Learn to tell your players "no". What level is the party at?
Edit:
Oh, and who says your Dragon has to go by the stat blocs? 90 foot range on a breath weapon for an Ancient Red? Nope: 180 feet sounds reasonable. Darkvision of 120 feet? Nope: 240. Spell casting: Automatic of course.
Nothing like a Ancient Red attacking, at night with cloud cover, with Greater Invisibility cast on itself.
Really disagree with this, players should never be told outright no for something like this, that makes for an awful game where they feel they have no control or say. This is a very valid, very reasonable approach and tactic to take and just batting players wishes out of hand will make them less likely to continue playing.
Instead you should find ways to let them try, give the characters enough information to understand all the many risks involved in this, and if they insist on continuing down this route accept that you may well be killing off tons of NPC's as the dragon whittles away at the army refusing to engage them openly, uses the narrow and hard to get to routes up to it's lair to set traps, and drop boulders on the spread out single file troops etc.
But openly telling players, nope not letting you do that is awful DMing
You really don't understand DM'ing, do you?
There are many many times that players have said "I want to do this", where I look at a rule, and then read to the player the very mechanic built into their char that explains precisely why what they want to do is impossible. DM'ing sometimes is the same as being a parent of a small child, and this thing called "reality" steps in, and you say "nope". (Before you say "D&D is not real", there are mechanics that do define a "reality" of the D&D world). A smart player recognizes that when a DM says "no" there is a reason for it, since the alternative is likely far far worse.
Because it seems relevant here, a quick refresher on How to Play:
The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.
The DM describes the environment. The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).
The players describe what they want to do. Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying, “We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.
Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.
The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
I ab-so-lutely empathize with the idea that players may, and have, come up with seemingly awful, impossible and potentially gonzo ideas during gameplay. Also, there are times when players may suggest doing something that goes against the social contract of the group, or something that cannot be mentioned here because of DDB TOS violation. I would suggest that the latter instance be the exception to the DM allowing the PC to attempt to do whatever action they are describing. And that discussion might need to be held out-of-game and potentially out of the room. Beyond that, if a player wants their PC to attempt to fly, simply by flapping their arms really, really, really, hard and fast, they can most certainly try. But the DC might be really, really, really high, or as the DM, you just narrate their failure. Being a DM is not about controlling the PCs, its about deciding what actions work, and to what degree that success, or failure, effects the situation that the PCs are currently in. I would point out that refusing a player's actions outright is controlling that PC. And again, if you find yourself talking to a player about social contract issues or other less-than-palatable actions in-game, you most likely have a player issue that requires addressing.
The "reality" that you point to, is frequently referred to as verisimilitude, or the suspension of disbelief. If what a player is attempting to do, inside the construct of the game you created, breaks this suspension for you, then it's most likely time for a player discussion. And as for the perjorative about player intellect, I would lean away from implying that players that choose to do things that you don't approve of aren't "smart".
Back to the OPs topic, give them the opportunity to raise an army. That should take some time in game, time that the dragon will also have to gather intelligence, raise a counter force, raid the lands around the garrison to weaken the food, water and supplies of their foe. The world will most likely not stay stagnant while the PCs pull this together. If the dragon is something that needs dealt with, time is a resource that they cannot leverage to their favor. If they manage to muster a garrison, the mass battle will likely be heavily in favor of the Dragon because of its mobility, and breath attack. As others have pointed out, magic users will be required. They will also be noticed and targeted. Either by the Dragon, or the dragon's forces. And while all of this is happening, where are the PCs?
I would suggest that you run the mass battle as background narration with the PCs given goals to accompish on the battlefield itself - securing balistae, reinforcing battlements against being overrun by the dragon's force, acting as a small strike force. Once the pitched battle has subsided and the dragon is trying to recover its forces, that is when the PCs would likely set out to assault the lair. HoTDQ starts off with this premise fairly well with Greenest in Flames.
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
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Because it seems relevant here, a quick refresher on How to Play:
The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.
The DM describes the environment. The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).
The players describe what they want to do. Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying, “We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.
Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.
The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
I ab-so-lutely empathize with the idea that players may, and have, come up with seemingly awful, impossible and potentially gonzo ideas during gameplay. Also, there are times when players may suggest doing something that goes against the social contract of the group, or something that cannot be mentioned here because of DDB TOS violation. I would suggest that the latter instance be the exception to the DM allowing the PC to attempt to do whatever action they are describing. And that discussion might need to be held out-of-game and potentially out of the room. Beyond that, if a player wants their PC to attempt to fly, simply by flapping their arms really, really, really, hard and fast, they can most certainly try. But the DC might be really, really, really high, or as the DM, you just narrate their failure. Being a DM is not about controlling the PCs, its about deciding what actions work, and to what degree that success, or failure, effects the situation that the PCs are currently in. I would point out that refusing a player's actions outright is controlling that PC. And again, if you find yourself talking to a player about social contract issues or other less-than-palatable actions in-game, you most likely have a player issue that requires addressing.
The "reality" that you point to, is frequently referred to as verisimilitude, or the suspension of disbelief. If what a player is attempting to do, inside the construct of the game you created, breaks this suspension for you, then it's most likely time for a player discussion. And as for the perjorative about player intellect, I would lean away from implying that players that choose to do things that you don't approve of aren't "smart".
Back to the OPs topic, give them the opportunity to raise an army. That should take some time in game, time that the dragon will also have to gather intelligence, raise a counter force, raid the lands around the garrison to weaken the food, water and supplies of their foe. The world will most likely not stay stagnant while the PCs pull this together. If the dragon is something that needs dealt with, time is a resource that they cannot leverage to their favor. If they manage to muster a garrison, the mass battle will likely be heavily in favor of the Dragon because of its mobility, and breath attack. As others have pointed out, magic users will be required. They will also be noticed and targeted. Either by the Dragon, or the dragon's forces. And while all of this is happening, where are the PCs?
I would suggest that you run the mass battle as background narration with the PCs given goals to accompish on the battlefield itself - securing balistae, reinforcing battlements against being overrun by the dragon's force, acting as a small strike force. Once the pitched battle has subsided and the dragon is trying to recover its forces, that is when the PCs would likely set out to assault the lair. HoTDQ starts off with this premise fairly well with Greenest in Flames.
“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