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

[Micah Sweet]

This is just bizarre. Unless by "the adventure" we mean "GM's story time".

To recap: @Remathilis posits that "the adventure" requires the PCs to meet a sage who reads Draconic. He then expresses concern that, if the players posit a family member who can help them out (eg read the Draconic), they will bypass or circumvent the plot of the adventure: "if the adventure funnels all choices to B, adding a family member that gets to B is fine, but adding one that avoids B is not."

I then ask, Well why can't the GM just have B show up? I mean, it's the GM who has decided that this sage who speaks Draconic matters, and the GM has a lot of control over the background setting and fiction. So if the GM thinks the sage is so important, why not just narrate a scene in which the sage is there? I mean, this could be anything from the sage visiting the PCs' family member for dinner (Gandalf seems to make a habit of that), to meeting the sage on the road, to having the sage take shelter from a storm at the same inn as the PCs, to . . . etc..

It's not like having B shows up gives the players an "unfair" advantage - the adventure was funnelling all choices to B!, so the players were always meant to find B. It's not like having B show up will mean everyone has to call the session quits and go home - D&D is an open-ended game, and frankly if B is a sage who speaks Draconic I'm 99% sure the GM has some more material in mind that will follow from the encounter with the sage, which sounds like a transition scene rather than the ultimate climax.

It seems to me that, in this thread, the reasons against having a PCs' relative help the PCs get somewhere, or learn something, or gain an audience, always come back to because the GM's preconception was that the help, or information, or audience, would be achieved in this other fashion that I already decided on. If that's the sort of game the GM is running - setting as puzzle-box - then why would the players bother with PC connections to it? Because those connections will never be relevant, unless the GM happens to incorporate them into their puzzle.

So your answer to, "how do we solve this problem?" Is, "the GM should solve the problem for us"? Finding and talking to the sage is an adventure goal, and determining and executing a means to do so should be fun, fun which would be avoided if the DM simply had the guy show up. You're looking at the situation through an anti-DM lens here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

O

That got me thinking. Where was the first game I played that had that sort of backgrounds. I really can't remember. We did do a lot of different games back in the day. Granted, the exact rules are way out of my memory now, but, I'm pretty sure the James Bond 007 game had something like that. I remember it being the first game that I ever saw (and this was back in the early 80's) that had action points (Bond Points if IIIRC, but, don't quote me on that) that allowed the players to change the scene so that you could succeed in spectacular Bond fashion.

It really was an eye opening moment for me.


I'd take it even a step further than that. Most DM's don't understand odds. The reward has to be GREATER than the risk or it simply isn't worth it. If you (as a simple example) double damage but double the risk of failure, then, well, why would I bother? There's no upside to that. If you want to double the chance of failure, you need to triple the reward.

The shift in D&D to a standard 66% success rate baseline has been a huge change in the game.



But, here's the part about listening to your players. Ok, getting to B is part of the adventure - the players are supposed to overcome it. Well, the player has brought something interesting and creative to the game and resolved the challenge. Fantastic. But, so many DM's are so fixated on making the players "earn" the success that they completely discourage this type of engagement with the setting. Player must never have any authorial control. Which in turn means that since the player has absolutely no authorial input into the setting, they become passive consumers. Well, if i'm a passive consumer, why would I bother actually engaging with the setting beyond the bare minimum? From that perspective, it is far more rewarding to simply react to whatever the DM places in front of the player and deal with that since no other solutions are possible.

And thus we get these passive players who want the DM to roll up the plot wagon and spoon feed them scene after scene while they passively shovel down whatever the DM puts in front of them. I've seen FAR too many players like that to think that this isn't something that DM's have trained into their players.

On the other hand, I have rarely if ever seen players push for the degree of authorial control many people on this thread insist players want. They engage in my setting just fine.

Dueling anecdotes, sure. But there you are.

 

[jasper]

with 128 pages the changes are
internet/ computers
warlord class what ever that is
Better editing and placement of rules
Rule set
Better written modules/box sets/hard covers which covers the three pillars (alright staglmites) of play.
More diversity in players and styles and accept these things.

 

[pemerton]

So your answer to, "how do we solve this problem?" Is, "the GM should solve the problem for us"? Finding and talking to the sage is an adventure goal, and determining and executing a means to do so should be fun, fun which would be avoided if the DM simply had the guy show up. You're looking at the situation through an anti-DM lens here.

To me, what you've written here seems confused.

I am envisaging a situation in which the GM has decided that, for whatever reason, the PCs have to get to B ("all choices funnel to B"); and the players have declared an action ("talk to my cousin", or whatever it might be) which will mean that their PCs don't get to B.

So the GM has two options: block the players declaration ("Sorry, your cousin doesn't speak Draconic"); or go along with it, and then find some other way to introduce B (my suggestion was to have B turn up in some fashion or other - given the amount of power this whole situation posits the GM to enjoy, that shouldn't be too hard).

