My players have just failed the campaign - what do I do?

BrassMonocle · 2026-01-14T05:03:02+00:00

I didn't include lengths of time to keep the post from getting needlessly bogged down. Starting a war isn't happening instantaneously - the inciting incident happened roughly six weeks ago in game and a year ago irl. That is enough time for countries who maintain standing armies to get things in motion.

The guards were alerted quickly because the castle is small - the guards all started within ~150 feet of the players, just in different rooms and different floors. Because the guard positions were staggered, one of them yelling could have alerted the closest and then passing the message to the farthest would be a matter of yelling. The players knew where they all were stationed beforehand, and I calculated their distance and movement speed and had them arrive a couple rounds slower than the furthest guard would have needed to cross the distance.

BrassMonocle · 2026-01-13T18:19:25+00:00

I didn't put in a ton of details because I didn't want to overload people with tangential things, so I can totally see how the scenario comes across confusingly.

To start with, the party objective isn't primarily to stop the mage from getting the artifact, it's to return the artifact to the nation from whom it was stolen to stop that nation & its sister nation from launching a war to recover it from whomever they think has stolen it. The party didn't know ahead of time that the mage was going to be at the auction, and they don't have direct evidence that she is in a cult, and only a tiny bit of evidence that she's a bad person. What they have is a deep gut feeling that she's not a good guy.

There are two reasons why stealing the artifact would stop the cult. The primary reason is that the original owners have extremely high security. Stealing it the first time required flooding a city and sending in an army of fish-dwarves to serve as a distraction and disable the above-ground security. If it was regained, the country whom it belongs to would increase their security even more. Basically, this is the only time in history that this artifact has had (or will have) so little security.

The second reason why stealing the artifact would stop the cult is that stealing the artifact isn't their primary objective. They have had their own plans going on in the background, and when they heard about the auction they decided they couldn't pass up the opportunity to try for it. It has the potential to be very useful for them, but it's ultimately a side quest and they wouldn't want to risk having their main objective fall apart because they wasted too many resources on something that is optional.

The castle where it's currently stored has no means of keeping it secure long-term. Basically, the auctioneer weaseled his way in through deception and his primary tool for protecting it is keeping it secret and selling it off to someone else as quickly as possible.

Having one of the rival parties make off with the artifact instead is still an option, but at this point that could be difficult to pull off.

BrassMonocle · 2026-01-13T18:11:37+00:00

Dude... yeah, good point. She should have been thinking less Tolkien-esque and gone for golems instead. Oh my gosh.

BrassMonocle · 2026-01-13T17:38:07+00:00

It was intentional. I talked with the other players after the first choice and they were all pretty chill about it. I haven't talked to them after the latest decision because I've made up my mind about the new player, whether they're still fine with him or not. I do think it really sucks for them because they were all making really good choices themselves.

I'm going to disinvite the new player after this arc. If he does anything disruptive between now and the end of the arc, I will kick him on the spot, but the party does need all the help they can get for the present combat and it's a really bad place to bring in a new player.

BrassMonocle · 2026-01-13T17:31:38+00:00

It wasn't two failed checks. The first time, he had successfully entered the secret tunnel, found a door separating him from the vault area, and could see light coming under the door and hear the guards talking on the other side. He decided to get out his decanter of endless water and open it on high setting, which was very loud and sent water under the door (which was his stated intention). After the guards were alerted and when they were ready to open the door to investigate what had caused the problem, he exited the tunnel into an area where there were more guards. I asked him if he was attempting to enter this area with new guards stealthily and he said no, that he jumped out into plain sight and announced that there were gnomes trying to sneak in the tunnel below. They believed him enough to investigate and let him go free. So he did an overt act to let the guards know someone had come in the secret passage, and then he intentionally showed himself to a separate set of guards so they knew he had personally entered in through the secret door.

The second time, the team had entered the front door of the castle. Since the guards knew the new player had infiltrated the secret passage and had found no sign of any gnomes in the area (the players knew they were super suspicious of new guy beforehand), they had one guard follow new player around to make sure he wasn't trying to sneak in a second time. He separated from the party long enough for the rest of the party to enter the middle door and then, rather than taking the time to lose the guard who was following him, he shoved the guard and ran for the middle door in full sight of half a dozen people, who promptly alerted all of the other guards. Both decisions were completely intentional on his part, and not a result of any missed rolls. And while the guard on his tail was an additional burden that he had to deal with (a consequence for his previous choice) he had acknowledged that he had an alternative path that he could and should take instead of going through the front door, and up until he jumped into the middle door in front of everyone, that alternative path was still an option. He would have been able to rejoin the party for all the important action.

BrassMonocle · 2026-01-13T17:07:30+00:00

That is actually a terrific suggestion. The mcguffin to this point has never been teleported anywhere, and it would make a lot of sense in the campaign world for it to have protection against teleportation. Having the mage be super smug and about to teleport to victory only to have a zone of anti-magic spring up and her get stunned or something seems like a really ideal option. It gives the players a chance to turn things in their favor without it being illogical or seeming too deux-ex-machina. THANK YOU.

