In one game I made the players meet the BBEG who wants to create a family with them... I told the party that she will remain on their side until they make her feel like the monster she is, but doesn't want to be... That changed the game a lot, but I think it is an underrated idea...
or have the hobgoblin group slain by some other adventurers with the party members seeing someone else in town wielding the sword. being confronted with an "are we the baddies" moment as they debate stealing it or, heaven forbid, slaying the other group :3
@@StreetLightPony Bonus points if it’s a rival party who previously bragged about the cool new loot they got and the party was jealous. EXTRA bonus points if it’s a friendly rivalry and the party actually likes their NPC rivals
I like this idea especially because you mention that the 1st hobgoblin leader says he won't dishonor his warband AGAIN! Meaning there is some history to be uncovered about this character, even though they are probably gonna die. And it adds another layer to the captain later thanking the party for the honorable death of their kin. A lot of potential and character depth is added by just one word.
Glad you caught that! The players might even pick up on it in the moment, so they very well could interrogate the Hobgoblin and figure out that past. Suddenly, that fight with the Captain can turn into negotiations to mend past wrongs
Every time I try to structure a story around winning or losing a fight, the dice have always been against me. The general advice of tying the villain to something yhat the PCs value is great advice though.
Yeah, it's fighting fate to try and force a specific outcome in an inherently luck-based medium. That being said, things like the 2nd level party being on fight 3 of the day, when suddenly the Captain joins the fight after one of the party is already knocked out? That's the kinda stuff that can make it work
@@Tommy-nh4su That’s fair! This is just a suggestion in-line with one of the first things that happens in Hoard of the Dragon Queen, where it’s not technically a forced lost but the odds are stacked against the party by design. There’s nothing to say the fight can’t be avoided, though. I suggested the Captain approaching the party when they’re weak, but it’s reasonable to assume the Captain could never find them. Or the party’s clever and completely turn the fight around. If it doesn’t work for your group, no need to force it!
Yeah, making an unwinnable fight and forcing the players into it in a tabletop scenario isn't a good call. Makes everyone upset. But the advice in the video is pretty solid - making a villain the PCs are personally invested in beating makes for some quality gaming.
In my experience, it depends on why it feels "unwinnable." If the math isn't mathing, like the 3rd level party is fighting an Ancient Red Dragon, yeah that's just being a jerk. But this feels "unwinnable" because the party has already exhausted their resources prior to the fight, not because it's actually unwinnable. Your mileage may vary, but so long as the party doesn't die, they'd be more inclined to go "if only we planned better" rather than "this was unfair." Because this is a tough but winnable fight if they're fully topped off, it's just that they chose to spend their resources on fights prior. Maybe with some short rests thrown in there. But that's not always the case, so no reason to add it if it won't work for your group! The core advice is separate from the example given, as you pointed out
@@AroWrites I would say that the difficulty of an encounter does not necessarily make the DM a jerk. It all depends on expectations and execution. For example, I set my level 5 party against a lich in his lair with an undead horde in a labyrinth. The party had unintentionally freed him earlier on an earlier visit and were coming back for a mcguffin that they hadn't been able to grab earlier. One party member put forth the idea that they'd done the lich a favor since they'd freed him. Maybe even let them pick up the mcguffin. The lich considered it and agreed. That seemed fair. So he proposed a trade, the mcguffin for a certain something the party had gotten earlier that was supposedly important but no one knew why. After some consideration, they declined, feeling that they must be sitting on something really special. The lich made it clear that he was being generous. They could take the trade or he'd take it by force. In turn, the party threatened to destroy it. And so began a game of the party fleeing through the labyrinth, pursued by undead and headed off a few times by teleports from the lich. The lich couldn't risk actually destroying the item he wanted and the party had to use both combat mechanics and some smart maze navigation to juke the lich. It turned out to be one of the most fondly remembered encounters in the campaign. So you absolutely can have unfair matchups when executed well. If an encounter is a soft scripted loss, why is it so? Is there some sort of other goal that they may possibly be able to accomplish even if they lose the battle? Was this something that could have reasonably known about and should have been able to avoid? I throw quite a few things that are "impossibly unwinnable" at my players but they know it is part of the setting and as they get stronger, they have gradually become assistants to the actual heavy hitters, then members of those high power encounters, then the ones spearheading operations with weaker allies in tow who must in turn look to them as the heroes. I think scripted losses should be used sparingly but that's different from power mismatches. Power mismatches don't necessarily have to strip the players of agency.
@@NevarKanzaki Excellent points! I think the fear most folks hearing this is "The party is forced to take on an overpowered enemy who will curb stomp them into a TPK." Which is really dependent on how the DM handles the surrounding context of the fight as well as how the enemy acts during and after it. In both the hobgoblin and lich examples there's something holding back the enemy from going 100%, which I think is important to ensuring it doesn't feel like the DM being a jerk. That who labyrinth encounter sounds awesome, and it's a great example of a narratively-oriented limiter placed on the enemy's power. Funny enough, every time I've run or encountered a lich in D&D, it's been weirdly cordial with the party, so always fun to hear that happening in other games. Love it!
