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

[Fifth Element]

No one said it was the only way to challenge someone, but it is the way with the longest history and feels very D&D to a lot of people. And the changes listed above compromise that way significantly. This thread is about how D&D has changed, and people should be allowed to dislike those changes without being made to feel bad about their feelings.

It's a discussion forum, not a declaration forum. You can dislike those changes all you like, but if you include claims that are untrue, you should expect to be challenged on them. An argument that lower character lethality makes D&D less challenging is, as I argued, false. It may reduce one type of challenge, but it encourages other types of challenge.

 

[Remathilis]

It's a discussion forum, not a declaration forum. You can dislike those changes all you like, but if you include claims that are untrue, you should expect to be challenged on them. An argument that lower character lethality makes D&D less challenging is, as I argued, false. It may reduce one type of challenge, but it encourages other types of challenge.

I feel I am a much better DM since I stopped DMing like Conan: "crush your PCs, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their players."

 

[AnotherGuy]

It's a discussion forum, not a declaration forum. You can dislike those changes all you like, but if you include claims that are untrue, you should expect to be challenged on them. An argument that lower character lethality makes D&D less challenging is, as I argued, false. It may reduce one type of challenge, but it encourages other types of challenge.

Bold emphasis mine. Other types of challenges such as?

 

[Morrus]

I would argue that while the selfish me-first players have always existed (and, sadly, always will), over the years the designers have slowly caved in to these players and thus the game as designed today directly caters to that selfishness far more than it used to:

--- lower character lethality and...
--- ...a big reduction to really bad effects on characters other than death e.g. no more level drain, item destruction, etc., due to...
--- --- ...a design chassis built on the philosophy of "once you have it you can expect to keep it"; the game gives but it doesn't take away any more, where once it was accepted that anything gained (levels, treasure, etc.) might not stick with you forever
--- greater expectation by design of being able to play exactly the character you've preconceived without having to compromise due to dice luck, alignment restrictions, or what other players are playing
--- greater expectation that everything is core and thus must be allowed (or put differently, it's harder for DMs to ban stuff)
--- faster and more frequent rewards, here expressed as gaining levels
--- greater power over and-or separation from the setting, expressed as the gap in power between a commoner and a 1st-level character
--- balance, expressed as every character has to be somewhat-equally effective in any situation

Will this trend continue as the editions evolve? Yeah, probably, because the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Let's not call people names just because they like a different style of game than you, eh?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's a discussion forum, not a declaration forum. You can dislike those changes all you like, but if you include claims that are untrue, you should expect to be challenged on them. An argument that lower character lethality makes D&D less challenging is, as I argued, false. It may reduce one type of challenge, but it encourages other types of challenge.

Reducing one kind of challenge (especially the original one) is reducing challenge. It just doesn't matter to you because you care about different things.

 

[tetrasodium]

So I think I'm seeing the disconnect.

When I proposed Thorin, my proposal is pretty much so that I wrote: a one or two sentence outline. Now, I was not aware you run a specific setting or AP (if I was, I would adjust to fit that, but in lack of knowledge, I assume a standard general setting).

That is what makes it an excellent example of how the modern GM is backed against the wall & left with nothing. There's only so much a GM can expect their players to read (almost nothing) or listen to (maybe a sentence or two) before they lose interest & stop listening. The player doesn't need anything from the GM & as a result has no incentive to listen to the GM's attempts to impart knowledge about the setting & campaign. Even If you knew that I usually run a particular setting there's no way to impart all of the baselines to as player in the tiny bit of time still afforded to the GM & IME the extremely low odds of a player fully knowing the setting in ways that won't require me to correct areas like your thorin example needed correcting on is almost certain to result in the exact kind of reaction as the one you demonstrated originally if they do anything but throw the world out the window & accept whatever "backstory" a player offers without question.

