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

[CleverNickName]

1) Characters are awesome, but the races are basically 'extra-powerful human, beard human, archery human, and short human.

2) You included orcs, which would make many 'traditional' DMs vomit a river of blood over someone playing. Due to them being awesome.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here. If you want good examples of how Tolkien's races can be awesome, check out the flavor and lore in The One Ring 2E.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here. You should check out the flavor and lore in The One Ring 2E.

They ruined the One Ring in the new edition. Adding the ability to be destroyed in Mount Doom? What were they thinking?

 

[Helldritch]

Wrong post. Delete.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Why are people complaining about a lack of DM tools to curb PC power? I thought all they needed was DM empowerment? That rule systems only got in the way of making judgement calls?

 

[tetrasodium]

See, but I never saw those as effecting this behavior much in the first place. Players that were problematic would just work their way around them. The only one I ever saw have any consistent impact was experience, because it was the only one that wasn't intrinsically brittle. And nothing I see in the 5e rules reduces the ability to control that.

Carrot and stick methods can have some impact on people who are doing a mild drift into behavior you don't want, but ones that are already deciding you're unreasonable? Not in any meaningful sense. I'll accept it might work some times somewhere, but enough to be a reliable tool? Afraid I can't go there.
think you might be swapping tools that help a gm to manage problems with a magic siler bullet solution to dismiss them because they are not solver bullet solutions. In the process of saying that those tools don't work your second sentence describes players doing exactly what is expected when those tools are used to generate that expected response.

More players automatically means that there are more of all the types. Good and bad ones.


Ho but they have. Unless a DM put them artificially back, they no longer work.

Gold? Not needed. No magic shop, no kingdom/barony/temple/guild to build.

Magic Items? Not needed either. They are optional from the get go.

Experience? Miles stones are there my friend. And many players will try to force a mile stone in the throat of a DM. (Hey we have to level up now. It has been a while...)

Special Powers? Not needed any more as all power a PC needs are built-in the class and class level advancement.

To please a god? Hey gods are no longer needed RAW. Just pray to a philosophy. Healing is overnight anyways and Bards and Druids and Even some Warlock (Not counting paladins and rangers) can heal... Ho and the Artificer can heal too...

A good story that I build? Hey! Players' agency is there and this is the very subject we are discussing... And Railroad is so badly viewed that a young DM trying it will get roasted.

So what is truly left? Tell me because I fail to see where, as a DM with the non optional stuff in the PHB and DMG I can nudge the PC in the direction I wish them to go without going full railroad. (This is for the sake of argument, I have no problems at all as I have reintroduced most of the above myself). If I were a non experienced DM I would be hard pressed to nudge the players in the direction I would like.


And I am familiar with a lot of other system too. Some have their own tools to bring players into the line the DM wants and some don't have any. Survival alone is often the key. At the same time, D&D has a tradition of using the above examples to "encourage" players to act in certain ways or to choose some possibilities over the others. 5ed did removed these to "emulate" other RPG but did not provided other tools that these other games had to incentivize players into certain desired behaviors.

Here is an example: The merchant offers you 100 gold to guard him up to Waterdeep. For 3rd level characters, this would have been good in other editions. But in 5ed, why would the characters care? The first orog they'll see will wear a nice plate mail that can be sold for a lot more. And where there's an orog, there's bound to be some more. Unless you give outrageous rewards, the players are not incentivized to act on gold anymore. And even then, at a certain point, when the players have all the gold they need, what will you use to push them toward the story you want if they have their own agenda that goes against what you had in mind? All the tools I mentioned earlier are no longer there or do not have the impact they did in earlier editions. Especially gold, magical items and experience.

The 100gp starter quest mentioned is a good example, it's made even better by already having complaints that 100gp is insufficient in various editions when having enough gold actually mattered to the player characters rather than just a score ticker for the players to jot down. It's simple & it can fit a lot of obvious examples into it that don't need much in the way of supporting detail to convey an example made for purposes of discussion. If the players think that it's not enough pay for the escort that is great because it means that there is a tangible reason they need more than 100gp & the gm can leverage that need to make some other better paying quest a more desirable choice for the players to take. That incentive & reward lever does not work if gold stops having any meaning after upgrading starter gear like in modern d&d.