That's a good question! My first question would be "where did the sword end up?" Cause in that case, I'd hint and eventually explicitly say that the hobgoblins are looking for the sword in the encounters leading up to the Captain. That way, there can be a quick scramble to track it down if the players are engaged. And if they really don't care even then, then I don't think anything in this video would apply
I accidentally got my party in a similar situation recently. Where most of their loot from the previous battle was stolen from them but one of the party members persuaded the pirates attacking them to spare them, now they want revenge. I just want to add that this gives me some ideas for what to do next. Appreciate you landing on my feed. Subbing.
I like to make non-conventional campaigns. There is never really a designated BBEG, there are either 0, and the party creates one by their own actions, or there are many, and the party simply ends up opposed to one or more. One of the best ways i've made this happen is relationships. People too often forget to humanize enemies in D&D, same with allies. Everyone outside the party is just a nameless, faceless, consumable object that will never be useful again outside of this quest, this town, or this story arc. But, what if that isn't the case? It's cliche to make the random goblin they adopt during session 1 the chosen one, but what if, instead, a random goblin from that tribe saves their lives because they're actually a secret agent of the crown monitoring this forest? And now the party has a connection to the crown that is positive, and look, now there's a border dispute, and the party has the option to help either side. Now they can either help the nation willing to give them more benefits, or the nation that's helped them before without asking anything in return. Things like this build up a sense of belonging not only to the world, but its living inhabitants. I never make anything black and white for my players. Even when there is an obvious 'good' or 'evil' option, I always provide nuance that makes both options viable, attainable, and desirable. In the example of BBEG creation, my personal favorite is that the Party doesn't really have anything against the BBEG at the start. Instead, the party's own actions bring the BBEG to them. They kill a thief, who was the nephew of a guard, who was the best friend of a merchant, who calls in a favor with a noble, who sends his men after the party, who then take being justifiably persecuted for murder as a slight against them, and seek vengeance against this 'tyrannical noble', who they eventually successfully depose, and that noble's son is an officer in the kingdom's military, and the direct subordinate of a righteous duke who is now hunting the party, who has to flee to another kingdom, or live on the run as fugitives, and over the course of several sessions everything spirals out of control, and now the Court Wizard is desperately summoning a Demon Prince through forbidden magics in a last-ditch effort to stop the party from destroying their kingdom, simply because the party decided any kingdom that persecutes them has to be 'evil'. Now we have a Lawful Good kingdom summoning a Demon Prince as the final big-bad for this campaign because the Party forced them into a do-or-die scenario. All because the party killed a thief.
A group of players who are self-righteous is one of the most dangerous, but also narratively engaging, things imaginable. If the party understands that on a meta-level, it can be incredibly dramatic. If they don't, it usually leads to arguments due to immaturity
Oh shoot something like this could actually work pretty one-to-one in my upcoming campaign! Though in this case the first quest is escaping capture a la Skyrim Intro, so I’ll give the magic sword to the hobgoblin warden, whose disgrace will be having let the party escape. Always a pleasure seeing someone with an equal love for hobgoblins btw.
I gotta say, hobgoblins are an enemy who for the longest time I never really utilized or faced off against. Then I had a game where I as a player had to deal with hobgoblins and now they're a staple of whenever I include goblinoids. They're just so versatile as an evil martial faction, and it's always a nice contrast to have sneaky but cowardly goblins, brutish but lazy bugbears, and then the disciplined hobgoblin leadership
That's fair! The goal is to demonstrate the enemy is strong enough to wear the party down and intelligent enough to capitalize on their weakness, just without turning it into a TPK. I'd even say this is more of a "narrative scene" than a "true combat," so if that doesn't fit with your group no reason to force it
Your "rightful owner" comment stuck with me. What makes the sword's owner "rightful?" You can make that something the party can achieve to unlock the sword's full power.
