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

[overgeeked]

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

The DM has the power to say “rocks fall, everyone dies.” But they don’t. The DM can also fire infinite dragons at the PCs. But, again, they don’t. But what do they do instead? They present challenges and enemies for the PCs to overcome. But they, generally, if they’re any good, make those challenges and enemies actually tough to beat...but not overwhelming. So yeah, trust the DM. If you don’t, why are you sitting at their table?

On the player’s side of things, the general gaming culture is: optimization is smart play, intentionally misreading the rules to better optimize is smart play, and breaking the game is smart play. Stupid char-op builds like the coffee-lock are seen as smart play. So yeah, don’t trust a specific player until they show you that they’re not going to try to break the game. Sorry, but after almost 40 years of players just cheesing and murder-hoboing and trying to break the game, I’m well and truly done with giving people the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Eric V]

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.

Ok, serious question: Why trust the DM more than the other players?

[EDIT]: Ok, I just saw the post above mine...it sounds like you have had some really bad gaming experiences. Sorry to hear that. :/

 

[Arilyn]

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.

I've played a lot of games with shared authority and when a player does something that breaks the spirit of the game, they know it. Other players letting them know it has never been a problem. Shared authority means that players will speak up. Frankly, It doesn't happen often, but when it has the player sheepishly admits their over reach and we move on.

Actually, players in these games tend to be very creative in complicating their lives, not looking for easy ways out constantly. The "I win" button is really not a problem. If it is you have disruptive players or players who aren't getting into the proper spirit of play. If it's a game designed for shared authority, the tightness of the rules and overall structure will not allow "I win" buttons anyway.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The DM has the power to say “rocks fall, everyone dies.” But they don’t. The DM can also fire infinite dragons at the PCs. But, again, they don’t. But what do they do instead? They present challenges and enemies for the PCs to overcome. But they, generally, if they’re any good, make those challenges and enemies actually tough to beat...but not overwhelming. So yeah, trust the DM. If you don’t, why are you sitting at their table?

On the player’s side of things, the general gaming culture is: optimization is smart play, intentionally misreading the rules to better optimize is smart play, and breaking the game is smart play. Stupid char-op builds like the coffee-lock are seen as smart play. So yeah, don’t trust a specific player until they show you that they’re not going to try to break the game. Sorry, but after almost 40 years of players just cheesing and murder-hoboing and trying to break the game, I’m well and truly done with giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Why are you sitting down with players you don't trust?

Secondly, have you stopped to think why "general gaming culture [citation needed]" might be like this? Maybe because so many GMs incentivize this kind of approach to play?

ETA: and, if that's the case, doesn't this undermine Trusting the GM?

 

[Lanefan]

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

Leading to a potentially-nasty argument; an argument that doesn't and can't happen if the use of these sort of advantage-gaining player-side setting insertions is shot down before it arises.

 

[Cadence]

Why are you sitting down with players you don't trust?

The GM's I've had are typically people I've known as players or had good recommendations of as GMs. We're much more likely to pick up a first time players or players we've never played with before than a GM we're flying blind on.

As an aside - probability wise with 1 GM and 4 players, assuming each has the same chance of being way out there bad, you're much more likely to have at least one atrocious player at the table than an atrocious GM. (Say it's 10% chance of bad, that's 10% chance of bad GM and 34.39% chance of at least one bad player. Even if it's 25% chance of bad for GM and 10% chance of bad for each player, that's still 25% chance of awful GM vs. 34.39% of at least one awful player).

 

[Arilyn]

Leading to a potentially-nasty argument; an argument that doesn't and can't happen if the use of these sort of advantage-gaining player-side setting insertions is shot down before it arises.

I have never seen this lead to nasty arguments, even when I'm giving players more ability to add to D&D. With games that are built for shared authority the structure doesn't really allow it.

 

[Lanefan]

Ok, serious question: Why trust the DM more than the other players?

[EDIT]: Ok, I just saw the post above mine...it sounds like you have had some really bad gaming experiences. Sorry to hear that. :/

Based on both my own experience as DM and my own playstyle as player, @overgeeked hasn't had bad gaming experiences; instead he's merely had lots of experiences with the game as it was (and IMO still is) meant to be played.

Like it or not, it's an undeniable fact that D&D is sometimes a competitive game: those times being when the players/PCs are competing against the challenges or puzzles posed by the setting/DM. And there's nothing wrong with this in the least; it's how the game was designed in the first place.

But it does mean, as with all competitive games, it's on the players to try and find an edge and on the referee to keep that edge-finding within the bounds of reason. The difference, of course, is that the DM is both referee and challenge-setter; meaning not only do the players have to be able to trust the DM to set fair challenges and be a fair referee, the DM needs to be able to trust herself to do what's best for her own game in both the short run and the long.

 

[Lanefan]

I have never seen this lead to nasty arguments, even when I'm giving players more ability to add to D&D. With games that are built for shared authority the structure doesn't really allow it.

You must run with people who are less stubborn than those I'm used to.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ok, serious question: Why trust the DM more than the other players?

[EDIT]: Ok, I just saw the post above mine...it sounds like you have had some really bad gaming experiences. Sorry to hear that. :/

Yeah, Overgeek's posts have to be taken in the context of the fact he apparently has a talent for finding all the worst players. I've dealt with a lot of powergamers and some otherwise questionable players over my GMing life, but if I had gotten nothing but ones like has, I'd probably have tossed in the towel decades ago.