...and by tragic, I mean - a campaign inspired by the rich genre of tragedy. Not terrible campaigns.

A (not so) recent exchange with Jeff in the "Doing Post Apo Right" thread, made me think a bit. I had run quite a few games, and at least two campaigns, based on such an idea in mind - that the players' characters are characters of a tragedy - and they were a blast. I can however understand, that there are some perceptions regarding tragedies as inspiration for RPGs - that they'd be hard to do, that doing them too well would make players leave the table, that they'd be railroading.

I'd like to address this problem a bit, and in my traditionally chaotic way, I hope to give some good advice here for a GM that'd like to try and use what Ancient Greeks considered "the greatest form of theatre", for inspiration. Be warned - it'll be harder to do without screwing up, then for example, a comic game - but also more rewarding, both for you, and your players. Harder, however, is not to be mistaken with better - simply different.

Another issue I'd like to tackle, is that you can use any system to pull this off (except well, Toons and other comic systems, perhaps). Heck - having read OSRIC, I'll even perhaps draw a point that in a way, it's really well - designed for making tragedies (more on that later though. The answer lies in levels and their design.).

But enough blabbering. Let's get down to business.

How to approach a tragedy in RPGs?

My suggestion, upon which I'll be basing this thread, is taking Ancient Greek and Shakespearian school of tragedies, as I know them best, and I find them best for RPGs. Both of them share a certain trait that is native to most of tragedies, really - a struggle of a Hero against Fate, resulting in Nemesis. In Greek tragedy, that fight is usually represented by hubris - hero's prideful assumption, that he may defy the laws of the Universe.
In Shakespearian tragedies, we have a very much similar approach - except that the "divine" section of the Nemesis and Fate is a bit downplayed (it still exists - witches in Macbeth, Father's Ghost in Hamlet), resulting in a self - fulfilling prophecy on Hero's part, rather then direct work of the Gods.

So, why should you even bother trying doing a tragedy game as a GM?


The answer to that is simple, if a bit weird - because nowhere like in a tragedy, the lines between a player and a character will blur.  Because you see - both a tragedy, and the RPGs, are all about character's choices, and freedom of such. By forcing the player to make the difficult choices from his character's standpoint, we force him to admit, in a way, that if his character fails - he failed as well. When his character dies, when he fails, the player'll know that it's not the dice that killed him (well, not just the dice), but also his decisions. It's his failure.

Getting players to play such a campaign.


Here we have two approaches - The Bastard Approach, and The Honest Joe approach.

The Honest Joe approach: We tell the players our intention - to play a tragedy - inspired campaign. The upside is, that we're honest with our players, and they will know what to expect. The downside is...that they will know what to expect - it will not be necessary a bad thing, after all - we need tragic heroes for a tragic campaign. But the element of surprise will be ruined, and that can ruin the immersion a wee bit.

The Bastard Approach: Or as I'd like to call it, the Wickkan approach. You just recruit the players like for any other game - then, in due time, the tragedy begins. The upside is, that players won't be able to "metagame" the incoming events piling against them. The downside is, that we hide something from players. Be warned then - only do this, when you know your players as open to new experiences, and that they'll not be angered by taking a bait that failed to provide what they expected. Also, this means that they may not make even a single tragic character in the party, which means that there won't be really a good way to tie them into tragic play, which will be a problem. But if you do, and if you are a GM with a reputation for ruthlessness, they will be expecting butt - kicking anyway. Just this time, you will kick their butts the other way.

Player Interactions, Player Characters and Tragedy - Or Why OSRIC May Be Awesome For This


There were, and still are, claims made how "for great stories, you need ROLEplaying, not ROLLplaying". Or that a mechanic for PC interaction is needed, if you want to deliver a tragedy - themed game.

To which I say - bollocks.

Here's a first really important piece of advice about running a tragedy - you can't start the tragedy straight - forward with the tragic choices.

"But Oedipus, but Macbeth, but Hamlet, they all started already with tragic choices!" you may cry out. And you will be correct.

Except you see, RPGs aren't theatre - the characters, and relations between them, are developed through actual play, not by the design of the playwright. Of course, players will often say "Player X's character is my best friend" - but still, such friendship will need to be proven by IC actions, it will need to be forged by IC actions. And in order for tragedy to be tragic, you will need to have a strong bond between Player Characters, so that their interactions are meaningful - as it'll be those interactions, that will perhaps result in the tragedy itself.

Because you see - when "Macbeth" begins, it's not the first time Banquo and Macbeth met, oh no. Those two fought in the war together. The grand battle just finishes. They are two brothers - in - arms, who often fought side by side. They trust each other.

