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

[Derren]

In both of these scenarios, they were written not to kill new PCs. Only in the very small % of times with horrible luck and tiny odds would that happen in eitehr case. Heck, the PCs aren't even forced to engage in either encounter if they don't want.

As it was mentioned above, the adventure heavily implies that the Pcs attack the dragon and fails to offer any guidance for the event that they don't.

Also, those fights being scripted to not kill PCs is part of the problem why they are so horrible.
A adventure should not contain scripted tutorial encounters just because WotC wants to highlight the work they have done.

 

[Weezknight]

Yeah, getting rid of the dragon would have been a huge step in the right direction. PCs are not as apt to not even go there (or go there under metagaming duress) and the entire scenario is just a lot cleaner.

It's also up to the DM. The adventure states that the DM does not have to give the PCs all of the encounters. Some DM's have done amazing things with this adventure while keeping the dragon in the mix, so I'm glad it's in there.

It all comes down to knowing the PC's and reading into their backgrounds before starting the campaign. If they don't seem like the type who would venture into town while a dragon is flying overhead, then the DM can easily choose to skip it. On the other hand, other backgrounds/hooks may make the inclusion of the dragon a boost to the start of the campaign.

I don't mind that they put it in there because, as a DM, it was made clear to me that I can pick and choose which encounters to give the PCs. It is just 1 option in a book/adventure filled with open ended options for a DM.

 

[Sacrosanct]

As it was mentioned above, the adventure heavily implies that the Pcs attack the dragon and fails to offer any guidance for the event that they don't.

Yeah it does. It tells you what the motivation for the dragon and attacker are. The dragon just isn't going to keep flying around indefinitely until the PCs attack it. The PCs very well could just hide until the raid starts to end and the dragon flies off anyway.

Also, those fights being scripted to not kill PCs is part of the problem why they are so horrible.
A adventure should not contain scripted tutorial encounters just because WotC wants to highlight the work they have done.

That's exactly why they should be included; to show off the system. That's the purpose of this adventure.

 

[KarinsDad]

It all comes down to knowing the PC's and reading into their backgrounds before starting the campaign. If they don't seem like the type who would venture into town while a dragon is flying overhead, then the DM can easily choose to skip it.

You sound like an experienced DM. I suspect that it would not occur to most inexperienced DMs to do what you suggest here.


One can even see it here on the boards. If something is written down in a rulebook or a module, there are a lot of people who go way out of their way to defend that decision, regardless of whether it is a good or bad decision. The fact that the players are supposed to attack the blue dragon and do a certain amount of damage to drive it off is a prime example of a horrendously bad design which people defend strongly. No PC in his right mind (shy of some really unusual background) should ever even consider it, but it is the expectation of the adventure. The written word in published material has a lot of influence and I suspect that it has more influence over inexperienced DMs than experienced ones.

 

[Kaychsea]

This thread has been extremely useful to me. Not for the reasons some may assume, little has changed about my attitude to the game or the adventure as written. What it has done is made me think about what I want out of a game, playing it or running it.
What I want are people and deeds that will echo down the generations. Whose songs will be sung to great grandchildren and beyond. I want them to stand against the odds, to make a difference, to mean something. Something important.
I want tales to echo the great books, no, to rival the great books and when we are at our best surpass them.
I want to sit among friends and talk and laugh and feel my jaw drop from time to time. I want them to surprise me and to surprise them.

I also know that won't be to the taste of everybody. And when it comes down to it, I don't really care. If they are happy with their game, whatever it is, fine. I like to see people enjoying the hobby.

But I want what I want. And I know what it is a little better for having to think about it.

 

[Syntallah]

What I want are people and deeds that will echo down the generations. Whose songs will be sung to great grandchildren and beyond. I want them to stand against the odds, to make a difference, to mean something. Something important.
I want tales to echo the great books, no, to rival the great books and when we are at our best surpass them.
I want to sit among friends and talk and laugh and feel my jaw drop from time to time. I want them to surprise me and to surprise them.

THIS. So freakin' much, this. D&D has always been a game of heroic fantasy to me.

 

[Weezknight]

You sound like an experienced DM. I suspect that it would not occur to most inexperienced DMs to do what you suggest here.


One can even see it here on the boards. If something is written down in a rulebook or a module, there are a lot of people who go way out of their way to defend that decision, regardless of whether it is a good or bad decision. The fact that the players are supposed to attack the blue dragon and do a certain amount of damage to drive it off is a prime example of a horrendously bad design which people defend strongly. No PC in his right mind (shy of some really unusual background) should ever even consider it, but it is the expectation of the adventure. The written word in published material has a lot of influence and I suspect that it has more influence over inexperienced DMs than experienced ones.

Even an inexperienced DM, however, should be reading the adventure book several times to get all the details down.

The book explicitly states:

"The sequence of events that follow is up to you and
the characters. You can present them with as many
of the encounters as you want, in any order."

So, while they may want to run everything, there is enough instruction that it is not necessary to do so. It also mentions the characters themselves, signalling to the DM that some parts may not work with the party that is playing.

 

[Wrathamon]

certain DMs will just run this adventure "right out of the box" with little reading, just linear as the book presents (I've heard that its not linear, but it still is presented in an order by virtue of it being a book). IF at any moment the player's do something NOT clearly accounted for, certain DMs will try very hard to get the players to DO what they think the adventure wants the players to do.

Early 4e encounter adventures where perfect for this. It was clear what you had to do. It was linear. Later they started adding a branch here and there. Later where much more open, and it seems the current 5e adventures are more theme park style (directed sandbox-ish) Players (and DM) can pick the "rides" they want to go on and then move on to the next "land" err story beat ... but I don't think that makes them crappy adventures. I think it makes them a mix of old school pure sandbox and the newer style of cinematic story arc.

I believe if they offered a short free newbie DM adventure that had lots of side bars to give the DM ideas on what they can do when players get creative that would be better served then a Mega Adventure for new DMs. I think this adventure might be too hard to DM to be honest. I know the DM running it for me is not doing a good job of showcasing it, but I see how it could have been done and I think it could be fantastic.

 

[Sacrosanct]

certain DMs will just run this adventure "right out of the box" with little reading, just linear as the book presents.

And to me that sounds like a DM problem and not an adventure problem. YMMV.

 

[Wrathamon]

And to me that sounds like a DM problem and not an adventure problem. YMMV.

That is my point, exactly. I havent read it, only playing it. But, so far to me if has felt like DM issues running the adventure. I'm not sure if the OP sees it that way.

I have had a similar experience as he has, but I have felt it was the DM, not the adventure, that has made the adventure not as fun as it might be. From a player perspective so far it has been pretty crappy.

I can see how someone would not like it and blame the design. I also understand that fundamentally, putting in things the players can't possible beat or at least appear to be impossible to beat, doesn't sit well with a lot of people, but I personally don't think that is bad design, I think that is just a design choice that some players and dms arent going to like. When player's have to go around what they think they are meant to do, they feel like they "broke" it or if they feel they have to do what they think they must do they are "railroaded". These types of scenarios can be epic for certain players, while others, it may fall flat. For DMs, knowing that they dont like running these types of situations or if they know their players are anti these types of scenarios, they need to work at modifying it. Otherwise, designers can fall prey to homogenized adventure design. Don't go to crazy or else the internet will xplode!

I would be curious what Winters and Baur have to say about some of these encounters everyone is so up in arms about. It might be nice to hear their perspective on why they made the choices they made with these big set piece encounters during the town.