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

[Tommy Brownell]

I don't understand why you think that the encounter humiliates a PC or a player. It seems like there is something particular about your approach to the game that is giving you this reaction.

I see the HD encounter as a fairly standard type of encounter design (with the delightful variant in which the enemy doesn't keep his word). In the straight up example here, it gives the party the opportunity to either (a) have one character heroically take on a near-impossible-to-win fight sacrificing his character's body (and taking a risk that the character is killed outright) to rescue innocents or (b) think outside the box and try to work around an encounter that you are highly unlikely to "win" straight up. Either of those choices sounds like fun to me.

That being said, I do agree that HotDQ can be fairly criticized for its treatment of the HD encounter in that

Spoiler

if you win, the HD in a later encounter is replaced with an identical HD. It would be much better if the enemy there was replaced by a much weaker champion, along with enough clues that the PCs can figure out that they got an easier encounter as a reward for their previous heroism.

-KS

While it's not made explicitly clear to the players,

Spoiler

in Episode 2, the success or failure of stealth tactics in the camp can literally succeed or fail based on whether or not they faced and defeated the Half-Dragon. If they fought him, the bad guys stand a better chance of recognizing that PC. If they fought him and failed, and come face to face with the Half-Dragon, he recognizes them immediately. If they killed him, he's not there to call them out, and they may pull off moving around the camp unnoticed.

 

[Jester David]

Option 2: Go out and fight the dude one on one, and lose and possibly kill a PC. Again, not very heroic.

That actually sounds pretty damn heroic to me. The lone hero going out to face impossible odds against an enemy they cannot beat to save the life of innocents. That's super heroic. That's pure paladin stuff right there.

Hell, if I were playing that campaign with a character like that I'd almost want to die in the duel to make the sacrifice more noble.

But think carefully about this. How would the evil guy KNOW that anyone in the keep would actually be willing to risk their life over the lives of a few villagers? How did the half dragon know that there wasn't some mega-super retired fighter in the keep with 80 hit points who could come out and kick his butt? This is totally contrived.

Does that matter? It's a classic scene. Iconic almost. The army, the challenge in front of the sieged city, solo combat, etc.
Heck, it harkens back to the old Dragonlance adventures from 1e.

If the PCs are neutral and evil, they might even just laugh at the half dragon from the parapets and start taking pot shots at him with bows and could care less about the villagers.

And that's a fourth choice.

No, this is a contrived encounter designed to pull on the heart strings of players who are playing good aligned PCs where the entire purpose of it is to drop a PC into the mud and start up an emotional response so that a reoccurring villain is possible.

Yup. Pretty much. That doesn't make this bad. Establishing villains is hard in D&D, and it's tricky to make the players actually dislike an enemy. If an enemy shows up in an encounter and the adventure doesn't make them unkillable or virtually unassailable either they're godlike or the PCs will somehow find a way to kill them. Sometimes both.

Sorry, but I've seen better ways of doing this without the module designers showing off their big bad nearly impossible to kill monsters and their railroad attempts at forcing PCs to get the snot kicked out of them by said monsters.

Such as?

If you just have the big bad show up in a cut scene and do something horrible, that's not very effective as it doesn't involve the players. Rule 1 of writing is "show not tell" but Rule 1 of DMing is "involve not show". To really make a memorable villain they have to interact with the PCs. And to really be considered threatening they need to slap the PCs around. Period.
Otherwise they're that guy who looked kinda scary slapping down NPCs and commoners. Or you have to introduce a badass NPC explicitly to have the badguy kill, which is just the Worf effect. And you still end up tugging on the heartstrings.

 

[KarinsDad]

First, I don't see why the players are being shamed into doing something. Their characters may be, but the players have a choice.

Some players are really into the game, feel deeply attached to their PCs, and take some things more personally than other players.

Some players can roll up a new NPC at the drop of the hat and could care less if their PC dies. Others get a bit more emotional about it, especially in no win type scenarios.

I don't have a problem with a PC dying, but it's often how the PC dies that makes it sucky or not.

Second, Option 2 is totally heroic. I don't understand you definition of "heroism" if willingly facing a night-unwinnable fight doesn't qualify as "heroic."

It depends on the scenario.

