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

[Campbell]

So in the traditional games I run this stuff is subject to GM/group approval and must directly relate to your character's experiences (not control over things you are currently experiencing), but the assumption is approval so the game flows better. As we used to say when I was in the Army "Ask for forgiveness. Not permission."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do less worldbuilding is not an acceptable answer for me, as much as it can be for others. Its literally the most fun part of DMing for me; making a world and throwing the PCs into it.

Now, if a player has an idea out of game for something I haven't defined, that's great! Nine times out of ten I accept PC suggestions in that format, even if I don't particularly like it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So in the traditional games I run this stuff is subject to GM/group approval and must directly relate to your character's experiences (not control over things you are currently experiencing), but the assumption is approval so the game flows better. As we used to say in the Army "Ask for forgiveness. Not permission."

Do you have an example of what you mean?

For me, most of mine really amounts to me being very permissive in the past when a player asks for permission to the point where now they don't really ask for permission, but just kind of go with their idea. If it's an issue in some way, then I may jump in and correct them. In my group's 5e campaign, one character has a brother who's a bit of a down and out type. When the group ran afoul of a thieves' guild type organization, the player said "Oh maybe my brother has some details here" and so we went with it.

If for some reason I wouldn't have wanted that to be the case... let's say for example the organization in question was elite and wouldn't have had dealings with low level hooligans like the brother... then I would have simply said "You go to your brother, and he's not familiar with the group at all." But then I'd likely give them something to go on; maybe the brother says "You know who may be able to tell you..." and gives them a possible lead.

It's pretty easily handled. I find these kinds of things to be very helpful to facilitate play rather than trying to make sure that only specific paths are followed. I mean, let's face it... we all want to get to the thieves' guild, right? So let's work toward that.

 

[Campbell]

@hawkeyefan

This post is a good example.

The chamberlain, the king, and the dragon (drobe)

Alright. Lets get this started then. We will perform the Action Scene of the chamberlain/king/dragon after we establish and resolve the Transition Scene. "You are standing on the grand, stone steps to the gargantuan entrance hall of the castle. A servant has answered the door and has rung the...

www.enworld.org

The ancient accords were established by me without prior precedence. This sort of stuff happens in our games all the time, but mostly to add additional adversity or meet with specific NPCs. "I go talk to X" is quite common instead of playing through tracking them down.

Obviously we try to be mindful about time to prep. In our last game one of the players mentioned that they need to do their annual pilgrimage to the temple of their good when the season turns. We went with it. The GM is really excited about us having a change of scenery.

 

[Campbell]

Do less worldbuilding is not an acceptable answer for me, as much as it can be for others. Its literally the most fun part of DMing for me; making a world and throwing the PCs into it.

Now, if a player has an idea out of game for something I haven't defined, that's great! Nine times out of ten I accept PC suggestions in that format, even if I don't particularly like it.

I'm not suggesting you should. The techniques you use work better for different sorts of play. The techniques we do not use are just as important as the ones we do use. The ones I tend to use are a poorer fit for setting exploration, solving mysteries and navigating the setting as a puzzle. I believe they are better for character exploration.

There is room in our hobby for all sorts of approaches. Setting exploration and world building for its own sake are not super interesting to me on either side of the screen. They might be for you and that's completely fine. I choose to expend my energy in other places.

I am just saying this stuff is completely workable, does not require some special brand of player, and does not usually result in selfish play.

 

[Lanefan]

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

That's exactly what I'd be asking you were you to do this as a player; yet from the post I quoted it seems you're in effect claiming the right to do exactly this - that you-as-player get to set the requirements of the deity's faith as you see it, rather than it be a more universal thing across all worshippers of said deity and set by the DM as part of setting construction.

Hence my question.

 

[Campbell]

That's exactly what I'd be asking you were you to do this as a player; yet from the post I quoted it seems you're in effect claiming the right to do exactly this - that you-as-player get to set the requirements of the deity's faith as you see it, rather than it be a more universal thing across all worshippers of said deity and set by the DM as part of setting construction.

Hence my question.

In my games of course it applies to all worshippers, but chances are this stuff isn't like well defined. I'm generally going to let the player define it so they can play the type of the character they want to play. I will build off of their answers and add my spin to it, but I want to support the type of conflicts the player is looking for.

It's obviously not the right approach for the type of game you are looking for, but it's not going to break the game in half.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's exactly what I'd be asking you were you to do this as a player; yet from the post I quoted it seems you're in effect claiming the right to do exactly this - that you-as-player get to set the requirements of the deity's faith as you see it, rather than it be a more universal thing across all worshippers of said deity and set by the DM as part of setting construction.

Hence my question.

Personally, I'd find this fascinating, and ask the player how the non-water rites honor their water deity. Maybe it's a matter of doing thing the hard way that would be easier with water to show devotion to the deity by performing penance through abstention.

 

[Lanefan]

Ahh, but, see, that's where consensus building comes in.

OK, first thing:

Consensus as a means of solving disputes Does Not Work. Period.

Instead of solving disputes, consensus merely papers them over without proper resolution, serving only to punt those disputes down the road and leaving nobody satisfied in the meantime. I've seen this play out far too many times both at game tables and in other aspects of life: people are generally stubborn, and though by no means am I suggesting you are like this (you generally seem far more direct, which I appreciate!), IME many who push for consensus are in fact actively seeking to punt the dispute down the road to allow an opportunity to quietly lobby others around to their point of view before raising the dispute again.

It's straight out of the passive-aggressive 101 playbook.

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.

Perhaps, but at least everyone knows where they stand; and that alone is a benefit.

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.

IME I've found that once someone gets that consensus-delay-lobby tactic to work once (and it often does work, in fairness it's an excellent strategy if nobody notices it being done) it gets pulled out every damn 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.

Correct; though more often IME the DM makes those setting-based decisions before even presenting any of it to prospective players at the pitch-and-invite stage, who can then decide whether that setting is a fit for them or not.

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.

Indeed, but I think there only needs to be one person per table stuck with thinking that way.

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

Does this risk a lot of blandness both in setting and in play, I wonder.

 

[Ovinomancer]

OK, first thing:

Consensus as a means of solving disputes Does Not Work. Period.

Instead of solving disputes, consensus merely papers them over without proper resolution, serving only to punt those disputes down the road and leaving nobody satisfied in the meantime. I've seen this play out far too many times both at game tables and in other aspects of life: people are generally stubborn, and though by no means am I suggesting you are like this (you generally seem far more direct, which I appreciate!), IME many who push for consensus are in fact actively seeking to punt the dispute down the road to allow an opportunity to quietly lobby others around to their point of view before raising the dispute again.

It's straight out of the passive-aggressive 101 playbook.

I... uh... so the core method of diplomacy between equals is nothing more than passive aggressive failure? When my spouse and I agree on a place to eat dinner, we actually didn't because that agreement didn't work and we're just both being passive aggressive?

I.. still processing this.