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

[tetrasodium]

I don't see how the majority of the examples you gave -- many of which revolve around the GM not having prep available and so trying to redirect the party away from the not prepped places/things or the GM having prep available the party isn't engaging and how to direct the party to that all through making play miserable when not following what the GM wants. I don't see how pointing out that this is mostly passive aggressive GMing means that I'm saying that GMs need to gitgud or beg. Weird go to, there.

No matter what you plan expect players to surprise you. Every single gm can relate to players going in unexpected directions & no context is needed to make them good for purposes of example. Some of those examples were ones that show the GM discretely nudging the direction of play, that doesn't make them into something that is always going to be hostile passive aggressive oppressive railroading or anything of the sort.

Reacting positively to positive reinforcement is wired into our brains at a pretty low level, magic items were a tool GM's could use to discretely direct & tilt things through positive reinforcement that is no longer really an option

As to beg "most of this list is basically passive aggressively trying to direct the players instead of honest engagement with them". The players no longer need anything from the gm other than to run the world for The Main Character so the GM has no cards they can play in said negotiation other than wish fulfilment. Worse still that discussion & negotiation needs to be had during the game rather than some between session because the soft tools that can do that in the moment have been so deeply reduced.

For most of the examples here, the 5e GM can just throttle XP awards and treasure awards as well. XP awards are explicitly up to the GM in 5e, with "whenever I want" being an offered option.

No they can't make an apples to apples swap like that because that goes from proactive to reactive & it shifts from guidance through positive reinforcement to punitive after the fact damage control. Players regularly know how much they are expected to be paid before they go do a job even if how much is only a vague estimate, they almost never know how much experience is to be had until the deed is done. You've been trying to say that the GM does't need these tools & is doing it wrong

 

[Remathilis]

As to beg "most of this list is basically passive aggressively trying to direct the players instead of honest engagement with them". The players no longer need anything from the gm other than to run the world for The Main Character so the GM has no cards they can play in said negotiation other than wish fulfilment. Worse still that discussion & negotiation needs to be had during the game rather than some between session because the soft tools that can do that in the moment have been so deeply reduced.

I'm a little confused about what you mean here.

If I make a dwarf PC and I say I want to reclaim my ancestral keep from the forces that razed it, including the rumored red dragon and goblin tribes, I'm giving you a clear goal and story hook for my PC. I'm confused about where we go from here. From what I've gathered, I've already crossed the line by assuming an origin and a goal tied to it with the assumption that you the DM will use it to somehow fulfill my character's arc. I shouldn't make any such narrative assumptions about your game, world or story or assume you have any interest or desire to design an adventure to liberate a dwarven keep from a red dragon. That is presumptuous and arrogant on my part and it reduces you to just fulfilling my story. Ideally, my dwarf should have just sprung up from the ground, fully formed and ready to do whatever adventure the DM has planned.

At least, that's what I've been getting out of it. I'd love it if you could elaborate if that's not the case.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No matter what you plan expect players to surprise you. Every single gm can relate to players going in unexpected directions & no context is needed to make them good for purposes of example. Some of those examples were ones that show the GM to nudging the direction of play, that doesn't make them into something that is always going to be hostile passive aggressive oppressive railroading or anything of the sort.

Reacting positively to positive reinforcement is wired into our brains at a pretty low level, magic items were a tool GM's could use to discretely direct & tilt things through positive reinforcement that is no longer really an option

You're showing "problems" where the players are doing something that the GM doesn't want them to do. Either their going somewhere the GM doesn't want them to or they're doing what the GM doesn't want the players to do or they're not going where the GM wants them to. The solution to this is to let them but then make that choice unpleasant. When the players do what the GM wants, the GM makes that pleasant ("positive reinforcement"). I'm not sure if you're up on the definitions of passive aggressive, but this is that. When you don't have an open discussion but instead make other's miserable for doing not doing what you want, that's it.

As to beg "most of this list is basically passive aggressively trying to direct the players instead of honest engagement with them". The players no longer need anything from the gm other than to run the world for The Main Character so the GM has no cards they can play in said negotiation other than wish fulfilment. Worse still that discussion & negotiation needs to be had during the game rather than some between session because the soft tools that can do that in the moment have been so deeply reduced.

