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

[pming]

Hiya.

[MitchMcConnel]...aaaauuuuu...yuup....[/MitchMcConnel]

Like Sacrosanct and Wrathamon, I've found the same generalization true; the "all encounters should be winnable" types tend to overwhelmingly be of the 3e/PF/4e crowd, while the "not all encounters are winnable" types tend to be B-X/BECMI/0/1/2e crowd. I don't want to start an edition war; both types have fun playing the game in their way and that is ALL that matters. In fact, I know of one group in town here who are PF players and they have a house rule of "no PC can die without player permission". Not my thing, but they use it (mainly because creating a mid-level PF character is a royal PITA I'm guessing). As long as everyone is having fun, more power to them!

I think 5e is shooting for somewhere in the middle, where the DM can easily go to one side or the other and it won't matter to the 'rules expectations of the game'. This is good; it allows for both camps to enjoy the game and adventure. Personally, I have no problem with "unwinnable" encounters. I do have a problem with "unwinnable" encounters that *have* to take place because some key point of the adventure hinges on it. If the PC's play cleverly and use their skills wisely to avoid said encounter...the DM shouldn't have to jump through 14 different hoops just to be able to use the rest of the "full-color glossy $50 hardback adventure".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm really beginning to see the two sides of this argument. One side thinks every encounter the PCs could possibly face should be beatable in combat. No exceptions or it's bad game design. The other side thinks that not all encounters the PCs should face should be beatable, especially if they offer other things to the game play experience besides strictly combat.

At least that's my impression. And obviously I fall under the second camp.

Actually, this isn't the point at all (as has been mentioned several times). This is the point that people on the other side of the fence want it to be.

 

[Sailor Moon]

Sounds to me like KD only wants things that can be killed at his power level to show up.

 

[KarinsDad]

Dup

 

[Sacrosanct]

I agree.

3rd slowly trained us to think this is true (that all encounters were winnable) you could have 4 in a day and then start to worry.
4th continued this premise in it was a foundation for the game. you never ran from anything because it should be winnable unless the players "pushed" too far.

I never liked this about either of these ideas... gamers hate to loose. (i.e. see video games - lose put a quarter in, ok now you have some lives, ok now you can save progress with a password, ok now it just autosaves at the beginning of a level, ok now there are checkpoints in a level, ok now you an save anywhere, ok now it autosaves all the time, okay now you rewind back in time to the point you fail to start over, ok you just cant fail you just always win)

There's no way I could see a video game like the NES Ninja Gaiden being popular today like it was then. You die, you lose ALL progress.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Actually, this isn't the point at all (as has been mentioned several times). This is the point that people on the other side of the fence want it to be.

Sure seems like the point to me. Could very well be my interpretation, but it seems to me that your chief complaint for days now, one repeated many times, is that those are horribly designed encounters because they try to railroad the PCs into an unwinnable battle.

 

[KarinsDad]

Personally, I have no problem with "unwinnable" encounters. I do have a problem with "unwinnable" encounters that *have* to take place because some key point of the adventure hinges on it.

This. Greenest in Flames hinges on the PCs going to a town with a dragon flying over it. Now a good DM might be able to get the train back on the tracks if the PCs decide to not go to Greenest, but he shouldn't have to. This is one of the worst hooks I've ever heard. Even the tired old "You find yourselves in a tavern..." is heads and shoulders above this.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This. Greenest in Flames hinges on the PCs going to a town with a dragon flying over it.

Greenest in flames when the PCs show up is not an unwinnable encounter (as most groups were able to get to the keep fine), thus doesn't fall under pming's statement.

 

[Derren]

Sure seems like the point to me. Could very well be my interpretation, but it seems to me that your chief complaint for days now, one repeated many times, is that those are horribly designed encounters because they try to railroad the PCs into an unwinnable battle.

Then you should read the thread again.

- The dragon is "winnable" because it pulls punches and gives the Pcs plot armor. Adventure expects the players to attack something much stronger than them and, if they do, is scripted not to harm them except in extreme cases. Remember the times where the famous last words "We are only level 1, the Dm would never use something that powerful agains us" were made fun of? That is basically this scenario except that the metagame thinking is correct.
And the worst thing is, if the player do the smart thing and stay away from the town the adventure ends.

- The players are basically goaded into this fight with the full expectation of the adventure to lose. But again, the hostages are freed anyway, so it is technically a win, and the PC will most likely survive because it is scripted that way.

So the only thing the adventure teaches the players is that some fights they are expectedmto lose, but that they are scripted to not die in those instances. So instead of facilitating smart play just charge in. Either you win or you are supposed to lose and the adventure takes care that nothing bad happens/expects it.

But it is of course more easy to argue against (strawmanned) "every encounter should be winnable"...

 

[Thaumaturge]

I'm really beginning to see the two sides of this argument. One side thinks every encounter the PCs could possibly face should be beatable in combat. No exceptions or it's bad game design. The other side thinks that not all encounters the PCs should face should be beatable, especially if they offer other things to the game play experience besides strictly combat.

At least that's my impression. And obviously I fall under the second camp.

I have definitely come to see people's thoughts on the adventure as falling into the "Combat as War" or the "Combat as Sport" camps. Hoard of the Dragon Queen (at least the first episode of it) is very much combat as war.

Thaumaturge.