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

[Thomas Shey]

NPC paladins (including paladin organizations; I'm imagining something like Jedi) and lucky players. NPCs were built like PCs in those days you will recall. Worldbuilding used to be a huge part of D&D.

They didn't bother to build blackguards like PCs when they first showed up. They were just listed like monsters. I don't recall a huge amount of space being taken up for other NPC classes like shaman and the like, either.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh there are absolutely people who will not like a given game, and possibly even have a strong negative association to a game based on their preferences on the question of 'build a character based on preferences' or 'work with emergent output' mechanics. It just seems that we rarely have bitter and depressing arguments about them because people can look at them and think, 'okay, I see the pros and cons of this and can take it or leave it.'

But like I said, sometimes that's the only thing people really don't like about a game system.

(Of course in the D&D-sphere character generation is rarely where the disagreements start and end, especially when people with a strong old school sensibility get involved).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I understand that completely. I never got how some races had level limits and some classes had level limit.

But that goes to the times.

Yeah, but it was often pretty irritating even back then. As I've commented, it wasn't a trivial reason people hopped out of D&D over the years back in the day. It just took a while because for the first few years, most of the alternatives (DragonQuest, C&S, RuneQuest) also had random character generation to one degree or another.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

True, but given that the subjects covered included such things as a wandering prostitutes table, I don't think simply enumerating the number of subjects would be terribly informative either.

The biggest failure of 5e is most certainly it's lack of a Random Condiments Table. How is a GM supposed to be able to decide if a table has mustard or black pepper on the spot?

 

[Fifth Element]

I can understand being disappointed, but paladins are supposed to be quite rare under those rules. It's very clear. If you don't like it, and your DM is unwilling to compromise, you are welcome to play any of the all other editions of D&D where this is less of an issue.

This does not address whether it's fair, and that was the entire point of the post. What you do in response to unfairness does not affect whether it's unfair in the first place.

 

[Fifth Element]

Double post.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Thinking about it, groups and social circles are much smaller.

I routinely had tables of 6-8 players, with occasional parties of up to 12. Many had followers, hench, or mercenaries. There was a lot of connection with other tables- sometimes for big events you might invite a player from a different game who had a particularly high level or useful character.

When I was a teen I participated in the Battle of Treetops, defending an elvish city. There were 20-25 of us from about four different campaigns, with a couple guest DMs to help coordinate. It was chaotic and glorious, and I felt honored to be invited to participate with my fragile little 5th level wizard. I don't think that could happen outside of a convention today.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The point isn't that the DM is enforcing the RAW, it is that the RAW itself was bad. It is an arbitrary restriction that adds nothing to the fun and is personally nonsensical, but DMs will use it just because it's RAW. Which is why the RAW has to change. A Good DM should probably look at the situation and make an exception since it harms little and increases fun and goodwill. A lesser DM will enforce it because it's the Rules and try to justify not only its inclusion but its necessity.

Or, everyone agrees that they play this game for what it offers and not something else, so that RAW and expectation align. This is my approach to 5e these days -- when we play it, we're playing it for what it is. If we want something different, we play something different. Sometimes, though, what we want is only slightly different from a game we know, and there it makes sense to introduce a houserule for that play. Still, this doesn't mean treating the rules as guidelines, but rather agreeing to different rules.

Sorry, I've recently come to have more and more issue with the terms "guidelines not rules" and "for the fun!" The former because it's eliding the actual moving of an assignment of authority and expectation while leaning on a saying made popular by blackguard characters (an odd pairing) and the latter because it's a largely empty statement that's used to shut down any discussion about authority and expectation.

 

[Jer]

The biggest failure of 5e is most certainly it's lack of a Random Condiments Table. How is a GM supposed to be able to decide if a table has mustard or black pepper on the spot?

Fortunately we live in enlightened times where you can plug the phrase "random condiment generator" into Google and hey presto here we are!

Random Condiment Generator

perchance.org

 

[Micah Sweet]

The point isn't that the DM is enforcing the RAW, it is that the RAW itself was bad. It is an arbitrary restriction that adds nothing to the fun and is personally nonsensical, but DMs will use it just because it's RAW. Which is why the RAW has to change. A Good DM should probably look at the situation and make an exception since it harms little and increases fun and goodwill. A lesser DM will enforce it because it's the Rules and try to justify not only its inclusion but its necessity.

The RAW did change though. That's why there are later editions people are free to play. Also, there are house rules if you want to make a specific change. I have a 350 page book of changes I've made to 5e, I love homebrew. But the DM shouldn't be forced to run a game with rules they don't like, anymore than a player is forced to play in a game they don't like. If nobody bends, then you go your separate ways. I don't see any other fair answer.