A new take on the 15mwd

[Talakeal]

Well, Then why are you complaining? and btw, I would appreciatte it if you didn't make assumptions about me or the way that I play.

I am "complaining" because the players have decided, in the last session, to start wasting as much time as possible both in and out of character and it makes for a dreadfully dull game, and I am trying to see if there is a simple solution that does not result in "gentleman's agreements" or consequences that my players will perceive as vindictive screwjobs.


And, seriously dude. Pot calling the kettle black much?

[zinycor]

And, seriously dude. Pot calling the kettle black much?

What? English is my second language, not familiar with that expression

[GloatingSwine]

In my experiance the consensus appears to be that the primary purpose of random encounters is to keep the party on their toes and stop them from doing things like sleeping in the dungeon or stopping to do a thorough search of every single square on the map.

And again, they don't need to be strong to do that. The important thing is whether they happen. "Whoever was on watch thought they heard something coming and woke you all up, your rest is interrupted" is as much of an incentive not to try and sleep in a dungeon as "oops the room you slept in is a mimc you are eaten".

Also, old school random encounter tables were all over the place, I remember seeing freaking full grown dragons on low level wilderness tables. Not that I am defending this or think its good, I just do t know where the idea that random encounters are only supposed to be weak fights is coming from.

That's because they were intended to be encounters not necessarily fights. You meet a full grown dragon, it says good morning.

The majority of my random encounters ARE non combat ones, and the majority of the combat ones ARE trivial in difficulty. The ranger was actually one of the tougher things on them, and he would (and did) go down in a couple of rounds if he lets the party engage with him on their terms.

The fact that your players encountered three combats in a row that they didn't feel were trivial enough not to blow right the hell up somewhat suggests that your perception is skewed here.

Random encounters can all be weak. They don't even need to be very random. You can have a fixed list of appropriate encounters and just use the next one on the list for that area when you roll that an encounter happens.

[Talakeal]

The fact that your players encountered three combats in a row that they didn't feel were trivial enough not to blow right the hell up somewhat suggests that your perception is skewed here.

Random encounters can all be weak. They don't even need to be very random. You can have a fixed list of appropriate encounters and just use the next one on the list for that area when you roll that an encounter happens.

Well, they decided to start blowing all of their most powerful spells as a first resort, so at that point any sort of analysis is going to be skewed.

But I have done fairly extensive mathematical analysis over the past five years while playtesting the system, and I can generally predict difficulty pretty well at this point, barring a few crazy outlier dice rolls.

As I said, the dungeons are working out almost exactly as I am designing them to be, the players are just not nearly as confident in their abilities as I am.

[Lord Torath]

And, seriously dude. Pot calling the kettle black much?

What? English is my second language, not familiar with that expression

Both the pot and the kettle are black. The idiom means "you're criticizing someone else for doing the same thing that you do". Basically, it's a call to examine your own actions more closely. Like someone who calls people insulting names, and then complains about rudeness when someone else calls them an insulting name.

[zinycor]

Both the pot and the kettle are black. The idiom means "you're criticizing someone else for doing the same thing that you do". Basically, it's a call to examine your own actions more closely. Like someone who calls people insulting names, and then complains about rudeness when someone else calls them an insulting name.

So... is the implication that I am asumming things about talakeal gaming style? Cause Am not, everything I have said has been based on what he himself has said. Talak on the other hand just assumed my gaming experience.

[GloatingSwine]

Well, they decided to start blowing all of their most powerful spells as a first resort, so at that point any sort of analysis is going to be skewed.

They decided to, in response to experiences they had with your overtuned random encounters.

But I have done fairly extensive mathematical analysis over the past five years while playtesting the system, and I can generally predict difficulty pretty well at this point, barring a few crazy outlier dice rolls.

But don't you keep coming here with stories about how it has all blown up and gone wrong? Which rather implies that the assumptions you made on that mathematical analysis have not been borne out in reality.

As I said, the dungeons are working out almost exactly as I am designing them to be, the players are just not nearly as confident in their abilities as I am.

