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

[Umbran]

I said that without the possibility of PC deaths, there was no drama, no stakes, no tension. The GM is just telling a story, and the players are an audience.

So, why do you think that, without the possibility of death, the GM is just telling a story?

You seem to be linking the concept of PC mortality with PC decisions having impact on the narrative. Do you actually think that, if the PCs cannot die, the GM is personally determining all results in the game?

 

[dave2008]

I said that without the possibility of PC deaths, there was no drama, no stakes, no tension. The GM is just telling a story, and the players are an audience.

That is a pretty limited interpretation of what creates drama, stakes, and tension. I have a hard time believing that is what you truly believe. I get that the threat of death makes all of those easy to develop, but there are a lot of more nuanced ways to achieve them IMO.

To be clear, I personally do not use kid gloves with my PCs. If they do something silly, they could die. However, my players know this and rarely put their characters in situations were they don't have a significantly greater than 50% chance of survival.

 

[dave2008]

Pretty much. @Jd Smith1 really seems to want to die on the hill of "There are no stakes unless PCs can die."

To be fair, I think @Jd Smith1 is arguing there are not stakes unless there is a threat of PC death. It is a slight and subtle difference, but one I think is important. I understand the viewpoint, but it is a bit reductive / simplistic for my gaming tastes.

 

[dave2008]

I'm not much of a movie watcher anymore. You don't see a plot twist in many major productions. Interstellar certainly was no shocker.

IMO, plot twist movies are some of the worst. It can be done well, but often it is a gimmick with little to no value. I would rather have a good engaging story than a silly plot twist any day.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That is a pretty limited interpretation of what creates drama, stakes, and tension. I have a hard time believing that is what you truly believe. I get that the threat of death makes all of those easy to develop, but there are a lot of more nuanced ways to achieve them IMO.

To be clear, I personally do not use kid gloves with my PCs. If they do something silly, they could die. However, my players know this and rarely put their characters in situations were they don't have a significantly greater than 50% chance of survival.

I generally don’t pull punches in most games, though I also don’t go out of the way to try and kill PCs either.

But I think it also depends on the game, both the desired vibe and the rules system. I’ve played some intense games of Tales From The Loop, a game in which the PCs are pre-teen kids in the 80s and the rules say that they cannot die. But at no point do I feel like those games devolve into simply being the GM telling the players a story.

Nor do I really think that anyone familiar with this hobby would see it that way either.

 

[generic]

I agree with @Urriak Uruk. I dislike @Jd Smith1's style of gameplay, quite a lot, actually. I find it reductive, and kind of boring.

But.

What I think about @Jd Smith1's game doesn't matter. If he's having fun, and his players are having fun, they're playing the game correctly.

This isn't a competitive card game, it's D&D.

 

[pemerton]

You could say the same about the sunken city in DL1.

Sure. I don't think I've ever read DL1 (I know I've never played it) but I might well say the same.

It's hard to find a really clear contrast in the D&D ouvre, but maybe the first half at least of the 3E module Speaker in Dreams.

Compare to White Plume Mountain.

S2 is clearly more crazy than Pharoah. I'm not sure it's more wargamey than the pyramid dungeon, though.

 

[pemerton]

without the possibility of PC deaths, there was no drama, no stakes, no tension. The GM is just telling a story, and the players are an audience.

This claim is not true.

In terms of action resolution, you die is just one possible consequence - one change in the fiction, perhaps with mechanical ramifications - arising from the resolution process. Stated in such bare terms we can't even tell if it's success or failure.

Whatever it is that makes the resolution process resulting in you die something different from the GM is just telling a story, and the players are the audeince can be incorporate into resolution processes that produce other consequences.

 

[pemerton]

I said that I wouldn't kill PCs for doing something stupidly heroic. It's a slight exaggeration, dice being what they are, but I would certainly try not to kill them.

I think this post is suggestive of a weakness in Hoard of the Dragon Queen, namely, that it needs some sort of device or technique for making the threat of the dragon background but not foreground/the immediate opposition for the PCs. But D&D doesn't really have any such device or techique other than GM fiat and/or fudging of dice rolls.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think this post is suggestive of a weakness in Hoard of the Dragon Queen, namely, that it needs some sort of device or technique for making the threat of the dragon background but not foreground/the immediate opposition for the PCs. But D&D doesn't really have any such device or techique other than GM fiat and/or fudging of dice rolls.

It is something that’s cited as a weakness of the opening scenario of Hoard of the Dragon Queen. It’s far from perfect, but there are ways to make it work. The suggested way is to allow the PCs to attack the dragon from range from the top of the keep, and if they can inflict a certain amount of HP in damage, the dragon flees. It’s not necessarily the most satisfying encounter, and perhaps it paints dragons as weak, but the presentation matters.

The DM who ran it for me as a player really played up the dragon as a bully....confident and capable when there was no resistance, but once someone managed to hurt him, he retreated. I was impressed with how this worked in play.

Of course, the book also provides something like 15 encounters for the opening section, and says that a DM should pick the ones that work for his group and running them all is likely too much....so if the dragon encounter didn’t work for a group, the DM could simply have the beast fly off as the PCs are arriving, and that encounter could be avoided.

From what I’ve seen, many DMs can’t seem to help themselves and they choose to run that encounter despite the fact that they’re critical of it.