D&D General Doing Tragedy in D&D

[Clint_L]

What you really need is a player willing to make in character decisions knowing as a player it's going to end poorly. i.e. You need someone willing to role play. Not every player is keen to embrace that badness happening to their character, but it's always nice when it happens.

Agreed, and also, a tragedy doesn't have to be total to still be effective. A character giving up what they desperately wanted but, in doing so, getting what they really needed can be a happy ending. And a character giving up what they needed to get what they want can result in a character arc where they still become the queen, or the big hero, or get the seemingly perfect love interest, or whatever, yet underneath it all know that they will never be complete.

Going for a full-on, Oedipus level tragedy would take some serious commitment from the players, for sure!

 

[Hussar]

Yeah see that’s the thing. A bad thing happens is maybe tragic but not a tragedy. A tragedy as in genre tragedy means that there is no good ending for anyone. And that the bad ending is pretty much 100% self inflicted.

Someone dying in an accident is tragic. Someone dying in a totally preventable accident after being waned not to do it and knowing that it will end badly but doing it anyway is a tragedy.

I would argue that DnD is very much the wrong vehicle for this. Far too much power in one player -the DM’s- hands for it to come off as anything but overly scripted and forced.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A tragedy is any adventure where the protagonist(s) make bad choices.

Thus, you cannot "do" tragedy in D&D without restricting player choice, but tragedy can happen organically as a result of player choices.

 

[Hussar]

A tragedy is any adventure where the protagonist(s) make bad choices.

Thus, you cannot "do" tragedy in D&D without restricting player choice, but tragedy can happen organically as a result of player choices.

And, I would argue that it's even more than just making a bad choice. Tragedy has to be largely preventable. It's the character who is surrounded by people who could help them, but, they refuse any help, refuse to change their course of action, and then, when they take action, the worst result, that pretty much everyone told them was going to happen, happens.

Romeo kills himself because he thinks Juliet is dead. Juliet kills herself because Romeo killed himself. All of this was completely preventable and never actually needed to happen. That's the tragedy.

Which makes it really hard to do in D&D for several reasons.

1. The system does not reward failure. At all. There is no systemic reason to ever make the wrong choice. Sure, you can do it in the name of "role play", but, at that point, you're completely ignoring, and actually actively working against, the system.

2. All results are completely out of the hands of the players. The players make choices based on whatever information the DM passes along, but, the results of those choices are always dictated by the DM. So, any "bad" results are from the DM imposing some sort of negative consequence. It's never in the hands of any of the players. Which makes the whole nature of playing a Tragedy Genre RPG, rather pointless.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

1. The system does not reward failure.

Can you imagine how players would game the system if it did?

The players make choices based on whatever information the DM passes along, but, the results of those choices are always dictated by the DM.

It's the DM's job to play fair.

But tragedy is a lose state and D&D is a game. Who plays a game in order to lose?

 

[NN]

Pre or post Ibsen Tragedy?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Macbeth is a tragedy that has been "done" several times in D&D and other RPGs. However, it's only a tragedy because it's told from the villains' point of view. If the PCs are not Mr and Mrs Macbeth, then it's a standard heroic narrative which ends with the death of the usurping tyrant.

And if Macbeth is a PC, then it goes something like this:

DM: "The mist clears for a moment and you see three weird figures upon the blasted heath."
Macbeth: "I draw my claymore and attack the hags."
DM: "Roll for initiative."

Tragedy averted.

 

[The Soloist]

AD&D 2e: I once had an elf character whose elven king tasked him with going down in the Drow tunnels to prevent an invasion of the surface. He was polymorphed into a Drow for the mission. He succeeded in sowing civil war among the Drow and thus averting the invasion. But to succeed, he became gradually more evil, and in the end, he was effectively a Drow. He never went back to the surface and became an NPC. I created a new character.

Is that a tragedy?

 

[Hussar]

AD&D 2e: I once had an elf character whose elven king tasked him with going down in the Drow tunnels to prevent an invasion of the surface. He was polymorphed into a Drow for the mission. He succeeded in sowing civil war among the Drow and thus averting the invasion. But to succeed, he became gradually more evil, and in the end, he was effectively a Drow. He never went back to the surface and became an NPC. I created a new character.

Is that a tragedy?

I wouldn't say so. The character succeeded in his goals. Granted he sacrificed himself to do so, but, he did succeed. Had he tried, failed AND became evil, THAT would be a tragedy to me.

 

[soviet]

AD&D 2e: I once had an elf character whose elven king tasked him with going down in the Drow tunnels to prevent an invasion of the surface. He was polymorphed into a Drow for the mission. He succeeded in sowing civil war among the Drow and thus averting the invasion. But to succeed, he became gradually more evil, and in the end, he was effectively a Drow. He never went back to the surface and became an NPC. I created a new character.

Is that a tragedy?

I'd say so.

Edited to add: The character succeeded at their mission, but lost their soul and place in the world in the process. That seems a pretty clear cut tragedy to me.