D&D 5E The Larger Failure of "Tyranny of Dragons"

[Jd Smith1]

I don't understand this. Why is killing PCs the only stakes for a RPG? Even for D&D this has not normally been my epxerience.

If a player knows that his PC can't die, then he knows the final outcome of every undertaking.

 

[Sadras]

If a player knows that his PC can't die, then he knows the final outcome of every undertaking.

I don't understand this. Why is killing PCs the only stakes for a RPG? Even for D&D this has not normally been my experience.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If a player knows that his PC can't die, then he knows the final outcome of every undertaking.

I don’t think that’s really the case. Or at least, it shouldn’t be. Can’t the PC live, but fail to save the princess? Or stop the evil wizard, or steal the lost treasure....and so on.

I think the highest stakes in my group’s campaign have generally been more about goals and whether they’re achieved or not. Obviously, PC death can be an obstacle to achieving goals, but it’s not the only fail state.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"Experience" is the thing. We know from other posts that @Jd Smith1 operates a closed table and only plays with like minded people. If you only ever associate with people who are only motivated by narrow self interest you come to believe that people with different motivations do not exist.

Of course, it really makes no difference if a player is motivated by the survival of their pretend character, or the acculturation of pretend gold, or trying to help pretend other people, it's all equally unreal. It's the same as books and movies - the storyteller's art is making us care about people who do not exist.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I don’t think that’s really the case. Or at least, it shouldn’t be. Can’t the PC live, but fail to save the princess? Or stop the evil wizard, or steal the lost treasure....and so on.

Well, I've never used princesses, or stopping evil wizards...but if you don't save/stop, so what?

Nobody wins every game. The world will keep turning even if some rich brat catches a blade (why do only rich matter? Is saving a peasant girl just not kewl enough?), or some evil opportunist comes out on top.

But if your PC takes a dirt nap, he's gone forever, and you start anew at 1st level. The game (barring a TPK) will continue week after week, but you'll never catch up with the rest of the party, power-wise.

So long as your PC makes it out alive, there'll be another job, another game session, more pay.

If you know your PC can't die, however, then there's no risk, no tension, no heroics, no drama, no suspense. Because there will always be another session, another job.

 

[Jd Smith1]

"Experience" is the thing. We know from other posts that @Jd Smith1 operates a closed table and only plays with like minded people. If you only ever associate with people who are only motivated by narrow self interest you come to believe that people with different motivations do not exist.

At my table are people who have spent their careers (myself included) in emergency services. How many lives have you saved in RL? Babies delivered?

Assumptions are tricky things.

Of course, it really makes no difference if a player is motivated by the survival of their pretend character, or the acculturation of pretend gold, or trying to help pretend other people, it's all equally unreal. It's the same as books and movies - the storyteller's art is making us care about people who do not exist.

Some of us are playing a game, not telling stories. Because we have real lives with stories aplenty.

 

[pemerton]

If a player knows that his PC can't die, then he knows the final outcome of every undertaking.

This doesn't seem a very plausible claim. Suppose my PC's goal is to convert a companion to his religion. Or to woo someone. Or to rescue someone. None of these outcomes is known in virtue of the fact that my PC won't die.

As per the Prince Valiant rulebook (p 26), "Normally death [of PCs] is not an important part of Prince Valiant." That doesn't mean that the players know the final outcome of everything they attempt. The action in our game is prety unpredictable. And the PCs do not always succeed - as in this report, for instance, during which the PCs found themselves unable to defend the true lord of a tower.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's impossible to crank out consistently great APs IMHO. Great adventures tend to be shorter as it's to hard to keep things going over 10-15 levels.

Each on is essentially 3-4 smaller adventures and no author yet can crank out that level of quality consistently.

I think very idea of "Adventure Paths" is a problem. The impose linearity on the story and force it to be a railroad. They suppose you finish adventure 1 at a certain place in order to be at the beginning of adventure 2. Which forces you to end at the right place to begin adventure 3, and so on.

And when books try to break away from this (I believe SKT is in this category, but I haven't read it) people complain about "unused content".

I much prefer to string together separate modules, with some kind of Arc Plot going on in the background. Then when players complete module 1, I can see where they want to go next, and depending on that they might go to module 2, or module B, or module W.

Thus, only WotC adventure books I have actually made significant use of are TftYP and GoS.

 

[pemerton]

Well, I've never used princesses, or stopping evil wizards...but if you don't save/stop, so what?

Nobody wins every game. The world will keep turning even if some rich brat catches a blade (why do only rich matter? Is saving a peasant girl just not kewl enough?), or some evil opportunist comes out on top.

But if your PC takes a dirt nap, he's gone forever, and you start anew at 1st level. The game (barring a TPK) will continue week after week, but you'll never catch up with the rest of the party, power-wise.

So long as your PC makes it out alive, there'll be another job, another game session, more pay.

If you know your PC can't die, however, then there's no risk, no tension, no heroics, no drama, no suspense. Because there will always be another session, another job.

Not everyone playes D&D as a wargame in the way you describe in this post. And there is no rule in 5e D&D that requires any player to start any particular PC at any particular level.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, I've never used princesses, or stopping evil wizards...but if you don't save/stop, so what?

Nobody wins every game. The world will keep turning even if some rich brat catches a blade (why do only rich matter? Is saving a peasant girl just not kewl enough?), or some evil opportunist comes out on top.

But if your PC takes a dirt nap, he's gone forever, and you start anew at 1st level. The game (barring a TPK) will continue week after week, but you'll never catch up with the rest of the party, power-wise.

So long as your PC makes it out alive, there'll be another job, another game session, more pay.

If you know your PC can't die, however, then there's no risk, no tension, no heroics, no drama, no suspense. Because there will always be another session, another job.

No Raise Dead or Resurrection in your game?

I’m not saying that I think the possibility of PC death should be removed from the game. But I don’t think it’s the sole source of risk, drama, tension, and suspense.

I mean....there’s always another job, you say, but you also say if they fail at the job, so what?

Seems contradictory.

If the PCs are invested in the job, then they’ll care about seeing it done. Whether it’s saving someone, or stopping a bad guy, or gaining revenge....whatever.

If they don’t care about the outcome, then sure, I suppose there’s no other risk for them.