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

[Thomas Shey]

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 chalenges 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.

I think there's a big difference between "Find the tools within the game intended for the purpose" and "abuse tools provided to give the ability to engage with the setting more". The former is playing with a competitive streak; the latter is playing in bad faith.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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 don't see a single thing that will cause an argument in one case that won't in the other.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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).

I don't think its quite symmetrical. While in a general sense, you're correct, the kind of temptations are the same, especially in a hobby (and given the topic here, subsection of the hobby) that has had a history of emphasizing the power of the GM and discouraging people from challenging it.

 

[Cruentus]

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. :/

My experience with the game is similar to that of @overgeeked, but I don't describe it as "really bad gaming experiences". Now, I have to preface that I've been playing with the same players for about 40 years or so (we started back in gradeschool). Early experiences and playstyle developed from our initial imperfect reading of the rules, the DM doing the best that he could, "confrontational" play (us versus the DM), etc.

However, 40 years later, the "overtune", "I win", "must always get everything I want" player is still that player. That's just who he is, and the way he approaches the game - maximize everything. The guy who never reads the rules and just wants to throw dice - always plays an archer elf or drow elf with Chaotic Neutral tendencies. Still the same. I've moved on from "gain maximum power" to "what's my character's story" and prefer fuller worlds when I play and DM. But, we still play together, still grouse about each other's playstyles, etc., because we're still friends.

I can't speak to experiences at game stores or pick up groups. Never played them, never will, but I would join a group if I ever found one that wanted to play that grittier, more story driven, character driven style of DnD. But I also find the current mechanics get in the way sometimes - all that stuff on the character sheet distracts from the story in my experience.

And as @Cadence posted, yeah, we're at that 20-25% of "here we go again" with a particular player. But he's our particular player.

Edit: I've also learned over the years to be much more lenient and understanding of all the work the DM does, compared to the players. Having just wrapped up one campaign that I ran, the amount of work was incredible. I'm trying to get another off the ground, but we're debating which DnD version to use, so we're experimenting.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My experience with the game is similar to that of @overgeeked, but I don't describe it as "really bad gaming experiences". Now, I have to preface that I've been playing with the same players for about 40 years or so (we started back in gradeschool). Early experiences and playstyle developed from our initial imperfect reading of the rules, the DM doing the best that he could, "confrontational" play (us versus the DM), etc.

While I get your situation--all my players have been gaming with me for at least a decade now. and one is rapidly approaching having gamed with me for 50 years now--I think there's a difference between "We deal with the people we've got unless we want to punt them" and "I'm going to generalize this to players as a whole." You don't appear to be doing the latter, something I can't say about everyone in this thread.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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 chalenges 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.

So what quality is it that DMs possess that allows them to bring the competitive angle to the game, but to not abuse the authority that the game grants them which would very clearly allow them to curbstomp the players?

And why can players not also possess this trait?

 

[Cruentus]

While I get your situation--all my players have been gaming with me for at least a decade now. and one is rapidly approaching having gamed with me for 50 years now--I think there's a difference between "We deal with the people we've got unless we want to punt them" and "I'm going to generalize this to players as a whole." You don't appear to be doing the latter, something I can't say about everyone in this thread.

Nope, I can only comment on our players, at our table, under our "style", under our DMs. No generalization intended or implied.

 

[Cruentus]

So what quality is it that DMs possess that allows them to bring the competitive angle to the game, but to not abuse the authority that the game grants them which would very clearly allow them to curbstomp the players?

And why can players not also possess this trait?

To really, broadly generalize this, I'd say
1) experience (as a DM, and as a player)
2) approach to the game (combat simulator versus story, collaborative versus competitive, or some other combination)

I think players and DMs both have these traits, or can have these traits, but finding that match or fit can take time, and clear discussion about expectations from both sides, etc. need to happen. And sometimes it doesn't work or gel one way or the other, and it has to be okay to realize and opt out, particularly if it causes friction in the game. After all, a lot of time is spent in this hobby, and if everyone isn't enjoying themselves, it won't last long.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Nope, I can only comment on our players, at our table, under our "style", under our DMs. No generalization intended or implied.

And at the end of the day, when deciding what to do personally, that takes a priority; while its possible to have such a set of concrete-set expectations your players would respond differently than you think (again, I know how that could go), you probably know how your players would react better than anyone else does.

It gets really questionable as you start to generalize, though, and that's true even if you do have a wider range of experience than just one group you've played with forever. As I once put it "When you have an argument where one person says X always happens, and one person who says no it doesn't, unless you think the latter person is lying or deluded, the second person wins, because even one exception proves the first position incorrect." This isn't as clear when someone is generalizing rather than universalizing, but the more exceptions they hear from other people, the more they should question whether their experiences are the outlier.

 

[Lanefan]

So what quality is it that DMs possess that allows them to bring the competitive angle to the game, but to not abuse the authority that the game grants them which would very clearly allow them to curbstomp the players?

Trust in self, mostly; and a sense of doing what's good for one's own game in both the short term and the long.

And why can players not also possess this trait?

Difference of perspective.

In general, the player's first focus is on the success of their PC (and somtimes, of the party) and on the immediate here-and-now elements that go into as best as possible ensuring that success. The player has much less impetus to do anything on a bigger scale to ensure the game itself keeps going any longer than maybe the next few sessions, and can (and IME almost universally does) leave that up to the DM. By the same token, it's hard (though, sadly, not impossible) for a single player to do something that sinks the whole game.

The DM, meanwhile, not only has to focus on the immediate here-and-now run of play in order to keep the game going right now but also has to focus on the long term and think of what will keep the game going for the next one or two or fifteen years, assuming that's her intent. What this means is that, because a DM can sink a game far more easily than can a player, she has to be able to trust herself not to do something that would sink it. And so, even though any DM has infinite dragons and infinite falling rocks to throw at the party the wise DM knows it's in her best interests not to use them, making this often-used example really nothing but hyperbole.