I was considering the concept of a prologue session as I was replying to another's thread on a Dragon-slaying campaign. I was thinking that you will really want to be setting the tone of "this dragon is too powerful to confront head-on" and how you would get that across so the party doesn't get killed in the first session.
My consideration was to let the party (potentially) get killed in the first session - but as a different party.
The concept would be to have the party give you their character sheets ahead of time and then make the same class but 1 level higher and a different personality or race. Then have the party meet in a tavern and get talking to someone who knows about the dragons/monsters that need dealing with. Have him start to tell a story, sayign that the party reminds him of another group of adventurers he knew, and then pass them out the character sheets.
Then run a session for the story, which they can tell themselves. Their only "rail" is that they need to go and fight the monster. This would be brief, and the outcome is not decided - but make it deadly. If they win then hey, good for them, but expect them to lose, and probably TPK. That's the story the man in the tavern tells the actual party - of another party who died trying to do what they are doing.
This has the advantage of them learning of the monster, and seeing how deadly it is, and getting to know their own characters combat a bit if they're new. If anyone runs off, they can meet the character as an NPC in the tavern.
I've not done what you're suggesting by having the players run a surrogate party through a loosing scenario to demonstrate the BBE directly to the *player*, not their *PC*. It's an intriguing concept and I've seen it floated before on different threads, but I've not seen it gain much traction. I might suggest caution if you are intending to attempt this with a new party as this prologue opening is easy for an objective 3rd party observer to see and understand, but might get muddy from the 1st person participant's perspective. Of course, player experience will be a deciding factor in this. More experienced players might have more objectivity in pulling the camera back and viewing it solely for what it is: a cutscene that they get to have input in, but will ultimately loose. I could see the opportunity to tie a PC background character into the fight, or set the location to have some importance to a PC.
There are plenty of Pros and Cons to this, again intriguing. If you have the opportunity to try this, please report back to let us know the overall outcome.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
A prologue to provide exposition is fine. But a one-shot designed to steamroll the players in order to make a point is something I'd pass on. I don't see how this is better than just having a survivor recount their own loss to the dragon.
I faced a TPK this weekend, and it was fine because I could see what we had done wrong to get ourselves into that position. It arose from our choices. That's very different than a scripted TPK that railroads you straight into a meat grinder, which just feels like the DM on a power trip. Fun for you maybe, not for your players.
Thanks for the replies, I've not got any plans to use this at present and I'm more mulling over how it would be best used. My experience thus far is that you can tell a player all you like that the enemy is beyond them, they may still go to fight it - and people tend to learn best by doing.
I could perhaps make it a sub-quest type deal which lets the characters view the last day of some skeletons they find, at the guidance of an NPC. It's a bit of a railroad, but under the basis of "We don't know what we'll see in there, we should see what these dead people knew", you can shape what follows based on the players success levels in the one-shot. Perhaps have the scene not so much a scripted TPK but more of a suicide mission, where even if they succeed their character remains trapped in the location to starve to death - guaranteeing the presence of their bones without guaranteeing the results of their quest. Depending on how they do, there could be a dead dragon in the next room, or an alive one, or one with a wing missing. As long as the players haven't seen what was affected by the memory of the past, then it's all open and the rails need not apply!
I kind of feel it to be less of an enforced TPK (as a TPK requires the party dies, not some other party who we're learning about) and it would give them a much greater feel of how deadly the dragon is, and better tactics like "don't bunch up when the dragon can breathe fire". It might be the shortest tale ever - they might run in, be immolated, and then the story ends.
Even if it's not a TPK, I'm not sure it will go over the way it's envisioned.
First, you'd be asking people to come up with two sets of characters for the same story, and the insights gained in the first session would be effectively lost except as metagaming or secondhand lore. And, while it might be kind of fun as a player to know your actions led to this tale, if your character died horribly or made bad mistakes, you get to hear about that failure again. And if you somehow survived, you don't get to experience the fame in-character. Kind of a lose-lose scenario.
Also...what happens if the party does win against the monster? Won't that affect the campaign? And if it doesn't...then what is the point of including it? It kind of feels like it gives the veneer of player agency without allowing player choices to affect the narrative in a substantial way. I think it's better just to allow the PCs to witness the battle personally and in safety or hear about it afterward from an NPC.
