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

[Sacrosanct]

Yes. Stories. Things written down where the outcome is pre-decided.

You seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between stories and shared storytelling..

And you seem to have difficulty understanding the value and logic of what having impossible odds in an RPG can bring to the RPG experience. Judging by your responses so far in this thread, the entire concept seems completely alien to you how an impossible odds foe could even exist in an RPG, let alone provide value to the gaming experience. You seem to want every single fight/potential fight to be a winnable one. Good for you. But you need to understand that many people do not share that opinion, so I'd kindly ask you to refrain from the hyperbolic complaints as if they are objective fact. I certainly don't want to give my PCs the expectation that they can beat every combat encounter with powers on a character sheet. I find that breeds complacency because they no longer worry about ever being overmatched, and it stifles creativity because they take the path of least resistance (defined PC powers) rather than think of more creative ways to overcome the opponent. Sure that's anecdotal, but I don't think I'm alone in this observation.

I literally just got done showing you one way (of many) that going against impossible odds can add value and enjoyment to a game. There are many other items of value such an encounter could bring (setting up a big fight later, preventing the PCs from doing something they shouldn't be, etc).

 

[Derren]

And you seem to have difficulty understanding the value and logic of what having impossible odds in an RPG can bring to the RPG experience. Judging by your responses so far in this thread, the entire concept seems completely alien to you how an impossible odds foe could even exist in an RPG, let alone provide value to the gaming experience. You seem to want every single fight/potential fight to be a winnable one.

No, but when the PCs meet an impossible enemy it should be because of their actions and not because it was scripted. Likewise, when the players decide to fight against impossible odds (decide, not being forced to by a railroad adventure unless the situation warrants it) and fail, they should face realistic consequences instead of just a slap on the wrist because they were scripted to fail anyway.

 

[Iosue]

On the other hand, it did take you 8 paragraphs to rationalize the encounter.

However your mileage may vary on the encounter itself (personally, I had an absolute ball, and my character was the one beaten down), I have to take exception with this comment. In the end, all we are doing when we play RPGs is using weighted random number generators to build narratives. So, if giving motivations to NPCs action is "rationalization", then nothing in the game is more than that. @DEFCON 1 gave one possible motivation for an NPC, and out of consideration for his audience (the readers of this forum), he did it with descriptive prose. All that could easily be communicated in-game as,

"The Half-Dragon follows up his vicious attack with a final blow to his downed foe. Then he takes his spear, looks out over the field and keep with what seems to be an expression of ennui, shakes his head in disappointment, and turns away with a sigh."

And it's just one way of looking at it. As I see it, in the game of Cyanwrath's life*, all NPCs and monsters die when they reach zero hit points. Especially the ones he one-shots. NPCs with the ability to come back after three saves are rare and off-putting. So he kills his foe and then adds a needless parting shot out of spite. Why wouldn't he? 99% of the people he's killed have died at zero hit points. How many PCs repeatedly hit downed goblins to make sure they fail their death saves? Cyanwrath's fatal flaw is that he doesn't realize he's the NPC in this game. But he'll realize it the next time he meets my character...

*Probably called "Hill-towns & Halflings".

 

[KarinsDad]

However your mileage may vary on the encounter itself (personally, I had an absolute ball, and my character was the one beaten down), I have to take exception with this comment. In the end, all we are doing when we play RPGs is using weighted random number generators to build narratives. So, if giving motivations to NPCs action is "rationalization", then nothing in the game is more than that. @DEFCON 1 gave one possible motivation for an NPC, and out of consideration for his audience (the readers of this forum), he did it with descriptive prose. All that could easily be communicated in-game as,

"The Half-Dragon follows up his vicious attack with a final blow to his downed foe. Then he takes his spear, looks out over the field and keep with what seems to be an expression of ennui, shakes his head in disappointment, and turns away with a sigh."

Could be communicated. With a good DM. With a good DM that realizes that it's important to hand some of the HD's rationalization to the PCs.

But in reality, this information probably will not be communicated at most tables.

That's the problem with rationalizations. It's armchair quarterbacking after the fact.


And seriously, I'm glad some players had a ball with that encounter. Not everyone enjoys the same brand of tea. I have to wonder, however, if players whose PC who took 2 hours to create dies from this forced scripted encounter always feel the same way as you do.

Dying from this guy in a duel would be like falling into a 100 foot pit trap at level 2. Really unsatisfying. Yeah, there is that little bit of him keeping his word and saving a no name villager, but meh.

If my PC dies, I want it to mean something real, not be a stupid duel that was shoved down my throat. And for players of certain melee PCs, that's how it might feel.

 

[Iosue]

Could be communicated. With a good DM. With a good DM that realizes that it's important to hand some of the HD's rationalization to the PCs.

But in reality, this information probably will not be communicated at most tables.

That's the problem with rationalizations. It's armchair quarterbacking after the fact.

No, the rationalizations are the DM's basic job. It doesn't take a "good" DM to realize, "The adventure's a little skimpy on why this happening. I'll need to interpret this a little more clearly in the game."

