D&D 5E The Larger Failure of "Tyranny of Dragons"

[Zardnaar]

I think very idea of "Adventure Paths" is a problem. The impose linearity on the story and force it to be a railroad. They suppose you finish adventure 1 at a certain place in order to be at the beginning of adventure 2. Which forces you to end at the right place to begin adventure 3, and so on.

And when books try to break away from this (I believe SKT is in this category, but I haven't read it) people complain about "unused content".

I much prefer to string together separate modules, with some kind of Arc Plot going on in the background. Then when players complete module 1, I can see where they want to go next, and depending on that they might go to module 2, or module B, or module W.

Thus, only WotC adventure books I have actually made significant use of are TftYP and GoS.

Yeah that's why I think it's so hard to have a truly great AP.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

At my table are people who have spent their careers (myself included) in emergency services. How many lives have you saved in RL? Babies delivered?

Assumptions are tricky things.

And people who aren't in the emergency services would like to pretend that they are doing heroic things. Not so difficult to understand, is it?

Some of us are playing a game, not telling stories. Because we have real lives with stories aplenty.

I think most people play D&D to tell stories. I know we do. After all, if you aren't interested in stories, why not play chess, or poker, or whatever? The stories are D&D's USP.

 

[Jd Smith1]

This doesn't seem a very plausible claim. Suppose my PC's goal is to convert a companion to his religion. Or to woo someone. Or to rescue someone. None of these outcomes is known in virtue of the fact that my PC won't die.

But the player knows his PC will live, and the campaign will continue. Meaning there will be other wooing, converting, or rescuing.

As per the Prince Valiant rulebook (p 26), "Normally death [of PCs] is not an important part of Prince Valiant." That doesn't mean that the players know the final outcome of everything they attempt. The action in our game is prety unpredictable. And the PCs do not always succeed - as in this report, for instance, during which the PCs found themselves unable to defend the true lord of a tower.

Prince Valiant? Well, who could possibly argue with a splatbook based on a comic book?

 

[Jd Smith1]

And people who aren't in the emergency services would like to pretend that they are doing heroic things. Not so difficult to understand, is it?

I tend to avoid people like that.

I think most people play D&D to tell stories. I know we do. After all, if you aren't interested in stories, why not play chess, or poker, or whatever? The stories are D&D's USP.

I do play chess and poker.

But I've never met many people who are trying to tell a story in an RPG, and I started in 1979. A few, sure, but they are usually not very interesting on any level.

I came to RPGs by way of wargaming (which is still a hobby of mine). I'm not interested in stories, but the tactical resolution of conflicts.

 

[Sadras]

But I've never met many people who are trying to tell a story in an RPG, and I started in 1979. A few, sure, but they are usually not very interesting on any level.

I came to RPGs by way of wargaming (which is still a hobby of mine). I'm not interested in stories, but the tactical resolution of conflicts.

Would it be fair to say you enjoy Tomb of Horrors (the original) styled games?

 

[Jd Smith1]

Would it be fair to say you enjoy Tomb of Horrors (the original) styled games?

No.

 

[pemerton]

So long as your PC makes it out alive, there'll be another job, another game session, more pay.

there’s always another job, you say, but you also say if they fail at the job, so what?

Seems contradictory.

If the PCs are invested in the job, then they’ll care about seeing it done. Whether it’s saving someone, or stopping a bad guy, or gaining revenge....whatever.

If they don’t care about the outcome, then sure, I suppose there’s no other risk for them.

The whole notion of the PCs underaking, and succeeding or failing at "the job", assumes the PCs are essentially mercenaries or treasure hunters. This is one way to play a RPG - Gygax gives excellent advice for it in his PHB, under the heading Successful Adventures - but obviously is not the only one.

But the player knows his PC will live, and the campaign will continue. Meaning there will be other wooing, converting, or rescuing.

I don't see any reason to think this is true. Maybe the campaign ends when the PCs fail! That would depend on a lot of details of any particular campaign.

And even if the campaign continues, maybe that PC never recovers from that particular failure.

