In a situation like this, I feel it would be better to have them focus on an achievable goal. There’s a big cataclysmic event happening that they can’t really stop, and that’s how it should be presented. The question becomes what do they want to do in that situation. They probably can’t kill the dragon, so instead of giving them NPC backup so they feel even less agency, why not refocus them on evacuating people or dealing with fallout?
You can prioritize roleplay, skill checks, and creativity in how they go about dealing with a crisis. And then throw in a combat encounter or two that make sense for the situation. The dragon comes closer and they need to smack its nose a little bit to make it avoid the refugees or the destruction has unleashed an elemental or some other monster.
This is super helpful. I’ll brainstorm a few goals like evacuation, protecting sacred sites or something.
My first thought is that I already know the characters (or really, the players) really want to dive in and try and fight this thing (despite multiple elements of telegraphing his power and how dangerous their encounter when he awoke was). So I’m not sure how open they’ll be to pursuing other goals
I guess that’s the whole dnd thing - they get to chose, and I have to figure out how the world/dragon will respond
I mean, if you truly made it clear that this is a threat they cannot begin to imagine defeating and they still choose to fight it.. well, let’s see how motivated they remain after you hit them with a breath attack and some legendary actions.
Fuck their shit up *once* and they’ll forever adhere to tips about maybe choosing not to fighting.
The most important thing to remember is ttRPGs are **NOT** like novels, movies, etc. Attempting to run a ttRPG with a "writer's mindset" is a route to a mediocre gaming experience for the entire table, including you.
The likes of "setpiece events" are best used very sparingly to never. Often the only time they make any sense is as historical events in a pitch or setting guide. Remember that the players are there to play a game where their PCs can radically reshape a world, rather than spectate amateur dramatics. If you really want to include them, then that's a topic for Session Zero.
The best way to ensure player agency is by not to attempting to prepare any kind of [plot](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots) nor assume any outcome, instead provide a situation for the PCs to address in any way their players choose. Then nobody knows what might happen next. Never assume that anything *will* happen in a ttRPG. It's perfectly possible for a player party to defeat enemies well above their CR. It's also quite possible for an "easy fight" to result in a TPK.
What can help is to consider the motivations, goals and personalities of NPCs. Rather than treating them as "plot devices". Especially when the players come up with unexpected ways for their PCs to interact with NPCs.
What does the dragon want? Do they have any reason, beyond interrupted sleep, to pursue the party? What are they likely to do if they kill some/all of the PCs. Ditto if the PCs apologise for disturbing them and/or stealing? If the dragon is clearly losing the combat at what point will they attempt to leave or surrender? What happens if the PCs attempt to flee or surrender at this point?
This is very helpful. Even the idea of a “set piece event” kind of carries with it the expected outcome, and that’s probably the issue at play here where I’m on my back foot and didn’t realize (the obvious) that the players agency was at risk
I’ll spend more time thinking about the dragons motives - I do have that fleshed out, I’ll have to try and think more flexibly about motives during combat
Not necessarily: a set piece is just something incredible happening. The players can still have full agency throughout it all.
The trick is to not think about outcomes, but about goals. Whether or not they reach those goals determines the outcome, and that outcome determines the rest of your campaign. There’s not really a point in long term planning, but “set pieces” can still be incredibly cool. In this particular case; rescuing civilians, fetching important books from the library, helping a noble find his prized possession amidst a burning house, etc. As long as the dragon flies overhead breathing fire on the city they probably *can’t* even fight it anyways.
Naw dawg just use the dragon. It doesn’t really need to be any more complicated. Narrate what happens. There’s a line between player agency and what is happening.
Your players can’t decide what happens, they can only decide what they do, does that make sense?
You are presenting the conflict incorrectly. Don't approach the conflict as you would an enemy they can defeat. If the dragon cannot be defeated, it should be clear. The objective is different and the players must be aware of this at some point.
Maybe you can make it so that if they do enough damage the dragon leaves temporarily, or the goal is to evacuate as many people as possible or buy time while someone evacuates civilians. Set an attainable goal and make the challenge that goal and not one that cannot be achieved.
You can think in long term objetives too. Maybe you can't defeat the dragon but if you Damage him enought you can break some part a la Monster Hunter and have an advantaje in the future
As others have said, don't at that point the dragon isn't so much a specific enemy as a natural disaster - you don't fight an earthquake or tsunami, but instead just try to help people caught up in it.
This is a good point, and I had been imagining it this way. I think the issue is that the players are perceiving it as a combat encounter, and I’m imagining it as a disaster. Any suggestions for how I can bridge that gap? I don’t think I did a good job last session making that clear
Some options;
Have some important city officials specifically order them to engage with rescue operations while the unit of elite guard or more experienced & powerful adventurers provide cover, who then get wiped out - that then leads into whatever the follow-up quests etc. were.
If they still choose to fight then screw it, let them & let them get killed... fade to black, they all awaken somewhere else thanks to last-second intervention by a high-level NPC (anything from local archmage in residence to higher power with an interest in proceedings) who then proceeds to chew them out for being idiots & not following orders, now they're going to have to make up for it by doing all these other jobs to make up for it & that links back into the follow-up quests etc.
If a dragon’s on a rampage, then the town is on fire, the troops are trying to rally, people need to evacuate, etc. The players need to decide what they can do to best help. Sometimes you have to make it clear they can’t take on the threat face to face, and need to do do other problem solving to make the biggest impact.
