D&D 5E (2014) How We Beat the HD, HotDQ, Spoilers

[Sacrosanct]

The players do not necessarily know this until after the fight though and maybe not even then.

DM: "Come on, I'm going to have this guy beat the snot out of your PC, just so that he can be a hero."

Player: "Err, what???"


The problem with the "the rationale for this scene is to introduce the PCs to this xyz concept" is that this is not a good justification for presenting scenarios that players roleplaying their PCs might try to completely avoid.

It's perfectly reasonable for heroic PCs to avoid coming to the town at all. Not everyone in our group wanted to cause it seemed like suicide.

It's perfectly reasonable for heroic PCs to not want to fight the Dragon. Most of the players at my table did not do so, it was mostly the crazy fighter (player purposely playing him that way).

It's perfectly reasonable for heroic PCs to not want to fight the duel.

But all of these are pretty much shoved down the players throats. The DM knows that the dragon is not planning on wiping out the PCs, but the players do not know that. The DM knows that the half-dragon is not planning on killing the PC, but the players do not know that.


Using the motivation of the NPC as a reason why the encounter is not a bad design does not change the encounter. It just changes the justification for the encounter. The encounter is still subpar.

its been pointed out to you several times how everything you mention is possible, and nothing that you keep saying is forced on the PCs is actually forced. Not sure why you keep repeating this disproven argument

 

[KarinsDad]

And some like RPing Heroic Fantasy characters as if they were heroic on some level...

Is it your contention that players that roleplay their heroic PCs as intelligent and not suicidal are not really playing as heroic characters on some level? Because that's what it sounds like.

It sounds like your idea of heroism is "really heroism" in your mind and the player who declines going to the town because it is suicidal looking is not really playing his PC heroically.

I content that the former is heroic stupid and the latter is heroic smart (i.e. risk your life, but do so when there is some reasonable odds of success). The point about risk is not whether to take a risk or not, it's whether to take a risk when the odds look impossible. I do understand that some players are willing to do that, but that does not mean that players who do not do it are running non-heroic PCs.

 

[RangerWickett]

I don't have the module, but as a player I'm all for losing if I go up against perilous odds. Sometimes you just need to step away, curse that you weren't strong enough to save the innocents who were in peril, and make sure the villain gets his come-uppance later.

I think it's novel adventure design to drop these inexperienced heroes into a situation where they cannot single-handedly win. Being the protagonist is not the same as winning against every challenge. You need setbacks for a proper narrative structure.

 

[Werebat]

Maybe I am very lucky (okay I am very lucky) to have a great group of players, but after reviewing the background of the Sword Coast, and delivering them a quick synopsis of what's been happening lately (re: The Cult of the Dragon), my players took it upon themselves to write the reasons why they have to be in Greenest. Certainly they had no inclinations about what Greenest would look like upon their arrival, but they knew why they were headed here, and, in the eyes of their PC's, those reasons are good enough to get into that town, dragons and fires be darned.

This is an aside, but did your players (or you) notice the Appendix A "Backgrounds" on page 87 of the WotDQ book? I thought it provided some good suggestions but it was placed in a damn weird part of the adventure where lots of DMs won't notice it until it is too late.

 

[Kaychsea]

It's perfectly reasonable for heroic PCs to not want to fight the duel.

So it's heroic to watch as a decent man wanders out to his death instead? To save the life of his sister no less.

Which one of you is the hero, remind me.

 

[KarinsDad]

So it's heroic to watch as a decent man wanders out to his death instead? To save the life of his sister no less.

Which one of you is the hero, remind me.

In our game, we never got to that point. But the fact that the module has to shame players into possibly sacrificing their PC with the "ok, joe smoe goes out and fights" emotional hook is telling.

And, not every PC is a hero or is viewed that way by his/her player. Not every PC is good aligned and even if good, not every PC is the self sacrificing type.

This might be right up the alley of some PCs, but not every PC is that altruistic, especially when the bad guy is attempting to blackmail the PCs into the duel. It's also a bit strange. How exactly does the half dragon know that there is not some kick butt retired super fighter inside the keep. The entire concept of a dual is artificial. The author is using metagaming knowledge that there are no real champion inside the keep, hence, the half dragon can safely challenge. The players are expected to use metagaming knowledge that this is a challenge for a PC, not an NPC. It's all a bit too staged.

And quite frankly, why should the PCs attempt to minimize the heroism of the NPC? The players know that it is an NPC, but the PCs do not. Why is it not reasonable for the PCs to think that "here's a chance for joe smoe to be a hero"? Oh yeah, metagaming knowledge.

 

[Prism]

It's also a bit strange. How exactly does the half dragon know that there is not some kick butt retired super fighter inside the keep. The entire concept of a dual is artificial. The author is using metagaming knowledge that there are no real champion inside the keep, hence, the half dragon can safely challenge.

He doesn't know and it seems he doesn't care. From what I gathered as a player he comes across as utterly arrogant and convinced in his own prowess. I doubt he thinks there is anyone who can beat him and he fancies a good dual. Saying that, his arrogance paled in comparison to our party Halfling who went straight out to fight him also believing he himself was the toughest (and luckiest) guy around. It didn't come across as artificial to me

Now we are playing the second part of the adventure I am glad they introduced the half dragon in this way - its enhanced the next part for us

 

[Sacrosanct]

So it's heroic to watch as a decent man wanders out to his death instead? To save the life of his sister no less.

Which one of you is the hero, remind me.