I once did something like a prologue one-shot, but it wasn't against the BBEG. It was the party moving the macguffin from one place to another. And then the main campaign party was going to have to retrieve it at some point in the future. So, the prologue didn't have to be, the good guys are going to lose. it was more like, the good guys knew that they were a link in the chain; they were going to help set the stage for a future victory. But I also made sure there were stakes. So, if the party failed to get the thing from point A to point B, then the actual party wasn't going to know where it was -- instead of it being a relic that people knew about, it was a thing that was lost to history.
Bad idea. Effectively it's a waste session just to let the players know that they can't handle a dragon. Why bother even playing this out, if they start at level 1 then they should just know it already.
As a player I'd consider this to be a railroad, and also a waste of any time I spent on the character.
No one wants to play the first minute of episode one of the Legend of Vox Machina, however funny it may have been to watch.
I can't think of anything in D&D but there are other games where the players will take a break from the "main characters" they're playing to play a "cut scene" or "flashback" with a group of characters who may or may not be short lived. However, the best versions of that style of adventure or campaign gives the players playing this aside something to do that will have some impact on the main storyline characters. So if you do "certain doom: a prequel to our campaign" the disposable heroes have to accomplish something (something that you the DM don't have control over, but rather you have to adapt to because you've co-opted the players into your world building by doing this) that will determine something in the mainline story down the line. There's really no point in showing the PC prequels UNLIMITED POWER for the same of showing UNLIMITED POWER. The players know you're the DM and you can pull out death dealing UNLIMITED POWER whenever you want.
That said, BG:DiA did have a number of dream or vision sequences where the players play through the flashback of an event, often with a high degree of futility as a "learning point" in the adventure, but they were doing that in character and it was arguably integral or at least a better way of conveying key aspects of the story as opposed to someone simply giving them a tour of some stained glass windows and what they meant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The only way that i could see this being a fun/valuable experience for the players would be If the event was to somehow reveal a weakness in the dragon, and there was a way to pass on this information to the characters. I would not invest an entire session in it, but introduce a cut-scene where everyone takes on the role of a guard at a citadel being attacked by the dragon. It's swift, brutal, and your players might wonder why they had to do it in the first place - unless there is a hook - the last guard climbs to cover and scribbles in blood on the wall about the weakness they spotted.
Seems to confirm my own thoughts on the subject - just killing the players off to prove the enemy is beyond them is not going to work well, but making them have a chance to change something could. I guess this is sort of like the problems you get with time-travel. Travelling back in time should have consequences on the future!
Georg Rockall-Schmidt did a great video on the lack of visual flashbacks in The Straight Story, which in D&D (and modern literature) terms is the opposite of the rule, "show, don't tell". The essence of the video is that the way the protagonist tells of a time in their past is superior to than if there was a scene showing it. In this instance, having the NPC give a compelling narrative might well be far more valuable than letting the players see the big bad for themselves.
I like the idea you have, but I'd prefer it in a video game more than I would D&D where I have to do considerably more work for the purpose of near certain death. Something like this in another medium would be sorted in three minutes, not four hours plus character creation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
I may be late to the party but you could have a fellow adventurer/mentor who is a friend of one of the players that shows up near death whose party tried to fight the dragon and was effectively wiped out and create your exposition from that. I agree with others a session prologue seems more like a waste of everyone's time if things are going to end with them dying or badly battered. Plus, they could do something you may not have planned for which could change up the narrative you were trying to establish. They could all go "Sir Robin" on you.
So I know the whole intentional TPK is kinda taboo, but I think it’s a good palette cleanser.
Look, PC deaths are never easy, especially for newer players who have never dealt with it before. So here’s my suggestion…if this is a big fear for your players, do the prologue session with the up-front and clear explanation that there’s no getting out of this one alive.
Have them create semi-high level characters without a crap ton of backstory or personality yet (i.e. don’t let them get too invested in the kill character). Then use that session as a way to get you players used to your DM style and expectations; as well as to start learning your player’s wants/needs.
As a reward, maybe the new characters will get a rare item from their prologue character’s inventory or start at level 2 with a multi class…
The bottom line is that your idea has merit and usefulness. Just make sure you talk about the whole thing with your players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was considering the concept of a prologue session as I was replying to another's thread on a Dragon-slaying campaign. I was thinking that you will really want to be setting the tone of "this dragon is too powerful to confront head-on" and how you would get that across so the party doesn't get killed in the first session.
