Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 6390598" data-attributes="member: 2011">It's not metagaing knowledge to say,  "We're inexperienced adventurers with limited martial skill and none of the truly potent magical spells, so we don't have a chance against the dragon.".Just like in the real world, people in this world would grow up with stories about the toughest predators around. People who grow up in some parts of the world know exactly how dangerous a lion is or a poisonous snake or whatever. Just like in the real world, inexperienced fighters would know about the skill set of and stories about experienced fighters.Are you claiming that you play a game of Dungeons and Dragons, and the PCs are not expected to know that Dragons are practically the epitome of monsters?Now this sounds like a contradiction.Because the authors wrote that it is expected to NOT attack the dragon in one module and TO attack the dragon in another module, the players are supposed to somehow know which to do in each case.Say what?That really sounds like metagaming knowledge.And actually, I think you are misremembering. There is nothing on page 32/33 about the PCs not being expected to attack the green dragon. There is only a blurb on him running away at half hit points. There is also a PC background expectation where the one PC is encouraged to attack the dragon. And on page 32, Reidoth specifically asks the PCs to drive off the dragon. On page 31, he warns the PCs of all of the threats in the ruined town (not just the dragon) and suggests that they leave before they get killed.The module encourages the PCs to attack the dragon which is basically suicidal because a single breath weapon should either kill or knock out most third level PCs in round one. Does it really make sense for the dragon to not use his breath weapon in a fight?In both of these modules, the PCs are expected to attack the dragon. In the first module, the game designers attempt to mitigate the number of TPKs at gaming tables by having the dragon run away, regardless of whether that makes sense. For example, say that there is one PC left standing and the dragon gets to half hit points, why wouldn't he just finish off the last PC? That way, he doesn't have to give up his lair and his treasure (and might gain treasure from the dead PCs).In the second module, the dragon is not really supposed to attack the PCs (especially with his breath weapon). But the dragon has no qualms about attacking NPCs. Does that really sound logical? No. It's a plot point that is written in one specific way so that a specific thing does not happen (i.e. the PCs dying).Your entire premise about it being ok to attack a dragon is based on the fact that you know that the author of the module in both cases tries to mitigate a TPK.PCs shouldn't know this, but they should know that they don't really stand a chance against a dragon.But you are justifying your POV by claiming that PCs should not know that Dragons are one of the deadliest threats known to a campaign world society.</blockquote>

Verification