Before "Oedipus" begins, Oedipus already did quite a bit of adventuring - including killing accidentally his own father, and defeating a Sphinx. That guy has some history, he's badass. People of Thebes see him as a hero, because he did some heroic stuff "on screen" for them. Of course, in theatre, there is a limit on how long the audience can survive - but in RPGs campaign, there is no such limit.

So what I am trying to say is - you need to start small. Start then not as Macbeth who returns from the last battle, but as Macbeth who, alongside the Companions, rides scouting before the first battle. This is where, in a way, a level design starts to shine - especially OSRIC or old - school DnD. Because there, the levels also correspond with social status and "importance" in the world. When characters reach level 8 - 9, that's the moment for the Tragedy to begin.

I need to run shopping now - when I'll be back, I'll start tackling the problems of railroading, big time.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508121The answer to that is simple, if a bit weird - because nowhere like in a tragedy, the lines between a player and a character will blur.  Because you see - both a tragedy, and the RPGs, are all about character's choices, and freedom of such. By forcing the player to make the difficult choices from his character's standpoint, we force him to admit, in a way, that if his character fails - he failed as well. When his character dies, when he fails, the player'll know that it's not the dice that killed him (well, not just the dice), but also his decisions. It's his failure.

That you -player- must feel invested in choices in order to feel a sense of tragedy in the game, I understand perfectly. That's kind of the sine qua non condition for any such game to succeed. I'm not sure the player is "failing" when he makes a choice that results in his character death, though. In a tragedic sense, he actually "wins" if he managed to feel the impact of the conundrum and played it to his character's natural conclusion, which results in his tragic death. This is "winning" at tragedy, in a role playing sense.

I have a personal understanding of this in relations to one of my favorite player characters ever, which was all about fucked up conundrums and a tragic sense of self. It was Vampire the Masquerade, btw.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508121Here we have two approaches - The Bastard Approach, and The Honest Joe approach.

The Honest Joe approach: We tell the players our intention - to play a tragedy - inspired campaign. The upside is, that we're honest with our players, and they will know what to expect. The downside is...that they will know what to expect - it will not be necessary a bad thing (I'll cover the idea of how to handle the players purposefully taking the least "tragic" choices - after all, this is a part of coolness of such a campaign. Had you never wondered "Gee wiz Macbeth, you were really stupid for killing Duncan, I'd solve it better"? Of course, part of the problem is, that for Macbeth, sooner or later, there was no better - but on that, later), but the element of surprise will be removed.

The Bastard Approach: Or as I'd like to call it, the Wickkan approach. You just recruit the players like for any other game - then, in due time, the tragedy begins. The upside is, that players won't be able to "metagame" the incoming events piling against them. The downside is, that we hide something from players.

Be real careful with the "bastard" approach. That's basically pulling a bait-and-switch. That kind of maneuver only works if you know the players, their personal styles and inclinations, and if the players trust you as a GM completely.

All campaign play should have a share of tragedy.

In any game where the players are engaged with their characters the potential for tragedy is vast. Whether you have the big bad kidnap their children, have them kill their own children in a posessed state, kill their love interest, kill the rest of the PCs all these things are regular occurances.

The most tragic circumstances I have engineered as a Gm have been in James Bond and Amber... an eclectic choice....

First off you have to remember that I have bacically been playing with the same game group for 30 years. I know them all as well as you can know anyone.  When I created a love interest for a British agent I knew that he right mix of vlunerability, stubborness and long hair would create a 'perfect' girl. And that was the case for a string of adventures and when i eventually killed her, as was obviously inevitable, the Player lost it and simply said nothing for the next hour. Then once the killer was captured he simply asked the guards to leave and he would cover, took out a gun entered the cell and shot the guy, bound to a chair 4 times in the head and left. A bit mental but if we were really asking about the real strength of RPGs as we were int hat other thread then I would say that that moment encapsulates it for me.

Well, I'll get to writing a bit more here (after I get my dose of anime) - this is a rough draft of something I hope to clear up, polish, and throw into GMPM. My main attempt is going to try and showcase that you don't need a specific mechanic - you need to GM with some care and panache, and play really immersive, to pull this off.

Quote from: Benoist;508129That you -player- must feel invested in choices in order to feel a sense of tragedy in the game, I understand perfectly. That's kind of the sine qua non condition for any such game to succeed. I'm not sure the player is "failing" when he makes a choice that results in his character death, though. In a tragedic sense, he actually "wins" if he managed to feel the impact of the conundrum and played it to his character's natural conclusion, which results in his tragic death. This is "winning" at tragedy, in a role playing sense.

I have a personal understanding of this in relations to one of my favorite player characters ever, which was all about fucked up conundrums and a tragic sense of self. It was Vampire the Masquerade, btw.


Be real careful with the "bastard" approach. That's basically pulling a bait-and-switch. That kind of maneuver only works if you know the players, their personal styles and inclinations, and if the players trust you as a GM completely.

