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

[Vaalingrade]

I throw in stuff whenever it amuses/engages me or the others.

"Is there a menagerie in this town?"

"Considering the people around here, it's probably a petting zoo."

"There is a petting zoo here now."

 

[Helldritch]

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.

No I did not dismiss anything. You perceive it as such because it is a style you like and you play (probably, here I assume) à more redined version of what I had played back then. If you read carefully, you will notice that in my answers to @Hussar, I am actually curious about the more refined concept.

You take my posts for attacks, while they ate not. I am telling this board, that back then my experience with the genre was not a positive one and all that I saw was newbies trying to push the "I win" button. From other posters, it seems that this genre does incur this risks. Maybe not in your games, that is great! But your experience does not make it the ultimate truth nor does mine make the genre useless and bland. I am just stating my perception of it now. I did say that @Hussar brought more to make me reconsider but I would need to try it. And to try it, a GM of such a system must be nearby, which is not the case in my area.

Again, you think my posts are dismissive and yet, I said more than once that I would be opened to try. I think you see my criticism a tad bit too personal. Just like when I criticise somethings about 5ed that some believe that I hate 5ed. In some thread I am a hater of 5ed, in others, like this one, it seems that I am it's herald... go figure...

 

[Ovinomancer]

No I did not dismiss anything. You perceive it as such because it is a style you like and you play (probably, here I assume) à more redined version of what I had played back then. If you read carefully, you will notice that in my answers to @Hussar, I am actually curious about the more refined concept.

Yeah, you are, and you're doing it here assuming that what's being discussed is the same thing you did once upon a time and just must be more polished now. Given how badly you're misstating and misunderstanding what is being said, though, this isn't a matter of refinement, but a misunderstanding of a fundamental difference. And, so, binning that fundamental difference in under the things you think you understand is dismissing that fundamental difference. So far, you seem to be locked into the same frame I once had -- that you have experience with games, and know stuff, so there can't be that big of a difference; it must therefore be someone just overexaggerating something that you already know. I was wrong when I though that.

You take my posts for attacks, while they ate not. I am telling this board, that back then my experience with the genre was not a positive one and all that I saw was newbies trying to push the "I win" button. From other posters, it seems that this genre does incur this risks. Maybe not in your games, that is great! But your experience does not make it the ultimate truth nor does mine make the genre useless and bland. I am just stating my perception of it now. I did say that @Hussar brought more to make me reconsider but I would need to try it. And to try it, a GM of such a system must be nearby, which is not the case in my area.

I don't take them for attacks. I take them for what I've said -- an ignorance about the topic leading to statements that are wrong. Why would I consider that an attack? It only becomes an attack if you do get it and are intentionally misrepresenting things. I don't think this is true.

Again, you think my posts are dismissive and yet, I said more than once that I would be opened to try. I think you see my criticism a tad bit too personal. Just like when I criticise somethings about 5ed that some believe that I hate 5ed. In some thread I am a hater of 5ed, in others, like this one, it seems that I am it's herald... go figure...

They are dismissive. You've decided to bin everything that you don't already like into one bin and assumed they're all pretty much alike. They aren't. But you've chosen to not engage in examining this. When someone engages a new thing and starts from a position of "I already understand this, but aren't up with maybe the most current refinements, tell me what's different," there's already a dismissal that there's really something new here to learn. You need to forget what you think you know and what you do know and try to fully engage with an open mind of "okay, people are saying there's something here and it works and it isn't what I assumed -- why don't I start there with the assumption that this stuff does work and try to figure out how that's true?" That was my turning thought, perhaps it will be useful for you as well.

 

[Helldritch]

Yeah, you are, and you're doing it here assuming that what's being discussed is the same thing you did once upon a time and just must be more polished now. Given how badly you're misstating and misunderstanding what is being said, though, this isn't a matter of refinement, but a misunderstanding of a fundamental difference. And, so, binning that fundamental difference in under the things you think you understand is dismissing that fundamental difference. So far, you seem to be locked into the same frame I once had -- that you have experience with games, and know stuff, so there can't be that big of a difference; it must therefore be someone just overexaggerating something that you already know. I was wrong when I though that.

I don't take them for attacks. I take them for what I've said -- an ignorance about the topic leading to statements that are wrong. Why would I consider that an attack? It only becomes an attack if you do get it and are intentionally misrepresenting things. I don't think this is true.

They are dismissive. You've decided to bin everything that you don't already like into one bin and assumed they're all pretty much alike. They aren't. But you've chosen to not engage in examining this. When someone engages a new thing and starts from a position of "I already understand this, but aren't up with maybe the most current refinements, tell me what's different," there's already a dismissal that there's really something new here to learn. You need to forget what you think you know and what you do know and try to fully engage with an open mind of "okay, people are saying there's something here and it works and it isn't what I assumed -- why don't I start there with the assumption that this stuff does work and try to figure out how that's true?" That was my turning thought, perhaps it will be useful for you as well.

And yet, from my point of view I am not dismissive but you almost are.

Here on this forum and even in this very thread, there are some that have tried the most recent incarnation of the free form RPG and have seen the same as I, twenty years ago. This makes me think that your positive experience is in the minority and not the norm.

Again, I do not claim perfect knowledge of free form and it's many variations. Nor would I claim perfect knowledge of D&D and all its variations. What I claim is that what I have seen is people new to RPGs pushing the "I win" buttons while experienced gamers in an other genre (me and a friend) were actually trying to play the game within its intention, cooperative story telling. Yes again a reduction but see it as a way to better explain my limited view of the concept.