The only "problem" here is a problem for the GM - because the GM has pre-determined that certain things must happen, and the players are declaring an action that will break from that pre-determined series of events. And I am suggesting that the solution to this "problem", which is of the GM's own making, is in the GM's hands. I don't know how that is "anti-DM".

As I said, the alternative is for the GM to block the players' action declaration and insist that they make one of the choices that will funnel to B. Perhaps it will be more fun for the players to do the GM's thing rather than the thing they thought of - but if we're talking about reasons why the players don't build or play their PCs as invested in the gameworld, I would think that this would be one reason for that. Why invest my PC in the gameworld, if when I try and do so the GM blocks my action declaration and makes me choose from their list of options?

 

[Lanefan]

In the context of this discussion, about players embedding their PCs in the gameworld, and declaring actions based around their friends and family, there are a host of relevant questions: if a player declares I want to meet Gandalf at the Prancing Pony", how is that resolved? How do we resolve the journey? Assuming that the PCs get there, how do we know if Gandalf is there? And if he is, how do we know if he's able to provide the PCs with any advice or assistance?

D&D has one way of resolving these questions: we resolve the travel via map-and-key plus wilderness encounter charts; the GM decides if Gandalf is there, perhaps informed by a random chart; the GM decides what help Gandalf might be able to offer.

If someone is using those methods, and finding that they don't prompt players to embed their PCs into the fiction, maybe they might want to consider different ones?

Here I think it's up to the players to find ways and means of embedding themselves in the game world regardless of the limitations imposed by the DM.

Admittedly, in a campaign that by its nature involves lots of travel this might not be easy, as the PCs don't stay in any one place long enough to put down roots. But even here, say in a campaign that tries to emulate the LotR novels one or more PCs might find a reason to put down enough roots in Bree that the place comes to matter to them more than were it just a stop on a journey.

25 years ago alternatives might have been radical; now they're well-known.

And suppose the GM decides that Gandalf isn't there - the PCs will have to go and find Radagast at Rhosgobel. Is the journey from Bree across the mountains to Southern Mirkwood guaranteed to provide a more interesting play experience than whatever might have happened had the PCs encountered Gandalf?

:: Might do. Might not. No way of knowing until you play it through.

If the answer is Well, I've prepared the Radagast element of the adventure, so it's that or nothing!" again I say Fair enough, but you will get what you play for.

Ideally if the DM has decided there's a chance Gandalf might not be at Bree then the DM has at least vaguely prepped for a number of what-comes-next options if he isn't; e.g. they decide to stay put and wait, or push on to Rivendell, or seek out Radagast, etc.

 

[Remathilis]

To me, what you've written here seems confused.

I am envisaging a situation in which the GM has decided that, for whatever reason, the PCs have to get to B ("all choices funnel to B"); and the players have declared an action ("talk to my cousin", or whatever it might be) which will mean that their PCs don't get to B.

So the GM has two options: block the players declaration ("Sorry, your cousin doesn't speak Draconic"); or go along with it, and then find some other way to introduce B (my suggestion was to have B turn up in some fashion or other - given the amount of power this whole situation posits the GM to enjoy, that shouldn't be too hard).

The only "problem" here is a problem for the GM - because the GM has pre-determined that certain things must happen, and the players are declaring an action that will break from that pre-determined series of events. And I am suggesting that the solution to this "problem", which is of the GM's own making, is in the GM's hands. I don't know how that is "anti-DM".

As I said, the alternative is for the GM to block the players' action declaration and insist that they make one of the choices that will funnel to B. Perhaps it will be more fun for the players to do the GM's thing rather than the thing they thought of - but if we're talking about reasons why the players don't build or play their PCs as invested in the gameworld, I would think that this would be one reason for that. Why invest my PC in the gameworld, if when I try and do so the GM blocks my action declaration and makes me choose from their list of options?

So let me further clarify.

Let's say that the important thing isn't needing to read what's in Ancient Draconic, but actually meeting the sage. Whatever is translated is secondary, if not inconsequential. The sage is going to give the PCs something (info, a quest, a maguffin) that will be important. He is B. All options funnel to B because meeting him closes the scene and opens the next. This is fairly common in adventure paths or modules, which is my preferred play style. What's important here is the obscure language is the hook to find the sage, the not goal in-and-of-itself.

If a PC declares his brother can also translate the language, you lose the hook to the sage and the chain breaks. The language is translated, but that wasn't the point, the point was to meet the sage. Now a new reason to mee the sage much be invented or else the hook becomes dead and a bunch of players sit around going "so what do we do now?" To stop this, I propose a simple addendum: the brother cannot translate the language himself (it's too obscure), but he knows someone who can (the sage) and thus the chain is unbroken. A new option for the PCs worked on emerged, and it was quickly used instead of the preconceived notions to go to B rather than bypass B and end up in deadspace. I feel that for all but the most stubborn players ("No, my brother is a master of all languages, you're ruining my backstory") this is a fair compromise. PCs create a hereunto thought of solution, the DM moves along to the next check point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To me, what you've written here seems confused.

