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

[Hussar]

The one that they just now created or just now decided works there when they asked the gm to use that route? Those odds would be one hundred percent if the gm says OK.
It's a quantum contact that can be cut loose with no risk to the pc and no obligations expected at any point

Well, let's dig down a bit and think about how this will play out.

Version 1: Players win the Background Roulette (5e) - One of the PC's has the Noble background and turns to the DM and tells the DM that he is now going to see the mayor. There is no challenge here. It's a ribbon for the background. Other backgrounds have other ribbons. Player skips over the bits that the player probably didn't want to deal with in the first place (thus a potential reason why that player took that background) and gets to the stuff that he does.

Version 2: Traditional Play. The player has to meet with the maid to try to convince her to help him. Play ensues. Presumably the group succeeds and the maid fades back into the ether never to be seen or thought of again since the only reason for engaging this particular NPC was because the DM felt that the scene needed a complication that needed to be dealt with. Since the complication has been dealt with, this NPC joins the thousands of other nameless, formless NPC's that are immediately forgotten.

Version 3: Limited player Authorship: The player decides on the spot that his sister works for this particular mayor. The DM now has an NPC with a direct tie to the player, presumably the player will now actually respond to this NPC and this fleshes out the character and the world that the character inhabits. We have a potentially recurring NPC that the group has an actual reason to interact with.

Version 4: Limited player Authorship with mechanics. This is exactly the sort of thing that Action Points in 3e were created for. It was actually a really cool idea that you could spend AP's this way and, with the DM's approval of course, have limited authorship abilities built right into the game. A fantastic reward for good play. Player plays really well, gets an Action Point, spends the action point to mold the setting slightly and introduce interesting stuff, which in turns gets him rewarded with Action points. Fantastic way to do it. Frankly, I'd have zero problem in 5e with spending Inspiration this way.

Now, I know which one I favor. Then again, if your players are so completely out to freaking lunch that creating an NPC on the fly will break your game, I'm sorry, but no amount of advice is going to help this table. @tetrasodium, you have repeatedly given examples of a table that is completely dysfunctional. No wonder you are having so many problems. Dude, you need to find a new group. Honest. It's not the game. It's not the age. It's the people you are playing with.

 

[Baron Opal II]

The problem is, what are the odds that that sister that you chose to be a maid in that mayor's house, before the campaign started, just happens to be the maid in the mayor's house that you need to talk to ten levels and thirteen months of real time later?

That's what pemerton meant. That background that you chose at chargen will only matter if the DM chooses to use that specific mayor in that specific town. Most campaigns don't focus on a single town. So, what's the point of detailing that my sister works for that mayor? It will never come up.

Oh, I see. Predetermining you have an in with the mayor of Smallville doesn't help with the mayor of Largeburg. True. Have a large family? You only have so many social contacts. We still meet the Vaalgarde test, however.

The one that they just now created or just now decided works there when they asked the gm to use that route? Those odds would be one hundred percent if the gm says OK.
It's a quantum contact that can be cut loose with no risk to the pc and no obligations expected at any point

How is that going to hurt the play of the game?

It obviates the problem with no expenditure of resources. You wave your hand, "my sister is employed here, we have an in." And, three real / game months down the road there is nothing preventing you doing the same thing. Apparently, your sister is multi-talented and travels a lot.

The issue isn't players deciding aspects of the game world, it is having a wild card to obviate rather than solve the situation. Now, we're being rather vague in our thought experiment, which is their nature. Let me be a touch more concrete.

I have been fortunate recently in having a number of new players. They were a bit boggled by the equipment lists I have, so I made a group of five "fast packs". Adventurer, Scholar, Scout, Delver, and Camper. About half the equipment is the same and the rest more dedicated to a theme. I did this because there was one too many times when the party needed 50' of rope to cross a ravine and not only did no one have any they didn't think to buy anything but arms and armor. So these packs are "training wheels" for forethought, in a way. And, if shopping is tedious for them, they have a standard Adventurer pack that covers most of the typical needs, without any intended "gotcha"s.

Another example, characters, expecially thieves with their urban focus, have a number of contacts which increase with level. I would go into more, but am out of time at the moment.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Players will get the crazy idea that they have any say, impact, or influence over the GM's pristinely crafted world!

"Uh-oh, looks like these Main Characters have Main Character Syndrome"

 

[Thomas Shey]

The problem is, what are the odds that that sister that you chose to be a maid in that mayor's house, before the campaign started, just happens to be the maid in the mayor's house that you need to talk to ten levels and thirteen months of real time later?

I should note that campaigns localized enough that the mayor of the town being a potential issue throughout the whole campaign are hardly unknown.

 

[pemerton]

It obviates the problem with no expenditure of resources. You wave your hand, "my sister is employed here, we have an in."

<snip>

The issue isn't players deciding aspects of the game world, it is having a wild card to obviate rather than solve the situation.

In a game of shared imagination, I'm not sure why imagining a sister who will leave the side gate open doesn't count as a solution, whereas (let's say) imaging climbing over the wall with a rope does.

