So I am wanting to put in a dragon fight in my homebrew as my players will need some dragon material for a quest that I will put them. My dilemma is that I have a player that can speak draconic and instead of fighting the dragon, will always try to talk to the dragon and persuade the dragon. The rolls are hit and miss when doing a persuasion check but the player will try and talk his way out. This is not the dilemma in itself, it just gets annoying.
Anyone have idea/tips/tricks or ways that they have avoiding this in the past?
I have come up with:
Set the DC insanely high so that basically a nat 20 is the only way that a persuasion check will work. Problem is, the player rolls a nat 20...sigh...
Make part of the dragon's backstory is that he is deaf from birth and can't hear (this seems like the lazy way out)
Tell the party the dragon lost his ears in battle with another dragon (again, this seems like the lazy way out)
Come up with an NPC that is fighting with/for the dragon that cast a spell on the party member so that party can't speak (I feel like this would come off as targeting the player specifically)
I personally play in such a way that a "successful" skill check does not always result in what the player may have wanted or intended.
Example: Player says "I'm the King now!" in front of the King. Draws their weapon and goes to attack the King, or whatever. In trying to talk their way out of it, the party can range from being executed or simply being imprisoned or enslaved. Just because they roll a natural 20 doesn't mean they suddenly become King.
Same goes here - just because they roll high doesn't mean the dragon is going to give them its scales/claws/eggs/etc. It means that the dragon isn't immediately going to try to roast them alive.
Also, I suppose it's good to point out that natural 20s being an auto-success on skill checks is a house rule and not in the source material. Do with that as you will. Still, an "auto-success" doesn't have to be what the player was hoping for. the DM gets to decide what a success looks like.
Otherwise, I would just like to point out that it seems like a bit of railroading in forcing your players to fight and kill a dragon. Is there really no other alternative to what you have planned?
I personally play in such a way that a "successful" skill check does not always result in what the player may have wanted or intended.
Example: Player says "I'm the King now!" in front of the King. Draws their weapon and goes to attack the King, or whatever. In trying to talk their way out of it, the party can range from being executed or simply being imprisoned or enslaved. Just because they roll a natural 20 doesn't mean they suddenly become King.
Same goes here - just because they roll high doesn't mean the dragon is going to give them its scales/claws/eggs/etc. It means that the dragon isn't immediately going to try to roast them alive.
Also, I suppose it's good to point out that natural 20s being an auto-success on skill checks is a house rule and not in the source material. Do with that as you will. Still, an "auto-success" doesn't have to be what the player was hoping for. the DM gets to decide what a success looks like.
Otherwise, I would just like to point out that it seems like a bit of railroading in forcing your players to fight and kill a dragon. Is there really no other alternative to what you have planned?
In this situation, yes I am trying to get them to fight the dragon.
You could try to use the natur of the individual dragons to make the fight unavoidable. For example, White Dragons are very simple minded. You are either pray or predator. No need for conversation.
Otherwise, I would just like to point out that it seems like a bit of railroading in forcing your players to fight and kill a dragon. Is there really no other alternative to what you have planned?
In this situation, yes I am trying to get them to fight the dragon.
Ok, so what about my question?
Why do you want them to fight the dragon? Are they supposed to kill the dragon? What does fighting and/or killing the dragon accomplish that literally nothing else they could do might? I think it's important to note that this is taking a bit of agency away from the players - i.e. railroading. If that's the kind of game you're running, then fine, just thought I would clarify.
Otherwise, it should be noted that, depending on the Dragon, they don't necessarily want to immediately kill and destroy everyone and everything all the time. Unless that's how you're playing them in your game, of course.
Otherwise, you can have some NPC convince them to fight and kill the dragon. Preclude any conversation with the dragon with the assumption and understanding that it needs to be destroyed because its a big meany, etc. So, instead of conversing with the dragon, they've already talked to someone, and bringing up those points to the Dragon could enrage it to the point of not being willing to talk.
Otherwise, I would just like to point out that it seems like a bit of railroading in forcing your players to fight and kill a dragon. Is there really no other alternative to what you have planned?
In this situation, yes I am trying to get them to fight the dragon.
Ok, so what about my question?
