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

[Hussar]

I guess that's one big difference between our approaches; in that I-as-player can quite happily use one setting to develop any number of characters, either side-along or one after another, and I-as-DM can use one setting to either tell (if I'm driving) and-or referee (if the players are driving) any number of stories.

Yes the general genre and tone has to largely stay the same within a given setting - I can't do Space 2099 very well in a faux-medieval setting, for example - but that's fine as long as everyone's cool with that genre and tone.

Building a whole new setting is a hell of a lot of work, which I'd rather not have to do if I don't have to.

That is a good point that hasn’t really occurred to me. If you only use the same setting for very extended periods then that setting will accrete a huge amount of information. Which would likely become really unwieldy if multiple people start adding at the same time.

It’s unwieldy enough with one cook. Add four or five more cooks and it would be a massive undertaking just to keep it all straight. And everyone would have to be on the ball as well.

That’s a pretty fair argument for not allowing player authorial power. It’s just not really feasible in the long run.

To me, since I never have that mountain of setting, keeping it all straight isn’t as much of a challenge.

 

[Eric V]

Shared authorship is great. Takes a HUGE load of work of me as a DM. Mind you, we're aren't playing 5e; we're playing 13th Age where the use of Icon Dice naturally lends itself to this sort of thing.

Characters had a history in the world before they started being played, presumably. What player authorship lets players do is "Say! That's my old fencing coach from when I was a kid...he usually knew all sorts of gossip; I'm sure he knows who the baron's secret lover is!" and then find out the rumour, based on the previously unsaid history of the character.

Or, you know, you could ask each player to provide minutia-level detail about every aspect of her character before the first adventure begins...

If you're playing with a bunch of "I win!" type of players, then it's obviously an adversarial game, not a collaborative game, and so yeah, what @Hussar is talking about won't work.

 

[pemerton]

Here is an example from way back of what this sort of play can look like in D&D.

There's a blast from the past!

Who is this strange elf, Lucann. He seems to come and go at will while the rest of us are trapped in the city by the besiegers? Does he know of a secret postern gate?

It seems that he is no friend to the besiegers, at least. Can he bring us allies - or even food - through his fey paths? Is that the news that he brings for the king?

"Lucann - well met! Are you here to see His Majesty also? What news do you bring? - it seems that while the rest of us are trapped here you come and go like a wisp!"

Lucann nods in greeting, hood still covering his face. "I had hoped to bring your king to account for violating the old accords and harvesting the homes of my kin, but it appears now there is much more going on than I initially assumed. I aim to find out what."

His thoughts turn to the his method of passage. "All living things have a spirit. If one is attuned to the rhythm of this world there is much that one can do. My Lady taught me such things."

Awesome stuff!

 

[Helldritch]

First and foremost thanks to @Hussar for sharing his thoughts. You give me a lot to think about. I am not saying that free form is that good, but it does seem to have merits.

Second. Fate started in 2003. Not 2013. The 2013 must be kick starter or a reboot...

Third. D&D rule wise is quite easy to understand now. Especially with everything you can find on the internet and also the fact that it now makes perfect sense with mathematics. + is good, - is bad. Roll, beat or equal the number. Done. It can't be easier than that. You might miss on some rules but in general it will not be a full stop. Hey, back in the days, a 10 year old could start playing D&D with just the rule book in the box... So my point stands.

To @Ovinomancer
I do not care one iota if you attack or defend D&D. It is a game. So far, it is the #1 whether I or you like it or not. It is a simple fact. So do not act and preach as if I am a fan boy, I am not.

And again, the few times I have tried the free form RPG, were not very conclusive. This is the only experiences I have had with this method and in all cases it was from new players that have never played anything before. And the common thing they had was to use the I win button while those experienced with other systems were doing OK, not perfect but ok. Have I had a better experience, I might be advocating for free form. But I/we did not, and thus we moved to other more traditional games. You had a better experience and thanks for sharing. It does not mean that I will run to buy such a game. But if a GM presents himself around, I might get tempted to try... or not.

 

[Ovinomancer]

First and foremost thanks to @Hussar for sharing his thoughts. You give me a lot to think about. I am not saying that free form is that good, but it does seem to have merits.

Second. Fate started in 2003. Not 2013. The 2013 must be kick starter or a reboot...

Third. D&D rule wise is quite easy to understand now. Especially with everything you can find on the internet and also the fact that it now makes perfect sense with mathematics. + is good, - is bad. Roll, beat or equal the number. Done. It can't be easier than that. You might miss on some rules but in general it will not be a full stop. Hey, back in the days, a 10 year old could start playing D&D with just the rule book in the box... So my point stands.

To @Ovinomancer
I do not care one iota if you attack or defend D&D. It is a game. So far, it is the #1 whether I or you like it or not. It is a simple fact. So do not act and preach as if I am a fan boy, I am not.