Because you TPK'd them with a random encounter then harassed them to the point of dropping one in another, I suspect leaving them with the feeling that they'd done nothing productive in return because they decided to drop a nuke on it. Your players are responding to their experiences. They're not playing the game the way it happens in your head, they're playing the game the way it's happened to them. And that game is one where you can take no chances with random encounters because they'll either murder you or annoy you to death.

[Talakeal]

Because you TPK'd them with a random encounter then harassed them to the point of dropping one in another, I suspect leaving them with the feeling that they'd done nothing productive in return because they decided to drop a nuke on it. Your players are responding to their experiences. They're not playing the game the way it happens in your head, they're playing the game the way it's happened to them. And that game is one where you can take no chances with random encounters because they'll either murder you or annoy you to death.

You really think a TPK six sessions ago suddenly caused them to start being paranoid all of the sudden despite having four sessions in between with no problems?

And don't you think "annoy you to death" is being a bit melodramatic?

[Willie the Duck]

So... is the implication that I am asumming things about talakeal gaming style? Cause Am not, everything I have said has been based on what he himself has said. Talak on the other hand just assumed my gaming experience.

That is the implication. Just treat it as a general attack. You both have been snarky and judgmental towards each other for frankly very little obvious reason. Either one of you could decide not to continue this trend, but if you both double and triple down, it will just continue.

[zinycor]

That is the implication. Just treat it as a general attack. You both have been snarky and judgmental towards each other for frankly very little obvious reason. Either one of you could decide not to continue this trend, but if you both double and triple down, it will just continue.

What? when have I been judgemental? I tried to give good advice to the best of my ability.

[GloatingSwine]

You really think a TPK six sessions ago suddenly caused them to start being paranoid all of the sudden despite having four sessions in between with no problems?

Something has clearly taught your players to act like this. It will have been things that happened in your game.

And don't you think "annoy you to death" is being a bit melodramatic?

I think that's how your players experienced what was happening.

[Talakeal]

That is the implication. Just treat it as a general attack. You both have been snarky and judgmental towards each other for frankly very little obvious reason. Either one of you could decide not to continue this trend, but if you both double and triple down, it will just continue.

In my experience the expression it is a call for introspection.

Won't treating it as a general attack just lead to further conflict?

I honestly feel like Zinconyr reads everything I say in the worst light possible, but this may well just be a language issue.

[Talakeal]

Something has clearly taught your players to act like this. It will have been things that happened in your game.

I think that's how your players experienced what was happening.

The barbarian player got frustrated because he personally was not able to contribute much to the fight and then told the rest of them to go nova because he wanted the fight to be over as quickly as possible.

The rest of the group just kind of followed his lead and realized that going nova and then going back to town after every encounter appeared to be the optimal strategy.

[zinycor]

In my experience the expression it is a call for introspection.

Won't treating it as a general attack just lead to further conflict?

I honestly feel like Zinconyr reads everything I say in the worst light possible, but this may well just be a language issue.

ok then, trying to be open minded here. What then did you mean by that phrase?

[Quertus]

In my experiance the consensus appears to be that the primary purpose of random encounters is to keep the party on their toes and stop them from doing things like sleeping in the dungeon or stopping to do a thorough search of every single square on the map.

Also, old school random encounter tables were all over the place, I remember seeing freaking full grown dragons on low level wilderness tables. Not that I am defending this or think its good, I just do t know where the idea that random encounters are only supposed to be weak fights is coming from.

The majority of my random encounters ARE non combat ones, and the majority of the combat ones ARE trivial in difficulty. The ranger was actually one of the tougher things on them, and he would (and did) go down in a couple of rounds if he lets the party engage with him on their terms.

That's because they were intended to be encounters not necessarily fights. You meet a full grown dragon, it says good morning.

So, my take on random encounters:

They can be weak or OP.

They should represent the area.

They can teach about the world.

They add uncertainty to tasks.

They don't have to result in combat.

In some modules, they are the only way to get necessary information or items. I consider this a bad thing.

