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

[Fifth Element]

Modern????? This behavior dates back in the '80s. I have had my share of these when I had 12 different groups at the same time. Do not presume to have invented this behavior or that one generation has the exclusivity. Every single generation and editions had some. It is no more prevalent than in my time. But today, it seems that some are considering it "normal player " expectation. This is why I have the session zero since 1985.

If you read the thread there are posters explicitly claiming that it is an issue of modern D&D, so address their claims if you don't think it's new.

 

[Cadence]

Sorry, was more or less picking out my favorite fantasy authors at random. To be 100% perfectly honest, I read far more SF than I read fantasy, mostly because I really don't like most fantasy. I find most 20th century fantasy far too derivative with everyone and their mother competing to be the next Tolkien in how much setting wank they can cram into a book. I just recently picked up Lord Foul's Bane again after many decades and tried to reread it. Realized that I was about halfway through the book and the only thing that had actually happened was Thomas Covenant had been hit by a car and woke up in the Land and gave up after the umpteenth proper noun reference with no context. And I remember LOVING these books as a teen. It was really rather disappointing.

But, that's just my own personal hot take here. I understand that there are other opinions.

Like I said though, when people talk about Vance or Lieber should be the main inspiration for D&D, I just really don't want it. Retreading the same, tired old tropes that have been trod, retrod and then beaten into the ground over and over and over again is not what I want from my fantasy. Give me something new and interesting. Even if it doesn't make a whole lot of sense or the magic system isn't "defined", I'm much, much happier. Just starting the Gentlemen Bastards series to see how that goes.

Some of the things haven't aged well (like the beginning of Thomas Covenant) and I don't think some were ever not cringe-worthy (the last several Lieber story) -- but not being the "same, tired old tropes that have been trod, retrod and beaten into the ground" is a hard burden for some old stuff to carry when it was one of the foundational works before it was really a trope. I wonder how many of the things we love today as fresh will be tropes in 40 years.

Interested to see what you think of Gentlemen Bastards! I liked one of his "Tale of the Red Hats" short stories but that is all of Lynch's stuff I've read so far. ( The short story might be inspirational for anyone looking to put guns into their D&D).

Rereading Vance (and the short story anthology in honor of him) now. There is a lot of stuff in the Cugel saga that I still think is really clever (even if Cugel isn't). The short story anthology has quite a few authors who were really inspired by him: Songs of the Dying Earth - Wikipedia .

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

Cool, so it's something that has always happened rather than a problem with the modern game, as others have claimed. You're saying it's a player issue, not a game issue. That seems reasonable. We all know there are players who like to hog the spotlight. But this discussion has been about that allegedly being characteristic of the modern game. It isn't, it's characteristic of selfish players which have always existed.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.


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

Many different players over long experience...so it's not an issue of the modern game then. Just the same type of selfish players you've seen over the years, presumably using many different systems.

 

[Kannik]

CONS: Inflation of weird and fantasy elements. Less wide in embracing different customers age. More focused on social interaction. Generally watered. For me it has lost all the disturbing aspects that made it intriguing. Decisively switched from Vance/Tolkien to Rowlings/Sanderson.

Please, let's not add an ageist angle to the "snowflake", 'afraid of challenge', and 'DM emasculation' denigrations.

Much of what is being debated here I would say has less to do with any edition change (nor even any societal change, but that'd be a different thread) and instead describes group dynamics and personalities that have been common throughout D&D's history. Furthermore I'd say that's the crux -- because it's about group dynamics and personalities and thus it isn't a thing the rules or the edition needs or can address. I don't subscribe to the idea that greater character flexibility and capability in the rules equals loss of DM control or player entitlement to being the star of the show.

Yes, you have experiences, including some extreme cases on either end of the spectrum, whether it be players or DMs who are the ones who are being demanding or unyielding or what have you. My own experiences are the opposite. The groups I'm in today, some with newer players and some with veteran players and some mixed, do not remarkedly feel different to me as compared to the groups I've been in over the years. I've detected no shift in that variety of personalities, playstyles, or campaign styles (and, as I noted above, even amongst the same group and same players, shifting from campaign to campaign).

