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

[overgeeked]

Sure. Old man shakes fist at clouds. Granted. But the new It is not weird or scary, it just sounds dull and boring to me.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

I'd say that anyone who thinks Vance and Leiber are mundane low fantasy really hasn't read much of Vance (check out the Rhialto the Marvellous stories, for one) or Leiber.

We can argue for centuries around low and high. For me vince, also in rialtho, use magic as an expedient not the center of the narration. It's difficult to me express it in english, sorry.

 

[Fifth Element]

Sure. Old man shakes fist at clouds. Granted. But the new It is not weird or scary, it just sounds dull and boring to me.

So you're cool with caling the modern game dull and boring, but you're upset that some fans of the modern game insult your preferred game. Please think about that for a moment.

 

[Fifth Element]

Holy crap, seriously?

Any 4e fan got chucked entirely under the bus. Everything even remotely smelling like 4e had to be excised from the game. To the point where ten years later, we STILL can't even talk about adding anything from 4e to the game without hiding it under all sorts of waffling and sidestepping.

And you're going to complain about how the hobby is shifting under YOUR feet. Gimme a break.

When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

 

[Helldritch]

Yeah, that's the joke. My character idea is Thorin Oakenshield, the most classic dwarf character in literature. We're not talking about a half-dragonborn/tiefling bloodhunter/hexblade here, about as normal, and safe as a PC can be. It's literally the trope-setter for many. Yet I just got denied for being an entitled Mary Sue for suggesting my PC might have a long-term goal beyond get XP and get gold. I can be as disinterested in working with you as you are working with me. You wanna meet me half-way? I'm all ears. But so far, I've heard a lot of ultimatums, a lot of accusations, and a lot of bloviating about how their way is perfect and everyone else is wrong and ruining modern D&D.

I'm eternally thankful I have a group of players who are invested enough to literally hand me quest ideas they want to play and trust me enough to give them a good experience. I'm equally glad I have a DM who does the same for me. And I'm eternally thankful the D&D game is giving me MORE tools to do it with and the trend is towards my style of gaming. Because if not, I'd have quit D&D decades ago.

You have not been denied. You have been warned that it might not pass if the other players do not want to engage with your story.

By the way, I did recognize Thorin, I just did not cared enough to mention the obvious lack of originality.

So, again, you seem to believe that having people creating characters together is inferior to have people creating a team formed of unshared and individual origins. There are many advantages to building such a team (the first one), the least of these is cohesion.

Your way is not the only way just as our way is not the only way nor is my way creating empty shells of bland tasteless characters. If you agree with such a statement you are very misguided indeed. There is a difference with backstory and a story that develop from play. We much prefer to start with a basic story and have the character evolve and enrich the story from the actions, decisions and interactions of the charater than to have a character with a mile long back story that may not fit with anyone at the table or the campaign at hand.

Edit:" added a few words missing, damn the autocorrector ".

 

[Fifth Element]

So, again, you seem to believe that having people creating characters together is inferior to have people creating a team formed of unshared and individual origins. There are many advantages to building such a team (the first one), the least of these is cohesion.

I'd say this is an exceedingly uncharitable interpretation. Nothing about giving your character a Thorin-like desire indicates that you expect it to be the only thing that will take place in the campaign. Why do you assume such a player would not be content to address it at some point in the campaign, while also considering the desires of the other players? You seem to be using Main-Character-Syndrome coloured glasses to interpret the player's desire here, assuming they only care about their character's story, instead of having it be part of the larger campaign where every character gets spotlight time, so to speak.

 

[Fifth Element]

We much prefer to start with a basic story and have the character evolve and enrich the story from the actions, decisions and interactions of the charater than to have a character with a mile long back story that may not fit with anyone at the table or the campaign at hand.

This is also very uncharitable. The character background in question was summarized in a single sentence. Referring to it as a "mile long back story" is a blatant exaggeration.

And again, you're making assumptions about the player, presuming that they don't care if it will fit with the others at the table, rather than assuming it was part of the character-creation process where everyone puts what they're interested in into the pot.

 

[Helldritch]

I'd say this is an exceedingly uncharitable interpretation. Nothing about giving your character a Thorin-like desire indicates that you expect it to be the only thing that will take place in the campaign. Why do you assume such a player would not be content to address it at some point in the campaign, while also considering the desires of the other players? You seem to be using Main-Character-Syndrome coloured glasses to interpret the player's desire here, assuming they only care about their character's story, instead of having it be part of the larger campaign where every character gets spotlight time, so to speak.