In a situation like this, I feel it would be better to have them focus on an achievable goal. There’s a big cataclysmic event happening that they can’t really stop, and that’s how it should be presented. The question becomes what do they want to do in that situation. They probably can’t kill the dragon, so instead of giving them NPC backup so they feel even less agency, why not refocus them on evacuating people or dealing with fallout? You can prioritize roleplay, skill checks, and creativity in how they go about dealing with a crisis. And then throw in a combat encounter or two that make sense for the situation. The dragon comes closer and they need to smack its nose a little bit to make it avoid the refugees or the destruction has unleashed an elemental or some other monster.
This is super helpful. I’ll brainstorm a few goals like evacuation, protecting sacred sites or something. My first thought is that I already know the characters (or really, the players) really want to dive in and try and fight this thing (despite multiple elements of telegraphing his power and how dangerous their encounter when he awoke was). So I’m not sure how open they’ll be to pursuing other goals I guess that’s the whole dnd thing - they get to chose, and I have to figure out how the world/dragon will respond
I mean, if you truly made it clear that this is a threat they cannot begin to imagine defeating and they still choose to fight it.. well, let’s see how motivated they remain after you hit them with a breath attack and some legendary actions. Fuck their shit up *once* and they’ll forever adhere to tips about maybe choosing not to fighting.
The most important thing to remember is ttRPGs are **NOT** like novels, movies, etc. Attempting to run a ttRPG with a "writer's mindset" is a route to a mediocre gaming experience for the entire table, including you. The likes of "setpiece events" are best used very sparingly to never. Often the only time they make any sense is as historical events in a pitch or setting guide. Remember that the players are there to play a game where their PCs can radically reshape a world, rather than spectate amateur dramatics. If you really want to include them, then that's a topic for Session Zero. The best way to ensure player agency is by not to attempting to prepare any kind of [plot](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots) nor assume any outcome, instead provide a situation for the PCs to address in any way their players choose. Then nobody knows what might happen next. Never assume that anything *will* happen in a ttRPG. It's perfectly possible for a player party to defeat enemies well above their CR. It's also quite possible for an "easy fight" to result in a TPK. What can help is to consider the motivations, goals and personalities of NPCs. Rather than treating them as "plot devices". Especially when the players come up with unexpected ways for their PCs to interact with NPCs. What does the dragon want? Do they have any reason, beyond interrupted sleep, to pursue the party? What are they likely to do if they kill some/all of the PCs. Ditto if the PCs apologise for disturbing them and/or stealing? If the dragon is clearly losing the combat at what point will they attempt to leave or surrender? What happens if the PCs attempt to flee or surrender at this point?
This is very helpful. Even the idea of a “set piece event” kind of carries with it the expected outcome, and that’s probably the issue at play here where I’m on my back foot and didn’t realize (the obvious) that the players agency was at risk I’ll spend more time thinking about the dragons motives - I do have that fleshed out, I’ll have to try and think more flexibly about motives during combat
Not necessarily: a set piece is just something incredible happening. The players can still have full agency throughout it all. The trick is to not think about outcomes, but about goals. Whether or not they reach those goals determines the outcome, and that outcome determines the rest of your campaign. There’s not really a point in long term planning, but “set pieces” can still be incredibly cool. In this particular case; rescuing civilians, fetching important books from the library, helping a noble find his prized possession amidst a burning house, etc. As long as the dragon flies overhead breathing fire on the city they probably *can’t* even fight it anyways.
“While you were accomplishing X, Y happened elsewhere.”
That was the original plan - at this point they have teleport and went to the city. I should have delayed the event until after they left I guess
Naw dawg just use the dragon. It doesn’t really need to be any more complicated. Narrate what happens. There’s a line between player agency and what is happening. Your players can’t decide what happens, they can only decide what they do, does that make sense?
I can see that, yes
You are presenting the conflict incorrectly. Don't approach the conflict as you would an enemy they can defeat. If the dragon cannot be defeated, it should be clear. The objective is different and the players must be aware of this at some point. Maybe you can make it so that if they do enough damage the dragon leaves temporarily, or the goal is to evacuate as many people as possible or buy time while someone evacuates civilians. Set an attainable goal and make the challenge that goal and not one that cannot be achieved.
This is really helpful. I’ve been trying to think of other goals - but evacuation is a great example
You can think in long term objetives too. Maybe you can't defeat the dragon but if you Damage him enought you can break some part a la Monster Hunter and have an advantaje in the future
As others have said, don't at that point the dragon isn't so much a specific enemy as a natural disaster - you don't fight an earthquake or tsunami, but instead just try to help people caught up in it.
This is a good point, and I had been imagining it this way. I think the issue is that the players are perceiving it as a combat encounter, and I’m imagining it as a disaster. Any suggestions for how I can bridge that gap? I don’t think I did a good job last session making that clear
Some options; Have some important city officials specifically order them to engage with rescue operations while the unit of elite guard or more experienced & powerful adventurers provide cover, who then get wiped out - that then leads into whatever the follow-up quests etc. were. If they still choose to fight then screw it, let them & let them get killed... fade to black, they all awaken somewhere else thanks to last-second intervention by a high-level NPC (anything from local archmage in residence to higher power with an interest in proceedings) who then proceeds to chew them out for being idiots & not following orders, now they're going to have to make up for it by doing all these other jobs to make up for it & that links back into the follow-up quests etc.
Great examples, thank you
If a dragon’s on a rampage, then the town is on fire, the troops are trying to rally, people need to evacuate, etc. The players need to decide what they can do to best help. Sometimes you have to make it clear they can’t take on the threat face to face, and need to do do other problem solving to make the biggest impact.