Good points both - as for the first one, I guess I'll need to work on the wording. I guess what I meant was that because of player's decisions being the only viable for the character's, the immersion is much stronger, as you must "cut down" the distance between yourself and your character, to try and defeat Fate. So in an ironic way (so native to tragedies, heh) "winning" in such a campaign is "loosing". I really meant all the strings of choices leading to death, rather then the death itself. But still - I'll need to clear that up. My main idea is that a tragedy - based RPG will basically hit the player stronger emotionally, helping him immersed in the character.

As for the second - you are correct. I'll amend  that in a bit. Personally, I prefer the "Bastard" approach, as hiding the tragedy from players eliminates trying to make the "metagaming" decisions of "I'll do everything to protect myself from tragic fate" - though I'll write how to handle such a behaviour as well.

Quote from: jibbajibba;508168First off you have to remember that I have bacically been playing with the same game group for 30 years. I know them all as well as you can know anyone.  When I created a love interest for a British agent I knew that he right mix of vlunerability, stubborness and long hair would create a 'perfect' girl. And that was the case for a string of adventures and when i eventually killed her, as was obviously inevitable, the Player lost it and simply said nothing for the next hour. Then once the killer was captured he simply asked the guards to leave and he would cover, took out a gun entered the cell and shot the guy, bound to a chair 4 times in the head and left. A bit mental but if we were really asking about the real strength of RPGs as we were int hat other thread then I would say that that moment encapsulates it for me.

I couldn't agree more.

I'll be back here in a bit - I hope you will all pardon me my "high - horse". I hope this'll be useful for someone, sometime.

Just started running an Exalted game for a couple of my players, and one thing I noticed is that the whole mechanical concept of the "limit break" practically ensures tragedy at some point. This thread will, I think, give me some ideas about how to approach that properly when the time comes - thanks.

That said, when running a high-powered "40k Meets D&D" game once (where you had things like low-level wizards actually burning themselves out like fuses to launch overpowered magic missile swarms against dragons assaulting a fortress - "For the Emperor!"), one of the PCs ended up taking on an assistant/adjustant/follower who made some questionable comments and actions during the course of the game (questionable as in they actually went against doctrine or ran counter to the dictates of the Emperor). He was, however, a very resourceful and useful NPC, so the player decided to overlook the transgressions during the adventure. Once the group made it back to the Capitol, the PCs were debriefed by their superiors in the various Colleges, and in this case the PC told his superiors what the NPC had said and/or done, but made sure to let them know that it was not an intentional Heresey, per se, and that he was very useful and had a bright future ahead of him and he wanted to keep him as his assistant. They said they'd take it under advisement.

A few scenes later, the Player is walking out of the College of Priests (he was a cleric) and past the mechanical "Behemoths" that guarded the entrance. These constructs housed the souls of fallen soldiers and such, removed at the moment of their death so they could continue to serve the emperor. By all accounts, an agonizing existence, but those who were used were always voulenteers (so the story went).

The player made eye contact with one of the Behemoths, and in that moment realized that the soul of the NPC he wanted as his assistant was trapped in that particular machine - thankfully restrained from slaughtering him on the steps of the College by divine sorcery. He kinda went a bit pale at that and learned a valuable lesson - don't always tell everything you know. He was actually quite remorseful (the player, I mean) because the NPC was a decent bloke and sidekick. HE really DID want to keep him on for more adventures.

So, that was a pretty decent moment of Tragedy, I thought.

I played in a short Shadowrun campaign where a megacorp poisoned our characters with a fatal disease because we had run a successful mission against them. We had one week before our hearts exploded. Nothing was going to heal us and the megacorp went on 24/7 fortress mode to make sure we could not harm them in return.

So we destroyed Seattle...

...because if we were gonna die, then everybody was gonna die and everyone was gonna know it was that megacorp's action that sealed everyone's fate.

It was a psychotic campaign, but very fun. Our last surviving character actually rode the nuke down from the skies Dr. Strangelove style.

Alright, anime loaded up (Ergo Proxy - go and watch it if you did not, it's great. Even if you dislike anime, it's great source of inspiration for Cyberpunk stuff), time to go.

Characters Continued - Relationships, Relationships, And Once More - Relationships. Also Party Balance.

Though I wrote about the importance of character development done by the IG events, I guess I should also write about one more important aspect needed for tragedy play.

Namely - relationships. Those are perhaps the most important things in a tragic campaign. As a GM, you will need to keep a careful track of them - which character is in love with which, who trusts who in the party, who wants to betray everyone, etc. etc. It's important because the player against player conflict will sooner or later result, as decisions will become more and more important, and opinions upon them divided, and also because the players care the most about their characters. So in order to provoke the emotions - we need to hit the characters. A death of 400 mooks may mean nothing - but a death of a close friend (especially if he is another PC) will hurt like damn.

