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

[Helldritch]

I'm firmly in the old-school camp, but it's not accurate to say the DM is powerless over their own game.

Powerless? Nope. But the young or new DM has lot less leeway to do things as he wants. Players empowerment is very real and unless the DM is experienced or sought enough after, he better be ready to explain a lot if he restricts players' agencies.

The DM always has had, and likely always will have, infinite dragons to throw at the party. While I hate the phrase and the nonsense stories it represents, it's still true. The DM can put whatever they need or want in front of the PCs. The DM isn't limited to the CR rating of monsters, nor to the number of monsters in a fight, nor the number of fights 5E is balanced around.

Yep, we have limitless amount of monsters. But at which point throwing waves and waves of increasing monster numbers do you become an adversarial DM? The balance between hard and adversarial can be blurry for the new DM. And no one is hated more than an adversarial DM. (Unless this is what was the goal all along).

Reskinning a CR5 ogre to be an orc still works, same as it always has. Though, admittedly, it's become rather tedious to keep up with the treadmill of power the PCs are on. You have to throw a more than deadly CR5 encounter at a 1st level party just to challenge them, even without power-gaming, munchkins, or optimization nonsense.

Agreed on that. Especially if said party is 5-6 players strong...

 

[Ovinomancer]

Simple, before 5ed. If a game master wanted to adjust the power level of a character, he would "arrange" for the character to find THE item that the player needed to have a power spike for his character. Be it a better sword, armor, wand or whatever. From a +1 sword to a +2 sword wasn't such a big deal back then. It was easy to "control" the problems associated with it. Most of the power of a character came from the magic items it had. Two notable exceptions were the paladin and the monk. These classes were gated with high requirement.

Now, most of a character's power comes from... its class and subclasses features. So if a player makes a few mistakes, since magic items have been upgraded so much, it is even harder for a game master to "adjust" the power level other than either sending a magic items (which now have a bigger impact, thanks to BA) or simply reducing the ECL... which might bring things to a cakewalk if the DM is not careful.

Even a single magical sword can become troublesome when the scenario depends on the players having difficulties in hurting the monsters. Many classes and subclasses powers are bypassing immunities altogether. Never was the number of magic using character so numerous.

I think I get what @tetrasodium is saying. Basically, the DM/GM would be able to hand out and sprinkle those additional weapons, powers, and abilities across their game as suited the DM/Game. Thereby allowing the DM to sculpt the game.

5e has taken that "ability" from the DM, for the most part, and plopped it right down in the players laps. And, if you read a lot of what gets posted on this and similar boards about "player agency", then no, the DM really isn't viewed by many (or a vocal minority), as the "primary resolution mechanic" because it, by definition, interferes with player agency. (I'm sure my english teacher would flunk me for that sentence, good thing I graduated decades ago )

That being said, in our group, which has been meeting and playing together for about 40 years or so, we still ascribe to the "GM says" school of DnD RPG, and aside from the usual "rules lawyering" (I'm the primary culprit, but am really working on it!), we let the DM decide what happens, or what can and can't be used, what items or abilities are in the game or not, etc. We've even gone so far as to start a Basic DnD campaign, and an Ad&d 2e campaign. They've been eye-opening, to say the least.

Edit: AND ninja'd by @Helldritch

Both of these argument are just saying that a lever that mattered in a different game doesn't exist in the current game so there's less GM ability to do things. But this ignores anything that does exist, or is new, or is unique to the current game that didn't exist in the older game. Take balance. You say offering magic items is was the way to balance prior editions (a claim I'm taking ad agumentum). Okay, but there are far more tools available in 5e than in 1e to balance encounters.

Taking ad argumentum off, I disagree that BA removes the ability to curate magic items and provide balance -- the balance point is in a different place. I don't give a +3 sword, I give a +damage sword. The balance points for 5e aren't in attack bonus, because attack bonus is capped (vs uncapped in prior editions). Damage is the new attack bonus, and you can balance here all day long with magic items.

 

[overgeeked]

Powerless? Nope. But the young or new DM has lot less leeway to do things as he wants. Players empowerment is very real and unless the DM is experienced or sought enough after, he better be ready to explain a lot if he restricts players' agencies.

Even with all the DM outreach and training channels, books, articles, etc, it's still a DM's market. That's why there are paid DMs. Because they're so in demand that people can charge for it. I have no problem filling seats, but I have all kinds of restrictions on player choices, house rules that tone things down, etc. And I am very much not a great or "sought after" DM. I'm mediocre at best. But I still have no problem filling seats.