Why do you want them to fight the dragon? Are they supposed to kill the dragon? What does fighting and/or killing the dragon accomplish that literally nothing else they could do might? I think it's important to note that this is taking a bit of agency away from the players - i.e. railroading. If that's the kind of game you're running, then fine, just thought I would clarify.
Otherwise, it should be noted that, depending on the Dragon, they don't necessarily want to immediately kill and destroy everyone and everything all the time. Unless that's how you're playing them in your game, of course.
Otherwise, you can have some NPC convince them to fight and kill the dragon. Preclude any conversation with the dragon with the assumption and understanding that it needs to be destroyed because its a big meany, etc. So, instead of conversing with the dragon, they've already talked to someone, and bringing up those points to the Dragon could enrage it to the point of not being willing to talk.
A bit of the backstory is that the party will be given an artifact that needs to be "awakened" in order to help them fight the final BBEG. The artifact will need the still-beating heart of a dragon. Not sure of any dragon that would readily give up their heart. I am writing an NPC part that will explain that they must kill the dragon so hopefully, that will steer the party to fight the dragon. I normally don't force the party into any given situation however for the overall arc that will reveal plot points later, the party has to fight this dragon.
Persuasion is not mind control. There are some things that are simply impossible. This sounds like that is the case. If they need a heart from a dragon, even a 100 persuasion roll would not succeed.
While the improv ideal is to say yes to as much as possible, I do find it is helpful to "No, but..." instead. Because you can't persuade anyone of anything, no matter how charismatic you are. And as Akacen said, just because they DO roll high doesn't mean they get what they want. So the character better be trying to persuade my NPC to do something they can be persuaded to do. Otherwise I will not let them roll. However I'll try to offer them an alternative...
"Can I roll a persuasion check to see if the dragon will let me take one of it's claws?" "No, but you see the dragon curl up it's claws at that idea even as it continues to chat with you. So you think it might be open to other suggestions."
If your player likes trying to avoid combat with negotiations and persuasion then let them, as they obviously find that fun! Come up with things your NPC CAN be persuaded by, and sometimes make those options very unappealing for the group, or an option that will lead them down an even more dangerous path but with greater rewards.
"The dragon has a rival in this area, an older red dragon it would like to see dead. It offers information on this other dragon's lair, as well as a sizeable reward if you kill it and bring it's head as proof."
And remember that all dragons, even the good aligned ones, believe they are superior to all other forms of life. Keep that in mind when your small, tasty PC tries to persuade it. :D
A bit of the backstory is that the party will be given an artifact that needs to be "awakened" in order to help them fight the final BBEG. The artifact will need the still-beating heart of a dragon. Not sure of any dragon that would readily give up their heart. I am writing an NPC part that will explain that they must kill the dragon so hopefully, that will steer the party to fight the dragon. I normally don't force the party into any given situation however for the overall arc that will reveal plot points later, the party has to fight this dragon.
Ah. That sounds rough (but super fun!).
Good luck to your players!
Otherwise, yeah, I don't think you're going to have to worry about the character who can speak draconic as that would be an impossible skill check anyway, so it wouldn't even get one as far as I'm concerned.
Again, if you want to allow them to use a skill check, you can have a "success" be that the dragon offers them one chance to leave with their lives. ;)
Ignoring the lovely roll of 20 autosuccess headache, I will however dive into the waters of "Player Agency". WTF? This *is* the game the DM is running, has put time into, and that is really all there is to it. Players are not "railroaded" what ever that means if they must accept the plot hooks the DM presents. Pure Sandbox games are very, very, very hard to pull off and require an exceptional amount of planning on the part of the DM. Let's take the concept of published modules, they are not Sandboxes at all, the Players have to agree to be amenable to pursuing the plot. They, the Players, are encouraged to conclude each encounter or challenge as they will, but the end goal would remain. For instance, Curse of Strahd...they have to face Strahd at the end, what path they take is entirely up to them. Whilst, I like the idea posited of the Dragon inserting the name and location of a rival to the party for it's extinction, crafty solutions might not be solutions if the game is time-locked (they have to complete it in 4 days for instance).
It's also worthwhile to point out that the DM calls for if/when a skill check is allowable. Juat because a player may want to try to persuade/intimidate another creature doesn't mean he/she will get a chance to roll.
That being said, I also echo what others have already said about players having agency and letting them decide if they're willing to attack this particular dragon. If you need a dragon they need to kill, it can always be the next dragon. The much meaner one that killed the whole village and who is sitting on a mich larger pile of treasure.
