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

[Jer]

This is the kind of collaboration I like. Boundaries are set, but not everything is spelled out. I feel I can relax and play without feeling like the DM is going to wring out every possible sorrow in search of "the drama".

I will also admit that as I've gotten older I'm less inclined to "fridge" background characters and am more looking for other conflicts. Having the one character's mother be high up in the priesthood generated a lot of frission between the party and that character before we got to the "dramatic" kidnapping. Having the two siblings as rivals to the other PC and having them all trying to one-up each other in the eyes of their own mother[*] got the whole party pulled into a bit of family drama that didn't involve having to threaten any of their characters (it made for a fun "campaign loss" when we had a near TPK and that PC's sister showed up with her own squad to save them all and put the party into her debt). The players are also more willing to invest in their background elements when they know that they're giving me hooks that aren't just "here's a character to set me up to rescue/grieve later" and instead are giving me people they'll get to have more interaction with.

[*] It makes it sound like everyone in that group had mommy issues - it was just the two characters I swear, everyone else had their own quirks.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I think however, you're making an assumption here that isn't necessarily true; I'd argue that a fair number of players, maybe most of them, dislike strongly reactive hooks (i.e. ones that they feel obligated to respond to, as compared to being interested in responding to). They don't want the hook to be too personal, either because it makes them uncomfortable or feel pressured.

The other sort is of course present also, but I'm not convinced just assuming it is a virtue. As other posts have suggested, I'd say this is something that's probably better to have people opt-in to, rather than have to opt-out of, or worse, have no choice.

 

[overgeeked]

What part of 'I don't need rewards' did you read as 'I need rewards'?

If I have a sister in game I don't want her randomly kidnapped if she's just there to be an NPC I have a relationship with. I don't want to have to worry that every character I meet and go out of my way to befriend is going to be leveraged against me. If a DM keeps doing that I will stop having family and making NPC friends and will probably stop playing with the DM if they don't listen to my concerns.

Exactly. You want consequence-free connections. You want the benefits of your character having connections to the world, but not the vulnerability that necessarily comes with it. You don’t want an interesting and engaging story. To have an interesting and engaging story your character has to be vulnerable.

 

[payn]

Exactly. You want consequence-free connections. You want the benefits of your character having connections to the world, but not the vulnerability that necessarily comes with it. You don’t want an interesting and engaging story.

Thats an overstatement. Having family/friend connections might not net any benefit to the PC. Also, folks have experienced games where the second the PC leaves their family/friends they will be targeted because some GMs are under the illusion that this is the only way to have an interesting story and risk to the PC.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Exactly. You want consequence-free connections. You want the benefits of your character having connections to the world, but not the vulnerability that necessarily comes with it. You don’t want an interesting and engaging story. To have an interesting and engaging story your character has to be vulnerable.

I... don't want to take part in what you feel to be interesting and engaging stories if they require jacking up everything my character holds dear regardless of my feelings on the matter, no. You have in no way engendered the trust required for me to put such characters into your hands.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Exactly. You want consequence-free connections. You want the benefits of your character having connections to the world, but not the vulnerability that necessarily comes with it. You don’t want an interesting and engaging story. To have an interesting and engaging story your character has to be vulnerable.

There are other uses for NPCs, perhaps I wanted my character to have sister for background, and to inform the personality of the character, not because I want them used as a threat against my character... who by his own actions and personality will live himself vulnerable for an interesting and engaging story, without bringing in the NPCs.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This attitude, by the way, is why we don't have civilian cast members in superhero stories anymore. Writers who think 'interesting and engaging stories' require death and destruction killed them all until other writers stopped bothering creating new ones.

 

[Gradine]

This attitude, by the way, is why we don't have civilian cast members in superhero stories anymore. Writers who think 'interesting and engaging stories' require death and destruction killed them all until other writers stopped bothering creating new ones.

 

[overgeeked]

There are other uses for NPCs, perhaps I wanted my character to have sister for background, and to inform the personality of the character, not because I want them used as a threat against my character... who by his own actions and personality will live himself vulnerable for an interesting and engaging story, without bringing in the NPCs.

That’s the point. Gamers typically want the benefits without any dramatic consequences. Even the possibility of dramatic consequences is too much. They don’t want actual stories.

This attitude, by the way, is why we don't have civilian cast members in superhero stories anymore. Writers who think 'interesting and engaging stories' require death and destruction killed them all until other writers stopped bothering creating new ones.

You clearly don’t read superheroes stories then. Because they’re festooned with civilians. Old, new, and everywhere in between.

Stories don’t require death and destruction. But they do require drama, tension, and conflict. “I’ll take one story without drama, tension, and conflict, please.” Sorry, can’t be done.

 

[payn]

That’s the point. Gamers typically want the RP benefits without any dramatic consequences. Even the possibility of dramatic consequences is too much. They don’t want actual stories.

You clearly don’t read superheroes stories then. Because they’re festooned with civilians. Old, new, and everywhere in between.

Stories don’t require death and destruction. But they do require drama, tension, and conflict. “I’ll take one story without drama, tension, and conflict, please.” Sorry, can’t be done.

You could have the tension come from the PC being attacked directly? Or a general threat to their faction/town/world but na lets just murder their family the second they go adventuring.