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

[Campbell]

Substantial setup work that integrates player characters into the games' setting and active negotiation over unrevealed connections to the setting has been an instrumental part of the games my group plays for as long as I have been playing with them (~4 years). My personal experience on both sides of the screen is that players seldom treat their right to have some say in the character they are playing as an I Win Button. In my personal experience players are just as likely to complicate their characters' lives as they are to make them easier. We all want to have interesting situations to play through.

I can understand a preference for just wanting to interface with a game through your character, but the idea that such play necessarily creates investment over more negotiated approaches just does not bear out in my experience. I often have a strong emotional connection to the NPCs I have a hand in defining.

 

[Hussar]

@Helldritch It other words, it's only a good idea if it originates from the DM. Otherwise, it's a bad idea. Good to know.

 

[Cadence]

I can understand a preference for just wanting to interface with a game through your character, but the idea that such play necessarily creates investment over more negotiated approaches just does not bear out in my experience. I often have a strong emotional connection to the NPCs I have a hand in defining.

Has anyone said that letting players create NPCs means they can't or won't have an investment in them? On the other hand, at least one poster seems to say the players won't have investment in them if they don't get to create them.

 

[Helldritch]

@Helldritch It other words, it's only a good idea if it originates from the DM. Otherwise, it's a bad idea. Good to know.

And again you are completely mistaken.
It is a good idea if it is a good idea. An event facilitator is not. It is an I win button. Pure and simple. I have groups that have build kingdoms and these kingdoms are integrated in the game world. They have built castles and dominions. Some NPCs are are actually former PCs that retired. And so on.

The big difference is that as a player you do not get to create NPCs out of the blue. If you want a specific NPC, it will be after discussion out of the game. That NPC will often be in your background right at session zero. We might leave one or two opened but it will be, again, no I win buttons.

Players have the sole ability to decide what their characters are and will be. But it is their actions and interactions that will allow them to influence the world. Again the difference is not that big.

No they will not pull that sister out of a hat. But they will "force" me to create an NPC to interact with by interacting with the world. My players would go this way.
We need to get a faster way to see the mayor. That clerk is a jerk. He will drag on these procedures for the eternity...
Hey! Maybe the mayor has a servant that could speak for us! Let's meet her and ask her if she could help us!

See the difference? In both case, the servant appears. But in one, it is the sister of the player, an auto "I win" button. In the other, the servant is created but now the players will have to actually interact with the NPC, find her motivations, learn what she likes, hates. Does she have something that needs to be dine and would indebt her to the players so that she will help them. Will one of the players play the flirting approach to seduce her and make her talk to the mayor in their behalf? Will they just use her or will they actually be helping her too and make her a valuable contact? My approach will spurr more questions and situations than the "I win" button that the sister is. Because the servant will have been interacted and worked on by role play, that servant will not be forgotten. The sister on the other hand, will soon be forgotten. She is just there to facilitate the entry/escape. The little interaction the "I win" button implies means that she will not be missed as she appeared and disappeared in the instant she was no longer needed. My method means that the servant might become much more than just a servant, players' action through their role play will make the difference.

 

[Helldritch]

Has anyone said that letting players create NPCs means they can't or won't have an investment in them? On the other hand, at least one poster seems to say the players won't have investment in them if they don't get to create them.

It depends on the intentions behind that creation.
In the case of the sister. It is simply a facilitator, an "I win" button that will be used to overcome the difficulty to meet the mayor. True NPC creation can be done, but usually will done through interaction with world.

One of the best example I have is the Cleric Teklar a player created a few years ago. The group wanted an additional cleric so they hired one. The group's cleric built Teklar as a hireling from the ground up. He gave him a basic personality and a few quirks. I gave him two hidden quirks/personality traits and it was done. That hireling became so loved that the players sacrificed themselves on more than one occasion so that he could escape.

He was often the last one to stand and with incredible luck, often win the day and brought the group back up to their feet. That NPC was not my idea, it was the player's. But that NPC did not appear all of a sudden. He was a hireling, then a henchmen, then a full-blown NPC with full stats and so on.