Yeah, in this case, even speaking draconic, a natural 20 doesn't mean success on a skill check. A persuade "success" might just mean the dragon chuckles and decides to play with its food a little before attacking rather than just immediately blasting dragon's breath. Or the DC might be 50.
Ignoring the lovely roll of 20 autosuccess headache, I will however dive into the waters of "Player Agency". WTF? This *is* the game the DM is running, has put time into, and that is really all there is to it. Players are not "railroaded" what ever that means if they must accept the plot hooks the DM presents. Pure Sandbox games are very, very, very hard to pull off and require an exceptional amount of planning on the part of the DM. Let's take the concept of published modules, they are not Sandboxes at all, the Players have to agree to be amenable to pursuing the plot. They, the Players, are encouraged to conclude each encounter or challenge as they will, but the end goal would remain. For instance, Curse of Strahd...they have to face Strahd at the end, what path they take is entirely up to them. Whilst, I like the idea posited of the Dragon inserting the name and location of a rival to the party for it's extinction, crafty solutions might not be solutions if the game is time-locked (they have to complete it in 4 days for instance).
You say "whatever that means" while immediately going on to explain exactly what it is you purport not to know...
Anyway, I guess I could have qualified my comment with "unless that's what you and your players already agreed to" (insofar as having a railroaded campaign)...
However, I would say that what you're describing is exactly what I was concerned with - the end point may be the same - sure, ok, fine - but getting the beating heart of the dragon is part of the path they take that is entirely up to them, not the end goal (i.e. fighting Strahd, per your example).
You want to present the Players with an encounter/dilemma/situation to solve - and then you want to dictate to them the technique that they must use to solve that situation? In this case, you've decided that they must fight ( name of the thread, and this is needed for "plot points later" ), and are asking for ways to make sure they only do that?
Even in published modules, the Players have multiple means of dealing with a situation - even if they don't have carte blanche to do absolutely anything. Multiple path choices are not - I agree - railroading ( just a little constricting ). Single path choices, absolutely are.
I'm also alarmed by your statement "for the overall arc that will reveal plot points later, the party has to fight this dragon" - sounds like you have the plot, and events, all pre-planned.
When do your Players get to make choices about how they deal with situations, and how the plot unfolds? Once there are no meaningful Player choices left in the game, it ceases to be a game and just becomes a writing exercise for the DM. As a Player, I walk away from those kind of games; the DM doesn't need Players - they want an audience.
I'd give my Players/Characters the item, and even the activating conditions for the weapon, and decide if they even want to activate it. Maybe they would decide to fight the Dragon and activate the weapon; maybe they'd decide to find some other means of battling the Villain; maybe they'd talk to the Dragon, and the Dragon enters into a pact with the Party to assassinate a rival of theirs and allow the Party to use their rival's heart; maybe they'd come up with some wild crazy creative idea I'd never have thought of in a million years. Point is, I leave the choice ( sometimes within the constrictions of the circumstance of the Narrative to-date ), with them.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I take what was said in the original post as a overall plan-an eventual fight with a dragon. As a DM, if I want them to fight a dragon, they'll fight a dragon, and all roads lead there. This isn't bad or wrong, it's part of crafting a story and making sure the time spent working on an adventure isn't wasted. The key, and art, is not letting your players derail the story while allowing them their choice, so they, and the DM, are having fun.
There was a post saying they may succeed in a persuasion check, and maybe fight a tougher beast later. i like that idea.
Or maybe the dragon is willing to sell one of its hatchlings, a nice dilemma, with moral and mortal consequences.
I take what was said in the original post as a overall plan-an eventual fight with a dragon. As a DM, if I want them to fight a dragon, they'll fight a dragon, and all roads lead there. This isn't bad or wrong, it's part of crafting a story and making sure the time spent working on an adventure isn't wasted. The key, and art, is not letting your players derail the story while allowing them their choice, so they, and the DM, are having fun.
The "key, and art" is not railroading your players down the story lines you've chosen for them, but having the skill and the creativity to adapt your narrative and world to their freely made choices - and having the wit to be able recycle material they don't use in other places so the time spent creating the material isn't wasted.
