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

[Helldritch]

I was trying to. There was a lot of complaining that players are railroading GM creative agendas and very little (none really) about how player agendas are being included by GMs. How much can a player propose before it's too much?

Anything that would interfere with the reached consensus, anything that simply shuts off an other player's already accepted idea or an entirely outlandish background. Of course, I have seen outlandish background that were so good that we litterally modified a campaign world.

Greyhawk have no dragonborns, usually. BUT
One of my players really likes dragonborns. He imagined a whole tribe fleeing a world invaded by orcs and landing on the Abbor Alz. His background story was so good that me and the other players (5 of them) started to imagine and write down the origin of the tribe with the player in question. Now, we have dragonborn in the Abbor Alz and that tribe is slowly growing and it has diplomatic relation with the Duchy of Urnts and Greyhawk. Session zero lasted 4 hours alone with us writing down the tribe's history and leaders and hopes and fears.

So yes, from an outside the table appearance, I am a wee bit restraining players choice. But when something good really come up. I can recognize it and will encourage it. We much prefer to see the story develop from play, but sometimes, an idea is so good that the whole table will accept it and a world is changed accordingly.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Anything that would interfere with the reached consensus, anything that simply shuts off an other player's already accepted idea or an entirely outlandish background. Of course, I have seen outlandish background that were so good that we litterally modified a campaign world.

Greyhawk have no dragonborns, usually. BUT
One of my players really likes dragonborns. He imagined a whole tribe fleeing a world invaded by orcs and landing on the Abbor Alz. His background story was so good that me and the other players (5 of them) started to imagine and write down the origin of the tribe with the player in question. Now, we have dragonborn in the Abbor Alz and that tribe is slowly growing and it has diplomatic relation with the Duchy of Urnts and Greyhawk. Session zero lasted 4 hours alone with us writing down the tribe's history and leaders and hopes and fears.

So yes, from an outside the table appearance, I am a wee bit restraining players choice. But when something good really come up. I can recognize it and will encourage it. We much prefer to see the story develop from play, but sometimes, an idea is so good that the whole table will accept it and a world is changed accordingly.

Okay, so if the table decided that they want to do the thing with the dwarf and the dragon, but the GM had different plans, what happens?

 

[Helldritch]

Right here:

Can you give the posts you are referring to? Without the context of the post it means nothing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Can you give the posts you are referring to? Without the context of the post it means nothing.

Weird... it was your post!

Yep. But in these "modern" times, one thing has changed if you read my post entirely.

It is the fact that this behaviour is now defended and even expected to be considered normal expectation. In older editions, doing this would bring you the fury of a table, now, not that much. Especially on the forums. It is the acceptance of such behaviour that is entirely new.

 

[Helldritch]

Okay, so if the table decided that they want to do the thing with the dwarf and the dragon, but the GM had different plans, what happens?

The table will over rule me. Democracy rule. We choose and vote. I would have no say in that choice but vote against (if I were against it) and lose because the table chose to allow it.

 

[Helldritch]

Weird... it was your post!

Sure, but I want the full context.
And if you read above you will see that I was refering to a player IMPOSING his choice on the group.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The table will over rule me. Democracy rule. We choose and vote. I would have no say in that choice but vote against (if I were against it) and lose because the table chose to allow it.

So, then, there's no problem at all with the presented Thorin backstory, just if one player tries to force it when everyone else at the table doesn't want to do that? This doesn't at all seem like a game problem, but a people problem. Also not at all what others were presenting with the proposed backstory, either. I get that you were upset when I misunderstood your position, but it seems a little reflection on your response to others might be in order!

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sure, but I want the full context.
And if you read above you will see that I was refering to a player IMPOSING his choice on the group.

"Selfish" was being used to describe players that even presented a desire for game elements that didn't align with the GM's. If you meant specifically only those players that are jerks, then perhaps you shouldn't have followed those two posts which were discussing a much wider range of behaviors. This seems to be the root of much misunderstanding.

 

[Scott Christian]

The motif of D&D shifts with the times, and the times is dictated by things inside popular culture. And yes, D&D influences popular culture, but it is one of many. Then popular culture eats and digests it all and uses those nutrients to grow and show itself. Then D&D copies the parts they like.
I think of Buffy and Hercules, the spawn of DC & Marvel's reign, Harry Potter & Pirates, and Final Fantasy and WoW. All these seem like huge influences on the 4e and 5e design. Compare this to any fantasy of the 70s - 90s: Conan, Blade, Flash, Ultima, etc. The difference in feel seems the same as the shift in D&D.

 

[Helldritch]

So, then, there's no problem at all with the presented Thorin backstory, just if one player tries to force it when everyone else at the table doesn't want to do that? This doesn't at all seem like a game problem, but a people problem. Also not at all what others were presenting with the proposed backstory, either. I get that you were upset when I misunderstood your position, but it seems a little reflection on your response to others might be in order!

If I gave the impression that I was upset with you, I am truly sorry.

No the problem has and always has been a player imposing his view with to a table. But I do agree with others that today, this kind of behaviour is not desirable but it is often hidden under the veil of "creativity" and as soon as that veil is invoked, it becomes a trope in which if the DM says no, he is bad. It is not true. Creativity is good, but a DM is perfectly within his right to restrict choices. Just as a player can try to explain and improve on his idea and change it and make it evolve into something that becomes within the restriction while being outside. Sometimes, it is just a matter of presentation. But if a player insist and that is refused, rarely will you hear that player says that he failed to convince the DM and the table. You will hear that HIS creativity has been restrained and shut down by the DM.