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

[KarinsDad]

The harm is that PCs die and players might get annoyed enough to not even play the game anymore. Is that what we want with 5E?

Uh, yea actually. The reason we roll dice is because the threat of/the chance of death is what makes it fun.

That was the first official encounter for 5E. Using foes that have an ability to shoot, move, and hide, and then shoot again possibly with advantage the next round is not the way to introduce brand new players to the game. Sure, the module stated that two of the kobolds should just walk right out and fight, and possibly many DMs did that (possibly not). But that encounter, if run according to the rules and the abilities of the NPCs, could really be pretty kick butt. PCs could die right away.

You are entitled to your opinion that people should just be thrown into the deep end of the lake and either swim or sink, but I don't view it that way. Sure, encounter 3 or 4, start throwing in tougher and tougher challenges. I suspect that the first encounter was pretty easy for some groups, pretty hard for others, and downright deadly for some groups.

Fortunately, LMoP comes with pregenerated PCs. If the players had had to create their own PCs the first time ever playing the game and those PCs died in round 2 or 3, yeah, I could see where someone would think that D&D totally sucks.

Personally, I would prefer that the first experience that someone has with the game system be awesome, not that it sucks. You are entitled to your opinion that them getting annoyed and never playing the game again is good for our D&D gaming community. I suspect that most of our fellow gamers would not agree with you on that point.

You seem like the type of player who doesn't enjoy that last type of villain and that's fine but I wouldn't call the module badly designed. I actually get more annoyed when a villain seems omniscient because he outmaneuvers me than when he bests me in combat/forces me to retreat. I'm not sure what it says in the module but this guy doesn't seem like he's unwilling to accept a surrender which could definitely reduce the chances of a PC death. If you want to run a game where you stroll through most encounters as mega badass PCs on easy mode who never suffer humiliation, defeat, surrender etc... that's perfectly fine and it's a playstyle preference. However, I hope to god the modules that we pay money for are aren't designed to be so easy.

Actually, the issue came up more when the first person to reply on this thread told me how honorable that NPC would have been. Late at night after finding out how many hit points that guy had? Yeah, that's probably what got me irritated in the first place.

It then occurred to me that the first two modules had two dragons that the PCs were supposed to attack and a half dragon that one PC was supposed to take a dirt nap over.

This is not a playstyle I enjoy. Let's see how big and bad the designers can make the monsters, just to prove to the players that their PC sucks. Sorry, I enjoy playing the hero, not the zero.

I'm glad that people like playing encounters where their PC sucks and has a good chance of going unconscious or dying. I don't particularly enjoy that. I think it's unnecessary. A risk of death, fine. A real challenging encounter, great. A fake risk of death (i.e the NPC is not REALLY going to kill you) under the fake guise of an extremely high chance of death, lame. Very lame. That's not threatening. That's just annoying. That's just the DM (or designers in this case) saying "Today, you are going to take a dirt nap, just because I can do that to you.". Meh. If the adventure designer kicking your PC into the dirt is fun for you, please enjoy your game.


Nothing wrong with defeat or surrender once in a blue moon. Nothing wrong with difficult encounters. But humiliation in a game is something that I think belongs in the waste basket of game design. Trying to shame a PC into a no win situation is just plain lame. Obviously, YMMV.


As a side note, there is this tendency of adventurer designers to write "This NPC will do this when the PCs arrive.". In some games, that course of action makes sense for the NPC. In other games, that course of action is totally illogical. An experience DM will be able to read that and go, "Yeah, I could see where he would sometimes do that, but there are 3 guys in chainmail in our campaign, so it's probably a stupid move on his part. I'll have him do this instead.".

For adventures like LMoP and HotDQ where WotC is trying to bring in new players and new DMs to the game, it's probably a good idea to have a few different options for each of the major NPCs and not be so concrete with their motivations and actions. Let the DM decide what works best. Sure, the DM already has that capability, but new DMs might not be totally aware of that. A lot of them might think that they have to run an adventure exactly as written, or they'll screw up something later on.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That was the first official encounter for 5E. Using foes that have an ability to shoot, move, and hide, and then shoot again possibly with advantage the next round is not the way to introduce brand new players to the game. Sure, the module stated that two of the kobolds should just walk right out and fight, and possibly many DMs did that (possibly not). But that encounter, if run according to the rules and the abilities of the NPCs, could really be pretty kick butt. PCs could die right away.