So yes players can create NPC, but not as facilitators.

Here is a second example.
We had a player with an assassin/spy like a 007. He had created a few personae to incarnate while spying and we built a few contacts for each of his contacts. Deep in enemy territory, they needed potions. He asked if one of his merchant contacts might be in the same town. By pure luck that merchant was there (I had put relatively low odds but the player had the lucky background in addition to being a halfling...) and that merchant was there. They acquired healing potions and anti-toxins and they even caroused with their friend in the local inn. The merchant vouching for his halfing friend that he was not the halfing Dlinger that killed Moktar but the halfling Rofolo that got robbed with his friends...

Here the contact was pre-existing. Although a bit of an I win button too, that contact was previously created by the player and it was not necessarily a sure thing that his friend the merchant would be there. The judicious choice of background and feat allowed him to have the merchant exactly there at the right time.

It is not that the players do not have a say in my games. They simply do not have instant sure facilitator buttons to use. They must create the events with role play and they have to nurture their contacts when the possibility presents itself to keep the contact "alive".

Edit: I hate the auto corrector on the phone...

 

[Hussar]

See the difference?

Oh, absolutely.

You have created a puzzle for the players to resolve and they must only resolve that puzzle using the pre-approved tools that you allow in the game.

Me? I have an infinite number of puzzles. If they skip over this one, oh well, I have more that I can use. Guess they just didn't want to waste time on that puzzle, it must not have been that interesting to them. So, next time I make a puzzle, I shouldn't make this kind of puzzle because, well, the players have pretty clearly indicated that they would rather skip that kind of puzzle than interact with it.

Look, I understand traditional play. Honest. I've done it. Really.

The reason I don't really want to do it anymore is because I find that it demotivates players, training them to be passive consumers of the game. I don't enjoy that anymore. I want players who will actively HELP ME write the campaign. I want the campaign to belong TO THE GROUP.

Which means I have to release a small amount of authority over the game and trust that the players will do interesting and fun things with it. And, to my great pleasure, most of the time that's exactly what happens. No one ever treats it like an "I win" button. Why would they? That's not fun for anyone.

I also believe that it is the entire group's responsibility for the game to be fun. Which, again, means that as a DM, I have to cede some authority over the game to the players.

And, again, to my great pleasure, I've found that players, once they realize that it's not some trap or monkey's paw, will step right up, and be FAR more creative than I could ever be on my own. It really is fantastic.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

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.

I think it can sometimes be helpful to talk about things through the lens of actual play at the table, rather than an in-fiction perspective.

In the fiction, there is a rescue. But at the table, what is happening (if I've followed properly) is that the players have been permitted to keep their PCs because at some earlier stage they had their PCs befriend a powerful NPC.

So befriending that NPC becomes a type of "backup/save" condition.

That seems super-instrumental to me. It's not the sort of engagement with fiction I'm interested in as a player or a GM.

When players are actually role playing to find a contact, they are directing the DM in a new direction that they want.

When a player suggests that their PC might know a helpful NPC, they are also directing the GM in a new direction that they want. I don't see why some of these directions are more virtuous than others.

I also don't see how having a PC's sister leave the side gate open is an "I win" button. What did the player win?

 

[Helldritch]

I think it can sometimes be helpful to talk about things through the lens of actual play at the table, rather than an in-fiction perspective.

In the fiction, there is a rescue. But at the table, what is happening (if I've followed properly) is that the players have been permitted to keep their PCs because at some earlier stage they had their PCs befriend a powerful NPC.

No, they have been saved because they have kept that contact alive trough numerous interaction and having developed their friendship with said character.

So befriending that NPC becomes a type of "backup/save" condition.

No. It is not a backup/save condition. Again, had they not nurtured that friendship, the prince would not have taken the effort.

That seems super-instrumental to me. It's not the sort of engagement with fiction I'm interested in as a player or a GM.