As a GM, you will also need to use the relationships against the players. Put them in situations that'll suggest betrayal, perhaps even murder, and see what they do. You will need to be a bit careful and cunning in gathering the information, especially if you decided the Honest Joe approach to recruiting the players for this campaign, as the players will be wary of betrayal - henceforth, they might be a bit paranoid about trusting any party member. But that's alright. Go to after game drinks, or dinner, or however else you spend time - and then, proceed with a bit of "interrogation". Ask the player when you are alone with him, what does he think of the campaign (you are just asking for normal constructive criticism, nothing special), then, innocently, ask him what he thinks of other characters.

Then jolt down the answers. In due time, you will have a nice chronicle of character relations. Armed with that information, you will know where to strike - Macbeth is great example here. Macbeth & Banquo are great friends - look what happens to the two after the prophecy. Look how Lady Macbeth manipulates her husband, causing him ultimately to slay his friend. Take an example of devising a challenge here - first, you give the prophetic information to two characters you know they trust each other the most, that they will be at odds in the future. Then, since you know that the partner character to one of them is a cunning bastard, you can just watch the treachery unfold.

While on  the topic of characters and Macbeth, let's tackle another problem - the "balance of importance" in the party. It may appear that tragedies are hardly perfect for RPGs, because there is usually a central character that the game'd have to revolve about. Such a presumption is a bit true - but not fatal to our game. I mean, let's take a look on Macbeth - we can point easily at least three important characters on the spot. Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, and Banquo. Of course, Banquo rather quickly fades into the shadows, as the story is after all called "Macbeth", so it reasonably focuses on Macbeth - but in RPG session, there is no "shadow". Your "Banquo" is still out there, doing important things to Banquo. There's no definite stage, so there's no off - stage time. It is important, that "Duncan" also gets a piece of the Tragic Decision Making cake. Sure, there will be characters who will make more of those decisions, and some that will make less. Some will die earlier then others. But it's important to try and balance this. There's no definite stage, so there's no off - stage time. And once you had prepared the three main roles, the fourth and fifth one won't be that problematic.

 Alternatively to the "Macbeth" approach, you can tackle the problem in style of "Electra" or "Hamlet" approach. Make one of the characters the clear "Leader", which will be forced to make most of the tragic decisions, and the rest of the players play his companions, supporting him, providing counsel and standing by the character - or providing false guidance, and betraying him for their own needs. It may seem like a bad idea, but I had discovered that quite a lot of players actually prefer to play the supporting roles in the party, rather then the leadership ones. After all, without a good supporting cast of characters, the "main" hero isn't interesting neither.

Important notion though - in my opinion, "Leader" character should be a PC, rather then NPC. The latter can work as well - but as I had said, the PCs should be the main decision makers. An NPC "Leader" would only really be a puppet, a medium for players' decisions most of time anyway - or a tool of railroading. The former can be achieved by just making the "Leader" one of the PCs, and giving the player there a final word on the decisions, and the latter is a terrible, terrible mistake.

Now, onto the real meat of the problem.

Removing The Rails From Tragedy - Inspired Play Part 1 - The Choking World.

One of the most problematic things when it comes to GMing a tragedy, is the fact that those pesky PCs will go out exploring stuff rather then focus on our great plot. This is of course a part of a bigger issue, that's basically "how to make a tragic campaign, while avoiding making players just audience to storytelling". But it's one of the easier parts of the problem to tackle, so I'll try to deal with it first.

When you sit down to plan a tragic campaign, first you need to remember 2 simple truths:

Story is a byproduct of RPGs. It's the experience that's the core of the thing.

And

Tragedy RPing is experiencing the life of a Character which struggles against Fate, leading to his own ultimate downfall.

What does it mean? Simple. When you actually start the Tragic part of the campaign, you should use player decisions against them. If they decide to one of the paths of tragedy, it'll ultimately lead to tragic fate. You need to make the world to "choke" them to death, so to speak. The world is literally out to get them - if they try to get out, they must be ready to work really, really hard to do so. The whole point is to cunningly suggest, that getting out of their fate is not what they want to do.

I'm going to use "Macbeth" again as a point of reference here - let's imagine that Macbeth hadn't listened to his wife, and King Duncan lives. So what a GM should do in such a situation? What can happen? There are quite a few things.