You are entitled to your opinion that people should just be thrown into the deep end of the lake and either swim or sink, but I don't view it that way. Sure, encounter 3 or 4, start throwing in tougher and tougher challenges. I suspect that the first encounter was pretty easy for some groups, pretty hard for others, and downright deadly for some groups.

Fortunately, LMoP comes with pregenerated PCs. If the players had had to create their own PCs the first time ever playing the game and those PCs died in round 2 or 3, yeah, I could see where someone would think that D&D totally sucks.

Personally, I would prefer that the first experience that someone has with the game system be awesome, not that it sucks. You are entitled to your opinion that them getting annoyed and never playing the game again is good for our D&D gaming community. I suspect that most of our fellow gamers would not agree with you on that point.

Bolded for emphasis. You know, you'd probably find that less people would argue with you if you would stop with this insistence that other peoples' playstyle different from your own is badwrong, and yours is the one true way. Trying to qualify it with "You're entitled to your opinion" doesn't really matter when at the same time you're saying how it's horrible and shouldn't be that way. Especially true since it appears your preferences are actually in the much smaller minority.

This is not a playstyle I enjoy.

Does this mean you'll stop with the frequent complaining about 5e and just play the version you do have fun with?

But humiliation in a game is something that I think belongs in the waste basket of game design. Trying to shame a PC into a no win situation is just plain lame. Obviously, YMMV.

Hey Robbie Wheeling, it's just a game. No one is getting humiliated and shamed. My 13 year old was the one who fought Cyan (and lost badly) and didn't feel humiliated and shamed. He felt angry at Cyan and wanted revenge. If a 13 year old can handle it...

 

[TiaxTheMighty]

That was the first official encounter for 5E. Using foes that have an ability to shoot, move, and hide, and then shoot again possibly with advantage the next round is not the way to introduce brand new players to the game. Sure, the module stated that two of the kobolds should just walk right out and fight, and possibly many DMs did that (possibly not). But that encounter, if run according to the rules and the abilities of the NPCs, could really be pretty kick butt. PCs could die right away.

One of my first times DMing was for a 3.5 D&D game with 4 newish players and 1 veteran. The party consisted of heavy armor types with low dexterity and low-mid perception. Their first encounter was against 4 prone Halfling crossbow snipers. It was a skirmish that they lost. One person was dropped to -1 and stabilized and the rest of them retreated. If you took a picture of those players during and after that encounter you'd never have guessed that they had "lost" the fight. It was smiles and laughter all around. That, to me, is the heart of D&D. No matter the outcome, we all had fun doing it. Nobody got annoyed when they saw the the halfling's hide modifier. Nobody got annoyed because the terrain and encounter in general favored the NPCs. Thankfully we had players who were good sports.

Two of them told me it was the most memorable encounter they had ever participated in and that for the first time it didn't feel like they were having their hand held and that resulted in a much more enjoyable experience.

You are entitled to your opinion that people should just be thrown into the deep end of the lake and either swim or sink, but I don't view it that way. Sure, encounter 3 or 4, start throwing in tougher and tougher challenges. I suspect that the first encounter was pretty easy for some groups, pretty hard for others, and downright deadly for some groups.

Sounds like a well balanced encounter to me

Fortunately, LMoP comes with pregenerated PCs. If the players had had to create their own PCs the first time ever playing the game and those PCs died in round 2 or 3, yeah, I could see where someone would think that D&D totally sucks.

Again with the "This sucks, I quit" attitude being a common response just baffles me. Honestly, I don't mean to be elitist but D&D is not for everyone - Especially if that's your psychological response to frustration. Also, encounter lethality is a particular problem with low level PCs. There isn't much a designer can do to get around that while still also making it feel fun short of making you fight cockroaches and house cats. Hell, in previous editions you could die to a house cat or rats at low level! In previous editions, everything was out to kill you. There was very little hand holding and I for one am glad to see the game shift back toward that.

