D&D 5E Existentialist Sword and Sorcery

[Yaarel]

I think you might like Existential Comics. Sartre's Radical Freedom comes up a lot!

I am post-postmodern.

 

[ph0rk]

I don't think these particular ideas work as a dnd setting, as they clash with the necessary meta-gaming stuff required to work together as a team of strangers. Also, player meta-knowledge about characters sort of ruins it, too.

As literature, that's different.

But as a setting, I see the important parts of swords and sorcery being that the players are the underdogs, and mostly engaging in small scale struggles. Would that make the players think existential things? Maybe. But I think it is more likely to trigger thoughts of managing dwindling resources and other small scale things of the sort that usually preclude that sort of thinking. Perhaps after the adventure is over.

 

[Steampunkette]

I am post-postmodern.

The comic ranges from Platonic ideals to Postmodern outlooks.

I don't think these particular ideas work as a dnd setting, as they clash with the necessary meta-gaming stuff required to work together as a team of strangers. Also, player meta-knowledge about characters sort of ruins it, too.

As literature, that's different.

But as a setting, I see the important parts of swords and sorcery being that the players are the underdogs, and mostly engaging in small scale struggles. Would that make the players think existential things? Maybe. But I think it is more likely to trigger thoughts of managing dwindling resources and other small scale things of the sort that usually preclude that sort of thinking. Perhaps after the adventure is over.

Existentialism is a component of a setting, of a story. Not the end all and be all. But to maintain the pulp swords and sorcery feeling it is important. Not in a fight, not on the battlefield, but part of the story itself.

And metaknowledge only means anything if you give your players your notes

 

[Yaarel]

I don't think these particular ideas work as a dnd setting, as they clash with the necessary meta-gaming stuff required to work together as a team of strangers. Also, player meta-knowledge about characters sort of ruins it, too.

As literature, that's different.

But as a setting, I see the important parts of swords and sorcery being that the players are the underdogs, and mostly engaging in small scale struggles. Would that make the players think existential things? Maybe. But I think it is more likely to trigger thoughts of managing dwindling resources and other small scale things of the sort that usually preclude that sort of thinking. Perhaps after the adventure is over.

When player characters are low-tier, they are generally innocent, and inherently free.

The setting offers power that inherently corrupts. A kind of devils bargain, sotospeak.

The existentialism comes in at higher levels, when player characters wonder if what they achieved with this power is worth the price.

 

[ph0rk]

And metaknowledge only means anything if you give your players your notes

They will still know their character's minds better than the characters do - the DM isn't in control of that.

The existentialism comes in at higher levels, when player characters wonder if what they achieved with this power was worth the price.

I don't think it translates to a group game.

 

[Steampunkette]

They will still know their character's minds better than the characters do - the DM isn't in control of that.



I don't think it translates to a group game.

I have used these techniques in D&D games.

So long as your players are happy roleplaying the characters in the story it works well.

 

[Yaarel]

I don't think it translates to a group game.

It can. Consider how Backgrounds fit in.

For example, player characters might start off in an idealized innocent wilderness community, that unfortunately lives in extreme poverty and at the mercy of hostile expansionist ruthless towns.

Part of the motive to adventure is to supply nourishment and help the community defend itself. One Background might teach them magic. An other Background might teach them how to fight with better weapons. Etcetera. Yet, while their community does become stronger and more successful, the very act of helping them seduces them into the corruption of the town life.

Players are working together to fortify their shared community. It is somewhat in the spirit of building ones own fortress, or becoming leaders of a town, and here the players do this together as team.

Conan did become a ruler.

 

[ph0rk]

I have used these techniques in D&D games.

So long as your players are happy roleplaying the characters in the story it works well.

Ok, yes, if the players consent to the DM telling them what they think, sure.

I wouldn't ever do that.

Yet, while their community does become stronger and more successful, the very act of helping them seduces them into the corruption of the town life.

I don't think you can decide, for the players, that their characters will be uneasy with that. They may think town life is just grand.

 

[Steampunkette]

Ok, yes, if the players consent to the DM telling them what they think, sure.

I wouldn't ever do that.

Radical interpretation of the text...

You don't tell your players what their characters think. You progress the story in a way that shapes player perception to create an existential crisis for the characters by exposing them to how their characters have changed over time.

And then that confrontation with their identity and circumstances leads them onward.

 

[ph0rk]

existential crisis for the characters by exposing them to how their characters have changed over time.

What if they don't care that their characters have changed over time? And if the characters themselves do not care?

People change all the time; and they change their personal narratives to fit the new them. I don't think it is as inherently crisis fodder as you make it to be.