Yep, we have limitless amount of monsters. But at which point throwing waves and waves of increasing monster numbers do you become an adversarial DM? The balance between hard and adversarial can be blurry for the new DM. And no one is hated more than an adversarial DM. (Unless this is what was the goal all along).

Well, it all depends on what you define as challenging. To me, it's not challenging unless there's an honest risk involved. Drain on resources, risk of character death, risk of consequences for failure, etc. That's not adversarial DMing, that's basic DMing. Actions have consequences. No risk, no reward. The world is a real place, the characters are real people who live in that world. Go. Basically everything else comes out of those simple statements.

Agreed on that. Especially if said party is 5-6 players strong...

Even 4. And once you get optimizers at the table...forget it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Powerless? Nope. But the young or new DM has lot less leeway to do things as he wants. Players empowerment is very real and unless the DM is experienced or sought enough after, he better be ready to explain a lot if he restricts players' agencies.


Yep, we have limitless amount of monsters. But at which point throwing waves and waves of increasing monster numbers do you become an adversarial DM? The balance between hard and adversarial can be blurry for the new DM. And no one is hated more than an adversarial DM. (Unless this is what was the goal all along).


Agreed on that. Especially if said party is 5-6 players strong...

Ah, "player empowerment" is at the core of this. It's an argument those pesky players have too much say in the game, and not one really based on looking at the game and seeing that the GM retains as much authority over the game as they ever did. It's complaining about the deck chair arrangement.

 

[tetrasodium]

This is an odd claim. 5e is effectively "GM Says" as the primary resolution mechanic. How can the GM be powerless in a game that explicitly says "ask your GM how this works" for just about everything?

I mean, don't get me wrong, you can absolutely run 5e in a neotrad approach, but this requires the GM to be complicit. Effectively, though, this is what AL play looks like, but I don't see anything in the way the game presents itself that necessitates or even comes close to this -- it seems AL specific due to the additional GM constraints on AL play.

There's been a few great posts tackling this that I fully agree with. "GM says" only goes so far before it becomes an unknowable game of calvin ball. The GM can not simply devise all of the changes out of the gate because the players are a moving target in ways that requires a GM to consider how their changes will collide with every single race/class/feat/spell/etc both on their own and combined through possible multiclassing. It goes from "GM says" to "mother may I" contingent entirely on the players having 100% buy in and not making any efforts to subvert or take advantage of any unexpected rough edges. A very experienced GM might be able to predict what to look for & include a long list of one off edge case tweaks along with the initial change, but newer & less experienced GMs will have more trouble doing so and face as very high bar of needing to explain why they have all of these little nerfs rather than working with Alice or Bob (openly or not) to make them more awesome. Even if the gm changes everything on the backend there is still the missing "my players are incentivized to seek out fancy magic items and paths to obtaining or crafting them" breadcrumb
trail type tool.


edit: all of the power that used to come from magic items (and then some extra in some cases) didn't go away, the players have it by default so the GM no longer has that room to work within unless they either add more dragons upon dragons in a tiresome loop or directly nerf the players to reclaim that space to operate within.

 

[Helldritch]

Both of these argument are just saying that a lever that mattered in a different game doesn't exist in the current game so there's less GM ability to do things. But this ignores anything that does exist, or is new, or is unique to the current game that didn't exist in the older game. Take balance. You say offering magic items is was the way to balance prior editions (a claim I'm taking ad agumentum). Okay, but there are far more tools available in 5e than in 1e to balance encounters.

Taking ad argumentum off, I disagree that BA removes the ability to curate magic items and provide balance -- the balance point is in a different place. I don't give a +3 sword, I give a +damage sword. The balance points for 5e aren't in attack bonus, because attack bonus is capped (vs uncapped in prior editions). Damage is the new attack bonus, and you can balance here all day long with magic items.

5ed added no new tools to the DM. All the tools always were there. Even in 1ed. What was removed is the control of power spike that the DM had over the players. By giving so much to the characters, 5ed tough it claims to give DM power back, did the exact opposite. Whenever I give some DM advice to younger or less experienced DM, I always warn them about the risks of BA and Magic Items in 5ed. There are ways to add more to hit in 5ed and they are even more powerful than their counter part in earlier edition. Advantage/disadvantage is incredibly good as a tool, but players can pretty much fish for adv in almost every combat. Especially if you include flanking.

Ah, "player empowerment" is at the core of this. It's an argument those pesky players have too much say in the game, and not one really based on looking at the game and seeing that the GM retains as much authority over the game as they ever did. It's complaining about the deck chair arrangement.