@@alarin612 I love evolving magic items! With this sword, is it related to the warband, being a Hobgoblin, or perhaps the associations with whatever elemental damage it deals? It’s up to the party to figure out, and potentially even shift their morals in the pursuit of power
Is not something you make to hate, but is just danger incoming... Heck, they didn't even try to know the name of the captain... Unless is infamous for being a pain in the butt, still, the party could choose to leave the town and avoid the danger... Believe or not, that is an option that players may take, i did it in an encounter with my character and the DM didn't expect that, the reason why i did it is for the risk of losing a really important artifact we have, so i decided that even if i screwed up a mission, it is much better than losing the item (especially if the item is a world changing power)
not gonna was expecting there to be some twist of the twist where the first hob goblin was going to be revealed to be a previous minion of the bbeg and for said bbeg to have more or less pushed the hobgob into raiding the town more or less kickstarting the plot maybe the second hob goblin captain is still working for said bbeg and was sent in to more or less finish the job his brother failed at. with it being less a case of the players loosing out on loot but making it clear that unless they can beat the bbeg doesn't matter how many times they fend off the raiding party more will just come and every time its a harder fight with the raiding party possibly being custom tailored to counter the party if they hold it back enough times and scouts retreat to inform the next raid how to prepare, maybe even have npcs point out they can;t keep holding the line and have them evacuate after enough times the town still falls and the players have a reason to be angry the bbeg forced everyone to relocate and flee so even a win still has a mildly bitter aftertaste of defeat
A lil bit of that is expectation-setting in the beginning of the game, where "Death is a realistic outcome for this game, are you okay with that?" gets asked. But not all players want that, and that's okay! Different strokes for different folks. My suggestion would be to ask your players how they feel about the potential for death in a game, and try a session with just those players that are open to it, even if it's only one or two. It shouldn't be an issue, because the players who are "excluded" wouldn't have fun in that style of play anyways. Just don't ignore the rest of the group and see how this lil side adventure goes! Might turn one game into two
While such players exist I'm afraid most who do would be more upset at being left alive in this scenario. The impact on the game after it feels like the DM saved you from a death is difficult to overcome.
Hm... I like the idea of the hobgoblin captain coming back to reclaim his disgraced brother's sword and avenging his death. But the scenario you painted could use some improvements, imo. My biggest issue is that at no point in this scenario does player agency come into play. They have no idea the sword has this much baggage attached to it, and they have no reason to not take it, at the start. Then they're scripted to a fight they are ought to lose. Only after that do they get some semblance of agency, in deciding on what to do about the captain. Here's how I would improve the story. First, allow for a history check or something for the party, when they first get the sword. Maybe a success would let them know that this is a Hobgoblin Honor Blade or something - a weapon that is wielded by a champion of a hobgoblin warband, and that there is never more than one of these blades per warband. Also make an allusion that the goblins faced were NOT a hobgoblin warband. This would give them their first choice point - to take or not take the sword. Chances are they will take it anyway, but if someone in the party is genre-sawwy enough, they would provide an entertaining argument. And if they don't take the sword - then they made a decision to forego a valuable reward, and that ought to be respected. Assuming they take the sword, they will eventually encounter the hobgoblin force. I think it would be better if those forces lined up on the outskirts of the village, so that the players could ascertain its size and their chances, and have the captain come forward and announce who his is and why they are here beforehand. They'd demand the sword back, or they will attack and raze this village. This would provide another point of choice for players - to give up valuable loot in the name of village's safety, or to fight in the name of bloodshed and greed. Morality would come into play heavily here, as the party will have not only themselves, but the villagers to worry about. There's also a myriad of ways they could go about this, ranging from diplomacy to subterfuge. Should they decide to fight, then make the fight hard, but potentially winnable. That way, the players' choices in combat would actually matter. If they win - they get to keep the sword. If they lose, they lose the sword and the village is razed. The characters could be left for dead rather than spared in the way you suggested. Some might even die from failed death saving throws. The rest would be just as hateful of the captain, since they lost their sword, the village, and, potentially, party members. But they would also know that this calamity was brought upon themselves by their own actions. Which is, in my opinion, a much more compelling story. It would spark plenty of soulsearching in players and characters about what they should have done. The only conversation the story would spark as it is presented in the video would be "How was I supposed to know it was an important hobgoblin sword?!"
Those are all some great points you bring up! I definitely think the idea of the party getting the chance to consider the ramifications of taking the sword in the first place, as well as the Captain approaching them with demands pre-fight, are the way to go. My only issue with what you put forward is that there's no reason for this not to turn into a TPK. The goal of this entire encounter is to demonstrate the Hobgoblins are both a powerful and intelligent threat, so there's nothing stopping the Captain from fighting the party, winning, and executing each of them systematically. Not to mention that if the party beats the Captain, Hobgoblins are organized; the next commander would step up and realistically fulfill the same role. I think following what you were saying up until the fight starts, then pivoting to what I discussed in the video is the optimal balance of "player agency" and "verisimilitude." Cause then you have the choice to grab the sword, understand its context, negotiate with the enemy, but then there's the "off-switch" of the Captain retrieving the sword and the Hobgoblins retreating instead of them just razing the village until it's a pile of ash. Maybe after a character dies the players give it up, but the Hobgoblins aren't here to raze the village, they're here to grab the sword and leave with minimal casualties. Fantastic points, thanks for the input!