I'm super curious to see the response to @Remathilis on this. You seem to think it's either all the GM's way or the GM is reduced to serving player desires. Have you considered the possibility of a collaboration?

No they can't make an apples to apples swap like that because that goes from proactive to reactive & it shifts from guidance through positive reinforcement to punitive after the fact damage control. Players regularly know how much they are expected to be paid before they go do a job even if how much is only a vague estimate, they almost never know how much experience is to be had until the deed is done. You've been trying to say that the GM does't need these tools & is doing it wrong

You're suggesting above that the GM withhold things after the fact! Can we at least have a discussion where you suggest a thing is a useful tool in one edition and then excoriate someone suggesting you can do that same kind of thing in another is bad? I mean, the double standard here is pretty staggering.

 

[Helldritch]

I'm a little confused about what you mean here.

If I make a dwarf PC and I say I want to reclaim my ancestral keep from the forces that razed it, including the rumored red dragon and goblin tribes, I'm giving you a clear goal and story hook for my PC. I'm confused about where we go from here. From what I've gathered, I've already crossed the line by assuming an origin and a goal tied to it with the assumption that you the DM will use it to somehow fulfill my character's arc. I shouldn't make any such narrative assumptions about your game, world or story or assume you have any interest or desire to design an adventure to liberate a dwarven keep from a red dragon. That is presumptuous and arrogant on my part and it reduces you to just fulfilling my story. Ideally, my dwarf should have just sprung up from the ground, fully formed and ready to do whatever adventure the DM has planned.

At least, that's what I've been getting out of it. I'd love it if you could elaborate if that's not the case.

You're showing "problems" where the players are doing something that the GM doesn't want them to do. Either their going somewhere the GM doesn't want them to or they're doing what the GM doesn't want the players to do or they're not going where the GM wants them to. The solution to this is to let them but then make that choice unpleasant. When the players do what the GM wants, the GM makes that pleasant ("positive reinforcement"). I'm not sure if you're up on the definitions of passive aggressive, but this is that. When you don't have an open discussion but instead make other's miserable for doing not doing what you want, that's it.

I'm super curious to see the response to @Remathilis on this. You seem to think it's either all the GM's way or the GM is reduced to serving player desires. Have you considered the possibility of a collaboration?

You're suggesting above that the GM withhold things after the fact! Can we at least have a discussion where you suggest a thing is a useful tool in one edition and then excoriate someone suggesting you can do that same kind of thing in another is bad? I mean, the double standard here is pretty staggering.

And now I know where we are diverging with you. Were you to make that dwarf, I would simply tell you to make something else because the current campaign does not and will not go this way.

Sandbox with full impro is not the only campaign type. We are currently running OotA with one group. When the campaign is over where would that lead your dwarf? Nowhere because at the of OotA, it will be time to start a new campaign.

Character creation in my game is pretty much a group thing done with all players. We, like old style games, will discuss in advance where we will go. A full campaign, episodic adventures barely linked together, or a mix of both? But one thing is for sure, no background will ever have any bearing on the campaign world. The story always develop from the game and the actions and interactions of the characters.

If all players agree to your background, then yes it might be allowed. But it will be the decision of all the players involved, including me as the game is as much theirs as it is mine. All characters, background included must fit with each others.

The full sandbox is pretty rare in our little corner of the world and this is probably where our vision diverge and why I see (and many young DM in my area) a problem that does not exist for you. It would not even cross my mind to allow a player to make a character without my supervision. Verisimilitude and consistency in the game world is of utmost importance. For a one shot, no holds barred and it would be fine. But for a campaign in one of my gaming world... it would simply not happen.

So Ovinomancer, what you see as unproblematic is probably true for your gaming style. But for a.more traditional approach, it is quite different. It might also be a reason why OSR is gaining such a huge foothold in my area. Many are asking me if I know of OSR games made in French or if I could translate some. I still have a copy of my old D&D red and blue boxes in French but they want OSR... I gave them ways to make 5ed a bit more like BCEMI. It is not a perfect fit but it works.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm a little confused about what you mean here.