-----

Your random encounters are just a bad thing: they don't grant XP or treasure; they don't provide the party with allies or information; they aren't interesting in their own right, even to the GM. They only serve the Gamist notion of punishing otherwise optimal play, to try to control what the game looks like.

-----

So, it sounds like the real question is, "what are the ingredients to a good hex crawl?", and, for that, I'm not sure that I'll be terribly helpful. Other Playgrounders may be more helpful here. I can only again suggest, perhaps let your players design hex crawls, so that you can see firsthand what their expectations are, and y'all can discuss the differences between the various games, what people liked and disliked, etc.

[Talakeal]

Your random encounters are just a bad thing: they don't grant XP or treasure; they don't provide the party with allies or information; they aren't interesting in their own right, even to the GM. They only serve the Gamist notion of punishing otherwise optimal play, to try to control what the game looks like.

That's not quite correct. random encounters do provide Xp, treasure, and lore, just not as much as dungeons. They also do provide allies and information, heck the PCs actually got a follower during the last session, although they didn't make any use out of her as they decided to go back to town rather than press on. Random encounters can also be interesting, but ha,f a dozen or more per session is tou to make fn and interesting, especially when the PCs are at full strength and going nova on each one.

Doesnt every mechanic exist to control what the game looks like by punishing otherwise optimal play? Like seriously, one could so the same thing about HP existing only to stop PCs from dumping constitution and running into the front lines like berserkers or that Encumbrance only exists to punish the otherwise optimal strategy of carrying ten of every item in the PHB.

[1337 b4k4]

As others have said, it seems that the game you want to play is not the same game your players want to play. Not sure whether this is because you all didn't agree ahead of time, or whether your idea and their idea of a hex-crawl old school D&D game is different from theirs, but this does seem like a lot of expectation mismatch. One possibility for this mis-match might be if your players have never played an old school style game before, they may have thought they had an idea of what was involved, and not realized how different it can be.

That said, it also seems like you don't quite know what you want, or maybe more accurately that you're not comfortable enough to enforce the style of game you want at the risk of not being a "friendly GM" to your players. The list of things you've removed from the game at the griping of your players is staggering in some ways. I don't know how many sessions you've played total, but you've made more changes than some games make across decades of rule changes. You don't have to go full Darth Ultron on your players, but you do owe it to them (and yourself) to actually stick to the form of game you agreed to play. As a player I would be very confused at what was expected if the core parts of the game kept changing. I realize you probably made these changes in response to your players complaints, but I would suggest that you need to push back sometimes and also maybe dig deeper into the issue. Just because a player complains about X doesn't necessarily mean their problem is X.

Random encounters are fine, and frankly to me it doesn't sound like you particularly over do them, and you've stated that most of them are non combat in the first place. But resource depletion and unlucky dice are an important thing to keep in mind. If you're going for an old school feel, you may want to give some serious thoughts into retainers / hirelings and allowing your players to have a handful of characters to rotate though. Long rest up times mean your players have to waste in game time in heal when they do choose to heal otherwise they run the risk of a death putting them out of the game until returning to town. That isn't to say let them play multiple characters at the same time, but giving them the option to take their "B" character out on an adventure while their "A" character recuperates from a drubbing could make them less likely to want to spend all their time in town except when they know they can win.

To answer more of your core question though, there are a handful of things you can do to make the 15MWD less of a thing. You've already hit on time passes and enemies may prepare for them coming back. This is the most effective thing to do because it makes the most sense, has the most direct and measurable impact and has a long a storied history in the hobby (all the way back to B2 at least). And they can complain and gripe all they want, but old school (and really even new school) RPGs are not static worlds. This isn't Final Fantasy where the big bad waits to begin his final attack until the player has chosen to move on to the next disc. In TTRPGs the world is supposed to be a living thing. Events happen regardless (and sometimes because or in spite) of thee players actions. Just make sure that you are fairly arbitrating the world events and that those events follow from what you've set up and you're fine. It's not a cheap time limit, it's what happens when you take days to do things.

