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

[Baron Opal II]

Look at what you wrote. YOU stated that YOU would listen and YOU would apply character backstories.

At no point does the player do any of that. At no point can a player apply character back stories.

Which is my point.

Wrong. You choose not to listen. Good day, sir.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree then. My experience has shown the opposite. Having the world exist outside of the players makes it feel more real, not less, and thus provides better engagement, imo. That been my experience as a player, and the (admittedly second-hand) experience of the players in games i run. To us, doing things your way seems much more like some kind of stage production or sketch show, where everyone "yes ands" their way through telling a story. Making stuff up on the spot, especially in narrative systems that are constantly throwing around story jargon, feels anti-immersive and is not a game experience i want. In fact, to me it doesn't feel like a game at all.

 

[Helldritch]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree then. My experience has shown the opposite. Having the world exist outside of the players makes it feel more real, not less, and thus provides better engagement, imo. That been my experience as a player, and the (admittedly second-hand) experience of the players in games i run. To us, doing things your way seems much more like some kind of stage production or sketch show, where everyone "yes ands" their way through telling a story. Making stuff up on the spot, especially in narrative systems that are constantly throwing around story jargon, feels anti-immersive and is not a game experience i want. In fact, to me it doesn't feel like a game at all.

Exactly my feelings.
When the players decide to ignore something in game, it might come to haunt them later. That orc lair they decided to ignore might become a horde later. Ok we chose not to save that little girl, now 20 years later, she became one of our worst enemy. While they are away, a dragon attack and so on. As the PCs evolve, so is the world. Just as saving that little girl might mean that the next group might have a powerful ally because that little girl became a powerful sorceress. The fact that there are no easy solutions as in Hussar's way of playing means that the players must be more imaginative than just creating an NPC out of nowhere...

Hussar's way of playing for me, feels like a novel written cooperatively with predictable results. I maybe wrong. But that is my feeling. And this seems pretty boring to me.

 

[tetrasodium]

Has anyone said that letting players create NPCs means they can't or won't have an investment in them?

I don't think so. There's been talk of changes that allow a player to discard an NPC who becomes inconvenient & changes that make it harder for the GM to entice consensus when there is a disconnect between player & GM in how NPCs should be used but that doesn't automatically preclude players from becoming invested. Helldritch nicely described the differences in that disconnect up in 2715.

 

[overgeeked]

I don't think so. There's been talk of changes that allow a player to discard an NPC who becomes inconvenient & changes that make it harder for the GM to entice consensus when there is a disconnect between player & GM in how NPCs should be used but that doesn't automatically preclude players from becoming invested. Helldritch nicely described the differences in that disconnect up in 2715.

At this point it’s clear people are simply talking past each other on this side-side-side tangent of the thread. DMs who want to DM are attacked and DMs who don’t allow players to be mini-DMs are attacked. You want the same control over the setting and game as the DM, you get the same time commitment, responsibility, and paperwork, too. Seems clear the tangent is a dead end and whatever usefulness the thread has is on the far side of simply adding a few people to the ignore list and moving on.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Who had the authority to say, though? Did you, as GM, retain the ability to say no? If so, then you loaned out your authority to the player for this choice, and chose not to take it back. This isn't the same things as the player having the authority and the GM having to abide by it.

Not that I think what is described here is bad or wrong or there was a better way. It is what it is, and in D&D, the GM is expected to retain this kind of authority. This looks like an example of good play in that structure. I think there's a lot of heat because you feel like your play or choice is being attacked (and I see how you get that) but, for me, that's not it at all. What the point here is to point out the structure of authority and discuss that -- who has it when? In D&D, the GM has it all the time outside of player action declarations for their PC and saying what a PC thinks (although even this is removed sometimes). So, when you give the players the opportunity to pick something in this regime, there's always the veto power of the GM there as the actual authority. Not using it doesn't mean it's not there.

There are other structures where players have authorities over more than their PCs; where the GM is constrained by player declarations in ways that would be quite foreign to someone only familiar with D&D and games that structure their authorities like D&D (BRP, CoC, WoD, etc). There are other ways, and they do work.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Who had the authority to say, though? Did you, as GM, retain the ability to say no?

No? I granted the player half of the slates to be whatever they wanted. The only restrictions are that some things are level gated (you have to be 7th level to cast wall of fire, but it can be available when you get there), and that it had to fit the theme of an efreet's treasure. The PCs took out a powerful creature that was teaching villains fire magic. These seven bronze tablets just needed to fit the theme, and have a couple things written on them to point towards another adventure. Which the PCs could engage with or not, as they decided. I mean I guess I could have said "No", there isn't any kind of legal contract involved. But the first rule at my table is "don't be a jerk", and to take something back would be kind of mean.

Apparently giving the players this level of choice is inadequate, and is a domineering practice. A few rounds of that make me disinclined to discuss my play style further, especially when I show the thread to my players and ask "am I doing something wrong? Do you want to make greater contributions? Am I stifling your creativity?" "No, we're good and having a great time", is the reply I receive. So, I think I'm good.

What the point here is to point out the structure of authority and discuss that -- who has it when?

I attempted to engage that conversation to see what I could learn. But, I think we've moved past that. I like to think that I have a collaborative game. But it's a persistent game that has been in the same world for years. It is absolutely a curated environment. The histories are peppered with the achievements of past players, which have changed the course of history, otherwise. I make absolutely no apologies for that, and it is an aspect of wonder and appreciation in that the players know they may get to make a permanent mark in my campaign. They get to be a part of history, however fictional.

