D&D 5E Existentialist Sword and Sorcery

Yaarel

He Mage
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.
Of course. That is why Darksun allows players to play Defilers.


But that choice too helps actualize the feel of the setting where civilization=corruption.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ph0rk

Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
But that choice too helps actualize the feel of the setting where civilization=corruption.
I like Darksun, but that so many physical mechanics are required is an excellent example of how poorly dnd (particularly 5e) models morality. Frankly, it just doesn't.

And, thus, with no system for what is good and bad, an arc that requires characters to feel bad about a thing they may feel good about doesn't seem like much of a sure thing to me.
 

Steampunkette

Rules Tinkerer and Freelance Writer
Supporter
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.
Then... That'd be fine? Like. What reaction are you expecting from me, here?

In this thread I specifically suggested that the elf queen in the example could choose to accept the change.

That's a perfectly fine way to go.
 

ph0rk

Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
You titled a section:

Sword and Sorcery are based in Existentialism


And I said I do not think that works as a core theme for a dnd setting.

You said it could work - and it could if the players play ball. But if they don't, or only half of them do, then some of them will be bored.

I don't see it as a core defining part of a S&S game. If you aren't arguing it should be but merely that it could be - okay, I guess? It could be.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
I like Darksun, but that so many physical mechanics are required is an excellent example of how poorly dnd (particularly 5e) models morality. Frankly, it just doesn't.

And, thus, with no system for what is good and bad, an arc that requires characters to feel bad about a thing they may feel good about doesn't seem like much of a sure thing to me.
When describing a setting, it is less about how the players feel. It is more about the mood and tone that the setting evokes.

Players can roleplay within this setting however they want.
 



Steampunkette

Rules Tinkerer and Freelance Writer
Supporter
You titled a section:




And I said I do not think that works as a core theme for a dnd setting.

You said it could work - and it could if the players play ball. But if they don't, or only half of them do, then some of them will be bored.

I don't see it as a core defining part of a S&S game. If you aren't arguing it should be but merely that it could be - okay, I guess? It could be.
Fantasy doesn't work in a game unless everyone is willing to accept the fantastic.

Horror doesn't work unless everyone is willing to be scared

If they don't, or only half do, they'll be bored.

No. I don't think it is the core defining concept of sword and sorcery. But it is important. That's why magic is the weapon of evil. The unknowable and inscrutable power of the Sorcerer is subverted, avoided, redirected rather than overpowered because all the muscle in the world doesn't beat lightning bolts.

It is a big part of the foundation of such a setting.

How you bring it forward... That is the question.
 


Yaarel

He Mage
@Steampunkette

This forumer did some interesting things for his sword-and-sorcery setting.


 

Remove ads

Top