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

[pemerton]

Let's say that the important thing isn't needing to read what's in Ancient Draconic, but actually meeting the sage. Whatever is translated is secondary, if not inconsequential. The sage is going to give the PCs something (info, a quest, a maguffin) that will be important. He is B. All options funnel to B because meeting him closes the scene and opens the next. This is fairly common in adventure paths or modules, which is my preferred play style. What's important here is the obscure language is the hook to find the sage, the not goal in-and-of-itself.

If a PC declares his brother can also translate the language, you lose the hook to the sage and the chain breaks. The language is translated, but that wasn't the point, the point was to meet the sage. Now a new reason to meet the sage much be invented or else the hook becomes dead and a bunch of players sit around going "so what do we do now?"

Yes, I understand this. I posted the same thing upthread:

going back to your sage example - suppose that the adventure outline posits that to get into the cave you need to speak the password in Draconic. And suppose that the adventure posits that you will get that from the sage, who will also warn you that the cave contains a medusa, so you better pack some mirrors! But now a player wants to introduce their cousin the Draconic-speaker, which means the players won't seek out the sage. Why can't the GM just have the sage turn up?

And I'm still not seeing why my suggested solution won't work - if the PCs "need" to meet the sage, in order to get the quest, or the maguffin, or (as in the example I posted) the information about the medusa, why can the GM not just have the sage turn up? You are positing an approach to the player where the GM has a very large degree of control over both backstory and framing. Why can the GM not use that control to frame a scene in which the sage is present with the PCs. I gave a few examples upthread:

if the GM thinks the sage is so important, why not just narrate a scene in which the sage is there? I mean, this could be anything from the sage visiting the PCs' family member for dinner (Gandalf seems to make a habit of that), to meeting the sage on the road, to having the sage take shelter from a storm at the same inn as the PCs, to . . . etc..

To stop this, I propose a simple addendum: the brother cannot translate the language himself (it's too obscure), but he knows someone who can (the sage) and thus the chain is unbroken. A new option for the PCs worked on emerged, and it was quickly used instead of the preconceived notions to go to B rather than bypass B and end up in deadspace. I feel that for all but the most stubborn players ("No, my brother is a master of all languages, you're ruining my backstory") this is a fair compromise. PCs create a hereunto thought of solution, the DM moves along to the next check point.

This is an example of what I described as blocking the action declaration. I still don't understand what advantage it offers over allowing the player to express their conception of their scholarly Draconic-reading relative, and introducing the sage via the exercise of GM power to frame the scene in question.

Is the answer that the module only has a description for an encounter with the sage at the latter's distant hermitage, and so putting the sage somewhere else is too great a burden on the GM's capacity to manage the fiction?

 

[tetrasodium]

Coleville mentions problems with Tolkien's characters in the video that @overgeeked linked in 2558 & how Tolkien himself was bothered by some of them, but the quest to destroy the ring makes for an extremely poor character goal for reasons mentioned there & in another video so I want to get into that before answering the questions. Destroy the ring is a dead end railroad of an escort quest that doesn't really work well for a character goal driving the plot(s) in a game unless the players are dropping in on some NPC's who want to destroy the ring in pursuit of a shared goal. Even if the players are only dropping in because they want to score brownie points with an NPC like the ranger described in the "engaging your players" video simply because that ranger cares & the PCs want to make the ranger care about their problem. The ring has only a single goal of reuniting with the dark lord & corrupting the bearer so it can reunite. Reuniting with the dark lord could make all sorts of interesting developments including everyone deciding to work for him taking over the world but that's a very different story than the one Tolkien wrote. Corrupting the bearer is a short lived dead end of a problem that goes

Spoiler: here

The nails/dark phoenix problem described

In the context of this discussion, about players embedding their PCs in the gameworld, and declaring actions based around their friends and family, there are a host of relevant questions:

There's a few rapid fire questions that aren't all simple explanations. It's been a long time since I read the various Tolkien books in the 80's but the movie makes it easy to recap & get everyone on the same page (or at least see the page I'm using). I'm also not super versed in middle earth lore so examples might conflict with established lore simply because I don't know it that well.

if a player declares I want to meet Gandalf at the Prancing Pony", how is that resolved?

