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

[GMMichael]

New edition. What better time to change some things around in D&D? And what bigger, concurrent, fantasy influence than a Game of Thrones?

So my question: what sorts of things happen in a Song of Ice and Fire (the novels, not the RPG) that you would like to see included, in one way or another, in D&D 5?

For example:

My first choice is easily mortality rates. Characters in SoIaF don't hack their way through hordes of orcs. They hesitate even to begin a fight, because fights mean death. I'd like to see D&D 5 make characters more fragile, and put greater emphasis on social and intellectual conflict than on physical conflict.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

D&D HAD that. Until a bunch of people whined about it and it they changed it to the detriment of the game.

 

[Dannager]

D&D HAD that. Until a bunch of people whined about it and it they changed it to the detriment of the game.

You have plenty of options for a game like that. A long time ago the Powers That Be decided that D&D wasn't going to be about fragile player characters. It was going to be a game where you play as a heroic (or occasionally anti-heroic or even villainous) adventurer. Players get invested in their characters, and they tend not to be keen on the idea of them dying easily. One of the lessons you learn hard and fast in ASoIaF is not to get attached. To anyone. I don't think that's a good lesson to build a game like Dungeons & Dragons around, where your character is your proxy in the game. People want some real persistence there.

 

[Lhorgrim]

I think that the focus on social and intellectual solutions has to be something the DM creates in the narrative, and not something dictated by the ruleset. If the DM wants social resolutions to be the norm in his or her game, then he or she can set the negative consequences for using force within the scenario. But if the characters are made more fragile by the ruleset in order to suggest that type of play, then the DM has to houserule something to make the PCs more survivable if they want a hack and slay game.

In ASoIaF the Cold Ones(?) seem to represent an enemy that does not lend itself to the social style of gameplay. At least not long term.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

New edition. What better time to change some things around in D&D? And what bigger, concurrent, fantasy influence than a Game of Thrones?

So my question: what sorts of things happen in a Song of Ice and Fire (the novels, not the RPG) that you would like to see included, in one way or another, in D&D 5?

For example:

My first choice is easily mortality rates. Characters in SoIaF don't hack their way through hordes of orcs. They hesitate even to begin a fight, because fights mean death. I'd like to see D&D 5 make characters more fragile, and put greater emphasis on social and intellectual conflict than on physical conflict.

I don't think there's a lot of D&D fans interested in that. In D&D, you fight conspiracies, delve into dungeons and save the world, in a game where most rules are about combat. You're looking at a narrative-heavy game like Fate instead.

 

[Raith5]

D&D HAD that. Until a bunch of people whined about it and it they changed it to the detriment of the game.

I dont agree with this. I think the role of the DM is more important than system.

However, early versions of the game had spells/abilities that easily undermined campaign's focused on intrigue and social conflict game play (especially when coupled with strict visions of alignment). And later versions had things like skill challenges that offered mechanics for social conflict. Obviously 4th ed skill challenges were not perfect as written but I think they could be a really cool tool for emulating GOT type of play.

 

[Lanefan]

You have plenty of options for a game like that. A long time ago the Powers That Be decided that D&D wasn't going to be about fragile player characters.

A wrong decision, to be sure; and correctable now either by inherent design (preferable) or by house rule.

It was going to be a game where you play as a heroic (or occasionally anti-heroic or even villainous) adventurer.

Heroes and villians can be fragile too. The problem arises when it more approaches a "supers" game - which is, to me, a different genre.

Don't get me wrong - I don't at all mind characters being able to absorb a few sword blows or arrow shots before going down. But when it takes dozens of them, well...that's gone too far.

Players get invested in their characters, and they tend not to be keen on the idea of them dying easily. One of the lessons you learn hard and fast in ASoIaF is not to get attached. To anyone. I don't think that's a good lesson to build a game like Dungeons & Dragons around, where your character is your proxy in the game. People want some real persistence there.

Song of Ice and Fire syas one thing loud and clear, that is also a great philosophy for D&D: no one character (or group of characters) is bigger than the game. The key characters in the series (PCs in D&D terms) aren't special snowflakes. Some live, some die, and natural selection by good luck and-or good management (good play in D&D) wins out.

Something clearly noted in the introduction to my game, that every player (in theory) has read, is to *not* get too attached to any particular character, as while great things can happen to them bad things can (and probably will) as well.

Lan-"you don't become a hero by what you do, but by the simple act of surviving the doing of it"-efan

 

[Dannager]

A wrong decision, to be sure; and correctable now either by inherent design (preferable) or by house rule.

If you say so.

Heroes and villians can be fragile too. The problem arises when it more approaches a "supers" game - which is, to me, a different genre.

I think it's pretty obvious when a game's characters are more superhero than hero. I've played plenty of games like that. D&D, of any edition, doesn't come close.

Don't get me wrong - I don't at all mind characters being able to absorb a few sword blows or arrow shots before going down. But when it takes dozens of them, well...that's gone too far.

It should only take "dozens" of them when there's a large power disparity between the player and the attacker.

Song of Ice and Fire syas one thing loud and clear, that is also a great philosophy for D&D: no one character (or group of characters) is bigger than the game. The key characters in the series (PCs in D&D terms) aren't special snowflakes. Some live, some die, and natural selection by good luck and-or good management (good play in D&D) wins out.

I don't see why you'd come to the conclusion that this is a good philosophy for D&D. D&D is a game. Actual people are playing it. Actual people get attached to their characters. On balance, high survivability is better than low survivability. Obviously a middle ground is preferable.

Something clearly noted in the introduction to my game, that every player (in theory) has read, is to *not* get too attached to any particular character, as while great things can happen to them bad things can (and probably will) as well.

Is this something your players have consistently asked for? Have they expressed a common concern, in other games, that their characters die too infrequently? I've been DMing for quite some time now, and I have yet to have a single player come up to me after a campaign and say, "You know what would have improved things for me? If I'd died more often." In my experience, high-lethality is the sort of game trait (along with things like "low-magic", "anti-magic-mart", etc.) that is almost never requested by players and is almost always suggested by DMs.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Some good points already.

I like the way the series handles magic. For one thing, it's mysterious. While it's pretty clear something supernatural happens sometimes, it's often unclear what or how exactly has happened. For another, it's very much restricted, through bloodlines (with the worgs) or through serious worship (as with Melisandre).

D&D will probably never be that, but it could stand to reduce the sense of cheapness that comes from things like at-will magic, reliable spellcasting, and knowable mechanics.

 

[GMMichael]

Great ideas gang...but we're wandering just a little far from the Thread As Written.

Yup, 4E tried to include non-combat encounters as skill contests, which seemed to boil down to roll-fests. So why can't 5E include this SoIaF aspect:

Social Conflict Rules!

If there's an entire chapter dedicated to combat, complete with tables and illustrations (and I'm 99% sure there will be), why not have a social conflict chapter too?

Granted, some DMs can whip up social encounters in their sleep - but some (myself included) could use an entire sourcebook for social encounters.