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

[Hussar]

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.

Ahh, but, see, that's where consensus building comes in. If two players want something that is incompatible with what the other wants, then it's more or less up to them to figure it out and then come back and tell me what the decision is. I'll weigh in with my 2 cents (knowing me, it's likely be even if they don't ask me. ) if they want and maybe break the tie if it comes down to that, but, at the end of the day, it's their problem, not mine.

Again, that's the point of shifting authorial power. Sure, the DM is there to break logjams and guide the conversation, but, by and large, it's all about the group finding a solution that the group is happy with. And, frankly, if the two players absolutely can't come to any sort of agreement, then me simply dictating one from on high certainly isn't going to make them any happier.

If it actually got to that point where neither was willing to compromise and their visions absolutely had to be in the game, then, well, that game get's shelved for another time and we'll play something else. I've never seen it go to that extreme though. That would be really bizarre IME. Again, that's the whole point of consensus building - knowing that just because someone gets their way this time doesn't mean that it won't go the other way next time.

Think of it from a DM's point of view. I think it's fair to say that a DM includes things in the setting that the DM thinks will be fun for the group. Or interesting. Or engaging. Whatever, a net positive in any case. Something that makes the game worth playing. Right? DM's don't usually think, "Oh, I'm going to put this in the game. Everyone's going to have a sucky time and that's great!" No DM thinks that way.

Well, if everyone is a DM, then everyone has to think that way. You can't advocate for one PC or one player if you're the DM. DM's must be impartial and neutral. I think that's a point that we all agree on.

Well, if everyone has some authorial power, then everyone has to be impartial and neutral. It's in the job description.

 

[Hussar]

shrug - send 'em on over here.

And that would be fantastic. Except that I keep getting them sent over to my table. And I wind up having really bad times at the gaming table because of it. I just sat at a table like this for far too long and I should have pulled up stakes long before I did. And, I quite regret the fact that I didn't leave much earlier. Funny thing is, the group was split about half and half with consumer players (sorry! I don't know a better term for this) and pass the story stick players. But, then all the pass the story stick players slowly left as real life stepped in and they had various stuff happen and I was left DMing the consumer players.

I really tried to encourage them to take a more active role but they absolutely were not biting. And, eventually, I had to walk away. Not an easy thing when the DM basically tells the players that he's not having any fun with them. It's a really sucky thing to do.

 

[pemerton]

I had to walk away. Not an easy thing when the DM basically tells the players that he's not having any fun with them. It's a really sucky thing to do.

I can see that.

 

[Eric V]

It really does seem like it's basically a matter of whether or not the relationship between the DM and players is adversarial or not. If it is, then there is fear of lazy "I win!" buttons. If it isn't, if it's genuinely about shared fiction, it's not a problem.

I am not judging either style, mind you, though I have had my fill of the first and am much more enjoying the second. It may partly be due to all the time spent reading the Sentinels Comics RPG book where the sharing of the fiction is very overt, and player authority over their character is absolute (PCs don't die unless the player is fine with it, as an example).

 

[Cadence]

I'm not certain which post you meant...

It was aiming at the post above the sister one, the specific one I linked to. Leading up to that one, the GM had some scroll like items with undecided as yet spells on them, the player suggested a spell for one, the GM thought about it for a second and said sure and took the players idea. The linked to post seemed to say that wasn't giving the player anything because the GM retained the right to approve the player choice, and that the GM should just give players carte blanche to do world building things now and then. So it appeared they were saying the GM shouldn't have had any final oversight. (Which I though was the thing you claimed you hadn't seen anyone claim).

Others had read the exchange the same way, although, as I said, we could have been reading into it.

 

[Cadence]

I've been part of a group that continued playing under a bad GM, and where it was the players and not the GM who "saved" things. And I doubt I'm unique in that respect.

Ultimately RPGing is the social activity of creating a shared fiction together - to whatever further end - and I don't think it's particularly odd that it should be a player rather than GM who makes the strongest social contribution, or the strongest contribution to the fiction. If the game is heavily focused on the players overcoming GM-authored challenges (eg like Tomb of Horrors) then the role of the GM starts to loom larger, but that hasn't been the paradigm for D&D play for decades now. It wasn't the paradigm of the game I mentioned in the previous paragraph, which was happening over 25 years ago.

Playing at a table where one or more players add more high quality stuff to the shared fiction seems like a thing! I can picture some really solid or great players and a just-ok GM, for example.

I don't think I'd bother long with a game with a GM who was actually bad. (Although most groups I've been in have had a few people who could GM so that makes it easier to switch. I think most of the games I've had have had the GM check in with the players for feedback on how their GMing is going if the players don't provide it on the their own).

