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

[Azzy]

As an older gamer, I'm getting less and less charitable to older gamers with each new thread and post.

 

[Helldritch]

Cool, so it's something that has always happened rather than a problem with the modern game, as others have claimed. You're saying it's a player issue, not a game issue. That seems reasonable. We all know there are players who like to hog the spotlight. But this discussion has been about that allegedly being characteristic of the modern game. It isn't, it's characteristic of selfish players which have always existed.

Many different players over long experience...so it's not an issue of the modern game then. Just the same type of selfish players you've seen over the years, presumably using many different systems.

Yep. But in these "modern" times, one thing has changed if you read my post entirely.

It is the fact that this behaviour is now defended and even expected to be considered normal expectation. In older editions, doing this would bring you the fury of a table, now, not that much. Especially on the forums. It is the acceptance of such behaviour that is entirely new.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So... the community as a whole has become more laid back and accepting?

 

[Helldritch]

Again, you're still using gross exaggerations. Encouraging DMs to give some deference to player desires (if that is even the case) is NOT equivalent to the DM not receiving any consideration of theirs. It's not one or the other, it can be both at the same time.

Besides which, you can just go DM another game, so there's no problem with the game itself. It's a problem with the players.

I do not think that a DM has problems to find players. Usually, it is the reverse.

For the rest, I reiterate, D&D is a cooperative game between players and DM. And it is also a cooperative between players and players. This is why we have session zero. So that all starting character concepts will match the new campaign at hands or assure the continuity of an ongoing one. A player joining my game will have to abide by the rule of the table, including character generation. Some campaign will be "traditional" other will be over the board with fey wild, animal people and outlandish background. Still, most of my players, half over forty, half below 35 are usually playing PHB races even when offered new races. I'd even go further by saying that in a standard campaign almost 80% of all characters are humans, the remainder are dwarves, elves and half-elves.

So... the community as a whole has become more laid back and accepting?

Or resigned and tired of fighting?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Or resigned and tired of fighting?

What an interesting reaction to inclusivity.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yep. But in these "modern" times, one thing has changed if you read my post entirely.

It is the fact that this behaviour is now defended and even expected to be considered normal expectation. In older editions, doing this would bring you the fury of a table, now, not that much. Especially on the forums. It is the acceptance of such behaviour that is entirely new.

The acceptance that the GM isn't the only person allowed to have a creative agenda while playing an RPG? I just want to be absolutely clear on the issue, here, because it reads like you're saying that it should be that players are expected to go along with the GM and not have any asks of their own (unless the GM wants to ask them for them, and this shouldn't ever burden the GM's creative agenda).

 

[Helldritch]

What an interesting reaction to inclusivity.

This has nothing to do with inclusivity. Where did you get that notion?
We are talking about a behaviour here. Please, read the posts.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This has nothing to do with inclusivity. Where did you get that notion?
We are talking about a behaviour here. Please, read the posts.

I feel like not browbeating people until they give up their play preferences is moving toward inclusivity.

Any time we stop mistreating people for being different is.

 

[Helldritch]

The acceptance that the GM isn't the only person allowed to have a creative agenda while playing an RPG? I just want to be absolutely clear on the issue, here, because it reads like you're saying that it should be that players are expected to go along with the GM and not have any asks of their own (unless the GM wants to ask them for them, and this shouldn't ever burden the GM's creative agenda).

Read again.
Creativity is good. As long as it is respectful of the DM, AND THE OTHER PLAYERS! (caps intended).
If you are to cite me and my playstyle, at least do it with the full intent of what I was saying. If your background is accepted by the DM and the other players all is fine. But a player should minimally try to make a background that will mostly match what the other players intend to go.

Session zero is a discussion where all players (DM included by they way) are present. They will decide together which campaign type they are expecting or would like to have. They will decide together the main orientation and whatever. No player will impose his/her will on the other players with background that will not fit the consensus that will have been reached at session zero.
No character is ever made alone, at home and without DM supervision.

Other than that, anything is opened.

 

[Helldritch]

I feel like not browbeating people until they give up their play preferences is moving toward inclusivity.

Any time we stop mistreating people for being different is.

There is a difference with not agreeing with the background story of someone and not being inclusive. You are making a wild inaccurate comparison here. Did you really take time to analyse what you are saying? These are serious accusations that you are making here.