Me neither. Using friendship to get saved is not goal nor is it something I would do all the time.

When a player suggests that their PC might know a helpful NPC, they are also directing the GM in a new direction that they want. I don't see why some of these directions are more virtuous than others.

It is a matter of perspective here. An NPC appearing out of nowhere, with no apparent reason or background to justify it is force feeding an easier solution in the throat of the DM. It is a facilitator that I do not wish to see or be imposed on me. Using a background contact, creating one by role playing it or asking if a previous contact might help is a whole new ball game that promote imagination and a bit (or a lot) of work. Having a sister appearing to "solve" the problem is poor play IMHO.

I also don't see how having a PC's sister leave the side gate open is an "I win" button. What did the player win?

An easy immediate access without working for it. No RP, no complications. I have no interest in "I win" buttons. We play D&D to both Role Play and Roll!

 

[Helldritch]

Oh, absolutely.

You have created a puzzle for the players to resolve and they must only resolve that puzzle using the pre-approved tools that you allow in the game.

Me? I have an infinite number of puzzles. If they skip over this one, oh well, I have more that I can use. Guess they just didn't want to waste time on that puzzle, it must not have been that interesting to them. So, next time I make a puzzle, I shouldn't make this kind of puzzle because, well, the players have pretty clearly indicated that they would rather skip that kind of puzzle than interact with it.

Wrong. I have given the player a puzzle to solve so did you. They in both cases have an infinity of possibilities to solve it in both case. But in yours, they have a secret button that makes all puzzle irrelevant as they just can make a NPC appear out of nowhere to solve the problem for them. See the difference?

Look, I understand traditional play. Honest. I've done it. Really.

The reason I don't really want to do it anymore is because I find that it demotivates players, training them to be passive consumers of the game. I don't enjoy that anymore. I want players who will actively HELP ME write the campaign. I want the campaign to belong TO THE GROUP.

My players are no where near passive consumers. That is an insult to their role playing skills. Who are you to judge through the lens of your bad experiences with traditional play? My players contribute as much to the world as I do. They just do it within parameters that we have fixed together at session zero.

Which means I have to release a small amount of authority over the game and trust that the players will do interesting and fun things with it. And, to my great pleasure, most of the time that's exactly what happens. No one ever treats it like an "I win" button. Why would they? That's not fun for anyone.

And yet, for me, having seen this style of play on many occasions, it is an I WIN button that is in disguise. Creating the NPC through actual role play is more interesting as the players will be forced to think on how to act, convince and nurture the contact they are creating. It might not be an auto success. In fact, there might be risks involved in creating that contact but the tension and eventual success makes it so much more interesting to play out than just having that sister appear out of the blue. For me it is like a :" Hey Bob! You had a sister? Geez, I thought you were the only child of your parents... First time you bring her up."

I also believe that it is the entire group's responsibility for the game to be fun. Which, again, means that as a DM, I have to cede some authority over the game to the players.

And, again, to my great pleasure, I've found that players, once they realize that it's not some trap or monkey's paw, will step right up, and be FAR more creative than I could ever be on my own. It really is fantastic.

Here on the first sentence I fully agree. And guess what? I have the same with my players. And this is without "I win" buttons.

Maybe you are playing with long time friends. This enables a very high level of trust. That is great. But your method with unknown players is begging for abuse. At first it will be small inconsequential things. But if unchecked, you might end up with a dull, effortless campaign. I reach the same results as you and without that risk. My players are involved because they know that without interactions with the world, the game will be dull. Rolling for Rolling, play monopoly. RPG means that Role and Roll are both needed. One feeding the other and vice versa.

 

[Baron Opal II]

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?

Wow- you are so set against anything that I write that you automatically view it in the most uncharitable way possible.

Since you need it said explicitly, YES, the player chose the third tablet to be wall of fire and I was totally cool with that. He can choose what the other secrets of efreet magic are in the other tablets too. He might not, and oh noes, I, the domineering GM, am going to have to make a decision for him.

Get a grip, Hussar.