1) Duncan turns out to be a terrible tyrant, and people of Scotland turn to Macbeth, the War Hero, to relive them of the unfair king.
2) Lady Macbeth's player murders Duncan on her own.
3) Duncan dies of heart attack in sleep, Lady Macbeth is first to discover it, and finally persuades her husband to fake it as a murder.
4) Duncan goes to Banquo's castle (who is also a PC), and Banquo murders Duncan instead.
5) Duncan dies of old age, and is succeeded by one of his sons - who proves to be a Mad King, and the knights of the realm arrive at Macbeth's castle, asking him to lead in the rebellion.

And that's just the five on the top of my head. I guess the main thought I am  trying to give here is this - always listen to your players' choices, and always allow them. Adjust your plot (if you made one beforehand, that is) and the events as needed. Do not force certain events to push the plot - let the players do the main plot pushing. If they don't fall into one trap, prepare another one. You can probably notice that number 3 on the list, for example, is actually a rather cheap trick - only resort to such if you REALLY, REALLY are out of ideas. And I mean REALLY out of ideas. Cheap tricks have no place in tragedy.

Removing The Rails From Tragedy - Inspired Play Part 2 -  Fate, Hubris, Nemesis and Changing The World.


The biggest issue raised when it comes to tragedy and RPGs, is the very nature of tragedy. Namely - the fate of the hero, which is to die a tragic death, and also quite often, witness all that he has done undone (though there are some exceptions to the latter - Hamlet, for example). This, on the other hand, calls for railroading - making sure that such a fate befalls our hero. Also, one could argue, that if changing the game's world is ultimately impossible, it will be meaningless, and such a game becomes nothing else but misery tourism - a trip throughout a terrible setting, with terrible characters.

Such concerns are wise to be raised, and I hope that I will be able to manage to answer some of them.


First of all, we need to go back to our languages classes a bit, and establish three concepts that will be core to the understanding of how to de - rail a tragedy - inspired campaign. Time for a trip to Wikipedia then:

QuoteFate is a predetermined course of events. It may be conceived as a predetermined future, whether in general or of an individual. It is a concept based on the belief that there is a fixed natural order to the cosmos.

Fate is crucial to tragedy - based play. But if there is a predetermined course of events, this means that a game must be railroaded, you will say. But before you turn your heads away in disgust, bear in me for a moment more, to hear about hubris.


Hubris is the act of ultimate arrogance, against the Gods and the orders that they had set. It encompasses many things, but to the tragedy, the most important one is the idea that the order of things, and therefore Fate, can be defied by the will and actions of mortals. Hubris also is based around an idea of a certain..disjunction with reality - the pride forbids the victim of hubris to see the truth.


See, hubris is the necessary motivation for a truly tragic character - it's hope, but a hope of poisoned variety. Hope born not out of belief in better future, but out of pain, sweat, gritting teeth and pride. Pride in humanity, pride in the value of human life, pride in the belief of free will, pride to be the architect of your own fortune.


Except that in the tragedy, it isn't like that. You are doomed to fall. In Greek tragedy - because such is your fate. In Renaissance tragedy - because you are doomed to fall, and no matter what you do, you will forge yourself a fate that will be tragic.


But the very nature of hubris, is that you reject this idea - that you will end with a tragic fate. But those who defy the order of things, must face punishment. Say hello to Nemesis.


As you know, Nemesis was a goddess of vengeance in Greek mythology - but in tragedy, she was also a certain plot figure, the divine retribution against those who committed the ultimate sin - hubris.


In Greek tragedies, Nemesis takes usually the form of anagnorisis - the reveal of the terrible truth, that causes the character to fall. The best example, is of course, the fate of King of Thebes, Oedipus, who tears his eyes out once he learns that Jocasta is his mother. In Renaissance tragedy, the concept of Nemesis shifts towards what we consider nowadays a nemesis - the actions of hero's foes undo him, and cause him to fall to the predetermined tragic fate.


So, why did I bother with that small English lesson? Simple. As you might've noticed, it is only the Fate of the character/world, that is set in stone. Everything rest - the whole world - can be changed. And Hubris is the motivation to actually go out and seek out that change. And the important question to ask yourself is - is the attempt of defying Fate a value onto itself? Is the action any less worthy because, in the grand scheme of things, it may be meaningless?


For a Tragedy Campaign, the answer is Yes & No correspondingly - the actions of a Hero are a value onto itself, and they are not any less worthy because he is doomed to fall.


As a GM, you allow the players to change and influence the world normally. It is only their ultimate, tragic fate, that is unchangeable. They can raze the cities, save villages, fight dragons - but ultimately, by their own actions, they will provoke a response from the Gods, or their own foes, that shall be their undoing.


The element of changing the world, despite the ultimate downfall, is very important. After all - despite that we know that the Hero is committing a sin of hubris, ultimate pride - we sympathize with him, because we can understand Man's natural desire to be a natural architect of one's Fate, to defeat the cruel order of things, that sentence the character to tragic death. Such struggle is very important - because it is part of what makes a human human.