As to the Thorin example fitting poorly into eberron... and darksun.... and so on.... I have seen it come from a player more than once and never once has it gone well. There is just too much to correct about the differences in setting baselines... The GM is not allowed to infodump or a player shuts down & gets upset if there are any misunderstandings leading to problem areas. The GM can't expect anything they find or write to even get skimmed. If the GM says x is bad so it would need to be something fitting (as I did) the player either digs in with anger or suggests some other ill fitting tolkeinism/FRism/etc that leads back to the beginning

Further, I'm not married to the Thorin concept even at proposal, it's generally my first choice and my preferred one in this hypothetical example, but I can be convinced to move on IF my next option is equally cool. (If my idea is an exiled noble who seeks glory and a return of his homeland, I might be convinced to shift it to a priest who is interested in reclaiming a lost temple of his faith beset by demons, but I'm not interested in "you're a farmer who discovered goblins carry gold and opted to try his luck in the local dungeon").

This thread itself says otherwise.... "Really, it doesn't sound like I get to much say in my character at all. ", "The most classic dwarf character in literature. We're not talking about a half-dragonborn/tiefling bloodhunter/hexblade here, about as normal, and safe as a PC can be. It's literally the trope-setter for many. Yet I just got denied" No the GM can not tell a player what the replacement is because the GM has nothing to offer like they once did andif they do they are taking away player choice "assum[ing] the worst of [their] players and any attempt to wrest even a modicum of agency from the DM is tantamount to a coup attempt. Rather than reward a player for engaging with your world and providing plot hooks, you assume I am some Mary Sue trying to make the game all about [the GM's] own story." or any of the other condemnations of heavy handed GM'ing through the thread since this simple post pointing at the other side of the coin that many had been rah rah rah'ing. The GM in modern D&D often needs to go into the discussion as some kind of transcendent hyperelevated being engaging in 12d chess with a barely tolerant quick to aggress player & do so without the slightest misstep

Additionally, just because Thorin has this long term goal, it isn't at the exclusion of all other goals: he can be seeking allies, experience and items of power and then at some point in the future, decide to assault the "dragon" in the keep and complete his goal.

You might as well have stated that the GM should ignore your stated goals and admitted that the whole section of your backstory was pointless filler but you previously said "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." showing why the GM needs to correct that up front rather than expecting it to happen during gameplay. The GM in modern D&D no longer has the tools that would have once allowed them to make some effort to direct the problematic goal in other directions and certainly can't do so lest they be accused of "passive aggressively trying to direct the players instead of honest engagement with them" with a side of "passive agressiveGM'ing due to not having prep available and so trying to redirect the party away from the not prepped places/things or the GM having prep available" as happened earlier in 1077 &1084 after I gave broad examples of how a GM could use the tools they no longer have in this post.

Lastly, my goal is that, a goal. The DM is free to design around and flesh out the idea. Perhaps the dragon was killed by adventurers in the meantime and a different worse baddie moved in. Perhaps Thorin's memories painted events different than what they were (although, I'd still like something resembling my goal: to spend sessions building up to a major event in my PCs life only to have another group of dwarves kill the dragon and establish a peaceful kingdom off camera that we just walk into is anticlimactic to the point of trolling).

Problem being is that you didn't ask the GM if you could make that your goal, you declared it along with a bunch of other worldbuilding ele,ents and reacted with extreme negativity when problems were explained. The GM is expected to accept anything & it's on them to make it work with an empty quiver.

This, of course, is all permeated on the idea I get a choice in this at all. When people responded to this, only saw one poster say, "your idea is cool, but what if we adjusted this..." And two responses that said, "hmmm... Probably not. And if so, you're going to jump through a lot of hoops before I consider it. But mostly no." Which isn't a great negotiating point.

Then again, I prefer "yes, and" or rarely "no, but" as styles of gaming. So hard a "no" really disconnects me. If Thorin doesn't work, propose a counter offer. Which brings me back to random generation. Random chargen is a hard no. It says "you weren't lucky enough to play what you wanted" and worse, it allows the DM to block things without the negotiation (I'd have let you play your paladin, but the dice didn't. Not MY fault...)