A single declaration is a bland mechanical thing that doesn't really explain much. Explaining anything by how a specific one of them from a novel is resolved would like trying to describe d&d combat with how a single attack roll is resolved.

Assuming they are expecting to meet Gandalf then he doesn't need to be declared into existence there because it has already been established that there is the expectation of finding him or that something else interesting will happen there when they arrive through past play events.

Spoiler: first hour of the movie recap highlights

At about 34minutes in Gandalf says "get out of the shire, make for the village of Bree. I'll be waiting for you at The Inn of the Prancing Pony". The expectation that Gandalf will be at the prancing pony waiting is already established. The expectation is there but anything could happen as a result of external factors like Gandalf dealing with sauroman the mad.

Around 45 minutes in the hobbits have a close encounter with a black rider & soon after they escape using the ferry with some forest stuff & a gate guard interaction before they go on to find out that the innkeep has not seen Gandalf for six months. The party has some drinks & bilbo notices strider with a semi-ominous description of him from the inkeep when asked. Pippin stupidly reveals frodo is there though & in the process reveals himself to strider as well as the nazgul by accidentally slipping the ring on trying to stop pippin from blowing his cover at about 53 minutes in. Soon after strider tells frodo that they can't wait for gandalf because "they" are coming.

Lets assume the social encounter stemming from the question starts just after they get off the ferry & say that the hooded black rider/ferry encounter was last week possibly with some other encounters thrown in over the forest stuff to make for an interesting d&d session rather than novel read. Here's how it might play out at the table if we tried to squeeze that few minutes of film/pages of story into gameplay.

Spoiler: example of the Bree gate to Strider's room forcibly squeezed into gameplay

• GM: "ok last week you guys started down(up?) the river & had some close calls in the forest but you can see the city of Bree ahead through the rain"[The characters already expect to find Gandalf or some other adventure there at the prancing pony so it doesn't need to be said]
• Alice: I'm going to order pizza's, anyone mind? [no special meaning here]
• insert the back & forth at the gate playing out somehow with no objection when the players say they want to be as incognito as they can so no rolls are even needed
  [This could be played out in real time if the party makeup is one where it should be interesting, but at least the quick scene in the movie doesn't really add anything or go anywhere interesting so it's actually better if the GM just declares it into existence as something uneventful that happened It even gives time for Alice to order the pizza & everyone to settle on what they want]
• player: "we already know that Gandalf is waiting for us, lets go to the pony I
• GM: "You get there no problem & GM describes the room
• Frodio: "I ask the innkeep where he's at"
• GM: "the innkeep hmms a bit & tells you that it's been six months since he's seen him. Even though he left by horse before you left on foot somehow he's still not here. You can obviously tell that something must have happened to him"
• Bob: "I declare gandalf walks in"
• GM: "um... he can't because obviously something happened, declaration refused"
• Bob: "My cousin used to work with the Maiar and"
• GM: "No bob he did not."
• GM: "You guys settle in with drinks & think about your options, frodo you notice a hooded man in an oddly dim corner of the tavern who sticks out"
• Frodo: "can I ask a passing waitress or something about him?"
• GM: "Sure you flag one down & they give you kind of an ominous description saying the man is is one of them rangers & he doesn't know more than the fact people call him Strider"
• Players: "hmm... what should we do, maybe go talk? does everyone think that seems like a good idea?"
• GM: "You guys think about it a bit while everyone's doing their own thing, frodo you going to talk to him?
• Frodo: "Yea I get up to go talk to him" [this has been pretty standard gameplay so far but is about to change]
• GM: "Frodo you are getting up your courage to go talk to him but remember how you guys wanted to fly under the radar & even gave fake names? That's when you hear Pippin over there bragging about knowing a baggins & how one is sitting right over there instead of calling you an underhill"
  [normally in fate there might be some exchange of fate points & such but I'm skipping that because this is trying to convert the scene from a book/movie to gameplay without changing the scene too much & the bob problem described herein 2547.]
  • The players already established that they wanted to fly under the radar at the gate possibly even by the GM leading them into it with something like "I'm guessing you guys want to do what you can not to let on your mission & all?". That allows the GM to backfill the false name to the inkeep without railroading even though it was never specifically established because the GM is just using the fractalized nature of things.
• Frodo: "oh god I stop him"
  [this might even be because the GM pointed out & asked if frodo was going to stop him]
• GM: "good news & bad news with the ring. You met the cloaked figure when he dragged you off to his room but did so after tumbling to the floor & having the ring accidentally slip on your finger where it made you feel the connection to the dark lord's forces & them feel you"
  [Frodo would absolutely get a fate point for something for this but we haven't figured out a good way to use them with bob or the occasional newbie not up to speed on things]
• frodo: "ooo that's bad, what does that mean?"
• GM: "They know you exist & are on the lookout for you, not much different but it should allow for cool stuff & strider obviously noticed you"
• frodo :"cool where is strider dragging me off to?"
• Someone's phone chimes
• Alice: Dominos app says our pizza's are in the oven & estimated xx minutes remaining I'm starved [yea all of that could happen that fast at the table, it shouldn't be a surprise given not much happened in the tavern there].

