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

I wonder if that happens more in comic books, where I think a lot of people have one or two favorite characters on a team like the X-men or Avengers or whatnot, and follow that one character more than the team as a whole.

Maybe in some cases, but I think most people who follow team books are not completely focused on one character, because no one character gets enough screen time.

It feels like there is a lot of distance between never happens and happens a lot. Is one of the hard things about super hero comics and multiple-decades long fans the tension between having to know the character will always come out on top, and wanting them to have something new?

But that's the gig; superheroes don't always come out on top. But if they're major characters they rarely die, and if they do, its temporary. Their failures are just in other areas than mortality.

---

Barely a tangent: Its strange to me how some long time shows - say Gunsmoke - can have the same character in roughly the same situation over and over, while others - say Star Trek or super hero comics - seem to feel the need to continually up the power level and consequences that the opposition brings.

Time frame is a thing here; Gunsmoke came out in the period when most TV shows were fundamentally static (far as that goes, superhero comics were during that period too). The zeitgeist on that changed over the years.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This is where stakes and consequence again come to the fore.

In my 4e campaign, one of the players gave up a daily power (one of four) in order to seal the Abyss. Of course, doing this at 28th or 29th level when the campaign is reaching its crescendo is different from doing it at 1st level.

And of course losing one of your four dailies is impairing at that level, but the biggest part of your capability is still intact.
 

This is so much of a circular problem. We want players to engage, but, we then punish them for doing so. And rarely does engagement come with any sort of reward. Having a family doesn't help me, it only hinders. Engaging with the setting doesn't make me any less likely to die some pointless random death, so, why bother?
Good points.*

If the characters have a family, there should be benefits. The only time you pay attention to something, in the game, is when there is a benefit.

You're in a relationship? It's an extra 100 gp / month to your upkeep, but you're +1 on saves while it lasts.
Your family are tinkers? 10% off at your uncle's general store.
Your mom is in the weaver's guild? They'll pay double for the 5 yards of byssos you discovered.
The fighter is an initiate of the Bright Temple? He can stay for a week and heals at double rate.**

That gives the PC a reason to rescue / salvage the person / relationship. There is a meaning and benefit to them. Furthermore, any threat to them should be rare. Yes, it's a plot hook, but one that must be used sparingly. Otherwise, you feed that loop that Hussar is talking about.


* Actually, Boromir is part of the Fellowship, as well as being the first to die.
** Admittedly, that benefit is a bit useless in 5e, but you get the idea.
 

I don't really need a reward for having a family, I just need a lack of punishments.

HERO does this great. You can choose to buy your family as DNPCs, meaning you're signaling the GM that you are good with them being imperiled or otherwise used against you. You can even adjust how frequent this happens. Or you can not buy them as DNPCs and the GM knows they're not necessarily up for grabs. You can even target specific characters for this. Your siblings are fair game but don't touch your wife and kids.
 


I don't really need a reward for having a family, I just need a lack of punishments.

HERO does this great. You can choose to buy your family as DNPCs, meaning you're signaling the GM that you are good with them being imperiled or otherwise used against you. You can even adjust how frequent this happens. Or you can not buy them as DNPCs and the GM knows they're not necessarily up for grabs. You can even target specific characters for this. Your siblings are fair game but don't touch your wife and kids.
Fair enough.

Chronica Feudalis has a fantastic mechanic called "backgrounding". Basically, the player can choose (IIRC) 3 things about his or her character, declare them "in the background" and the DM is then instructed to not make these points an issue in the game. So, if you want, say, a family, but, you don't want it to be a big deal, you wrap it up as a background, with the understanding that this is exactly what it is - it's not an "advantage", just something you want to be true about your character but you don't want it to become a thing at the table.

It's a concept I've really hammered on with players. I made it very explicit with my newest group since I did not know most of the players very well. Since the formation of the group, it's been used less and less since I've repeatedly shown that no, I won't punish you for engaging with the setting. Having family and whatnot is a GOOD thing.

Like you say, so long as you're not punishing players for these kinds of things - and yes, if you're using character background relationships as adventure hooks without talking to the players about it first or without the player's explicit permission, then you are punishing them from their point of view - they work fantastic. But, again, as I said, DM's (and often DM advice) are notorious for doing this and it's no wonder that players actively pull against it. It doesn't help that the exact sort of thing drives the action in so many video games as well. You just know that if you have a family member/loved one/pet dog, that it's got the half-life usually associated with small fluttering things on top of trout ponds.
 