I would not have expected this NPC to keep his word at all considering that he appeared to be leading a force that came looting, killing, and burning.

So sacrificing yourself and then having the villagers killed anyway isn't my cup of tea heroism.

It's not very heroic if the NPC does not keep his word. I know people who would call it stupid.

There are definitely scenarios where a Lawful Evil NPC could be reasoned with, but this group did not seem that way. Maybe it was just my impression.

I also like a bit higher level of heroic sacrifice. Saving the entire party at level 10, fellow PCs whom the PC has been adventuring with for a long time. Or saving a town where our PCs have been home based in for a long time from destruction. Saving a few villagers that the PC has never met before and has no emotional attachment to (or not if the NPC does not keep his word) just seems a bit anticlimatic in some way. Baby steps I know, but still...


This is like the blue dragon scenario. Our one player is playing a Chaotic Good fighter who's a bit nuts and willing to stand up to a blue dragon. The DM ran with it, had the dragon claw the fighter down to 2 hit points, and then fly away chuckling at the arrogant human. Some of the other players felt like fifth wheels a bit since it was an unwinnable scenario that appeared to be intended to either wipe out PCs, or prove to the players that they are not special after all.


Some DMs like games were the players actions do not seem to matter and the PCs are not that special. As a player, I prefer to not play with those types of DMs and in those types of campaigns.

Third, you left off Option 4: use magic, roleplaying and cleverness to "win the no-win scenario." Your description of how you got around it sounded great! Sure, it required some cooperation from the DM, but all good creative options require a DM that's willing to let you do it. A DM that totally shuts down out-of-the-box thinking isn't a good DM.

What you have here is a sadistic NPC (albeit one who follows his own code of honor), who is giving the PCs a sadistic choice. Responding to it is a difficult moral decision that will get different responses from different PC parties. I love difficult moral decisions in my game. Letting a new set of players with new characters work that out is the kind of role-playing moment that will set the intra-party dynamic for the rest of the campaign. You know... Bruno is the guy who doesn't trust the enemy to keep is word and is willing to make the tough decision of letting a few innocents die to preserve our ability to fight back while Charis is the one who would rather risk her own life than let the innocents die.

Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to be interpreting this scenario as a railroad event in which the PCs are obliged to respond in a particular way. Maybe your DM made it seem that way. But it's not. It's just an evil NPC doing a classic evil maneuver. The PCs can react however they want.

Yeah. Maybe it's the entire being handcuffed part of it that is annoying.


I like options when I play and this one felt forced. It reminds me of a podcast where the DM drew in a room with sarcophagi and such, the PCs took one look in the room, and walked away.

That's choice. This scenario, not so much.

I really don't like the DM wrenching moral obligation out of my PC. Let it flow organically over many sessions instead. JMO.


I've also mentioned how easy this module has been so far. Granted, we have 6 PCs many of whom are stealthy. The module just feels like "beat through a bunch of easy fights". Then, go face something impossible to beat to prove that the PCs are nothing special. It's happened twice now (the dragon and the half dragon).


The DM did mention to me that she is going to rip an entire portion of the module out, just because it will be so difficult to run it and our group will easily screw up what we are intended to do. I'm not surprised.

 

[KarinsDad]

Such as?

If you just have the big bad show up in a cut scene and do something horrible, that's not very effective as it doesn't involve the players. Rule 1 of writing is "show not tell" but Rule 1 of DMing is "involve not show". To really make a memorable villain they have to interact with the PCs. And to really be considered threatening they need to slap the PCs around. Period.

Yes, involve and interact. Involve all of the players, not just one. Don't "show" the rest of the players at the table how bad ass this guy is.

It's not so much the BBEG by himself was unbeatable, it's that the designers purposely put together a scenario where he was typically unbeatable and the main way to interact with him was a single PC interaction and dirt nap.

This might be iconic to you.

Did the designers offer suggestions to the DM in how to involve all of the PCs? I doubt it.

They certainly did not put together a scenario where all of the PCs would typically face off against the BBEG and some of his allies. This seemed to be strongly discouraged by the designers.

 

[KarinsDad]

But there's lots of choices, unlike Irontooth.

Without getting into creative solutions there are three realistic options:
1) You can fight as a party, and it's a very obvious TPK possibility.
2) You can ignore the challenge and let an NPC go off to their deaths.
3) You can let one PC go off for single combat.

