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

[Lanefan]

There's a time and a place for high-lethality games, but I think that time and place is usually one-shot, hyper-casual adventures, not lengthy campaigns.

Thus far the "time and place" for such things as high lethality has been since the start of my current (and reasonably successful) campaign in early 2008; and while I myself don't see 6 years as "lengthy" I believe many others here would.

Lan-"the game logs can be found by clicking on the link in my .sig the clicking "Decast" once there"-efan

 

[Derren]

It's less okay to kill characters in D&D, because players are intimately connected to one character. When that character dies (barring resurrection), they must begin with a new character and re-establish ties to the game's narrative. On occasion, this can be a welcome change of pace. More often, though, it comes as a punch to the gut. It's a question of personal investment and risk - if I expect my time running each PC will be short, I have little incentive to explore that character. If I expect, on the other hand, to have the same PC for an entire campaign, I will probably be much more willing to invest energy in fleshing that character out.

There's a time and a place for high-lethality games, but I think that time and place is usually one-shot, hyper-casual adventures, not lengthy campaigns.

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.

 

[Ahnehnois]

All of this again goes back to what we can learn from the GRRM books. Yes, a player may be connected to their character more in a long-term game than a one-shot, and yes, they may take the loss of their character hard. If the mortality rate is both high enough to be a serious threat and low enough that a player can still reasonably hope for their characters' long-term survival, it's a very tough environment.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing. The emotions generated will be powerful. 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. 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?

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.

That's part of it, but the thing is that sometimes it's not about consequences. If a player is playing, say, an aspirant to the throne who gets murdered in his sleep by a shadow beast he has no knowledge of, that player is not going to be feeling that this was a consequence of his actions, not in the direct sense as if he'd taken on a too difficult battle, anyway.

Which is still potentially OK in my mind.

 

[Blackwarder]

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

If you want to do a TV show, get HBO to make it.

Warder

 

[Paraxis]

What D&D should learn from ASoIF? A low magic setting and alternate rules module to support that style of play might sell well.

What D&D players and DM's should do to have a game more like ASoIF? Not play D&D, Dungeons & Dragons is not the only roleplaying game, it is not always the best system to use to simulate a genre. I would use a gritty system like Warhammer 2nd, Zweihander, GURPS, or the ASoIF game system by Green Ronin.

Another thing would be cool, to add to D&D a flaw and perk system. It would make creating characters like Arya, The Mountain, Bran, and plenty others easier. Would love the ability to say take child flaw to get a bonus feat for water dancing, or paraplegic to get to have worg abilities. This goes back to a system like GURPS would make creating these characters much better than D&D ever was able to.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Standing on the other side of the rift.

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.

That doesn't compute. In "high lethality" mode the player's focus will shift to her character's survival. To reflect on the character's motifs, his childhood, or stance on the local baron's actions in a potential deadly dungeon would just be dumb. There might be lots of facets to explore, but the only relevant decision is whether to open the door or not.

Apart from this point of discussion a big thing in SIF is the characters belonging to a well defined house, family or group. This aspect hasn't been explored in D&D with the possible exception of Birthright which I don't know. Something like templates for such groups and a simple model to describe group interaction would be a welcome change.

 

[Derren]

That's part of it, but the thing is that sometimes it's not about consequences. If a player is playing, say, an aspirant to the throne who gets murdered in his sleep by a shadow beast he has no knowledge of, that player is not going to be feeling that this was a consequence of his actions, not in the direct sense as if he'd taken on a too difficult battle, anyway.

Could the player have found out about that beast? When someone wants the throne he must know the opposition. If he does not take any steps to learn of potential dangers and tries to protect himself against them then this is imo completely justified.

That doesn't compute. In "high lethality" mode the player's focus will shift to her character's survival. To reflect on the character's motifs, his childhood, or stance on the local baron's actions in a potential deadly dungeon would just be dumb. There might be lots of facets to explore, but the only relevant decision is whether to open the door or not.

Why reflect on that inside a dungeon. You do know that a world outside of dungeons (usually) exists?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Could the player have found out about that beast? When someone wants the throne he must know the opposition. If he does not take any steps to learn of potential dangers and tries to protect himself against them then this is imo completely justified.

I picked that example because it didn't strike me as being a preventable death. Would a player in this situation feel that this outcome was the result of their actions? I think not. And objectively, I think that it would be primarily the result of things outside of the player's control.

Mind you, I'm not saying that can't happen. In fact, what I'm saying is that subverting the idea of "protagonism" is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[steeldragons]

What D&D should learn from SoIaF?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The game of D&D is the game of D&D. It's job is not to be all things fantasy ever written to all people. As has been pointed out there are loads of other rpg's, fantasy or otherwise/non-genre specific, that can give you a "Game of Thrones" style game. Not saying it can't be done in D&D...but it is not one's best choice/option for it. It's not what D&D is really made/was conceptualized for...and that's ok!

What should DMs learn from SoIaF? THAT is a completely different question.

How to run/elements to include in a game of social intrigue and elaborate politics. How to develop a living world where things are constantly happening outside of the PCs immediate surroundings, with diverse cultures and languages and customs and mythologies. How to run a game in which different things are happening to different characters/multiple plots at the same time [maybe it is possible to split the party and have a decent game?]. Running kingdom/dominion-building type games with wars/large scale battles. How to run an effective/mysterious "low magic" world/campaign. Running a "human only" campaign is entirely possible and doesn't have to be "dull" for a lack of elves or halflings.

None of that translates to "D&D [the game] must then give me rules/tell me how to do that."


So yes. Individual DMs (and/or players/tables/groups) might learn quite a bit from it. The game?...it's D&D. Not SoIaF.

 

[chaochou]

If I intended to run a GoT-type game then I'd be using FATE. Aspects, consequences and the resources and composure stress tracks would do the work in creating and tracking the changing political landscape and the pressure-cooker atmosphere as schemes are hatched.

That said, I think one thing to learn from GoT is that to run that as a game, world and character buiding have to be communal. It is game where all the characters know, to some extent, the geographic and political make-up of the world they inhabit and exist within a known and pre-existing social network of feuds and loyalties.

As I player I have to enter play already part of that network, and the best way I've found of achieving this is by having the players create and interweave their PCs as a group and create the parts of the world they know as a group.

FATE builds this into game set-up. Whether it really suits D&D, which supports action adventure far more than political drama, is another matter.