• From Strider's room things kinda break down when it comes to mapping the story in the book/movie to gameplay, things would play out very different on the way to mount doom because it's a single largely railroaded quest stretched out over hundreds of pages that would need a ton of filler. Part of why things would play out so different is because the fellowship characters exist exclusively to get the ring to where it can be destroyed so they can go back to being hobbits with as few detours as possible. The fellowship of hobbits don't really have any goals of their own to be interesting except the flaws of being hobbits who want to drink & eat.
  • Gimli & Thorin might be better examples from here because they have a desire to recover/restore their ancestral home & the usual dwarf glory/honor of the clan stuff. Getting the ring to mount doom is a secondary concern. Frodo is troubled by it but there could be any number of "quests" aimed evolving some aspect of those things. Aragorn might cause the inclusion of things like recovering food shipments bound for/from gondor & rohan or dealing with problems those have just pulling a few simple hypothetical "quests" or goals that could happen in their stories.

In that example above the GM directed a lot of things & it might look heavy handed (especially since it's trying to convert a book/movie clip as is to gameplay) but keep in mind that access to that sometimes beyond wish level power is also at the disposal of the players if it can be used responsibly for reasons other than a boring solution. Sometimes that means negotiating, sometimes it means just saying "no Bob" & moving on.

How do we resolve the journey?

The way I handle a journey is probably not all that different from any other table, it depends on how interesting the journey is needed to be & such just like any other table. It might use some journey rules, it might be handwaved with some narration, things may or may not happen at the table during a journey depending on what seems most interesting at the time.

As to the journey of a single quest written by Tolkien involving recovering & destroying the ring? The Hobbit: 304 pages The Fellowship of the Ring: 479 pages The Two Towers: 415 pages The Return of the King: 347 pages... I'm not sure that is something that anyone can give a single answer to.

 

[Remathilis]

This is an example of what I described as blocking the action declaration. I still don't understand what advantage it offers over allowing the player to express their conception of their scholarly Draconic-reading relative, and introducing the sage via the exercise of GM power to frame the scene in question.

Is the answer that the module only has a description for an encounter with the sage at the latter's distant hermitage, and so putting the sage somewhere else is too great a burden on the GM's capacity to manage the fiction?

But at what point does the "declared action" become unreasonable? We already have a PC who declared his brother is an expert in an obscure language, so what else is possible? My uncle owns a shipping business, he can get us a ship and a crew to sail to the Moonshaes? My sister is a high priestess of Selune, she'll raise our dead comrade? My mentor is the archmage Alejandro, he'd be willing to teleport us to Neverwinter? My dad was a former paladin, he'll loan me his holy avenger since we're doing a mission to save the world? Did I mention Drizzt is a family friend? He'd help us slay the dragon...

I'm just curious if there is a point where PC''s dictating the fiction actually ends for you?

 

[Eric V]

But at what point does the "declared action" become unreasonable? We already have a PC who declared his brother is an expert in an obscure language, so what else is possible? My uncle owns a shipping business, he can get us a ship and a crew to sail to the Moonshaes? My sister is a high priestess of Selune, she'll raise our dead comrade? My mentor is the archmage Alejandro, he'd be willing to teleport us to Neverwinter? My dad was a former paladin, he'll loan me his holy avenger since we're doing a mission to save the world? Did I mention Drizzt is a family friend? He'd help us slay the dragon...