The real resources in these examples appear to be a certain way in which time is spent at the table; and the idea of solutions seems to me to correlate very closely to my idea upthread of the setting-as-puzzlebox. If the setting is a puzzle for the players to solve, why would they bother investing in it in the form of PC connections? The GM will throw up the puzzles regardless. The only answer I can see is that choosing PC relationships at the time of PC building is itself part of the process of solving the puzzle!

Now, we're being rather vague in our thought experiment, which is their nature. Let me be a touch more concrete.

<snip>

Another example, characters, expecially thieves with their urban focus, have a number of contacts which increase with level. I would go into more, but am out of time at the moment.

If this is not a thought experiment but an actual description of play, then it seems very close to the OA Yakuza class published in the mid-1980s. Precisely because of the problem that @Hussar has identified, that class allowed the player to make up the contacts as needed rather than in advance.

It's an example of operationalising the idea of "I have a sister who will leave the gate open for us", not an alternative to it.

 

[overgeeked]

Oh, I see. Predetermining you have an in with the mayor of Smallville doesn't help with the mayor of Largeburg. True. Have a large family? You only have so many social contacts. We still meet the Vaalgarde test, however.

It obviates the problem with no expenditure of resources. You wave your hand, "my sister is employed here, we have an in." And, three real / game months down the road there is nothing preventing you doing the same thing. Apparently, your sister is multi-talented and travels a lot.

The issue isn't players deciding aspects of the game world, it is having a wild card to obviate rather than solve the situation. Now, we're being rather vague in our thought experiment, which is their nature. Let me be a touch more concrete.

I have been fortunate recently in having a number of new players. They were a bit boggled by the equipment lists I have, so I made a group of five "fast packs". Adventurer, Scholar, Scout, Delver, and Camper. About half the equipment is the same and the rest more dedicated to a theme. I did this because there was one too many times when the party needed 50' of rope to cross a ravine and not only did no one have any they didn't think to buy anything but arms and armor. So these packs are "training wheels" for forethought, in a way. And, if shopping is tedious for them, they have a standard Adventurer pack that covers most of the typical needs, without any intended "gotcha"s.

Another example, characters, expecially thieves with their urban focus, have a number of contacts which increase with level. I would go into more, but am out of time at the moment.

I wouldn’t mind a player deciding a setting element like that, but if it’s during play, rather than previously established, I’d want it to be a limited resource (can only declare so many spontaneous connections, say prof bonus or equal to level), that it only help with the current problem, rather than solve or obviate the problem, and that it’s a connection that also matters long-term (i.e. establishing a permanent NPC) as well as it being a two-way street (i.e. the NPC is also a source of plot hooks). Without those stipulations, it’s just another “I win” button and 5E characters are already festooned with way too many of those, they don’t need any more.

 

[pemerton]

I wouldn’t mind a player deciding a setting element like that, but if it’s during play, rather than previously established, I’d want it to be a limited resource (can only declare so many spontaneous connections, say prof bonus or equal to level), that it only help with the current problem, rather than solve or obviate the problem, and that it’s a connection that also matters long-term (i.e. establishing a permanent NPC) as well as it being a two-way street (i.e. the NPC is also a source of plot hooks). Without those stipulations, it’s just another “I win” button and 5E characters are already festooned with way too many of those, they don’t need any more.

To me, this seems to be building a lot of machinery around a minor aspect of play.

How is "My sister leaves the side gate open" an "I win" button? What have the players won at? Having their PCs gain access to the location where some adventure might occur? But for their "win", were the players going to spend the session having their PCs sit in the tavern lamenting that they have nothing to do?

 

[Remathilis]

I wouldn’t mind a player deciding a setting element like that, but if it’s during play, rather than previously established, I’d want it to be a limited resource (can only declare so many spontaneous connections, say prof bonus or equal to level), that it only help with the current problem, rather than solve or obviate the problem, and that it’s a connection that also matters long-term (i.e. establishing a permanent NPC) as well as it being a two-way street (i.e. the NPC is also a source of plot hooks). Without those stipulations, it’s just another “I win” button and 5E characters are already festooned with way too many of those, they don’t need any more.

To me, this seems to be building a lot of machinery around a minor aspect of play.

How is "My sister leaves the side gate open" an "I win" button? What have the players won at? Having their PCs gain access to the location where some adventure might occur? But for their "win", were the players going to spend the session having their PCs sit in the tavern lamenting that they have nothing to do?

I'm literally between you two on this: sometimes it's fun to use a connection in game tied to a backstory, but I wouldn't want PCs making up long lost cousins in every town just to bypass an obstacle. Not sure it needs a full mechanic, but the DM should be able to veto or complicate it if it would be disruptive.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I'm literally between you two on this: sometimes it's fun to use a connection in game tied to a backstory, but I wouldn't want PCs making up long lost cousins in every town just to bypass an obstacle. Not sure it needs a full mechanic, but the DM should be able to veto or complicate it if it would be disruptive.

If you can ask family for help with stuff, they can certainly ask you back. Quest hook!

 

[CleverNickName]

"Oh, you have a sister, do you?" (scribbles down some notes) "And she works for the mayor, you say?" (scribbles faster) "I see...that's very interesting indeed..." (more scribbling) "Anyway. Yes, of course the door will be open for you when you get there. Heh heh."