All through the years when there's been a clash of expectations is when the conversations began to either come to a point of alignment (including inviting people to try something new) or to part ways.

 

[Lanefan]

Cool, so it's something that has always happened rather than a problem with the modern game, as others have claimed. You're saying it's a player issue, not a game issue. That seems reasonable. We all know there are players who like to hog the spotlight. But this discussion has been about that allegedly being characteristic of the modern game. It isn't, it's characteristic of selfish players which have always existed.

I would argue that while the selfish me-first players have always existed (and, sadly, always will), over the years the designers have slowly caved in to these players and thus the game as designed today directly caters to that selfishness far more than it used to:

--- lower character lethality and...
--- ...a big reduction to really bad effects on characters other than death e.g. no more level drain, item destruction, etc., due to...
--- --- ...a design chassis built on the philosophy of "once you have it you can expect to keep it"; the game gives but it doesn't take away any more, where once it was accepted that anything gained (levels, treasure, etc.) might not stick with you forever
--- greater expectation by design of being able to play exactly the character you've preconceived without having to compromise due to dice luck, alignment restrictions, or what other players are playing
--- greater expectation that everything is core and thus must be allowed (or put differently, it's harder for DMs to ban stuff)
--- faster and more frequent rewards, here expressed as gaining levels
--- greater power over and-or separation from the setting, expressed as the gap in power between a commoner and a 1st-level character
--- balance, expressed as every character has to be somewhat-equally effective in any situation

Will this trend continue as the editions evolve? Yeah, probably, because the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

[overgeeked]

--- greater expectation by design of being able to play exactly the character you've preconceived without having to compromise due to dice luck, alignment restrictions, or what other players are playing

Or even a whiff of deference to the DM's world.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And now we've switched to 'selfish'.

Glad to know we're keeping an open dialogue here, just hurling barbs fast and thick.

 

[Fifth Element]

I would argue that while the selfish me-first players have always existed (and, sadly, always will), over the years the designers have slowly caved in to these players and thus the game as designed today directly caters to that selfishness far more than it used to:

--- lower character lethality and...
--- ...a big reduction to really bad effects on characters other than death e.g. no more level drain, item destruction, etc., due to...
--- --- ...a design chassis built on the philosophy of "once you have it you can expect to keep it"; the game gives but it doesn't take away any more, where once it was accepted that anything gained (levels, treasure, etc.) might not stick with you forever
--- greater expectation by design of being able to play exactly the character you've preconceived without having to compromise due to dice luck, alignment restrictions, or what other players are playing
--- greater expectation that everything is core and thus must be allowed (or put differently, it's harder for DMs to ban stuff)
--- faster and more frequent rewards, here expressed as gaining levels
--- greater power over and-or separation from the setting, expressed as the gap in power between a commoner and a 1st-level character
--- balance, expressed as every character has to be somewhat-equally effective in any situation

Will this trend continue as the editions evolve? Yeah, probably, because the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Given that all of these apply to all characters at the table, claiming that it represents "caving" to selfish players doesn't hold any water. None of these things allow a particular character to outshine all others. If anything, I think most people would argue the reverse, that over time the greater emphasis on character balance has made it more difficult for one character to outshine the others.

Moreover, when 5E was being designed they took consultation from people like The RPG Pundit for crying out loud. So claiming they ignored the cries of old-school gamers also doesn't hold any water. 5E was a big step towards older-style D&D compared to 4E.

 

[Fifth Element]

Or even a whiff of deference to the DM's world.

Again, you're still using gross exaggerations. Encouraging DMs to give some deference to player desires (if that is even the case) is NOT equivalent to the DM not receiving any consideration of theirs. It's not one or the other, it can be both at the same time.

Besides which, you can just go DM another game, so there's no problem with the game itself. It's a problem with the players.