D&D 5E What D&D should learn from a Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones)

[Elf Witch]

I think DnD could learn that some people want a lower magic gritty game and give options to allow that kind of game without the pounding a square peg into a round hole we have now.

That being said I think it would be a mistake to have such a lethal game and such fragile PCs as the standard. I don't think most players who choose DnD want that style of game. And yes I know that some do but if it was the majority I think the game designers would be smart enough to figure this out.

It would thrill me if DnD could handle equally well a campaign like GOT or a more light Xena style campaign.

 

[Umbran]

If you look at D&D as a creative medium, that's what we use art for: to elicit emotions. All emotions, not just giddiness and satisfaction.

Except that each group uses it for different things, creatively speaking. We are not all in it specifically to "create all emotions". So, baking certain things into the core experience (like high mortality rate) can be troublesome. Not baking it in is also troublesome. There are choices to be made, as the game cannot be all things to all people.

I would expect the designers to aim at a fairly common desire. I am not sure the really deep emotional stuff you're talking about is really appropriate for the mass market.

The thing is, people read/watched the Red Wedding and then came back for more. Who's to say D&D players wouldn't do the same?

The primary difference between the D&D player and the SoIaF reader is authorship. The reader may be somewhat attached to a character, but the character is not *theirs*. They do not own the character, and they know they are a passive viewer of the action. In D&D, the player is, in a sense, the primary author of their character in a collaboration, and that's a different connection.

Note that one of the the things that makes GRRM popular is his rare willingness to kill characters. Most authors love their characters too much to willfully kill them the way Martin does. So, expecting D&D players is kind of expecting them to be like a unique breed of author that isn't common - perhaps not a great expectation.

 

[Umbran]

It's also not LotR, not Arthurian legend, not a Greek epic, not Lovecraft, not Star Wars, not Harry Potter, and so on and so forth. And yet, it probably is informed by all of those things, and you'll regularly see people pushing that it should be more so.

But, in the end, a finite and usable ruleset cannot be *all* things. So, push all you like, there are choices to be made about which things really end up fitting in the game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Except that each group uses it for different things, creatively speaking. We are not all in it specifically to "create all emotions".

Thus, I used the word "if".

So, baking certain things into the core experience (like high mortality rate) can be troublesome. Not baking it in is also troublesome. There are choices to be made, as the game cannot be all things to all people.

5e was promised to be the customizable game that could do whatever kind of D&D you want.

The primary difference between the D&D player and the SoIaF reader is authorship. The reader may be somewhat attached to a character, but the character is not *theirs*. They do not own the character, and they know they are a passive viewer of the action. In D&D, the player is, in a sense, the primary author of their character in a collaboration, and that's a different connection.

Note that one of the the things that makes GRRM popular is his willingness to kill characters. Most authors love their characters too much to willfully kill them the way Martin does. So, expecting D&D players is kind of expecting them to be like a unique breed of author that isn't common - perhaps not a great expectation.

It's true that the rpg medium is more interactive and grants the players a type of authorship that novel readers don't have. However, I think the point of the thread topic was to learn from the exceptional qualities of the fiction being referred to, including the the author's approach.

And, as it pertains to the television show, when characters are killed off there, not only has the actor been deprived of their attachment to the character, they have also effectively been fired from their job. (Not that most of them will have trouble finding work afterwards). So there's an element of loss there.

The lesson as I see it is that both the good and the bad are worth including; there's no requirement to play D&D as a sequestered environment free of strife.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

And, as it pertains to the television show, when characters are killed off there, not only has the actor been deprived of their attachment to the character, they have also effectively been fired from their job. (Not that most of them will have trouble finding work afterwards). So there's an element of loss there.

There's an element of loss, for sure. However, it belongs to a paid employee that has to do everything you tell them to. They might be annoyed at it, but you don't have an obligation to make them happy...you are paying them.

Not so much for players. They show up because they are enjoying the game and want to keep playing. Stop making them happy and they stop showing up. It's that simple.

