Sad day today

So I finally had a game going with people and it was great, everyone had their PC ready, I had everything ready. In my group I had 2 veterans and 2 people who have never played D&D before. So I told everyone that this was going to be different then most games. I told them there was a plot twist. So the twist was this, their PC have died and have been reincarnated to better suit the goals of this powerful Evil Cleric. This was right in the beginning with brand new PC's. This wasnt from the regular reincarnated list it was from a table that i made with about 60 ish different forms from goblins to mind flayer (1% chance). Everyone seemed happy with this as it brought upon a cool element or something different. The two people who have played D&D left the game at that time, removed me from skype and haven't heard back from them at all. They never even said goodbye or anything. So there I was with two new players who ever ecstatic. One was like, "Cool my first Character is a Changling, this is so cool." This is just me ranting about this as It made me very sad, I would have thought that some players who have played for a while would like something original and not run of the mill standard. So i crafted a small dungeon and ran those two through it and we had a blast, even though there was only two PC's they had a really fun time. tldr: Two people left my game and made the new players sad, said players will reamin anonomous

Quade A. said: Everyone seemed happy with this as it brought upon a cool element or something different. The two people who have played D&D left the game at that time, removed me from skype and haven't heard back from them at all. They never even said goodbye or anything. Sounds like the happiness wasn't entirely unanimous :). Players like to have some control of their destiny and don't like to think that the entire reason for their existence is to be pawns for one of your powerful NPC's. The newbie's were too wet behind the ears to even think about such things.

Yeah... always get buy-in from every player before the start of the campaign. :-/

Yeah, if I had created a character and put the effort into writing up a history, finding an image, making a token, filling a character sheet, setting up macros, etc... just to have the DM dump that on me without any warning I might have left too. Anytime you take choice away from a character like that it is almost always a bad idea. Plus mindflayer really? That just tells me no thought towards balance was given at all. That would in itself make me not want to play, having the chance one player might dominate every aspect of the game because they got a lucky roll in the start is not what I look for in my games. Don't get me wrong. There is no "Bad Wrong Way" to play an rpg, but there is a way that I personally don't like and this game sounds like one of those. On the bright side, it sounds like you and the other two players who stayed had a great time.

Word of advice to you and all others who are planning on putting such a twist in your game for some extra flavor: Give always a proper warning to your players. From what you tell us here, the warning was "there is going to be a plot twist." You should have added "but some of you might not like it very much." Since the whole reincarnation thing was to happen, in my opinion, you should have also added "don't get to invested to the current state of your character." That would have probably made them react with a mild annoyance while they are reborn and prevent the ragequit. Or you could tell them the twist ahead of time. I know, it's not much of a twist then, but part of the ragequit was the shock of "yep, you're now a mindflayer." If you are going to directly influence a character to his very core, you should inform the player ahead of time. Many players do not react well when an aspect of their character gets hijacked, imagine what's happening when their whole physiology gets altered!

While altering a character's race might be too much, I've also killed new PCs off at the start of a story, but my players loved it. However, the story unfolded in a way that meant it took them time to realise that they were dead, and planted them slap bang in the middle of a mystery to solve. Soon they were having too much fun being ghosts and trying to get to the bottom of what had happened to be too bothered about the time they'd invested in their backstory. None of that was really lost anyway, just put out of reach and become a source of bittersweet memories.

Though I would stop short of calling what you did an actual plot twist, it's certainly a twist and the thing about those is that they're risky. For every plot twist or Big Reveal the DM plans, he's likely had to curtail, negate, or subvert player choice in some way (large or small) to make it work. In your case, at the very least, you negated whatever effort the players undertook to create their characters. You subverted their expectations for standard heroic fantasy action/adventure fare in favor of being the lackeys for an evil NPC. It's not a surprise to me that players dropped as a result. Of course, I've been around the block a few times, so I've seen all of this kind of stuff before. What I've learned is that a plot twist is a game construct that is surprising to the characters , but not necessarily to the players . Sometimes it falls flat, is boring or uninteresting, obvious, frustrating, or doesn't resonate because the players missed this clue or that. The best way to make it work for everyone is to include the players on the surprise so they can buy-in and help you make it work on the characters. I don't waste a moment's thought on plots or plot twists as DM. If they happen on their own or the players suggest a twist they'd like to see, then it happens. Otherwise, I don't use them. It's not worth the risk of falling flat or the inevitable subversion of choice and effort to preserve the Big Reveal. Great games can be had without them (or plots for that matter).

