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

[pemerton]

Player-authored quests?

4e PHB (p 258):

Quests
Most adventures have a goal, something you have to do to complete the adventure successfully. The goal might be a personal one, a cause shared by you and your allies, or a task you have been hired to perform. A goal in an adventure is called a quest.

Quests connect a series of encounters into a meaningful story. . . .

You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character’s background. For instance, perhaps your mother is the person whose remains lie in the Fortress of the Iron Ring. Quests can also relate to individual goals, such as a ranger searching for a magic bow to wield. Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign’s unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story.​

4e DMG (p 103):

Player-Designed Quests
You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible!​

In 4e D&D, XP are earned for participating in encounters (combat or skill challenges) and for completing quests, and levels are tied to XP, and treasure parcels are tied to levels, then there is no framework - within the rules as presented - in which a GM can use XP awards or the lure of treasure to direct player choices. And this is reinforced if the players are authoring the most important quests.

In the context of the thread title, this is obviously a huge difference between 4e D&D and Gygax's AD&D or B/X - in those systems the GM designs the dungeon and wilderness, places treasures in it, and then the players try (via the play of their PCs) to acquire those treasures and hence accrue XP. While both 4e and the classic editions call themselves D&D, the actual game play they present is very different. The fact that 4e fighters have encounter powers is a tiny difference in comparison to this fundamental one.

 

[Azzy]

And 5E PCs simply aren’t interesting enough, mechanically, to be saddled with them for years.

Contrarily, I'd say that 5e PCs are far more interesting, mechanically, than TSR-era PCs.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Think milestone leveling in 5E only focused around the structure of a quest.

From 4E DMG, p103.

"Player-Designed Quests. You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible!"

Ah. I don't think they literally mean the dictate the encounters, just the goal of the quest.

Which I'd been doing already. Basically, my favorite parts of 4e was that it reaffirmed my playstyle and gave me tools to follow it. Be that the DMG endorsing how I run games, to the Warlod class and forced movement letting me play characters I I always wanted to play, but couldn't before (or since, but I didn't know that at the time)

 

[billd91]

Given recent koboldy news, one change is that the Feywild seems to be the new oat bran or Açaí berry.

 

[tetrasodium]

4e PHB (p 258):

Quests​

Most adventures have a goal, something you have to do to complete the adventure successfully. The goal might be a personal one, a cause shared by you and your allies, or a task you have been hired to perform. A goal in an adventure is called a quest.​

​

Quests connect a series of encounters into a meaningful story. . . .​

​

You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character’s background. For instance, perhaps your mother is the person whose remains lie in the Fortress of the Iron Ring. Quests can also relate to individual goals, such as a ranger searching for a magic bow to wield. Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign’s unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story.​

4e DMG (p 103):

Player-Designed Quests​

You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible!​

In 4e D&D, XP are earned for participating in encounters (combat or skill challenges) and for completing quests, and levels are tied to XP, and treasure parcels are tied to levels, then there is no framework - within the rules as presented - in which a GM can use XP awards or the lure of treasure to direct player choices. And this is reinforced if the players are authoring the most important quests.

In the context of the thread title, this is obviously a huge difference between 4e D&D and Gygax's AD&D or B/X - in those systems the GM designs the dungeon and wilderness, places treasures in it, and then the players try (via the play of their PCs) to acquire those treasures and hence accrue XP. While both 4e and the classic editions call themselves D&D, the actual game play they present is very different. The fact that 4e fighters have encounter powers is a tiny difference in comparison to this fundamental one.

