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

[Hussar]

I think the point is though, if you choose to profess to like something then you can’t ignore the icky parts and then get mad at other people for not also ignoring the icky parts.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

Yes, this is absolutely subjective, without question. I don't like the 5E art style either, but that's a completely subjective judgment, and has nothing to do with age. My teenage son recently started playing 5E, and he doesn't like the art either. But that doesn't affect the ability to enjoy the game itself.

Not Absolutely but... as a DM it doesn't boost my imagination anymore. I still play as PC and DM. And I still find no reason to change game system. But definitely do not buy D&D manuals anymore, sacrificing my collector nature, because the art for me is uninspiring and silly. I was buying manuals even if I do not use it in game because they where inspiring and I loved to watch it. The last manual I've found good in art is RotFM. And please stop with this mantra of "old people doesn't adapt himself to the changes". My ten years old son looked at the art of Symbaroum and say "Hey pa this seems to be scary!". There is definitely a precise target age when you decide what art to use in your product. The art used in last D&D work is increasingly watered. While like it or not is a matter of tastes, the age targeting is much more objective thing.
When we were younger editors push on the "adult" elements of art with the aim to attract teenagers. Now this is not done anymore except in European products. The art in D&D is done to NOT scary anyone and it seems to be done to let the parents feel comfortable about.
This is not a criticism, maybe Wotc has good reasons.

 

[Helldritch]

I see what you are saying. My point might be better made rephrased.

If I have an adventure set in a lost cave that might contain a dragon...then the lost cave containing a dragon is the "adventure". The adventure may or may not have places and encounters in it that occur in the forest outside the mountain.

Your process (rolling 8 encounters and building interelationships between them) is a great way to make another adventure, but then it crashes to fill the function of a wandering monster encounter by the very nature that it's all planned out ahead of time.

So you either end up with the one encounter (vets vs bugbears) that is truly "random" and it's up to the players to decide to engage, which let's them off the hook of forcing all 8 in one day. Alternately you can keep slinging the pile of encounters at them over the course of the day regardless of their choice which both limits their agency and has just added an entirely different adventure instead of a simple encounter or two on the way to the original adventure.

And here I disagree.
If for you, rolling encounters and linking them together no longer makes them random anymore, then we have a deep problems of concept. Linking random encounters does not make them less random. No prep is done. Of course writing the process is way longer than actually doing it. The art of random encounters during travel is to find a way to fit a good narrative. As you resolve one, the other will fit the rest. No planning is done.

The problem in writing the process is that it makes them appear preplanned. But it is not so. Each will resolve at its own pace, in sequence or not depending on the spur of the moment. Describing what will happen is describing the process and not the actual speed and prep time. Speed will be very fast as they are random encounters but prep time equals zero. It is entirely an improvisational process. Linking them together is the art of the DM. What is random can become, in appearance, an adventure but it is in no way prepared. There is a big difference between a prepared dungeon and the random encounters in there. Even single encounter can be woven in the narrative.

A random encounter of 5 orcs is rolled when the players are coming out of the Caves of Chaos. No side is surprise. What do you do? They just appear or do you spin a tale as to why they are here. I would do it this way: "As you are walking out of the orcish caves, a group of five orcs are coming toward you with deer parts on their shoulders. As soon as they see you, the deer parts are dropped and they draw their weapons. Two of them draw bows, the other three unsheathe their swords. What do you do?"

Here we have only one encounter. Although it is random, it appears to be scripted. And all random encounters should appear to be scripted to help weave the narrative, giving the impression that the action is fluid and integrated into the story. And since I apply noise and combat as a random encounter initiator if made outside; the combat itself might trigger an other roll. Let's say they did trigger the roll and a bear is rolled. How do you weave it into the story?
"A bear is attracted by the sound of the battle and comes to investigate.The beast growl at you, stands up on its hind leg and behave menacingly."
If I want the combat, it might fight or maybe a player will toss a part of the orc's deer at the bear? Thus negating the bear encounter completely. It is by adding small details to the random encounters that these encounters do not feel like simply combat for combat.

If you go: Ok 5 orcs were on their way back to the cave and attack. Boooooooring...
And right after that: A bear is attracted by the noise of battle. It doesn't beat your passive perception. Roll for initiative... again, boooring. If DMs are doing random encounters this way, no wonder they feel random encounters break the narrative. I would be against them too If I were to make them in such a way.

 

[Minigiant]

The art in D&D is done to NOT scary

It's because Heroic Fantasy is more popular in 2014 than Sword and Sorcery, Grim Fantasy, and Dark Fantasy combined.

The gameplay and stories of fighting from behind or beneath is not as popular with today's gaming populace as the gameplay and stories of fighting as equals. D&D prefer the far tactical match than the harsh survival.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

It's because Heroic Fantasy is more popular in 2014 than Sword and Sorcery, Grim Fantasy, and Dark Fantasy combined.

The gameplay and stories of fighting from behind or beneath is not as popular with today's gaming populace as the gameplay and stories of fighting as equals. D&D prefer the far tactical match than the harsh survival.

Possible, but my personal feeling is not originated by differences in fantasy style, I like heroic fantasy as I like ss, grim and df. For me it is an actual sillyness feeling.

 

[Minigiant]

Possible, but my personal feeling is not originated by differences in fantasy style, I like heroic fantasy as I like ss, grim and df. For me it is an actual sillyness feeling.

That's the point. Because the adventurers are not on their back foot the whole time, their eccentricity is allowed to come out and not affect success.

Since you don't have to harsh crafty paranoid sourpuss within the dungeon (unless your class mandated otherwise) you fighter can opt to dye their plate armor blue, hold a Nguni shield, crasp on a bundle of throwing axes, and swing a katana as you charge the giant head-on.

That's the point. Heroic Fantasy is supposed to be non-scary and over the top. You adventure with the idea and perception that the adventure is winnable without casualties. And if anyone dies or is cursed, that's on you all for screwing up. The main fear is not for yourselves but for the consequences of missed or failed objectives and poor decisions that ripple effects for the future.

This a major change from early D&D we're were you are delving down scared with the thought in the back of your mind that one or two of you won't make it back out. If saving the lord's daughter was found to be risky in Room 12, well Rest in Piece Lady Whiteheart. Those 6 gnolls will eat you.

 

[Hussar]

To be fair to modern fantasy though, it’s certainly not without its share of body count.

Harry Potter has on screen murder. Not just killed in combat or by accident but straight up “kill the spare” and Cedric dies.

This is a book for a 13 year old reader remember. Very few adult fantasy stories are quite that harsh.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Warcraft and probably anime is what changed modern D&D the most.

Big Armor, Big Weapons, Big Actions

 

[Azzy]

Warcraft and probably anime is what changed modern D&D the most.

Big Armor, Big Weapons, Big Actions

 

[Minigiant]

To be fair to modern fantasy though, it’s certainly not without its share of body count.

Harry Potter has on screen murder. Not just killed in combat or by accident but straight up “kill the spare” and Cedric dies.

This is a book for a 13 year old reader remember. Very few adult fantasy stories are quite that harsh.

Cedric isn't the hero.

That's the difference now, you the hero don't die when you fail as the main lose conditions. Your friends and pets.... take the hit.