Being a tool of an Evil NPC from go is not a plot twist, it is in fact with no preface to it, the foundation of the campaign. I'm guessing you did not advertise up front "You are all tools of mindflayers." Just like a movie, do you go to see what is advertised? Do you feel cheated when it is not what is advertised? only if it is a very cool story. So two thought it was, 2 did not and those 2 had some experience. I would have left also. There is a difference between a D&D game that starts out with "You all meet at the Inn, and a mysterious cloaked figure in the corner says 'speak to my master at the bridge at the stroke of midnight if you want gold this week' ", and the new supposed new cool plot twist to keep it from getting boring, "Check it out, you are the tools of mindflayers." But hey it worked for two people. Advertise it as the game where you work for mindflayers. and no need to hide the names of the players that quit. I wanna DEFINITELY hear their side of it. Sounds like they were looking for a stable D&D game along traditional lines... like MOST people here.

Wow, that was...... overly harsh. Lets keep in mind that this guy is probably an inexperienced GM looking for advice. From his post he clearly had no idea what went wrong with his game, so nothing he did was intentionally aimed at upsetting anyone, particularly his players. As more experienced GM's we should probably be trying to help him improve, not discourage him to the point that he never wants to GM again.

Mark N. said: Wow, that was...... overly harsh. Lets keep in mind that this guy is probably an inexperienced GM looking for advice. From his post he clearly had no idea what went wrong with his game, so nothing he did was intentionally aimed at upsetting anyone, particularly his players. As more experienced GM's we should probably be trying to help him improve, not discourage him to the point that he never wants to GM again. That is true we should give him some advice. If I wanted to run a story like what you are doing this is how I would handle it, and why. Now not everyone is the same and other people will tell you different things then this, that is wonderful like I said above there is no wrong way to play an rpg. I would get buy in from the players during character creation, this should probably be done with a group session 0. A session 0 is where you help the players make or finish characters, ask them about their history and connections to each other and important npc's. At this point I would explain to them that in this campaign they will be agents of an evil patron who will have some magic bond over them to make them work together as a team, so they can be evil characters themselves that owe this patron a favor or one of the good guys who is bound to this npc against his will. I would tell them this npc is powerful enough that even death is not an escape from service to him and he has a fondness for reincarnating fallen subjects into various monstrous bodies, so you can start the game as a monstrous race if you want to. I would probably let the players choose but then again maybe not and make them roll from your custom table. I would not put powerful races like mindflayers on that table, it just upsets the game balance too much. I would limit it to goblinoids, derro, drow, changelings, etc... if this is a Pathfinder game there are plenty of optional monster like races on the pfsrd that are mostly balanced against the common dwarves and elves. The point is since this "twist" happens right away in the story anyway I would have it be knowledge the players have going in so they can work with it.

As much as I can see the side of all the responses saying it was too sudden, and not really a twist, and possibly even harsh to kill the PCs that players worked on, I have to commend you for taking the risk. I would also say the players who left without warning may have missed an incredibly fun experience. Not just to do something different, but maybe even get back to something more familiar in a few sessions. It's a little harsh to the DM to not even give some feedback about why you're leaving, especially when you've barely given the DM a chance to provide reason for the actions given. The DM could realize that the players didn't like the killing of their PCs, and had them resurrected at a later time. If nothing else, save the character sheet, copy the macros to a .txt file, and possibly revisit that character in another campaign, with or without the same DM. You haven't really lost much if your PC died in session 1, regardless of how much work went in to the backstory, since it can always be recycled or revisited. Glad to hear your new players had a great time though.