I can't recall if it's mentioned in the Monster Manual or the Goblinoid section in Volo's, but I found a quick reference online that referenced it: Beast Trainers. Hobgoblins have a long history of training animals to service. Like the more civilized races, they use oxen and horses to transport goods and weaponry over long distances. They communicate with each other using trained ravens, and keep vicious wolves to guard prisoners and protect hobgoblin camps. Hobgoblin cavalry use trained worgs as steeds, in the same way that goblins ride wolves. *Some tribes even keep carnivorous apes as fighting beasts.* From 5e.tools/bestiary/hobgoblin-captain-mm.html
@@AroWrites Dang. That could be a whole section unto itself and it's just reduced to a small blurb. Well, at least it fires up the old imagination to try to fill in the gaps.
LIke? I been eating up your content since I found you a couple weeks ago and I have thus far agreed with you more than any other D&D streamer but I gotta call this a miss I'm sorry. I wanna caution others reading this against planning for the party to lose especially a fight they didn't choose to be in. I would also encourage very heavy consideration towards a defeat that leaves the party alive. Even if you come up with a good explanation, if it there's any chance of it being believed you did it to avert a tpk rather than because it's what the enemy would've always done(such as a town guard) then it can really risk the weight and trust in the stakes of the game.
I appreciate both that you normally agree and that in this instance you don't! Multiple folks have pointed out that this limits player agency, which I agree with! However, in a narrative-oriented game there's no problem with that so long as the players are willing participants. It's a very different feeling to throw a tough encounter that both furthers the narrative and doesn't kill the party than it would be to throw a tough encounter that TPKs them for no reason. But not every game or group likes or needs that! Only use this sorta tool if your group would appreciate it
@AroWrites I'm sure there's tables doing this will be harmless or even enhance the fun at. Almost anything can work with the right sorta people as long as everyone's on board. I just figured if even one DM in the comments may pause to consider the aforementioned possible impacts rather than implementing this sort of idea with a table who'd be affected negatively longterm then it was worth it. But I really appreciate you taking the disagreement in stride.
@@AroWrites Oh, you're RPGing in real life. Yeah, when I went through that phase as a teen I decided I was part Elven IRL. Thank God I didn't have the resources for surgery back in the 80's or I'd have been walking around with Spock ears for the rest of my life. Anyway, thanks for the quick reply and I hope you get through this without causing yourself any permanent harm.
Eh... The "Taste of power" and "inevitable loss" tropes don't work for me, especially on a session 1 or 2. This is more of a "at the end of the campaign" sort of thing. This will not hook most players, and will in fact turn off many from the game. A +1 sword is nothing special. Railroading my party in this manner makes the entire game feel bad, and your PCs feel like they have no control on the narrative. Not to mention this creates a antagonistic mindset between you and your players, and they will stop trusting you, and start making "orphan lonesome wanderer characters with no ties to anything in the world." This will encourage bad player behavior, and make for disgruntled players at your table. Please, don't take this advice. You're not your players enemies. Yes, we need BBEGs in the end to make the game move forward, but don't hamfist a bbeg into the game. Let your early sessions be fun and interesting. Let your players learn the ropes of playing their characters through narrative and simplified combat before you throw them off a cliff like this. Not to mention "giving the weapon additional powers" when held by some nobody ALSO makes the players feel bad. TL;DR If you want your game to end by session two, take the advice in this video.
That's fair criticism, but it's also making some pretty sweeping assumptions. If you do something like this for a group of new players who you've never ran for before and who you aren't particularly good friends with, yeah, that'd suck. But experienced players know it's not a hostile DM-party relationship. Even if they've never played the game before, if your players trust and like you, explaining what happened and why it happened can resolve basically any issue. This sounds like it won't work for your group, and that's okay! But that doesn't mean it won't work for every group, let alone any group. In a more narrative-oriented game, introducing a BBEG early will keep the players engaged; in a more tactical game, that just feels unfair. Use what works for your group and leave the rest
Oppressing the party works too, indirectly oppressing them through npc’s Is always a handy tool too. Taxes, players hate taxes
Taxes as a means of incurring the party's ire is a level of psychological warfare even I fear to tread into
As someone who has only very recently dealt with irl toll roads. The in-game tolls my DM has does indeed fill me with rage.
In one game I made the players meet the BBEG who wants to create a family with them... I told the party that she will remain on their side until they make her feel like the monster she is, but doesn't want to be...
That changed the game a lot, but I think it is an underrated idea...
"Found family: evil" is not where I thought that story was going
or have the hobgoblin group slain by some other adventurers with the party members seeing someone else in town wielding the sword. being confronted with an "are we the baddies" moment as they debate stealing it or, heaven forbid, slaying the other group :3
@@StreetLightPony Bonus points if it’s a rival party who previously bragged about the cool new loot they got and the party was jealous. EXTRA bonus points if it’s a friendly rivalry and the party actually likes their NPC rivals
I like this idea especially because you mention that the 1st hobgoblin leader says he won't dishonor his warband AGAIN! Meaning there is some history to be uncovered about this character, even though they are probably gonna die. And it adds another layer to the captain later thanking the party for the honorable death of their kin. A lot of potential and character depth is added by just one word.