I'm just curious if there is a point where PC''s dictating the fiction actually ends for you?

I'm not @pemerton but I guess I would answer based on the narrative force of these scenarios:

1) The party needs an expert on obscure languages...if it's NOT the brother, then is the ensuing search for the expert meaningful narratively? Is there a way for the adventure to proceed without knowing the language? If not, and it's therefore a "must" that the PCs understand the language, it shouldn't be left up to random rolls...so why not have it be the brother?

2) Does the adventure require journeying to the Moonshaes? If so, it again shouldn't be left to random dice, so...this doesn't stop the DM from having encounters (pirates, etc.) on the way or whatever, so I can't see the issue.

3) Usually raising the dead goes beyond mere favour...something has to be done in return. In fact, it's often such a big deal that a stranger (even a cleric) won't do it for just anybody...but a blood relation? They might...and the party would be beholden to the sister and her order. This, though, depends on how big a deal raising the dead is in a campaign.

4) Again, is the actual journey to Neverwinter part of the adventure? What's the "cast for cash" economy in the world? In the real world, it's considered proper to recompense even relatives for big favours. If, however, the actual journey is part of the adventure, then I can see a problem, but like the last one, it actually harms the players...

5) This one involves straight up combat improvement, so the DM could adjust encounters accordingly, I suppose.

6) Why would I play in a game where the NPC does all the work? As a player, I wouldn't want that...can't imagine a player that would.

I understand the concern, honestly. I just hope to show in these answers that maybe it isn't as big a deal as we might make it out in our minds.

 

[Lanefan]

1) The party needs an expert on obscure languages...if it's NOT the brother, then is the ensuing search for the expert meaningful narratively? Is there a way for the adventure to proceed without knowing the language? If not, and it's therefore a "must" that the PCs understand the language, it shouldn't be left up to random rolls

Why not? Maybe, even though they have to know the language, they can't - and thus need to look for a plan B.

And have these guys never heard of Comprehend Language?

2) Does the adventure require journeying to the Moonshaes? If so, it again shouldn't be left to random dice,

Why not? The randomness need not determine whether they can get there at all - sooner or later they can, but it might take a long time - but can (and IMO should) determine how long it takes to find transport, what means of transport are available, how long the journey itself takes, how safe/dangerous it is, and so forth.

Put another way, randomness determines whether they can - assuming they take what transport they find - get there by teleport tomorrow, or safely in a few days by fast ship, or at some risk in a few weeks by slow merchant trader, or not until spring 'cause the winter storms are setting in and no wise mariner goes out of sight of land. The player-driven variable is, of course, how much money they're willing to throw at people in order to get there faster, if time is pressing; which forces a choice as to whether to burn resources on this or not.

3) Usually raising the dead goes beyond mere favour...something has to be done in return. In fact, it's often such a big deal that a stranger (even a cleric) won't do it for just anybody...but a blood relation? They might...and the party would be beholden to the sister and her order. This, though, depends on how big a deal raising the dead is in a campaign.

Yeah, odds are nobody's going to do this for free other than a PC in the party who can hard-cast it.

I understand the concern, honestly. I just hope to show in these answers that maybe it isn't as big a deal as we might make it out in our minds.

The big deal is that, on a systemic level, these things undermine the challenges and bypass having to make decisions around risk acceptance and-or resource use.

 

[pemerton]

But at what point does the "declared action" become unreasonable?

<snip>

I'm just curious if there is a point where PC''s dictating the fiction actually ends for you?

I take it that "PC" here means player.

As I've already posted, my personal preference is for systems that resolve these sorts of action declarations by way of checks (eg Streetwise checks) or via player-side resource expenditure.

For instance, in Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic, I know Tony Stark - he lends me some cool gear translates, mechanically, into spend a Plot Point to gain a bonus die in your pool. The Plot Point is a limited resource. The bonus die applies to rolls where - as per the details of the fiction - the cool gear would help. And as a general rule it lasts until the next transition scene.

In my last Torchbearer session, the player whose PC has an Elven Ranger as a friend (as per the "do you have a friend?" component of the PC build process) made a Circles check to meet that friend, because the players knew that a ranger would help them with the journey from the town where they were back to the ruined tower that they wanted to loot and explore. The check failed, and so instead - as per my narration of that failure as a GM - instead the PC got news that her NPC friend had been captured.