And this isn't even rationalization after the fact. The adventure is quite explicit about Cyanwrath's motivations. Failure to communicate those is indeed a failure of DMing.

And seriously, I'm glad some players had a ball with that encounter. Not everyone enjoys the same brand of tea. I have to wonder, however, if players whose PC who took 2 hours to create dies from this forced scripted encounter always feel the same way as you do.

Always? Most certainly not. Different strokes for different folks. But probably the majority. As DEFCON 1 mentioned, players have a choice here. I suspect most players who choose to answer the challenge feel it's worth it. It's something they want to do. If the situation was one where the woman and children would die if a PC didn't step up, yeah, I'd probably feel it was forced. But it's the players' choice to go, and they have a good chance of survival, so I think it works.

If my PC dies, I want it to mean something real, not be a stupid duel that was shoved down my throat. And for players of certain melee PCs, that's how it might feel.

My PC died* for something real. A family was safely reunited. Much more satisfying than dying to a lucky crit by an orc in a sidequest.

*He got better.

 

[Jester David]

If my PC dies, I want it to mean something real, not be a stupid duel that was shoved down my throat. And for players of certain melee PCs, that's how it might feel.

Did your DM force you to fight in the duel?
If yes, then your problem is your DM. If no, then it wasn't forced down your throat. The situation was presented and you choose to accept the duel rather than let another PC volunteer or turn your back on the captives.

 

[Jester David]

No, but when the PCs meet an impossible enemy it should be because of their actions and not because it was scripted. Likewise, when the players decide to fight against impossible odds (decide, not being forced to by a railroad adventure unless the situation warrants it) and fail, they should face realistic consequences instead of just a slap on the wrist because they were scripted to fail anyway.

In a published adventure everything is scripted. If you want to escape that, don't play published modules.

And the players very much did have a choice in the example encounter. They had lots of choices. They were never forced into the duel.
Just because the alternative wasn't happy doesn't negate the choice. If the choice is an unwinnable fight or nothing of consequence, what incentive is there to try the impossible fight or make the sacrifice?
If the stakes are irrelevant the game has no drama. If there's no danger, no chance of failure or consequences for your actions, then your successes don't matter either, as they have not been earned.
Anyone can "win" if you hand them a victory.

 

[fanboy2000]

To me... yeah, it's introducing a recurring villain, but I don't find it heavy-handed.

FWIW, he's not that much of a recurring villain. As scripted/intended he shows up at the end of Episode One, fights a PC, and goes off with the rest of the raiding party. His appearance in Episode Two is almost entirely up to the DM. In Episode Three, he's one of the Monsters/NPCs you fight in the dungeon and it's assumed you defeat him. The adventure has Eight Episodes.

I'm DMing the adventure for my FLGS's Encounters sessions. When I read it in preparing for the adventure, I was livid. I hated it with a blind seething passion typically reserved for Microsoft Products. (Sorry, I had to install Window's 8.1 on my laptop recently, I'm still sore....)

Anyways, I talked to a friend about my problems with the adventure. His advice for the Cyanwrath (hate the encounter, love the name..."green-blue wrath" ha ha!) was to establish Cyanwarth as a big bad guy prior to the encounter. So, at least it wouldn't seem so out of the blue (I just go that...) and dumb.

So that's what I did. The PCs were coming back from the Mill and I decided that, while they were sneaking, they'd come upon the prisoners from later on being taken to Cyanwrath and we'd have him established. Well, one of the PCs use the fact that they were hiding to take out the guys with the prisoners. This turned into a surprised round, which turned into a full combat. Cyanwrath rolled poorly and was badly damaged when he finally took his turn, where he dropped two PCs to 0 hp. Awesome! The PCs managed to overcome him.

But you know what the best part was? They hadn't fulfilled the prisoner mission yet. They used Cyanwrath to fulfill the prisoner mission! Roleplaying him was fun.

 

[Cyberen]

... and with all due respect, Karinsdad, Occam's razor should give you pause. You haven't read the adventure, your DM is in highschool, and you blame the designer rather than the DM for your bland experience.
What your DM seem to have been doing with gusto is rolling with your plan of teaching the HD some respect. On the other hand, she seems to have trouble adjusting to 6 PCs (the adventure is assuming 4 PCs, hence the cakewalk), conveying the NPCs motivation, or coming with a sound tactical setup fot the rearguard at night. Maybe you should refrain your criticism of something you don't experience directly.
And it makes perfect sense the dragon doesn't kill everyone. The goal is quiet plunder, not destruction, and wanton killing would sooner than later be met with serious retaliation... even if I think DL1 kickoff, "dragonarmies have burnt our pub !" is far superior to this "Tiamat tax collectors" nonsense

 

[Tommy Brownell]

And seriously, I'm glad some players had a ball with that encounter. Not everyone enjoys the same brand of tea. I have to wonder, however, if players whose PC who took 2 hours to create dies from this forced scripted encounter always feel the same way as you do.

Holy crap. It didn't take two hours to create the whole group in 5e...and that was with one shared Player's Handbook.

I would have hid the books and ran Savage Worlds if it took one player that long.