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

[Lanefan]

There can be a degree of tension between focusing on the success of the PC, playing the character but not their mechanical optimum, and playing to be entertaining.

Ayup! That's part of what makes it fun, trying to do all of these at once.

Normally you can't aim at all of these at once - perhaps you can while RPing a shopping trip, but probably not when (eg) confronting a Type VI demon.

Oh, just watch me.

Let's say I'm playing a back-stabby Thief. Success = 1, dis-optimization = 2, entertaining = 3, and here's how I could try to hit each:

I can start by taunting the face off that demon in-character instead of doing something more belligerent (2 and 3) while moving back into the shadows. Next I could sneak around behind the demon and try a backstrike on it (1) which even if unsuccessful will distract it a moment for the front-liners. From there I could stay in melee with it even though I'm not front-line material (1 and 2) or I could step back and search for any loot it might be guarding (1 and 2, and maybe 3 depending what I find).

Admittedly it's not easy to be entertaining during combat; that more often comes out in role-play moments.

I don't know how Lanefan resolves those tensions, or expects other players to do so. Presumably players who are prepared to sacrifice their optimum in order to be entertaining would be capable of the sort of respect for other participants and mutual reciprocity that @hawkeyefan and @Campbell posted about upthread, but Lanefan disagreed with those posts. So as I said, I'm not sure.

It's a bit more I do my thing, they do theirs, and the whole is the sum of the parts whatever those parts may be.

 

[Hussar]

Not me. If something ends up broken I'm stuck with it for that campaign, kicking myself for allowing it in the first place. End result: I think long and hard before allowing stuff, and have learned to err on the side of caution.

Ewww. No thanks.

I will try new mechanics from time to time, then revisit them and alter them and repeat that over and over again.

I've played with DM's who refuse to change mistakes and it's very much not to my taste. Mistakes happen. Happen all the time. So, no, the idea that I have to keep something because of some notion of "precedence" just isn't even remotely a consideration. Good grief, you play like 15 year long campaigns. I cannot even imagine that you'd keep a known mistake that long.

Which if true is good; but does this mean that if being true to your PC means failing at whatever is at stake in the fiction you'll willingly play yourself into that failure situation, possibly with dire consequences?

If yes, good on you! I truly admire that; and it's a standard that I try (not always successfully) to live up to.

A huge majority of players would not do this.

And yet, a majority of players most certainly do do this. Funny how anecdotes work.

if you give people a chance, then not only will they work with you to build something better, they will actually thank you for the opportunity.

Has it not occurred to anyone that there is a pretty strong correlation here between "We must be careful about the players because the players will always try to 'win'" and "The DM must retain strong authority over the game"? That those of us who talk about tables with shared authority really don't have the experiences that you guys keep going on about? In other words, the reason your players play this way is because you are teaching them that this is the best way to play. If the DM will not allow me to do anything other than be 100% an advocate for the success of my character, then how can I be blamed for advocating for advantages for my character?

Look at everyone in this thread that talks about sharing some (not all, just some) authority between the players and the DM. EVERY SINGLE ONE talks about how the players become more collaborative, less competitive and more engaged. Note how everyone who talks about players power gaming or trying to eke out every single advantage are also coming down very strongly in favor of DM authority? Do you really think that this is a coincidence? True, correlation is not causation, but, there are times when you really have to ask yourself if the problems you are having are not of your own devising.

 

[Hussar]

And what happens when - inevitably! - that shared authority leads to table-level conflict?

A classic example, and one I've seen myself, is when people try to overtly or covertly impose their own real-world religious ideas and ideals into and onto the divine aspects of the game. Having just one person - the DM - do it isn't so bad, as the players can always individually choose to accept it or leave. But more than one person trying to do this in the same game/campaign is nothing but a powderkeg with a lit fuse. Believe me.

Again, you're going down the road of a dysfunctional player. No system will save you from that.

But, again, remember, the DM is sharing SOME of the authority, not all. There's nothing wrong with the table turning to that one player and telling that one player, nope, sorry, not going to do that. That's the point about consensus. You have to keep communicating all the time and nothing is ever beyond revision.

An authoritative table has the advantage of consistency and single vision. A democratic table has the advantage of creativity and consensus building. It's all about what you think is more important.

 

[pemerton]

A classic example, and one I've seen myself, is when people try to overtly or covertly impose their own real-world religious ideas and ideals into and onto the divine aspects of the game.

As a GM, I expect the player of a cleric or paladin-type PC to take the lead in determining what it is that their religion requires of them. If they come to me for advice or assistance, I'll generally give it - but not if it's them trying to offload the responsibility for a hard decision!

As a player of that sort of PC, I expect the GM to show the same degree of latitude. As a general rule I don't see it as the GM's job to tell me how to play my character, and that includes not telling me what sincere religious conviction would look like.

 

[Lanefan]

Ewww. No thanks.

I will try new mechanics from time to time, then revisit them and alter them and repeat that over and over again.

I've played with DM's who refuse to change mistakes and it's very much not to my taste. Mistakes happen. Happen all the time. So, no, the idea that I have to keep something because of some notion of "precedence" just isn't even remotely a consideration. Good grief, you play like 15 year long campaigns. I cannot even imagine that you'd keep a known mistake that long.