I - as a Player - won't play with DMs who have the attitude "if I want them to fight a dragon, they'll fight a dragon, and all roads lead there". It may not be objectively wrong - but it lazy story management, and I have zero interest in playing in a scenario where I don't get to chose how I resolve the story problems. Part of my fun as a Player is coming up with creative solutions to problems the DM sets up. Let me play my game instead of trying to play it for me.
I - as a DM - am not so arrogant as to think I've come up with the perfect optimal solution in every case. I don't pre-script my Players' solutions to the problems I create ( or the Villains create for me ), and am repeatedly and constantly amazed and delighted with the solutions that my Players invent. I would have much less fun and surprise in my game if I said "no! I have dictated in Chapter 11 that things must be such-and-such a way, so you will do this now, so I don't have to adapt what I wrote for you!". And I've been doing this long enough that adapting to wonky Player tangents is pretty much automatic. It's a skill; learn.
If you're not willing to do the work to collaborate with your Players, you're not a DM - you're a frustrated amateur playwright - and if you can't have fun collaborating, and only have fun when you force Players to do what you predetermined they should do, then you don't have the temperament for it, either.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Maybe I'm not as articulate as I need to be to express myself. I don't disagree, but I do feel it's ok for the DM to get their players where they want them, with one stipulation: everyone must be enjoying themselves.
If the players get to where the DM wants them to be, and everyone has fun, I have no problem with them doing what needs to be done. If they aren't enjoying themselves, no matter what happens, then the DM has failed.
But, to each their own. I hope all your games are amazing and fun!
First, I think it's a big misconception that if somebody rolls well on a persuasion check, that means they automatically persuade anyone of whatever they want. Checks are supposed to resolve what happens in the case where there's multiple possible options, depending on how good the character is at what they try. So if someone talks to a dragon and says "Give me all your treasure hoard!" it does not matter what they roll on the check. Dragon isn't going to do that.
The player should describe what they're trying to do. If that thing they're describing is impossible - then there's no need to even roll. There's no Persuasion roll good enough to cause a dragon to give up its hoard, just like there's no Athletics check high enough to let a character fly. If the thing the player's describing is trivial, there's no need to roll - they just succeed. Only in the middle case - where there's a chance of success and a chance of failure - is a roll needed, with an appropriate DC.
If what the players are trying to do is persuade the dragon to let them pass unharmed, sure, maybe that's possible with a good enough check. If they're trying to get it to give up valuables... nah, not possible, no matter what.
Second is the conflict between DM and player agency - that the players HAVE TO fight the dragon, but might CHOOSE NOT to. There's several options here.
1) First - increase the incentives. If you're worried about the players deciding to leave the dragon alone? Maybe that dragon's burned a village. And is gonna burn another next week. And the week after. Are your players gonna just let village-burning happen forever? Or maybe they're trying to get some magic item, and the dragon has it in their hoard. And no, a dragon is probably NEVER going to give up their hoard while they're still breathing. And if they steal it stealthily, that dragon is coming after them to get it back. Or just let them put off the dragon fight until they know they need the still-beating heart of a dragon - they'll come back when they know they need it.
2) Second - surprise fight! Party arrives at dragon, tries to negotiate. Dragon, in conversation, gets them to reveal that they have valuables (or just sniffs it out), and decides those valuables would be a good addition to its hoard. "Give up your gold or roll for initiative!" A successful persuasion check would make the dragon GENEROUSLY offer to accept *half* their magic items in tribute instead of all of them.
3) "All roads lead to dragon heart". Players decide to do something else instead of fighting a dragon. Whatever they choose to do next, they'll find that their next boss is drawing his power in one form or another from a still-beating dragon heart that it's preserved.
And of course, 4) Let the party do what they will, and narrate the consequences. Maybe the party doesn't have a dragon heart when they need one! What's the consequences? BBEG gets some more time to prepare while the party hunts one down, later in the campaign?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Good day,
So I am wanting to put in a dragon fight in my homebrew as my players will need some dragon material for a quest that I will put them. My dilemma is that I have a player that can speak draconic and instead of fighting the dragon, will always try to talk to the dragon and persuade the dragon. The rolls are hit and miss when doing a persuasion check but the player will try and talk his way out. This is not the dilemma in itself, it just gets annoying.
Anyone have idea/tips/tricks or ways that they have avoiding this in the past?
