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

[pming]

Hiya.

From what I'm reading...the whole encounter seems too Yes/No. Reading about how Mearls group basically just kind of shrugged and went in tells me one thing about them; they understood the meta-game aspect of it. That aspect was "We're 1st level and this is the beginning of the module...we see a dragon...there is NO WAY we can die from it. Period. Impossible. We can all drop our drawers, bend over, and give it a big ol' moon...no worries. We Will. Not. Die". Why would they think this? Because it's the beginning of the module. Kind of like what if Bruce Wayne had yelled at the 'joker' and said "You low life piece of s#!t, drugged-up coward!", and then threw a rock at him hitting him square in the forehead. Well, either A) The joker laughs and says "You get that one for free, kid" and walks away, or B) young Bruce gets a bullet in the head. Seeing as if you were writing a movie, option B would make for a pretty short movie. Ergo, option A is the only real choice...no matter what young Bruce does, the joker walks away, letting him live. This "dragon attack" scenario is the same thing. And the players will know it.

So...I'd bet coppers to platinum that many of the 'we go in' groups were thinking meta-game; knowing that they wouldn't be killed. Or that some super-NPC would save them. Or that the dragon was an illusion. Or anything other than what it looked like; a dragon laying waste to a town. So in they went, perhaps 'faking' concern to make the DM feel good ("Oh noes! Maybe we should sneak around so the mean-old dragon doesn't get us!"...all the wile thinking they could just walk casually down the middle of the street without a care in the world because the DM wouldn't let them die).

I know exactly how my group would have played it. They would have just hidden and waited for the dragon to leave. Doesn't matter if the dragon landed and was threatening to incinerate and eat a farmer, his wife, four children and their pet goat; the good aligned PC's may have turned their heads and said "I can't watch this!" and started preying or sticking their fingers in their ears, singing LA LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING! LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!". Why? They know how I DM. They know that I'd let the dragon kill their PC's in a heartbeat. My players play from the perspective that dangerous things are, well, DANGEROUS. And nothing is much more dangerous than an angry, airborne, evil dragon.

Bottom Line: Bad encounter that would be no fun at all for me and my group. If I was to run it...the dragon would be the THREAT, not the actual ACTION. Meaning I'd likely have the dragon sitting on top of the keep or a tower, and the cultists basically saying "Give us all your stuff, or this here dragon will raze your town to the ground and eat all of you!". That is a *potential* threat. I'd increase the number of cultists, I'm sure, and they'd go house to house collecting treasure. The dragon would roar, eat a horse or two, and generally try and Intimidate the town (probably not hard...). If he was attacked by the PC's, well, remember what I said about TPK's above? Anyway, that set up would have the same plot-effect, from what I read, and also becomes much more "winnable" by my PC's; the goal wouldn't be to kill/drive off the dragon...the goal would be to not do anything to piss it off.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Sacrosanct]

I did not make that claim. I made the claim that it is becoming more acceptable to cheat, not that people are doing it more often.

Really?

Harvard Cheating Scandal
75% of students cheat

I found it humorous that it's called the Harvard Cheating Scandal as if everyone did not know that it was occurring there and on many campuses for decades. The difference today is that it is a lot easier to cheat with the electronic resources that kids have. Hence, my supposition that it happens more often.

You spun that claim into what you wanted it to be because you do that.

Sorry, no spinning there. That's what you directly said.

Also, if you actually do research, you'll find that cheating in college (done at least once) was about 30% prevalent in the '40s and 70% to 90% prevalent now. But you read one sentence in one article and think you are an expert instead of reading multiple articles. Do your research, read what people actually write, and stop misrepresenting what they do write.

That one sentence said that the rate of cheating has stayed the same over the past 50 years. That one sentence throws your entire position out of the window. It was funny because it was an article that you linked to support your claim. I can only guess you didn't even bother to read your own sources. Which is not shocking, because here you are again, making some pretty outrageous claims about something that clearly have on idea about (being ordered to go into a dangerous situation).

I never once said that our military was not brave. That's your spin once again on what I wrote. I wrote that they have rules and procedures in place for when a situation is too risky, and I even wrote that police and firemen would be disobeying orders in order to rush in in that same circumstance. Of course our military, police, and firemen are brave.

I didn't say you said they weren't brave. Again, there is no spin here. I said one of the reasons they did so was because they were brave. That's an important factor to explain why people do things that you hadn't considered. Instead you seemed to imply that people who were intelligent wouldn't do such acts of heroism because of risk assessment. To which I called bogus on because I've personally seen many people who were very intelligent do such things. Your entire argument seems to be boiling down to that PCs shouldn't fight Cyan because they aren't stupid, which completely ignores the many times people do do things because they are brave, were ordered to, etc. I gotta tell you, my son is a firefighter. If the wasn't willing to risk his life to save someone else, he wouldn't be a firefighter. That comes with the job. Just like in the military, when I had a mission to do, I did it, regardless of risk or danger. I was a blackhawk helicopter crewchief. If my pilot said, "Sorry, we aren't going into that medivac mission because the odds are we'll get shot down.", there would be a few less soldiers alive today. And PCs are heroes, right? At least the good aligned ones?

