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

[Lanefan]

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.

And in the case of a great many players - including me, to a large extent - that's all they want.

The DM lays down the setting, the players-as-PCs then swash around as they will and maybe make a mess of it.

The problems tend to arise if-when the DM also tries to lay down the story and won't let the players-as-PCs swash around on their own.

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.

In your experience, maybe. In mine, knowing some of the players I've had over the years (and including myself here), it would very quickly become a probably-futile exercise in cat-herding and arguing as those five sub-DMs each tried taking the game in their own widely-different direction and redefining the setting to suit their own widely-disparate visions and ideals.

No. The setting is mine. What you-as-players do with - or to it - is as up to you as you want it to be.

 

[Baron Opal II]

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.

Then I guess I don't understand what you and others are talking about.

• The party defeats a powerful entity.
• They recover an item (seven bronze tablets) that is instructive in the mysteries of fire.

How would you go about it in a D&D setting?

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've been dismissed without thought before, so okay.

Any frustration was not directed towards you, Ovinomancer. I am putting no words in your mouth, nor am I dismissing you. You've come upon me in the midst of argument.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@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.)

So many things to unpack in the last paragraph. Firstly, that a long campaign is impossible in a different authority structure, with "long" meaning 'more than two years' it appears. If a game is stable for 1 or 2 years of play, what's your basis for suggesting it becomes unstable after that? Strange argument that seems to assume something not in evidence at all. Secondly, many people that play D&D don't bother with games that run that long, either, and many complain about the difficulty of maintaining such a game because of how D&D changes (radically, even) as levels accrue, so that doesn't seem to be a universal trait of the system of authority you're proposing, either.

Finally, it's pretty clear that you have no experience with these games, as you say as much in this paragraph. Why, then, with no experience in these games, do you feel you're sufficiently aware of how they work to be able to make these kinds of claims? Heck, there's risk even making that kind of assumption about someone else's D&D game when you've played D&D for decades, and here we're talking about some pretty large changes in how the games even function at a foundational level. Your claims aren't new, either, they're pretty much the normal ones that try to shut down or shut out discussion of other types of games and experiences that can help even if you don't adopt them (because your thinking is broader as is your experience). I recognize this is new to you, and it's a tad unfair to unload, but it's not at all new to me (or the topic) and it's become quite frustrating to hear the same kinds of dismissive assumptions based on ignorance.

 

[Helldritch]

And in the case of a great many players - including me, to a large extent - that's all they want.

The DM lays down the setting, the players-as-PCs then swash around as they will and maybe make a mess of it.

The problems tend to arise if-when the DM also tries to lay down the story and won't let the players-as-PCs swash around on their own.

In your experience, maybe. In mine, knowing some of the players I've had over the years (and including myself here), it would very quickly become a probably-futile exercise in cat-herding and arguing as those five sub-DMs each tried taking the game in their own widely-different direction and redefining the setting to suit their own widely-disparate visions and ideals.

No. The setting is mine. What you-as-players do with - or to it - is as up to you as you want it to be.

Though I find Hussar's way interesting, I must admit that this must be done with a specific kind of players with a very specific mindset that is far from common. I would not do this approach with total noobs in RPGs...

Edit: Damn the autocorrector. These were made by the devil I am sure. If I ever get my hands on the imp responsible for these...

 

[Ovinomancer]

Then I guess I don't understand what you and others are talking about.

• The party defeats a powerful entity.
• They recover an item (seven bronze tablets) that is instructive in the mysteries of fire.

How would you go about it in a D&D setting?

Usually by the GM just saying what's there. Alternatively, the GM could do what you did. The thing is, in both of these, the GM is retaining the authority to say what is there -- in the former by doing it and in the latter by retaining the veto and always being able to go back to doing it themselves.

Any frustration was not directed towards you, Ovinomancer. I am putting no words in your mouth, nor am I dismissing you. You've come upon me in the midst of argument.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Though I find Hussar's way interesting, Iust admit that this must be done with a specific kind of players withba very specific mindset that is far from common. I would not do this approach with total noobs in RPGs...

Noobs take to it easier that people that have to unlearn things about How It's Supposed To Work.

 

[Helldritch]

So many things to unpack in the last paragraph. Firstly, that a long campaign is impossible in a different authority structure, with "long" meaning 'more than two years' it appears. If a game is stable for 1 or 2 years of play, what's your basis for suggesting it becomes unstable after that?

Long for a group, 1 or 2 years. Long for a campaign? So far 35 years of Greyhawk, with many different groups. Dozens (note the plural here) of them.

Strange argument that seems to assume something not in evidence at all. Secondly, many people that play D&D don't bother with games that run that long, either, and many complain about the difficulty of maintaining such a game because of how D&D changes (radically, even) as levels accrue, so that doesn't seem to be a universal trait of the system of authority you're proposing, either.