If these problems had disappeared with new iterations of the games, I would be inclined to believe that your experience is universal in that genre. Yet, others have seen the same as I in recent time.

And where is the dismissal you claim so high that I am doing? I simply tell you what have seen and strangely, I am dismissive because my knowledge is outdated?

Well, good sir, if you do not care to explain the finer points of your game, why should I try to learn when what I have seen is exactly what I have said and that others have seen it too with more recent editions? Tell me. I really wish to learn and not stay in the dark because you are offended. If I offended you, I am sorry. But do tell me, do not chastise me for not being up to date.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And yet, from my point of view I am not dismissive but you almost are.

Here on this forum and even in this very thread, there are some that have tried the most recent incarnation of the free form RPG and have seen the same as I, twenty years ago. This makes me think that your positive experience is in the minority and not the norm.

You made it just a few sentences before you fell down, again. You're continuing to use 'free form RPG' even though it's been challenged and shown how it's dismissive (too wide a bin), and, I assume, continuing to do so intentionally, which means you've moved into intentional dismissal. Okay. Given that there are quite number of different games that have quite a few different authority structures, the statement you've made is also factually wrong -- there is no most recent incarnation even if the 'free form' is overlooked.

You're very much doubling down on championing your ignorance of these things.

Again, I do not claim perfect knowledge of free form and it's many variations. Nor would I claim perfect knowledge of D&D and all its variations. What I claim is that what I have seen is people new to RPGs pushing the "I win" buttons while experienced gamers in an other genre (me and a friend) were actually trying to play the game within its intention, cooperative story telling. Yes again a reduction but see it as a way to better explain my limited view of the concept.

That seems to be your experience, and I'm sorry that is so. It's not mine. Here's the thing, though -- you're conceptualizing this only inside the framework of what you know -- that the GM has a puzzle and the player is short circuiting it with this stuff. If you use this kind of approach, though, the GM shouldn't be offering puzzles, but instead things that drive directly at who the PC is and makes them make choices there. This is the huge delta in play -- it's not GM puzzlebox play, it's legit following the play to see what happens. I alluded to this upthread when I noted the complaints about "I win buttons" in relation to getting an audience with the mayor that the GM had decided would take a week. That's not an I win, it's just not what the GM preconceived would happen. If that was the actual challenge, well, weird. We still have plenty of play, here, where now that the audience is achieved, you can get to play. There's nothing that solving a problem means that there's no more problems -- every GM has that game's equivalent of infinite dragons: you can always just go to the next problem.

If these problems had disappeared with new iterations of the games, I would be inclined to believe that your experience is universal in that genre. Yet, others have seen the same as I in recent time.

Pardon, but you haven't see anything at all with regards to the games I'm talking of. You don't have that experience. You've said so before. If, instead, you mean D&D here, yeah, there's only so much you can do within a given authority structure. 4e changed it a bit and was blasted for it.

And where is the dismissal you claim so high that I am doing? I simply tell you what have seen and strangely, I am dismissive because my knowledge is outdated?

It's not really existent, and the dismissal is largely in the continued claims that you have experience when everything you're saying points to not having that experience.

And it's okay to not have experience, and even to not care about it. Making normative statements that display the total lack of that experience, though, should be pointed out. And your continued doubling down on this, instead of stopping to consider that maybe, just maybe, you might not have that experience, is also pretty dismissive along the "my assumptions are clearly more correct that whatever you say, even though you have experience."

Well, good sir, if you do not care to explain the finer points of your game, why should I try to learn when what I have seen is exactly what I have said and that others have seen it too with more recent editions? Tell me. I really wish to learn and not stay in the dark because you are offended. If I offended you, I am sorry. But do tell me, do not chastise me for not being up to date.

What game would you care to learn about? PbtA games? FitD games? Burning Wheel? My Life with Master? Dogs in the Vineyard? All of these are different games, that do things different around some of the same concepts. All structure authority differently, and all play very differently from D&D. And none of them should be remotely considered "free form." Some of these are some of the tightest mechanically driven games I've seen (Blades in the Dark has some truly wonderfully mechanics that integrate and reverberate throughout play).

 

[overgeeked]

simply to let players establish setting details related to their characters and connected NPCs.

And that’s fine…until you have a player that abuses that freedom to grant themselves power. In my experience, that’s most players.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And that’s fine…until you have a player that abuses that freedom to grant themselves power. In my experience, that’s most players.

Right. "Trust the GM" but "Never Trust Players."

 

[Arilyn]

And that’s fine…until you have a player that abuses that freedom to grant themselves power. In my experience, that’s most players.

And then the table of other players and GM will say, "Nope, don't think so."

 

[overgeeked]

And then the table of other players and GM will say, "Nope, don't think so."

And we’re suddenly back to the “heartless and cruel DM saying no” and “stifling the creative freedom of players.” Players don’t tend to say no to other players. Because they know it cuts both ways. Players tend to be way more permissive, and expect more permissiveness, from other players.

 

[Umbran]

You're very much doubling down on championing your ignorance of these things.

Mod Note:
Hey, folks!

This is a recent example of this thread getting personal and disrespectful. I'm here to warn you all away from this kind of approach to the discussion. Play nice, people. Thanks.