D&D 5E June 17 Legend & Lore - Playtesting Dragons

[GX.Sigma]

Or you have a good dm who plays the dragon based on what it knows.

Except the fate points are a purely metagame mechanic which don't represent anything the dragon is thinking or doing.

 

[MortalPlague]

Except the fate points are a purely metagame mechanic which don't represent anything the dragon is thinking or doing.

They represent the sheer force of will such an ancient and powerful creature has, to be able to resist the effects of mortal magic that would render it helpless.

I have no problem with this.

 

[Warbringer]

Except the fate points are a purely metagame mechanic which don't represent anything the dragon is thinking or doing.

Agreed and an retrospective "explanation" feels clunky.

Of course, its alpha and the design team may build a better in game model for building these rather than a pure meta game design.

 

[billd91]

They represent the sheer force of will such an ancient and powerful creature has, to be able to resist the effects of mortal magic that would render it helpless.

I have no problem with this.

But that, of course, is a narrative element, not part of what the dragon is capable of conceiving. It's a DM token to play to prolong the dragon encounter, not something the dragon consciously activates. That's why it is a dissociated mechanic and part of the metagame. It may enable the DM to ensure the dragon does have the sheer durability it deserves, but I still hope these sorts of mechanics are relatively few as their use does pull the using party out of immersion. This is less of a problem for the DM than players since much of the DM's role in the game directly involves the metagame, but I still hope use is sparing.

 

[Raunalyn]

The problem here is more with the execution of the "Legendary" trait. That its a dragon as example is a coincidence.
WotCs idea of what defines a legendary creature shows to me that, again, its all about combat. A creature is legendary because it moves outside its turn?

This dragon has no ability to affect the outside besides combat, not even skills. Its writeup suggests that it exists purely to combat the PCs. The regional effects go into the right direction but I hardly call it a step. A small shuffle at most because it is a giant rule0 with no explanation how this happens and the effects are minor at best.
The small section about the personality also isn't much when you compare the writeup of dragons in previous editions, but that is a dragon thing.

You can of course say that for a playtest they limit the examples to the relevant information and you might be right (although, then why have they published the personality entry?) but to me this example shows that with 5E WotC again has very different priorities than I have.

Please keep in mind that this is a first draft. It's not final, it's subject to change, and it's clearly stated that the dragon was made to test the concept of what a legendary creature could do.

If a first draft offends you so much that you don't wish to purchase 5e, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Derren]

Please keep in mind that this is a first draft. It's not final, it's subject to change, and it's clearly stated that the dragon was made to test the concept of what a legendary creature could do.

If a first draft offends you so much that you don't wish to purchase 5e, then I don't know what to tell you.

Even a first draft shows the design philosophy of WotC/the design team. And no mater the iteration, that won't change.

 

[Ratskinner]

But that, of course, is a narrative element, not part of what the dragon is capable of conceiving. It's a DM token to play to prolong the dragon encounter, not something the dragon consciously activates. That's why it is a dissociated mechanic and part of the metagame. It may enable the DM to ensure the dragon does have the sheer durability it deserves, but I still hope these sorts of mechanics are relatively few as their use does pull the using party out of immersion. This is less of a problem for the DM than players since much of the DM's role in the game directly involves the metagame, but I still hope use is sparing.

Except the fate points are a purely metagame mechanic which don't represent anything the dragon is thinking or doing.

In this case, I disagree.

Firstly, I disagree that "metagame" mechanics are bad...I mean this game revolves around one called HP. That's a bigger argument, though.

More importantly for this discussion, I'm not sure these mechanics are metagame/dissociated. For instance, I didn't see where the writeup forbids you from narrating the dragon consciously reacting to a spell and brushing it aside, we're just told the mechanics, not the fiction. Remember that we're talking about a creature steeped in magic and capabilities beyond what even our stalwart adventurers usually deal with. If it wants to be more durable right now...or move faster...it has the juice to make that happen. We're even told specifically that "a black dragon can invoke the ambient magic around it to cause a number of effects" while its in its lair.

Which is not to say that the "Legendary Actions" mechanic couldn't be metagame. It just doesn't seem metagame in this instance. IMO.

 

[GX.Sigma]

More importantly for this discussion, I'm not sure these mechanics are metagame/dissociated.

From the article:

Due to their magical nature, dumb luck, or an innate resistance to magic, legendary creatures can mess with the dice and sometimes dictate outcomes. You can think of this as fate or the gods, in the form of the DM, intervening on the creature's behalf.

That's pretty much the definition of a metagame mechanic.

The more I think about this, the less I like it. It seems like the only purpose of the legendary mechanics is to make combat more tactical and take more time to resolve. That is literally the opposite of what I want in D&D.

 

[Ratskinner]

Well, I like the writeup in general. I can definitely see running this kind of thing. Obviously, they have some kinks to work out, but as a first run at it, I'm very encouraged.

I do hope that, whatever the final form of this sort of thing is, that we will have clear and concise rules or guidelines for generating or building our own.

 

[Ratskinner]

From the article: That's pretty much the definition of a metagame mechanic.

Nope:
magical nature - in fiction
dumb luck - in fiction (possibly lame, but still...)
innate resistance to magic - in fiction
fate or the gods intervening on the creature's behalf - still in fiction

The "in the form of the DM" part doesn't make them any more "dissociated" or "metagame" than if the article said something like "The monster, in the form of the DM, make an attack roll." I mean, of course, its "in the form of the DM" the DM has to do everything that isn't the characters.