Same thing with the LG thing. If a LG character is willing to break his or her word whenever it's convenient and the LE person isn't? That should tell you that maybe you need to reassess what lawful good means. Especially with the definition of "lawful".

If you want "D&D Easy Hand-held Mode", more power to you. But don't start complaining how horrible a scenario is because it forces you actually make decisions on whether or not you should go into combat rather than just assume every combat you would ever face is beatable.

 

[KarinsDad]

Really?
Sorry, no spinning there. That's what you directly said.

Ok, I'll play this stupid "he said/he said" game once.

My first post. No mention of it being more prevalent, just being more acceptable.

Our society today has a lot of information on the Internet about games. People grow up today thinking that it is perfectly acceptable to cheat in games, use cheat codes, know things about mobs, etc. If that behavior is not what a DM likes, then he should work with the player. It's not that I condone cheating, but our young people are being taught that it is becoming more and more acceptable (just look at the percentage of cheating at college campuses). Having the group frown on the activity and explaining it to the player without a threat is the way to go. Sure, he might still backslide once in a while, but the more the rest of the table reinforces behavioral expectations, the more likely a person is to coexist and become an asset to the table.

Your first post. You accuse me of stating that kids today are more prone to cheat, even though I did not say that. Spin, spin, spin.

Yeah, this is completely bogus. Let's put aside the obvious assumption that you probably don't have any credible sources that back up your claim that kids today are more prone to cheat than before, and look at the equally obvious:

↑↑↓↓←→←→BA

I.e., people who are OK with cheating have been OK with it since day 1.

My second post. The last sentence does say more often, basically because you led the conversation into that direction and I did not catch it. My old brain does that now and again. It was not my basic point, but you veered the conversation into that direction with your misreading and misrepresentation of my first post.

Doubtful for most people. Cheating, lying, and other improper behaviors are often learned and reinforced behaviors.

For example, when we lived in Colorado, my daughter never swore. Ever.

We moved to NJ and she swears almost on a daily basis (and started shortly after she got here). The most obvious reason for this is that many people here, even the kids in high school, swear. A lot. Many of the parents work in NYC or other urban areas and I suspect that they bring that behavior home with them. The kids then take it to school (my daughter also got her swearing under control over the summer when she was no longer encountering it every day).

Same with cheating. It's a learned behavior that tends to start small and progress as the kids do not get harsh penalties for doing so.

Harvard Cheating Scandal
75% of students cheat

I found it humorous that it's called the Harvard Cheating Scandal as if everyone did not know that it was occurring there and on many campuses for decades. The difference today is that it is a lot easier to cheat with the electronic resources that kids have. Hence, my supposition that it happens more often.

Your second post. Now you reiterate your point that I really wasn't trying to make, having to prove yourself.

So not only did you not provide any evidence that people are more prone to cheating now than before, but your own cited link states that cheating rates in college have stayed the same over the past 50 years.

But let's look up some more links than the one you base it on.

More cheating NYTimes

Cheat Fact Sheet

2001 research

2011 research

Next time before laughing at someone, do the research. Ok, I'm done with this topic. Feel free to play the "he said / he said" game all you want by yourself.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I wonder if I could get my username changed to "Sacrosanct, Mind Flayer Royale", as apparently I have the power of mind control, to make people type things they never meant to type.

 

[Kaychsea]

I do not understand how your post relates to mine that you replied to.

Actually I am disappointed in myself that I thought you might.

Sorry. Not a mistake I'll make again.

 

[Joe Liker]

Like KarinsDad, I do not believe a lawful alignment compels a person to negotiate with terrorists (or honor so-called agreements with them), which is exactly what this scenario was trying to do. I was actually gravely offended when the DM said I lacked honor for breaking a promise that 1) I personally never agreed to, and 2) was forged under coercion.

(At any rate, my character is CG, so I pointed out that honor wasn't exactly a priority for him. He's an outcomes-oriented kind of guy.)

If you know anything about actual law, you know that any contract signed under duress is not legally enforceable. On the contrary, said duress is commonly known as extortion, and it's just another crime to add to the rap sheet of the coercer.

All that aside, the adventure clearly expects the party to go along with the whole charade, even to the point of letting the kobolds escape with the unconscious Cyanwrath in the event he loses. I find everything about this outcome repulsive and unrealistic, and the more I think about it, the more I want to bow out of this stupid adventure.

 

[KarinsDad]

Actually I am disappointed in myself that I thought you might.

Sorry. Not a mistake I'll make again.

It's just that I could not make the connection between the post you were responding to and the post you made. Your point was well thought out, I'm just slow on the uptake.

 

[sithramir]

How exactly do PCs know that dragons have lousy vision? Metagame much?