Personally, I would prefer that the first experience that someone has with the game system be awesome, not that it sucks. You are entitled to your opinion that them getting annoyed and never playing the game again is good for our D&D gaming community. I suspect that most of our fellow gamers would not agree with you on that point.

Hold on now that's not what I was implying. It's never good for the hobby if people walk away with a sour attitude about it. That being said, you can't appease everyone. You just said you prefer it to be awesome. You can't have an encounter be a cake walk and then also call it awesome.

It then occurred to me that the first two modules had two dragons that the PCs were supposed to attack and a half dragon that one PC was supposed to take a dirt nap over.

This is not a playstyle I enjoy. Let's see how big and bad the designers can make the monsters, just to prove to the players that their PC sucks. Sorry, I enjoy playing the hero, not the zero.

I don't understand why you keep saying that the intent of the designers is to feel superior to PCs they'll never meet. I'm pretty sure the intent of the designers was to make the adventure awesome, thrilling, terrifying, heart-pounding etc... Just because that's how you felt doesn't mean that was their intent.

As a side note, there is this tendency of adventurer designers to write "This NPC will do this when the PCs arrive.". In some games, that course of action makes sense for the NPC. In other games, that course of action is totally illogical. An experience DM will be able to read that and go, "Yeah, I could see where he would sometimes do that, but there are 3 guys in chainmail in our campaign, so it's probably a stupid move on his part. I'll have him do this instead.".

For adventures like LMoP and HotDQ where WotC is trying to bring in new players and new DMs to the game, it's probably a good idea to have a few different options for each of the major NPCs and not be so concrete with their motivations and actions. Let the DM decide what works best. Sure, the DM already has that capability, but new DMs might not be totally aware of that. A lot of them might think that they have to run an adventure exactly as written, or they'll screw up something later on.

I agree completely.

 

[KarinsDad]

Hold on now that's not what I was implying. It's never good for the hobby if people walk away with a sour attitude about it. That being said, you can't appease everyone. You just said you prefer it to be awesome. You can't have an encounter be a cake walk and then also call it awesome.

Agreed.

Sorry, when I asked "The harm is that PCs die and players might get annoyed enough to not even play the game anymore. Is that what we want with 5E?" and you replied "Uh, yea actually", I thought that you meant that you thought this was ok.

 

[Wrathamon]

"A lot of them might think that they have to run an adventure exactly as written, or they'll screw up something later on."

This is spot on.

And, I dont think these designers are trying to feel superior to the players. They are trying to create adventures that are fun, but also create emotion in the players. That it's not just a game, but also a communal story being told.

They want players to enjoy their work. not laugh diabolically as people play their work.

Well ... maybe Gary Gygax did when he wrote Tomb of Horrors because that was the intent to curb stomp players and I am sure he chuckled once or twice.

I dont think Mr. Winters is sitting in his Ivory Tower looking like Dr.Evil going heheh I cant wait to see the look on those players when they see my 1/2 dragon npc! Muahahahahaha

 

[Derren]

And, I dont think these designers are trying to feel superior to the players. They are trying to create adventures that are fun, but also create emotion in the players. That it's not just a game, but also a communal story being told.

Except that they are doing that with a hammer and try to railroad the players into the emotions they want them to have with very badly written encounters and the expectation/requirement of metagaming and heroic stupid gameplay.

 

[Wrathamon]

That's your opinion of the execution, but that is not their intent. They aren't intentionally trying to feel superior to you as a player by putting in an encounter to kick one players butt.

I dont think that is their intent. You might not like what they created, but when people say they did it to feel emotionally superior in some ego trip is not why they write adventures for people to play.

How would you write an encounter that the intent was to create emotion in the players to hate a big baddie, or other emotion, to make a villain that is personal with the players, so they want to stick it to them later? Curious how you would do it in a published adventure or would you just avoid powerful villains the player can fight till they are powerful enough to defeat them?

 

[Kordak]

That's your opinion of the execution, but that is not their intent. They aren't intentionally trying to feel superior to you as a player by putting in an encounter to kick one players butt.

I dont think that is their intent. You might not like what they created, but when people say they did it to feel emotionally superior in some ego trip is not why they write adventures for people to play.