As with any activity, there are highs and lows. A players on a volunteer baseball team might not like losing but might like winning enough that they are willing to put up with some losses in order to have the chance at winning. However, rest assured that if that team loses nearly constantly, that player is going to consider whether they still want to be on the team.

It's the same with RPGs. Players don't mind their characters dying from time to time if it creates a fun story or it makes their wins seem even more impressive by comparison. Most players like to have some continuity from one session to the next, however, and dying every session is likely to get on even the most tolerant player's nerves.

 

[Dannager]

Nothing prevents exploring the character in a high lethality game. It doesn't mean that the character will die, but that characters will face (realistic) consequences for their actions and are not able to stomp everything they encounter as in an average D&D game.

"High-lethality" literally means that the game will be more lethal to PCs than normal. That's what it means. Player characters will have a significantly higher chance of dying when engaging in the same sorts of actions.

 

[Dannager]

The lesson as I see it is that both the good and the bad are worth including; there's no requirement to play D&D as a sequestered environment free of strife.

And no one plays it that way. What we're saying is that character death is, in longer campaigns and on balance, best used sparingly, because it is more likely than just about anything else to lower a player's investment in the game by effectively nullifying the time they have spent playing it up to that point. D&D is a game where you want to foster player investment, not destroy it.

It certainly doesn't help that nearly every "high-lethality" campaign I've played, read about, or heard about was run by a DM who personally liked the idea of high-lethality (I won't hazard a guess as to why) and never encouraged by players who wanted to play in a campaign that was high-lethality for its own sake.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Not so much for players. They show up because they are enjoying the game and want to keep playing. Stop making them happy and they stop showing up. It's that simple.

I don't think that players' involvement in the game can be summed up in terms of happiness, and that's the point I was making. People read books that don't make them happy, listen to (and play) music that doesn't make them happy, and they play rpgs that don't make them happy. The GoT stuff is just one prominent example.

As with any activity, there are highs and lows. A players on a volunteer baseball team might not like losing but might like winning enough that they are willing to put up with some losses in order to have the chance at winning. However, rest assured that if that team loses nearly constantly, that player is going to consider whether they still want to be on the team.

Interesting, in that these are zero-sum games. Many sports leagues do have winless teams, and every one that tracks standings has someone that finishes in last place. Do the last place teams have higher rates of attrition than average or high-performing teams? In any case, is that rate of attrition unsustainable or unacceptable? I don't know.

For my part, I was not a great competitive athlete (what a surprise for a D&D player). I won some tennis matches, but I probably lost more than I won, and that was against pretty low-level competition. When playing against more serious athletes, I was routinely dismantled. And yet, while I really hate losing, it wasn't a disincentive to play at all. I looked forward to the top division teams more than the bottom ones; I preferred a higher quality of play. I would likely lose even against their weakest players, but it was a better match, and at least I'd feel like there was something to achieve if I did win. Repeated losses may not have put a smile on my face, but they by no means excised me from the hobby. Injuries, on the other hand...

It's the same with RPGs. Players don't mind their characters dying from time to time if it creates a fun story or it makes their wins seem even more impressive by comparison. Most players like to have some continuity from one session to the next, however, and dying every session is likely to get on even the most tolerant player's nerves.

Well, yes. And the GRRM novels also mix things up in that regard. Sometimes expected deaths don't happen, and there are long periods of inactivity. It's important to keep things dynamic regardless of what the parameters of your game are.

 

[Derren]

"High-lethality" literally means that the game will be more lethal to PCs than normal. That's what it means. Player characters will have a significantly higher chance of dying when engaging in the same sorts of actions.

Yes, chance.
A high lethality game means at first only that the players have to play differently and smarter than the typical D&D game where they go down some random dungeon and charge everything they come across and does not belong to the player races.

Does that mean that they can't "explore" their characters? No, it doesn't. How they deal with danger and how much risk they are willing to take is as much part of their character as everything else.

 

[fjw70]

I have really enjoyed ASoIaF but I must admit that as the series has gone on and more and more central characters have died I have enjoyed the series less and less.