Now that I have the Monster Manual, I'll go check to see if Dragons have lousy vision. I suspect that even if they do, they still have a decent Perception.

You're going to check if they have X-ray vision? Being hidden in the trees or INSIDE means they have full cover. Does this help clarify what I meant for you? Dragons do not have X-ray vision. It isn't metagaming to use common sense since a character with 16 int is pretty smart. They might be able to do a lot of things without a dragon noticing being inside a keep or in a deep forest. And it's flying back and forth over the town and it's night? Don't shoot flares at it.

Let me rephrase to "they aren't omnipotent" so it's still possible to help and stay out of trouble from the dragon.

Yup. Valid questions. Some of them even get thought of in game. That doesn't mean that a discussion is not beneficial. Your point here is moot.

What point? I asked you questions because this is a conversation. I"m not trying to get in a heated discussion or argument here. I"m asking what your thoughts are. The reason is because the adventure is making your character interact with the other PC's and decide how you want to act. Role playing. You don't have to go to the town but you are role playing your characters in a scary scenario instead of one you know you will automatically succeed in?

How exactly does my PC know that this is not an ancient wyrm? Again, metagaming? Have you ever tried to gauge the size of something in the dark from a long distance away? How many people confused flairs with a large UFO in Arizona (which btw was proven based on spectrum analysis of the color). All I knew was that it was large enough to attack the keep and presumably set the town on fire.

Read the first part of what I said? Maybe it's not Arcana but can be another knowledge check or survival, etc. Up to the DM. There are skills in the game that can be used to help garner information that might help you gauge what this dragon can do. Not all dragons are equal. You've previously discussed how powerful dragons are and your characters understand it is unbeatable. What it was a wymling dragon (or modified dragon) of an appropriate CR for your group to beat? Did the DM clearly state it was an unbeatable dragon? I think you could only be mad AFTER learning it's too powerful. Your character at the time wouldn't know that so why would they act like it's unbeatable?

Have you ever tried to gauge the size of something in the dark from a long distance away?

How did you know it was unbeatable then? Seems perfectly safe to get a little closer and start helping before even having to make any real decisions. Why is the dragon going to be able to see you again?

PCs do not know the dragon is so busy that it will ignore them. Players do not know what the "adventure calls for". This is all armchair quarterbacking by you after knowing the facts.
Discussing the dragon is a perfectly reasonable and even expected response. If you do not think so, fine. Metagame away.

I'm confused as to why I don't think it's fine to discuss the dragon? Of course you would? I stated that an intelligent creature would have more than the single thought of "there's a dragon THIS IS INSANE". I'm pointing out that you could have went stealthily through the adventure somewhat easily avoiding the "large dragon shaped beast" that you see far off in the darkness...You could have avoided any parts where you were directly too close to the danger of the dragon. Sounds like an adventure that requires you to think and make hard decisions and be careful which I like. You don't have to like it but I just don't see it as bad design overall.

 

[Wrathamon]

This must be a great adventure to spark this much debate

has anyone gone here or asked the authors of the adventure for their opinion?

http://www.koboldpress.com/k/tag/tiamat-tuesday

Btw the latest post on Tiamat Tuesday is how to run some of the later portions of the adventure. It might have some interesting insights. And, I am sure if you asked about the two controversial encounters or enemies in this adventure they might have some designer reasons why this was done or what got left on the cutting room floor.

 

[Wrathamon]

In episode 1, characters are entirely swept along by events. They start in a town under attack by raiders—a situation that demands rapid action. Throughout the course of a long night, they are assigned missions by the town’s leader to rescue villagers who are surrounded in isolated buildings, to capture prisoners for questioning, to seal a breach in the keep’s defenses, to drive away a blue dragon, and so forth. Characters could branch off on their own, but there’s no reason to. The keep’s commander is a capable leader, he knows the town, his plans are tactically sound, and the things he asks characters to do probably are what they’d wind up doing if they struck out on their own anyway.

from Tiamat Tuesdays

bold is mine

What is interesting is that my DM did not make the town leader feel capable at all and he never gave us missions but situations arose and we felt we had to do something about it because this guy was incompetent. Actually, one of the players thinks he is a cultist. The first part sounds like it is meant to give the players choices but limited on purpose. You are not heroes but participants caught up in the battle.

I think the players should start in the town as part of the town as it gets attacked, after reading this. You are all in a house playing three dragon ante when "BOoOmm" you here a crack of thunder and fear washes over you ... unnatural fear. You run outside to see a Blue dragon swooping over head as it blasts lightning at the keep. You can hear the screams of the townsfolk and fighting going on in the distances. Smoke has started billowing from areas around town. The town is under siege!

I didnt read much more for spoiler reasons

Also, i think we forget that dragons talk, so my DM plays the dragon as a smart creature but he doesnt interact verbally. The suggestion that the dragon is bored, wow what an easy way to for the DM to help sell that this dragon isn't as scary as we might have first thought, since he doesnt seem all that into the battle. My DM did nothing to sell this to the players.