D&D General Doing Tragedy in D&D

[Theory of Games]

Keep in mind this would be for a game where the players agreed at session 0 that they wanted a tragic so claims of unfair/unfun just don't hold the same weight as they would in a more standard game. Also maybe it wasn't clear in my original post but the players would have a choice, do adventure A or do adventure B. For example do the Haunted House and get paid 1000 gold or help the police track down a murderer for free, if they choose haunted house the murderer strikes again and kills someone close to a PC. Even if they had good reasons and not just greed to go for the money and clear the haunted house it's still a tragedy, though of course it's better if the PCs are leaning into personality flaws like greed for those decisions.

The main point is to dispute the claim that players won't be gaining XP and leveling up because they have to fail at whatever the goals are for it to be a tragedy which just isn't the case.

Yeah that isn't classic tragedy. What your presenting here is just "PCs made a bad decision". Again, classic tragedy is (normally) about someone in good position who, due to a flaw in their character, ends up losing that which means the most to them. Othello. Romeo & Juliet. Most of ancient mythology. It's about joy transforming into heart-wrenching suffering.

And I don't see a group getting on board for that kind of experience. Not when they can just kill goblins and be heroes instead

 

[Incenjucar]

Tragedy in my D&D career:
* Deva paladin of love who was all Cha, no Wis, leading to a series if incompletely explored romantic tragedies that caused him to die and be reincarnated as an invoker of love, all Wis no Cha, who continuously showing more rakshasa traits, possibly haunted by a lost love he can't fully remember.

* Campaign featuring an evil demigod of the eclipse formed by the forbidden union of sun and moon, leading the sun and moon gods to have to guide the PCs to destroy their kid.

* Princess high elf and her would-be drow assassin fall in love. Brother prince catches them and curses the princess with agony in her own flesh, forcing her to don necrotic armor that keeps her skeletal to function, and the assassin with being composed of spiders held together by a magic flower, with help from team BBEG. PCs eventually take the assassin down and disable the princess, but not before the brother prince's skin gets made into a living ship sail.

* Shadow dragon lich gets cursed to be the prow of a ship, and is so hell bent on regaining their life and form that they turn a grand daughter into a new heart and a daughter into a new body, destroying her own legacy to fuel her survival.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah that isn't classic tragedy. What your presenting here is just "PCs made a bad decision". Again, classic tragedy is (normally) about someone in good position who, due to a flaw in their character, ends up losing that which means the most to them. Othello. Romeo & Juliet. Most of ancient mythology. It's about joy transforming into heart-wrenching suffering.

And I don't see a group getting on board for that kind of experience. Not when they can just kill goblins and be heroes instead

The appeal for the players is that it might be fun to play some tragically flawed heroes who have some personality trait that will eventually cause them to flop out dramatically. To set up those dominoes in play and watch them fall. To give the DM enough rope to hang the party with, and then watch them hang. To have PC's whose downfall you're a little bit invested in, even though you also want them to succeed.

Now, as per the initial post, this won't come for the players for some significant amount of play time. Say, a year of playing a relatively consistent character in a "typical lethality" D&D campaign. The more moment-to-moment fun, then, beyond typical D&D gameplay, is in indulging that flaw - setting up the eventual fall. Imagining what this character's fate looks like, and knowing, from the outset, that it's gonna be bad. Being a hero who nonetheless is going to fail some day.

That's the initial "signing up to go on the adventure" of this campaign. You are signing up knowing that your character's flaws are going to come bite them on the ass, that they're going to make the world a worse place because of them, and that the fun part is going to be watching that fate play out inevitably, inexorably, because of those flaws. As a player, you play for the same reason you'd watch a play like this (or for the same reason you'd watch Breaking Bad) - because it can be cathartic to make a fictional train wreck.

But that also means that for session-to-session play, the PC's are reasonably safe. If a PC is playing a character inspired by Juliet whose tragic flaw is something like "I'll do anything to marry the love of my life," the fun part is in making obviously poor decisions that line up with that flaw, and seeing them play out. You won't actually be drinking the poison, so to speak, until the end of the story. In the meantime, you get permission to recklessly indulge your character's flaw and see where the cards fall.

Which means that on an adventure-to-adventure / session-to-session basis, the tragedy isn't quite so personal. We aren't going to push Juliet to the brink for a while.

So, that brings us to my earlier question about what it might look like if the tragedy doesn't directly impact the PC's specifically, since we can only do that so much in this campaign. Juilet isn't going to die until the end of the story. So what kind of things happen before that? What can we show with NPC's? What would an adventure based on Bonnie and Clyde or Scarface look like? Where the players aren't the doomed protagonists, but perhaps play a big role in that fate? Where the themes of tragedy can bounce off of some more expendable characters....while preserving the agency of the players AND the fated misfortune?