• GM: "The merchant offers you 100 gold to guard him up to Waterdeep. saying that it's a good payment for adventurers of your level of experience"
• Bob:"100 gp is not much more than spare change.... What are you on about? " do better, I want to persuade....

Spoiler: 20 minutes earlier at the table

• GM: "The mayor offers you [a level appropriate reward not worth arguing over that shall be called Xgp] to investigate & deal with the [monster problem described moments earlier]"
• Alice: "You mentioned the mayor's office was lavish, I want to use my sleight of hand to steal the fancy lamp you described on the desk"
• GM: "You mean the desk the mayor is sitting at right now?"
• alice:"I rolled a 42 because he's flanked & that gives me advantage plus expertise because of my archetype thing"
• GM:"You know he's going to put 2&2 together when he notices the missing lamp right?"
• Alice: "doesn't matter I'll be gone by then & think we can take him if not"
• GM: *sighs & tells alice she steals the lamp so the game can move on
• Bob: "I want to persuade him to up that from Xgp to Xgp and a +1 weapon for all of us"
• GM: "roll persuade"
• bob:"eight!"
• GM:"the mayor kinda sighs & gestures from the dust ring where his lamp was to alice's bag offering even less with Ygp & a charitable inclusion of one +1 weapon of his choice to deal with the monsters while saying 'really?... are you for real?'..." The GM can't simply have the mayor toss the group out because he or she still has the rest of the session to fill.
• Bob:"I draw my sword & restate the price I asked for"... you know what action comes next, bob doesn't need to say it but the rest of the session & everything the GM planned is held hostage at this point
• GM:"give me an intimidate check I guess..."
• Bob:"three! do we roll initiative?" the GM can make up the rest of the session on the fly or give bob exactly what he wants
• gm:"The mayor yells for the guards & you hear motion in the next room as you badly try to threaten him with a greatsword in his own office."
• Everyone knows where this goes

• GM: The Merchant nods at you with a wide grin saying "Aye that might be true... but I hear the mayor done got himself & his guards involved in a massacre over [earlier monster problem] & figure there's some extenuating circumstances that make up the difference given that she just tried to sell me such a recognizable lamp"

In a system where gold remains meaningful throughout a character's advancement the GM can point out how some of those actions would impact future payouts or possibly result in fines that need to be paid when trying to spend that gold on needed things. More importantly other players at the table realize that & are going to create character development paths of story by speaking up to reign in alice & bob when those two start putting the current & future earnings of everyone else at risk. If the players did decide to stay in town & deal with the [earlier monster problem] having no need for gold & such from the GM means that they don't really even need to make any effort to work around the problem they caused unless the gm resorts to using fiat to start inconveniencing them with fiat backed penalties

That player to player self policing is important because the GM doesn't need to constantly stop the game for a talk about murderhoboism yet again or whatever every time someone gets an idea that might be unlikely to play out as well as they first thought it might. It's just not reasonable to expect the GM to choose between running a trainwreck created by a poor decision & stopping the game to engage in a discussion about murderhoboism or whatever when the GM needs to go into that talk virtually unarmed but modern d&d is structured to put the GM in just that position.

If that example isn't good for whatever reason there's another one below that touches on a completely different aspect of gameplay.

And again, none of this has been different in games where most of that simply don't exist, in either direction. That's one reason I often think heavily D&D-centric people have a very parochial view of how to manage player problems.



They could have done the same damn thing with experience in the old days. In fact I saw people try to do it. If you can't resist that pressure, why would I assume you could resist it on any of the other carrots you mentioned?