Living expenses are a thing that old school RPGs used to keep players hungry and moving too. Sure if you start rolling in the dough, it's not necessarily a problem, but consider that for example in RC D&D, a weeks worth of rations for one person was 15GP. 9 days one way to the dungeon means each trip alone should have been costing your players each 45GP just in rations, tack on the cost of room and board (maybe another 2-3GP per day while in town, here's an overview of D&D's various takes http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2018/0...nd-upkeep.html), paying retainers and mercenaries (sure, lots of them take a share, but they need rations too) and if 20 days of work is only going to pay a share of a single encounters worth of treasure, I doubt they'll retain any employees for long.

Local government too might start sticking their hand out, taxes, entry fees, harassment by local law enforcement etc. Who's storing and guarding their gold while they're gone? Once they're bringing in large enough quantities of money, how is that affecting the local economy? Maybe the inn keeper has decided they can afford to pay a little more?

Ultimately though, when things are as unhealthy as they are right now, the best thing is to talk this out, establish some boundaries and your expectations and then stick to it. Maybe that means they don't want to play this game, that's ok, they don't have to and neither do you if you don't want. But all of the above suggestions expect players with buy in to the world. Using them putatively is only going to make them angry not get everyone on a good baseline.

[Quertus]

That's not quite correct. random encounters do provide Xp, treasure, and lore, just not as much as dungeons. They also do provide allies and information, heck the PCs actually got a follower during the last session, although they didn't make any use out of her as they decided to go back to town rather than press on. Random encounters can also be interesting, but ha,f a dozen or more per session is tou to make fn and interesting, especially when the PCs are at full strength and going nova on each one.

Doesnt every mechanic exist to control what the game looks like by punishing otherwise optimal play? Like seriously, one could so the same thing about HP existing only to stop PCs from dumping constitution and running into the front lines like berserkers or that Encumbrance only exists to punish the otherwise optimal strategy of carrying ten of every item in the PHB.

I stand corrected. Wait, so, the party could conceivably build an army of followers just by having random encounters? From a Simulationist perspective, then, why take the risk of encountering creatures in their fortified homes? If my goal was "make friends", I think I'd just wander around an abandoned parking lot closer to base, picking up random encounters.

-----

So, they'll get use out of said follower when they do press on?

-----

So, what made my random encounters "interesting"? Hmmm...

First of, again, random encounter is not necessarily combat.

Well, in a sandbox, the entirety of the plot could well be what the PCs do with said random encounters.

In one game, the BBEG was a random encounter, simply because I didn't track his movements.

In one game, the party made a big deal about yeti being a random encounter.

In one game, a creature so powerful that nothing had survived contact with it was a random encounter. The party saw signs of its distinctive lair, and asked what they knew about it. When I told them "nothing", and confirmed that answer ("you mean that with all the scouts that our empire has sent out, not one has ever returned with tales describing this?" "Correct."), they wisely left the area.

My random encounters can include things like "a patch of metal flowers", "an abandoned campsite", or "signs of a struggle".

-----

Now, sure, inside the dungeon, while the party is camping in one place, they aren't going to get ambushed by a pack of flowers, or a haunted battlefield. Inside the dungeon, random encounters keep the GM from having to keep track of the movements of everyone single individual creature. They're a way to provide mechanical support for "some creatures move about the dungeon, and you might encounter them at any time".

----

Encumbrance... sure, provides mechanical support for the GM limiting your supplies in a wilderness survival game. But it also helps with versimilitude.

Random encounters that provide less* XP & treasure because they're not part of the plot, OTOH, feel Gamist and lost versimilitude. Giving less lore? It would depend on the encounter, I suppose, but I think it would be odd for the hungry Dragon out hunting that the party stumbled upon to not be full of lore.

* And I thought... didn't you say that you use milestone XP? So how, then, could random provide any XP?

[Satinavian]

Ok, so the idea was that they would travel to the dungeon, clear as much as they could, then go back to town.