Recently I've been playing (well, GMing) a bit of Torchbearer. In basic structural/mechanical terms, it's a spin-off of Burning Wheel and Mouse Guard, made by the same people (Luke Crane and friends). But in spirit and rationale-of-play it's a dungeon crawler. Like all that gang's books it has a list of inspirational/influential works, and in Torchbearer's case that includes the following:

*The Caverns of Thracia, by Jennell Jaquays
*Dungeon Module B2: The Keep on the Borderlands, by Gary Gygax
*Dungeons & Dragons Rules for Fantasy Medieval Wargames Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures, by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, Tactical Studies Rules, 1974
*Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Adventure Game, by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson (edited by Tom Moldvay), TSR, 1981.
*A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming, by Matthew Finch​

As influences, or ideals to shoot for, those are pretty unambiguous!

But our PCs have relationships. It's built into PC build, and every PC also has a Circles rating, which is the ability used to meet useful or friendly people in town (a bit like 3E's Gather Information rolled into 4e's Streetwise). Here's a taste of the relevant section of the Dungeoneeer's Handbook (p 36):

Answer the following questions to generate relationships and a Circles rating. You cannot take a friend, parents, mentor and an enemy. You can choose to have three of the four at best.

Circles starts at 1; your answers to the questions below add to that rating:

Do you have friends who enjoy your occasional visits or are you a loner, tough and cool?
* If you have a friend, add +1 Circles. Some friends will help on the road or in the wild; others will help in towns. See the Starting Friend rules.

* If you are a loner, tough and cool, your Circles starts at 1, and you have an enemy. Write down the name of your nemesis or mortal enemy on your character sheet and see the Starting Enemy rules.
* Skip the rest of the Circles and Relationships questions and take the Loner trait at level 1 or increase it by one if you already have it. Also, go get snacks for the rest of the group while they finish answering the Circles questions.​

So choosing to be a loner is a thing, that brings with it a mechanical feature (the Loner trait). Choosing to have a friend is a thing, too - it boost your Circles (to at least 2) and means that when you visit your friend, you have somewhere to stay that you won't have to pay for (and having to pay for things is a big deal in Torchbearer).

But having friends and enemies also shapes gameplay. Here are a couple of snips from my write-up of our last session:
Fea-bella [an Elf PC] clocked up another +1 Lifestyle by making a Circles check to meet her adventurer friend, the Elven Ranger Glothfindel, who would then be able to guide the PCs back to the Tower of the Stars. But her player failed to get 3 successes on six dice (Circles 5 +1D for Dream-haunted trait) - so whereas she had hoped that her dreams would reveal that Glothfindel was nearby, in fact they revealed that he had been riding near the Tower of the Stars having heard Fea-bella was there, and had been captured by her enemy Megloss!
So we then had a town phase, in the Bustling Metropolis of Stoink. I rolled for a town event and got a 15:

Actually. On the street, you hear a fool prattling on to their lady friend about the nature of the moon and the stars. Tip your hat and correct them using Scholar vs their Scholar 4. Suggested twist: you make a new enemy.​

Fea-bella had no interest in interjecting with a correction, but Golin [the Dwarf] did! With Will 3, -1D for Injured, +1D for help from Fea-bella whispering in his ear, all halved for Beginner's Luck, he rolled 2D against my 4D. And lost. The player anticipated he had to add a new enemy to his list before I even got a chance to tell him: Ebenezer the Erudite had plenty of rude things to say about this rude and ignorant dwarf. But the PCs went off to find the houses of healing

<snip>

Golin, meanwhile, also added 2 to his lifestyle cost. First, he went to the Guild Halls and repaired his helmet. Which succeeded. (Yay!) Then he went to the markets to try and buy food, hammer and pitons. He decided to test for food first, Resources 1 against Ob 1. And failed. He learned that no one would sell to him - not food or hammer or pitons - because Ebenezer had persuaded them to blackball him! So, still angry [a condition], and having already been contemplating the possibility, he sought out Ebenezer with the plan of making a fool of him in front of his lady friend. I used the Professor NPC stats for Ebenezer, and calculated he had Beginner's Luck Orator 3, the same as Golin's skill level. The rules for Angry say that at the GM's option it causes an obstacle penalty to Orator, but I thought that in this case the angry was fuelled rather than hindered by his fury! The result of the versus test was a clear victory to Golin, and he shamed Ebenezer in front of his lady - the note on Golin's PC sheet describes Ebenezer as now shamed, hot, and single.
This is hardly great literature, but some fairly straightforward mechanics - Town Events roll, Circles check to meet a friend, Resource check to buy adventuring gear, and a player requesting a scene in which his PC confronts a NPC in a duel of words - when combined with the narration of consequences (both failures and successes), help bring the PCs' social relationships front-and-centre in play.

