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

[Micah Sweet]

Which gamers are you talking about? You seem to be describing pathological or degenerate cases. I have a lot of play experience, using a range of RPG systems - Rolemaster, Classic Traveller, 4e D&D, Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, just to name some of them - which belies your assertion.

The way to introduce "story" into a game is to let the players contribute to "story". For a group wanting to experiment, and using 5e D&D, I'd suggest starting with 3rd level PCs and getting every player to author a kicker for their PC.

I'm not sure what a "kicker" is.

And what if you're playing 5e, and the group doesn't particularly want to experiment? Are we back to players not caring about the world unless they get to invent stuff?

 

[pemerton]

In a game, I would engage with the friend (if an NPC) through free RP if i wanted to find those things. Or it would be part of my backstory. Or, since they're unlikely to be eminently plot-relevent, I would propose answers to the DM.

How is proposing answers to the GM any different from what I have been describing - freeform negotiation over the content of the fiction?

In which case, why are you disagreeing with me?

 

[Micah Sweet]

How is proposing answers to the GM any different from what I have been describing - freeform negotiation over the content of the fiction?

In which case, why are you disagreeing with me?

The answers in your comment are unlikely to be used to solve an immediate problem through on the spot invented reality. That's where I have an issue.

 

[Cadence]

Reply to @pemerton upthread.

A lot of those feel questions I don't picture coming up, but if the DM asked in game...

Which hero?

<Clueless look> Does it matter?

What is the battle cry?

One that sucks less than what I'll come up with on the spot if it's not a blatant pop-culture rip off? Can I get back to you next session?

What day is your neighbour's birthday?

What calendar is the world even using - and I probably have no clue anyway.

What's the name of your brewer friend?

Torvold

Is your usual armourer a human, a Dwarf, or neither?

Dwarf I guess?

Are the urchins orphans, or just from poor families?

Never checked into it.

What are the usuals' favourite drinks?

Most like porters, one twisted soul likes long distance pale ales.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not sure what a "kicker" is.

And what if you're playing 5e, and the group doesn't particularly want to experiment? Are we back to players not caring about the world unless they get to invent stuff?

In a word, yes. If the players are completely disinterested in anything other than the dm introducing all elements of the game other than the player’s specific pc’s, then yes the players aren’t going to care much about the world.

Why would they?

 

[Cadence]

In a word, yes. If the players are completely disinterested in anything other than the dm introducing all elements of the game other than the player’s specific pc’s, then yes the players aren’t going to care much about the world.

Why would they?

Is it ok if the authored things are authored outside of play (before campaign or between sessions). Not only does it not take me out of character then, but I have the time to actually think about it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In a word, yes. If the players are completely disinterested in anything other than the dm introducing all elements of the game other than the player’s specific pc’s, then yes the players aren’t going to care much about the world.

Why would they?

I'll ask you the same question I asked @pemerton. Other than back story and minor incidentals, in traditional play players don't author content for the campaign in-session, particularly invented aspects of in-game reality to solve an in-game problem. This has been the case for traditional play since the beginnings of the game (and yes, i know there are plenty of exceptions that can be pointed to). Are you saying that in groups that have been or are currently engaging in that style of play, few if any of these players engage with the setting? For nearly the last 50 years?

Incidentally, Pemerton never answered this question.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Guys, guys. Let's just agree that players and DMs are BOTH terrible.

That's kind of my point; when I see a GM playing "All these problems are players fault!" I roll my damn eyes. Same as any player who thinks every GM is a tyrant in disguise.

 

[Hussar]

I'll ask you the same question I asked @pemerton. Other than back story and minor incidentals, in traditional play players don't author content for the campaign in-session, particularly invented aspects of in-game reality to solve an in-game problem. This has been the case for traditional play since the beginnings of the game (and yes, i know there are plenty of exceptions that can be pointed to). Are you saying that in groups that have been or are currently engaging in that style of play, few if any of these players engage with the setting? For nearly the last 50 years?

Incidentally, Pemerton never answered this question.

Yes. I would say that. If you are interested in traditional play, then no, the players, by and large, don't engage with the setting. There may be exceptions, but, in Trad play, "engaging with the setting" is very much not a priority. In Trad play, the focus of play is resolving the situation - most traditionally the Dungeon. Anything outside of the dungeon is largely ignored unless it has something specifically to do with the dungeon.

There's a very good reason that the Keep on the Borderlands details the Keep in about 3 pages and the Caves in about 12 pages. Not too difficult to see where the focus is. And, sure, you have things like Village of Homlet, fair enough, but, again, that's the exception, not the rule. Or, if you want to look at 5e, the section revolving around creating a dungeon in the DMG is far more extensive and detailed than any other section in the book. The entire world building advice in the DMG is 60 pages long and the advice for adventure building is about 150 pages (give or take). Again, not too hard to see where the trad focus is.

For trad groups, setting is something to be passively consumed. It's only as important as the DM wants to make it since the players have largely no input. The loop is pretty fixed - DM sets a challenge, players play through that challenge, DM sets the next challenge. There's nothing wrong with that loop. It certainly works. But, it's not a particularly effective way to get players to engage with the setting.

Trad play trains players to be passive consumers.

 

[Hussar]

Put it another way @Micah Sweet . Look at all the discussions about players wanting to bring in some race into a DM's campaign. And the advice invariably revolves around, "Well, it's the DM's setting, so, you have to go with the DM's views." It might not be phrased that way, but, that's the upshot.

But, basically, all the DM has said is, "Well, this is my setting, your ideas are not welcome. You can play in my sandbox, but, this is MY sandbox." So, the players go along with it - probably enjoy it even. But, at the end of the day, they can have no ownership over the game. They are, at bests, guests in the setting. And, like any guest, or renter, they don't really care about the setting. Why would they? They have no input. Even trying to have input gets them labeled as problem players. And we see DM after DM complaining about these entitled players and their newfangled ideas ruining the DM's creation.

So, yeah, of course trad play trains players to be passive. How could it not?