The GM can't do that because it's not treated as a discussion, they aren't treated as an equal with any say, & even shifting the player from "x is my goal" to "can X be my goal" is a bridge too far into heresy.

I know there are terrible players who demand primadonna attention. There are terrible DMs too that use their authority to power-trip on their players. No set of rules, be them empowering to DMs or PCs, can fix bad players.

When a GM makes good faith efforts to explain how a pitch thrown at them is problematic and is barraged as happened earlier with vows of murderhoboism in a world that means nothing it is by definition back to a demand. Nobody has a PHD in background negotiation or similar & the GM shouldn't be expected to have one or see if maybe just maybe if this obvious flashing collection of warning signs will maybe not turn into the trainwreck it's shaping up to be just like all the times it happened before. At that point it's the GM's fault for not engaging in the "honest engagement" that they have serious barriers to even attempting as displayed since the thorin example

 

[overgeeked]

No one said it was the only way to challenge someone, but it is the way with the longest history and feels very D&D to a lot of people. And the changes listed above compromise that way significantly. This thread is about how D&D has changed, and people should be allowed to dislike those changes without being made to feel bad about their feelings.

It also happens to be the one way that will most reliably elicit a response from the player. Most players don’t want to lose a character. Even players who write epic backstories can and will dismiss every word of it when it shows up in-game and is an inconvenience. I’ve watched it happen. But most players will guard their PC’s life. Act cautiously when they know it’s possible to lose their character, etc. So challenge through character death is the only reliable challenge. Threaten an NPC the players say they really care about? The PCs will simply let them die before going into a fight with anything less than max hp and spells. Destruction of a town or village? Nah. Too bad for them. If the only thing the players actually care about is their own PC’s life, then that’s the only thing you can challenge them with.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I guess I just haven't run into the problems others here have experienced when it comes to players and DMs having different visions.

In my current campaign, one player wanted to play a lawful evil wizard. I told him I'd prefer no one play any evil alignments for this one because there're some "things" in this world that likely would overwhelm any evil player and ruin their gaming experience. He said "No problem," and went for lawful neutral instead. The issue has not come up since.

From what I've seen, anyway, there's more squabbling between players than between a player and the DM, and this has always been the case in our group. Maybe it's just the difference between gaming with longtime friends vs. gaming with strangers or casual acquaintances?

 

[Ovinomancer]

It also happens to be the one way that will most reliably elicit a response from the player. Most players don’t want to lose a character. Even players who write epic backstories can and will dismiss every word of it when it shows up in-game and is an inconvenience. I’ve watched it happen. But most players will guard their PC’s life. Act cautiously when they know it’s possible to lose their character, etc. So challenge through character death is the only reliable challenge. Threaten an NPC the players say they really care about? The PCs will simply let them die before going into a fight with anything less than max hp and spells. Destruction of a town or village? Nah. Too bad for them. If the only thing the players actually care about is their own PC’s life, then that’s the only thing you can challenge them with.

Huh. Totally the opposite experience. Or rather, once I stopped using non-death levers in negative ways to force PCs to do things I wanted. That just trained them to hate dealing with anything not directly under their control, like how you avoid death.

 

[overgeeked]

I guess I just haven't run into the problems others here have experienced when it comes to players and DMs having different visions.

In my current campaign, one player wanted to play a lawful evil wizard. I told him I'd prefer no one play any evil alignments for this one because there're some "things" in this world that likely would overwhelm any evil player and ruin their gaming experience. He said "No problem," and went for lawful neutral instead. The issue has not come up since.

From what I've seen, anyway, there's more squabbling between players than between a player and the DM, and this has always been the case in our group. Maybe it's just the difference between gaming with longtime friends vs. gaming with strangers or casual acquaintances?

There’s a definite Mr Pink, Mr Black, Reservoir Dogs thing whenever I’ve played with a group of mostly strangers. As long as someone’s in charge and has the final say (the DM), then things can work out. If everyone’s equally in charge, things never move forward.