This is going to sound snarky, and I really don't mean it that way, but--

Talking to people. Honestly, if talking to players about the behavior you want can't get it done, most other stuff won't either; it'll just teach them to end run you every opportunity they get. The same people who will respond positively to carrots can usually be negotiated with in other ways. The ones that can't be negotiated with will decide that they're in an adversarial role to you and no nudging will help.



You've got an argument regarding "survival" in some cases, but that's a brute force tool at best, and many of them have nothing much beyond experience itself or in-setting problems.



But are the rewards outrageous? If the prices land such that you're correct about that plate armor, it doesn't seem so to me.


(And remember, I'm still far from sold you can't use levelling as a lever if that's really what you want. As I've noted before, gold only had any impact in OD&D to the degree it also was experience; most characters otherwise had damn-all to do with it. Magic items? Maybe, but that was going to be a hard balance to keep, and would require you to thoroughly ignore the extent treasure tables to do it with any consistency, since over time PCs would be drowning in basic magic items. Anything that was going to really impress them was going to probably cause you problems down the line).

Speaking of d&d centric players tending to have a parochial view of solving problems as if they are the ones who can't find other ways that is completely unrelated to the system is a bit off base. Yes other systems with different mechanics different play loops different tools & different gameplay handle these kinds of problems differently & in the 5 generations of d&d garycon18 recording that got linked here earlier Mearls mentions one at about 1:21:20 that 5e could have had. That extended flaw mechanic he described would have been a mechanical paradigm shift that changes the types of tools available with some of the resulting changes that go with other systems rather than just eroding the ones that d&d has developed for d&d's gameplay style. Depending on what else was covered & & how extensive that possible rule was it would have just been an evolution of toolds available to the GM rather than erosion.

Characters not needing anything doesn't only hurt the GM's power to influence the players either. Patrons got a lot of fireworks when they were introduced to 5e in Rising & again when they were introduced to Tasha's, but they have been around since 3.5 ECS where they existed as organizations & such that could provide players with access to & funding for stuff their characters needed. in 5e they still do the same but the characters don't actually need anything from them & know that crossing the boss's interests is a no risk problem with nothing at stake the gm needs to solve by either inserting a different patron making the current one get over it or ending the campaign so players can start with new characters who once again need nothing from anyone or anything.

I ran semiopen fate games at a nearby FLGS for much of 4e's lifespan so know well how systems with negotiated stakes & fiction work out, it's very much not like d&d. Take that example with the mayor. Instead of negotiating for gold they might be negotiating for something that puts an aspect on them on the city or even modifies an existing aspect somewhere. There's even a section in the rules about why exact prices shouldn't be used. If those negotiations go in a way the players aren't happy with the GM in fate can simply make them spend a fate point to buy off a compel & be out of a fate point they could use being awesome if they want to persist instead of using it to be awesome at something later. If the players are persisting because they are trying to bank fare points with self compels it's accepted that doing so might very well make the lives of their characters difficult & land them in hot water by design.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why are people complaining about a lack of DM tools to curb PC power? I thought all they needed was DM empowerment? That rule systems only got in the way of making judgement calls?

They want plausible deniability.

"Oh no, the book gave me this spell that would be a universal war crime in-universe. It is no longer my fault for using it to remove all the items I gave you then regretted due to lack of foresight or adaptability to unforeseen usage" ~Adds Disjunction to every caster ever~

 

[tetrasodium]

Why are people complaining about a lack of DM tools to curb PC power? I thought all they needed was DM empowerment? That rule systems only got in the way of making judgement calls?

It's the superman & batman problem rolled into one.

Superman is ridiculously powerful & obscenely durable to the point that most of the stories involving him are largely invented reasons why he can't solve the problem the rest of the justice league is struggling with. That works great for superman because he has a lot of ties to the world & desperately wants kal-el/superman to be considered a distinctly different individual who is very much not clark kent of the daily planet.