I have come up with:
I personally play in such a way that a "successful" skill check does not always result in what the player may have wanted or intended.
Example: Player says "I'm the King now!" in front of the King. Draws their weapon and goes to attack the King, or whatever. In trying to talk their way out of it, the party can range from being executed or simply being imprisoned or enslaved. Just because they roll a natural 20 doesn't mean they suddenly become King.
Same goes here - just because they roll high doesn't mean the dragon is going to give them its scales/claws/eggs/etc. It means that the dragon isn't immediately going to try to roast them alive.
Also, I suppose it's good to point out that natural 20s being an auto-success on skill checks is a house rule and not in the source material. Do with that as you will. Still, an "auto-success" doesn't have to be what the player was hoping for. the DM gets to decide what a success looks like.
Otherwise, I would just like to point out that it seems like a bit of railroading in forcing your players to fight and kill a dragon. Is there really no other alternative to what you have planned?
In this situation, yes I am trying to get them to fight the dragon.
You could try to use the natur of the individual dragons to make the fight unavoidable. For example, White Dragons are very simple minded. You are either pray or predator. No need for conversation.
Attack: [roll]3d20dl2+6[/roll] Damage: [roll](if([roll:-1:critical], =0, 1d8, 2{1d8}.expand()))+4[/roll] Sneakattack: [roll](if([roll:-2:critical], =0, 2d6, 2{2d6}.expand()))[/roll]Ok, so what about my question?
Why do you want them to fight the dragon? Are they supposed to kill the dragon? What does fighting and/or killing the dragon accomplish that literally nothing else they could do might?
I think it's important to note that this is taking a bit of agency away from the players - i.e. railroading. If that's the kind of game you're running, then fine, just thought I would clarify.
Otherwise, it should be noted that, depending on the Dragon, they don't necessarily want to immediately kill and destroy everyone and everything all the time. Unless that's how you're playing them in your game, of course.
Otherwise, you can have some NPC convince them to fight and kill the dragon. Preclude any conversation with the dragon with the assumption and understanding that it needs to be destroyed because its a big meany, etc. So, instead of conversing with the dragon, they've already talked to someone, and bringing up those points to the Dragon could enrage it to the point of not being willing to talk.
A bit of the backstory is that the party will be given an artifact that needs to be "awakened" in order to help them fight the final BBEG. The artifact will need the still-beating heart of a dragon. Not sure of any dragon that would readily give up their heart.
I am writing an NPC part that will explain that they must kill the dragon so hopefully, that will steer the party to fight the dragon. I normally don't force the party into any given situation however for the overall arc that will reveal plot points later, the party has to fight this dragon.
Persuasion is not mind control. There are some things that are simply impossible. This sounds like that is the case. If they need a heart from a dragon, even a 100 persuasion roll would not succeed.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
InsiderWhile the improv ideal is to say yes to as much as possible, I do find it is helpful to "No, but..." instead. Because you can't persuade anyone of anything, no matter how charismatic you are. And as Akacen said, just because they DO roll high doesn't mean they get what they want. So the character better be trying to persuade my NPC to do something they can be persuaded to do. Otherwise I will not let them roll. However I'll try to offer them an alternative...
"Can I roll a persuasion check to see if the dragon will let me take one of it's claws?"
"No, but you see the dragon curl up it's claws at that idea even as it continues to chat with you. So you think it might be open to other suggestions."
If your player likes trying to avoid combat with negotiations and persuasion then let them, as they obviously find that fun! Come up with things your NPC CAN be persuaded by, and sometimes make those options very unappealing for the group, or an option that will lead them down an even more dangerous path but with greater rewards.
"The dragon has a rival in this area, an older red dragon it would like to see dead. It offers information on this other dragon's lair, as well as a sizeable reward if you kill it and bring it's head as proof."
And remember that all dragons, even the good aligned ones, believe they are superior to all other forms of life. Keep that in mind when your small, tasty PC tries to persuade it. :D
Find me on Twitter: @OboeLauren
Ah. That sounds rough (but super fun!).
Good luck to your players!
Otherwise, yeah, I don't think you're going to have to worry about the character who can speak draconic as that would be an impossible skill check anyway, so it wouldn't even get one as far as I'm concerned.
