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

[Helldritch]

Lots of good points from both sides here. And à lot to think about.

It also goes back to the perception of what kind of backstories a DM is ready to allow or not to allow. Whenever a player was making a level 1 character on his own with a mile long backstory, I was getting serious hitches as DM.

The solution we found with my players was to restricts backstories to a common creation between DM and players. This way, we ensured that stories would fit with each other's and would respect the campaign if it was a thing.

For first level characters, stories are usually quite short and limited to close familly, accointances and a small event or two.

But whenever we build higher level characters (3rd and up), the backstories are almost open bar. Very few restrictions are ever applied.

Yes traveling the whole continent makes the stories focus on the group and revolve less around the individual characters than a small area does, but it is my/our job as DM to make sure that all characters have a chance to shine at the table. All should have the spotlight and that spotlight is meant to travel from one PC to the next, never staying on one for too long.

I know that without mile long backstories some players feel that their character is less impressive or useful, but so far, every single players that had this fear that joined my games would not return to backstories and much prefer the emerging stories. Maybe it is the style of DMing that I have that makes it work well and that some here that have had that style had bad experience with either DM and players, but done correctly with understandings and openness, it works extremely well.

My players would never offer to have a sister in the mayor's service out of the blue not because I would not allow it, but because I might turn against them if the rolls are not in their favor.
"Ho, your sister works for the mayor (which is the secret BBEG, or not) ok, roll two d8. 1st d8 would be whether or not the sister likes you or hates you, and the second would be how likely she is to help you out. If your sister hates you and was secretive about it, you might be in a whole world of trouble... or she might love you but not be ready to help you or love you so much that she tires to help you and dies in the process or help you and nothing bad happens (yes an auto win) or any situations in between. I never allow out of the blue win buttons. I always put a risk in any decisions and solutions. There are more ways to get in that mayor's office than a win button will ever do. And all these ways makes for a much more interesting stories.

 

[Arilyn]

Thanks for the response @Hussar , it's much appreciated and I feel we're in the same space as far as what we've seen and what we might be tired of seeing.

I know you didn't ask for any suggestions, but for a campaign that is very much centred on one area and follows characters through their whole careers (literally; it takes place over 30 years), the Mirkwood Campaign for AiME is fantastic. It's written by Gareth Ryder-Hanrahan and if I ever DM 5e again, it's going to be that. Might be worth checking out...IF you have the players for it. Requires a bit more of a buy-in, IMO.

I have this campaign for the 1st edition of The One Ring, and I agree that it's amazing. Hanrahan is one of my favourite game designers/writers.

 

[Campbell]

Even in a low-level game PCs should probably have some meaningful connection to the setting. Monastic Orders, Religions they are ordained in, Schools or Mentors for Wizards, Mercenary companies or a teacher for fighters and the like, knightly orders, thieves' guilds. One does not simply spring up as 16–20-year-old with the sort of skill sets player characters start with unless they have been trained. Furthermore, the sorts of skillsets PCs possess are not usually the type of people society is very comfortable letting roam free without a measure of accountability.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Indeed. The apparent need to provide objective-sounding bases for your subjective impression of subjective experiences is widespread. It's most pernicious in discussions of films online IMO, but you see it everywhere to some extent. It seems difficult to simply say "it's not to my tastes" and move on without dumping on something you know that other people love.

Well, if you do that, there's nothing to talk about.

But I do agree if you're going to criticize something, while there's value in going into the detail (it can tell other people what choices the filmmakers made that doesn't suit you, as it may or may not be the sort of thing they dislike. The problem, of course, comes when you get to things like accusations of "terrible acting", which is not something that has an objective metric; it can be genuinely bad, it can be in a style you're not familiar or comfortable with, it can be proper acting as the director is presenting it, or it can be acting designed to tell you something about the character or the situation you're not seeing. Or it can be bad. But you can't just throw it out there and expect it to be taken as a given.

