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

[Yardiff]

...and Mercer's broken nonsense.

What is Mercer's broken nonsense?

 

[Remathilis]

To me those are variants on saying the same thing. They are gradations on a spectrum, that being of rarity; which goes from they don't exist (cannot be played at all) through they exist but are uncommon (gated behind a roll) to they exist (can be freely chosen).

Nah, the former is a hard cap while the latter is an arbitrary restriction. And it has real feelsbadman vibes when you wanted to play a goblin and can't because you didn't get lucky but Alice gets to play her tiefling because she rolled and did.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have run "martial only" or "no druids" campaigns... but it is always pitch players idea (often more then 1 and vote on what one to do) then work with them to make the world, the ideas (not all of it I would say I am 70% of the world creation) so by the time character creation night roles around (now called session 0) everyone knows and has bought in.

Well, note I did qualify with "appropriate for the campaign". I'm not one of the people that can follow the "You should fit whatever the player wants into the campaign" road (well, outside of campaigns where there's no obvious reason not to).

I just think there's a world of difference between that and "this thing should be rare" or "you've played this too much" in campaigns where other people are allowed to do so, whether just because they're lucky or because they haven't played it so much it annoys the GM. The latter is just a GM setting their priorities as first, and yeah, no.

 

[HammerMan]

That's the crux of it. You've decided beforehand that you don't like it.

sometimes I come to a game with an idea. Sometimes I don't. I ALWAYS know what I am not in the mood to play though.

Let's change the context. Do you walk away from a game of Monopoly if you can't play the top hat? Probably not. Ridiculous example,

race car... always the race car (LOL)

I know. The piece you pick doesn't have any in-game effect, whereas rolling stats does. Sure, granted. Maybe it's a longevity thing. I've been playing nearly 40 years now. Characters come and go. None of them are so precious that I have to have no negative modifiers.

well in the 32ish years I have been playing I have played high stats low stats and everything between... doesn't change that I don't want random things dictating the next year of gameing.

"it's exactly what I want or nothing."

who siad that?

You'd really rather not play than play something that wasn't 100% exactly what you wanted? The game's too fun to miss. Even with a rube of a character. Embrace it. Have fun with the idiot wizard, the oblivious druid, the awkward thief, weak-limbed fighter. There will be dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands more after they're long dead.

and again... if I am in the mood to play them I will. I wont be forced.

Same. And I've never managed to roll a paladin in AD&D. Ever.

I came close once... I had the CHA but not enough for the other stats.

"Man, I'd really love to stop tracking encumbrance, really wish we'd find a bag of holding..."

we stopped tracking encumbrance years ago and still want bags of holding...

Then when you finally get one everyone cheers. Instead of being handed one the second a player grumbles about tracking weight. There's no thrill. No excitement. No anticipation. No tension and release. Just bland, "here, have whatever you want whenever you want it."

that is not my experience at all

Sure. So instead of having a fixed idea in your head before you roll, you roll then come up with the idea. It works your creativity a bit more that way. Having to figure out the story of this wizard with 15 DEX. Way more interesting than the 90th wizard with maxed INT, high CON (because hit points), dump STR or CHA...snooze.

sorry but I don't need things to be random to have diffrent characters. I played a wizard with a higher Dex AND Cha then Int... with point buy. I DMed for a rogue with Cha, Int, Wis all higher then dex... with an array.

So you work with the limitations you've rolled. You work with what you have. Do the best you can with what you've got. When did that stop being a thing?

it CAN be a thing... it's just a thing I am tired of. I don't need the dice to tell me what my character is like

Right. Either you play exactly what you want or you refuse to play. That doesn't sound awesome.

And you do you. Me, I'd rather play. It's too much fun not to. Your way I'd never get to play. My way I get to play as much as I want. I know what I'm picking.

sorry but I get less and less game time every year. I will not be spending it doing things i don't find fun

 

[HammerMan]

What is Mercer's broken nonsense?

blood hunter I assume

 

[tetrasodium]

Yes, the DM does have the power to limit options, but far too many use this ability to further their own agendas rather than facilitate fun for others.

The DM is the host of a party. As such, they have tremendous veto power about everything that is going to go on in that party. The food, the entertainment, the guests. He could, in theory decide to only order the food he likes, play the kind of music he enjoys and invite only the people he wants (Tim can come, but I'm not inviting his wife) but unless everyone else likes the exact same kind of food, songs and such, will be a very poor party. A good host takes into consideration what his guests like and, within reason, tries to accommodate them. That might mean a vegetarian option along with the chicken, adding some hip hop to the playlist, or inviting Tim's wife even if her laugh is really annoying.

Because I've found in an era of infinite entertainment options, players can find things to do on a Saturday night aside from playing a game they aren't enjoying. Get enough of them and you find yourself alone on game night staring at empty chairs.

And little of this has to do with random chance determining what you will play. It's one thing to say "you can't be a goblin, they aren't a PC race in my world" and another to say "you can play a goblin only if I roll a 17 or higher on a d20".