Yeah, I don't get it either. Just like I don't get how he thinks the lawful good person can break his word immediately while the lawful evil person upholds his. I honestly can't get my head around it, and I don't buy the "lg doesn't mean lawful stupid" angle, because this isn't a question about intelligence unless he's using clear out of character knowledge to base the decision on. LG PCs should not lie and break their word whenever they feel they might lose, IMO. That's what makes them LG and not CG. Apparently this is just my opinion however.

 

[Iosue]

I know I can't beat up Myke Tyson, despite knowing neither his or mine level.

But let's say you and three or four friends come across Mike Tyson beating up a bunch of 12-year olds? Do you say, "Well, I could never beat Mike Tyson one-on-one in a boxing ring, so we're moving on..." Or do you say, "Okay, this is going to be tough, but what can we do as a group to stack the odds in our favor so we can stop Mike Tyson from beating up on these kids?"

Seriously? PCs do not know that there are much better fighters who can fight small armies of men, wizards who can blow up buildings, clerics who can raise people from the dead? There are not stories of dragons that wipe out entire towns or even cities, regardless of armies of people fighting them?

Sorry, your premise here sounds untenable.

This is not just a random unknown monster. This is a DRAGON!!! I have never been in a D&D game ever where PCs did not automatically have knowledge that Dragons are one of the biggest, baddest monsters out there. It's never been metagaming knowledge to know that.

It's metagaming knowledge to say, "We're 1st level characters, so we don't have a chance against the dragon." A character may certainly understand that dragons are big and bad, and do everything they can to avoid having to go toe-to-toe with them. That doesn't mean they decide to do nothing when a town is being attacked by a dragon. They can treat the dragon like a natural disaster, and simply try to save as many regular folks as they can. They can try to find a way to drive the dragon off without engaging it directly. They can look for force equalizers.

True. But 0-level militia men are stuck with the situation that they are in. It's one thing to be stuck in a town that a dragon is attacking. It's another to walk into the situation.

In the former, there is no decision. In the latter, the decision should be based on PC motivations, not the fact that it's a game, so go for it.

Every adventure involves adventurers walking into situations that normal people avoid if they can. A dragon attacking a town is no different. How the characters respond to that is entirely up to them. Dragon over town != PCs must fight dragon to the death. They can go with no intention to fight the dragon, but just to help people. They can go because they see humanoid bad guys who are more their size. They can go because being in some kind of shelter is safer from a dragon on the wing than being out on the open road. They can go because, hey, a dragon attacking a town is a good chance to do some looting of their own! And heck, they can go just because they're adventurers and there's adventure in that thar town.

And of course, there's certainly the choice to just lie low until the whole thing blows over. The point is not that a dragon attacking a town shouldn't give the player's pause, or induce them to act carefully. The point is, a dragon attacking a town doesn't mean the only "sane" choice is to run away because the characters somehow know that they absolutely cannot defeat a dragon in a straight up fight. And here's the kicker. The game starts with the characters outside of town to give them choice in how to approach it. It would have been just as easy to start with PCs already in Greenest when the dragon and raiders attack, thereby giving them no choice in the matter.

Going to a town with a rampaging dragon flying over it sounds a bit insane.

So does the idea of going into a burning building. Nevertheless, people do it. And generally they do it in a way to mitigate the danger. And not just firefighters, either.

It's funny. In the Lost Mines of Phandelver, a boatload of people here on the boards argued that 3rd level PCs should not be stupid enough to attack a dragon, even if the module points the PCs in that direction. And if players had their PCs attack the dragon, they got what they deserved.

In this module, people here on the boards are arguing 1st level PCs should be stupid enough to go into the same town as a dragon and not only that, it's perfectly reasonable to have 2nd level PCs attack a dragon.

Which is it? Both sound dumb to me. They are DRAGONS. Duh.

In Phandelver, it's dumb to engage the dragon toe-to-toe, and the module takes pains (and encourages the DM) to discourage the players from doing that.

In this module, it's perfectly reasonable for PCs to go into a town that's being attacked by a dragon. And it's perfectly reasonable for them to attack that dragon, from the safety of the keep, along with scores of militia men. Again, the PCs are not told or expected to engage the dragon toe-to-toe. They are expected to snipe from a distance until the dragon goes away, or to find another way to drive it off (as many actual play reports have recounted).

Whatever a game designer writes into a module, even if it is contrary to the previous module, is totally good module design because it's written down?

What "contrary"? Each module has it's own context and it's own method of presenting a dragon. Each module gives the players the choice of whether to engage with the dragon. In neither module are the characters expected to kill the dragon.

But even setting that aside, there's absolutely nothing wrong with different modules presenting different playstyles. A sandbox heavy adventure might go even further than Phandelver, and have a dragon that won't flee if reduced to half hit points, and put the choice of what to do with the dragon (fight now, fight later, avoid altogether) entirely with the players. That would be good module design for a group that wants a sandboxy module. A more linear, plot-heavy module might go even further than Hoard, and make it necessary for the players to fight the dragon, adjusting the challenge to the PCs level by either using a much weaker dragon, or by having the dragon flee after one or two hits. That would be good module design for a group that wants a plot-heavy story with balanced encounters.

As it happens, both Phandelver and Hoard take a mixed-approach, allowing for DMs to approach the adventures either way. And though that means that the DM has to make some decisions to present the module in their preferred style, that's a feature, not a bug.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is it your contention that players that roleplay their heroic PCs as intelligent and not suicidal are not really playing as heroic characters on some level? Because that's what it sounds like.

Pretty close, yeah. In heroic genres, like High Fantasy, heroes take 'suicidal' risks and do 'stupid' things all the time. The metagame 'smart thing' doesn't always map to the heroic 'right thing,' - though, the better a game is at emulating an heroic genre, the more often it does.