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

[UngeheuerLich]

I am totally late to the thread, but I still add my two pence...

I think it is very difficult to adjucate what really changed between then and now for a simple reason:

Either you are too young to have played it back then or you just grew older since then and changed your view in the game.

I currently play the same adventure from ADnD (treasure hunt) with my students in 5e as I was playing 10 years ago with DnD 4e and which I played with my friends at university with 3.0 and myself in ADnD 2e. And it plays out nearly the same. Because the common denominator is that I play it with people who don't have too much experience with RPGs and they can grasp the rules easily and have the same sense of wonder.
I however am different, and I know a lot more about the world and the rules and can't have the same immersion as I had back then when I played the adventure.

Yes, the rules differ a bit, but at low levels that does not show through too much. And I think 5e resembles 2e more than the editions in between, but I think it is us who changed a lot since then.

 

[Lanefan]

It's not a dumb idea. It makes sense within context to make the style of game Gygax ran.

It is not a popular idea and the genre became outdated. The importance of PCs has changed with the generations.

These things are unrelated.

Game time=real time violates setting and story integrity while having nothing to do with the importance of PCs.

The difference between Gygax's assumed playstyle and what most tables did in the wild is that his was a "weekend warrior" type of game, where the PCs would always be back to safety at the end of each session. It soon became obvious that not every table could (or was willing to) so neatly and conveniently arrange things, and sessions ending in mid-adventure or even mid-scene/combat became commonplace.

Game time=real time becomes ridiculous in this case, and so out it went.

 

[Minigiant]

These things are unrelated.

Game time=real time violates setting and story integrity while having nothing to do with the importance of PCs.

The difference between Gygax's assumed playstyle and what most tables did in the wild is that his was a "weekend warrior" type of game, where the PCs would always be back to safety at the end of each session. It soon became obvious that not every table could (or was willing to) so neatly and conveniently arrange things, and sessions ending in mid-adventure or even mid-scene/combat became commonplace.

Game time=real time becomes ridiculous in this case, and so out it went.

Exactly.

And PCs got stronger in 4e and 5e because people could not be counted on dealing with a whole resources manager sitting in one session and ultra deadly mechanics lead to anticlimactic stories and curve less narratives.


But my very first point was that many of the mechanics praised by many are vestiges of a play style they don't even like.

 

[Lanefan]

Exactly.

And PCs got stronger in 4e and 5e because people could not be counted on dealing with a whole resources manager sitting in one session and ultra deadly mechanics lead to anticlimactic stories and curve less narratives.

Only if one is focusing on the story of a single PC.

My position is that this focus is misplaced, and should instead be more squarely on the story of the party (or parties) as a whole.

The party barely scraping through the BBEG battle by the skin of their teeth is anything but anticlimactic, and so what if said scraping-through ended the careers of new recruits Falstaff and Gorath; an exciting time was still had by all.

But my very first point was that many of the mechanics praised by many are vestiges of a play style they don't even like.

Or claim not to like...

 

[Vaalingrade]

Only if one is focusing on the story of a single PC.

Even ensembles needs, you know, the ensemble. Rare is the successful show with a constantly rotating class, because you still need someone to matter to the audience.

 

[Remathilis]

Only if one is focusing on the story of a single PC.

My position is that this focus is misplaced, and should instead be more squarely on the story of the party (or parties) as a whole.

But that only goes as far as telling war stories. People wanted more sophisticated storytelling. They wanted reoccurring villains, twists and betrayals, foreshadowing and flashbacks. Stuff that makes most fiction engaging.

But that is a difference of expected experience. A lot of players I knew got into D&D because people say it allows them to play out a character in their own story, you be your own Conan or Aladdin or Gandalf. They wanted, and expected, the narrative tropes of fantasy fiction to be there. AD&D (and Basic) promises this, but the rules didn't really support it. AD&D storytelling works the same way your buddy tells you about his wild weekend in Mexico, it might be exciting, hilarious and even a bit suspenseful, but it's just an anecdote, a recap of events that transpired without past or future. There is no structure, no arching narrative, no connective tissue beyond "'these are the events that happened to these characters without greater rhyme or reason."

It's not surprising that a game which sold itself on the promise of exploring your own fiction attracted so many people who wanted it to resemble the fiction that inspired them. The idea that "the story is what the PC did in the game" is fine, but for more than a few players, it was unsatisfying. They wanted "Once Upon a Time...", Not "So this one time at band camp..."

