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

[pemerton]

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.

I can see that. Given what you know about my RPGing preferences, you can probably appreciate that I personally would be a little dissatisfied with the thinness of D&D mechanics for resolving this other than via GM fiat. But I don't think it adds anything to the thread to take that issue any further.

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.

I think this is highly relevant to the thread. It raises questions about what is the proper approach to module content and also what sort of GM psychology should designers presuppose when writing modules.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I can see that. Given what you know about my RPGing preferences, you can probably appreciate that I personally would be a little dissatisfied with the thinness of D&D mechanics for resolving this other than via GM fiat. But I don't think it adds anything to the thread to take that issue any further.

Yeah, that’s really what it would boil down to. The dragon flees because we know it’s supposed to, not because of any game mechanic. Like I said, my DM made it more palatable. The other players seemed to accept it. I was familiar with the book, so I knew what was going on, but I have to say it played better than I’d have thought.

I think this is highly relevant to the thread. It raises questions about what is the proper approach to module content and also what sort of GM psychology should designers presuppose when writing modules.

Yeah, I think that’s a really big part of it. Hoard had its work cut out for it because it was being developed as the rules were changing during playtest. In my opinion, that shows, and I can understand some of the criticisms in that regard. But I do feel that the team offered guidance for DMs, and the community has since done even more.

 

[Umbran]

This claim is not true.

The claim is not generally true. Jd Smith1 sometimes states things as if his own mode of play is the only one.

However.. for his group, it could be true in the only sense that really matters.

In terms of action resolution, you die is just one possible consequence

Let us differentiate, for a moment, between "consequence" and "consequence that the players give two whits about" - there may be consequences, but whether those consequences are meaningful to the players is the issue at hand.

If they are a bunch of muderhobos, with nothing they care much about other than their own skins, who respond to any setback or loss with "shrug Easy come, easy go. Sure, I liked that NPC, but... there'll be another next week," then what Jd Smith1 says can be accurate as far as it goes - for them, nothing but death is a meaningful consequence.

 

[pemerton]

The claim is not generally true.

I think it's pretty clear that it is the general claim that I am responding to. Eg:

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.

Jd Smith1 sometimes states things as if his own mode of play is the only one.

However.. for his group, it could be true in the only sense that really matters.

Sure. But if someone who is not Jd Smith1 posts about a certain approach to PC death, and then gets a reply of They're not stakes at all, since you're the kind of GM who won't kill PCs (actual quote) then how is one supposed to take that except as a general claim? It's certainly not a comment on Jd Smith1's game or group.

And as a general claim (or even a generalisation of tendency among RPG players) it's false.

Let us differentiate, for a moment, between "consequence" and "consequence that the players give two whits about" - there may be consequences, but whether those consequences are meaningful to the players is the issue at hand.

Yes. I think I already knew this. My point is that it is not true (in general, or even in the typical case) that RPGers - even D&Ders - don't care about consequences other than PC death. Nor is it true (in general, ori n the typical case) that those other consequences can or will be meaningful only if there is a background understanding that PC death is on the table as a possibility.

You post as if you're disagreeing with me but as far as I can see all you're doing is reiterating points I've already made upthread.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

Not everyone playes D&D as a wargame in the way you describe in this post. And there is no rule in 5e D&D that requires any player to start any particular PC at any particular level.

I always begin new PCs at the start of a campaign at 3rd to 5th level depending on the type of game I want to run. When the PCs die - and they do die in my games - I let the new character start at the same level as the deceased character. I use milestone levelling. It all works out very well, my players have accepted that death could happen but I'm not going to penalise them for starting a new character.

 

[Gradine]

Longing for the days when this thread was a tedious rehash of endless arguments over Hoard of the Dragon Queen and not a tedious rehash of endless pointless arguments over play styles.

 

[Jd Smith1]

That’s wrong. There can be all of those things wether PC death is possible or not.

And I don’t know if I’ve misinterpreted anything...it’s certainly possible. The above comments again seem fairly contradictory. It’s also possible you’ve been unclear.

But we’re not going to get anywhere discussing it are we?

I'm not going to change my mind. You might see the light, but I doubt it.

 

[Jd Smith1]

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?

If the GM is not letting the dice and rules determine the effects of combat, then yes, the GM is just telling a story.

 

[Jd Smith1]

The claim is not generally true. Jd Smith1 sometimes states things as if his own mode of play is the only one.

However.. for his group, it could be true in the only sense that really matters.

Let us differentiate, for a moment, between "consequence" and "consequence that the players give two whits about" - there may be consequences, but whether those consequences are meaningful to the players is the issue at hand.

If they are a bunch of muderhobos, with nothing they care much about other than their own skins, who respond to any setback or loss with "shrug Easy come, easy go. Sure, I liked that NPC, but... there'll be another next week," then what Jd Smith1 says can be accurate as far as it goes - for them, nothing but death is a meaningful consequence.

Very well said!

They fall short of being murderhobos because I don't give Honor (xp) for kills, and they are big on investment and development, but they do not take the failure of a scenario to heart. As you noted, so long as they survive, there's always another job.

Everyone in my group is at least one of: veterans, emergency services, or corrections. Thus we all accept that things do not always go as planned, and to take the long view.

 

[pemerton]

If the GM is not letting the dice and rules determine the effects of combat, then yes, the GM is just telling a story.

Has anyone in this thread disagreed with this, or said anything that makes it relevant?

In most versions of D&D there is no rule - dice-based or otherwise - that determines when or who a blue dragon attacks. A GM who decides that the blue dragon in HotDQ doen't attack the PCs - eg as per @hawkeyefan's actual play report not too far upthread - is not breaking any rule nor ignoring any dice.

And that's before we get to various options (which have existed since Gygax canvassed it in his DMG) in which zero hp doesn't necessarily mean dead or dying but can correlate to some other sort of incapacity or inability to continue to prosecute the fight.