 

[Hussar]

It was aiming at the post above the sister one, the specific one I linked to. Leading up to that one, the GM had some scroll like items with undecided as yet spells on them, the player suggested a spell for one, the GM thought about it for a second and said sure and took the players idea. The linked to post seemed to say that wasn't giving the player anything because the GM retained the right to approve the player choice, and that the GM should just give players carte blanche to do world building things now and then. So it appeared they were saying the GM shouldn't have had any final oversight. (Which I though was the thing you claimed you hadn't seen anyone claim).

Others had read the exchange the same way, although, as I said, we could have been reading into it.

Dude, you could just talk to me directly. Good grief.

And, yes, that's very much a misread of what I said. What I actually said was that when the player asks for something, and the DM okays it, that is not an example of players having authorial power within the game. That's very much an example of traditional play. IF the player actually had authorial power, he wouldn't have to ask the DM, he would just tell the DM what was on the scroll.

Normative language like "shouldn't have any final oversight" isn't the point. In a shared authority set up, no, the DM wouldn't have final oversight of pre-agreed upon areas where the player has authorial powers. Note, we never actually established where those areas might be. But, in any case, when a player asks the DM if he can have something and the DM says okay, that's not an example of the player having authorial power in the game. It's simply the DM being a good DM and listening to the player.

All the rhetoric about being attacked and whatnot is largely due to a lot of miscommunication.

 

[Cadence]

It really does seem like it's basically a matter of whether or not the relationship between the DM and players is adversarial or not. If it is, then there is fear of lazy "I win!" buttons. If it isn't, if it's genuinely about shared fiction, it's not a problem.

I am not judging either style, mind you, though I have had my fill of the first and am much more enjoying the second. It may partly be due to all the time spent reading the Sentinels Comics RPG book where the sharing of the fiction is very overt, and player authority over their character is absolute (PCs don't die unless the player is fine with it, as an example).

I've noted way upthread that I love contributing backstory and ideas before and between sessions as a player, and love getting it as a DM.

I haven't liked it as a player in session, because for me it feels like it changes the array of what I have available. Instead of me in the role as the character wondering what contacts might make sense to make and interacting with the GM on ("Are any of my [yet undefined by anyone] friends in the neighborhood bar yet where I drink?"), I have to create them on the fly in detail ("Is my friend Jimmy the locksmith, whose done things like this before at the bar right now?" ) and even get to have them be there ("My good friend Jimmy the locksmith is at the bar right now, I know he's done things like this before".). And so now when I play, the toolbox is full of whatever people or things I need. How useful can they be before it takes away from the PCs? How often can I just drop them in and have the story still be fun? Why am I spending so much time thinking about what specific characters and items I want to retroactively instantiate instead of what my character would be doing (which is my usual thought, and often has a lot more going on than beating the dungeon - just like imagine most of us do IRL at work).

I don't think I'm usually adversarial with the DM or they are with me when those in story creation tools aren't in the game. (My before game and between game things are story focussed and not problem solving focussed).

 

[Cadence]

Dude, you could just talk to me directly. Good grief.

Sorry. We'd already been over it a lot - but I should have anyway. Thank you for commenting!

And, yes, that's very much a misread of what I said. What I actually said was that when the player asks for something, and the DM okays it, that is not an example of players having authorial power within the game. That's very much an example of traditional play. IF the player actually had authorial power, he wouldn't have to ask the DM, he would just tell the DM what was on the scroll.

Normative language like "shouldn't have any final oversight" isn't the point. In a shared authority set up, no, the DM wouldn't have final oversight of pre-agreed upon areas where the player has authorial powers.

Is this accurate?

@hawkeyefan said "Well, I don't think anyone is arguing for removing the GM as having final say."

You (@Hussar ) said "In a shared authority set up, no, the DM wouldn't have final oversight of pre-agreed upon areas where the player has authorial powers." where the inthread context was putting things on scrolls or having a convenient sister be in the fiction, and not just saying what the PC actions were.

Note, we never actually established where those areas might be. But, in any case, when a player asks the DM if he can have something and the DM says okay, that's not an example of the player having authorial power in the game. It's simply the DM being a good DM and listening to the player.

I completely agree with that being good DMing. I might argue that having an editor doesn't make one not an author.

All the rhetoric about being attacked and whatnot is largely due to a lot of miscommunication.

I mean, it is an ENWorld thread after all

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Actually, I don't really have a problem with it. I just explained thats what most players in my experience are like.

I'm very happy, @Hussar ,that you have players that want to be collaborative with you, since to you that is obviously very important. Its not that important to me.