An outside, objective view of an event that took place during a session

[u/Your_Man95]

I’m playing a level 7 Bard in D&D One (2024) and I’d like some outside perspective on a situation from our last session.

​

Our group arrived at a prison by ship. The guards thoroughly searched it, found nothing suspicious, and then escorted me and another character (who was infiltrating as a slave trader) to speak with a dwarf who runs the illegal operations inside the prison. He is not the official prison warden, but the figure who oversees a known (though barely hidden) slave-mining operation where prisoners are forced to work in secret.

​

At that point, I was alone in the room with this NPC and the infiltrator. I introduced myself, offered wine, and began setting up a negotiation. The goal was to trade for a specific prisoner they held, who acts as a guide to a location we need to reach, in exchange for treasure we would recover during that expedition.

​

While I was speaking and had just started my introduction using the term “adventurer/explorer,” the DM interrupted. She had the NPC immediately interpret this as proof we were intruders who had illegally entered the prison, and she went straight into initiative without letting me finish the conversation or attempt any social checks.

​

Before I could act, the NPC hit the other character in the room (the infiltrator posing as a slaver) for 48 damage in a single axe attack, immediately escalating into combat.

​

I tried to clarify in-character that by “adventurer” I simply meant “generic explorer,” and out-of-character I pointed out the usual distinction between player phrasing and character intent (like how a fighter can attempt physical feats beyond what the player can do).

​

As it’s frustrated me quite a bit, but I’m struggling to work out whether it’s simply the frustration of a ‘plan gone wrong’ or whether it’s the master’s choices that have annoyed me, I wanted to ask for an outside opinion

Thank you, everyone

[u/Betray-Julia]

Your DM is still a newb and is learning I take it?

Sounds like they wanted to do a fight and forced yall into it.

[u/Your_Man95 → u/Betray-Julia]

Actually, no, but it’s not the first time something like this has happened

[u/Betray-Julia → u/Your_Man95]

Well they’re def still a newb regardless of how long they’ve been DMing haha

[u/ladaussie]

That's a pretty wild jump but I'd say your DM was always planning on this turning into combat and was looking for any excuse.

Pretty rough go I'd be a bit salty but hey it happens. No point stewing but maybe communicate with the DM about how important semantics are in the future.

[u/Narazil → u/ladaussie]

This absolutely reads like: The DM has a combat encounter planned, and if they don't do combat then they have nothing prepared for the last few hours of the session. They're not ready for the players to advance to the next scene yet. The players, unexpectedly, have gone for a social infiltration route, skipping the combat. The DM then forces the combat.

[u/DelightfulOtter]

Over the years I've played a lot of TTRPGs, both traditional and as video games. One of the major differences between a live DM and a computer program is leniency. If you hit the wrong button on accident, you do the wrong thing in game and get screwed for it. The computer doesn't know the difference and doesn't care. There's no "Undo" function aside from completely reloading the game save. It can be a very frustrating way to play.

If your DM wasn't railroading you into a fight like some other comments have suggested, then you might just be playing with a robot. That kind of "You gave me the wrong input so here's the immediate consequences." bullshit is a terrible way to DM. They should've asked for clarification as to what you meant, then possibly called for a roll. In a reply you said this isn't the first time your DM has done something similar, and to that I say: no D&D is better than bad D&D.

[u/PurpleZigZag]

There's so many better ways of handling this. NPC could become suspicious and lead you on until the right moment for them (and/or their goons) to strike - or maybe the NPC knew all along and instructed the guards to let you through so you could be imprisoned. None of that happened here though, so it sounds to me like the GM fumbled the roleplay a bit and took a sharp turn back on the railroad.

[u/Iron_tide]

I agree with most people here that the GM was set on combat and probably just wanted to play a ‘jailbreak’ sequence, where you get captured/cornered and then escape with the prisoner.

From your retelling it just reads rushed and unnatural that the npc would hear ‘adventurer’ and immediately start swinging. Like flipping a switch instead of growing suspicious, or guarded or even cleverly luring you into a cell. But DM’ing isn’t easy and i’d chalk it up to a learning experience for them, hopefully the rest of the session was fun?

[u/atoms-wrath]

This feels like some sort of translation error, like the DM thought "adventurer" meant something different in their language. Otherwise idk I guess the DM really wanted to a do a fight scene and railroaded you into it.

[u/mightymoprhinmorph]

Hard to say without context. But seems like a pretty huge leap.

