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

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

This is certainly an example of the game changing. I always hated the idea that no amount of sledgehammering would bother a gargoyle unless it was "magic".

I think resistance to weapon types is a much improved way to encourage certain attack types. I would prefer to see it used in a more complex way, but that isn't the path 5e treads.

 

[Remathilis]

This is also very uncharitable. The character background in question was summarized in a single sentence. Referring to it as a "mile long back story" is a blatant exaggeration.

And again, you're making assumptions about the player, presuming that they don't care if it will fit with the others at the table, rather than assuming it was part of the character-creation process where everyone puts what they're interested in into the pot.

There have been a lot of strawmen hoisted out in this discussion in an attempt to paint modern D&D players as entitled brats who only care about their own needs and the defenseless DMs who must service them hand and foot.

 

[overgeeked]

Yes this is an extreme example of a problematic player who would usually get the boot fast, but booting them is not really an option right now** & I've seen these kinds of behaviors from less problematic would be novelists at a fairly regular clip over the years. Your freedom lies in your ability to shape the world & even your history through deeds at the table not by how many pages you can write between sessions or how many specific details you can load into a short summary of a novel you have in mind

It's so wild. But it's a real thing. I've had players show up with backstories more detailed than entire homebrew worlds I've been running for decades.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is certainly an example of the game changing. I always hated the idea that no amount of sledgehammering would bother a gargoyle unless it was "magic".

I think resistance to weapon types is a much improved way to encourage certain attack types. I would prefer to see it used in a more complex way, but that isn't the path 5e treads.

There are a lot of things in 5e that I wish were handled in a more complex way. That's why I play Level Up!

 

[Helldritch]

There have been a lot of strawmen hoisted out in this discussion in an attempt to paint modern D&D players as entitled brats who only care about their own needs and the defenseless DMs who must service them hand and foot.

Modern????? This behavior dates back in the '80s. I have had my share of these when I had 12 different groups at the same time. Do not presume to have invented this behavior or that one generation has the exclusivity. Every single generation and editions had some. It is no more prevalent than in my time. But today, it seems that some are considering it "normal player " expectation. This is why I have the session zero since 1985.

 

[tetrasodium]

Modern????? This behavior dates back in the '80s. I have had my share of these when I had 12 different groups at the same time. Do not presume to have invented this behavior or that one generation has the exclusivity. Every single generation and editions had some. It is no more prevalent than in my time. But today, it seems that some are considering it "normal player " expectation. This is why I have the session zero since 1985.

agree a hundred percent. The novelist player is not a modern d&d one, the lack of GM side tools to aid in managing it is the modern d&d problem

 

[Eric V]

Like I said, modern d&d has this mandated expectation that the gm should open wide & swallow anything given by a player without expecting so much as the slightest effort on the player to make it fit. Being willing to put something together that fits a particular module the player goes out to read is worse not better. I give my players a great deal of freedom, but that freedom comes at the cost of needing characters that fit the world rather than the other way around. Modern d&d presents that expectation as heretical abuse of GM power.

Modern D&D does no such thing. I mean, how could it, considering the hyperbole used?

 

[Guest 7034872]

Here's one way D&D has changed for me: a lot fewer books than we used to have.

 

[Remathilis]

I assume it from experience that comes with many times with many different players deciding that my hypothetical efforts to hash out problematic elements into acceptable ones and the response about that feedback being claimed that the backstory was "denied" with a vow to "But I will return the favor: your world's history and lore will mean nothing to my PC. If you expect me to care about your world, I expect you to care about my character." spotlights the fact that the assumption was entirely justified

Let me point out where I find the breaking point for me is.

As a DM, I set up an initial premise. (Eberron pirates, Curse of Strahd AP, etc.)
People come to me with an idea. (Thorin).
I advise what elements might need to be changed to make it work (Thorin became a pirate or got sucked into Ravenloft, etc) and what that will mean. (Thorin might have to wait until he leaves Barovia or gathers enough gold pirating to raise an army).
If these edits are fine, we move on, if not, the character might have to be shelved until a more suitable game comes up.

Lather, rinse, repeat for each player.

What I don't do:
Assume the player is doing this to subvert my campaign.
Outright reject the concept unless it is such an anethema to the central concept of the game it is unreconcilable (a very rare event)
Make my players roll to see if they can play said character (sorry Thorin, your Dex score is too high. Maybe you want to be Samwise instead?)
Allow other players to veto ideas of other players (I won't adventure with a dark elf. Change your PC)

As to the quote: you are looking at my retort to the notion that who my character is doesn't matter. My character's goal, identity and origin will never matter in your game. If the answer is "no, you cannot be Thorin because your origin doesn't matter and I won't do anything with your plot hook. Create a new character." I will reciprocate with "I don't care about the background of your world either, give me some orcs to fight and pie to win." Apathy cuts both ways.

 

[Remathilis]

Modern????? This behavior dates back in the '80s. I have had my share of these when I had 12 different groups at the same time. Do not presume to have invented this behavior or that one generation has the exclusivity. Every single generation and editions had some. It is no more prevalent than in my time. But today, it seems that some are considering it "normal player " expectation. This is why I have the session zero since 1985.

Oh, wherever did I get "modern D&D" from?

Like I said, modern d&d has this mandated expectation that the gm should open wide & swallow anything given by a player without expecting so much as the slightest effort on the player to make it fit. Being willing to put something together that fits a particular module the player goes out to read is worse not better. I give my players a great deal of freedom, but that freedom comes at the cost of needing characters that fit the world rather than the other way around. Modern d&d presents that expectation as heretical abuse of GM power.

Have you considered keeping the goal posts on the same field for a little while?