Again, you said most. That is your experience. Players love to see their former incarnations being put to use. That the kingdom they built 20 years ago (real time) be a thing in the campaign world. To see that their character is still a major player in the world event and can be their patron. You mixed up high level with longevity of the campaign and campaign with campaign world. At some point, a campaign can be both a campaign in a campaign. @Lanefan's campaign, unlike mine has been uninterrupted for quite a long number of years. A free form game like the one you propose does not suit well for such long campaigns. Unless you record every single sessions and adjust the world accordingly, but then, the free form becomes a fixed form campaign. These "exploratory" campaigns are best suited for one shots, from a single game to a campaign lasting one or two years. And my guess is that two years of every week play is a bit stretchy.

Finally, it's pretty clear that you have no experience with these games, as you say as much in this paragraph. Why, then, with no experience in these games, do you feel you're sufficiently aware of how they work to be able to make these kinds of claims? Heck, there's risk even making that kind of assumption about someone else's D&D game when you've played D&D for decades, and here we're talking about some pretty large changes in how the games even function at a foundational level.

Familliarity for playing a little bit and understanding that it was not really my cup of tea. But still interested because the concept is nice. So far I have played a lot of game systems that are not D&D. You assumed that I played only D&D. You are dead wrong on that one.

Your claims aren't new, either, they're pretty much the normal ones that try to shut down or shut out discussion of other types of games and experiences that can help even if you don't adopt them (because your thinking is broader as is your experience). I recognize this is new to you, and it's a tad unfair to unload, but it's not at all new to me (or the topic) and it's become quite frustrating to hear the same kinds of dismissive assumptions based on ignorance.

Again, familiarity does not make me an expert in the play style you hold so high. The few examples I have lived through were not conclusive for me as I have seen the "I WIN" button too often. Be it free form or in the resource expenditure way of doing it. And again, I did say that the form had its merits but it requires a specific set of players that are not that common.

 

[overgeeked]

Familiarity for playing a little bit and understanding that it was not really my cup of tea. But still interested because the concept is nice. So far I have played a lot of game systems that are not D&D. You assumed that I played only D&D. You are dead wrong on that one.

Again, familiarity does not make me an expert in the play style you hold so high. The few examples I have lived through were not conclusive for me as I have seen the "I WIN" button too often. Be it free form or in the resource expenditure way of doing it. And again, I did say that the form had its merits but it requires a specific set of players that are not that common.

Yeah, pure freeform is utterly terrible unless you have really solid rules and the entire group adheres to them. Once that stops, the game's dead. Things like not godmodding another PC and the player's consent to affect their PC. Once those disappear, it's a pointless free-for-all. Worse are games that pretend to have such rules, but really don't. Like Fiasco. As much as I love the premise, it's a disaster at the table. Whoever's the main character for a given scene is the DM, having carte blanche to do whatever they want, up to and including wiping out all the other PCs with a wave of their hand. Legit first time we played one player just started hacking bits off the other player's characters. That was that. The rules explicitly support that. So, yeah. We never played that game again.

 

[Helldritch]

Noobs take to it easier that people that have to unlearn things about How It's Supposed To Work.

And I have seen the other way around. D&D is #1 for more than one reason. The easiness to learn isn't the least of them. Even basic and 1ed were not that hard to understand. Even on your own. I have seen players jump in the game with a handed character and start playing with a bit of explanation along the way. Not a lot of systems can do that. And now, in this age with You Tube, Twitch TV and others, looking at a game and learning to play is even more easier than ever. Your assumptions are simply tainted with what you like. Same as me. I do not claim to have an all encompassing knowledge of the way you play. But I have tried it a bit and didn't like it. The people I was playing with were new players in the hobby (save me and the GM) and it showed. A more structured approach would have served them better. We switched, I became the new DM again, and we played Beyond the Supernatural, a horror game genre with the Palladium system. It was much more better suited to their taste.

 

[Helldritch]

Yeah, pure freeform is utterly terrible unless you have really solid rules and the entire group adheres to them. Once that stops, the game's dead. Things like not godmodding another PC and the player's consent to affect their PC. Once those disappear, it's a pointless free-for-all. Worse are games that pretend to have such rules, but really don't. Like Fiasco. As much as I love the premise, it's a disaster at the table. Whoever's the main character for a given scene is the DM, having carte blanche to do whatever they want, up to and including wiping out all the other PCs with a wave of their hand. Legit first time we played one player just started hacking bits off the other player's characters. That was that. The rules explicitly support that. So, yeah. We never played that game again.

Yeah, I think it was that game but I am not sure. Did not play it long enough to remember. What I remember though, is that the scene in which I was the main protagonist were fun but the noobs were all about me, myself and I. Steve tried to adjust the tempo when it was his scene as the DM but it did not always end the chapter well (if it was a chapter... I did not take too much attention as I was trying to help my friend managing the group).

Yep, it takes an uncommon breed of players and ones that will forget or forgive perceived and imagined slight when their scene comes up.