 

[Clint_L]

I mean, this is the thing. Experienced players know the "you all meet at an inn" trope and just get on with the game.

He was a new player to my table. Not a new player to D&D. I'm trying to figure out if the situation is salvageable. I've had a few players over the years who seem to like being difficult and contrary by refusing or actively working against the obvious bread crumbs. I put a lot of work into prepping sessions, and I run more of a sandbox game than most, I think, so when a player is making it actively difficult to get things accomplished in the name of "role play," then I feel it's them and not me. And it feels like kind of a jerk move, so in this case I'm trying to decipher what the motives were. The rest of the players were ticked off afterwards.

I had another instance of this a few weeks ago in a game at school. The party was exploring a shoreline. Found an intriguing looking cave. Started exploring it, and discovered some tantalizing clues. At which point one player said that she felt her character would not feel right about going deeper into the cave because it might be dangerous, and would head back. I told her okay, but pointedly reminded her that this is an adventure game, and if her character was going to head back and hang out at the ship, then she wouldn't have much to do in the next session - I'm not going to cut from the adventure so she can role-play hanging out and fishing.

If you've created a character who doesn't want to adventure...that's a dumb choice. I'm not going to support that choice.

 

[Theory of Games]

The appeal for the players is that it might be fun to play some tragically flawed heroes who have some personality trait that will eventually cause them to flop out dramatically. To set up those dominoes in play and watch them fall. To give the DM enough rope to hang the party with, and then watch them hang. To have PC's whose downfall you're a little bit invested in, even though you also want them to succeed.

Now, as per the initial post, this won't come for the players for some significant amount of play time. Say, a year of playing a relatively consistent character in a "typical lethality" D&D campaign. The more moment-to-moment fun, then, beyond typical D&D gameplay, is in indulging that flaw - setting up the eventual fall. Imagining what this character's fate looks like, and knowing, from the outset, that it's gonna be bad. Being a hero who nonetheless is going to fail some day.

That's the initial "signing up to go on the adventure" of this campaign. You are signing up knowing that your character's flaws are going to come bite them on the ass, that they're going to make the world a worse place because of them, and that the fun part is going to be watching that fate play out inevitably, inexorably, because of those flaws. As a player, you play for the same reason you'd watch a play like this (or for the same reason you'd watch Breaking Bad) - because it can be cathartic to make a fictional train wreck.

But that also means that for session-to-session play, the PC's are reasonably safe. If a PC is playing a character inspired by Juliet whose tragic flaw is something like "I'll do anything to marry the love of my life," the fun part is in making obviously poor decisions that line up with that flaw, and seeing them play out. You won't actually be drinking the poison, so to speak, until the end of the story. In the meantime, you get permission to recklessly indulge your character's flaw and see where the cards fall.

Which means that on an adventure-to-adventure / session-to-session basis, the tragedy isn't quite so personal. We aren't going to push Juliet to the brink for a while.

So, that brings us to my earlier question about what it might look like if the tragedy doesn't directly impact the PC's specifically, since we can only do that so much in this campaign. Juilet isn't going to die until the end of the story. So what kind of things happen before that? What can we show with NPC's? What would an adventure based on Bonnie and Clyde or Scarface look like? Where the players aren't the doomed protagonists, but perhaps play a big role in that fate? Where the themes of tragedy can bounce off of some more expendable characters....while preserving the agency of the players AND the fated misfortune?

It can't be done with D&D - not RAW. Eventually dice are going to get rolled and no one can control those outcomes, which impact the campaign in significant ways. But it could be fun to try it

What happens when the PCs interfere with your carefully-planned NPC tragedy arc? I mean you're actually planning a campaign where the PCs are supporting cast to an NPC's "story". Being stuck in some GM's Story™ is bad enough (many of us have been there), but to be FORCED to not interfere with the plotted downfall of an NPC is ........

 

[I'm A Banana]

What happens when the PCs interfere with your carefully-planned NPC tragedy arc?

If you sign up to play an adventure game, you expect to go on adventure.

If you sign up to play a horror-themed D&D game, you expect the night in the old abandoned house to be spooky.

If you sign up to play a D&D game about dragon-slaying and dungeon-crawling, you expect there to be dungeons and dragons.

So in this scenario, the players are expecting a D&D game where star-crossed destinies and unfortunate outcomes driven by character flaws play a significant role. It's what they've signed up for. It's what they think will be a fun twist on the formula.

In all of the above, the players still have the agency to reject the premise (don't go on the adventure, don't stay in the haunted house, stay at home and run your father's farm instead of fighting dragons), but they're agreeing to limit their agency to work within the assumptions of the premise.

