D&D 5E Which played-out D&D trope needs to die?

[Thunder Brother]

I've never understood the orphan fantasy, I actually like my parents.

I think it's mostly influenced by popular media. Take characters like Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, Frodo Baggins, etc. All are orphans, more or less, so some players can't imagine a character with a stable family life going out and risking their life.

 

[Yora]

Most importantly, the GM can't use them as leverage to railroad you.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm talking stuff like "rangers suck" or "bards are always horny." I'm talking plots like rescuing the princess, meeting your evil twin, or finding out that it was all a dream. Sure these things can be done well, but they also tend to elicit an immediate eye-roll when they come up. So before you attack your keyboard with "I did THING in my game, and it was the best THING ever," remember that this is more about pet-peeves than never-do-this-under-any-circumstance.

So how about about it? Which played-out D&D trope needs to die?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

The heroes always win. It's so ingrained that the heroes are assumed to win that when they don't it's seen as some kind of fluke or the DM screwing over the PCs.

The world is clean and happy. Most D&D seems to operate under a reversal of the "used future" trope, i.e. "the past is clean and shiny". It's really weird. It's like ren faire or theme park history.

Everyone is whole. No one seems to be missing any bits or pieces. There's the occasional missing eye or now, for the first time(?), there's one character in a wheelchair, which is great. But what about all the missing fingers and toes, missing hands and arms, missing feet and legs, missing ears or eyes...hell even the nasty scars or pox marks? The characters get into the worst kind of danger, nearly die repeatedly in a single fight and after a night's sleep they're perfectly fine, whole, not missing any bits, and have no psychological issues to show for it.

 

[J.Quondam]

The heroes always win. It's so ingrained that the heroes are assumed to win that when they don't it's seen as some kind of fluke or the DM screwing over the PCs.

The characters get into the worst kind of danger, nearly die repeatedly in a single fight and after a night's sleep they're perfectly fine, whole, not missing any bits, and have no psychological issues to show for it.

Being a "murderhobo" isn't a psychological issue?

 

[reelo]

The Countdown Timer.

I enjoy adventures and campaigns that allow characters room to explore and grow, rather than worrying that if they spend a week of downtime the world will be a week closer to being destroyed.

Please, for your own sake, never play Mörk Borg.

 

[Tonybro001]

The rats are actually townsfolk who have been polymorphed into rats by the evil innkeeper.

Free the rats. Kill the innkeeper.

Even old tropes can be spun in interesting directions

 

[Charlaquin]

I've never understood the orphan fantasy, I actually like my parents.

I think it’s less fantasizing about being an orphan and more wanting to have a character with no personal ties to anyone or anything.

 

[Tonybro001]

PCs who are edgelords or just edgy loners.

 

[overgeeked]

Most importantly, the GM can't use them as leverage to railroad you.

Having hooks the GM can tug on doesn't equate to railroading. Eliminating player agency is railroading. If the PC has a family and the GM dangles something bad happening to them in front of the player, it's up to them to bite or leave it. It's a really odd notion that if you don't have a family the GM somehow can't railroad you. The GM is perfectly capable of railroading the little orphan character. It's opting out of your character being connected to the world and saying no thank you to potential adventures. Which is an odd choice to make...for an adventurer.

 

[overgeeked]

Being a "murderhobo" isn't a psychological issue?

That's not a PC problem, that's a player problem.