D&D 5E When an entire campaign comes down to one roll

[Maxperson]

I think the idiot deserved to die. But the person asking for mercy shouldn't have had to roll anything. At worst the result of that roll should have decided the fate of the rogue.

Beyond that the details are a little light. From what I can tell it's not that "the party" attacked or antagonized the dragon, it was one individual who apparently had a death wish.

Guilt by association. If it hadn't been a drow, I wouldn't have quite as strong of an opinion about what the dragon did. If a player chooses to play a race with the evil reputation of the drow, and the party lets that drow in, it will have a negative effect on things. Good people don't associate with evil drow. Evil ones do. Once the drow acted in the manner it did, confirming through his actions that he is evil, the dragon was free to act in the manner it did. Perception is greater than reality and the perception of the dragon about the evil drow taints the rest of the party and its perception of them.

Last, but not least, people play for a lot of different reasons. In this scenario, if I were DM the dragon would have ignored the plea and killed the rogue. After that? He'd let the party decide what they were going to do now that the nuisance was taken care of.

For me, if the rogue hadn't been a drow I would have done that.

On the other hand if the group had fun, it's the right DM for that group.

Agreed/

 

[Oofta]

Guilt by association. If it hadn't been a drow, I wouldn't have quite as strong of an opinion about what the dragon did. If a player chooses to play a race with the evil reputation of the drow, and the party lets that drow in, it will have a negative effect on things. Good people don't associate with evil drow. Evil ones do. Once the drow acted in the manner it did, confirming through his actions that he is evil, the dragon was free to act in the manner it did. Perception is greater than reality and the perception of the dragon about the evil drow taints the rest of the party and its perception of them.



For me, if the rogue hadn't been a drow I would have done that.


Agreed/

Well, there is a reason I don't allow drow in my campaign. But I have no idea what setting this is or what the attitude is concerning drow.

Lots of unknowns here, just saying how I've handled sort-of-similar situations in the past.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Your backstory on what happened before that roll indicated that there was at least one bad choice by the rogue in antagonizing the dragon by using it's real name.

while a poor choice, and we told her to stop, that wasn’t really an action that supports “the players deserved to die because they made bad choices” as claimed above. Or does a person deserve to die any time they irritate someone else in your eyes?

 

[prabe]

while a poor choice, and we told her to stop, that wasn’t really an action that supports “the players deserved to die because they made bad choices” as claimed above. Or does a person deserve to die any time they irritate someone else in your eyes?

Maybe not just any "someone else," but maybe a dragon ...

The whole thing reads to me like a combination of questionable player/character choices, possibly dubious DMing (though YMMV on that), and dice cacking. My impression is that y'all had fun, so no one was doing anything wrong, exactly.

 

[Krachek]

DmG page 236. the role of dice.
interesting reading for this thread.

 

[DND_Reborn]

DmG page 236. the role of dice.
interesting reading for this thread.

Yep. This gets to my point about how the encounter could have been nothing but a role-playing scene, not a roll-playing scene.

There is no real change such a party would have defeated a CR 17 creature (without help anyway). From the info provided, I just don't see it happening.

 

[prabe]

Yep. This gets to my point about how the encounter could have been nothing but a role-playing scene, not a roll-playing scene.

There is no real change such a party would have defeated a CR 17 creature (without help anyway). From the info provided, I just don't see it happening.

That's kinda the locus of my feeling the DMing was dubious here. It might have been intended as generosity (you've been pissing off the dragon, let's see if you can unpiss it off) but I think I'd be inclined not to call for a roll in that case. Maybe to see how much it cost the party to avoid the fight, but probably not with "fighting the monster way above their pay grade" as the fail state.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

That's kinda the locus of my feeling the DMing was dubious here. It might have been intended as generosity (you've been pissing off the dragon, let's see if you can unpiss it off) but I think I'd be inclined not to call for a roll in that case. Maybe to see how much it cost the party to avoid the fight, but probably not with "fighting the monster way above their pay grade" as the fail state.

you may be onto something here - something which occurs when ability check stakes are not clear and/or assumed.

If, as DM, a player has told me what their PC wants to do and how they go about it, I tell the player the difficulty class and what failure looks like before they choose to roll. In this case, there is a chance to succeed, a chance to fail, and a meaningful consequence of that failure so calling for a roll is appropriate. The player can then make an informed decision to roll the ability check or have their PC rethink the strategy.

 

[jasper]

They also aren't merciless, raging, murder-hobos. By its very definition, "kind and forgiving" sort of go hand-in-hand with "good", especially lawful good.

How does the dragon know what level the pcs are? Was that an arrow of dragon slaying that just missed?
As a DM I think I killed a pc who ticked off the dragon in this hardcover. Attacking a dragon is mistake. If you come out with it with your lives, your dm is being nice.

 

[prabe]

If, as DM, a player has told me what their PC wants to do and how they go about it, I tell the player the difficulty class and what failure looks like before they choose to roll. In this case, there is a chance to succeed, a chance to fail, and a meaningful consequence of that failure so calling for a roll is appropriate. The player can then make an informed decision to roll the ability check or have their PC rethink the strategy.

To be clear, it's possible the DM in this case made the stakes perfectly clear. I just think I might have had different stakes, if I'd called for a roll.