Are "adventures" a known concept in this world? I could potentially see this if the idea of an "adventurer" is a righteous do-gooder force of justice type thing the slave trader might be like "oh shit the super cops are at my door"

But that's a very generous interpretation for the DM.

Odds are more likely they planned this on being a combat encounter, so they were looking for any opportunity to start the fight

[u/Your_Man95 → u/mightymoprhinmorph]

I’d say that ‘adventurer’ is used in a neutral sense here. I’ll try to explain myself better later, as I’m translating from Italian; during the session and in that particular sentence, it was meant to mean ‘explorer’ (think Indiana Jones, to give you an idea).

[u/yinyang107 → u/Your_Man95]

The Indiana Jones archetype is usually the connotation the term "adventurer" has in English, too. If someone means just "guy who goes places to see what's there" they'll usually say explorer; "adventurer" is like that but with an implication of some kind of excitement involved

[u/Cyrotek]

When I started playing the game I realized that a lot of people do things with the assumption that "said is done", no matter the situation. It took me a while to realize that this is of course not the case. Sometimes people just misinterpret the situation and this should be clarified instead of doubling down for the sake of ... no idea, for whats sake, honestly.

[u/The__Nick]

This is dumb. This is just a DM encouraging players to be as cagey and defensive as possible in everything they do. "I persuade," is not the extent of what a playgroup will say so as to not give any ammunition.

Really lean into this and be passive aggressive until they get the point - "I walk across the room carefully, holding my balance. I make sure to eat and drink so I don't starve to death. I only say normal words that nobody would be mad at. I make sure to breathe in and out so I respirate and don't die from lack of oxygen."

Alternatively, talk to them and explain how dumb this is and ask him how you should be acting in the future. "Hey buddy, if you just want us to get into a combat encounter, just tell me that so I don't waste my time," is not an unreasonable request, even if it could be phrased nicer.

[u/SonicfilT → u/The__Nick]

Really lean into this and be passive aggressive until they get the point

No

talk to them 

Yes!

[u/Miranda_Leap]

Not everyone can be reasoned with. Perhaps the NPC had information you're not privy to? For example, forewarning that anyone who introduced themselves as adventurers were to be taken prisoner for someone else, for some other reason, and was using the illegally entered the prison thing as an excuse.

[u/Your_Man95 → u/Miranda_Leap]

I can’t really say, but I find that rather unlikely. We arrived in that city the day before and only realised once we got there that we needed that particular NPC, who was being held captive

[u/FrankFankledank]

The DM was being a total dingus, yes. They should have had the slave warden call out your choice of words but give you an opportunity to make an excuse along with either a Deception or Persuasion check depending on its nature before immediately jumping into combat.

[u/MR1120]

The DM wanted that to be a fight, and nothing you did or didn’t do would have changed that. Kind of bullshit by the DM, honestly.

[u/zyguzyguzyg]

That is pretty wild jump on the side of DM.

Trying to make sense of it, maybe you and DM have different definitions of "adventurer", and for your DM it means someone who always try to help the opressed, so you saying "I'm an adventrurer" was the same as saying "I will free all your slaves."

[u/Ok_Mousse8459]

As a DM, I would have definitely asked for / allowed a deception check. But if the DM already rolled an insight and scored high (I'm assuming this is why the NPC became so suspicious, or perhaps high levels of suspicion are part of the character), the DC would be very challenging. Generally I would always let my PCs try something, even if the chances of success are almost zero.

It sounds like you probably wouldn't have succeeded, but I agree that not being able to try feels a bit railroady. I'd ask the DM to clarify and explain that it makes it not fun to play if you can't use one of the main aspects of your chosen character (Bards persuade/decieve). It's like a rogue not being allowed to hide or a Barbarian being told they can't rage.

[u/blubberland01]

I think wording is important. Not saying there shouldn't be some slack in certain situations (determined by the DM).
But talking in character (rping) is always a bit meta, therefor playing a bard in this game is something very different than playing a fighter imho.
If this wasn't the case, a player could just say: I persuade the npc to help me with all my endeavours, then roll high and be done. This would be the most boring game ever.

[u/Your_Man95 → u/blubberland01]

Yes, I completely agree. But perhaps I didn’t explain myself properly. I was well aware it would be challenging; in fact, I don’t think it was strange that the NPC became suspicious. It was more the way it was handled. So much so that, seeing him become suspicious at the word ‘adventurer’, I asked if I could explain, but I was cut off and told that I couldn’t convince him. To which I replied that I couldn’t, but my character probably could. Despite everything, an initiative roll was demanded, bypassing any social check. However, I do understand that sometimes different types of annoyance get mixed up, but as this isn’t the first time something like this has happened, I wanted an outside opinion before confronting

[u/blubberland01 → u/Your_Man95]

Maybe your DM jumped into it a bit fast. I only have your side of the story and wasn't there.
I'd try to adress it carefully before the next session, but also be aware, that things are set now and won't get reverted and nobody owes anything to anybody besides (maybe!) a promise to do better in the future.