Again, if you want to allow them to use a skill check, you can have a "success" be that the dragon offers them one chance to leave with their lives. ;)
Ignoring the lovely roll of 20 autosuccess headache, I will however dive into the waters of "Player Agency". WTF? This *is* the game the DM is running, has put time into, and that is really all there is to it. Players are not "railroaded" what ever that means if they must accept the plot hooks the DM presents. Pure Sandbox games are very, very, very hard to pull off and require an exceptional amount of planning on the part of the DM. Let's take the concept of published modules, they are not Sandboxes at all, the Players have to agree to be amenable to pursuing the plot. They, the Players, are encouraged to conclude each encounter or challenge as they will, but the end goal would remain. For instance, Curse of Strahd...they have to face Strahd at the end, what path they take is entirely up to them. Whilst, I like the idea posited of the Dragon inserting the name and location of a rival to the party for it's extinction, crafty solutions might not be solutions if the game is time-locked (they have to complete it in 4 days for instance).
It's also worthwhile to point out that the DM calls for if/when a skill check is allowable. Juat because a player may want to try to persuade/intimidate another creature doesn't mean he/she will get a chance to roll.
That being said, I also echo what others have already said about players having agency and letting them decide if they're willing to attack this particular dragon. If you need a dragon they need to kill, it can always be the next dragon. The much meaner one that killed the whole village and who is sitting on a mich larger pile of treasure.
Boldly go
Yeah, in this case, even speaking draconic, a natural 20 doesn't mean success on a skill check. A persuade "success" might just mean the dragon chuckles and decides to play with its food a little before attacking rather than just immediately blasting dragon's breath. Or the DC might be 50.
You say "whatever that means" while immediately going on to explain exactly what it is you purport not to know...
Anyway, I guess I could have qualified my comment with "unless that's what you and your players already agreed to" (insofar as having a railroaded campaign)...
However, I would say that what you're describing is exactly what I was concerned with - the end point may be the same - sure, ok, fine - but getting the beating heart of the dragon is part of the path they take that is entirely up to them, not the end goal (i.e. fighting Strahd, per your example).
So, I'm glad we agree. :)
Sorry - but what?
You want to present the Players with an encounter/dilemma/situation to solve - and then you want to dictate to them the technique that they must use to solve that situation? In this case, you've decided that they must fight ( name of the thread, and this is needed for "plot points later" ), and are asking for ways to make sure they only do that?
Even in published modules, the Players have multiple means of dealing with a situation - even if they don't have carte blanche to do absolutely anything. Multiple path choices are not - I agree - railroading ( just a little constricting ). Single path choices, absolutely are.
I'm also alarmed by your statement "for the overall arc that will reveal plot points later, the party has to fight this dragon" - sounds like you have the plot, and events, all pre-planned.
When do your Players get to make choices about how they deal with situations, and how the plot unfolds? Once there are no meaningful Player choices left in the game, it ceases to be a game and just becomes a writing exercise for the DM. As a Player, I walk away from those kind of games; the DM doesn't need Players - they want an audience.
I'd give my Players/Characters the item, and even the activating conditions for the weapon, and decide if they even want to activate it. Maybe they would decide to fight the Dragon and activate the weapon; maybe they'd decide to find some other means of battling the Villain; maybe they'd talk to the Dragon, and the Dragon enters into a pact with the Party to assassinate a rival of theirs and allow the Party to use their rival's heart; maybe they'd come up with some wild crazy creative idea I'd never have thought of in a million years. Point is, I leave the choice ( sometimes within the constrictions of the circumstance of the Narrative to-date ), with them.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I take what was said in the original post as a overall plan-an eventual fight with a dragon. As a DM, if I want them to fight a dragon, they'll fight a dragon, and all roads lead there. This isn't bad or wrong, it's part of crafting a story and making sure the time spent working on an adventure isn't wasted. The key, and art, is not letting your players derail the story while allowing them their choice, so they, and the DM, are having fun.
There was a post saying they may succeed in a persuasion check, and maybe fight a tougher beast later. i like that idea.
Or maybe the dragon is willing to sell one of its hatchlings, a nice dilemma, with moral and mortal consequences.
The "key, and art" is not railroading your players down the story lines you've chosen for them, but having the skill and the creativity to adapt your narrative and world to their freely made choices - and having the wit to be able recycle material they don't use in other places so the time spent creating the material isn't wasted.