Similar things occur in game design and operation. Disdaining people who want different things and acting like its a given that what they want is wrong is lazy argument. At best you can suggest that they're not serving a lot of people who they're selling the game to well, and even that can require some argument that's going to have fuzzy support at best.

 

[Lanefan]

Even in a low-level game PCs should probably have some meaningful connection to the setting. Monastic Orders, Religions they are ordained in, Schools or Mentors for Wizards, Mercenary companies or a teacher for fighters and the like, knightly orders, thieves' guilds. One does not simply spring up as 16–20-year-old with the sort of skill sets player characters start with unless they have been trained. Furthermore, the sorts of skillsets PCs possess are not usually the type of people society is very comfortable letting roam free without a measure of accountability.

I should play this up more, indeed. Most PCs are trained in some sort of guild, temple, or school, with Fighters being the most common exception; and contacts made in these places certainly could become useful later.

That said, this too can backfire. In an old campaign one of the major PCs was an Assassin; very loyal to the party but otherwise of the sort who nobody - nobody! - dared give orders or instructions to. After a few years away he and the party passed through his home town, his guild found out he was there and came looking for a few years worth of outstanding guild dues and fees - pocket change given that PC's wealth - and asking for reports on activities. He refused to pay, then "made" and killed the observer sent to follow him when they left town.

Next time in town, a few months later, he and the talked-into-it party very messily took out the whole guild.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I knew we were talking past one another. I bolded key parts.

So, the only way your character's backstory matters is if the DM manufactures scenarios where that background is going to come into play? How is that giving any control to the player? ...

Thus the whole problem. The players have zero control here. It's entirely on the DM. And, if the DM doesn't reference that backstory, then the player is out of luck. So, you can't really talk about how the players have "plenty of control" and then point to examples where the players have zero control.

The players have 100% control; you aren't understanding what I write. But, to be fair, I just realized something.

As I already posted, I think putting a real person's worth of social connections into backstory is not feasible. ...

Posting "previous games" doesn't solve the problem. That rules out starting characters with rich backstories. Even if we start every PC as a 16 year old, what about friends and acquaintances from childhood?

And with you, I also just realized that the adventure you are sending Aragorn on is starting him at 10th level or something. You are assuming him created at the time of the novels when he's 80-something, not when he's 20-something just starting out as a Ranger - Lvl: 1 Race: Dunedain.

I run a sandbox game. Pemerton has explicitly stated that he does not, and I gather Hussar does not as well. That's fine; it's a stylistic choice, but I do. There are some hooks, but the players need to find motivation to go out into the world. When they do, and are exposed to more of it, they meet people and make connections.

"The players have zero control here. It's entirely on the DM. "

No, it's on the players. They will decide their adventure, go to the elvish forest kingdom, find an adventure, and make connections during the adventure. And then in a couple levels, when they return because they want the lore behind a couple of swords they found in a trove, they can leverage those connections. That's when they get to say, "Hey, Baron, we're using our contacts in the elvish kingdom to find out what's what with these swords. Who do we know?" They do not get to ask that until the connections are made. If they don't have connections that they need, they go out an make them.

One of my players asked me "So, there's an Empress, the Doge's run the cities, and Barons that answer to the local Doge. How do I become a Baron?" I told her that should could perform a great act that benefits the city-state. Well known, more directly adventurous routes were discovered, and she chose eliminating the undead ruler of a fallen city-state. She and the rest of the party have been going to the various city-states, helping them out, making contacts, and gathering forces. Now, they know many people from whom they can ask favors because they gained them through play to use later. When they needed access to a noble's party, they didn't just pull a connection out of a hat. They went around, talked to people in their respective guilds, temples, orders, and conclaves, and figured out who needed a favor which could be parleyed into an invite.

"Even if we start every PC as a 16 year old, what about friends and acquaintances from childhood?"

Well, when you're first level you don't have much, do you? Really, you have your family, a mentor, and a close childhood friend. Want more? Do favors for people. They'll come to like you and will do favors for you. Because characters start at first level.

