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

[JiffyPopTart]

That's what pre-roll characters and promoted hirelings are for. No lag time. "You've been making fun of Tim the lantern-bearer for the last year, now he's your new character. Go."

I think the point that's being missed is that it's a game. The point is to have fun playing it. Is your definition of fun only getting exactly what you want? You only have fun if...and only if...you get to play exactly what you want. That seem bizarrely limited.

A few relevant quotes form older editions...

“The D&D game has neither losers nor winners, it has only gamers who relish exercising their imagination. The players and the DM share in creating adventures in fantastic lands where heroes abound and magic really works. In a sense, the D&D game has no rules, only rule suggestions. No rule is inviolate, particularly if a new or altered rule will encourage creativity and imagination. The important thing is to enjoy the adventure.”

And: “the object of the game is to have fun by playing roles, stupid or weak characters can be as much fun as smart, powerful ones—if the roles are played well.”

In my experience, players given the chance to simply pick their stats would have all 18s across the board. They seem to want to play perfection and anything less, even the hint of a negative or a flaw is anathema to them. It just seems backwards to me to decide you can only have fun if you get exactly what you want. Instead of see what you get and have fun with it no matter what. I mean, I just don't get that attitude.

Player: "I want to play a goblin artificer and I refuse to have fun or even play unless I get to play exactly that."

DM: "I told you we're playing a low-magic humanocentric game this time. Instead of the 12th generic high-magic fantasy romp."

If the player wants to die on that hill and not play at all, sure. But that seems like an incredibly...silly choice to make. I just don't get the attitude that if you can't play something super-awesome you'd refuse to play at all. General you, of course. Not trying to specifically call out the posters I quoted.

So, to clarify, you don't see any gap between "I won't have fun with X" and "I want everything exactly how I want it"?

 

[Remathilis]

If I tell my players to roll their attributes in order the reason is because I want to force them out of their comfort zone of yet another x just like the last 5 bob played. If Alice says screw that & does roll but arrange as desired or simply picks stats as desired so she can play a clone of her last 5 characters it defeats the purpose. Just like you in your example alice would be actively fighting the game the GM has stated they are going to be running

Sounds like someone putting their own fun (forcing people out of their comfort zone) over the fun of others (letting them play what interests them).

 

[HammerMan]

I think the point that's being missed is that it's a game. The point is to have fun playing it. Is your definition of fun only getting exactly what you want? You only have fun if...and only if...you get to play exactly what you want. That seem bizarrely limited.

I don't think that at all (and I wonder why the boards are so full of people who think there is some secret message or thought they know about me).

However over the course of a year of gaming (most likely 40-50 sessions) I am going to be stuck playing something I don't want... cause rules. and the way around it is to suicide the character...not fun.

I mean in 2e it was worse. I wanted to play a paladin so bad, and those stat requirements were insane.
but even today. I say "Man I have this great idea for a wizard, he is this bookish little nerd" and the dice roll all high... now my bookish wizard is 15 st dex and con

imagine the other end. "I want to be the son of a great hero trying to live up to his standards. I'm going to go Blade singer wizard and maybe dip 3-6 levels in eldritch knight." then I roll and get 2 9's and some low but okish numbers... and I am stuck,

“The D&D game has neither losers nor winners, it has only gamers who relish exercising their imagination. The players and the DM share in creating adventures in fantastic lands where heroes abound and magic really works. In a sense, the D&D game has no rules, only rule suggestions. No rule is inviolate, particularly if a new or altered rule will encourage creativity and imagination. The important thing is to enjoy the adventure.”

this is praticly my manta.

