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

[pemerton]

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.

This implies that asking a friend or relative is not a thing that your character would do. Which goes back to my remark about thin settings and unconnected characters. Because for a normal human being with the normal degree of social connection, no one can write all that into a character background prepared in advance.

When I play my character in Burning Wheel, I only ever think about what my character would do. This includes looking out for friends, relatives, fellow members of his order, etc. And that "looking out" is resolved via Circles checks. In 4e D&D that could be a Streetwise check, or a raw CHA check. In 5e D&D that could be a CHA check ("Find the best person to talk to for news, rumors, and gossip") or even WIS ("Get a gut feeling about what course of action to follow"). Or of course, the GM could decide that no check is required - freeform negotiation around when checks are or are not required seems a pretty standard feature of 5e D&D.

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.

I don't see the different between your first two disjuncts - in a game of D&D, how would you "find a ladder in a convenient spot" without mediation via the GM?

As to the second one, we have a fundamental difference of sensibility: for me, the idea that I would experience my PCs' memory and sentiments by asking another person to tell me what I'm thinking is completely at odds with inhabitation of my character.

 

[Arilyn]

Cutting down on the constant questioning of the GM is a definite advantage.

 

[Hussar]

Or of course, the GM could decide that no check is required

See, this tends to be the go to solution in D&D - all or nothing. You have the right background? Poof, problem solved, you don't have to mess about with the maid at all, you have the noble background and right there, in clear black and white, you get to walk up to the mayor and talk to him.

This is why players in D&D default to looking at their character sheets whenever a problem comes up. Why bother negotiating with the DM or coming up with something on the fly when I can simply cast a spell (typically) or reference my background (or whatever) and poof, problem solved, no complications and done.

Why would I bother to look for a ladder when someone just casts levitate, has their familiar fly up and attach a rope, or a thousand other solutions are possible that require absolutely no engagement with the setting or DM?

This is something I see from players all the time and it makes me want to pull my hair out. And, it's something that gets complained about all the time as well. DM's are always complaining that the players won't engage with things - they just throw mechanics at the problem until the problem is solved. Well, there's a reason for that. If the player isn't allowed to modify, add or influence the scenario except in pre-scripted ways, then, well, don't complain when the players follow the script.

 

[nedjer]

Cutting down on the constant questioning of the GM is a definite advantage.

I recall a palpable sense of don't mess with the GM as we tiptoed through Olde Worlde Tomb of Horrors. However, old or new the GM makes the call at the table, the debate about next time happens after. Then the GM can have to rush for the bus or to do homework just as the rules lawyer is starting to unwind.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

You can. When I said I don't like those kind of mechanics, I meant I don't want the game to become dependent on FATE-like mechanics. I have no issue with a module adding them in for people who like them. It is by no means a zero sum game.

You are right though, I do greater prefer Level Up to 5e. Hard not to comment on the thing everyone talks about though.

 

[Cadence]

This implies that asking a friend or relative is not a thing that your character would do. Which goes back to my remark about thin settings and unconnected characters. Because for a normal human being with the normal degree of social connection, no one can write all that into a character background prepared in advance.

When I play my character in Burning Wheel, I only ever think about what my character would do. This includes looking out for friends, relatives, fellow members of his order, etc. And that "looking out" is resolved via Circles checks. In 4e D&D that could be a Streetwise check, or a raw CHA check. In 5e D&D that could be a CHA check ("Find the best person to talk to for news, rumors, and gossip") or even WIS ("Get a gut feeling about what course of action to follow"). Or of course, the GM could decide that no check is required - freeform negotiation around when checks are or are not required seems a pretty standard feature of 5e D&D.

And my saying "I look around for the neighborhood gossip" and get to make CHA or WIS check seems great. My saying "I go talk to George the snitch [that I've never thought about before this moment] who is my lifelong friend, and also neighbor of the person I'm curious about and get the full tactical report" seems awful if I'm a player during play.

I don't see the different between your first two disjuncts - in a game of D&D, how would you "find a ladder in a convenient spot" without mediation via the GM?

I'm not sure. It seemed less difficult to find a ladder or ladder substitute lying around a place people are working with DM mediation than it did to have a sibling working in exactly the right place and being their at the right time with no DM mediation (or am I misunderstanding the sister thing).

As to the second one, we have a fundamental difference of sensibility: for me, the idea that I would experience my PCs' memory and sentiments by asking another person to tell me what I'm thinking is completely at odds with inhabitation of my character.

I'm not asking them what I'm thinking. I'm asking them to fill out parts of the world. I'm fine with the streetwise to see if I can find an informant/friend/urchin. I'm not fine with creating the world on the spot and developing NPC I might find on a successful roll while I'm a player playing.

As was noted above, someone who has played both FATE or even 13th AGE and older D&D or 5e is probably well aware of this distinction in playstyles (even if they don't like one or the other).

 

[Arilyn]

I recall a palpable sense of don't mess with the GM as we tiptoed through Olde Worlde Tomb of Horrors. However, old or new the GM makes the call at the table, the debate about next time happens after. Then the GM can have to rush for the bus or to do homework just as the rules lawyer is starting to unwind.

I'm not sure what you are saying? But I think I worded mine badly. Not questioning GM calls or judgement but the constant questions like Do I? Have I been? What is my?

 

[Thomas Shey]

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?

I think there's some potential issues depending on presentation and game culture.

What I mean by that is, to my understanding, feats in 5e are treated as optional. One of the effects of that is its less likely people who don't want to use them will have to deal with too much pushback if part of a player group does. There can be a different dynamic if they're presented as core.

That said, if a subsystem acquires enough momentum most people are used to using it, that only gets you so far.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You are right though, I do greater prefer Level Up to 5e. Hard not to comment on the thing everyone talks about though.

Well, it helps to make it clear regularly where you stand, especially when commenting on the specific game. I try to do that since my preferences aren't in the D&D sphere at all, and the ones where I'm tolerant aren't 5e (which I only even know to a limited degree--just enough to know its not my cuppa).

 

[pemerton]

As was noted above, someone who has played both FATE or even 13th AGE and older D&D or 5e is probably well aware of this distinction in playstyles (even if they don't like one or the other).

I've never played Fate or 13th Age. I've played AD&D and 4e D&D and Rolemaster extensively. 5e D&D doesn't seem very different from AD&D, 4e or RM as far as PC backgrounds and the methods that would be used to connect PCs to setting are concerned.