Both yes and no. As an experienced DM, I know when to say no or how to control the flow of the game without destroying the "agency" but less experienced will often either be overwhelmed or completely neutralize player agencies. Both outcomes are not desirable. As in all things, balance is what works out best. But 5ed is poorly build to provide good advice on how to achieve that on the DM's end.

And though I point out the weakness of 5ed. I love it! It is just that it could have been better with a bit more leeway on the DM's side. But that is the way it is. Someday, it might change.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I miss the days when a character needed certain weapons and types etc to succeed. Fighting a slime or Skeleton? Need a blunt weapon. Fighting a Werewolf, silver. Etc.
Don’t have a powerful enough magic weapon, best to go on the defense so the Casters can deal with it.

Players seemed to use tactics and think around fights more than they do now when now-a-days charging in with your basic longsword solves 90% of combat.

 

[Cruentus]

Both yes and no. As an experienced DM, I know when to say no or how to control the flow of the game without destroying the "agency" but less experienced will often either be overwhelmed or completely neutralize player agencies. Both outcomes are not desirable. As in all things, balance is what works out best. But 5ed is poorly build to provide good advice on how to achieve that on the DM's end.

And though I point out the weakness of 5ed. I love it! It is just that it could have been better with a bit more leeway on the DM's side. But that is the way it is. Someday, it might change.

Agree about liking 5e, but it also requires me to do so much futzing (as a DM who plays with optimizers), that it becomes unfun for me (directly to the adversarial vs cooperative DM).

That being said, I also think a lot of the disconnect (at least for me) around these discussions has to do with the tables being played at. I have NEVER played at a game store or a walk up, or an Adventurers League style game. And realistically never would. So, that element of the "DM's work" and "player agency" isn't ever an issue.

I do, however, play with the same group of 5-6 (+ or - a couple of new players) players since gradeschool. So all the agency/table issues disappear - we all know each other, grew up together, experienced the game the same way, etc. We also pitch the "style of game" to the group, and if folks want to play, we play. If they don't like it, they opt out, or we switch things up. It works for us.

I think that is a major element in the changes from older editions (Basic, 1e, 2e, etc.) to now with 5e. Many more games are being played with people you don't know/just met/in a public space/one-shot/whatever now, than they did "in the old days". Its great for exposure and finding games, and less great in other respects.

 

[overgeeked]

5ed added no new tools to the DM. All the tools always were there. Even in 1ed. What was removed is the control of power spike that the DM had over the players.

Still disagree. The DM controls the reward of XP. That is the power of the PCs.

By giving so much to the characters, 5ed tough it claims to give DM power back, did the exact opposite. Whenever I give some DM advice to younger or less experienced DM, I always warn them about the risks of BA and Magic Items in 5ed. There are ways to add more to hit in 5ed and they are even more powerful than their counter part in earlier edition. Advantage/disadvantage is incredibly good as a tool, but players can pretty much fish for adv in almost every combat. Especially if you include flanking.

And there's nothing stopping the DM from boosting the monsters, throwing infinite dragons at the PCs, and playing the monsters as smart, thinking creatures who generally don't want to die...as long as that all applies to a given monster. Nothing stopping DMs from having flanking monsters or monsters fishing for advantage.

Both yes and no. As an experienced DM, I know when to say no or how to control the flow of the game without destroying the "agency" but less experienced will often either be overwhelmed or completely neutralize player agencies. Both outcomes are not desirable. As in all things, balance is what works out best. But 5ed is poorly build to provide good advice on how to achieve that on the DM's end.

Agency is a weird one. To me, agency isn't the players being able to choose anything that's printed in an official D&D book. Agency is the player having the ability to effect the world their character exists in. If you use the illusion of choice, that destroys player agency. Railroading destroys player agency. Limiting character creation options does not.

And though I point out the weakness of 5ed. I love it! It is just that it could have been better with a bit more leeway on the DM's side. But that is the way it is. Someday, it might change.

5E seems to have two big things going for it. 1. It's where the players are. 2. Dis/advantage. Beyond those two, it's not drastically different from any other edition of D&D. Most of the same basic rules, same general ideas, though the particulars here and there are different. You could remove a few things, tweak a few things, and roughly replicate any older edition with a bit of work. Though admittedly, some of those differences are huge. Superhero healing, PC power scale, etc.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I am always amazing at how the anemic healing of 5e is called 'superhero'.

Unless you both consider all HP meat and the long rest reset as 'healing' instead of a reset of a game resource like it actually is.