Glad you caught that! The players might even pick up on it in the moment, so they very well could interrogate the Hobgoblin and figure out that past. Suddenly, that fight with the Captain can turn into negotiations to mend past wrongs
Every time I try to structure a story around winning or losing a fight, the dice have always been against me. The general advice of tying the villain to something yhat the PCs value is great advice though.
Yeah, it's fighting fate to try and force a specific outcome in an inherently luck-based medium. That being said, things like the 2nd level party being on fight 3 of the day, when suddenly the Captain joins the fight after one of the party is already knocked out? That's the kinda stuff that can make it work
The DM makes plans and Ao laughs.
I'm not railroading the party into a loss. I'm not going to make a fight with no way to avoid I.E an ambush which I'm making sure the players lose.
@@Tommy-nh4su That’s fair! This is just a suggestion in-line with one of the first things that happens in Hoard of the Dragon Queen, where it’s not technically a forced lost but the odds are stacked against the party by design.
There’s nothing to say the fight can’t be avoided, though. I suggested the Captain approaching the party when they’re weak, but it’s reasonable to assume the Captain could never find them. Or the party’s clever and completely turn the fight around. If it doesn’t work for your group, no need to force it!
Yeah, making an unwinnable fight and forcing the players into it in a tabletop scenario isn't a good call. Makes everyone upset. But the advice in the video is pretty solid - making a villain the PCs are personally invested in beating makes for some quality gaming.
In my experience, it depends on why it feels "unwinnable." If the math isn't mathing, like the 3rd level party is fighting an Ancient Red Dragon, yeah that's just being a jerk. But this feels "unwinnable" because the party has already exhausted their resources prior to the fight, not because it's actually unwinnable. Your mileage may vary, but so long as the party doesn't die, they'd be more inclined to go "if only we planned better" rather than "this was unfair." Because this is a tough but winnable fight if they're fully topped off, it's just that they chose to spend their resources on fights prior. Maybe with some short rests thrown in there.
But that's not always the case, so no reason to add it if it won't work for your group! The core advice is separate from the example given, as you pointed out
@@AroWrites I would say that the difficulty of an encounter does not necessarily make the DM a jerk. It all depends on expectations and execution. For example, I set my level 5 party against a lich in his lair with an undead horde in a labyrinth. The party had unintentionally freed him earlier on an earlier visit and were coming back for a mcguffin that they hadn't been able to grab earlier. One party member put forth the idea that they'd done the lich a favor since they'd freed him. Maybe even let them pick up the mcguffin. The lich considered it and agreed. That seemed fair. So he proposed a trade, the mcguffin for a certain something the party had gotten earlier that was supposedly important but no one knew why. After some consideration, they declined, feeling that they must be sitting on something really special. The lich made it clear that he was being generous. They could take the trade or he'd take it by force. In turn, the party threatened to destroy it. And so began a game of the party fleeing through the labyrinth, pursued by undead and headed off a few times by teleports from the lich. The lich couldn't risk actually destroying the item he wanted and the party had to use both combat mechanics and some smart maze navigation to juke the lich. It turned out to be one of the most fondly remembered encounters in the campaign.
So you absolutely can have unfair matchups when executed well. If an encounter is a soft scripted loss, why is it so? Is there some sort of other goal that they may possibly be able to accomplish even if they lose the battle? Was this something that could have reasonably known about and should have been able to avoid? I throw quite a few things that are "impossibly unwinnable" at my players but they know it is part of the setting and as they get stronger, they have gradually become assistants to the actual heavy hitters, then members of those high power encounters, then the ones spearheading operations with weaker allies in tow who must in turn look to them as the heroes. I think scripted losses should be used sparingly but that's different from power mismatches. Power mismatches don't necessarily have to strip the players of agency.
@@NevarKanzaki Excellent points! I think the fear most folks hearing this is "The party is forced to take on an overpowered enemy who will curb stomp them into a TPK." Which is really dependent on how the DM handles the surrounding context of the fight as well as how the enemy acts during and after it. In both the hobgoblin and lich examples there's something holding back the enemy from going 100%, which I think is important to ensuring it doesn't feel like the DM being a jerk.
That who labyrinth encounter sounds awesome, and it's a great example of a narratively-oriented limiter placed on the enemy's power. Funny enough, every time I've run or encountered a lich in D&D, it's been weirdly cordial with the party, so always fun to hear that happening in other games. Love it!
"Wait, that's just Red Hand of Doom."
... yes, and? I'm not seeing a problem here.
@@thor30013 Oh it wasn’t a problem, I was just pointing out it’s not original. I’d looove to run RHOD one of these days
Ahh, the old, "steal from the party" trick.
@@ConsueloWubba No, friend, you misunderstand; it’s not stealing, it’s negotiation! The party’s life for their magic sword, very simply
Love the idea, but there's one possible flaw in it: what happens when the party decides to sell the magic sword for quick cash?