In the theatre, that is why the Hero must ultimately face Nemesis - so we, the audience, can achieve catharsis. In RPGs, since the player is the character - I'd say that the effect of catharsis can be somewhat doubled. We are Oedipus, we feel his pain very, very directly - our emotions are truly great. And after everything is over, our serenity, our catharsis, will also be great.


A practical example, not drawn from an actual tragedy:


I'd like to recall to the the original discussion - the world is covered by cloud of radiation dust, that will extinguish all life in a year. Player's Characters, however, in their Hubris, say loudly no. They leave their households, in search for a place where humanity will be able to survive the radiation - perhaps, in style of On The Beach, it is an odd telegraphic signal coming from an area corresponding with an university in Canada. Despite all things in Earth and Heaven pointing out that humanity and the world are doomed, the heroes venture forth across the Wasteland, in search of the hope for survival. As they shall travel, they will come across various opportunities, for example - saving a village from marauders. And see - the heroes, in their Hubris, are sure that despite all odds, they WILL defeat Fate, and save the world. So the fact that they save the village, is no small feat in their eyes - and the eyes of people of the village.


And though in the end, they will discover their Nemesis - the signal was sent because of water dropping from the ceiling, which caused the telegraphic machine to move occasionally - their action are no less worthy, because done in the sin of Hubris. To save the village from the marauders, was to show one's humanity. It is a weakness in the eyes of Grand Scheme, but, in an odd way, that weakness is our greatest strength.


Removing The Rails From Tragedy - Inspired Play Part 3 - Hubris Or Hope?



 To be, or not to be--that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die, to sleep


Such begins Hamlet's soliloquy, and perhaps the finest one even written by Shakespeare. Let us however see past the usual "To be, or not to be". What is Hamlet talking about?


Struggle, of course. Struggle against fate. See, Hamlet is perhaps the most tragic heroes of all tragic heroes, for a simple reason - he knows he is one. He acknowledges his tragic fate, and knows that there are two choices - either continue to commit hubris, and try to struggle against Fate, bringing further pain onto himself, or surrender to Fate's whims.


You see - when Hamlet decides finally to slay Claudius, it's no victory of his. It's his act of defeat. By the end of Hamlet, Hamlet is a man brought down low - the struggle against Fate proved to be too much. So, he gives into the laws of the Gods and order. As they demand, he avenges his father by killing his murderer, and then, since blood calls for blood, dies of poison. However, to the last breath, Hamlet knows that he gave into Fate's trap willingly, and that makes him great.


What if the players' characters choose to "suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune"? The options are two.


1) We stay true to the source material, and we keep the game a tragedy - so as I had stated before, no matter what they do, ultimately, they shall fall.

Or...

2) We give them a chance to defeat Fate.


Not every universe is as cruel and ruthless as the one described by Greeks and Renaissance writers. In the world created by those, Fate constantly tests people, so that She may ultimately break them. However, as a GM, you may choose to set the point after which the heroes actually stand a chance to defeat Fate. Doing so, however, should be no easy feat, and it should perhaps require still a certain tragic ending to befall the heroes, or at least the world. It may be very much a Pyrrhic victory. But a victory. So if you see your players grind your teeth, if you see them suffer under the stones and arrows, but keep on going - you may decide to allow them to defeat Fate. Remember however - by doing so, you choose Hope over Hubris, and though the game may still end with a tragic choice, it will be not a tragedy any more, at least in the most common and orthodox understanding of the term. But that is alright. You, GM, after all, are the universe. Perhaps your universe is not as grim as it'd seem. Perhaps it's laws can be defied. But remember - the idea that the laws of the universe can not be defied, is a necessary in true tragedy.

So, which will it be then? Hope, or Hubris? Choose wisely.

I've chosen to play tragic characters, including one who died a pretty meaningless death pursuing an addition.  A whole campaign doesn't have to be tragic to have tragedy in it, and I think it might be best to give players the opportunity to give their characters tragic flaws without making it a demand of every character or springing it upon the players.  If the players choose to play a character with tragic flaws, no railroading should be necessary for a tragedy to play out.

Quote from: John Morrow;509297I've chosen to play tragic characters, including one who died a pretty meaningless death pursuing an addition.  A whole campaign doesn't have to be tragic to have tragedy in it, and I think it might be best to give players the opportunity to give their characters tragic flaws without making it a demand of every character or springing it upon the players.  If the players choose to play a character with tragic flaws, no railroading should be necessary for a tragedy to play out.

Of course - I'm rather trying to give some advice for a tragic campaign, rather then tragic heroes . That's a good point though - planned to come back to the "characters" chapter later anyway, and this is something I'll need to raise definitely.