.

What are you talking about? You don't know why I might run a game that rolls attributes in order or how common those games might be. I've given two pieces of information about those types of games before you started blasting me as some kind of cruel & abusive GM forcing my players to do something week after week.

• The first one was information about the type of game I'm looking to run if I were to tell them to roll attributes in order. That post was in relation to a question posed in the post I quoted while doing so.
• The second was continuing off that where I mentioned that players were free to play at my table in such a game or not but not to ignore the character creation rules laid out for it and play in it. You could potentially take the stats I posted players having gotten & rules used to generate them as a third piece of information.

Where does this hostile certainty that I'm forcing some agenda down on my players come from? You come off as if the GM is a paid servant who should act like it when it comes to the whims & desires of their employer but such arrangements are exceedingly rare.

 

[overgeeked]

Hot take: to some extent, yes.

I see it as the players' job - as in any refereed game or sport - to (gently) push against the rules and boundaries in order to gain what advantage they can; and I see it as the DM's job as referee to (gently) push back. A DM who doesn't push back will likely end up with a less-than-satisfying game, or one that doesn't last nearly as long as it otherwise might.

Sort of. Maybe.

I don't think it's the players' job to do so. I think it's inevitable that they will. I'd really rather they didn't. But they're going to anyway.

I see it as the DM's job to enforce the rules of the game exactly as much is needed for most of the group to have the most fun. Fun here, of course, does not mean easy wins or Monty Haul games. Fun is challenges and exploration and near misses and outright failures. Playing the world with as much verisimilitude as I can manage and run the mechanics that we need as neutrally as possible.

I cannot stand adversarial DMs or adversarial players. It spoils the fun for everyone involved.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sort of. Maybe.

I don't think it's the players' job to do so. I think it's inevitable that they will. I'd really rather they didn't. But they're going to anyway.

I see it as the DM's job to enforce the rules of the game exactly as much is needed for most of the group to have the most fun. Fun here, of course, does not mean easy wins or Monty Haul games. Fun is challenges and exploration and near misses and outright failures. Playing the world with as much verisimilitude as I can manage and run the mechanics that we need as neutrally as possible.

I cannot stand adversarial DMs or adversarial players. It spoils the fun for everyone involved.

I think there might be two interpretations of "to (gently) push against the rules and boundaries in order to gain what advantage they can" that @Lanefan mentioned. Your they shouldn't lines up right if you take it as "creative" interpretations of rules, but I think he was going for (or could go for) a different spin where players make efforts to work with the setting outside the rules in some degree of collaboration with the GM. In that second case you have things like "how much would it improve my view of the approaching $whatever if I spent a bit climbing one of these trees to get a good look?(or would it matter?)" leading into things like "can I climb a tree to get a better view of the approaching $whatever". Without that you just have "I roll perception"

 

[overgeeked]

Note that I've revised the post you responded to about 10 minutes before you responded to it.

well in the 32ish years I have been playing I have played high stats low stats and everything between... doesn't change that I don't want random things dictating the next year of gameing.

But that's literally...gaming. The dice are random. They will be dictating the next year of your gaming. That's not a question. It's just a fact. The only difference is character creation.

and again... if I am in the mood to play them I will. I wont be forced.

So even if the party is in desperate need of a cleric you would refuse to play a cleric unless you're in the mood?

I take the opposite approach. Gaming is first social. It's about teamwork and working together. If the group needs a tank, I play a tank. If the group needs a cleric, I play a cleric. Etc. I'm one in a group.

I came close once... I had the CHA but not enough for the other stats.

Same. Hit all of them...at different times.

sorry but I don't need things to be random to have diffrent characters. I played a wizard with a higher Dex AND Cha then Int... with point buy. I DMed for a rogue with Cha, Int, Wis all higher then dex... with an array.

Cool. That's absolutely not my experience. At least in the last decade. It's cookie cutter builds or nothing. So I went back to random rolls.

I don't need the dice to tell me what my character is like.

I don't need it either. It's just more interesting that way, to me.

sorry but I get less and less game time every year.

That's too bad. You tried Roll20 or PBP games?

I will not be spending it doing things i don't find fun

Which is more fun: playing or not playing?

I find playing something I'm less than thrilled about is still way more fun than not playing at all.

Here's an example. A long-time DM friend of mine has offered to run a game. It's a combat-heavy mega-dungeon crawl. I think combat is the most boring part of the game (especially in 5E). I absolutely hate mega-dungeons. I'm iffy on dungeon crawls. But I'm still going to play. And likely have an absolute blast. Because I get to play with friends I haven't seen in ages. We get to chuck dice, kill monsters, eat pizza, and generally goof around for a few hours every so often.

 

[CleverNickName]

Based on a true story.

Player: "I make an Athletics check to cross the chasm."
DM: "Not sure how Athletics applies...describe your character's actions for me."
Player: "It's easy, I walk across the tightrope to the other side."
DM: "Make an Acrobatics check."
Player: "But I told you, I want to roll Athletics!"