There are other structures where players have authorities over more than their PCs; where the GM is constrained by player declarations in ways that would be quite foreign to someone only familiar with D&D and games that structure their authorities like D&D (BRP, CoC, WoD, etc). There are other ways, and they do work.

Glad to hear it. Someone could start a thread on useful parts of other systems that might enhance the D&D experience. I pretty much only run D&D, maybe one day FATE, and have had long-standing, torrid affairs with Traveler and RQ. Picked up Lancer a few months ago, very interesting game. But is this particular sub-forum I'm looking for interesting ideas to add to D&D.

 

[Quickleaf]

It's fascinating to me how many new DMs there are!

I belong to the reddit DM Academy Discord, and they have a sample of 1,391 members who identify as DMs. Of these, over 80% identify as being "new" or "learning" DMs with 0-4 years experience.

I think this is really wonderful! And I've been thinking about what the needs of these "new" and "learning" DMs are compared to those of us who chipped our teeth using just books or word-of-mouth / play experience. I wonder how many of these DMs are learning from streamed shows, and if the soft skills and hidden game rules to D&D are conveyed through that medium.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No. I granted the player half of the slates to be whatever they wanted. The only restrictions are that some things are level gated (you have to be 7th level to cast wall of fire, but it can be available when you get there), and that it had to fit the theme of an efreet's treasure. The PCs took out a powerful creature that was teaching villains fire magic. These seven bronze tablets just needed to fit the theme, and have a couple things written on them to point towards another adventure. Which the PCs could engage with or not, as they decided.

Okay. Again, I think you're locking down on the wrong thing. The players did not have any authority here to decide what the tablets were until you gifted them your authority. Further, you weren't bound by their choices because, since it's your authority, you could revoke it and say no to a request. That you did not doesn't change how this worked.

Apparently giving the players this level of choice is inadequate, and is a domineering practice. A few rounds of that make me disinclined to discuss my play style further, especially when I show the thread to my players and ask "am I doing something wrong? Do you want to make greater contributions? Am I stifling your creativity?" "No, we're good and having a great time", is the reply I receive. So, I think I'm good.

Um, what? You've put words and motives in my mouth that I very much told you outright I don't think. I think this example of your play was a good example of play -- that it worked how it's supposed to work. You had a moment you could loan authority, did so, and abided by it. I'm not criticizing the play at all -- not one bit -- and I'm not suggesting what you did was domineering or anything. This is how I do it when I run 5e -- I absolutely retain the authority as GM, but actively look for opportunities to loan it out. So, slow your offended roll, man!

I attempted to engage that conversation to see what I could learn. But, I think we've moved past that.

I've been dismissed without thought before, so okay.

Glad to hear it. Someone could start a thread on useful parts of other systems that might enhance the D&D experience. I pretty much only run D&D, maybe one day FATE, and have had long-standing, torrid affairs with Traveler and RQ. Picked up Lancer a few months ago, very interesting game. But is this particular sub-forum I'm looking for interesting ideas to add to D&D.

If that's the case, then you might start looking less for offense and more for other ways games can work to see what aligns with what you might want. You've certainly approached my post with hostility and a closed mind, accusing me of motives I very much do not have and dismissing the points I was making. I 100% could guess that your pedigree of play was hewing very close to the D&D style authority structure (I say D&D style because it was first out of the gate with this structure and it's been copied quite a lot even when systems change). I'd strongly recommend discarding the "I only want to hear about D&D stuff" because that limits the understanding available about how games can be structured. You very well may decide that non-D&D stuff is not your bag, and that's 100% fine, but do it on an informed basis rather than one that just dismisses things because they're different.

 

[Helldritch]

@Ovinomancer , I do not think that @Baron Opal II was referring to you directly in his post.

But on the subject of loaning DM's authority.
Although I consider myself quite an open minded DM and a cooperative one at that. The level of DM's power implied in some post are simply not my cup of tea. If a thing is written, for me it is pretty much set in stone. If it is not written, anything is possible. Wherever the dice may fall is my moto. I do not fudge, do not remove but will certainly add. Especially if the addition can help further the game. Adding an NPC at the request of a player is more than ok. It is exactly what I expect. The NPC, however, will be shared creation up to a certain point. It is not because you want your sister to be there that she will be. And if she is there, she might not want help you anyways. There are such things as sibbling war...

But if the players are not looking for an "I win" button and actively suggest an unforseen way to solve a problem, they are more than welcome. If it means creating a few NPCs to make the game more interesting, I will certainly not impede their progression or planning for the fun of it. I will however make it clear that there are risks involved just as with any endeavour they might undertake. The goal is to make the story/scene more interesting and flavourful.

The proposed play type in which the DMs fully give up his control over the game in not suited for a long term campaign world. A one shot lasting a year or two and then put to the trash bin to start an other one would be more on par with that kind of game. That is what I call a one shot campaign which might last a year or two but rarely goes beyond that if ever. In these, this is where we try new ideas and concepts not necessarily in the core rules but imported from other games. The style Hussar proposes (and you too to a certain point) would be perfect to try in such a campaign. The potential fun is certainly there but I have the distinct feeling that not all players and DMs are and will be able to play this style as it is supposed to be played and will avoid the "I win" buttons for good... But I do admit that concept is interesting as I did use it in my Vampire the Masquerade games (but not tonthenextent proposed here.)