I have random encounters on the way to the dungeon to make time in the dungeon more valuable; if they had to clear several non-rewarding encounters to get to the more lucrative encounters in the dungeon they wouldn't be overly cautious and wouldn't constantly be returning to town after every room.
repeat.

Then make the way to the dungeon const resources in the form of treasure, not ressorces that can be replenished automatically by going back to town more often.

Also, a random resource cost that just makes the dungeon harder and more dangerous but has no otherwise lasting effect, basically invites to try more often until you can tackle the dungeon at full force.



Just because game designers tried to use random encounters in the old days to limit resting and timewasting doen't mean it is a good idea. And your version works even less because your random encounters do not limit resting ( which happens safely in town ), it instead makes exploring harder and more risky.



Just take the following example :

The old forgotten temple of Xyxyx is protected by an unholy barrier made from the screaming sould of those once sacrificed on the alttar in the depths. Everyone entering will be have their own soul sucked out to join them such a powerful cursed barrier this is. The only known countermeasure aside from giving your sould to Xyxyx willingly as the mounstrous inhabitants have done is a potion made from the holy flower of Yxyxy the ancient enemy of Xyxyx. This will hold of the effect for 12h.
Those potions are quite expensive but can arrange to have any number you want and can pay for imported into the town that is your starting base.

This is a setup that applies a cost to every single dungeon expedition and makes dungeon time valuable. The group can still completely set their own pace and rest as often as they want, but every time they leave the dungeon or waste 12 h inside, they lose money.

Setups like this would work to entice the players to do what you want.

[Segev]

I assume you have, but will ask anyway: HAVE you sat down and discussed what you expect from the game with them, and asked them what they expect?

Why did you remove random encounters? Was it just because they take too long to play out and are boring? Or was it because the players complained they were too hard/unfair somehow? The players saying "timed missions suck" sounds like code for, "Man, we couldn't nova every encounter and rest to full between them, and that sucked."

Since you're making your own system, here, one possible way to change it up would be to make the things they need to perform their abilities not be something recovered on resting, but on questing. They need expensive or rare components as foci and material components, but such things drop rather regularly if they hunt down the right kind of encounters. Instead of (to borrow from D&D, here) spell slots that replenish per day, spell slots are consumed out of magical materials, such as the horns of minotaurs or the teeth of shocker lizards or the eyes of cockatrices. Some items are generic; some may only work for specific spells (a la more standard material components, but now they're the material component and the spell slot in one).

Now, they recharge only when they take a risk on that side encounter, and going home to rest up doesn't really refill their mojo.


But again, the real problem here seems to be differences in expectations from the game between you and the other players; you need to have this conversation with them. Ask them what they want and expect, and tell them what you expected versus what you're seeing. Get feedback as to why they play as they do, and whether they even WANT to play the game you're after. This may not be the group to run this game with if they don't.

[Talakeal]

Since you're making your own system, here, one possible way to change it up would be to make the things they need to perform their abilities not be something recovered on resting, but on questing. They need expensive or rare components as foci and material components, but such things drop rather regularly if they hunt down the right kind of encounters. Instead of (to borrow from D&D, here) spell slots that replenish per day, spell slots are consumed out of magical materials, such as the horns of minotaurs or the teeth of shocker lizards or the eyes of cockatrices. Some items are generic; some may only work for specific spells (a la more standard material components, but now they're the material component and the spell slot in one).

I tried that at one point. The problem is that the players would then use them all up and feel hopeless because they would get into a classic catch 22; they needed to complete quests to recharge abilities but needed to recharge abilities to complete quests.

Just because game designers tried to use random encounters in the old days to limit resting and timewasting doen't mean it is a good idea. And your version works even less because your random encounters do not limit resting ( which happens safely in town ), it instead makes exploring harder and more risky.

I am new to sandbox / hex crawl gaming and didn't want to try and reinvent the wheel. Random encounters had been the default in old school gaming for almost fifty years, so I figured they would work for me as well.

I realized months ago that they wouldn't actually work that way though and brought it up to the players, who assured me they wouldn't abuse it. Now that things haven't worked out that way I think I am just going to drop the exploration format and go back to a more familiar style rather than risk drama for the group or driving the new players away from the hobby.

