D&D General Doing Tragedy in D&D

[Paul Farquhar]

If that's the case, why would they try and change those outcomes

Because they are not stupid?

If Hamlet had checked who was hiding behind the tapestry before stabbing them he would not have murdered the wrong person and the whole tragedy would have been averted.

 

[Incenjucar]

Heroic sacrifices and two-bad-choices are mainstays in heroic fantasy, not to mention corruption and illusion, so there are plenty of unhappy character-driven outcomes in which the players have agency over their portion of it but can't save everyone.

The GM may not have fine control over these, but can certainly put the PCs in situations where only partial wins are possible.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Heroic sacrifices and two-bad-chouces are a mainstay in heroic fantasy, not to mention corruption and illusion

Sure, Lord of the Rings is full of them.

But that’s not what Tragedy is, those are just regular fantasy elements.

To try and explain the difference, look at some examples from Star Wars. The Acolyte is textbook tragedy (probably too textbook to find much of an audience). On the other hand, Rogue One is not a tragedy, even though everyone dies in the end. Their deaths had meaning. Indeed, if you look closer, there is a specific moment when tragedy is averted - when Andor acts against his nature and chooses not to assassinate Galen.

 

[Theory of Games]

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?

sigh As usual on these threads, the goalpost keeps shifting:

In the OP, YOU posted:

"How do you evoke this? What in D&D seems to get the most in the way of it? Can you cause the players to feel pathos like that in your games? Do you ever inflict tragedy...on the PC's? Or is it NPC-only? How can the players see a tragedy about to play out and NOT intervene to fix it?"
Then, a page ago, you posted:

"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?"

So. I'm lost. Are the players' characters involved or not? I've addressed your concept by stating (1) you don't seem to understand what classical Tragedy is (2) dice rolls can turn a campaign in unexpected directions (3) and you're presently a storyline for the players to follow with their characters - as a director uses a screenplay to guide actors - ignoring an obvious negation of player agency, that simply isn't how D&D functions.

There are more story-oriented ttrpgs that can do what you want: Companions' Tale, The Microscope, Fiasco, or Polaris, for example. I get it that some people love D&D and think you can handle any genre with it, and yeah, you can hammer a nail with a screwdriver (BTDT) BUT --- D&D isn't the system for this.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

Can you help define tragedy in this context? Perhaps provide an example or two?

"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die." - Mel Brooks

 

[Incenjucar]

Sure, Lord of the Rings is full of them.

But that’s not what Tragedy is, those are just regular fantasy elements.

To try and explain the difference, look at some examples from Star Wars. The Acolyte is textbook tragedy (probably too textbook to find much of an audience). On the other hand, Rogue One is not a tragedy, even though everyone dies in the end. Their deaths had meaning. Indeed, if you look closer, there is a specific moment when tragedy is averted - when Andor acts against his nature and chooses not to assassinate Galen.

Tragedy is someone being doomed by the choices that define their nature. They are not disallowed from doing good on the way out. The "I brought this on myself" factor in which better decisions would have prevented bad outcomes.

(I don't Star Wars, so I'mma take your word.)

 

[occam]

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.

Setting aside the stipulation that acquisition of power (levels, magic items, status, etc.) universally defines a "happy ending"...

Are you saying that power makes one immune to tragedy? There are LOTS of examples of that not being the case. Most, perhaps all, Greek and Shakespearean tragic characters are high-status individuals; in fact, the belief that personal power can be used to forestall a tragic fate is a prominent story element for plenty of those characters.

Also, we've had some examples presented in this thread of powerful PCs who have experienced tragic fates, in spite of however many hit points or magic items they might've possessed. I don't think power, however that's measured, makes much difference in why tragedy is hard to pull off in a game like D&D.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Tragedy is someone being doomed by the choices that define their nature. They are not disallowed from doing good on the way out. The "I brought this on myself" factor in which better decisions would have prevented bad outcomes.

(I don't Star Wars, so I'mma take your word.)

But in D&D (as in anything that is not a linear story) characters always have choices. They are not limited to mechanistically following their nature. Otherwise you could simply look at what a player has written on their character sheet and tell them what the consequences are. Game over.

And if you don’t like Star Wars but do like tragedy you should watch The Acolyte. Lots of people who do like Star Wars didn’t like it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Setting aside the stipulation that acquisition of power (levels, magic items, status, etc.) universally defines a "happy ending"...

Tragedy does not mean “doesn’t have a happy ending”. Macbeth has a happy ending. The evil tyrant is killed. Romeo and Juliet has a happy ending: the Montagues and Capulets end their blood feud.

 

[Incenjucar]

But in D&D (as in anything that is not a linear story) characters always have choices. They are not limited to mechanistically following their nature. Otherwise you could simply look at what a player has written on their character sheet and tell them what the consequences are. Game over.

And if you don’t like Star Wars but do like tragedy you should watch The Acolyte. Lots of people who do like Star Wars didn’t like it.

Every tragic character had choices, they were doomed by roleplaying instead of metagaming.