D&D 5E (2014) The Larger Failure of "Tyranny of Dragons"

[Jd Smith1]

This thread has become 'Your way of playing is BadWrongFun!!!'

Nah. It's just a little bit of playing the dozens.

No one is going to change their style, and no one cares what's happening at tables they wouldn't ever be invited to.

 

[Sadras]

No one is going to change their style, and no one cares what's happening at tables they wouldn't ever be invited to.

I dunno about that, I'd be happy to play with others who play with different goals or different styles of playing.
And your Obsidian Page looks good.

EDIT: I think exposure to various styles/techniques is great for the game - you get to enrich your own group's table with what you may borrow/steal from others.

 

[5ekyu]

I didn’t forget to take away player agency.

Earlier, in this thread, wasnt it you who expressed this which seemed to be an example of a problem with the adventure?

Literally my first experience with Hoard...
First text box in the book: “Players [1st level], you approach a city that has an adult blue dragon attacking.”
PCs: “Nope.”
DM: “Um, okay, then the campaign is over.”

So, these seem to conflict slightly, to me at least.

You consider the PCs deciding to go do something else a campaign ending issue while at the same time not choosing to step on their player agency by starting them in a different part where things are already in media res?

Did you (or the GM if it was not you) tie the PCs to the events beforehand, so that there were in character reasons for them to value going to that city and helping?

Looking to be supporting player agency and also "you dont make certain choices and I decide the campaign is over" seem to be more or less opposites of each other.

Appendix A gives a list of some elements that might be good for linking in Greenrest (or anytown) to a PC at the start. Others are easy enough to divine once you have the actual PCs and see what plot hooks they provide the GM to draw on.

 

[billd91]

So, these seem to conflict slightly, to me at least.

You consider the PCs deciding to go do something else a campaign ending issue while at the same time not choosing to step on their player agency by starting them in a different part where things are already in media res?

Did you (or the GM if it was not you) tie the PCs to the events beforehand, so that there were in character reasons for them to value going to that city and helping?

Looking to be supporting player agency and also "you dont make certain choices and I decide the campaign is over" seem to be more or less opposites of each other.

No conflict as far as I'm concerned.
DM: "You guys up for a Tyranny of Dragons campaign?"
Players: "Yeah!"
First text box in the book: “Players [1st level], you approach a city that has an adult blue dragon attacking.”
PCs: “Nope.”
... To me that kind of says they aren't so keen on playing the campaign they agreed to play and, as DM, I've prepared. That's a back to the drawing board kind of moment.

If people plan to play Monopoly and when the time comes to roll the dice the players use their agency to say "Nope" then that kind of says "We aren't playing Monopoly." This isn't any different. Different would be, "Ok, now that we see it's being attacked by a blue dragon... let's find a place to hole up for a while, observe, and make sure we aren't approaching openly." That's using agency in a positive way to do something different from the straight boxed text while still saying they still want to play.

 

[jayoungr]

Literally my first experience with Hoard...
First text box in the book: “Players [1st level], you approach a city that has an adult blue dragon attacking.”
PCs: “Nope.”
DM: “Um, okay, then the campaign is over.”

And you just left it there? I can think of a few ways of still getting into the adventure after that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nah. It's just a little bit of playing the dozens.
No one is going to change their style,

True. OK, probably true, at least in the near term.

...and no one cares what's happening at tables they wouldn't ever be invited to.

Strangely, not true, as the edition war proved, the very thought that someone, somewhere, may be playing an official version of D&D you disapprove of is intolerable to some.

 

[billd91]

And you just left it there? I can think of a few ways of still getting into the adventure after that.

That's a question for plisnithus8 since it's his example.

 

[Umbran]

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

And if the rules say that character death isn't going to happen?

 

[jayoungr]

That's a question for plisnithus8 since it's his example.

Yep, I had just noticed that and was on my way to edit my post, but you beat me to it!

 

[Umbran]

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.

I post as if I am disagreeing with the choice of discussing the point in this manner. He states things as generalizations when they don't hold, has stated that he doesn't actually care what anyone thinks, and isn't going to change his mind.

The approach you are then taking to the topic is kinda doomed, is all.