D&D General How has D&D changed over the decades?

[Minigiant]

My thought is that it's hard to kill characters 'on accident' with plausible deniability that you're actually out to kill them.

Accidental downs and TPKs were a big thing loered in 4e and 5e. The monsters kill you, not the die.

And there is a reason for that; being a zero sucks. You either kept rolling toons to throw to the meatgrinder until one of them got enough levels to earn themselves a literal name (Elf 4 became Alara) or the DM played everything with kid gloves and pulled nearly every punch so that characters could actually be played. Those days when your wizard had a single spell slot, your thief's chance to successfully thieve was below 20%, and your fighter had single digit hp was fine when the game didn't care about things like backstory, motivation, or personality (which is why alignment worked fine as personality indicator then, "Chaotic Neutral" was a good indicator of what kind of shenanigans you'd be up to before you died).

Come Dragonlance and 2nd edition, the game was maturing to focus on characters and not just toons. Unfortunately, the rules didn't start catching up with it until the third edition. And there is nothing inherently wrong with the "roll up PCs fast and throw them at the dungeon until one of them sticks" method of play, but I think the market and player-base wanted something a little more refined and the game has moved towards that.

Exactly. There was aclear decision to make PCs tugher so PCs could play onto the stories the DM set up witout the DM playing with kids gloves or the PCs playing like chickens.

There was a clear decision that in 5e, you don't start at zero, hero, superhero,myth, or epic. You are year one Robin, Red Arrow, Wonder Girl. Day one TeenTitans or X men Team C. Superhero sidekicks.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I clicked "Like" then realized I have no idea what either "Lodoss War" or "Slayers" is referring to.

The closest I can get to either is the metal band Slayer, but they never had that trailing 's'.

Loddoss War is an anime based on a D&D campaign that's very dramatic and artsy.

Slayers is an anime based on a D&D campaign full of the zany crap people actually do in their campaigns.

 

[overgeeked]

And there is a reason for that; being a zero sucks. You either kept rolling toons to throw to the meatgrinder until one of them got enough levels to earn themselves a literal name (Elf 4 became Alara) or the DM played everything with kid gloves and pulled nearly every punch so that characters could actually be played. Those days when your wizard had a single spell slot, your thief's chance to successfully thieve was below 20%, and your fighter had single digit hp was fine when the game didn't care about things like backstory, motivation, or personality (which is why alignment worked fine as personality indicator then, "Chaotic Neutral" was a good indicator of what kind of shenanigans you'd be up to before you died).

There's no point in playing a game that's permanently stuck on easy mode. At least not for me. The challenge is the fun of it. That and exploring things. Remove the challenge and you remove the main reason to play. You remove both the challenge and the exploration...what's the point?

Come Dragonlance and 2nd edition, the game was maturing to focus on characters and not just toons. Unfortunately, the rules didn't start catching up with it until the third edition. And there is nothing inherently wrong with the "roll up PCs fast and throw them at the dungeon until one of them sticks" method of play, but I think the market and player-base wanted something a little more refined and the game has moved towards that.

It's not more mature or refined because it focuses more on railroads and story. Just like it's not less mature to focus on throwing dozens of PCs at a meatgrinder dungeon crawl and seeing who lives. It's different. It's not your cuppa. Cool. But don't pretend like your preferences are somehow more mature.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But don't pretend like your preferences are somehow more mature.

Please extend the same courtesies.

 

[Remathilis]

There's no point in playing a game that's permanently stuck on easy mode. At least not for me. The challenge is the fun of it. That and exploring things. Remove the challenge and you remove the main reason to play. You remove both the challenge and the exploration...what's the point?

It's not more mature or refined because it focuses more on railroads and story. Just like it's not less mature to focus on throwing dozens of PCs at a meatgrinder dungeon crawl and seeing who lives. It's different. It's not your cuppa. Cool. But don't pretend like your preferences are somehow more mature.

Mature isn't a statement of the player, but of the experience. Compare early 80's Atari video games to modern PC or console video games. The game play is advanced. The storytelling is advanced. The character design is advanced. The emphasis is not on high score or feeding quarters to the system in an attempt at mastery, but on immersive playstyle and narrative. This NOT a judgement on the quality of the content itself; there is a huge retro video-game market that loves arcade quarter-munchers. Plenty of people prefer older gaming to newer play. But the market trend has been for a long time towards more immersive storytelling and complexity, not on raw challenge.

RPGs have a similar arc. Most RPGs on the market (not just D&D) have focused on immersive storytelling and character building. Nobody comments about the body count they racked up playing Edge of the Empire, or how their character started out a nobody in Mutants & Masterminds. A few legacy or genre-specific examples aside (such as CoC) RPGs have moved away from grinder-style play. PCs start out competent, and only get better from there. The exploration of character, world, and story requires a certain threshold of competency. Is 5e overtuned? Perhaps. But it's clearly responding to a market that has moved toward a certain style of play.

Enjoy what you like: I like retro-gaming (both VG and RPG) but I don't pretend that either is what the dominant force in the market is these days.

 

[Lanefan]

You might be either too old or too young to get that reference, then. Both were extremely popular D&D-inspired anime from the late 80s/early 90s. Record of Lodoss War is specifically based on a BECMI campaign that was serialized in a Japanese magazine.

Not so much too old or too young but more that I've never been the least bit interested in anime.

 

[overgeeked]

I think, for me at least, this quote from Worlds Without Number sums up character death, player skill, and a sense of challenge quite well.

“While this kind of character fragility can be dismaying to players of many modern games, there’s a point to it beyond mere bravado. A character who accomplishes grand adventures and survives horrible perils this way has actually accomplished something difficult. There were no plot points in his favor, no narrative tweaks to ensure his survival, and no cushion of fate to keep him from being pulped by a bad choice.

The player made a lot of very good choices, picked the right battles to fight, and made decisions that were objectively wise if they’ve managed to get this far, and they’ve done it while absorbing the inevitable amount of bad luck that honest dice would have thrown at them. There’s a genuine feeling of pride and accomplishment that comes from bringing a hero that far. The PCs that didn’t make it are just proof that the game wasn’t rigged in their favor.”

 

[MGibster]

I think maybe the prevalence of a somewhat more narrative focus has led to character survivability. In campaigns that are character driven, what happens when the character dies? It's not just a simple matter of replacing that Fighter with a Rogue but it's figuring out how this new character fits into the plot which can be a little complicated. I've had some campaigns come to an end (not D&D) when too many characters died. This was because both the DM and the players had a lot invested in those characters and investing in new characters would be a chore.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think maybe the prevalence of a somewhat more narrative focus has led to character survivability. In campaigns that are character driven, what happens when the character dies? It's not just a simple matter of replacing that Fighter with a Rogue but it's figuring out how this new character fits into the plot which can be a little complicated. I've had some campaigns come to an end (not D&D) when too many characters died. This was because both the DM and the players had a lot invested in those characters and investing in new characters would be a chore.

That increased survivability can only go so far , eventually it turns into defacto IDDQD & there's no reason to care about the plot any longer. Imagine the next superbowl/world cup the champion team vrs some nothing sixth grade pickup game team where the outcome is so certain that it's pointless to care about. In the past players needed to pay attention & pull out at least a few stops to help ensure things go their way or ensure that they had the tools needed to stack the odds... "we showed up" doesn't require that anymore though.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Eh, survivability at least against simple misadventure have walked up steadily, because the honest truth is, most people have no damn interest in a DCC funnel, and in practice that's often what low level OD&D was.