That's not a railroad. That's pretty open. There's just no obvious "win" option. There's no easy super happy mega victory option. But there doesn't need to be. The PCs achieving absolute victory is not a part of the game.

Option 2 did not come up in our game. So the designers thought it would be heroic for the PCs to let some NPC smuck die instead?


Is the rest of the module "open" like this?

Fighter: "Hey guys, let's go back to Berdusk and sign on to caravan duty. These half dragons are tough."

 

[Jester David]

Yes, involve and interact. Involve all of the players, not just one. Don't "show" the rest of the players at the table how bad ass this guy is.

It's not so much the BBEG by himself was unbeatable, it's that the designers purposely put together a scenario where he was typically unbeatable and the main way to interact with him was a single PC interaction and dirt nap.

This might be iconic to you.

Did the designers offer suggestions to the DM in how to involve all of the PCs? I doubt it.

They certainly did not put together a scenario where all of the PCs would typically face off against the BBEG and some of his allies. This seemed to be strongly discouraged by the designers.

The catch being when you involve the entire party that subtly tells the players "this is a regular fight". It's business as usual.

If you involve just one player as an individual, then it emphasises that the normal rules don't apply.
(And it avoids the possibility of a TPK since only one PC is at risk.)
And the whole thing can be over faster. Two people taking actions goes much quicker than the entire party trying really, really hard to win against a fight that's unwinnable. It drags out the experience of losing making everyone much less happy, opposed to just a couple quick rounds of combat for dueling.

And entire parties can be pretty deadly against a single BBEG with a couple lucky roles. Stunlocking comes into play and good teamwork. And it's harder to keep a single PC down.
It works if the bad guy is *that* much more powerful than the PCs, but then it's just going to be that much longer before they face him again. By putting the bad guy against one PC it's a much shorter length of time before the party can defeat them in a fair fight.

 

[Jester David]

Option 2 did not come up in our game. So the designers thought it would be heroic for the PCs to let some NPC smuck die instead?


Is the rest of the module "open" like this?

Fighter: "Hey guys, let's go back to Berdusk and sign on to caravan duty. These half dragons are tough."

I've only skimmed and read reviews but it sounds like if the PCs don't the father of the captured people goes out and dies. It's not heroic, it's just realistic to expect some takes to take the pragmatic move.
No one forces the PCs to go help.

 

[WayneLigon]

I don't understand what lesson the module designers are trying to "teach players", but it's total crap IMO. These impossible encounters (and this one would have been if not for the DM) just teach me to not buy WotC adventures in the future.

They are there to teach you to run, and that not every encounter is balanced and winnable. From what has been said elsewhere, that appears to be a definite and stated design philosophy for this edition. You'll probably need to get used to disappointment.

 

[KarinsDad]

They are there to teach you to run, and that not every encounter is balanced and winnable. From what has been said elsewhere, that appears to be a definite and stated design philosophy for this edition. You'll probably need to get used to disappointment.

It's not a matter of running.

It's a matter of PCs dying for no good campaign reason.

Yes, I get it. Show that there are bigger fish. But this can be done with larger fish instead of gargantuan ones.

This is a game. Give the PCs a fighting chance. This design concept of "I want you to encounter something so massively powerful that you just feel like insignificant ants" is stupid.

Running from a tough encounter is fine. Running from an impossible encounter is terrible encounter design.

At that point, why are we even playing the game? Not for fun. Not for player actions making a difference. It just seems like some big designer ego trip.

FRPGs are about shared story telling, not seeing which player gets to create the largest number of new PCs.

Btw, I was not a big fan of things like the original Tomb of Horrors either. Gygax was showing his "I can design cool traps to just kill PCs with.". Meh. That's not why I play the game.

 

[Jester David]

Yes, I get it. Show that there are bigger fish. But this can be done with larger fish instead of gargantuan ones.

I find this interesting since you party all but managed to kill the half-dragon.
All you showed the DM is that for you to be scared of overwhelming odds, the fish need to be even bigger.

Your party took a situation that was meant to be one PC risking their life and turned it into a possible TPK with collateral damage. That's on you, not the encounter or the designer.