That's a good question! My first question would be "where did the sword end up?" Cause in that case, I'd hint and eventually explicitly say that the hobgoblins are looking for the sword in the encounters leading up to the Captain.
That way, there can be a quick scramble to track it down if the players are engaged. And if they really don't care even then, then I don't think anything in this video would apply
I accidentally got my party in a similar situation recently. Where most of their loot from the previous battle was stolen from them but one of the party members persuaded the pirates attacking them to spare them, now they want revenge.
I just want to add that this gives me some ideas for what to do next. Appreciate you landing on my feed. Subbing.
@@AlexC-nj9ob Always happy to help, whether by providing a guideline or just some inspiration for you to bounce off of!
I like to make non-conventional campaigns. There is never really a designated BBEG, there are either 0, and the party creates one by their own actions, or there are many, and the party simply ends up opposed to one or more.
One of the best ways i've made this happen is relationships. People too often forget to humanize enemies in D&D, same with allies. Everyone outside the party is just a nameless, faceless, consumable object that will never be useful again outside of this quest, this town, or this story arc. But, what if that isn't the case?
It's cliche to make the random goblin they adopt during session 1 the chosen one, but what if, instead, a random goblin from that tribe saves their lives because they're actually a secret agent of the crown monitoring this forest? And now the party has a connection to the crown that is positive, and look, now there's a border dispute, and the party has the option to help either side. Now they can either help the nation willing to give them more benefits, or the nation that's helped them before without asking anything in return.
Things like this build up a sense of belonging not only to the world, but its living inhabitants. I never make anything black and white for my players. Even when there is an obvious 'good' or 'evil' option, I always provide nuance that makes both options viable, attainable, and desirable.
In the example of BBEG creation, my personal favorite is that the Party doesn't really have anything against the BBEG at the start. Instead, the party's own actions bring the BBEG to them. They kill a thief, who was the nephew of a guard, who was the best friend of a merchant, who calls in a favor with a noble, who sends his men after the party, who then take being justifiably persecuted for murder as a slight against them, and seek vengeance against this 'tyrannical noble', who they eventually successfully depose, and that noble's son is an officer in the kingdom's military, and the direct subordinate of a righteous duke who is now hunting the party, who has to flee to another kingdom, or live on the run as fugitives, and over the course of several sessions everything spirals out of control, and now the Court Wizard is desperately summoning a Demon Prince through forbidden magics in a last-ditch effort to stop the party from destroying their kingdom, simply because the party decided any kingdom that persecutes them has to be 'evil'.
Now we have a Lawful Good kingdom summoning a Demon Prince as the final big-bad for this campaign because the Party forced them into a do-or-die scenario. All because the party killed a thief.
A group of players who are self-righteous is one of the most dangerous, but also narratively engaging, things imaginable. If the party understands that on a meta-level, it can be incredibly dramatic. If they don't, it usually leads to arguments due to immaturity
Oh shoot something like this could actually work pretty one-to-one in my upcoming campaign! Though in this case the first quest is escaping capture a la Skyrim Intro, so I’ll give the magic sword to the hobgoblin warden, whose disgrace will be having let the party escape.
Always a pleasure seeing someone with an equal love for hobgoblins btw.
I gotta say, hobgoblins are an enemy who for the longest time I never really utilized or faced off against. Then I had a game where I as a player had to deal with hobgoblins and now they're a staple of whenever I include goblinoids.
They're just so versatile as an evil martial faction, and it's always a nice contrast to have sneaky but cowardly goblins, brutish but lazy bugbears, and then the disciplined hobgoblin leadership
Really short and on point. Nice video! Keep it up!
Not a bad idea - but having a combat with a pre-determined outcome isn't for me. Thanks for sharing though.
That's fair! The goal is to demonstrate the enemy is strong enough to wear the party down and intelligent enough to capitalize on their weakness, just without turning it into a TPK.
I'd even say this is more of a "narrative scene" than a "true combat," so if that doesn't fit with your group no reason to force it
Your "rightful owner" comment stuck with me. What makes the sword's owner "rightful?" You can make that something the party can achieve to unlock the sword's full power.
@@alarin612 I love evolving magic items! With this sword, is it related to the warband, being a Hobgoblin, or perhaps the associations with whatever elemental damage it deals? It’s up to the party to figure out, and potentially even shift their morals in the pursuit of power
Is not something you make to hate, but is just danger incoming... Heck, they didn't even try to know the name of the captain... Unless is infamous for being a pain in the butt, still, the party could choose to leave the town and avoid the danger...