And: “the object of the game is to have fun by playing roles, stupid or weak characters can be as much fun as smart, powerful ones—if the roles are played well.”

yup when you consent to play said characters not when an outside force makes you (luck, the DM, what ever)

In my experience, players given the chance to simply pick their stats would have all 18s across the board.

wait what... I didn't even have An 18 on my sheet. again I picked and was on the lower end of average for the party

They seem to want to play perfection and anything less, even the hint of a negative or a flaw is anathema to them. It just seems backwards to me to decide you can only have fun if you get exactly what you want. Instead of see what you get and have fun with it no matter what. I mean, I just don't get that attitude.

or you just have an idea and want to try X... I mean I don't know anyone who ever tried to just play perfect 18s

Player: "I want to play a goblin artificer and I refuse to have fun or even play unless I get to play exactly that."

DM: "I told you we're playing a low-magic humanocentric game this time. Instead of the 12th generic high-magic fantasy romp."

If the player wants to die on that hill and not play at all, sure. But that seems like an incredibly...silly choice to make. I just don't get the attitude that if you can't play something super-awesome you'd refuse to play at all. General you, of course. Not trying to specifically call out the posters I quoted.

I guess... but if I had to play 1 campaign next year (instead of play 2 run 1 like I am right now) I would never sign up to play something I don't want to play.

 

[Remathilis]

In my experience, players given the chance to simply pick their stats would have all 18s across the board. They seem to want to play perfection and anything less, even the hint of a negative or a flaw is anathema to them. It just seems backwards to me to decide you can only have fun if you get exactly what you want. Instead of see what you get and have fun with it no matter what. I mean, I just don't get that attitude.

Player: "I want to play a goblin artificer and I refuse to have fun or even play unless I get to play exactly that."

DM: "I told you we're playing a low-magic humanocentric game this time. Instead of the 12th generic high-magic fantasy romp."

If the player wants to die on that hill and not play at all, sure. But that seems like an incredibly...silly choice to make. I just don't get the attitude that if you can't play something super-awesome you'd refuse to play at all. General you, of course. Not trying to specifically call out the posters I quoted.

I get it now. You believe you are at war with your players and to give them any inch is a sign of weakness or surrendering your DM authority. Without tight rigid control the first thing players do is stomp over the DM. Players cannot be trusted to do what is best for a game and cannot be reasoned or compromised with. They can only know hard restrictions and they must earn their right to have fun.

I don't like it, but I get it now. Thanks.

 

[HammerMan]

Sounds like someone putting their own fun (forcing people out of their comfort zone) over the fun of others (letting them play what interests them).

yeah...some people ENJOY there comfort zone.

 

[Kannik]

I had really hoped that Morrus’ question wouldn’t have led us to here, that we had moved beyond this, but here we are. Posts stating that modern characters ‘superheroes’ for players who cannot handle a ‘challenge’ or ‘adversity’ and instead want to ‘hide from it’ and ‘gimme what I want now’. Also that the game changing to ‘cater’ to player choice is “unfathomable”.

There’s a huge false dichotomy going on here. A game is not only able to exist either as a total random grinder-fest or as an auto-success cakewalk. There is a gradient. You can use point array and choose your character class and have a backstory and not expect to die at first level due to a poor roll and still have the game be plenty challenging. And can have it be challenging on many levels, including due to mechanics, luck, tactics, obstacles, the world, and – never should it be forgotten as this is an RPG – the character themselves and all that entails: personal obstacles, crisis of faiths, overcoming, drama, and etc.

Again, I got my start in 1e. I cut my teeth on Tomb, Expedition, Slavers, Giants, Desert, Ravenloft, and so much homebrew and isolated modules. Even back then there was no one way the game was played. Even within the same group of players we could and would enjoy different playstyles depending on who was running and/or the tone and theme of the campaign. We ran games 35+ years ago that would, it would appear to me, drive some on this thread to distraction and upset.

Has the game shifted from strictness and an unforgiving base to something more middle path? At least as what is presented in the PHB (as the DMG or UA et al already had dials) one might argue yes. It’s a broader starting point. But what of it? I would invite that just because you cannot see how the game can be challenging without using the dice and harsh outcomes does not mean that it is not possible and that others have not been able to craft that kind of playstyle.

