D&D 5E Why is Hoard of the Dragon Queen such a bad adventure?

[KarinsDad]

It's a dragon.

If I had players that didn't know what a dragon was I would explain it to them (or actually, the other players would explain to them how scary they are).

I have never played with a group that would even contemplate taking on a dragon at that power level.

Different strokes I guess.

Precisely. Hence the reason in our group, we did not ever want to go to the town of Greenest (and hence the reason for part of this thread).

IT'S A DRAGON!!!!

 

[Schmoe]

It's a dragon.

If I had players that didn't know what a dragon was I would explain it to them (or actually, the other players would explain to them how scary they are).

I have never played with a group that would even contemplate taking on a dragon at that power level.

Different strokes I guess.

Yeah, I'm somewhat surprised about the reactions to this encounter. Maybe it's because people become used to playing a certain way, and they have certain expectations. Anecdotally, I've been introducing my son to D&D, and it's interesting because he doesn't come with any preconceived notions about how the game is supposed to go. When I describe something scary, his first inclination is to run away. It's refreshing, actually.

 

[ad_hoc]

Precisely. Hence the reason in our group, we did not ever want to go to the town of Greenest (and hence the reason for part of this thread).

IT'S A DRAGON!!!!

I think ideally the dragon shows up after the characters get to the keep (not how it is written I know).

Even still, circumstances can be set up where the characters need to reach the keep to get shelter.

Maintaining urgency, pacing and motivation are key jobs for the DM.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think ideally the dragon shows up after the characters get to the keep (not how it is written I know).

Even still, circumstances can be set up where the characters need to reach the keep to get shelter.

Maintaining urgency, pacing and motivation are key jobs for the DM.

Unfortunately, our DM described the encounter straight out of the book and showed us the picture. Our DM is young and inexperienced (having probably 10 or 15 sessions or so under her belt before starting the 5E campaign), but even so, isn't the idea of 5E to get new DMs and new players without the hassle of obvious problems creeping in? Isn't the purpose of the flagship adventure to make new players go "Wow!" instead of "Oops"?

Yes, the DM can try things to force the situation if the players balk at the overall adventure, but s/he shouldn't have to (and new DMs might not know how). The dragon should not have showed up in the module until after the PCs reach the town, and even then, the dragon and PCs should never fight. The whole "an encounter with basically plot immunity" stuff is pretty lame.

 

[ad_hoc]

Unfortunately, our DM described the encounter straight out of the book and showed us the picture. Our DM is young and inexperienced (having probably 10 or 15 sessions or so under her belt before starting the 5E campaign), but even so, isn't the idea of 5E to get new DMs and new players without the hassle of obvious problems creeping in? Isn't the purpose of the flagship adventure to make new players go "Wow!" instead of "Oops"?

Sure, it isn't perfect. There are problems with it. It could have had better editing and such.

I think the idea of the scenario is a good one.

I also like the idea of having a monster that could destroy them around at level 1 is a good one. It sets the tone and lets them know that they can't just kill everything.

I actually think that a lot of effort was put into getting old players back into D&D with 5e.

It could be that the Starter Set was for new players and this was for experienced ones.

The aim should still be that anyone can run it of course but I just don't think it's that bad.

 

[Rhenny]

It sets the tone and lets them know that they can't just kill everything.

I actually think that a lot of effort was put into getting old players back into D&D with 5e.

Yes...this is it. The adventure has a pretty dire, almost fatalistic tone. It is a throwback to old D&D.

Some people will like that tone. Others, not so much.

 

[MoutonRustique]

Yes...this is it. The adventure has a pretty dire, almost fatalistic tone. It is a throwback to old D&D.

Some people will like that tone. Others, not so much.

For me, it's sending warning bells that we're heading back to having players use 10' poles to probe each and every stone - that sort of "smart play in stupid situations" and "gotcha!" that always felt built upon "old-console-video-game"* principals

*I'm not really referring to video games per say. I'm referring to a system where you are expected to have play-troughs to learn about the different dangers : don't touch that door (you die). Run trough this corridor (or you die).