The main reason I've changed campaigns the few times that I have is that the known mistakes simply became too much. Once in a while I'll do rules revisions mid-campaign, but almost exclusively dealing with things that haven't yet arisen in the campaign.

Part of it is that as player I expect a precedent-based model; that if something is ruled to work a certain way once it will work that way every time henceforth. Otherwise there's neither consistency nor adherence to that campaign's own tradition.

As DM, I use a precedent-based model for the same reasons.

And yet, a majority of players most certainly do do this. Funny how anecdotes work.

if you give people a chance, then not only will they work with you to build something better, they will actually thank you for the opportunity.

Assuming they want to be a part of that building process.

I don't want anything to do with building my car. I just want to drive the thing, and expect it to work properly when I do. Some (quite a few IME) players feel the same about the game: they just want to play it.

Has it not occurred to anyone that there is a pretty strong correlation here between "We must be careful about the players because the players will always try to 'win'" and "The DM must retain strong authority over the game"? That those of us who talk about tables with shared authority really don't have the experiences that you guys keep going on about? In other words, the reason your players play this way is because you are teaching them that this is the best way to play. If the DM will not allow me to do anything other than be 100% an advocate for the success of my character, then how can I be blamed for advocating for advantages for my character?

You can't be blamed for that, and nor should you - that's the point!

Look at everyone in this thread that talks about sharing some (not all, just some) authority between the players and the DM. EVERY SINGLE ONE talks about how the players become more collaborative, less competitive and more engaged. Note how everyone who talks about players power gaming or trying to eke out every single advantage are also coming down very strongly in favor of DM authority? Do you really think that this is a coincidence? True, correlation is not causation, but, there are times when you really have to ask yourself if the problems you are having are not of your own devising.

Thing is, I'm not the one having those problems - or seeing them as problems, at any rate. I expect the players to push the boundaries and look for advantages as I see this as a part of normal play as designed; and I expect the DM to push back and make rulings that are for the good of the game as a whole rather than for the good of just this moment or just this character.

 

[Hussar]

I don't want anything to do with building my car. I just want to drive the thing, and expect it to work properly when I do. Some (quite a few IME) players feel the same about the game: they just want to play it.

True that. That's what I've been calling passive consumer players. Granted, that's a pretty negative way to characterize them, but, I'm not really sure what a positive term would look like.

I sincerely don't want to play with players who think that their sole responsibility to the campaign begins when the session starts and ends when the session ends and that their character is the only thing that they are responsible for. I find such players endlessly frustrating as a DM and I do not enjoy games with players like this.

 

[Hussar]

Thing is, I'm not the one having those problems - or seeing them as problems, at any rate. I expect the players to push the boundaries and look for advantages as I see this as a part of normal play as designed; and I expect the DM to push back and make rulings that are for the good of the game as a whole rather than for the good of just this moment or just this character.

That may be, but, look at the posters who ARE having problems - @overgeeked, @tetrasodium, @Micah Sweet and I'm sure there are others. There is a pretty common thread running through all the anecdotes.

 

[Lanefan]

As a GM, I expect the player of a cleric or paladin-type PC to take the lead in determining what it is that their religion requires of them. If they come to me for advice or assistance, I'll generally give it - but not if it's them trying to offload the responsibility for a hard decision!

As a player of that sort of PC, I expect the GM to show the same degree of latitude. As a general rule I don't see it as the GM's job to tell me how to play my character, and that includes not telling me what sincere religious conviction would look like.

I see pantheons, religion, and its requirements as part of the setting, and therefore under the DM's purview to assign. For example, as Arevane* is a water goddess Her temples will always be near (or on) water, there will always be a holy pool within any temple, and Her Clerics and Paladins will be expected to either be in water or somehow involve water in any religious affairs. This is in the deity's write-up, and if a player doesn't like this there's loads of other deities to choose from.

What this means is that if, knowing the above, you-as-player decide to play an Arevane Cleric and they say your PC going to eschew water in his devotions then something's gone wrong.

That said, in the post you quoted I'm talking more at the setting-design level - say where one player wants the setting to be on a Neo-Pagan chassis, for example, while another wants it to more reflect Christianity and the surrounding mythos; and neither really wants the other aspect in the setting. Allowing both those players any sort of authority over setting is a recipe for complete disaster.

* - a homebrew deity from a previous campaign of mine.

 

[Lanefan]

True that. That's what I've been calling passive consumer players. Granted, that's a pretty negative way to characterize them, but, I'm not really sure what a positive term would look like.

I sincerely don't want to play with players who think that their sole responsibility to the campaign begins when the session starts and ends when the session ends and that their character is the only thing that they are responsible for. I find such players endlessly frustrating as a DM and I do not enjoy games with players like this.

shrug - send 'em on over here.

 

[pemerton]

I see pantheons, religion, and its requirements as part of the setting, and therefore under the DM's purview to assign. For example, as Arevane* is a water goddess Her temples will always be near (or on) water, there will always be a holy pool within any temple, and Her Clerics and Paladins will be expected to either be in water or somehow involve water in any religious affairs. This is in the deity's write-up, and if a player doesn't like this there's loads of other deities to choose from.

What this means is that if, knowing the above, you-as-player decide to play an Arevane Cleric and they say your PC going to eschew water in his devotions then something's gone wrong.

What's the player's reason for (i) choosing a water deity and then (ii) eschewing water in their devotions?