Yeah, I'm all for gaming outside the box, right, comma, I see people running games that are making mistakes that with a little careful reading of the entire DMG (esp. of the later editions) would not make these mistakes. I step up here and say this because I see it at local comic stores (that allow people to run games) and people come back and say, I don't want my kids around the D&D "Weirdos" that I met last week. So the store owner offers up new, inexperienced GM. And the Parents come off with "Don't care, consider banning games at your store." Something motivated two people to jet off with no notice, unfriend, etc. Not that that's drastic, but it is telling. But Tools of mindflayers can be fun. A pair of people think so. I like starships and planets. To each his own, but "I would have thought that some players who have played for a while would like something original" But didn't ask, didn't advertise. Surprised, when those people bailed. Just the point here from me is "advertise the game you are going to run." That's the main point of my message. Secondary point, read, know and understand what DMing is about. There are dozens of books out there that explain in 100 pages what 20 pro-level DMs took decades to learn, so get a head start, get educated about the whole deal. When you run a game, you are representing DMs everywhere, and the industry, because in some situations, you as DM might be the only D&D DM or player some people have ever met. Sure, people have heard of Vin Diesel, and other famous players. But the actual experience of it...people form opinions. Not always fairly. Two people enjoyed it, go for it. I'm not stopping the OP, just saying DM wisely. And if I run into any D&D players seeking to change it up from 5 bold heroes with sword and arrow seek adventure, I will point them here, straightaway, and urge them to apply.

Short reply... I would have left too.

Alright to all the replys above I am glad for those who have constructive criticism. So I didnt tell them about the twist, not the whole thing, all I said is that to not get attached to you Characters physical from even if it turns out to be monstrous. I also told them that the begining might seem evil, and I didnt plan for it to be a evil Campaign, I already got 2 more people, and I told them the same thing and did the same opening and they were alright with it, and they have both played before as well. So I guess its just who you get. But this is one thing i want to say to everyone who reads it. If you are going to leave tell the DM and the other players. It is quite rude and for me i feel that it even worse because there were two new players who asked me if this happens a lot. I told them those two actions wont represent the whole of roll 20. So don't leave without saying anything, I would understand. (still haven't heard back lol)

I am going to against the flow here, or so it seems. One of my favourite characters that I have played started out as a slave to a mind flayer. During the quests the characters managed to sway my character into helping them defeat his owner and of course win his freedom. Starting off under the thumb of some powerful NPC does not mean bad. If anything it gives your players a hella strong motivation to come together that isn't the stereotypical "You meet in a tavern..." With that said I do agree you should have addressed the fact that they were going to be a different race than they thought, just to give them a heads up but once again people shouldn't get all butt hurt about it. They start off as something else and now have another quest in the background; to return to their former state. It is all to easy to say that the DM took away players choices, but in reality unless the DM has turned them into immigrant workers from the 1860's....yes that is a railroading joke, a player always has tons of choices. Most players however have already set up a static list of options/choices and are rarely willing to expand on them. This happens for several reasons, which I won't get into. End of the day, I think what you did was really bold and that the reason the new players didn't leave is not in fact due to them "Not knowing any better" but in fact because they didn't have the stoic expectations and/or safety walls built in that they have cultivated through playing. The new players on the other hand didn't have any preset limitations to what they were willing to work with. So good job man, though like I said maybe a little more talking to the players before hand was required. If anything you would have found out if they were ok with the scenario and replaced them before the game even started. And let the disagreeing with my post commence.

Hi Quade, I've done similar things in campaigns, but I handled them a little differently. Was this the very first adventure in a campaign? Did the players ever play their characters as standard PCs before being killed? If they made up PCs with the expectation that they would play them, then immediately get informed that they were killed and transformed, well that's disappointing to the players. They have invested a certain amount of time and energy into character building, and then find out their effort was meaningless. If this happened AFTER they played standard characters, then you basically killed them with no warning or opportunity to affect events, which is worse. If this was the first adventure and all of the PCs are reincarnated monsters, (1) it's not really a twist; it's a premise, and (2) I would just make up their characters beforehand and hand them out, and tell the players not to make up characters and that this campaign would be different. You don't have to tell them that they are reincarnated monsters, but you might as well if that's what they are from the word go. What happened here is that you didn't set player expectations sufficiently, and the two veteran players found out that they were playing Monster Mash instead of the expected Heroes Go a'Killin'. If they knew they would be playing Monster Mash, they would have either come in knowing what to expect and been mentally prepared, or else you would have not had those players, but you might have had more players who like the idea (actually I think you would have had many more players, since the premise is a good selling point). As for jumping out and cutting things off, well yeah it's rude, but from from their point of view it could have been rude to set them up for a familiar adventure and then go NOOOOOOOPE. And of course everyone can be ruder on the internet because it's easier and carries fewer consequences. Be glad this wasn't a pen and paper game. I've had players stomp around and yell because a session didn't turn out the way they expected, and once a hosting player kicked everyone out of his house.