Believe or not, that is an option that players may take, i did it in an encounter with my character and the DM didn't expect that, the reason why i did it is for the risk of losing a really important artifact we have, so i decided that even if i screwed up a mission, it is much better than losing the item (especially if the item is a world changing power)
@@Voldrim359 The party should always have the option to “nope” outta situation. It should almost always have consequences, but it should be there
not gonna was expecting there to be some twist of the twist where the first hob goblin was going to be revealed to be a previous minion of the bbeg and for said bbeg to have more or less pushed the hobgob into raiding the town more or less kickstarting the plot maybe the second hob goblin captain is still working for said bbeg and was sent in to more or less finish the job his brother failed at.
with it being less a case of the players loosing out on loot but making it clear that unless they can beat the bbeg doesn't matter how many times they fend off the raiding party more will just come and every time its a harder fight with the raiding party possibly being custom tailored to counter the party if they hold it back enough times and scouts retreat to inform the next raid how to prepare, maybe even have npcs point out they can;t keep holding the line and have them evacuate after enough times the town still falls and the players have a reason to be angry the bbeg forced everyone to relocate and flee so even a win still has a mildly bitter aftertaste of defeat
Who knows? That first hobgoblin brought some sort of dishonor to their warband, maybe that's exactly what happened!
Brilliant... but now I need a video on finding players that don't get excessively upset about even the thought of a wipe.
A lil bit of that is expectation-setting in the beginning of the game, where "Death is a realistic outcome for this game, are you okay with that?" gets asked. But not all players want that, and that's okay! Different strokes for different folks.
My suggestion would be to ask your players how they feel about the potential for death in a game, and try a session with just those players that are open to it, even if it's only one or two. It shouldn't be an issue, because the players who are "excluded" wouldn't have fun in that style of play anyways. Just don't ignore the rest of the group and see how this lil side adventure goes! Might turn one game into two
While such players exist I'm afraid most who do would be more upset at being left alive in this scenario. The impact on the game after it feels like the DM saved you from a death is difficult to overcome.
Gonna use these ideas!
Hm... I like the idea of the hobgoblin captain coming back to reclaim his disgraced brother's sword and avenging his death. But the scenario you painted could use some improvements, imo. My biggest issue is that at no point in this scenario does player agency come into play. They have no idea the sword has this much baggage attached to it, and they have no reason to not take it, at the start. Then they're scripted to a fight they are ought to lose. Only after that do they get some semblance of agency, in deciding on what to do about the captain.
Here's how I would improve the story. First, allow for a history check or something for the party, when they first get the sword. Maybe a success would let them know that this is a Hobgoblin Honor Blade or something - a weapon that is wielded by a champion of a hobgoblin warband, and that there is never more than one of these blades per warband. Also make an allusion that the goblins faced were NOT a hobgoblin warband. This would give them their first choice point - to take or not take the sword. Chances are they will take it anyway, but if someone in the party is genre-sawwy enough, they would provide an entertaining argument. And if they don't take the sword - then they made a decision to forego a valuable reward, and that ought to be respected.
Assuming they take the sword, they will eventually encounter the hobgoblin force. I think it would be better if those forces lined up on the outskirts of the village, so that the players could ascertain its size and their chances, and have the captain come forward and announce who his is and why they are here beforehand. They'd demand the sword back, or they will attack and raze this village. This would provide another point of choice for players - to give up valuable loot in the name of village's safety, or to fight in the name of bloodshed and greed. Morality would come into play heavily here, as the party will have not only themselves, but the villagers to worry about. There's also a myriad of ways they could go about this, ranging from diplomacy to subterfuge.
Should they decide to fight, then make the fight hard, but potentially winnable. That way, the players' choices in combat would actually matter. If they win - they get to keep the sword. If they lose, they lose the sword and the village is razed. The characters could be left for dead rather than spared in the way you suggested. Some might even die from failed death saving throws. The rest would be just as hateful of the captain, since they lost their sword, the village, and, potentially, party members. But they would also know that this calamity was brought upon themselves by their own actions. Which is, in my opinion, a much more compelling story. It would spark plenty of soulsearching in players and characters about what they should have done. The only conversation the story would spark as it is presented in the video would be "How was I supposed to know it was an important hobgoblin sword?!"
Those are all some great points you bring up! I definitely think the idea of the party getting the chance to consider the ramifications of taking the sword in the first place, as well as the Captain approaching them with demands pre-fight, are the way to go.
My only issue with what you put forward is that there's no reason for this not to turn into a TPK. The goal of this entire encounter is to demonstrate the Hobgoblins are both a powerful and intelligent threat, so there's nothing stopping the Captain from fighting the party, winning, and executing each of them systematically. Not to mention that if the party beats the Captain, Hobgoblins are organized; the next commander would step up and realistically fulfill the same role.
I think following what you were saying up until the fight starts, then pivoting to what I discussed in the video is the optimal balance of "player agency" and "verisimilitude." Cause then you have the choice to grab the sword, understand its context, negotiate with the enemy, but then there's the "off-switch" of the Captain retrieving the sword and the Hobgoblins retreating instead of them just razing the village until it's a pile of ash. Maybe after a character dies the players give it up, but the Hobgoblins aren't here to raze the village, they're here to grab the sword and leave with minimal casualties.
Fantastic points, thanks for the input!