When we play again, and the PCs head back to the Tower of Stars, in addition to the opportunities for loot that they didn't pick up on their first foray, there is the prospect of confrontation with Megloss over the fate of Glothfindel. And and any failure that Golin's player rolls is a chance to introduce some hostile undertaking by the humiliated, plotting and still erudite Ebenezer.

Now as it happens I think that Torchbearer is a much more tightly designed game than 5e D&D, which for primarily commercial reasons imposes a lot less structure on play at the system level. But I think that a 5e group who wanted to foreground the PCs' social connections could to that easily enough - class and background provide a rationale for establishing them, there must be a gazillion WotC and/or 3P products that have rules for town encounters, and 5e gives the GM a lot of leeway in narrating consequence and framing subsequent scenes in order to make those social connections matter.

Heck, when I GMed bits-and-pieces of the 4e module H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth, which has an early room with a prisoner in it, I substituted for the NPC Mearls had written in a different NPC who already mattered to the PCs (and the players) as a result of previous events in play. They rescued that NPC and went on to make a deal with some duergar to redeem other NPCs they cared about who had been taken prisoner.

It doesn't seem that hard, if a GM is willing to let go their own hold on the reins and allow the players to inject their own priorities and concerns into the fiction.
 

if you're using character background relationships as adventure hooks without talking to the players about it first or without the player's explicit permission, then you are punishing them from their point of view
On many of these things we have similar views, but here I think we have a slight disagreement.

Given that we're playing an adventure-oriented RPG, the GM will always be providing the players with opportunities to take their PCs on adventures. And in my experience most players enjoy the game more when the adventuring connects in some way or other to their PC.

So rather than ignoring PC backgrounds in framing scenarios, I think it's more helpful to use a soft-move/hard-move structure. Reveal the threat (which might also be an opportunity!), and then let the process of play determine whether it crystallises or is held off. In a system like Burning Wheel, which is deliberately rather brutal in its play, as often as not the threat crystallises; but in a more forgiving system like 4e or 5e D&D, the odds are pretty good that the PCs will be able to hold off at least the bulk of the threat.

Based on my experiences and my reading around, to me one of the most common errors in GMing is to make the fiction worse from the point of view of what the players want for their PCs, even when the players succeed on their action declarations. I think the most common form of this I see (or at least the one that triggers my "observer biases" most strongly) is NPCs who betray the PCs even if the players succeed at everything the GM puts in front of them - in my view just terrible, verging on outright abusive, exercise of the GM's authority yet so, so common. But going hard on NPCs - including relationship NPCs - even when the players succeed is another example.

Part of the point of gameplay is that sometimes you win. And in the context of a game like D&D, that means that sometimes you get the fiction that you want. To me, that's the underlying lesson and logic of the soft-move/hard-move structure of consequence narration - as a GM you're not at liberty to go to the hard move just because you think it would make for a cool story!
 

I don't really need a reward for having a family, I just need a lack of punishments.
"Punishments." You're talking about drama. You don't want your backstory to be used as plot hooks. Unless it benefits you, right?

You'd be overjoyed if the DM used something from your backstory as a plot hook that lead to an adventure, or being the long-lost heir to a fortune, or something that lead to a magic item, or free feat, or boon, etc. You'd be all over that, right?
 

"Punishments." You're talking about drama. You don't want your backstory to be used as plot hooks. Unless it benefits you, right?

You'd be overjoyed if the DM used something from your backstory as a plot hook that lead to an adventure, or being the long-lost heir to a fortune, or something that lead to a magic item, or free feat, or boon, etc. You'd be all over that, right?
Here's the thing. The Dm is going to throw a plot hook that leads to an adventure anyway. That's what a DM does. I'm not quite sure how my family could lead to a free feat.

What players don't want is their backstory used to PUNISH them. That every time they turn around, that backstory becomes an albatross around their neck. Every family member is a potential kidnap/domination/possession victim in waiting. Every connection is a betrayal. Any items are potential targets for thieves. But, only things that the player adds to the game.

Is it really that hard just to ask players if they want stuff to be an issue in the game or not? Seriously?
 

Remove ads

Top