If that's the case, why would they try and change those outcomes? Since they're on board with the premise, is there some element of the game play itself that works against it? Is there something in D&D that pulls players toward a "happy ending" even if they are explicitly expecting things to end unhappily in most cases?

And as a corollary, how can one help the player still feel empowered in that scenario? Is it maybe that they're empowered...negatively? Like, in a typical adventure, unless the PC's intervene, things get worse. Maybe here, unless the PC's intervene, things would stay status quo or even improve, but then the PC's take action and things go south and then...keep going south? Does that feel like a trap or like a railroad, even if you've agreed to the premise of watching things go south because of your actions?

 

[Hussar]

Again though, @Theory of Games isn't entirely wrong here. I still say that the system is going to fight you every single step of the way. Nothing in the system rewards tragic flaws. D&D just isn't set up for that. Additionally, in order for the tragedy to be somewhat organic, the players are going to need some control over the universe - either through petitioning the DM to have certain events occur in a certain way, or by adding in some sort of Fate style aspects (or some other mechanic).

I know, @I'm A Banana, you keep pointing to horror as the example, but, there's a difference here. In Horror, if you play D&D, the PC's are expected to win. This isn't Call of Cthulhu. When you go to Barovia, your first level characters are going to advance through the adventure and win through on the other side (not guaranteed, but, that's the expectation). It's not like something like Call where the entire point of play is to see how horrible your death will be.

I guess I'm just not sure why you would insist on using D&D for this. I love the idea of playing out a tragedy. It's a very cool concept. But, it's not really a genre that D&D, with it's grounding in heroic fantasy, is going to help you very much with. Honestly, I'd much easier see a number of other systems where this would work better.

 

[Hussar]

If that's the case, why would they try and change those outcomes? Since they're on board with the premise, is there some element of the game play itself that works against it? Is there something in D&D that pulls players toward a "happy ending" even if they are explicitly expecting things to end unhappily in most cases?

And, just to respond this specifically, I would say, yes. Very much yes. D&D absolutely pulls towards the "happy ending".

1. The level system. Your character gets more and more powerful. Like, a LOT more powerful. Capable of altering reality. What kind of tragedy is there that a high level caster can't just "do over" without a lot of nerfing the spell system? I played a recent campaign where one of the PC's father was killed. Poof, one raise dead later and no more tragedy.

2. The reward system. Again, the characters are expected to gain magic items and whatnot of greater and greater power and efficacy. How tragic can your life be if you have a Ring of Wishes? A bunch of magic gewgaws that mean you can not only not fail saving throws, but, often can redo failed actions. So on and so forth.

3. Any of the systems around organizations or bastions. As your character levels up, his standing in his organization rises, and the character gains access to more and more options that make any sort of "tragedy" rather hard to stand. If my cleric is 10th level, not only can I probably petition my divine organization to do stuff, I can outright petition my deity to directly step in.

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more. And, once you start getting into specific classes and whatnot, the list of "get out of jail free" type mechanics just gets longer and longer. Rerolls, Action Points, Luck points, spells, magic items, other NPC's. The list of things that D&D has that pull the party towards the "happy ending" is very, very long.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

He was a new player to my table. Not a new player to D&D. I'm trying to figure out if the situation is salvageable. I've had a few players over the years who seem to like being difficult and contrary by refusing or actively working against the obvious bread crumbs. I put a lot of work into prepping sessions, and I run more of a sandbox game than most, I think, so when a player is making it actively difficult to get things accomplished in the name of "role play," then I feel it's them and not me. And it feels like kind of a jerk move, so in this case I'm trying to decipher what the motives were. The rest of the players were ticked off afterwards.

I had another instance of this a few weeks ago in a game at school. The party was exploring a shoreline. Found an intriguing looking cave. Started exploring it, and discovered some tantalizing clues. At which point one player said that she felt her character would not feel right about going deeper into the cave because it might be dangerous, and would head back. I told her okay, but pointedly reminded her that this is an adventure game, and if her character was going to head back and hang out at the ship, then she wouldn't have much to do in the next session - I'm not going to cut from the adventure so she can role-play hanging out and fishing.

If you've created a character who doesn't want to adventure...that's a dumb choice. I'm not going to support that choice.

It may be that they come from a different sort of game, like the “story first” type game that @pemerton plays. They may expect to work with the GM and other players to create a reason for them to adventure - or simply role play a visit to a hat shop.

Whatever, this player was not present for session zero, so there is no way to know what type of game they are joining (and many players are unaware that other ways of playing than what they are used to).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If you sign up to play an adventure game, you expect to go on adventure

D&D is marketed as a role playing game, not an adventure game. It is more reasonable for a player to expect to play a role than go on an adventure.