D&D General Doing Tragedy in D&D

[Incenjucar]

It is true that you cannot have tragedy if consequences are not part of the game.

 

[Theory of Games]

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.

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

But if the GM establishes in Session 0 that the PCs are doomed to failure, that by definition is METAGAME

 

[Umbran]

A game of D&D might lead to tragedy. But it has to be down to the players making the choice when a better outcome is possible. The DM cannot decide it for them - that’s not a Tragedy, that’s a railroad.

RPGs are collaborations. The GM cannot decide it for them, but if it is to happen, the GM is the one who makes sure the possibility is present. If Kitiara isn't there, Sturm cannot die tragically on the wall fighting her.

Which brings up a point - tragedy is not always about making the wrong choices where better ones exist. It can also be about making the right choice, but having it end badly. Heroic sacrifices can serve a good purpose, and be the right choice, but still be tragic occurrences.

 

[Umbran]

But if the GM establishes in Session 0 that the PCs are doomed to failure, that by definition is METAGAME

I played in a game in which the PCs were on a satellite habitat in a decaying orbit. Nothing on the habitat or the planet below had the power to stop that. Ultimately, everyone was going to die.

Sometimes, the question to be explored/answered is not, "How can you win?" Sometimes it is, "How do you lose?"

 

[Incenjucar]

I played in a game in which the PCs were on a satellite habitat in a decaying orbit. Nothing on the habitat or the planet below had the power to stop that. Ultimately, everyone was going to die.

Sometimes, the question to be explored/answered is not, "How can you win?" Sometimes it is, "How do you lose?"

Cliche as they are, this much of why tragic heroes and villains are so popular - you get to see who they are when the worst has already happened.

 

[Theory of Games]

I played in a game in which the PCs were on a satellite habitat in a decaying orbit. Nothing on the habitat or the planet below had the power to stop that. Ultimately, everyone was going to die.

Sometimes, the question to be explored/answered is not, "How can you win?" Sometimes it is, "How do you lose?"

Well ttrpgs are GAMES, first and foremost. So "exploring 'how to lose'", could be the equivalent of "playing to lose" to myself and certain other gamers who share my playstyles. Of course, we in the ttrpg hobby don't "play to win", we play to have fun with our friends. But, in I6, if my party destroys Strahd (ending his tragic existence) and gets all that delicious treasure, well .... we certainly didn't lose.

And I get it, some people might find "playing to fail" entertaining, and that's fine and dandy. You just can't do it with RAW D&D.

 

[soviet]

Well ttrpgs are GAMES, first and foremost.

Seems to me that the G is at the end

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Cliche as they are, this much of why tragic heroes and villains are so popular - you get to see who they are when the worst has already happened.

But the tragedy is backstory, not frontstory.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Seems to me that the G is at the end

So what you are saying is, first and foremost, they are tables.

 

[Incenjucar]

But the tragedy is backstory, not frontstory.

It varies. Tragic figures are often striving to avoid repeated tragedies, sometimes failing. Tragic villains are often repeating tragedies on purpose.