Once a character succumbs to his flaws, he is no longer guilty of hubris (as he understands he's no better then others), so he succumbs to fate as well. I'd say that in a tragedy, the most important part, especially in the RPG campaign, is the fight against fate, rather then the part in which the character succumbs to it. Once the character says "I'm an addict and I will be an addict forever", he metaphorically places his head on the chopping block, and waits for the axe.

Maybe I am getting on a bit too high horse with an idea of emulation of tragedy - worst comes to worst, we will all have a good luck at my expense, and I'll know not to put this into GMPM . I apologise if the advice so far is obvious, and I am dealing with too much of the basics - aiming this as to be as universal, as possible, and for that, a bit of basics must be established.

Removing The Rails From Tragedy - Inspired Play Part 2 - Forge Your Own Doom.

What's one of the best strengths of RPGs? The freedom of choice on the players' part. They can choose to conduct any action  they want. And in order to do the tragedy justice, a GM shall use that freedom against them.

In order for the tragedy to work in RPGs, players' characters must have the right motivation, and certain tragic characteristics to themselves. I mean, let's take a look at Macbeth - there is a certain desire for power in him, the lust he controls. That's our character. Now, as a GM, what you must do, is feed that desire, and provide an opportunity for the character to give into his want. The rest will come naturally. Just let them tie a rope on which they'll be hanged. You, as a GM, must only provide the necessary materials for construction of such a rope. In Macbeth, such a material is witches' prophecy - they don't give Macbeth any special tools or anything. They might not actually see the future. But they recognised Macbeth as a power - hungry man. And they gave him all the linen needed, so that he created his own rope - with a small help from his wife, of course.

Now, in order for this to work in an RPG, you must allow the players to escape the area of tragedy, if they so desire. After all - cowardice in the face of fate is a form of tragic ending as well. Let the knowledge that they had abandoned  their comrades, or their cause, fester inside them, like a bad wound. Maybe remind them occasionally, if you are a real bastard. At one point, they will either return - or keep on running away, until they are safe. If they did so - it's alright, let them. It's a clear signal to you, as a GM, that the characters were, for some reason, uninterested and/or unmotivated enough to throw all their chips into the conflict they fled from.

Here, you may be tempted to give into the concept of Fate from theatre, and make them turn back, no matter what - but that's railroading. See, think of Fate in RPGs as Story in RPGs - it's what happens afterwards, after the game is over, not is the part of the game. Obviously, if the players fled the conflict, they were fated to do so. There will be another one, one that they will not flee, because they will be too heavily invested into it. If the characters have proper motivation, they are "destined", by the coherency and consistency of their actions, to suffer a tragic fate anyway. And if the character lacks such qualities - then his role in Fate's design is to watch his companion fall, rather then fall himself. Or perhaps he will develop such, and fall as well. It's up to the player.

And you will know when the character will have necessary qualities - that's why I mentioned collecting informations on characters & their relationships with the scrutiny of Soviet Security Services earlier.

I think that tragedy in the classical sense implies a certain fatalism. That the characters are not entirely masters of their own destiny. That they are, in fact, doomed from the start. It's like the ultimate in railroading.

I think that you need to manage it very carefully and that it's vital that the players are all on board from the start. If then everyone does happily embrace the ultimate futility of their characters' existence it can be a lot if fun

I have run various iterations of the seven samurai scenario in different genres (a Star Wars seven jedi version being about the best) where everyone pretty much dies. Of course, they all get to die heroically and deliver awesome final speeches, so it's all good.

If we're going to argue that tragedy = bad things happening to the PCs, then EVERY RPG is a tragedy. So for the sake of discussion I think that this Wikipedia entry on Tragedy is a good starting point, especially this bit:

Quote from: WikipediaAccording to Aristotle, "the structure of the best tragedy should be not simple but complex and one that represents incidents arousing fear and pity--for that is peculiar to this form of art." This reversal of fortune must be caused by the tragic hero's hamartia, which is often mistranslated as a character flaw, but is more correctly translated as a mistake (since the original Greek etymology traces back to hamartanein, a sporting term that refers to an archer or spear-thrower missing his target). According to Aristotle, "The change to bad fortune which he undergoes is not due to any moral defect or flaw, but a mistake of some kind."The reversal is the inevitable but unforeseen result of some action taken by the hero. It is also a misconception that this reversal can be brought about by a higher power (e.g. the law, the gods, fate, or society), but if a character's downfall is brought about by an external cause, Aristotle describes this as a misadventure and not a tragedy.

OK, so a tragedy is one where a character makes a mistake that results in an inevitable but unforeseen reversal of fortune which arouses feelings of fear and pity. I think that's pretty good.

Now onto discussion.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508121The answer to that is simple, if a bit weird - because nowhere like in a tragedy, the lines between a player and a character will blur.

