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

[tetrasodium]

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.

You have it backwards. Declarations are not the player doing some kind of proactive authoring of specific stuff & cross referencing during play to check if you wrote about a specific thing earlier, it's simply declaring that you have a cousin or whatever who [fill in the blank right now after it became relevant]. At that point the character didn't suddenly gain a brother who worked in a library, they always had that brother who worked in the library & it just wasn't relevant till now. The noble's player didn't write that he has an uncle who runs a shipping business, the player declared it just now & the character always had it Same thing with the sister who is a high priestess of Selune & all the others, just now retroactively forms into existence. It works both ways but 5e PCs are "sunglasses people" in a lot of ways that limit the GM's ability to do that. When this kind of gameplay is in use the GM needs to control what's ok or not & have the ability to hold a PC's background/character fractal elements to the fire in return just as the GM needs to track monster HP during combat.

Not only does this allow you as a player to "say (author?) what my player is trying to do/thinking at that moment and explore the world/try things" it allows you as the player to form your character's backstory & place in the world as it becomes relevant while also driving the plot & direction of the campaign so a player is never faced with "ugh, I wrote this cool backstory that's totally the wrong fit for this campaign & is never going to come up". The possible downside of that to some players is that the story is formed collaboratively during play by everyone at the table & the GM needs to be able to maintain a tighter leash on it.

 

[Cadence]

You have it backwards. Declarations are not the player doing some kind of proactive authoring of specific stuff & cross referencing during play to check if you wrote about a specific thing earlier, it's simply declaring that you have a cousin or whatever who [fill in the blank right now after it became relevant]. At that point the character didn't suddenly gain a brother who worked in a library, they always had that brother who worked in the library & it just wasn't relevant till now. The noble's player didn't write that he has an uncle who runs a shipping business, the player declared it just now & the character always had it Same thing with the sister who is a high priestess of Selune & all the others, just now retroactively forms into existence. It works both ways but 5e PCs are "sunglasses people" in a lot of ways that limit the GM's ability to do that. When this kind of gameplay is in use the GM needs to control what's ok or not & have the ability to hold a PC's background/character fractal elements to the fire in return just as the GM needs to track monster HP during combat.

Not only does this allow you as a player to "say (author?) what my player is trying to do/thinking at that moment and explore the world/try things" it allows you as the player to form your character's backstory & place in the world as it becomes relevant while also driving the plot & direction of the campaign so a player is never faced with "ugh, I wrote this cool backstory that's totally the wrong fit for this campaign & is never going to come up". The possible downside of that to some players is that the story is formed collaboratively during play by everyone at the table & the GM needs to be able to maintain a tighter leash on it.

Sure, in story, my character will always have had that relative with whatever details I give them. But IRL I'll be creating that NPC/background/whatnot just now in the middle of when I'd really like to be getting into what my character is thinking instead. I haven't found myself liking that style of play. If doing it between sessions isn't on-time enough to make backstory things, then I'd rather not make them.

I can certainly appreciate that others do like doing that!

On the other hand, as a DM, if someone wanted to make up a big backstory suggestion during the middle of play, I'm not sure that would bother me anymore than them running it by me between sessions. I'm not sure if it's happened in a game I've run before or not.

 

[Hussar]

I would point out that there is some difference between “I wouldn’t like doing that” and “I wouldn’t like it if anyone at the table other than the dm” does it.

 

[Yora]

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.

It can work great. In Apocalypse World for example. But that's just not D&D. Very different basic premises.

 

[Lanefan]

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 my eyes it all matters, both the "point" and the "how".

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.

See below: more often, they're telling me somehting different and very well known.

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.

Yes; and part of playing that game on their part is to attempt to reduce or negate whatever challenges are put in front of them, whenever they can. So yes, if they're given an easy means of bypassing or negating a bunch of challenges of course they're gonna use it; and IMO they'd be foolish not to.

If they are actually just bypassing every single thing you put in front of them, well, it's time to find a new group.

Not at all. If they're finding ways of bypassing everything I put in front of them then IMO either they're doing a very fine job as players or I'm doing a crappy one as DM.

It's my job to make sure those bypasses aren't nearly as easily available as they'd like.

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?

Not quite: by finding a means of bypassing the challenge they ARE engaging with it; only in this case the goal of said engagement is to negate or bypass rather than face head-on.

 

[Hussar]

Yes; and part of playing that game on their part is to attempt to reduce or negate whatever challenges are put in front of them, whenever they can. So yes, if they're given an easy means of bypassing or negating a bunch of challenges of course they're gonna use it; and IMO they'd be foolish not to.

That is so not how I see gaming. I very much do not game either as a DM or as a player, in this manner.

 

[pemerton]

by finding a means of bypassing the challenge they ARE engaging with it; only in this case the goal of said engagement is to negate or bypass rather than face head-on.

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

These remarks imply that you'd be happy with Circles in Burning Wheel and Torchbearer, or with the MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic system for establishing Resources (which can include contacts) by spending a Plot Point.

But I don't think that's the case.

Therefore I think that your remarks aren't setting out your full range of opinions on the matter.

 

[pemerton]

That is so not how I see gaming. I very much do not game either as a DM or as a player, in this manner.

Speaking for myself, as a player and not a GM:

I don't play a lot, but my most recent (if sadly intermittent) play experiences have been in Burning Wheel, playing a knight of a holy order.

My PC is a social/connected character: I spent starting build resources on a relationship (Thurgon's mother, Xanthippe), and on Affiliations (with the Order of the Iron Tower; and with the PC's family) and Reputation (Thurgon is the last knight of the Iron Tower). Affiliations and Reputations add dice to appropriate Circles checks.

As Thurgon travelled the borderlands (in early sessions) and has since returned to his ancestral estate, he is looking out for people he knows, or who know him: former knights; family members; etc. This is reflected by declaring and resolving Circles checks. As I think I mentioned upthread, one of these encounters was with a former knight, now hermit, who was able to take Thurgon and his companions down the river on his raft.

These encounters aren't "bypassing" or "negating" the game. They are the game!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would point out that there is some difference between “I wouldn’t like doing that” and “I wouldn’t like it if anyone at the table other than the dm” does it.

I don't like it, and I don't like when anyone at the table other than the DM does it. I do make an exception for languages, and allow those to be chosen on the fly until you fill up your total as a GM.

 

[pemerton]

IRL I'll be creating that NPC/background/whatnot just now in the middle of when I'd really like to be getting into what my character is thinking instead. I haven't found myself liking that style of play.

I don't like it, and I don't like when anyone at the table other than the DM does it. I do make an exception for languages, and allow those to be chosen on the fly until you fill up your total as a GM.

A practical upshot of this will be PCs who are not deeply embedded/interconnected in the social aspects of the fiction.

The number of people I know, even the number of people who are my friends, would outstrip my capacity to note them all on a PC sheet. So if my PC knows only those people whom I write down, in advance, as part of the PC build process, the upshot is that my PC won't know many people.

That can be fine - it will create a feel about the PCs similar to Conan in The Tower of the Elephant (contrast, say, Conan in People of the Black Circle) - but obviously won't resolve the concern expressed upthread, of wanting players to have their PCs be more interconnected with the setting.