I stand corrected. Wait, so, the party could conceivably build an army of followers just by having random encounters? From a Simulationist perspective, then, why take the risk of encountering creatures in their fortified homes? If my goal was "make friends", I think I'd just wander around an abandoned parking lot closer to base, picking up random encounters.

You could eventually make a (very small) army of contacts and allies, yes. But they wouldn't be "followers" as such; mercenaries maybe. The "follower" they had was a wandering knight who was currently between quests and willing to help the players with their current quest, but was not willing to sit around with them for months as they rested up between every minor scuffle and soon went off on her own.

Encumbrance... sure, provides mechanical support for the GM limiting your supplies in a wilderness survival game. But it also helps with versimilitude.

Random encounters also provide verisimilitude.

Random encounters that provide less* XP & treasure because they're not part of the plot, OTOH, feel Gamist and lost versimilitude. Giving less lore? It would depend on the encounter, I suppose, but I think it would be odd for the hungry Dragon out hunting that the party stumbled upon to not be full of lore.

* And I thought... didn't you say that you use milestone XP? So how, then, could random provide any XP?

Basically, players get XP every time they defeat (or ally with) an enemy above a certain difficulty. This is mostly the end bosses of dungeons, but not always, and many of the more difficulty monsters on the random encounter table are "legendary beasts" who also fall into this category.

Random encounters are less lucrative than dungeons because the dungeons, a catch all term for site based adventures, are exceptional because that is where the big enemies are. Besides, most monsters don't carry their treasure hoard along with them.

As for lore, I try and do what I can, but the dungeons actually have a lot of time and effort put into them, which is not something I can always do for random encounters, especially when I am generating them back to back like I was last session, and as there is no guarantee a random encounter will ever come up I don't want to put vital information for the overall plot there.

[Segev]

I tried that at one point. The problem is that the players would then use them all up and feel hopeless because they would get into a classic catch 22; they needed to complete quests to recharge abilities but needed to recharge abilities to complete quests.

That's what "mundane" types are good for! They never run out of their main schticks.

Anyway, the real problem is that you and your players are going into this with different expectations. You need to talk to them and find out what it is they want, and tell them what you want, and figure out if these things are compatible.

[Talakeal]

So I had another terrible session yesterday. This might be worth starting a new thread.

First, I decided to ditch the hex crawl aspect of the game and stop subjecting my players to experimental rules, so I dont think we are going to have problems with random encounters anymore.

Second, two of the players got into a serious fight out of game, and as a result one of them left the group because they dont want to spend every other weekend with that person, despite saying they loved the game and were havng a lot of fun.
To compound this, the two players who are hosting the game have small children, and are saying we cant recruit any new players. They dont trust strangers at their house, and they are unable or unwilling to get a baby sitter and game at my place.
Any ideas for how I can get new players in this situation, a daunting task under the best of circumstances?

Third, three of my players were kind of out of it having stayed up all night the previous night playing video games. The encounter was a sort of mystery, a small town with all sorts of wierd happening about it and a nearby dungeon.
The problem is, the players just didnt pick up on any of the clues. I kept giving fairly direct hits to the party in character, but they just never elected to investigate the dungeon or go along with NPCs to witness exciting scenes.
In the end the game stalled out and the players got really furstrated and said my NPCs were being too stubborn and evasive, but I had literally had NPCs give them all of the direction they needed multiple times.
So in the end before everyone got too boreed and furstrated I decided to break versimilitude and just have the plot come to them, but by that point it may have already been too late.

ok then, trying to be open minded here. What then did you mean by that phrase?

In the best it has seemed like you were twisting my words to make it sound like I was a terrible DM or out to insult you.

It is a very common troll tactic to pretend that you dont understand the other person so that you can make them look like a jerk, and I suspected that was what might have been happening here, hence why I asked you several times if you were just jerking my chain, but that was before I knew english wasn't your first language.

