D&D General What tone do you prefer for D&D?

[DammitVictor]

I realized very recently that my answer to this question is She-Ra and the Princesses of Power.

I feel like there are two different axes buried in this single spectrum poll...

Because in terms of morality, I prefer something between Heroism and Realism: the player characters are not necessarily Good, but are working to make the world a better place despite their feet of clay. They make terrible mistakes, sometimes on purpose and sometimes without remorse, but the world is inarguably a better place for their efforts.

In terms of power/scope... I prefer characters to have special powers from the beginning, without necessarily being especially powerful. The "zero to hero" track appeals to me... except I consider 1st level characters to be blooded veterans in the "real world", about to take their first steps into the world of adventurers... and you're not really "heroes" until I unbox Wrath of the Immortals.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think roll success has anything to do with it. It's more about moral tone, but how hard the rest of the world is certainly feeds into it. Grimdark is bloody and mean and treacherous and so are the PCs. Paragons of Virtue always do the right the thing and generally live in a world that makes that possible, evil if it is inhabited by evil.

Roll success does matter. There is a disconnect in the world says you are a hero but you struggle to reliably outroll minor goblins.

 

[Reynard]

Roll success does matter. There is a disconnect in the world says you are a hero but you struggle to reliably outroll minor goblins.

You are using hero as a measure of power, but that's not what I mean by it.

 

[Oofta]

Roll success does matter. There is a disconnect in the world says you are a hero but you struggle to reliably outroll minor goblins.

Where I would say that heroism is about rising to the occasion despite the odds. Not that you're necessarily perfect or always personify your values (that's paragon).

If the goblin is a serious threat and you take it on anyway, that's heroic.

But different people, different definitions.

 

[Minigiant]

You are using hero as a measure of power, but that's not what I mean by it.

I'm not using hero as a measurement of power.

I'm using hero as a measurement of power relationships or power ratios.

40k Space Marines are powerful. But so are everything else so it is grim. A SM is only a little bit better than an expected threat. And with a nice amount of numbers, a SM can fail bad vs many minor threats.

Or you can be Batman who is low power but heroic because anyone but mob bosses and supervillains are a real threat to him.

 

[Tallifer]

Pumpkin spice dragons don't qualify as an anachronistic pop-culture reference? I mean, to each their own of course, but that's the kind of cutesy/silly thing that pulls me right out of a game.

Pumpkins and spices are both ancient things.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Heroic action and character on a grimdark background

''The darkest nights produce the brightest stars'' and all that.

 

[Minigiant]

Where I would say that heroism is about rising to the occasion despite the odds. Not that you're necessarily perfect or always personify your values (that's paragon).

If the goblin is a serious threat and you take it on anyway, that's heroic.

But different people, different definitions.

In my definition, that grim.
The player's characters are always rising to the occasion. Otherwise there is no game to play.

The question is what are their chances? How dangerous are their normal challenges relative to them?

 

[Oofta]

In my definition, that grim.
The player's characters are always rising to the occasion. Otherwise there is no game to play.

The question is what are their chances? How dangerous are their normal challenges relative to them?

To me grimdark has more to do with lasting injuries, being worn down by permanent conditions, losing nearly everything on a regular basis. The PCs can't really win in the long run, all they can do is hold off the inevitable.

Grimdark:​

a genre of fiction, especially fantasy fiction, characterized by disturbing, violent, or bleak subject matter and a dystopian setting.​

Heroic does assume you win, or at least have a good chance of winning, in the long run. On the other hand, the definition from Wikipedia doesn't exactly fit my campaign either.

Heroic fantasy is a subgenre of fantasy in which events occur in a world where magic is prevalent and modern technology is non-existent. The setting may be entirely fictitious in nature or based upon earth with some additions. Unlike dark fiction, it provides a setting in which all men are strong, all women beautiful, all life adventurous, and all problems simple. This means that adventures based in heroic fantasy are unlikely to mention any wider problems that cannot be fixed by a quest. Characters within heroic fantasy are likely to be underdogs of humble origin who are placed in situations forcing them to act in a heroic manner, past what is expected of them.​

So maybe I really run more of a dark heroic fantasy.

 

[Minigiant]

To me grimdark has more to do with lasting injuries, being worn down by permanent conditions, losing nearly everything on a regular basis. The PCs can't really win in the long run, all they can do is hold off the inevitable.

And that's mostly relationship between PCs and challenges.

If you fail your rolls a lot, you'll get hit more. You'll take more damage. You'll take lasting damage. You'll run out of resources faster. And you'll most likely lose. Bad. That's grim. Your chances are grim.

In heroic, you'll succeed more of your rolls and more likely succeed if you don't go over your head. Because you are better than your challenges and stronger than your enemies.