How serious is your d&d?

[Hjorimir]

I run a serious game with potentially brutal consequences born from an embraced player agency model. Stakes are high, PCs have little narrative armor (there have been deaths and one TPK).

 

[ccs]

Hard & gritty beer and pretzels.

 

[Satyrn]

Hard & gritty beer and pretzels.

These gritty pretzels are making me thirsty.

 

[Zardnaar]

Very had to ban people having fun.

 

[Gradine]

Hard & gritty beer and pretzels.

They got you covered.

 

[ParanoydStyle]

I run a serious game with potentially brutal consequences born from an embraced player agency model. Stakes are high, PCs have little narrative armor (there have been deaths and one TPK).

This (well except for the TPK, not that I've never had one just not...recently...lol) pretty accurately and succinctly describes my DMing style and philosophy. I am glad to see another person who understands (well, at least agrees with me) that an absence of safety nets and plot armor and "do you consent to have your character die" mechanics actually makes player agency meaningful, rather than being at odds with it.

 

[Gradine]

This (well except for the TPK, not that I've never had one just not...recently...lol) pretty accurately and succinctly describes my DMing style and philosophy. I am glad to see another person who understands (well, at least agrees with me) that an absence of safety nets and plot armor and "do you consent to have your character die" mechanics actually makes player agency meaningful, rather than being at odds with it.

I get the point you're trying to make here, and I know a lot of this is largely a personal preference thing, but I have to ask how one can consider "player has input on whether their character is permanently dead or not" to be at odds with "player agency". Like, there's an argument to made that a PC's actions should have real consequences, but "death" is but one of great many consequences, and honestly it's one of the least interesting consequences possible, at least from a narrativist perspective. I would consider that a player having a role in deciding whether their own character's story is finished or not to be a pretty strong example of player agency, all things considered.

Again, I totally understand the other side of this, and I think it's a perfectly fine and valid way to approach the game, but it's obviously not an approach that suits everyone, and I don't think either one has the monopoly on the claim of best supporting player agency. There's pros and cons to either side; it's all a matter of preference.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I generally run somewhat zany games. Someone said Discworldy and that seems apt. I always strive for a consistent world stage, but it definitely leans closer to Sir Terry than Tolkien.

Not that we don't have our big dramatic moments, the jokes are funnier with proper heft, coming from well fleshed out characters.

 

[Leatherhead]

Beer and pretzels all the way.

 

[Celebrim]

Let's put it this way, I've always deeply empathized with "B.A." from "Knights of the Dinner Table".

It's not so much that the players aren't serious - about certain things most of them tend to be very serious. Sure, in every table you have one goof that doesn't care if his character lives or dies and is just trying to be silly, but about survival and maximizing the chances of hitting a monster in a combat, the majority of players are very serious. If you let them, they'll argue tactics in a fight for 10 minutes. And regarding RP in as much as they think it will help them advance their character, they are very serious.

But about staying in character or creating some sort of emotionally meaningful experience or great story, they pretty much could care less. It happens occasionally, but mostly by accident.

So mostly I run a beer and pretzels game that people enjoy, even if it doesn't necessarily go where I would have wanted it to go.