If I make a dwarf PC and I say I want to reclaim my ancestral keep from the forces that razed it, including the rumored red dragon and goblin tribes, I'm giving you a clear goal and story hook for my PC. I'm confused about where we go from here. From what I've gathered, I've already crossed the line by assuming an origin and a goal tied to it with the assumption that you the DM will use it to somehow fulfill my character's arc. I shouldn't make any such narrative assumptions about your game, world or story or assume you have any interest or desire to design an adventure to liberate a dwarven keep from a red dragon. That is presumptuous and arrogant on my part and it reduces you to just fulfilling my story. Ideally, my dwarf should have just sprung up from the ground, fully formed and ready to do whatever adventure the DM has planned.

At least, that's what I've been getting out of it. I'd love it if you could elaborate if that's not the case.

As to how I'd react to your story & goal itself I'll tackle that in the spoiler below because it's important but will start off with the question. Yes you have given the GM those things but there are other players at the table. Maybe thing that go in that direction have seemingly inadequate compensation because the GM decided that:

• Reclaiming your homeland is too big of a job for a one off or even a short term thing& needs to be a big thing with many revolving parts that happen to start elsewhere in an area that another player is interested in because the GM wants to interest more than you...
• Maybe reclaiming your homeland is a thing that needs to be done bit by bit over generations because of worldbuilding reasons the GM feels like you are ignoring them on like you trying to import FR dwarves into eberron or Athas.
• Maybe nobody but you cares about your homeland but you are very pushy & railroad your fellow players into whatever you decide that your sidekicks must aid you in & the GM is tired of hearing about it from the conflict averse players.
• Maybe the entire last campaign was you fulfilling your mary sue fantasy of getting revenge for the bad guy who did a thing & the GM is not taking your hook because they got tired of you refusing every clue not presented on bended knees for proper adherence to the specifics of the novel of a backstory you wrote?
• Maybe the GM wants to give another player a chance to drive the train for a bit & is providing your storyline inadequate rewards to entice them into finding a reason to seize the wheel so to speak
• Maybe the GM wants to give developments related to your homeland that you personally might not even know exist time to brew a bit or spill out into other areas that make them more interesting.
• on & on & on

Spoiler

• "If I make a dwarf PC and I say I want to reclaim my ancestral keep from the forces that razed it,
  • Good! great start! I get to decide how important that keep is, where it is, who razed it, & why it happened
• including the rumored red dragon
  • My world has a red dragon interested in doing things like that?... wow... I tend to use dragons more like eberron's dragons & this conflicts. .
• and goblin tribes,
  • Most of my games take place in eberron, this is kind of an FRism, it's not going to be goblin tribes because they have real problems. There may have been a keep razed by someone during the last war, but it's going to be someone thatmakes narrative sense given the location.
• I'm giving you a clear goal and story hook for my PC. I'm confused about where we go from here.".
  • the next step is "talk to & work with your gm on fitting your character in their world". It would probably be a good idea to regularly be on the lookout for ways you could proactively say things like "this group of karrnathi bandits seems to have some military ties from what it sounds like, is it possible they were related to the soldiers who seized my ancestral keep?" or "hey bossnpc/patron who hired us, do you have any dealings near my ancestral keep that need attention from folks like us?" & so on rather than passively waiting for the next step to be thrust upon you by some NPC taking action to fill their goals by hiring you.

I say that because if you want to write a novel you should do that, or to have total control over it in a game of d&d you should DM such a campaign.* Bringing your story to my table is laudable but it won't be your story when it plays out at the table & if it doesn't fit my world it's not even going to start to the point that I might even tell the other players that their characters have no idea what chunibyo fantasy the dwarf is spouting but they know it's a preposterous work of fiction (and I have done that kind of thing more than once over the years when a player persists).

It sounds like I do tend to run games that are some degree more sandboxy than @Helldritch appears to have described in 1094 (or not, it doesn't matter),but I too try to put more focus on making sure PC's work together & with me on things like character creation & backstory. Prior to 5e this was never an issue & players were always excited to have a chance to collaborate, but with modern d&d it's treated very different & is like pulling teeth that I dare expect anything beyond a player showing up & perhaps thrusting a 5 page backstory at me after they wrote it in isolation.

* I'm assured that you will have no trouble whatsoever if you just discuss it with your players

 

[Cruentus]

I'm a little confused about what you mean here.