No, it's the complete opposite. The line between character and player is never less blurry than in a comedy or tragedy. And that's because both require a player to make decisions that, knowingly or unknowingly, are not in the best interest of their character.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508121By forcing the player to make the difficult choices from his character's standpoint, we force him to admit, in a way, that if his character fails - he failed as well. When his character dies, when he fails, the player'll know that it's not the dice that killed him (well, not just the dice), but also his decisions. It's his failure.

And that's WHY the line is less blurry, not more. Nobody wants to feel they failed. In a tragedy RPG, a character's failure has to be the player's success. Otherwise, it's just a game that sucks.

Quote from: jibbajibba;508168The most tragic circumstances I have engineered as a Gm

***

When I created a love interest for a British agent I knew that he right mix of vlunerability, stubborness and long hair would create a 'perfect' girl. And that was the case for a string of adventures and when i eventually killed her, as was obviously inevitable, the Player lost it and simply said nothing for the next hour. Then once the killer was captured he simply asked the guards to leave and he would cover, took out a gun entered the cell and shot the guy, bound to a chair 4 times in the head and left.

But that's not a tragedy. A tragedy requires a choice, a mistake, to be made by the character. Here you just set up a dramatic situation that demanded action.

Rule of thumb: If it doesn't involve a choice the character will regret later, it isn't a tragedy. Did he regret falling in love? Did he regret killing her assassin?

Quote from: Werekoala;508192He was, however, a very resourceful and useful NPC, so the player decided to overlook the transgressions during the adventure. Once the group made it back to the Capitol, the PCs were debriefed by their superiors in the various Colleges, and in this case the PC told his superiors what the NPC had said and/or done, but made sure to let them know that it was not an intentional Heresey, per se, and that he was very useful and had a bright future ahead of him and he wanted to keep him as his assistant. They said they'd take it under advisement.

***

The player made eye contact with one of the Behemoths, and in that moment realized that the soul of the NPC he wanted as his assistant was trapped in that particular machine - thankfully restrained from slaughtering him on the steps of the College by divine sorcery. He kinda went a bit pale at that and learned a valuable lesson - don't always tell everything you know. He was actually quite remorseful (the player, I mean) because the NPC was a decent bloke and sidekick. HE really DID want to keep him on for more adventures.

So, that was a pretty decent moment of Tragedy, I thought.

Yes, THAT is tragedy. It involves a character who makes a mistake they later regret which results in a reversal of fortune which arouses feelings of fear and pity.

But while it was certainly unforeseen, it wasn't exactly inevitable, and this is where me and Aristotle may part ways.

See, one of the things that makes tragedy so, well, tragic is that often the horrible outcomes could have easily been averted by making obviously better choices (IE. Romeo and Juliet). And things would have turned out far better if only the character had NOT taken action. It's the character's ACTIONS which LEAD to tragedy, not avoid it.

On the other hand, the outcome you describe could be considered inevitable in hindsight. And I especially like this kind of tragedy because a lesson was learned which changed the kind of relationship a character has with a group or person, instead of ending the game or character.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508404When you actually start the Tragic part of the campaign, player decisions matter - but in a different manner.

Okaeee 0_o

Quote from: Rincewind1;508404No matter which path they will take, they will only entangle themselves more in the web of Fate. The harder they struggle, the more entangled they become. And ultimately they are suffocated.

So player decisions don't matter.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508404I guess the main thought I am trying to give here is this - always listen to your players' choices, and always allow them.

So player decisions do matter.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508404Adjust your plot and the events as needed.

So player decisions don't matter.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508404Do not force certain events to push the plot - let the players do the main plot pushing.

So player decisions do matter.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508404If they don't fall into one trap, prepare another one.

So player decisions don't matter.

Quote from: Rincewind1;509631What's one of the best strengths of RPGs? The freedom of choice on the players' part. They can choose to conduct any action they want.

So player decisions do matter.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508404And in order to do the tragedy justice, a GM shall use that freedom against them.

So player decisions don't matter.

Quote from: Rincewind1;509631Now, in order for this to work in an RPG, you must allow the players to escape the area of tragedy, if they so desire.

So player decisions do matter.

I feel dizzy  @_@

This is one of those binary issues: Either a player's decisions matter in the face of tragedy, or they don't. Either they can choose to avoid it, or they can't. For once we don't have to worry about a lonely middle here.

So HOW do a player's choices matter in a tragic game?

It's work in progress, so there may be some inconsistency with earlier posts.

Player decisions do matter, as do player characters - without at least one tragic character in the party, who will be tempted to play out to his tragic flaw, there will be no tragedy.

You'll figure it out progressively as you go on with this, Rincewind. Call it a work in progress, a theory, but not a series of advice, because you are still searching for the answers yourself at this point.