My consideration was to let the party (potentially) get killed in the first session - but as a different party.
The concept would be to have the party give you their character sheets ahead of time and then make the same class but 1 level higher and a different personality or race. Then have the party meet in a tavern and get talking to someone who knows about the dragons/monsters that need dealing with. Have him start to tell a story, sayign that the party reminds him of another group of adventurers he knew, and then pass them out the character sheets.
Then run a session for the story, which they can tell themselves. Their only "rail" is that they need to go and fight the monster. This would be brief, and the outcome is not decided - but make it deadly. If they win then hey, good for them, but expect them to lose, and probably TPK. That's the story the man in the tavern tells the actual party - of another party who died trying to do what they are doing.
This has the advantage of them learning of the monster, and seeing how deadly it is, and getting to know their own characters combat a bit if they're new. If anyone runs off, they can meet the character as an NPC in the tavern.
What do you think? has anyone ever done this?
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I've not done what you're suggesting by having the players run a surrogate party through a loosing scenario to demonstrate the BBE directly to the *player*, not their *PC*. It's an intriguing concept and I've seen it floated before on different threads, but I've not seen it gain much traction. I might suggest caution if you are intending to attempt this with a new party as this prologue opening is easy for an objective 3rd party observer to see and understand, but might get muddy from the 1st person participant's perspective. Of course, player experience will be a deciding factor in this. More experienced players might have more objectivity in pulling the camera back and viewing it solely for what it is: a cutscene that they get to have input in, but will ultimately loose. I could see the opportunity to tie a PC background character into the fight, or set the location to have some importance to a PC.
There are plenty of Pros and Cons to this, again intriguing. If you have the opportunity to try this, please report back to let us know the overall outcome.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
make it into a one shot that will transfer over to a story for introducing your campaign.
A prologue to provide exposition is fine. But a one-shot designed to steamroll the players in order to make a point is something I'd pass on. I don't see how this is better than just having a survivor recount their own loss to the dragon.
I faced a TPK this weekend, and it was fine because I could see what we had done wrong to get ourselves into that position. It arose from our choices. That's very different than a scripted TPK that railroads you straight into a meat grinder, which just feels like the DM on a power trip. Fun for you maybe, not for your players.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Thanks for the replies, I've not got any plans to use this at present and I'm more mulling over how it would be best used. My experience thus far is that you can tell a player all you like that the enemy is beyond them, they may still go to fight it - and people tend to learn best by doing.
I could perhaps make it a sub-quest type deal which lets the characters view the last day of some skeletons they find, at the guidance of an NPC. It's a bit of a railroad, but under the basis of "We don't know what we'll see in there, we should see what these dead people knew", you can shape what follows based on the players success levels in the one-shot. Perhaps have the scene not so much a scripted TPK but more of a suicide mission, where even if they succeed their character remains trapped in the location to starve to death - guaranteeing the presence of their bones without guaranteeing the results of their quest. Depending on how they do, there could be a dead dragon in the next room, or an alive one, or one with a wing missing. As long as the players haven't seen what was affected by the memory of the past, then it's all open and the rails need not apply!
I kind of feel it to be less of an enforced TPK (as a TPK requires the party dies, not some other party who we're learning about) and it would give them a much greater feel of how deadly the dragon is, and better tactics like "don't bunch up when the dragon can breathe fire". It might be the shortest tale ever - they might run in, be immolated, and then the story ends.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Even if it's not a TPK, I'm not sure it will go over the way it's envisioned.
First, you'd be asking people to come up with two sets of characters for the same story, and the insights gained in the first session would be effectively lost except as metagaming or secondhand lore. And, while it might be kind of fun as a player to know your actions led to this tale, if your character died horribly or made bad mistakes, you get to hear about that failure again. And if you somehow survived, you don't get to experience the fame in-character. Kind of a lose-lose scenario.
Also...what happens if the party does win against the monster? Won't that affect the campaign? And if it doesn't...then what is the point of including it? It kind of feels like it gives the veneer of player agency without allowing player choices to affect the narrative in a substantial way. I think it's better just to allow the PCs to witness the battle personally and in safety or hear about it afterward from an NPC.