My experience of old-school D&D is of knowledge that comes from meta-game considerations earned through character "try and die" (as opposed to try and fail). The most painful parts were witnessing the attempts at justifying actions counter to character motivations that were required to "win" the dungeon... bad times...

I really, really don't understand the appeal of "old-school" - I must be missing something pretty big, because a good many people can't seem to stop praising it (and often for encouraging a playstyle that I found it to prohibit... )

 

[Sailor Moon]

For me, it's sending warning bells that we're heading back to having players use 10' poles to probe each and every stone - that sort of "smart play in stupid situations" and "gotcha!" that always felt built upon "old-console-video-game"* principals

*I'm not really referring to video games per say. I'm referring to a system where you are expected to have play-troughs to learn about the different dangers : don't touch that door (you die). Run trough this corridor (or you die).

My experience of old-school D&D is of knowledge that comes from meta-game considerations earned through character "try and die" (as opposed to try and fail). The most painful parts were witnessing the attempts at justifying actions counter to character motivations that were required to "win" the dungeon... bad times...

I really, really don't understand the appeal of "old-school" - I must be missing something pretty big, because a good many people can't seem to stop praising it (and often for encouraging a playstyle that I found it to prohibit... )

It's what a lot of people want. Pure and simple.

I believe people want adventurers who are able to branch off into becoming other things, if they so wish, instead of a hero right out of the box.

 

[sithramir]

I personally think too many people have the video game mindset now.

This "old style" as some are calling it is how I prefer it. I want to be challenged and typically don't like published modules because they are simply too EASY. Oh we encounter a group of orcs. We're going to win but the question is how much resources do we use before we slay them. That's quite boring to me.

This dragon scenario is a great scenario for someone who says "There is a creature I can't just easily destroy. I am a hero and I want to help people. How can I do this in the face of these horrendous odds?" You are forced to not simply kill the creature because it's not as simple as that.

I'm not sure why people don't like that? You don't have to fight the dragon. Period. Don't have to. It may not be your favorite encounter but I think it is a good one. Now all the other pieces might not pull together and i'm not claiming it's a great adventure simply that having a dragon around for lower level creatures sets a different tone from the normal hack n slash.

If you were level 8 would you suddenly run into a town where a dragon was? Why? It might be just as unbeatable based on it's power compared to yours still right? Perhaps you may try to reason with it or perhaps you know you can still help without ever getting in a direct confrontation with it. There's no set level where you go "I can definitely take a dragon". Even at higher levels things can still go bad against weaker foes in this edition.

You're super smart? Maybe you'r egotistic and want to see if you're smarter than that dragon? There's so many reasons to still proceed (aside from the obvious one of being good and wanting to help other people even if your life is in danger). Not everyone would do it but then you might not do half the adventure options given to you either.

In my campaigns when i'm the DM you wouldn't give experience for fighting the same orc groups over and over. "Well our level 10 group just slayed another group of those vile orcs! We took some hits (due to the bounded accuracy of AC in 5E) but we beat em pretty easily. The xp for this could be minimal to 0 because you weren't challenged to learn anything new. Having to deal with a deadly force you cannot win is a pretty cool way to learn something about your character.

The intent here is to give you unique situations and I think a dragon at lower levels is cool. You may think you're going to die (or you may run the other way) but it's not the typical one a level 1 player might see AND it's not an auto win (BORING IMO) encounter.

It is one of the reasons why I'm thinking it might not be that horrible to try and play a pre-made module because perhaps it's not super easy fights for once.

 

[Parmandur]

I've had fun reading and running it; guess that means it is OK?

My players had total buy-in for rushing into town, think that helped.

Just from reading through, though, Rise is better, and easier to chop out a dungeon module to use independently.

I think the idea is that Tiamat is only CR 30 during the ritual, when her avatar is weak. If not confronted and defeated then and there, Things Get Real.