D&D 5E (2014) The Larger Failure of "Tyranny of Dragons"


log in or register to remove this ad

Moreover, most of us write adventures specifically for our players, their goals, desires, and such. We can usually accurately target the kinds of things that give our players a good time. But, I don't think most of what we individual GMs produce generalizes well at all.

The main thing stopping me having a go at publishing is I write in a sort of shorthand. I know what I mean, but if I had to explain my ideas so someone else could use them it would be a massive amount of additional effort.

And, that may have been the point of the comment. Making adventures that are deemed "good" by large numbers of people isn't easy. We can look at our tables and say, "Well, my players are happy, so I must be doing as good a job as any of those published writers." But, you see, those published writers are managing to make hundreds and thousands of players happy, which is a much more impressive feat.
I certainly don't think the comment was intended to be taken at face value.
 

I didn't say that there are no stakes beyond PC death. That is your misinterpretation.

I said that without the possibility of PC deaths, there was no drama, no stakes, no tension. The GM is just telling a story, and the players are an audience.

Nobody has ever said that PCs shouldn’t die. That’s a weird conclusion to jump to.
 




Ultimately:
Death isn’t a ‘stake’. It’s a consequence. If death is a ‘stake’ then you’re playing about the most basic version of D&D you can be. Which is awesome... it’s just the baseline.
 



I remember watching the Dark Knight for the first time. At no point during that movie did I think Batman was going to die. I also could not have predicted the final outcome of that film.
J. M. Straczynski, on writing Babylon 5, said something along the lines of there not being any doubt that the good guys would win. The uncertainty came from what price they would have to pay in order to win.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top