I once did something like a prologue one-shot, but it wasn't against the BBEG. It was the party moving the macguffin from one place to another. And then the main campaign party was going to have to retrieve it at some point in the future. So, the prologue didn't have to be, the good guys are going to lose. it was more like, the good guys knew that they were a link in the chain; they were going to help set the stage for a future victory. But I also made sure there were stakes. So, if the party failed to get the thing from point A to point B, then the actual party wasn't going to know where it was -- instead of it being a relic that people knew about, it was a thing that was lost to history.
Bad idea. Effectively it's a waste session just to let the players know that they can't handle a dragon. Why bother even playing this out, if they start at level 1 then they should just know it already.
As a player I'd consider this to be a railroad, and also a waste of any time I spent on the character.
No one wants to play the first minute of episode one of the Legend of Vox Machina, however funny it may have been to watch.
I can't think of anything in D&D but there are other games where the players will take a break from the "main characters" they're playing to play a "cut scene" or "flashback" with a group of characters who may or may not be short lived. However, the best versions of that style of adventure or campaign gives the players playing this aside something to do that will have some impact on the main storyline characters. So if you do "certain doom: a prequel to our campaign" the disposable heroes have to accomplish something (something that you the DM don't have control over, but rather you have to adapt to because you've co-opted the players into your world building by doing this) that will determine something in the mainline story down the line. There's really no point in showing the PC prequels UNLIMITED POWER for the same of showing UNLIMITED POWER. The players know you're the DM and you can pull out death dealing UNLIMITED POWER whenever you want.
That said, BG:DiA did have a number of dream or vision sequences where the players play through the flashback of an event, often with a high degree of futility as a "learning point" in the adventure, but they were doing that in character and it was arguably integral or at least a better way of conveying key aspects of the story as opposed to someone simply giving them a tour of some stained glass windows and what they meant.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The only way that i could see this being a fun/valuable experience for the players would be If the event was to somehow reveal a weakness in the dragon, and there was a way to pass on this information to the characters. I would not invest an entire session in it, but introduce a cut-scene where everyone takes on the role of a guard at a citadel being attacked by the dragon. It's swift, brutal, and your players might wonder why they had to do it in the first place - unless there is a hook - the last guard climbs to cover and scribbles in blood on the wall about the weakness they spotted.
Thanks for the replies,
Seems to confirm my own thoughts on the subject - just killing the players off to prove the enemy is beyond them is not going to work well, but making them have a chance to change something could. I guess this is sort of like the problems you get with time-travel. Travelling back in time should have consequences on the future!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Georg Rockall-Schmidt did a great video on the lack of visual flashbacks in The Straight Story, which in D&D (and modern literature) terms is the opposite of the rule, "show, don't tell". The essence of the video is that the way the protagonist tells of a time in their past is superior to than if there was a scene showing it. In this instance, having the NPC give a compelling narrative might well be far more valuable than letting the players see the big bad for themselves.
I like the idea you have, but I'd prefer it in a video game more than I would D&D where I have to do considerably more work for the purpose of near certain death. Something like this in another medium would be sorted in three minutes, not four hours plus character creation.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
I may be late to the party but you could have a fellow adventurer/mentor who is a friend of one of the players that shows up near death whose party tried to fight the dragon and was effectively wiped out and create your exposition from that. I agree with others a session prologue seems more like a waste of everyone's time if things are going to end with them dying or badly battered. Plus, they could do something you may not have planned for which could change up the narrative you were trying to establish. They could all go "Sir Robin" on you.
So I know the whole intentional TPK is kinda taboo, but I think it’s a good palette cleanser.
Look, PC deaths are never easy, especially for newer players who have never dealt with it before. So here’s my suggestion…if this is a big fear for your players, do the prologue session with the up-front and clear explanation that there’s no getting out of this one alive.
Have them create semi-high level characters without a crap ton of backstory or personality yet (i.e. don’t let them get too invested in the kill character). Then use that session as a way to get you players used to your DM style and expectations; as well as to start learning your player’s wants/needs.
As a reward, maybe the new characters will get a rare item from their prologue character’s inventory or start at level 2 with a multi class…
The bottom line is that your idea has merit and usefulness. Just make sure you talk about the whole thing with your players.