I - as a Player - won't play with DMs who have the attitude "if I want them to fight a dragon, they'll fight a dragon, and all roads lead there". It may not be objectively wrong - but it lazy story management, and I have zero interest in playing in a scenario where I don't get to chose how I resolve the story problems. Part of my fun as a Player is coming up with creative solutions to problems the DM sets up. Let me play my game instead of trying to play it for me.
I - as a DM - am not so arrogant as to think I've come up with the perfect optimal solution in every case. I don't pre-script my Players' solutions to the problems I create ( or the Villains create for me ), and am repeatedly and constantly amazed and delighted with the solutions that my Players invent. I would have much less fun and surprise in my game if I said "no! I have dictated in Chapter 11 that things must be such-and-such a way, so you will do this now, so I don't have to adapt what I wrote for you!". And I've been doing this long enough that adapting to wonky Player tangents is pretty much automatic. It's a skill; learn.
If you're not willing to do the work to collaborate with your Players, you're not a DM - you're a frustrated amateur playwright - and if you can't have fun collaborating, and only have fun when you force Players to do what you predetermined they should do, then you don't have the temperament for it, either.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
It seems you're taking this personally.
Play how you want. DM how you want. But declaring who is a DM based on your definition is arrogance.
Forcing a fight with a dragon isn't exactly elegant. However, I don't think I'm alone in wanting to put a dragon fight someplace in my campaign.
It's about giving the players the choice in whether they want or need to fight the dragon no matter how much the GM wants to have them face one.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Maybe I'm not as articulate as I need to be to express myself. I don't disagree, but I do feel it's ok for the DM to get their players where they want them, with one stipulation: everyone must be enjoying themselves.
If the players get to where the DM wants them to be, and everyone has fun, I have no problem with them doing what needs to be done. If they aren't enjoying themselves, no matter what happens, then the DM has failed.
But, to each their own. I hope all your games are amazing and fun!
I think there are two things to resolve here.
First, I think it's a big misconception that if somebody rolls well on a persuasion check, that means they automatically persuade anyone of whatever they want. Checks are supposed to resolve what happens in the case where there's multiple possible options, depending on how good the character is at what they try. So if someone talks to a dragon and says "Give me all your treasure hoard!" it does not matter what they roll on the check. Dragon isn't going to do that.
The player should describe what they're trying to do. If that thing they're describing is impossible - then there's no need to even roll. There's no Persuasion roll good enough to cause a dragon to give up its hoard, just like there's no Athletics check high enough to let a character fly. If the thing the player's describing is trivial, there's no need to roll - they just succeed. Only in the middle case - where there's a chance of success and a chance of failure - is a roll needed, with an appropriate DC.
If what the players are trying to do is persuade the dragon to let them pass unharmed, sure, maybe that's possible with a good enough check. If they're trying to get it to give up valuables... nah, not possible, no matter what.
Second is the conflict between DM and player agency - that the players HAVE TO fight the dragon, but might CHOOSE NOT to. There's several options here.
1) First - increase the incentives. If you're worried about the players deciding to leave the dragon alone? Maybe that dragon's burned a village. And is gonna burn another next week. And the week after. Are your players gonna just let village-burning happen forever? Or maybe they're trying to get some magic item, and the dragon has it in their hoard. And no, a dragon is probably NEVER going to give up their hoard while they're still breathing. And if they steal it stealthily, that dragon is coming after them to get it back. Or just let them put off the dragon fight until they know they need the still-beating heart of a dragon - they'll come back when they know they need it.
2) Second - surprise fight! Party arrives at dragon, tries to negotiate. Dragon, in conversation, gets them to reveal that they have valuables (or just sniffs it out), and decides those valuables would be a good addition to its hoard. "Give up your gold or roll for initiative!" A successful persuasion check would make the dragon GENEROUSLY offer to accept *half* their magic items in tribute instead of all of them.
3) "All roads lead to dragon heart". Players decide to do something else instead of fighting a dragon. Whatever they choose to do next, they'll find that their next boss is drawing his power in one form or another from a still-beating dragon heart that it's preserved.
And of course, 4) Let the party do what they will, and narrate the consequences. Maybe the party doesn't have a dragon heart when they need one! What's the consequences? BBEG gets some more time to prepare while the party hunts one down, later in the campaign?