Now, sometimes, characters start a little higher for a variety of reasons. In my game characters explicitly gain contacts every 4th level. These contacts are opportunities that the players have to describe a tie they have with someone that might help them in the future. Bards and thieves gain more. And, yes, when they gain the contact they have to define them. They aren't a nebulous cloud that condenses into usefulness at need. I require forethought.

"And, if the DM doesn't reference that backstory, then the player is out of luck."

I guess so. But, then, the player chose to go on an adventure that has no tie to their backstory, mentor, or current contacts. Considering that the character's backstory is probably where half of beginning adventures come from, why in the world would I ignore the PC's backstory? I mean, really? What would I be thinking?

Because my players are invested in my gameworld they take time to create contacts and develop friendships. Beyond mere utility, sometimes these develop into romances and marriages, terrible betrayals, and long lasting friendships.

Now, if you are deciding on a 12 chapter adventure path with the characters starting at 5th level and ending when they are 12th level? Then you give the players however many options you want. Abstract the character's past all you want. I don't mind. I don't mind if it becomes part of the rule set. I think it can be an enjoyable and worthwhile experience. I think it is more shallow than what I offer. I am surprised by your claims that your hat-trick methods allow for a deeper experience. I don't see it.

But, I run a sandbox, and the players, not me, decide their path. I just determine the map and the consequences for their actions.

I hope this more clearly explains my position. I am in no way impeding, hindering, or dictating to my players. It's their game, I just administrate it.

 

[Hussar]

@Baron Opal II - all I can say is that in my experience, claims of "open world sandboxes" mean that the characters have pretty much no connection to the setting and are largely blank pages because there's no point in having anything else. As you said, that first level character has "family members, a mentor and a childhood friend". So, yes, as you say, nothing in my character's backstory is going to matter, so why bother having one?

After all, the odds that any of those three things will come up in game, when the only time I can specify any of them is at chargen, is so close to zero that it might as well be zero. And then we have @Helldritch flat out saying that any NPC the players attempt to add to the game come with built in chances of being a hinderance rather than something that adds to the game, well, again, what's the point? Why would I bother? There's no upside there. I'm far better off simply engaging with the DM's puzzle box because at least there I have control. If adding a NPC just places me in a worse position 1/3 of the time, randomly, then no, I'm never going to do it because it's a fools bet.

But, at the tend of the day, @Baron Opal II, you absolutely are dictating to your players. They have zero control in your game other than what tiny little spotlight is shining around their characters. In order to got to the noble's party, they engaged with your puzzle box until you decided they succeeded and then they could go to the party. IOW, they have no actual control.

Control means that the player gets to tell the DM that X is true in the game. If the player cannot tell the DM that X is true in the game (obviously beyond simple actions by the character) then the player has no control over that game. Which is a perfectly fine way to play. Trad play generally follows this. But, it means that the player has zero incentive to take any ownership over the game and becomes a passive consumer of the game.

I don't want consumer players anymore. I want the game to be a collaborative effort. I want the players to tell ME that X is true and then I can incorporate that into the game, taking it in directions that I don't have control over. Fantastic.

 

[pemerton]

it's on the players. They will decide their adventure, go to the elvish forest kingdom, find an adventure, and make connections during the adventure. And then in a couple levels, when they return because they want the lore behind a couple of swords they found in a trove, they can leverage those connections.

<snip>

Well, when you're first level you don't have much, do you? Really, you have your family, a mentor, and a close childhood friend. Want more? Do favors for people. They'll come to like you and will do favors for you. Because characters start at first level.

Upthread, the concern expressed was that players build and play PCs who are largely "men with no name", without connections to the gameworld/setting.

I don't see that you're offering a solution to that concern: you're taking it as given that the players will engage a predominantly GM-authored setting. Given that premise, the concern won't arise.

when they gain the contact they have to define them. They aren't a nebulous cloud that condenses into usefulness at need. I require forethought.

