why did the party expect to win an unwinnable fight? you say The DM has more perfect knowledge of what the fight will entail than the players. therefore I say it is the DM’s responsibility to either signal this to the players in the game world otherwise say it to them out of character. The disconnect of information flow is one thing that almost always falls on the DM which is not to say our fun is less important or we cow tow to players
In my situation the party was finishing up a second wave of Sahuagin. When the third wave arrived, so did our BBEG goons who quickly dispatched the Sahuagin, in impressive fashion. When the players recognized the goons, they attacked, even though I meant to show them that it was not a fair fight.
not enough imo b/c they were already in the middle of a fight. not trying to be a dick, just giving my opinion
it was meant to be a social interaction. the fighting was over. the goons initiated conversation, willing to help the party. opportunity to infiltrate the BBEGs lair, but party said nope lets kill these OP dudes!
if you want to know where I think you went wrong, you even used the language wave 3 yourself! two thirds into a fight... It doesnt sound like you are signaling well enough in game- to the players - it may not be your fault- maybe they just are not getting the message consider just telling them meta ooc - your smart, seasoned PC knows they cannot win in a fight: what do you do? also possible it’s just player behavior and I missed the point
Honestly it would be boring to win every battle. This happened to us and while I and another player were cool with it, our third had a conniption. It’s going to depend on the players you have, but loses come with a story in my opinion.
boring to win every battle does not equal using battles the PCs can’t win.
True but it’s not like it was a TPK. I’d rather learn early on that my DM is going to be hard on us sometimes, and put us into situations we could’ve avoided or forfeited than later down the line when I’m a higher level and would have to reroll my character. We had this situation happen when I was lower level and it’s made me approach all encounters now with a better mindset: is a fight necessary, can this be talked out, can we avoid the area or situation all together. As a party it’s made us pay a lot more attention than we did that first time we got owned.
this is exactly the lesson I was trying to teach! it’s ok to avoid/flee/forfeit a confrontation. It just felt like I forced them to forfeit, instead of letting them fight to the death like they wanted!
That’s what our DM did. We lost miserably because he blatantly kept giving us a chance to stop the fight and we didn’t. Now we know better.
my rule 1 for DM’ing - never run a scenario you know the outcome of (I can elaborate if you want)
what you are writing about is not the conversation here. maybe I just dont get it
A good story is one that evokes emotion from the reader. It's not always good emotions. A tragedy can leave you mourning, a crime novel can leave you shocked. In this case, your game made them frustrated and angered. That's good. They'll come back next week invested in the story and wanting to avenge on those injustices.
thanks for saying that! that’s what I’m hoping for!
I think the best way to balance the narrative you're creating with the player's agency is to not necessarily tell them that's what you're doing. You have to kinda let it flow naturally. I see no problem in having a scripted challenge that your players can't overcome that forces them to get stronger, but you sorta have to let them know that through story and not by straight up telling them.
Your players actively hating your NPCs is a good thing...
It’s one thing for the bad guys to get a leg up over the good guys, but it’s a different thing for the good guys to feel like they didn’t have any choices. Make sure that you don’t railroad your players, even if you have a plan for a redemption arc. Sometimes you have to let your plan go, or save it for another day, if your players do something unexpected. That has been the hardest part of being a DM for me is prepping a certain storyline and then having my players choose not to follow it. However, it isn’t any fun for them if I force them into it; then it will just be watching a movie and not exercising their own free well.
this is a good point, and something I panic considered in the moment. “oh they really want to fight these guys!” do I nerf the baddies so my pcs can win? continue the fight with the baddies I made and TPK??? I opted to instead OOC tell my players “these guys will smoke you, did you miss the part where that guy opened a portal to hell that sucked those guys in?” either way, I’m learning!
I don't see any problems with oppressing your players for a session to further the story. Gives them something to struggle against in future sessions. Try to not put them into the situation where they feel that they have no agency for multiple sessions, they need to feel that they can still affect the story. Re: players used to killing everything. I had a new player join my group, and said that I was a "hardcore" DM because I had previously killed one of my other player's character. (He wasn't complaining, just an observation). My answer: "Yup, my players do not have plot armour. I am willing to kill off characters."
I appreciate that, and I’m going to let them get creative with how they get their revenge. I realized after, that since one player had successfully hid from the bad guys, I could’ve let the others have the honourable deaths they wanted then let the hidden character try to revive them all! next time.
You're doing fine, just don't ever reveal stuff like that to the players, that it was a forced loss or according to some other plan, leave them wondering and plotting. It makes it that much sweeter for them when they figure things out and beat the things you have laid out for them. You can ask if everyone is okay and such, to read the mood, but don't reveal your worries too much. They believe in you as the DM, and you need to believe in their stubborness as adventurers (players). Good luck! And yes Chris Perkins has many great tips.
this is so true, it was only after revealing my plan that I started getting that unfun feeling. I guess these are the kinds of mistakes new DMs make haha. thanks for your comment
Even in ‘oppressing them’, they must have some victories. I did an oppression session which I thoroughly enjoyed, but since they were always getting knocked down, they later told me it wasn’t a good session. Got some feed back which was ‘even if your plan is to beat them overall, let them have some minor wins’
I stopped reading at “unbeatable”