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

[Arilyn]

I'll make that "deciding in play that your PC has a sister who works in the mayor's house".

I think these two questions in particular make a difference to me.

(1) Does it require much mental overhead by me the player that is distinct from figuring out what my character would do? (Coming up with a name or beverage seems fine vs. coming up with a battle cry on the fly that sounds good that my character would have already known).

(2) Does it give me an in game advantage? (Coming up in play with some arbitrary beverage or name that ads flavor that may show up again vs. deciding in play where they work when it's relevant to accomplishing something).

If they are both no, then I think I'm all for it.

In the first case as yes means I'm taking time in game not being my character, and possibly establishing something in fiction that is worse than if I'd done it later. ("Wow, that was a really bad name and battle cry I came up with last night...."). It's not what I want to spend my time in game doing.

In the second case, I wonder if a yes feels for me kind of the way that fudging seems to for some others -- I can't stop thinking about it. In their case they can't stop thinking about if each die roll is fudged. In my case, if I can drop things into fiction, I start thinking about what I'd like to drop into fiction next instead of what my character would do. (It's like I have a ring of limited capability to alter reality on my character sheet now, and find myself spending time wondering how I could use it). Instead of having my character search their memory (via DM ask) to see if anyone around the area might have a barrel of something explosive, I make a story up that gets me the explosive as easily as possible. Instead of checking the area (via DM ask) for a ladder to get over the wall, I just find a ladder in the convenient spot. Instead of wracking my characters memory (via DM ask) if I know someone who might be able to heal us for free in this strange town, I'm just related to Nurse Joy, and every town has one of those.

These are reasonable objections but I have found it doesn't happen like this in play. Have you played in games where players share authorship? It's not going to work for everyone but it's a great way to increase immersion and engagement. I don't always play and run games this way but I do enjoy it a lot and have been doing it more frequently.

 

[overgeeked]

These are reasonable objections but I have found it doesn't happen like this in play. Have you played in games where players share authorship? It's not going to work for everyone but it's a great way to increase immersion and engagement. I don't always play and run games this way but I do enjoy it a lot and have been doing it more frequently.

Not the person you asked, but I have played a lot of games like that. It increases immersion and engagement for some. For others it utterly breaks immersion and engagement.

Some players want to be immersed by digging into and exploring a world, not be constantly reminded it's a game or having authorial control over the setting or game elements. For some, simply having that control breaks or prevents immersion. See players who bounce off Fate and complain that meta-currencies are immersion breaking. Or the...shenanigans that can happen when you have bad faith play and shared authority. Basically, you have to have the right players and the right group for shared authority to work well and not be immersion breaking. It's not for everyone.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not the person you asked, but I have played a lot of games like that. It increases immersion and engagement for some. For others it utterly breaks immersion and engagement.

Some players want to be immersed by digging into and exploring a world, not be constantly reminded it's a game or having authorial control over the setting or game elements. For some, simply having that control breaks or prevents immersion. See players who bounce off Fate and complain that meta-currencies are immersion breaking. Or the...shenanigans that can happen when you have bad faith play and shared authority. Basically, you have to have the right players and the right group for shared authority to work well and not be immersion breaking. It's not for everyone.

This. FATE-style aspects in particular really rub me the wrong way, as both a DM and a player, and whenever I see them in a game I tend to balk.

 

[Arilyn]

This. FATE-style aspects in particular really rub me the wrong way, as both a DM and a player, and whenever I see them in a game I tend to balk.

And I love Fate aspects! But that's what is really great about rpgs right now. So many different styles of design and play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And I love Fate aspects! But that's what is really great about rpgs right now. So many different styles of design and play.

I agree in principle. I just don't want a game I like that doesn't currently operate that way (like 5e) to change so that it does.

 

[Arilyn]

I agree in principle. I just don't want a game I like that doesn't currently operate that way (like 5e) to change so that it does.

Understood. 5e isn't really designed for that. Even the bonds, flaws, etc. feel awkwardly bolted on. I go to 13th Age for more player narrative input.