The fact that the campaing may continue with something or other at stake doesn't show (i) that there are not stakes if the PCs aren't threatened with death, nor (ii) that the final outcome of every undertaking is known. Which are the two claims I was responding to.

Prince Valiant? Well, who could possibly argue with a splatbook based on a comic book?

Prince Valiant isn't a splatbook. It's a RPG designed in the late 80s by Greg Stafford. In my view it's Stafford's best RPG, though his own opinion was that Pendragon is his masterpiece. Regardless of whether or not it's Stafford's best, it's widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest RPGs ever designed.

The Prince Valiant comic plays little role in the RPG other than providing (i) lots of art and (ii) the basic setting (romantic Athurian Britain). I mention the game in this thread because it contradicts your claim that, if death is not at stake, then final outcomes are known. As I posted earlier, even in my D&D play experience the main stakes have not been whether or not the PCs live. For instance, in my 4e game the main concern of the PCs has been with various cosmological concerns (eg the fate of the Rod of Seven Parts; the possible onset of the Dusk War) and some of the PCs have also been concerned with ensuring the wellbeing of the mortal world.

EDIT for the sake of clarity:

I have no objection to D&D played as a wargame. It's an important part of D&D tradition. My objection is to claims that (for instance) nothing can be at stake if PC death is not at stake made as general claims about D&D play and RPGing. Because that sort of general claim is obviously false.

Perhaps Hoard of the Dragon Queen is not a good scenario for wargaming D&Ders. I don't know, having never played it, but maybe the use of the dragon in the opening scene isn't a good fit for that style. But that would not, in itself, show that it's a bad module.

 

[Sadras]

No.

Interesting, I do not believe I have come across any RPG player (including on these boards) who enjoys the game quite like you and your table do. To be honest I'm struggling to find the appeal for it, week after week, but that may be because I lack the wargaming background.
But even so, I view wargaming similar to chess = it is you against your mate (unless I'm mistaken). The dynamic in a RPG is very different where you have players and a DM.

 

[Jd Smith1]

The whole notion of the PCs underaking, and succeeding or failing at "the job", assumes the PCs are essentially mercenaries or treasure hunters. This is one way to play a RPG - Gygax gives excellent advice for it in his PHB, under the heading Successful Adventures - but obviously is not the only one.

It is how we play. And for us, the One True Way.

I don't see any reason to think this is true. Maybe the campaign ends when the PCs fail! That would depend on a lot of details of any particular campaign.

The campaign ends with a TPK, or the PCs retire. The latter usually takes 50-70 sessions.

And even if the campaign continues, maybe that PC never recovers from that particular failure.

Not at my table. I get a player who acts that way, they're gone.

Prince Valiant isn't a splatbook. It's a RPG designed in the late 80s by Greg Stafford. In my view it's Stafford's best RPG, though his own opinion was that Pendragon is his masterpiece. Regardless of whether or not it's Stafford's best, it's widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest RPGs ever designed.

Never heard of it.

 

[pemerton]

Interesting, I do not believe I have come across any RPG player (including on these boards) who enjoys the game quite like you and your table do. To be honest I'm struggling to find the appeal for it, week after week, but that may be because I lack the wargaming background.
But even so, I view wargaming similar to chess = it is you against your mate (unless I'm mistaken). The dynamic in a RPG is very different where you have players and a DM.

I can't speak for @Jd Smith1, but the idea of D&D-as-wargame is a pretty well-established one. And it doesn't involve any tension with the player/GM dynamic - it is a version of it. The GM establishes the "dungeon" - ie the site of the challenge - and the players try and beat it. The GM's job during play is to be a neutral arbiter.

I find it easy to imagine liking wargame style but disliking Tomb of Horrors (because it's too arbitrary) and also White Plume Mountain or Castle Amber (because too silly). I wouldn't be surprised if @Jd Smith1 likes the Desert of Desolation modules (Pharoah, Tomb of Martek, etc) but that's just conjecture based on the posts in this thread.