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

[Hussar]

So, he sometimes goes with the players idea, but that isn't what you mean. So do you always go with the player's idea with no veto or alteration?

No, of course not. The point is SHARED power, not all one way or the other. That's why it's called collaborative story telling. If it's all one or the other, both are, IMO, bad.

 

[Hussar]

Your own point is coming back to you. Giving the players authority to decide stuff is a perfectly fine way to play. More power to you. Other tables prefer a more GM-driven approach, and that's fine too. Can't we just leave it at that? Do we have to insist that your way is better for player engagement?

I've been pretty clear all the way along to plonk in "IMO" and "IME" and that I am 100% only talking about me. I do believe, because this is the experience that I have had, that DM centric gaming leads to players who are reactive. The DM sets the situation, the player reacts to that situation, wash, rinse repeat. If the players have choices, all choices are ones that the DM has allowed. In a sandbox, I can do X or Y, but, only if X or Y come from the DM. If I want to do Z, then I need to convince my DM to include Z which often just isn't worth the effort.

So, yes, I strongly believe that shared authority at the table leads to much more engaged players who will pro-actively bring things to the table. In other words, a table with 1 main DM and 5 sub-DM's is a much more engaged table than 1 DM and 5 players.

 

[pemerton]

At some point the gm needs to decide something simply because that is part of the GM's role. It does not seem that you make allowance for the gm ever deciding anything.what is the role of the gm if they do not decide anything?

In many systems that have a GM, the GM's job is to narrate the consequences of failed checks. I'm thinking here especially of 4e D&D (skill challenge resolution), Classic Traveller, Burning Wheel, Torchbearer, and PbtA games.

Here's a perfect example. The player has ZERO power here. Had you decided that the third one wasn't Wall of Fire, then it wouldn't be. You chose to go with the player's idea. That's fine. And a perfectly fun way to play. But, imagine the player instead TELLS YOU that the third one is wall of fire. Would that be okay? Why or why not?

This is a perfect example of why I prefer checks over resource expenditure to settle these things.

I've had exactly this scenario come up in both Burning Wheel and Cortex+ Heroic (ie a fantasy adaptation of MHRP).

In the former, the PC was examining a feather that was being sold by a peddler at a bazaar as an angel feather. The Aura Reading check failed; so I narrated the player discerning a curse on the feather- that is, in response to the failed check I establish some fiction that pushes against what the player was hoping for.

In the latter, the PCs had been teleported deep into a dungeon by a Crypt Thing. I described some weird markings on the wall (a Scene Distinction, for those who know the system). One of the players decided his PC would try and decipher them, to see if they provided a clue as to how to escape the dungeon. His check succeeded, and so his "hunch" was correct - and he got to eliminate the Lost in the Dungeon complication that his PC was suffering from.

I think making rolls to find out if the player gets what they want or not is, generally speaking, just more exciting than spending a resource to fiat something.

So, he sometimes goes with the players idea, but that isn't what you mean. So do you always go with the player's idea with no veto or alteration?

See what I've written just above.

Of course if its low stakes, or the lead up to something more interesting, I tend to just say yes.

In my last Torchbearer session, one of the PCs wanted to find his enemy and debate with him - the topic didn't matter, the point being simply to humiliate the enemy in front of his girlfriend. The system has the option to require a check to see if the PC can find the enemy, but I didn't bother. The player having made his preference clear, we cut straight to the debate.

 

[pemerton]

Your own point is coming back to you. Giving the players authority to decide stuff is a perfectly fine way to play. More power to you. Other tables prefer a more GM-driven approach, and that's fine too. Can't we just leave it at that? Do we have to insist that your way is better for player engagement?

If a GM asked me for advice on how to increase player engagement with their GM-authored setting, I would suggest that doing what @Hussar is suggesting is more likely to produce results than sticking with sole GM authorship.

 

[Helldritch]

@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.

Dear Hussar,
There is a big difference between pulling a NPC out of a player's hat for a "I win" button, and the same player actually going out, meet that NPC, and have that NPC become a valuable contact, ally and friend.

I do not encourage the rabbit from a hat, I encourage interactions between PCs and the world that they are in.

Here is an example. Last year, full TPK. We agreed to meet on the next week to make a session zero start over. They came in, and I gave them 6 new characters, a bit lower level but rife with magical potions and scrolls. Their mission? Recover the bodies, or part of the bodies of the group that died. This expedition was funded by the prince they had rescued, had kept connection with and helped a few times for free because they liked the boy. They got back their bodies, got resurrected and took their revenge on Death Reaver. Their contact saved their party. The cost was high, it meant that they had to restart with no magical items, no wealth but they did not cared. Fun fact, the player recognized the group they had saved when they were 3rd level themselves.

The group that saved them became a new contact of theirs, the prince helped them to gear themselves up with a generous loan. And in the process, they met the high priest of Heironeous that raised them. They turned that man into a staunch ally of theirs too.

This is the kind of game that I have with my group. No rabbit hat. Pure plain interaction and Role Play to get contacts and allies. I have seen players giving up their character's life to save a loved NPC because that NPC had always been faithful and loved by all. I have rarely heard the same about other games.