At the same time, I would doubly invite to consider that when some groups do indeed play with a low challenge level and/or place their emphasis on other aspects of the game or of the play experience, it does not automatically mean that they are not playing the game or are somehow lesser.

I have no problem sharing what you enjoy and see as available in playing in a particular playstyle and even encouraging others to give it a try – again, I’ve played in so many styles and can easily see how each provides opportunities in different ways! It might even be great to have those dials even further explored and supported within the DMG. But when it turns to denigrating or dismissive language then it’s not about sharing anymore. It’s not about enticing. It’s about something else that only harms the hobby.

 

[HammerMan]

I get it now. You believe you are at war with your players and to give them any inch is a sign of weakness or surrendering your DM authority. Without tight rigid control the first thing players do is stomp over the DM. Players cannot be trusted to do what is best for a game and cannot be reasoned or compromised with. They can only know hard restrictions and they must earn their right to have fun.

I don't like it, but I get it now. Thanks.

I am so stealing this... that is what my mistake has been. I was trying to think how it could be that 2e teenage me would agree with things and in my mid life crisis now I think them so odd... the game is a war. It was me vs the players once... it isn't anymore (and has't been in years)

 

[tetrasodium]

When my daughter was 10 and said she didn't like mushrooms (knowing she never tried them) I would encourage her to try them but not force the issue. Now that my daughter is 22 and she tells me she doesn't like kung-pao chicken I believe her because she's an adult. I don't feel the need to pressure her to try food she doesn't like.

Um... ok? This isn't about kung pao chicken or mushrooms. Using your very flawed food analogy... if I'm driving to a chinese place that has both of those things on the menu & paying. You can go or not go but ordering pizza from grubhub & having them deliver it to the table at the chinese restaurant with the expectation that I still pay/gm is very much not.

Sounds like someone putting their own fun (forcing people out of their comfort zone) over the fun of others (letting them play what interests them).

The hubris is staggering. Part of the GM's role & responsibilities in all editions is to determine what is acceptable for the game they will be running. You aren't forced to play at my table & I'm quite happy telling a player who thought "I'll quit"/"I won't play" would give them veto power over my game as a player. You are doing a great job proving my point about why removing the ability to point at other options in the phb/dmg for attribute generation from the GM's toolbox was an incredibly GM hostile choice of modern d&d. Modern d&d might make efforts to turn the GM into a captive powerless cruise ship director but that's still a gm responsibility

yeah...some people ENJOY there comfort zone.

Good, that's usually great, but if I'm running a game where I require all stats be rolled in order that comfort zone is at some other table with some other GM who is not me because the game I'm running in that situation is all stats rolled in order. The last time I required that style of rolling the rules were "3d6 in order bur reroll the entire array if you don't have at least two scores above 14" [spoiler["and the resulting scores

Spoiler: were extremely generous

 

[Thomas Shey]

but why make them play a character they don't want to?

Lets say I roll 9, 9, 11, 12 ,12,13. I look at 3 +1's and and 1 - and 2 -1s and say "I don't want to spend the next X months playing with that"
why not just let me reroll?

Is it really BETTER to have my character (9str 11 dex 9 con 13 int 12 wis 12 cha) played and not enjoyed?

The usual situation when someone was stiff about this was to just get the character killed at first opportunity. It was likely going to be obvious, so if the GM wanted they could probably throw a fit about it, but like I said, usually at that point it was as much to make a point as anything else.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If I tell my players to roll their attributes in order the reason is because I want to force them out of their comfort zone of yet another x just like the last 5 bob played. If Alice says screw that & does roll but arrange as desired or simply picks stats as desired so she can play a clone of her last 5 characters it defeats the purpose. Just like you in your example alice would be actively fighting the game the GM has stated they are going to be running

Also not something I think the GM has a right to get their oar in about. If someone wants to play X repeatedly, yeah it can get tiresome, but again not your business.