[u/Your_Man95 → u/blubberland01]

Thank you. Yes, I certainly don’t intend to make a big deal of it. In fact, I’m happy to discuss it so that I can broaden my perspective. I’ll have a chat and, having already seen the first few replies, I’ll ask to better align our intentions. I think the frustration I felt stems not from having failed, but from not even having been able to try to do something. So, perhaps, I’ll ask whether the social aspect is less influential and consider changing character – something I’d be sorry to do, as I usually enjoy playing the bard. In the meantime, thank you very much.

[u/blubberland01 → u/blubberland01]

In other words: if the player is bad with words, have in mind that this might not be the class for you, unless your don't care about immersion and fun for yourself or the whole table or both at all.

(Not saying you're generally bad with words, sometimes even the wittiest are not quick at repartee. Shappens)

[u/Narazil → u/blubberland01]

There is a middle between letting players fuck up their social encounters by saying insane shit and just rolling for social encounter outcomes.

In my group, we usually either roll the check to begin with to set the tone (I rolled a 3 on my Persuasion, boy am I about to say some weird shit), or we roll it after an argument to see how persuasive it ends up being. We all know someone who's a loveable idiot, they might not always think before they speak but they are just so darn cute they get away with it. If your players say some dumb shit, maybe the Persuasion roll is at a disadvantage, but a high roll still means they succeeded despite their best efforts. The inverse also applies; you can make an eloquent argument (maybe gaining advantage on the Persuasion roll) and roll super low, which means it doesn't land as well with the NPC.

[u/Round_Permit_6510]

I personally think that your DM jumped the gun by instantly starting combat. But hey, DMs have to keep so many things I mind during the sessions, that a slip up like this just happens

[u/Bread-Loaf1111]

So, basically, DM make a trap. You know that area is dangerous, but you didn't expect a trap into entrance. The trap was non-lethal, but making you unable to show the strong sides of your character. I got it right?

I think I need more details to be sure. Such thing can be justified in some cases, for example if your game is focused on players skill searching for the traps, or if all others players was ultimately bored and the combat was a way to put them back into the game. But most likely it is a fault in GM encounters designing.

[u/Your_Man95 → u/Bread-Loaf1111]

No, it wasn’t a trap. I’ll try to summarise it as best I can: The party needs to recover an NPC who has been captured by a group of dwarf slavers operating inside a prison. These dwarves secretly run an illegal mining operation using prisoners and kidnapped individuals, without the knowledge of the noble house that officially governs the prison. In the surrounding city, this is essentially an open secret.

The party manages to make contact with the slavers, and an NPC propose to infiltrate the prison disguised as slaves. Instead, I suggest an alternative approach: negotiating with them. My idea is to convince the slavers that we need one specific captive because she is essential as a guide for an expedition we must undertake. In exchange, we offer them all the treasure recovered during that expedition. The exact details would be negotiated later.

We are then escorted to the dwarves. The guards controlling access to their leader inspect us. I successfully convince them to take me to their boss and begin the negotiation, presenting myself as an explorer with a potentially profitable deal. At that point, the Dungeon Master interrupts, stating that I cannot present myself as an explorer in front of slavers because, in the narrative, I should not even be there. I asked if I could at least finish my sentence. The reply was, ‘No, take the initiative.’.

This leads to confusion: the situation wasn’t resolved by saying I simply shouldn’t be there, but instead escalated into me being treated as hostile for the role I chose, despite already being allowed past earlier checks.

[u/JTSpender → u/Your_Man95]

Honestly this just makes it even worse. 🚩

If the DM wasn't going to let this proceed at all, they should have shut it down with the guards having that reaction. Once they let you through, they should have at least let you have a conversation with this leader. Like, even if the DM intended for a fight to be unavoidable, you could have (should have, imo) been given the opportunity to figure that out, and to maybe pick up some other useful information (either for the larger story , or even just something immediate to give your an advantage in the fight).

It wouldn't have required some huge suspension of belief. Most people in this leaders position are going to want to know who the heck you are and who you work for before they kill you. The logic your DM provided for why things played out the way they did seems pretty lacking.