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

[Jer]

The usual situation when someone was stiff about this was to just get the character killed at first opportunity. It was likely going to be obvious, so if the GM wanted they could probably throw a fit about it, but like I said, usually at that point it was as much to make a point as anything else.

Oh man - I remember those days. People just throwing their characters into battle even when it was stupid because they rolled poorly and wanted a different character. And then justifying it by "look I have a 7 Wisdom so I was just acting in character".

 

[Vaalingrade]

When my daughter was 10 and said she didn't like mushrooms (knowing she never tried them) I would encourage her to try them but not force the issue. Now that my daughter is 22 and she tells me she doesn't like kung-pao chicken I believe her because she's an adult. I don't feel the need to pressure her to try food she doesn't like.

Now imagine trying to pressure someone into liking certain foods you don't even know.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I get it now. You believe you are at war with your players and to give them any inch is a sign of weakness or surrendering your DM authority. Without tight rigid control the first thing players do is stomp over the DM. Players cannot be trusted to do what is best for a game and cannot be reasoned or compromised with. They can only know hard restrictions and they must earn their right to have fun.

I don't like it, but I get it now. Thanks.

I sometimes think players can have tunnel-vision about what's good for the game as a whole, but I don't even approach this degree of cynicism.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh man - I remember those days. People just throwing their characters into battle even when it was stupid because they rolled poorly and wanted a different character. And then justifying it by "look I have a 7 Wisdom so I was just acting in character".

As I've mentioned, there was even a term for it locally: swordbushing, as a reference to the monster from Metamorphesis Alpha and Gamma World, as in "throwing yourself on a swordbush".

 

[HammerMan]

The usual situation when someone was stiff about this was to just get the character killed at first opportunity. It was likely going to be obvious, so if the GM wanted they could probably throw a fit about it, but like I said, usually at that point it was as much to make a point as anything else.

yeah... I saw some of these tantrums when I was in HS (and no not all the DMs were kids) "You let your character I told you you had to play die" seems like a weird argument to me now.

 

[HammerMan]

Also not something I think the GM has a right to get their oar in about. If someone wants to play X repeatedly, yeah it can get tiresome, but again not your business.

I can see you talking to them and telling them why you feel it isn't fun... but I can't imagine forceing someone to not play what they like

 

[Thomas Shey]

I can see you talking to them and telling them why you feel it isn't fun... but I can't imagine forceing someone to not play what they like

Like I said, I can get that it can get tedious. I can even see asking someone to play something else. But at the end of the day unless the character is campaign inappropriate for some reason, about the only things you get to control in trad play is what your character is like and what they do, so I'm not particularly prone to feeling surrendering that ground is something to do.

 

[overgeeked]

I get it now. You believe you are at war with your players and to give them any inch is a sign of weakness or surrendering your DM authority. Without tight rigid control the first thing players do is stomp over the DM. Players cannot be trusted to do what is best for a game and cannot be reasoned or compromised with. They can only know hard restrictions and they must earn their right to have fun.

I don't like it, but I get it now. Thanks.

Wow. No. LOL. Quite the opposite. I run only run open world sandboxes. The players are free to do whatever they want. I just make sure that stats are rolled. That's to enforce the random chance of having to deal with a character that's less than perfect. Without that, no one...magically...ever picks a flawed character. Ever. When running D&D 5E, I use the standard 4d6, drop the lowest and arrange to taste. I have players submit three or more concepts and pick one that fits with the world. If I get three that are inappropriate, we chat. If they choose to die on that hill, good luck to 'em. Someone else can take their spot. Short of "I don't care, do whatever" I couldn't give them more freedom in character creation. Anything official is fair game, except flying races...and Mercer's broken nonsense. I've just been at this long enough that I can enjoy the randomness of the dice rather than insist on getting my way no matter what. But hey, to each their own.

 

[Lanefan]

I get it now. You believe you are at war with your players and to give them any inch is a sign of weakness or surrendering your DM authority. Without tight rigid control the first thing players do is stomp over the DM.

Hot take: to some extent, yes.

I see it as the players' job - as in any refereed game or sport - to (gently) push against the rules and boundaries in order to gain what advantage they can; and I see it as the DM's job as referee to (gently) push back. A DM who doesn't push back will likely end up with a less-than-satisfying game, or one that doesn't last nearly as long as it otherwise might.

Apropos to original topic, this is one thing that IMO has not changed over the decades.

Players cannot be trusted to do what is best for a game and cannot be reasoned or compromised with.

My experience is that when these discussions* come up the players who aren't also DMs, with a few exceptions, tend to take a much shorter-term view of what's good for me/us right now, while those who are also DMs tend to think more about what it means for the long-term game.

* - which can be about a specific ruling or a general idea or even an overarching philosophy of play.

They can only know hard restrictions and they must earn their right to have fun.

These two things are not related. Many - most? - non-RPG games are made of hard restrictions and still provide loads of fun.

 

[HammerMan]

Like I said, I can get that it can get tedious. I can even see asking someone to play something else. But at the end of the day unless the character is campaign inappropriate for some reason, about the only things you get to control in trad play is what your character is like and what they do, so I'm not particularly prone to feeling surrendering that ground is something to do.

I have run "martial only" or "no druids" campaigns... but it is always pitch players idea (often more then 1 and vote on what one to do) then work with them to make the world, the ideas (not all of it I would say I am 70% of the world creation) so by the time character creation night roles around (now called session 0) everyone knows and has bought in.