D&D General D&D as a Curated, DIY Game or "By the Book": Examining DM and Player Agency, and the DM as Game Designer

[Minigiant]

I ... don't think this was the case. There are passages in the 1E books wherein Gygax makes it clear (well, clear by Gygaxian standards) that much of the point of AD&D was to codify things because there was too much difference between the tables--enough that it was at least sometimes as though different tables were playing different games. Given how people talk about how their tables played 1E, that was slow to change. I don't think that kind of "we play this game the way we want" attitude bespeaks the kind of passive base you seem to be talking about. There was always picking-and-choosing.

Well didn't he do that because...

..people were treating it as a hobby and players were letting DMs just do whatever with no pushback, questioning, and oversight?

 

[prabe]

Well didn't he do that because...

..people were treating it as a hobby and players were letting DMs just do whatever with no pushback, questioning, and oversight?

I think you're presuming most tables had Forever DMs. Most of the groups I knew of had rotations or something, and pretty stable houserules. I think it was kinda the expectation that players would eventually want to DM and that DMs would eventually want to play.

 

[tetrasodium]

Because D&D remains by far the most popular RPG, and therefore the game for which it is easiest to find players. If you want to create your own flavor of game, and you want to actually have players for it, your best bet is to sell it as D&D with some mods. It can be extraordinarily hard to get D&D players to try a different game.

adding to this since the comparison being made is to fate. I ran open fate games at a flgs for years & including my core group of 4ish would see maybe a dozen players a year at most if I included all of the people who just dropped in for a session or sat in to watch out of curiosity...at the same flgs during covid I could probably find a dozen players who were not only "willing" but eager to show up in a mast & play d&d for a few hours a week by tomorrow.

 

[Oofta]

I didn't say you can't use D&D to do multiple genres.

I am saying you can't change the basic rules or the subsystems that affect them heavily without the players noticing. And if they notice some may talk.

If none of your players ask questions then you have a situation where your players are passive or submissive. Therefore your experience is clouded by not having assertive or aggressive players.

D&D was built on a passive hobbyist dynamic because most of it's fans were the same. But like any fandom that grows, preferences lead to discussion.

Or maybe, just maybe, the players are enjoying the game and don't care as long as the DM is consistent, fair and running a fun game. That there's nothing wrong with that despite the negative connotations you're implying.

Most games will play slightly different, rulings over rules and all. I've never had a DM that had significant house rules or used optional rules that weren't up front about it. If someone has a question about how I'm running my game we chat about it after the session if they want. Is that ever an issue? Guess I don't get what you're trying to imply.

 

[Minigiant]

I think you're presuming most tables had Forever DMs. Most of the groups I knew of had rotations or something, and pretty stable houserules. I think it was kinda the expectation that players would eventually want to DM and that DMs would eventually want to play.

Nah.
It had nothing to do with forever DMs. Player just didn't question DMs that much or that hard and let DMs do whatever. Possibly because like you said and what I said.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I seem to remember a lot of 5 minute work days in the TSR-era so that casters had something to do, along with lots of wands and scrolls. But that was a long time ago.

Also, don't get me wrong, I think the last attempt at perfect balance in 4E didn't work particularly well but that's a whole other topic.

To me it depends a lot what you mean by "the last attempt". 4e was allocated 24 months for development and went back to the drawing board 10 months in. What was launched was a buggy beta with a couple of very promising aspects. It took a year of patches to be viable, and two to be good. And you never get a second chance to make a first impression.

So although I will absolutely defend 4e as working well as of 2012 or even mid 2010 they should have listened to Shigeru Miyamoto when he said that "A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad." While there are exceptions only a tiny handful (4e, FFXIV, Diablo III, No Man's Sky, and Fortnite) actually spring to mind and all of them in about the last decade.

 

[Oofta]

To me it depends a lot what you mean by "the last attempt". 4e was allocated 24 months for development and went back to the drawing board 10 months in. What was launched was a buggy beta with a couple of very promising aspects. It took a year of patches to be viable, and two to be good. And you never get a second chance to make a first impression.

So although I will absolutely defend 4e as working well as of 2012 or even mid 2010 they should have listened to Shigeru Miyamoto when he said that "A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad." While there are exceptions only a tiny handful (4e, FFXIV, Diablo III, No Man's Sky, and Fortnite) actually spring to mind and all of them in about the last decade.

I agree that 4E felt rushed and half-baked. I seem to remember them saying the power structure was never meant to be applied across the board.

In any case, I don't want to get into edition wars.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I didn't say you can't use D&D to do multiple genres.

I am saying you can't change the basic rules or the subsystems that affect them heavily without the players noticing.

I don't change basic rules and subsystems. I change things like what races are available.

And if they notice some may talk.

I've never had any complaints, but if any of them ever think they can do better then I would be only too happy for them to take over.

If none of your players ask questions then you have a situation where your players are passive or submissive. Therefore your experience is clouded by not having assertive or aggressive players.

I've been DMing for 39 years. Never had an aggressive player, I don't associate with unpleasant people.

 

[Minigiant]

Or maybe, just maybe, the players are enjoying the game and don't care as long as the DM is consistent, fair and running a fun game. That there's nothing wrong with that despite the negative connotations you're implying.

Most games will play slightly different, rulings over rules and all. I've never had a DM that had significant house rules or used optional rules that weren't up front about it. If someone has a question about how I'm running my game we chat about it after the session if they want. Is that ever an issue? Guess I don't get what you're trying to imply.

Have you never told a DM "Hey Insert Name, if you change this then that kinda breaks. You know that right?"

 

[prabe]

Nah.
It had nothing to do with forever DMs. Player just didn't question DMs that much or that hard and let DMs do whatever. Possibly because like you said and what I said.

Yeah. Most dichotomies, when you look at them, aren't so much "this or that" as "this and that" or "neither."