If I make a dwarf PC and I say I want to reclaim my ancestral keep from the forces that razed it, including the rumored red dragon and goblin tribes, I'm giving you a clear goal and story hook for my PC. I'm confused about where we go from here. From what I've gathered, I've already crossed the line by assuming an origin and a goal tied to it with the assumption that you the DM will use it to somehow fulfill my character's arc. I shouldn't make any such narrative assumptions about your game, world or story or assume you have any interest or desire to design an adventure to liberate a dwarven keep from a red dragon. That is presumptuous and arrogant on my part and it reduces you to just fulfilling my story. Ideally, my dwarf should have just sprung up from the ground, fully formed and ready to do whatever adventure the DM has planned.

At least, that's what I've been getting out of it. I'd love it if you could elaborate if that's not the case.

And I'll contrast with @Helldritch, showing how different tables handle their games: I would take that Dwarf, and that background, and roll it into the "homebrew" sandbox that I am running. However, I would also have you play that Dwarf and that background, with the other characters/players. How do you present your goals and interest to them? Do you convince them to help you? Do you help them do things first? What kinds of NPCs/family/contacts/friends do you still have in the area of the keep? Is your information up to date? How long have you been away?

We'd also talk about where on the map this keep is, what other threats/kingdoms/whatever are in that area, and a timeline. Its a collaborative effort.

Now, that doesn't mean that the entire campaign is centered on your character, because there are 4 other players potentially in the game. So how you all are negotiating and working toward (often disparate) goals is part of the interest in the game and the world (or at least I hope it is).

In my last campaign, only one player wanted to actually (and did) pursue his agendas, the others just went along for the ride, or didn't identify any appreciable background for their characters. And thats also sometimes the way it goes.

I've played in games like @Helldritch runs, and they're fun, but as he says, when the "arc" of the campaign ends, there is often little to do with the character. For ex, I would have really liked to play my Necromancer longer at about 5-7th level, but the campaign arc pushed us up to 12-14th pretty quickly, and by that time, there weren't the same NPC roleplay/domain building opportunities. I mean, once you've saved the world from Tiamat, what else is there to do? LoL

So, all that is to say, different tables, different opportunities to build in that background.

edit: and ninja'd by @tetrasodium with another angle. Nice!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Been thinking about this for awhile. I think the fundamental change has been that it's gone from players wanting to "overcome" the consequences they create to more and more players thinking that consequences are bad game design and they should be free snowflakes and do whatever they want. the biggest sign of that I think are the number of GM shouldn't rule on anything it should all be in the rules threads. It's odd how many players seem to want to control the game they asked a GM to run.

Mod Note:

“Snowflakes” is really a judgmental, inflammatory and dismissive thing to call your fellow hobbyists. Perhaps don’t, going forward.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't want to play out the 'fly you fools scene' or scenarios that force you to flee unheroically like Sir Robin. At a certain level, I don't think a PC should be afraid of any number of chump monsters. Because they are chumps.

Flip side of this philoshophy: should any monster or foe ever be able to truly reach chump status, i.e. not a viable threat regardless of numbers, tactics, or positional advantage?

I hope not.

In the end it all depends on how steep a power curve you're after, and-or whether the PCs are intended to be/become bigger than the setting or be/remain a part of it.

 

[Helldritch]

Flip side of this philoshophy: should any monster or foe ever be able to truly reach chump status, i.e. not a viable threat regardless of numbers, tactics, or positional advantage?

I hope not.

In the end it all depends on how steep a power curve you're after, and-or whether the PCs are intended to be/become bigger than the setting or be/remain a part of it.

I still remember the Kobold Corp in a Dungeon Magazine. My players too but not for the same reasons. These beads from a necklace of fireball were destructive power to Nth degree.

I much prefer 5ed way with BA. Low level monsters can still be a threat when on sufficient numbers. No need for magical shenanigans.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Flip side of this philoshophy: should any monster or foe ever be able to truly reach chump status, i.e. not a viable threat regardless of numbers, tactics, or positional advantage?

I hope not.

In the end it all depends on how steep a power curve you're after, and-or whether the PCs are intended to be/become bigger than the setting or be/remain a part of it.

They're still part of it, just the awesome part.