But in 5e D&D there are no mechanics to resolve these things, so it's up to free negotiation between player and GM. I think what @Eric V has posted seems reasonable enough, but will add a few thoughts:

***********************************

(1) This is the example I've been working with. I still haven't had an answer to the question I've asked a couple of times now: if the quest for a Draconic-reader is really just a device for introducing the PCs to the sage, then why can the GM not just write an encounter with the sage into the ongoing play? I posited a possible reason - namely, that's it's too much work to depart from what the module says should happen - but no one has posted yet whether that's a relevant factor.

(2) Why do the players want their PCs to travel to the Moonshaes? If the GM really thinks its crucial that the PCs not go there, then I can see some options: (i) your uncle's ships are all busy; (ii) on the way a storm comes up and sweeps you all to <some other place>; (iii) the swallowed-by-a-sea-serpent-like-Jonah variant of (ii). As far as (i) is concerned, I think it's would be obvious to most people that the degree of contrivance in the ships all being busy is not particularly high (compared to, say, the cousin/brother not having a spare hour or two to translate a fragment of parchment). And notice also that it doesn't negate the player's conception of the uncle: if the player says "My sister leaves the side gate open" then the GM can't negate that without having the sister decline a request for a favour; but the uncle can easily say "I'd love to help you, but all the ships are currently en route to <some other place>".

I'll also add: when my Burning Wheel PC needed to travel down the Jewel river, I made a Circle check to have my PC meet an ex-member of his knightly order who might help. The check succeeded, and so the GM introduced Frederick, a retired knight of the Iron Tower, who was able to carry my PC down the river on his raft.

In a BW game I was GMing, the PCs were on a ship which sank. So they were floating in the waters of the Woolly Bay. The player with the best Circles - the PC in question was an Elven princess - made a check to see if a helpful NPC might sail by and rescue them. The check succeeded, and so as GM I introduced an Elven captain, who had been dispatched to find the the missing princess. (He didn't literally sail by. One of the PCs was helping the Circles check by transforming into a falcon and looking out for any ships - and in falcon form was able to attract the attention of the Elven sea captain and guide his ship to where the rest of the PCs were.)

(3) I don't actually see the big deal here. Is the player going to keep playing? In that case they need a PC to do so. And if it's AP-style play, that PC better be of about the right level. Assuming the players can provide the expensive component, then why not move right along? (I did a variant of that in my 4e D&D game - details here.) If it's a NPC, and the GM would prefer them to stay dead, the GM can decree that their soul is not willing.

(4) This is a variant of (2) with a dash of (3), and so the same considerations apply. It's also perhaps quite plausible that an Archmage is busy elsewhere. But if the GM wants the PCs to be in Neverwinter, then this is one way of getting them there!

(5) This is an attempt to circumvent the rules for obtaining treasure, and so comes close to "cheating" or at least is a bit of a try-on. (In 4e it would be fine - just deduct the item from the next treasure parcel. If the item is bigger than what a treasure parcel permits, that tells us its too good for the PC to have, and the player is expected to conform to the same PC build rules as everyone else. Many of the magic items the PCs in my 4e game acquired were gifts of various sorts - there is no reason why treasure parcels need to be "loot drops" from dead NPCs or creatures.)

(6) I gave the example already of the player in my Torchbearer trying to Circle up her ranger friend. This seems to belong in the same general category. On top of Eric V's point about when players typically do and don't want NPC assistance, I take it that what you're really pointing to is the level/power disparity between the PCs and Driz'zt, in which case we're back in the domain of rules, this time in relation to party composition rather than magic item acquisition.

***********************************

As well as thoughts, you'll see that I've done my best to give actual play examples from my FRPGing experience. 5e D&D is not 4e D&D or Burning Wheel or Torchbearer, but I doubt it's so delicate an instrument that it will break down over things they are able to handle so straightforwardly.

 

[Hussar]

The big deal is that, on a systemic level, these things undermine the challenges and bypass having to make decisions around risk acceptance and-or resource use.

Not really though. Unless the entire adventure focuses on any of these things, by and large, they don't actually matter that much. Getting that writing translated is the point, not who does it. Getting to the Moonshaes is the point, not the how. Raising Dead is more often than not a case of striking off the appropriate gold and move on. The point of the adventure is Neverwinter, not really the journey.