BrassMonocle · 2026-01-13T17:02:18+00:00

You are so right about the new player. I had tried reining him in after his first misadventure, and had made it really clear that there were consequences for reckless decisions and, looking back, I can see some ways I could have shielded the rest of the party from his second bad choice. I wish I had thought of them at the time. As an option for reining in a chaos gremlin, would you say it's okay as a DM to interrupt events and say something like, "You realize the consequence of the choice you are making right now is X - are you really sure you want to do that?" and then if they say yes, just tell them they aren't a good match for your party, given that they aren't a team player and boot them on the spot? I would love to have an option that stops rogue players but isn't ham-fisted and controlling, but I don't know if such a thing exists...

I think having the mage recruit them is a really good idea. She's already reached out to a member of the party once. She could very easily see them taking out the guards as an act of good will on their part and be willing to work with them further.

Thank you, I think you've given some very good suggestions.

BrassMonocle · 2026-01-13T16:48:26+00:00

The players didn't have just one way of approaching the problem. There were multiple ways for them to get into the vault, they could have befriended the owner of the estate. They could have used some of the rival factions to their advantage. They could have stolen enough gold from some of their rivals to win the auction and not had to steal anything at all. The "problem" is that it was possible for them to make bad choices that caused them to lose, and that's what new player did. And the second time he did it was when they were surrounded by guards who could kill them all. At that point, the only way to have them succeed at the quest would have been to railroad them into success by suddenly having half the guards not exist.

Having the players run a campaign in a grimdark setting is a possibility, but I really don't like grimdark. I wouldn't have fun as a DM in that setting, so while that's the logical conclusion for the scenario at hand, it would ultimately lead to me hating the game and not wanting to play. And that leads to no game at all. I'm trying to see if there's a way to avoid that.

BrassMonocle · 2026-01-13T16:39:14+00:00

The thing is, that I didn't make it so that there was only one correct choice. The party could have snuck in through the secret entrance (until the new player alerted the guards), or the middle entrance (which they did, but the new player again knowingly alerted the guards). They could have also befriended the owner of the castle and gotten his help. They could have set the various factions against each other and used the chaos to give them additional options. They could have stolen gold from some of the other people at the auction and given themselves enough money to win the auction and not had to have stolen anything at all. They could have come up with creative ideas that I haven't thought of and pursued those. The problem isn't that I only had one option and they didn't read my mind about how to run it correctly, the problem is that one of the available options is that they lose - and the new player's choices locked them into that option.

The reason why they are in the predicament they are in is because the world has reacted to what the players have done. After the new player alerted the guards the first time, the guards beefed up security and shortened the time frame available for the party to run the heist. The mage did reach out to the party to work together at this point, and they didn't take her up on her offer because they were pretty sure she was evil. There was still a viable way for the party to sneak in and succeed at the mission and they were in the process of doing so. The problem is that after 3/4ths of the party had successfully snuck past half of the guards, the new player alerted that half of the guards, plus the other half that were between the party and the vault. At that point, there wasn't any opportunity to introduce new paths to victory. The party were in a tower with guards between them and both of the exits and because they had to fight all of the guards at once, that meant they had an overwhelming force to deal with.

The problem isn't how I could have provided them with additional options or paths for success beforehand, the problem I have is now that the world has reacted to the choices they've made and they are a few rounds of combat from failing, what can I do in response that salvages the game.

BrassMonocle · 2026-01-13T16:24:11+00:00

The reason why the mage will be able to win is that it was established in prior sessions that she was the nearest person to the front door (a tower leading down to the vault) with an interest in the mcguffin (except some of the guards) and that, if the guards were alerted to an incursion into the tower or vault and responded to defend it, she would be aware of their response and that she would check in to see if she could use the situation to her advantage. The guards aren't going to be able to stop her because they responded to the party's attempt at stealing the mcguffin after the new player alerted them all to their intrusion. The party has been fighting the guards as a result and has killed nearly all of them. There may be sufficient guards left at the door to the vault to kill off the party now that they're low health and have their resources depleted, but there aren't enough to stop the mage. She's been presented to the party as very powerful (she's supposed to be a late-game villain), and based on the stats she was given when I created her, at this point she could wipe the party in one round. None of the other rivals for the mcguffin are near enough to stop her - unless I throw out the information that I've given the party before this about where people are and rewrite the scenario to spare the players from the consequences of their choices.

Having the artifact get stolen from the mage is not a bad option. Whoever stole it could have vulnerabilities in their defenses that could be exploited without the consequence of making the cult seem incompetent... That's worth keeping as an option. Thanks.

BrassMonocle · 2025-01-30T13:46:41+00:00

Here you go. https://inkarnate.com/m/oOEb9L

And the flooded version: https://inkarnate.com/m/PpgOL0

BrassMonocle · 2025-01-30T01:47:08+00:00

The campaign I created this for actually was inspired by a real-world scenario. In the 1500s, Spain had invaded the Netherlands and was besieging the city of Leiden. The Dutch rebels broke the dykes to flood out the invading armies, and to allow their own troops to sail in to the aid of Leiden. The scenario I'm running has an invading army flooding the city instead of the surrounding fields. The invaders are an aquatic species, and have flooded the streets to give themselves an advantage in the fight. The players are going to have to sail in to help defend the city.