 

[Cadence]

These are reasonable objections but I have found it doesn't happen like this in play. Have you played in games where players share authorship? It's not going to work for everyone but it's a great way to increase immersion and engagement. I don't always play and run games this way but I do enjoy it a lot and have been doing it more frequently.

I've tried both Fate (several sessions in one campaign) and 13th Age (quite a bit in two campaigns)...

This. FATE-style aspects in particular really rub me the wrong way, as both a DM and a player, and whenever I see them in a game I tend to balk.

... and felt like this from the player side. I didn't try them as a DM.

Understood. 5e isn't really designed for that. Even the bonds, flaws, etc. feel awkwardly bolted on. I go to 13th Age for more player narrative input.

That's how I felt about the various mechanics in 13th age. I bet there are a lot of things about different games that need buy in (AC, HP?) that stick out like sore thumbs if they grate against someone just a ittle too much.

And I love Fate aspects! But that's what is really great about rpgs right now. So many different styles of design and play.

Amen!

 

[Ovinomancer]

Agreed. (That may not be surprising.)

Overall, I prefer check-based systems (eg Circles in Burning Wheel and Torchbearer; Streetwise in Classic Traveller) but also enjoy resource-based ones. But I also conceded that, in most versions of D&D, stuff like the helpful sister will probably be done via free roleplaying and negotiation, rather than via expenditure of resources or making a check with a meaningful consequence for failure. I still think this is viable, and that claim is based on the experience of handling it via freeform roleplaying and negotiation in Rolemaster.

Part of what makes freeform approaches viable is that, in the end, the players will confront a challenge or obstacle or demand that it's clear can't be resolved by their PCs' helpful relatives or friends: eg if it's established that the mayor is neither relative or friend; and it's the case that the players (and the PCs) want the mayor to do X; then the players are going to have to come up with some plan of persuading the mayor to do X (or replacing the mayor with their friendly doppelganger who will do X, or whatever other plan they come up with).

And credit where it's due: I'm really just reiterating here a point already made by @Hussar.

I think that your freeform discussion has an unstated prerequisite. In D&D style games, the GM has sole fictional authority over the setting. In a freeform RP in this mode, the player is still not empowered to introduce things into the fiction in the moment unless prompted/authorized by the GM to do so. For your argument to work, this authorization has to have already happened -- the GM has to have set up play already and made clear where sharing exists. Otherwise, any introduction of GM disapproved fiction faces the immediate step out of freeform RP with a GM block. Honestly, I see no point whatsoever in making this kind of change to D&D, 5e in particular, when it's built around the presupposition of GM Says for the vast majority of play, and certainly around fiction introduction outside of action declarations or character generation backstory. There are better games for this that already do the kinds of things you're talking about. I'm generally against the kind of heavy drift to play suggested here -- it requires ignoring or changing far too much of a system to retain value. In my opinion. That it can be done is not sufficient to suggest it should be done, and I'll quibble about the can.

 

[Hussar]

I agree in principle. I just don't want a game I like that doesn't currently operate that way (like 5e) to change so that it does.

See, this is where I get lost. It's the same sort of argument that I see about adding in social combat mechanics too. Why? Why can't we have a module for this? You would be absolutely free to ignore these kinds of mechanics, the same way that people can ignore, say, feat mechanics, and, for you, the game works fine, but, I also get what I want too.

I just don't understand this zero sum attitude. Adding in player facing authorization mechanics in no way affects your game if you choose not to use it. Taking the BIFTs mechanics and expanding them, or adding in a social combat module does not change your game. And, given that you don't even LIKE 5e, why do you care? You've repeatedly stated that you don't like how 5e is going and that you are better served by something like Level Up. Fantastic. You got exactly what you like. Why can't I have what I want?

 

[nedjer]

When I were a lad we had to put together our own zombies made out of spare parts from graveyards and abbatoirs. The zombies didn't run, cast spells or fly through the air. They had to bide their time and shuffle along until dozens of them cornered you all at once.

Now it's all accursed flaming hand cult zombies with sparkles on top. However, while I'm not sure that we haven't lost a few eyeballs along the way, choice is good and distinct from the ever present fun sooking damnation that is over-optimisation.