In other words, the players are telling you that they DON'T CARE about the how when they do this. This is as clear a way that they can do this without actually flat out refusing to play. Not every obstacle that the DM thinks of is automatically gold. Sometimes the players just don't want to engage with this bit. And it might just be for today. But, they are telling you, very clearly, that they don't want to screw around finding some random NPC that will immediately be forgotten afterwards.

The DM ignoring that and then proceeding with the challenge. So, the players go through the motions, jump through the appropriate hoops and satisfy the DM's need for this particular challenge to be resolved.

Oh, but, Hussar, if we let them bypass one challenge, they'll bypass everything. Why not just declare that they win every time.

Well, that's a nice slippery slope argument, and, really, doesn't hold any water. Presumably your players actually want to play your game. If they are actually just bypassing every single thing you put in front of them, well, it's time to find a new group. Or, at least, have a really frank discussion about the game. Otherwise, it's just a case of the player(s) don't want to engage with this, specific challenge and can we just move on? Please?

 

[pemerton]

Coleville mentions problems with Tolkien's characters in the video that @overgeeked linked in 2558 & how Tolkien himself was bothered by some of them, but the quest to destroy the ring makes for an extremely poor character goal for reasons mentioned there & in another video

watched the first 7 or so minutes of the first video you mentioned. I think the advice is bad, and I personally would never follow it.

I also don't think that a goal like "destroy the ring" is terrible at all.

Colville appears to look at D&D play through the lens of the GM dictating all content and all player goals.

But imagine if a player creates a PC and a player authors the backstory about the mysterious ring. And then the events of play - including Gandalf's revelations - are all narrated in response to successful or unsuccessful checks. There's nothing dysfunctional about that.

In my 4e game, one of the PCs - the invoker/wizard - has had the goal of restoring the Rod of Seven Parts since 2nd level (the game is at 30th, and he is close to getting the seventh piece). Initially (ie at 2nd level), the PC had a close encounter - in a dying/dream-type sequence - with Erathis. I asked the player why Erathis would send the PC back, and he suggested that it was to find an important item in the Nerathi ruins where the PCs were. That was the first bit of the Rod, although the idea that it was part of the Rod only came up later in the campaign.

I don't see why something similar couldn't happen with an heirloom.

*****************

On social encounters and journeys, there are many possibilities besides free-form narration and GM control. For instance, 4e uses skill challenges for both. In 5e D&D a journey could be structured as a series of skill checks, with good or bad things happening depending on success or failure - eg think of the encounter with the Nazgul at the ferry, or on Weathertop, not as pre-planned things but as the GM introducing adverse consequences for failed checks (eg on Weathertop, a failed Survival check means that the fire that has been lit is visible to the PCs' enemies). The failure at the pass of Caradhras can be thought of the same way.

*****************

RPG play doesn't have to unfold through a series of events pre-determined by the GM. So when it does, that's a choice. Given how popular that approach is, I assume there are good reasons for the choice. But stopping 1st level PCs having access to holy avenger swords doesn't seem to me to be one of them. More generally, keeping errant players in check doesn't seem to be one of them.

What are the good reasons?

 

[pemerton]

Well, that's a nice slippery slope argument, and, really, doesn't hold any water. Presumably your players actually want to play your game. If they are actually just bypassing every single thing you put in front of them, well, it's time to find a new group. Or, at least, have a really frank discussion about the game.

This relates directly to the comment I just posted.

What's the good reason for GM exercise of control over content? If the best we can say is to keep wayward players in check, we're coming close to saying that the players need to eat the vegetables and take the medicine that the GM is serving up to them. That's not a very inspiring picture of why people would play FRPGs!

 

[Cadence]

This relates directly to the comment I just posted.

What's the good reason for GM exercise of control over content?

When I'm a player as the game is happening, I want to say (author?) what my player is trying to do/thinking at that moment and explore the world/try things, and not author other things about the world (I don't enjoy it). I am happy to help author other things out of character between sessions.

Checking if my sister who is already established as a scholarly type knows someone at the library seems great. Stating that my nebulously defined sister knows someone at the library in a particular are doesn't to me.