Bruce Wayne has almost no ties to the world beyond Alfred & Wayne industries, but both exist almost exclusively to serve the needs of Batman & stay out of the way when not needed. That works ok because batman is basically just a well trained human with no special powers no super recovery. He needs to make up for being basically mundane with planning & advanced purpose built equipment that often falls far short of the hyperadvanced generalist stuff employed by others. Batman has an obsession to justice* that's frankly bordering on if not full on mental illness & stories involving him often involve the rest of the justice league trying to come up with ways to convince him that this cause is one he cares about enough to involve himself.

The two comic book characters are almost total opposites. PCs have the power durability & recovery of superman plus even fewer ties to the world than Batman. Those extremes afforded to PCs goes along with the freedom to adopt or shed all of the other baggage they each have whenever doing so is convenient. If Alfred/Lois get kidnapped or any of the obsessions that bats/sups are threatened by the bbeg those two are right there front & center asking for help rather than shrugging it off. Trying to shoehorn the kind of ties Clark & Bruce have into d&d in any meaningful way is incredibly difficult to do within the rules framework of D&D so filling mechanical requirements need to step into their place except they are no longer requirements. The PCs are so empowered that it doesn't matter if the rules aren't in the GM's way.

*or whatever word fits a given version of batman best

 

[overgeeked]

Why are people complaining about a lack of DM tools to curb PC power? I thought all they needed was DM empowerment? That rule systems only got in the way of making judgement calls?

Mostly because everything the DM could use to curb PC power was given to the PCs and baked into the default assumptions of the game. So the DM still is empowered to make judgement calls, but the only way to challenge PCs is to take away all the goodies or throw infinite dragons at the PCs. Players, really don't seem to like either.

 

[overgeeked]

It's the superman & batman problem rolled into one.

Superman is ridiculously powerful & obscenely durable to the point that most of the stories involving him are largely invented reasons why he can't solve the problem the rest of the justice league is struggling with. That works great for superman because he has a lot of ties to the world & desperately wants kal-el/superman to be considered a distinctly different individual who is very much not clark kent of the daily planet.

Bruce Wayne has almost no ties to the world beyond Alfred & Wayne industries, but both exist almost exclusively to serve the needs of Batman & stay out of the way when not needed. That works ok because batman is basically just a well trained human with no special powers no super recovery. He needs to make up for being basically mundane with planning & advanced purpose built equipment that often falls far short of the hyperadvanced generalist stuff employed by others. Batman has an obsession to justice* that's frankly bordering on if not full on mental illness & stories involving him often involve the rest of the justice league trying to come up with ways to convince him that this cause is one he cares about enough to involve himself.

The two comic book characters are almost total opposites. PCs have the power durability & recovery of superman plus even fewer ties to the world than Batman. Those extremes afforded to PCs goes along with the freedom to adopt or shed all of the other baggage they each have whenever doing so is convenient. If Alfred/Lois get kidnapped or any of the obsessions that bats/sups are threatened by the bbeg those two are right there front & center asking for help rather than shrugging it off. Trying to shoehorn the kind of ties Clark & Bruce have into d&d in any meaningful way is incredibly difficult to do within the rules framework of D&D so filling mechanical requirements need to step into their place except they are no longer requirements. The PCs are so empowered that it doesn't matter if the rules aren't in the GM's way.

*or whatever word fits a given version of batman best

Exactly. Then throw in the fact that most players will bend over backwards to minimize what laughably few flaws they might have in the game, maximize the benefits their characters are already dripping with, and have as close to zero ties to the world as possible. They shoot for all the power of Superman with zero downsides...which is the single most boring character it's possible to play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Exactly. Then throw in the fact that most players will bend over backwards to minimize what laughably few flaws they might have in the game, maximize the benefits their characters are already dripping with, and have as close to zero ties to the world as possible. They shoot for all the power of Superman with zero downsides...which is the single most boring character it's possible to play.

I just want to note that, while there are certainly many players out there that are not like this (most of my current group. For example), there are plenty that are. And every one of them makes an impact on their table disproportionate to their number. You remember the jerks much more than the nice players.