I am envisaging a situation in which the GM has decided that, for whatever reason, the PCs have to get to B ("all choices funnel to B"); and the players have declared an action ("talk to my cousin", or whatever it might be) which will mean that their PCs don't get to B.

So the GM has two options: block the players declaration ("Sorry, your cousin doesn't speak Draconic"); or go along with it, and then find some other way to introduce B (my suggestion was to have B turn up in some fashion or other - given the amount of power this whole situation posits the GM to enjoy, that shouldn't be too hard).

The only "problem" here is a problem for the GM - because the GM has pre-determined that certain things must happen, and the players are declaring an action that will break from that pre-determined series of events. And I am suggesting that the solution to this "problem", which is of the GM's own making, is in the GM's hands. I don't know how that is "anti-DM".

As I said, the alternative is for the GM to block the players' action declaration and insist that they make one of the choices that will funnel to B. Perhaps it will be more fun for the players to do the GM's thing rather than the thing they thought of - but if we're talking about reasons why the players don't build or play their PCs as invested in the gameworld, I would think that this would be one reason for that. Why invest my PC in the gameworld, if when I try and do so the GM blocks my action declaration and makes me choose from their list of options?

Again, investing in a setting doesn't require authorial control on the part of the players. My read of your comments is that without such control players instantly become passive. That's just not the case. If players find a setting interesting, they will engage with it, whether or not they can make up family members on the fly to solve problems in game. DMs have been describing and adjudicating the world while players handle their PCs actions for nearly 50 years now, with little to no systemized authorial control for the players. Are you saying in all that time, the players never really engage in the settings and just passively accept the DMs story?

 

[overgeeked]

Again, investing in a setting doesn't require authorial control on the part of the players. My read of your comments is that without such control players instantly become passive. That's just not the case. If players find a setting interesting, they will engage with it, whether or not they can make up family members on the fly to solve problems in game. DMs have been describing and adjudicating the world while players handle their PCs actions for nearly 50 years now, with little to no systemized authorial control for the players. Are you saying in all that time, the players never really engage in the settings and just passively accept the DMs story?

If we’re dropping video links as a thing, Matt Colville has one on this topic.

 

[Arilyn]

For some players participating in authoring the fiction breaks immersion, and they absolutely hate it. Discovering the GM's world is a big part of the joy of gaming. Fair enough. I enjoy playing this way too.

Players contributing to the game world can also be a fantastic way to play. For many of us it doesn't break immersion and it's worth trying, if you have not played that way. The players I've gamed with do not abuse it, or take advantage of it by littering relatives all over the game map, for example. More minds bring more creative ideas to the table. I've also discovered players are much harder on their characters that I'd be.

It can be a great tool for increased engagement, or just another style of play. That's fun.

 

[pemerton]

Again, investing in a setting doesn't require authorial control on the part of the players. My read of your comments is that without such control players instantly become passive. That's just not the case. If players find a setting interesting, they will engage with it, whether or not they can make up family members on the fly to solve problems in game.

Upthread, some posters complained about players who play "men with no names" rather than embedding their PCs into the gameworld with friends, family, genuine connections, etc. This reluctance was also connected to an idea that in many cases the main "payoff" of establishing that sort of embedding is that the GM will use threats to those connections to try and drive the action: and at least some players don't want that sort of payoff.

If you're not one of those posters, and your players author a lot of embedded backstory for their PCs even though it plays little role in the way the shared fiction unfolds, then you don't have a problem that needs solving. But I'm posting some thoughts, grounded in a combination of experience and informed conjecture, that might be helpful for those who do have the problem I've just described.

Here I think it's up to the players to find ways and means of embedding themselves in the game world regardless of the limitations imposed by the DM.

Admittedly, in a campaign that by its nature involves lots of travel this might not be easy, as the PCs don't stay in any one place long enough to put down roots. But even here, say in a campaign that tries to emulate the LotR novels one or more PCs might find a reason to put down enough roots in Bree that the place comes to matter to them more than were it just a stop on a journey.

This seems to assume that PCs enter the shared fiction as "men with no names", but might change over time.

But putting that to one side: if someone posts about a concern they have with players - which is what happened in this thread - then saying "it's up to the players" to play in a way that doesn't generate that concern doesn't seem very helpful advice! I'm expressing some thoughts about how posters who have a certain concern might go about resolving it, by changing the way they handle some aspects of the shared fiction, and in that way giving the players new reasons to treat their PCs as embedded and connected. That's all.