Thanks. I spent most of 4e running weekly Fate variants in semiopen games at a nearby FLGS(dresden filespg, forms of fatre core etc) and reading that is horrifying, but I say that as a very experienced Fate GM not from my experience with d&d. One of the core expectations of Fate is the presence of shared narrative control & proactive PCs as opposed to a more d&d style gm dictates events>players react style. It was almost always possible to know if a new player's background was only/mostly d&d/pf/etc but something other than d&d & no rpg history was often less clear. Players in that first group tended to do what they could to make introvert characters with no links & no meaningful problems alongside a bunch of combat focused stuff in a system with ultra lethal death spiral combat built around conceed fast or risk total noncontrol due to an extremely short hard to clear death spiral slingshot. d&d players would almost always chafe when the shared narrative control pushed their PC around in any meaningful way & their efforts at creating/using aspects in play tended to aim for things that would result in "ok good game lets go home" one & done instant solutions rather than any interesting story. While fate has a lot of mechanics that allow the gm & other players to push back against this kind of thing it was often so extreme that they needed to go beyond those & just start giving hard no type veto because using those tools would result in everyone doing nothing but keeping bob in check rather than running an interesting city/world or playing their own characters in an interesting way due to a rejection of the core "shared narrative" concept that everyone else at the table was onboard with maintaining.

Sure there were exceptions, but I can't imagine those player created quests going too well because of that experience.

 

[Hussar]

Thanks. I spent most of 4e running weekly Fate variants in semiopen games at a nearby FLGS(dresden filespg, forms of fatre core etc) and reading that is horrifying, but I say that as a very experienced Fate GM not from my experience with d&d. One of the core expectations of Fate is the presence of shared narrative control & proactive PCs as opposed to a more d&d style gm dictates events>players react style. It was almost always possible to know if a new player's background was only/mostly d&d/pf/etc but something other than d&d & no rpg history. Players in that first group tended to do what they could to make introvert characters with no links & no meaningful problems alongside a bunch of combat focused stuff in a system with ultra lethal death spiral combat built around conceed fast or risk total noncontrol due to an extremely short hard to clear death spiral slingshot. d&d players would almost always chafe when the shared narrative control pushed their PC around in any meaningful way & their efforts at creating/using aspects in play tended to aim for things that would result in "ok good game lets go home" one & done instant solutions rather than any interesting story. While fate has a lot of mechanics that allow the gm & other players to push back against this kind of thing it was often so extreme that they needed to go beyond those & just start giving hard no type veto because using those tools would result in everyone doing nothing but keeping bob in check rather than running an interesting city/world or playing their own characters in an interesting way due to a rejection of the core "shared narrative" concept that everyone else at the table was onboard with maintaining.

Sure there were exceptions, but I can't imagine those player created quests going too well because of that experience.

Heh, I see we've played with some of the same players. And, yes, I do agree with this assessment. The lengths that players, and yeah, in my experience it's players who exclusively play D&D, will go to fence off their character from any and all outside influence is staggering. Even the slightest whiff of any outside influence, whether by the DM or another player, is a complete non-starter.

In some ways, they're so easy to DM for - just drop more or less whatever in front of them, let them resolve it, move on to the next bit and in other ways, it's mind buggeringly frustrating if you want more out of the game.

 

[Panzeh]

It’s weird how “play smarter” and “outwit your enemies” and “leverage every advantage” isn’t the order of the day rather it’s “make the game easier.”

My main group has played 5E since the playtest. Monthly, except for covid shenanigans. In that entire time we have lost exactly two characters. And both were due to the player being done with the character and forcing them to die by making dumb choices. And the player asking the rest of the group to just let the character die.

I think this is kind of the antithesis of what I play RPGS for, exclusively. Knowing those skills as a player will help, but honestly, if all I want to do is test that, I will get out Advanced Squad Leader or World in Flames instead of a game where the DM has to hold back and not everyone might be on the same page. I can see the perspective of D&D as "the ultimate boardgame", and I do see how that was how the early editions went, but it's the last thing I play an RPG for.

Heh, I see we've played with some of the same players. And, yes, I do agree with this assessment. The lengths that players, and yeah, in my experience it's players who exclusively play D&D, will go to fence off their character from any and all outside influence is staggering. Even the slightest whiff of any outside influence, whether by the DM or another player, is a complete non-starter.

In some ways, they're so easy to DM for - just drop more or less whatever in front of them, let them resolve it, move on to the next bit and in other ways, it's mind buggeringly frustrating if you want more out of the game.

Yup, this fits with my experience, too. As I said before, I think there are definitely a subset of players who really just want to play a cooperative board game, head down to the game table and roll some dice and enjoy what's in front of them, and trying anything else is like pulling teeth. It's not a big deal, as long as it's not disruptive or anything(e.g. people wanting to murderhobo around), but ultimately, there's not a lot of satisfaction to me in DMing that kind of thing.