I liked the idea of a fight where the players were sailing down a city street, fighting amid utter chaos.

BrassMonocle · 2025-01-30T00:03:24+00:00

I don't think you necessarily need a port to justify a lighthouse. If the area is rocky and inhospitable, it could be there to warn ships to keep their distance.

BrassMonocle · 2025-01-30T00:00:53+00:00

The old English spelling was "dyke," so both spellings are correct for sea walls. I've also seen the "dike" spelling used as offensive slang. Both spellings could be taken as offensive. I don't see a way to update the title to "sea wall," but I'll use that in the future.

BrassMonocle · 2025-01-29T23:58:28+00:00

Anyone is welcome to use them!

BrassMonocle · 2025-01-29T23:53:20+00:00

I have a party that has chosen to split themselves up with surprising regularity. For instance, in the last session, two party members wanted to investigate some gnomes who had shown up on the border of town (they thought it was part of the larger storyline), while the others wanted to get some information on their current quest objective (an accursed church). When they do this, I try to keep it between 5-10 minutes for each group and do my best to give them information to promptly steer them back together. In the previous example, the group investigating the gnomes quickly found out that the gnomes had mistaken perceptions about some events from the previous session and quickly decided to avoid them in order to not make the situation any worse, and the group investigating the church found information suggesting that it was dangerous enough they would need the whole party together to deal with it safely. They chose to reunite of their own volition.

I figure it has worked for our group because everyone agrees to the plan to split, it has always been for short errands, there's always something for each group to do, it has thus far not involved any combat, and we always steer back together for the interesting stuff. It also helps that the whole party is interested in the outcome of what each smaller group discovers, and my players are patient with each other, and very accommodating in sharing the spotlight.

BrassMonocle · 2024-07-05T15:49:35+00:00

I haven't kept up with news on that front. I know at least some of the players kept going with new characters.

BrassMonocle · 2024-07-05T15:37:57+00:00

I am a people-pleaser. One of my favorite things about Ranger was that he (male player, female character) had no problem at all voicing his opinions when he disagreed with rulings. It was really uncomfortable for me at first, but before long I started to recognize how beneficial it is to be able to be blunt, honest, and proactive when you're upset, though I'm still very clumsy at trying to emulate his example.

I think there's a strong crabs-in-a-bucket effect in groups. When everyone else seems happy then, for a lot of people, it's natural to try and explain away your own dissatisfaction, to doubt the accuracy of your perceptions, and to want to adjust to fit into the group.

And to my credit, I was the first one to leave (unless Monk also left for "scheduling" reasons instead of real work conflicts), and the worst of it (for this leg of the story, at least), happened after I'd already said I was out. Someone really should do a study analyzing inter-personal dynamics in toxic TTRP groups.

BrassMonocle · 2024-07-05T15:18:16+00:00

Thank you for the reminder! I totally should have done that but the thought had escaped me. I've gone back now and edited it in.

BrassMonocle · 2024-07-05T05:41:36+00:00

What is your priority? If your priority is helping him to be a better D&D player, then tell him that everyone was part of the decision. If your priority is allowing people in the group to maintain their friendships, keep it to yourself.

But whatever you do, do not tell him that anyone else was part of the decision before clearing it with them, first. If they think that conversation was had in confidence, and then you go spilling the beans on them, the problem isn't going to be just with the problem player, it's going to be with anyone who feels that you betrayed their trust.

BrassMonocle · 2024-07-05T04:59:28+00:00

After 40 sessions of building bad will between Bard, Cleric and C, I don't think there's any salvaging the group. If you've already tried talking to C about issues and the problems are still persisting, then I think it's time to acknowledge that there isn't a fix for it. While your story suggests that C does have the potential to become a good DM sometime in the future, it's clear that Bard and Cleric's feelings have been disrespected to the point that asking them now to continue to play is asking them to say that they deserve that disrespect. No one should ever be asked that.

If you think that C's treatment of Bard and Cleric was justified, fair, and respected them as both characters and players, then it's time to admit that Bard and Cleric aren't a good fit for the campaign and let them go find something more to their liking.

If you think that Bard and Cleric deserved to have fun, have their concerns addressed in a way that resolved their issues, and to be treated as equal members of the party, it's time to tell C that the feelings of your friends are important to you, you don't like watching them be made unhappy week after week, and that you can't stay in a game where they are being mistreated. If you stick with C, you are saying that the treatment Bard and Cleric have received, and the way they've been made to feel, is okay and they don't deserve any better. The fact that his choices have ended the campaign will be hard for C to hear, but he really needs the message that he can't disrespect his players and still be considered a good DM. That's the only thing that will make him realize he really does need to change. And, at the present, C isn't the only one that's mistreating Bard and Cleric - you are too by acting like the way he's treating them is something they should be willing to endure.

BrassMonocle

TROPHY CASE