Hey I can agree with this - Frankly, I'm not going to try to guess the intent, I can only criticize the actual, concrete, result (i.e. the encounter as written), not why the author wrote it...Heck I will even stipulate that he tried to do the best job under the given circumstances, just fell a bit short on this one and here's why/why not:

It's not because the author hurt people's widdow feewings, OK...so let's just stop with all of the "Well, maybe you're just not mature enough to play this game" stuff. That's not helpful.

Let me try to explain how I see it another way:

*Pulls a coin out of his pocket*

This is the coin of “No Challenge” – Some of you may know it by another name – the “I WIN!” button. This is the button that a powerful PC could pull out in an encounter and by using a spell/combat combo and, without an extremely unlucky/lucky roll of the dice, beat everything around them to the ground. Many of the very same folks I see posting in this thread cried out in mournful grief for the most powerful nerfhammer to “nerf that!” Ah do you remember those days?

By using the “I WIN!” button there was absolutely no challenge for the party and that sucked.

Now, I will posit to you that what we’ve been discussing here for about 30 pages, or so, is the other side of that coin…where your character, weak (1st or 2nd lvl) and spent (fighting the whole night through and nothing left in the tank), must trudge out and hit the “I LOSE!” button. Where, without an extremely lucky/unlucky roll of the dice, he will be beaten down to the ground. No emotional reaction other than “wow, that sucked”. No challenge, just walk out and hit that button...go on...

The chances of losing were so great, that he would have done better with the flip of a coin – just not this coin.

*Puts the coin back in his pocket*.

TL:dR – If you never liked the “I WIN” button, you shouldn’t have liked this encounter – ‘cause it’s the same thing.

How would you write an encounter that the intent was to create emotion in the players to hate a big baddie, or other emotion, to make a villain that is personal with the players, so they want to stick it to them later? Curious how you would do it in a published adventure or would you just avoid powerful villains the player can fight till they are powerful enough to defeat them?

You know this is really the right question we should all be asking and, I admit, I've asked it of myself. Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer, but am interested in hearing everyone else's.

 

[KarinsDad]

Now, I will posit to you that what we’ve been discussing here for about 30 pages, or so, is the other side of that coin…where your character, weak (1st or 2nd lvl) and spent (fighting the whole night through and nothing left in the tank), must trudge out and hit the “I LOSE!” button.

I hate the "I LOSE" button.


(need to get me a tshirt)

 

[Iosue]

TL:dR – If you never liked the “I WIN” button, you shouldn’t have liked this encounter – ‘cause it’s the same thing.

My problem with that is that the actual situation is not so binary as I win vs I lose. I mean, the very title of this thread is "How we beat the Half-Dragon". So you'll have to forgive me if I'm skeptical of the "preordained to lose" argument. Nor do PCs even have to engage in the encounter. By the book, the DM should not punish the characters for not volunteering.

(On the flip side of this, we have the argument that the players themselves feel bad if they don't volunteer. But, by the same token, they don't then feel any joy or accomplishment by the sister and children being saved. Which makes no sense to me.)

Finally, even if a player volunteers, and even if he loses, what happens between those two points has meaning and interest. Just as an example, my character went out to fight Cyanwrath. He was given Bardic Inspiration. First up, Cyanwrath breathes on me. I have Shield Mastery so if I make the save, no damage. I rolled an 11, and everyone at the table thought I was done for. Then I tossed on the Bardic Inspiration and made it. The way we ended up imagining it was that from the perspective of everyone else, my character vanished in a flash of sustained lightning, until suddenly I stood up, my shield holding the lightning at bay. (Let's just assume cinematic physics.) After that, I knocked him down with my shield and hit him for some decent damage. On his next attack, he hit me and took me out.

So, yeah, my character volunteered to fight in a mismatch and lost. But what happened was not just that. There were moments of tension, moments of drama, moments of awesome. And ultimately the villagers were saved, which was a win in my personal book, since that's what I went out there for in the first place. Had Cyanwrath had no hostages, and was just calling out for a challenger to fight, I wouldn't have gone.

In the end, what we have is merely the situation: CR 4 Half-dragon calls out for a champion to fight for the lives of villagers. That's the long and the short of it. There is no plot point that hinges on the PCs doing one particular action. There are no designated Win or Lose conditions within the adventure. What happens next is entirely up to the characters, and the variations are near infinite.