 

[Helldritch]

I repeat again, I was not talking about 3e and after; when I make a qualification like "half the length of the hobby" it is not intended to just take up space. And as I said, outside of minor items, come back when you can find two people outside your group who found they could buy magic items in any functional way in 2e.

Really?
Out of the bat, I could mentioned about 20+ DMs that allowed it and if I use my connections, it could go as high as a hundred if not more. At least for the lowest items. You know that even in 2nd there were spells such as: "Enchant an Item and Permanency"? If you were playing in FR finding a wizard able to enchant an item for you was not that hard. That setting is rife with high level casters. Ho... the chance to lose a point of constitution would prevent the wizard from doing it? Let him magic jar you. He'd cast the spell in your body and the loss would be yours. That is for a permanent magic items, not for wands and so on.

Played in the Greyhawk? Can be done too. Especially in Greyhawk city where there is the wizard accademy...
Krynn? The orders are right there.
Darksun? Now we might have a problem.
Planescape? May I remind you that there is a magic bazaar in there?
Ravenloft? Here we might have a problem in there too. But again that is the setting.
Spell Jammer... The Arcane are already selling Helms which are almost artifacts and other magical items too.
And How about the Magic Cyclopedia, or even the DMG in which magical items have XP but also Gold Selling/Costs?

Nah... Not having magical items for sale was either setting dependent or DM's campaign choice. Even in 1ed there was this mercantile thing going on.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think this is quite right.

As you quoted, Gygax in his DMG (p 37) says that "it is best to use 1 actual day = 1 game day when no play is happening". But if play is happening, then time can pass more quickly than that, as per the example on pp 37-38 of the PC and henchman who go on a 25 day trek - "that activity [is] not unusual for a single session of play" ( p 37).

The example of the 3 players being deprived of the treasure by the two newbies only arises because Gygax is taking it for granted that the same GM is running multiple sessions for multiple player-groups in the same campaign ("The remaining three 'old boys' decide they will not go with the newcomers" ie they don't play until four actual days later; and see also the discussion at the bottom of p 37 and top of p 38). But if - as I think was more typical even in 1978 - the GM is only running sessions for a single relatively cohesive group, then there is no obstacle to rapidly passing game days in a single session, and having PCs heal far more than 7 hp per real week.

I'm not sure that's a good assumption, but then mine wouldn't have been either; it would have been GMs running sessions for multiple groups, who were also playing in playing under other GMs with the same characters. That certainly seemed to fit what I saw during my time in OD&D, at least as much as the other two cases.

(Its hard to prove one way or another, of course; and your case may have been more common once you got away from areas where there were bigger clusters of players and GMs, but the question comes up how big a percentage those were of the people in D&D at the time, and that's going to likely be impossible to say with any real certainty. I'd suggest it was probably far less than later on when D&D's distribution spread outside of hobby shops strongly).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think this is an accurate description of by-the-book 4e.

4e D&D awards XP on a "per encounter" basis, and awards gp and other treasure on a "parcels per level" basis. So as long as the players are participating in encounters and earning their XP, and hence their levels, they trigger the GM's job of placing treasure parcels. And with player-designed quests and player-authored "wish lists", the GM is not expected to be in sole control either of what the encounters are or of what the contents of the treasure parcels are.

So there is no expectation, in 4e, that the GM will influence player behaviour by the parcelling out of treasure (or of XP).

Again referring only to 4e D&D, I don't think what you say here conforms to the way the rules for XP and treasure are presented. What you describe here does seem, to me, to conform very closely to what 2nd ed AD&D presents. I don't know 3E or 5e well enough in this respect, but I wouldn't be surprised if it fits those versions also.

Honestly, this is not an area where I think how the games are presented matters much. When a GM wants to do a carrot or stick, manipulating experience is the easy and obvious way to do it (gold/magic items work too, at least in the latter day, but they're far less consistent and often require more thought) so I expect that's what was done no matter how it was presented.