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

[Thomas Shey]

As to suicide by kobold, in my last campaign I was one of five players standard 5e pointbuy & any wotc published book for race/class/background was allowed by the gm yet over the course of frostmaiden there were thirteen characters other than the one wizard I played start to finish... It was so disruptive that when I agreed to take back over & started this campaign I declared that magic to bring back the dead is easily obtainable so character development by suicide would be penalized by lower level or lower stats as a condition of doing so. Suicide by kobold is not limited to "unlucky" chargen results.

No, but if you insist on people playing as rolled, that's the obvious out, and I've known people who would keep doing it under your conditions until you got sick of it just to make a point.

Again, after your characterization in your second to previous post about anyone who doesn't want to take just anything the dice give them, my willingness to assume good faith on your part here has departed. You don't get to demonize people who don't want to do it your way and then try and claim the moral high ground.

 

[Hussar]

Something that sort of got lost in the scrum is a really big change in DnD.

No classes are needed anymore. No one is ever forced to play any class. Need a cleric? Why? At least three other classes can heal.

The whole notion of “balanced” party has really fallen by the wayside.

 

[Azzy]

Something that sort of got lost in the scrum is a really big change in DnD.

No classes are needed anymore. No one is ever forced to play any class. Need a cleric? Why? At least three other classes can heal.

The whole notion of “balanced” party has really fallen by the wayside.

A-yep. A net gain, in my opinion.

 

[Remathilis]

None of the GM's have indicated that they are desperate for players or even looking for players but the sense of player entitlement is so high in modern d&d that they are being told that they are forcing players to play things they don't want to & worse. The fact that modern editions of d&d bind a GM's hands by removing options like the lower attribute generating methods & zero to hero levels is relevant to how d&d has changed over the decades, the pushback from simply bringing that up shows how damaging to both gm empowerment & civility between gm/players.

I play in a game and I run my own. I feel no handcuffs on the games I wish to run nor any sense of entitlement as both a player and DM beyond "if the DM says the option is available, I can take it. If he doesn't, I can't." Any sense of being forced to do so is a creation of your own mind. WotC has rightly removed the arbitrary restrictions and luck based elements from chargen and the game is better for it.

I believe we've exhausted everything that there is to say on this matter and further discussion isn't productive.

 

[Yardiff]

and the game is better for it.

Is this a fact? Or is it just your opinion?

 

[Remathilis]

Is this a fact? Or is it just your opinion?

Yes.

 

[Yardiff]

Yes.

Always nice when someone doesnt answer a question by answering a question.

 

[overgeeked]

Always nice when someone doesnt answer a question by answering a question.

I think it’s more that they have mistaken their opinion for a fact.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's a hard row, though I'd at least have talked to her to find out what the issue is (I can kind of see reasons to have issues with one or the other but not both). I mean, if she just wants to break up the pattern there's always "roll within a point budget."

She likes to be surprised, and work with what she gets. She also has near-Wheaton levels of bad dice luck.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I've said repeatedly that in the case of a hypothetical game that I'm running with a particular set of rules for character creation nobody is forced to accept them if they don't like them, but the game I'm going to be running will be using those rules and they can find some other table with some other gm if they choose not to accept them. I even live in a high density area with multiple nearby FLGS with various games run regularly so it's not a rural situation where I'm the only gm in town. If I'm running my game at my preferred FLGS I'm usually not even the only GM & table in the room.

Exactly what obligation do I or any other GM have to act as life support for some Main Character Syndrome PC run by a player who refuses to use the chargen rules the GM has set for their table? If a player doesn't like the rules I set for a game they can find another table & I might even be able to point them in the direction of a GM with a table more suitable to their tastes.

You are making the discussion turn to a topic I'm not even talking about.

I'm trying to figure out (as a GM) why you (as a GM) think your game will be improved by employing a down the line play what you get character creation method.

Is it just to see what happens? Do you think players might be surprised and enjoy a random character more than one they think they want to play?

I'm trying to see what you are getting out of the decision, because so far all I have seen is you don't want Jim to be wizard again, or you don't want to see classes with traditional stat distributions.

I agree with you that if a player doesnt like it they can move on, but that's not what I'm asking about.