Forethought as to what?

I run a sandbox, and the players, not me, decide their path. I just determine the map and the consequences for their actions.

I'm guessing that you also determine most of the setting, and that you reference this in determining consequences. That was what seemed to be happening in this example:

One of my players asked me "So, there's an Empress, the Doge's run the cities, and Barons that answer to the local Doge. How do I become a Baron?" I told her that should could perform a great act that benefits the city-state. Well known, more directly adventurous routes were discovered, and she chose eliminating the undead ruler of a fallen city-state.

As I read this, you are the one who decided the backstory about Empress, Doges and Barons; about the method of becoming a Baron; abut the undead ruler of the fallen city-state.

If you have players who are excited about this GM-authored setting, then as I said, the problem that I was proposing a solution to will not be a problem that you have.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Baron Opal II - all I can say is that in my experience, claims of "open world sandboxes" mean that the characters have pretty much no connection to the setting and are largely blank pages because there's no point in having anything else. As you said, that first level character has "family members, a mentor and a childhood friend". So, yes, as you say, nothing in my character's backstory is going to matter, so why bother having one?

After all, the odds that any of those three things will come up in game, when the only time I can specify any of them is at chargen, is so close to zero that it might as well be zero.

I cannot comprehend how you come to this conclusion after I explicitly stated that I would listen to and apply character backstories.

We obviously have different experiences and preferences. Thank you for the conversation.

 

[Cadence]

@Baron Opal II - all I can say is that in my experience, claims of "open world sandboxes" mean that the characters have pretty much no connection to the setting and are largely blank pages because there's no point in having anything else. As you said, that first level character has "family members, a mentor and a childhood friend". So, yes, as you say, nothing in my character's backstory is going to matter, so why bother having one?

After all, the odds that any of those three things will come up in game, when the only time I can specify any of them is at chargen, is so close to zero that it might as well be zero. And then we have @Helldritch flat out saying that any NPC the players attempt to add to the game come with built in chances of being a hinderance rather than something that adds to the game, well, again, what's the point? Why would I bother? There's no upside there. I'm far better off simply engaging with the DM's puzzle box because at least there I have control. If adding a NPC just places me in a worse position 1/3 of the time, randomly, then no, I'm never going to do it because it's a fools bet.

But, at the tend of the day, @Baron Opal II, you absolutely are dictating to your players. They have zero control in your game other than what tiny little spotlight is shining around their characters. In order to got to the noble's party, they engaged with your puzzle box until you decided they succeeded and then they could go to the party. IOW, they have no actual control.

Control means that the player gets to tell the DM that X is true in the game. If the player cannot tell the DM that X is true in the game (obviously beyond simple actions by the character) then the player has no control over that game. Which is a perfectly fine way to play. Trad play generally follows this. But, it means that the player has zero incentive to take any ownership over the game and becomes a passive consumer of the game.

I don't want consumer players anymore. I want the game to be a collaborative effort. I want the players to tell ME that X is true and then I can incorporate that into the game, taking it in directions that I don't have control over. Fantastic.

I find it odd that the game years ago where my character decided to adopt an urchin, chose how they would be raised, selected their caregivers and training, etc.. gave me no incentive or ownership just because the DM had put the urchin there, the DM had decided the urchin's guardian was crappy, the DM gave me the list of potential caregivers, and the DM could have vetoed the training I wanted them to get.

Or that the party I was in last year had no incentives and didn't demonstrate any ownership when we decided to try and rehabilitate the bandit we knew from in town, or when we decided to overthrow the corrupt government and lay the ground worn for on he subsequent one in the kingdom to the south instead of just grabbing what we needed and leaving, just because it was the DM that said we all knew the bandit from in town, and because it was the DM who decided how many allies and reinforcements the corrupt king had.

Or that a party mate and I didn't demonstrate any ownership when we decided he should sacrifice my character on a tree to try and commune with Odin, just because the DM had to make the decision whether it worked or if I just died.