Nilbogs are my favorite things
@@MaddieThePancake Wrong video, buster, you’re going in the soup
@@AroWrites I may be stupid
Absolute cinema
Martin Scorsese could never
really great tips love these videos
suuuuper cool
@@cloudeon3468 It’s all easier said than done, though much cooler to experience first-hand!
I'm sorry. What is this about carnivorous war apes?
I can't recall if it's mentioned in the Monster Manual or the Goblinoid section in Volo's, but I found a quick reference online that referenced it:
Beast Trainers. Hobgoblins have a long history of training animals to service. Like the more civilized races, they use oxen and horses to transport goods and weaponry over long distances. They communicate with each other using trained ravens, and keep vicious wolves to guard prisoners and protect hobgoblin camps. Hobgoblin cavalry use trained worgs as steeds, in the same way that goblins ride wolves. *Some tribes even keep carnivorous apes as fighting beasts.*
From 5e.tools/bestiary/hobgoblin-captain-mm.html
@@AroWrites Dang. That could be a whole section unto itself and it's just reduced to a small blurb. Well, at least it fires up the old imagination to try to fill in the gaps.
@@Coid Exactly! So I was like "yeah, sure, bugbear bodyguard is pretty established for a hobgoblin. But how about a PET WAR APE!"
LIke? I been eating up your content since I found you a couple weeks ago and I have thus far agreed with you more than any other D&D streamer but I gotta call this a miss I'm sorry.
I wanna caution others reading this against planning for the party to lose especially a fight they didn't choose to be in. I would also encourage very heavy consideration towards a defeat that leaves the party alive. Even if you come up with a good explanation, if it there's any chance of it being believed you did it to avert a tpk rather than because it's what the enemy would've always done(such as a town guard) then it can really risk the weight and trust in the stakes of the game.
I appreciate both that you normally agree and that in this instance you don't!
Multiple folks have pointed out that this limits player agency, which I agree with! However, in a narrative-oriented game there's no problem with that so long as the players are willing participants. It's a very different feeling to throw a tough encounter that both furthers the narrative and doesn't kill the party than it would be to throw a tough encounter that TPKs them for no reason.
But not every game or group likes or needs that! Only use this sorta tool if your group would appreciate it
@AroWrites I'm sure there's tables doing this will be harmless or even enhance the fun at. Almost anything can work with the right sorta people as long as everyone's on board. I just figured if even one DM in the comments may pause to consider the aforementioned possible impacts rather than implementing this sort of idea with a table who'd be affected negatively longterm then it was worth it. But I really appreciate you taking the disagreement in stride.
Why are you using a female avatar when your voice is clearly male?
@@richthomas4363 I’m non-binary, so I gotta keep folks on their toes. If you’d prefer, I could go deeper
@@AroWrites Oh, you're RPGing in real life. Yeah, when I went through that phase as a teen I decided I was part Elven IRL. Thank God I didn't have the resources for surgery back in the 80's or I'd have been walking around with Spock ears for the rest of my life. Anyway, thanks for the quick reply and I hope you get through this without causing yourself any permanent harm.
@@richthomas4363 Cool
@@richthomas4363🤡
Eh... The "Taste of power" and "inevitable loss" tropes don't work for me, especially on a session 1 or 2. This is more of a "at the end of the campaign" sort of thing. This will not hook most players, and will in fact turn off many from the game. A +1 sword is nothing special. Railroading my party in this manner makes the entire game feel bad, and your PCs feel like they have no control on the narrative. Not to mention this creates a antagonistic mindset between you and your players, and they will stop trusting you, and start making "orphan lonesome wanderer characters with no ties to anything in the world."
This will encourage bad player behavior, and make for disgruntled players at your table. Please, don't take this advice. You're not your players enemies. Yes, we need BBEGs in the end to make the game move forward, but don't hamfist a bbeg into the game. Let your early sessions be fun and interesting. Let your players learn the ropes of playing their characters through narrative and simplified combat before you throw them off a cliff like this. Not to mention "giving the weapon additional powers" when held by some nobody ALSO makes the players feel bad.
TL;DR
If you want your game to end by session two, take the advice in this video.
That's fair criticism, but it's also making some pretty sweeping assumptions. If you do something like this for a group of new players who you've never ran for before and who you aren't particularly good friends with, yeah, that'd suck. But experienced players know it's not a hostile DM-party relationship. Even if they've never played the game before, if your players trust and like you, explaining what happened and why it happened can resolve basically any issue.
This sounds like it won't work for your group, and that's okay! But that doesn't mean it won't work for every group, let alone any group. In a more narrative-oriented game, introducing a BBEG early will keep the players engaged; in a more tactical game, that just feels unfair. Use what works for your group and leave the rest
Why are you a talking anime girl???
@@jorgekastanza9595 The doctor said it’s terminal. Horrifying, I know, but I’ve learned to accept it and hope you can, too