 

[BRayne]

Moy brayne 'urts!

you called?

 

[Helldritch]

But that only goes as far as telling war stories. People wanted more sophisticated storytelling. They wanted reoccurring villains, twists and betrayals, foreshadowing and flashbacks. Stuff that makes most fiction engaging.

But that is a difference of expected experience. A lot of players I knew got into D&D because people say it allows them to play out a character in their own story, you be your own Conan or Aladdin or Gandalf. They wanted, and expected, the narrative tropes of fantasy fiction to be there. AD&D (and Basic) promises this, but the rules didn't really support it. AD&D storytelling works the same way your buddy tells you about his wild weekend in Mexico, it might be exciting, hilarious and even a bit suspenseful, but it's just an anecdote, a recap of events that transpired without past or future. There is no structure, no arching narrative, no connective tissue beyond "'these are the events that happened to these characters without greater rhyme or reason."

It's not surprising that a game which sold itself on the promise of exploring your own fiction attracted so many people who wanted it to resemble the fiction that inspired them. The idea that "the story is what the PC did in the game" is fine, but for more than a few players, it was unsatisfying. They wanted "Once Upon a Time...", Not "So this one time at band camp..."

Reaaaaaalllllyyyyyyyy?
What about Star Trek. It is about a ship, The Enterprise. Be it the crew of Kirk, Picard, Archer, Pike or whatever will be next... Voyager? DS9? How about the Lord of the Ring? People like to hear about heroes' journey and tribulation. Yes, sometime a Conan, a Druss can be fun to read, Drizzt too! But having a cast of varying characters is very important.

And if you focus only on one player? What happens to the others? They are the sidekicks? Do they count for nothing?
RPGs are about the Group's Story. Together, the players build the legend of their group! Together! It is the DM's job to make sure that all players have a chance to shine in the course of the campaigns, adventures and stories.

And contrary to what you are claiming. Stories have been part of D&D since the beginning! It is the story of the group, not the individuals. Sure, sometimes you will focus on one character or the other, but this will be dictated by the story and the events. Not because you like that player better than the others. You do not need specific rules to create stories from an RPG. Stories naturally emerge without even trying. Some of the recap of games of my players are true novels. But these are focussing on the group not the individuals. Yes, sometimes the individual will take a lot of place at certain point of the story/campaign/adventure but that focus will change, jump from player to player.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't get the whole focus on one player argument.

Every class and PC got tougher. That's the point. Since there is no shared party resource, in order to to the Hero's Journey, er'rybody had to be buffed defensively.

That would make a cool setting. A setting where the party had a shared resource. Like each party had an artifact the leveled up with them and had powers based on those who attuned with it.

Oh no. My brain! I don't want to dream up yet another setting concept. Stop! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! You get bonus HP for having an atuned dwarf in the party. No! Damn it to hell!

 

[Micah Sweet]

But that only goes as far as telling war stories. People wanted more sophisticated storytelling. They wanted reoccurring villains, twists and betrayals, foreshadowing and flashbacks. Stuff that makes most fiction engaging.

But that is a difference of expected experience. A lot of players I knew got into D&D because people say it allows them to play out a character in their own story, you be your own Conan or Aladdin or Gandalf. They wanted, and expected, the narrative tropes of fantasy fiction to be there. AD&D (and Basic) promises this, but the rules didn't really support it. AD&D storytelling works the same way your buddy tells you about his wild weekend in Mexico, it might be exciting, hilarious and even a bit suspenseful, but it's just an anecdote, a recap of events that transpired without past or future. There is no structure, no arching narrative, no connective tissue beyond "'these are the events that happened to these characters without greater rhyme or reason."

It's not surprising that a game which sold itself on the promise of exploring your own fiction attracted so many people who wanted it to resemble the fiction that inspired them. The idea that "the story is what the PC did in the game" is fine, but for more than a few players, it was unsatisfying. They wanted "Once Upon a Time...", Not "So this one time at band camp..."

See, I always liked "this one time at band camp". I was raised on 1e for playstyle, and engaged with 2e mainly through reading about the awesome campaign settings. I never got hung up on any character (I enjoyed them while they were there but always had plenty of character ideas), so if they died it was never a big deal. It actually makes it difficult for me to understand being strongly attached to one character, which is probably why modern D&D's heavy push towards character longevity baffles me. It doesn't take that long to make a PC in 5e.