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

[Vaalingrade]

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.

Just can't help yourself, can you?

 

[HammerMan]

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.

funny for years now I have had a group of DMs... before covid I had this same group more or less but also ran games at a store to teach new players (and a few returning players). I wonder how much of my view of the game is shaped by that?

 

[Remathilis]

The hubris is staggering. Part of the GM's role & responsibilities in all editions is to determine what is acceptable for the game they will be running. You aren't forced to play at my table & I'm quite happy telling a player who thought "I'll quit"/"I won't play" would give them veto power over my game as a player. You are doing a great job proving my point about why removing the ability to point at other options in the phb/dmg for attribute generation from the GM's toolbox was an incredibly GM hostile choice of modern d&d. Modern d&d might make efforts to turn the GM into a captive powerless cruise ship director but that's still a gm responsibility

Yes, the DM does have the power to limit options, but far too many use this ability to further their own agendas rather than facilitate fun for others.

The DM is the host of a party. As such, they have tremendous veto power about everything that is going to go on in that party. The food, the entertainment, the guests. He could, in theory decide to only order the food he likes, play the kind of music he enjoys and invite only the people he wants (Tim can come, but I'm not inviting his wife) but unless everyone else likes the exact same kind of food, songs and such, will be a very poor party. A good host takes into consideration what his guests like and, within reason, tries to accommodate them. That might mean a vegetarian option along with the chicken, adding some hip hop to the playlist, or inviting Tim's wife even if her laugh is really annoying.

Because I've found in an era of infinite entertainment options, players can find things to do on a Saturday night aside from playing a game they aren't enjoying. Get enough of them and you find yourself alone on game night staring at empty chairs.

And little of this has to do with random chance determining what you will play. It's one thing to say "you can't be a goblin, they aren't a PC race in my world" and another to say "you can play a goblin only if I roll a 17 or higher on a d20".

.

 

[theCourier]

Ngl, even as someone that likes rolling 3d6 in my games, I wouldn't play with anyone that doesn't enjoy that either. Just seems like it should be a priority to try and cultivate the table you want to play in/GM in, as well as something that should be covered in a sesh 0.

 

[HammerMan]

The hubris is staggering. Part of the GM's role & responsibilities in all editions is to determine what is acceptable for the game they will be running. You aren't forced to play at my table & I'm quite happy telling a player who thought "I'll quit"/"I won't play" would give them veto power over my game as a player. You are doing a great job proving my point about why removing the ability to point at other options in the phb/dmg for attribute generation from the GM's toolbox was an incredibly GM hostile choice of modern d&d. Modern d&d might make efforts to turn the GM into a captive powerless cruise ship director but that's still a gm responsibility

I mean Okay, I don't think my role as DM is to force someone to do one thing or another or out of a comfort zone.
I find it odd you think it i Hubris to want to play what you want in D&D

 

[Remathilis]

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. ... Anything official is fair game, except flying races...and Mercer's broken nonsense.

To say that's not what your posts have insinuated would be an understatement. I give you credit and a slight apology; your posts sounded like "3d6 in order, suck it up if you wanted to be a mage but rolled a 6 Int" was your preferred play style.

 

[Lanefan]

And little of this has to do with random chance determining what you will play. It's one thing to say "you can't be a goblin, they aren't a PC race in my world" and another to say "you can play a goblin only if I roll a 17 or higher on a d20".

To me those are variants on saying the same thing. They are gradations on a spectrum, that being of rarity; which goes from they don't exist (cannot be played at all) through they exist but are uncommon (gated behind a roll) to they exist (can be freely chosen).

 

[Jer]

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.

I don't think that I've seen roleplaying as a refereed sport since... well, since the 90s. My view on RPGs is that they're a collaborative not a competitive enterprise. A referee is needed when players are competing against each other - a neutral party is there to make sure that things are fair for each player/team and all of them are following the rules.

In an RPG the players are cooperating with each other, not competing. So where does the need for an impartial judge come in? If you're looking at it as a players vs. GM situation then the players have already lost - the GM in any game can crush the players mercilessly if it's a player vs. GM situation because there is no referee between the GM and the players.