I really don't want to go back and cite specific examples and continue bickering. At this point I am happy to just chalk it up to language differences and let it be.

I am sorry if I was overly harsh with you as a result and will try and avoid it in the future.

A dungeon with 3 static boss monsters isn't an interesting dungeon, period. In fact, boss monsters are 90% uninteresting, no matter how handcrafted and custom their abilities are. What makes an enemy interesting is why the party is fighting it, and what the party learned about it in the process of getting to the point where they fight it.

Anyway, back around to the point, it doesn't seem like the latter is what you're doing either, if travelling back to town on a daily basis is an option. If you want that, maybe the dungeon should be more than a hour or two from town.



Also, you can always structure your game and encounters around the 15 minute adventuring day. That works too. Sometimes, I wind up deploying intense encounters for the party which constitutes their whole day's resources.

Lord Comander, if you are still around I would like to discuss this further, because I don't think we are communicating fully.

For me combat is fun, but it is not the whole fo the game.

Likewise interconnectedness and working dungeon ecologies are fun, but are a rather small aspect of the game.

As a player I have had plenty of fun in dungeons with interconnected encounters, dungeons with isolated encounters, dungeons with only a single combat encounter, and even dungeons with no combat encouners at all. I have also had interesting solo encounters that dont take place in a dungeon at all.

For me it is the exploration and description of the dungeon at really make it interesting, as well as the emerging story of the place.

I assume I was misreading your post or that you were making blanket statements for effect, but I really am curious about what you meant by this.

[The Glyphstone]

Is it safe to assume that no matter how many times people suggest it as the only sane option, you will not leave the group and find a new one?

[Talakeal]

Is it safe to assume that no matter how many times people suggest it as the only sane option, you will not leave the group and find a new one?

Yeah, but this would be like the fourth time I have done that in the last five years. Finding new groups / players is hard.

Honestly this game was going just fine for quite a while, and it seems like the problems last session were caused by non game-related stuff.

[comk59]

Yeah, but this would be like the fourth time I have done that in the last five years. Finding new groups / players is hard.

Honestly this game was going just fine for quite a while, and it seems like the problems last session were caused by non game-related stuff.

Just wondering, have you considered running games online? I've found that Roll20 does hexcrawls okay, although you DO have to map it out before the session, which might not be how you run them.

[Talakeal]

Just wondering, have you considered running games online? I've found that Roll20 does hexcrawls okay, although you DO have to map it out before the session, which might not be how you run them.

I have tried it a couple of times. I absolutely could not get into it.

[zlefin]

on your points on the new situation:
there's not much that can be done about that OOC situation.
maybe the angry players will calm down and find a way to make peace, or they won't.

not everyone can afford, and/or trust, a babysitter.
the only way to get new players is obviously to recruit from amongst people they'd trust to be in their house; or to have them leave the group entirely and find other players. There's just not going to be a way around that.

On the mystery: it seems like a bad idea; based on the prior discussions, and what it seems like your players are like, a mystery is not something they'd do well or be interested in. did you have a session 0 wherein they said a mystery would be a good idea?

[Talakeal]

On the mystery: it seems like a bad idea; based on the prior discussions, and what it seems like your players are like, a mystery is not something they'd do well or be interested in. did you have a session 0 wherein they said a mystery would be a good idea?

That's the problem; the party assumed they were there to solve a mystery when it was really just the set up for a dungeon crawl.

Basically they were in a village which was plagued by strange happenings, among them was people going missing. They got it in their heads they were trying to catch a serial killer and thought that the creepy ruined church on the edge of town that people kept mentioning and telling them they should investigate was just some flavor text that they might get around to once they had solved the case. And once they ran out of "leads" they got frustrated and said that I my NPCs were being too stubborn and evasive despite that fact that the NPCs had literally told them everything they know about the situation and pointed them in the right direction multiple times.

[Mr Beer]

Seems to me that instead of doing all this planning and then going over to someone else's house to do this, you could save time by repeatedly slamming your head into your own living room wall. The result would be much the same and it has the advantage of being simpler and more convenient.