Because this is exactly what I have seen numerous times, not only at my table when I had over 12 different groups, but at other tables as well. This is a complaint that many young or inexperienced DM asked about how to solve it.

Note here that this is my experience, it simply happens that I have seen it countless of times over 39 years of playing. It might be something that is restricted to my little corner of the world, but somehow, I see these same concerns on this forum as well. In French we have a say that goes like this: "The cat burned by boiled water fears cold water." A kind of better safe than sorry if you want.

Strangely, I have a total of 8 DMs in my two groups of 6 players strong. All them have had the same experience as I did and none with the same player. Same problem, same solution. All characters are made at session zero with all players involved. It works at all10 tables.

Edit: Also, it does not mean that the background story would be rejected. A player might convince the other that his background would make for a great campaign. It is just that the background would simply not be an automatic go.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'd say this is an exceedingly uncharitable interpretation. Nothing about giving your character a Thorin-like desire indicates that you expect it to be the only thing that will take place in the campaign.

ahem... I'm the one who is told that this is a gm who "denied" a backstory and can correct the misunderstanding that you are exhibiting to say this. I make all of those kinds of setting verisimilitude corrections because there is an extremely high chance that some or all of the things in a backstory will come up & be a significant factor of or in the campaign focused on competent & proactive PCs.
Competent does not mean successful, sometimes that competence even results in them breaking it & fixing the result or needing to seek out & take some other method to proactively handle things that involves more than a simple skill check.

Why do you assume such a player would not be content to address it at some point in the campaign, while also considering the desires of the other players? You seem to be using Main-Character-Syndrome coloured glasses to interpret the player's desire here, assuming they only care about their character's story, instead of having it be part of the larger campaign where every character gets spotlight time, so to speak.

I assume it from experience that comes with many times with many different players deciding that my hypothetical efforts to hash out problematic elements into acceptable ones and the response about that feedback being claimed that the backstory was "denied" with a vow to "But I will return the favor: your world's history and lore will mean nothing to my PC. If you expect me to care about your world, I expect you to care about my character." spotlights the fact that the assumption was entirely justified

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, that's the joke. My character idea is Thorin Oakenshield, the most classic dwarf character in literature. We're not talking about a half-dragonborn/tiefling bloodhunter/hexblade here, about as normal, and safe as a PC can be. It's literally the trope-setter for many. Yet I just got denied for being an entitled Mary Sue for suggesting my PC might have a long-term goal beyond get XP and get gold. I can be as disinterested in working with you as you are working with me. You wanna meet me half-way? I'm all ears. But so far, I've heard a lot of ultimatums, a lot of accusations, and a lot of bloviating about how their way is perfect and everyone else is wrong and ruining modern D&D.

I'm eternally thankful I have a group of players who are invested enough to literally hand me quest ideas they want to play and trust me enough to give them a good experience. I'm equally glad I have a DM who does the same for me. And I'm eternally thankful the D&D game is giving me MORE tools to do it with and the trend is towards my style of gaming. Because if not, I'd have quit D&D decades ago.

You were not denied, you were told examples of problems with it & given advice on how those problems could be solved along with the sort of concessions over unworkable levels of worldbuilding by backstory that would be out of your control. If a player chooses to ignore that knowledge & persist as I've seen more than a few try in modern d&d the rest would be true because of that choice to ignore the GM.

Really, it doesn't sound like I get to much say in my character at all. Cooperating with other players is one thing, having my PC designed by luck and committee sounds boring. I can play any number of video games and get the same effect.

You get an extreme amount of say in your character. That say comes in the form of actions that you take at the table & the results. Taking an example from my wednesday game, there is a player who chose a background that includes the words "You come from a family with hereditary power. Since you’re taking up a life of adventuring, it’s quite likely that you’re a second child or more distant heir with no vast inheritance to look forward to. You’ve got to make your own way in the world with only your years of training from armsmasters and private tutors, your many rich relatives and friends, and your not inconsiderable personal wealth."