I see the role of the GM as a fellow player, not a referee or a competitor. The GM presents the world in the moment and the players play out their reactions to it and the GM then reacts to that. That cycle produces a collaborative game. Everyone has bought into the idea that we're going to play a game of pretend where our dice rolls have meanings, so the need to enforce rules or look for cheaters should be at a minimum - anyone who "rejects the premise" of the game and starts to find ways to "cheat" tends to IME get called out by their fellow players before the GM even needs to get involved (cheating in an RPG is like cheating in solitaire - you can do it but why?)

 

[Umbran]

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.

Mod Note:
Do you realize how judgemental this sounds? If that's your intent, you are the cause of argument. If it isn't maybe you should change your approach.

Just can't help yourself, can you?

Making it a directed personal attack is not going to help. So please don't.

 

[overgeeked]

So, to clarify, you don't see any gap between "I won't have fun with X" and "I want everything exactly how I want it"?

Of course there's a gap, but one inexorably leads to the other. A player doesn't like wizards. Fine. Cool. No problem. The player never plays wizards. Fine, cool. The player never chooses to put high INT on their sheet if given the choice. Sure, I guess. The player rolls six straight and INT happens to land high. Now what do they do? Play a wizard or play a non-wizard with a high INT. Either option is great because...they try something new. To me, that is, inherently, a good thing. You don't want something new. Okay. Have fun. There's the door. Someone else can run your 79th dumb-as-nails fighter with the exact same stats, gear, name, and "personality" as the last 78. Good luck to you. Personally, I enjoy the novelty of it. That's a good chunk of the point. Challenges and exploring a world. That's the juice for me. Cookie cutter after cookie cutter after cookie is boring, to me. Nothing wrong with it. To each their own. But I'm good. I'll run a table for people who at least roughly share my tastes.

I don't think that at all (and I wonder why the boards are so full of people who think there is some secret message or thought they know about me).

However over the course of a year of gaming (most likely 40-50 sessions) I am going to be stuck playing something I don't want... cause rules. and the way around it is to suicide the character...not fun.

Characters come and go. None of them are precious. I can find the fun in any race, despite my preferences. I can find the fun in any class, despite my preferences. The game's too fun to miss. Even with a rube of a character. Embrace it. Have fun with the idiot wizard, the oblivious druid, the awkward thief, weak-limbed fighter. There will be dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands more after they're long dead.

I mean in 2e it was worse. I wanted to play a paladin so bad, and those stat requirements were insane.

Same. And I've never managed to roll a paladin in AD&D. Ever. Been playing AD&D since '84. Never once. I still want it so bad I can taste it. So when it finally happens...and it will...I'll enjoy it that much more. The anticipation is part of the game. Wanting things you don't get is part of the game. "Man, I'd really love to stop tracking encumbrance, really wish we'd find a bag of holding..." Then when you finally get one everyone cheers. Instead of being handed one the second a player grumbles about tracking weight. There's no thrill. No excitement. No anticipation. No tension and release. No point, basically.

but even today. I say "Man I have this great idea for a wizard, he is this bookish little nerd" and the dice roll all high... now my bookish wizard is 15 st dex and con

Sure. So instead of having a fixed idea in your head before you roll, you roll then come up with the idea. Like how you'd find out what's in the group or what's needed before making a new character. I think it works your creativity a bit more that way. Having to figure out the story of this wizard with 15 DEX. Way more interesting than the 90th wizard with maxed INT, high CON (because hit points), dump STR or CHA.

imagine the other end. "I want to be the son of a great hero trying to live up to his standards. I'm going to go Blade singer wizard and maybe dip 3-6 levels in eldritch knight." then I roll and get 2 9's and some low but okish numbers... and I am stuck,

So you work with the limitations you've rolled. You work with what you have. Do the best you can with what you've got. When did that stop being a thing?

I would never sign up to play something I don't want to play.

And you do you. Me, I'd rather play. It's too much fun not to. Your way I'd never get to play. My way I get to play as much as I want. I know what I'm picking.