Okay. My mistake. I mistook you claims that D&D was the easiest game to learn and the one that people should learn before trying other games as someone that really thinks D&D is the bee's knees. These discussions tend to follow patterns, and one is an increase in rhetoric trying to claim that non-D&D is things that are worse than D&D is, and becoming upset that play in D&D is subjected to any kind of analytical criticism. You appeared to match that pattern, hence my assumptions.

And again, the few times I have tried the free form RPG, were not very conclusive. This is the only experiences I have had with this method and in all cases it was from new players that have never played anything before. And the common thing they had was to use the I win button while those experienced with other systems were doing OK, not perfect but ok. Have I had a better experience, I might be advocating for free form. But I/we did not, and thus we moved to other more traditional games. You had a better experience and thanks for sharing. It does not mean that I will run to buy such a game. But if a GM presents himself around, I might get tempted to try... or not.

You calling it "free form RPG" is displaying a complete misunderstanding of the topic. There's nothing free form about a different authority structure -- it's an authority structure!

 

[Helldritch]

That is a good point that hasn’t really occurred to me. If you only use the same setting for very extended periods then that setting will accrete a huge amount of information. Which would likely become really unwieldy if multiple people start adding at the same time.

It’s unwieldy enough with one cook. Add four or five more cooks and it would be a massive undertaking just to keep it all straight. And everyone would have to be on the ball as well.

That’s a pretty fair argument for not allowing player authorial power. It’s just not really feasible in the long run.

To me, since I never have that mountain of setting, keeping it all straight isn’t as much of a challenge.

Just to give you an example.
My Greyhawk notes from various campaigns that did impacts the world stands at 2345 pages of hand written, and word notes. Some of these are from me, others are from the players. One of my players takes extensive notes on current game and she is at 75 pages in her "group logbook". How do you keep track of that with multiple groups (I have two plus the Friday night Dungeon one, but I used to have much more)? For me, it would be a nightmare. At some point, we might reset Greyhawk to it's original state...

 

[Helldritch]

Okay. My mistake. I mistook you claims that D&D was the easiest game to learn and the one that people should learn before trying other games as someone that really thinks D&D is the bee's knees. These discussions tend to follow patterns, and one is an increase in rhetoric trying to claim that non-D&D is things that are worse than D&D is, and becoming upset that play in D&D is subjected to any kind of analytical criticism. You appeared to match that pattern, hence my assumptions.

You calling it "free form RPG" is displaying a complete misunderstanding of the topic. There's nothing free form about a different authority structure -- it's an authority structure!

For me, free form is just a résumé of the genre in which if a player can bring something out of the blue, be it from fate, cinematic, karma point or whatever the game calls it, then it is free form. The DM does not necessarily get the final say on an outcome or situation because when it is the player's scene, that player has sole authority on what will happen. A dice here and there will not change the basic premise that much.

And just to be clear, my favorite game was BTS (Beyond the Supernatural) back in the 80s... I don't have much players for the genre in my area. So nope, I am not a fan boy of 5ed. I really like it, but there are a lot holes in it and the super hero genre is not my cup of tea. This is why I use a variant of the gritty realism. Suits me and my players much better.

 

[Ovinomancer]

For me, free form is just a résumé of the genre in which if a player can bring something out of the blue, be it from fate, cinematic, karma point or whatever the game calls it, then it is free form. The DM does not necessarily get the final say on an outcome or situation because when it is the player's scene, that player has sole authority on what will happen. A dice here and there will not change the basic premise that much.

And just to be clear, my favorite game was BTS (Beyond the Supernatural) back in the 80s... I don't have much players for the genre in my area. So nope, I am not a fan boy of 5ed. I really like it, but there are a lot holes in it and the super hero genre is not my cup of tea. This is why I use a variant of the gritty realism. Suits me and my players much better.

Then your choice of term is not very useful because it bins anything at all that isn't D&D-alike into one large bin without care. It's a disinterested terminology that only divides the RPG space into "things I like that are like D&D" and "other, less good things." It's not an attempt to understand anything, but an attempt to dismiss and discredit without doing any work.

And it's typical, and tiring.

 

[Campbell]

I am myself loathe to mediate player contributions to setting material through some type of currency. It causes exactly the sorts of issues most of the people in this thread are complaining about. If you make player contributions scarce, players will treat it just like people treat any sort of scarcity. My preference is to mediate it through either Apocalypse World style ask provocative questions and build on the answers or simply to let players establish setting details related to their characters and connected NPCs.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I am myself loathe to mediate player contributions to setting material through some type of currency. It causes exactly the sorts of issues most of the people in this thread are complaining about. If you make player contributions scarce, players will treat it just like people treat any sort of scarcity. My preference is to mediate it through either Apocalypse World style ask provocative questions and build on the answers or simply to let players establish setting details related to their characters and connected NPCs.

I'm kind of in-between; routine additions to setting I'm just fine with, depending on scope and specifics of setting, but on-the-fly additions that are clearly going to serve a game function here and now I'd rather manage with resource, probably for the same reason you don't like it.