During session zero when he was building his spreadsheet of a character He noted in surprise that it adds to strength & I pointed out that bolded bit while explaining that it would have resulted in his character being pushed more towards adventuring type stuff to be reliable trustworthy muscle for the elder sibling or similar. Without pause the player immediately discarded that & said "Yea I'm not going to do that. My character is the first born, his parents love him & he's set to inherit the entire fortune. It's my brother that's the reject".... Said player was flatly told that session zero is not a novel pitch & it wouldn't work that way

Moving onto his culture he after looked at what he thought would be a useful bonus wildlings give & asked if he could choose to be a wildling noble since they kinda clash. As the GM my answer was "You can but doi"okgreatI'maWildling" doing that will constrain you narratively because they kind of conflict & high society doesn't exactly approve of such tarzan types being around then.>but I can do it right?>yes>ok I'm a wildling, guys I can guide us & stuff during travels.

Like your backstory example he attempted to give me all kinds of worldbuilding stuff in his "background" & was even at points flatly told at the table at one point early on that the only way his character makes any sense is if it was as either a fallen house that was once great & fallen on hard times or if it was a big fish in a very small & very distant pond. To that he responded telling us about the slave trade empire his family owns & how it owns a huge fleet of ships that run most of the global slave trade..... he had been previously told no on both of those things & was immediately reminded no such thing exists at the table.

That player has been repeatedly told to investigate why his family keeps borrowing gold from a loanshark* that he himself as a player brought into being a notable opart of things & has instead openly floated the idea of murdering family members in front of said loanshark only to be reminded that actions have consequences & doing that wouldn't solve the problem. There is very much a reason related to his family's lands & a monster (one of the big epic d&d types like dragons & such) & if he were to look into that he could begin convincing the group to go do what would likely be some pretty cool monster slaying & community rebuilding/protecting.

Instead someone else said "my connection is 'Your friend, a traveling merchant whose caravan spreads your fame.' If he's in the area can I check with him if maybe he has any jobs he might be interested in hiring us for cause I feel like we need money" & the group is now aiding him with that. Since then the first player has had multiple chances to look into his family & each time refused by citing an ill fitting or inappropriate NPC & their position related to a backstory he's been told no on that he expects to solve a problem" because none of the other four players care about his novel & the GM certainly doesn't care to work with a player so deeply resistant to working with anyone. The second player recently became a knight in service to a local baron & doesn't seem to have any immediate goals but will no doubt by called upon by said baron & perhaps vice versa.... during the after-ceremony party some NPCs commented about it being a shame what happened to the first player's family but none of the other players care about mrMainCharacter's story & rather than make any efforts at interacting with the nobles he told the group about his drinking buddies in detail & that he wants to go drink with them so the nobles in question moved on to other matters of discussion like the rumored train line someone is planning to build

A third player is involved in something with his cleric's church & knows about some humanitarian problems. Coincidentally those will likely lead to the first player's snubbed problems & frankly I don't care if they do or if the rest of the party chooses to go off in other directions they care more about.

Yes this is an extreme example of a problematic player who would usually get the boot fast, but booting them is not really an option right now** & I've seen these kinds of behaviors from less problematic would be novelists at a fairly regular clip over the years. Your freedom lies in your ability to shape the world & even your history through deeds at the table not by how many pages you can write between sessions or how many soecific details you can load into a short summary of a novel you have in mind

Spoiler: When there is satire videos poking fun at these kind of player:gm conflict it says a lot

In the past players needed quite a lot of things from the gm & through their interest in those things they were incentivized to work with the GM, that is no longer the case & it's made worse with just enough one sided shared narrative looking hooks with incomplete mechanics on the character itself to suggest that worldbuilding is under the player's domain to dictate.

The criticism of your original hypothetical backstory wasn't because it was unworkable & much of it was the kind of advice I would give a player presenting me something like that for how it could be made to work & letting them know the kind of worldbuilding parts that they don't get to decide. If a player is willing to take advice like that & hash out something acceptable to the gm that contains things they are interested in that's great. More often in modern d&d I find the player who gives me a backstory & gets feedback either digs in their feet or just starts giving me completely different problematic backstory after completely different problematic backstory expecting that I'll take one as dictated till they give up complaining that by the GM explaining what's wrong with each & how we could make them work that GM is not working with them.

* The player in question chose this connection "The crime boss to whom your family is in massive debt."
**There are reasons, leave it at that.