Edit: And this is not the first time I did that, nor will it be the last. The more the players are interacting with the world, the more their chances to have someone care about them is. Pure logic.

 

[pemerton]

There is a big difference between pulling a NPC out of a player's hat for a "I win" button, and the same player actually going out, meet that NPC, and have that NPC become a valuable contact, ally and friend.

By "player" do you mean PC?

Or are you referring to the player doing things, at the table, that will trigger the GM to narrate an encounter with the NPC?

 

[Helldritch]

And my above post brings me to this.
Good role play is not a player dictating that an NPC appears out of nowhere. It is a player interacting with the NPCs, making contact and friendships.

The appearing sister is IMHO, a poor way to solve a problem. I much prefer to have the player asking questions to the maid, talk to her, ask her and help her with some problem she might have and the asked her the little service they want than to see a sister appearing out of nowhere.

In my way of doing things, the interactions will result in a true contact. That maid might help them later with kind words in the mayor's hear. She might become the mayor's wife and thus become an even more important contact that what was her role at first.

But the rabbit out of the hat is not a good way to have player participate in the world the DM is building. It is just an "I win" button to go to what the player cares about.

Of course some background might help a bit more. But it is a player's choice to use a background or not. Or even to take it or not. Using "I win buttons" is simply not appealing. They are just a quick way to bypass a problem.

 

[Hussar]

Dear @Helldritch

What makes you think that you can't have both?

Remember what I keep repeating - the DM is most certainly capable and expected to introduce NPC's and whatnot to the game. Having the players also be able to do that in no way actually changes that fact.

But, look at your example. The whole "I gave them 6 new characters" means that the players had no input into those characters. Had you simply not chosen to do that, there was no rescue and you would have gone on to do something else that was likely also fun. In other words, the players had zero input into any of that.

Which, IME, results in the players not given the slightest crap about these pregen NPC's that the DM has just handed me with no input from me and then told me what our scenario was going to be. Your players are reacting to what you've laid out for them. Which is great. No problems.
What would your reaction have been if, instead of you introducing 6 NPC's for the group to play, one of the players did the exact same thing? Would that make your great scenario a total failure? Does it suddenly change from a great idea to an "I win Rabbit from the Hat"? Why does it have to come only from the DM in order for it to be a good idea and fun for the table?

 

[Helldritch]

By "player" do you mean PC?

Or are you referring to the player doing things, at the table, that will trigger the GM to narrate an encounter with the NPC?

Yep. The player plays the PC, at this point, the role play make me consider the player and its assumed personae one and the same. Because I will not narrate. It will be acting as the NPC and the player playing his/her role with the NPC.

If you were to drop on the game at that exact moment, you would simply see two person in a discussion at a table. You might even think that no game is played at all.

My wife once told me that if she did not know better, that I was flirting with one of my player. The guy was flirting a wench in a tavern to have information and I was playing the flirting wench up to point that my friend actually blushed at some of my remarks.

 

[Helldritch]

Dear @Helldritch

What makes you think that you can't have both?

Remember what I keep repeating - the DM is most certainly capable and expected to introduce NPC's and whatnot to the game. Having the players also be able to do that in no way actually changes that fact.

But, look at your example. The whole "I gave them 6 new characters" means that the players had no input into those characters. Had you simply not chosen to do that, there was no rescue and you would have gone on to do something else that was likely also fun. In other words, the players had zero input into any of that.

Which, IME, results in the players not given the slightest crap about these pregen NPC's that the DM has just handed me with no input from me and then told me what our scenario was going to be. Your players are reacting to what you've laid out for them. Which is great. No problems.
What would your reaction have been if, instead of you introducing 6 NPC's for the group to play, one of the players did the exact same thing? Would that make your great scenario a total failure? Does it suddenly change from a great idea to an "I win Rabbit from the Hat"? Why does it have to come only from the DM in order for it to be a good idea and fun for the table?

And again you missed the point. Had the group not made the prince one of their contact. Had they not cherish that contact with frequent visits and discussions, there would have been no rescue for the group. Absolutely none. We would have went with session zero and moved on to an other group.

The only reason they had this rescue was because they had interacted with the world. They actually worked hard to get these contacts. I did handed them NPCs that they were not really familliar with, but playing the rescue is much better and a lot more interesting than saying:" The prince Thromel sent a rescue team and you are now back on your feet after a few weeks rest for being resurrected." That would have been boring as hell... The rescue team could have failed, the tension and the excitement and the stakes made for a game they are still talking about.

Again, the rabbit out of the hat is just an I win button. When players are actually role playing to find a contact, they are directing the DM in a new direction that they want. The DM is there to dress the world to meet the needs of the characters. It is through their role play and interactions with the world that the players will have an impact on it and will change the campaign world for future groups. No Dragonborn in Greyhawk? Well, in mine there are some, thanks to the idea of a player that wanted to play one.

It is not that the players can not participate in the game world creation/modification. It is that I restrict what they can do to what their characters are actually doing. See I as: "If you do not try to do it, it will not appear out of nowhere, ever..."