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

[Vaalingrade]

Exactly. Then throw in the fact that most players will bend over backwards to minimize what laughably few flaws they might have in the game, maximize the benefits their characters are already dripping with, and have as close to zero ties to the world as possible. They shoot for all the power of Superman with zero downsides...which is the single most boring character it's possible to play.

I feel like the attempts to sure up all weakness is a response to having characters killed.

Just like how orphan characters are often a response to having their loved ones used against them too often.

 

[overgeeked]

I feel like the attempts to sure up all weakness is a response to having characters killed.

Just like how orphan characters are often a response to having their loved ones used against them too often.

Well, pick one.

An interesting and engaging story...with all the vulnerability and tied down characters that come with it.

or

A boring and uninteresting story...with all the invulnerable and indifferent characters that come with it.

You don't get both. If you want an interesting and engaging story...you don't get to have invulnerable and indifferent characters. One literally precludes the other.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Well, pick one.

An interesting and engaging story...with all the vulnerability and tied down characters that come with it.

or

A boring and uninteresting story...with all the invulnerable and indifferent characters that come with it.

You don't get both. If you want an interesting and engaging story...you don't get to have invulnerable and indifferent characters. One literally precludes the other.

So here's the deal.

If the result of having vulnerable and... tied down?... characters is that they get shredded and die, then you still don't have an interesting and engaging story to play in. A game isn't the same as a novels as the character being destroyed isn't just the author's brainchild, but the avatar of another actual person trying to participate and even novels that do this kind of thing too much will lose readers due to apathy induced in the audience.

 

[Hussar]

Well, pick one.

An interesting and engaging story...with all the negatives to characters that come with it.

or

A boring and uninteresting story...with all the invulnerable and indifferent characters that come with it.

You don't get both. If you want an interesting and engaging story...you don't get to have invulnerable and indifferent characters. One literally precludes the other.

I think what you'll find is if you indulge the interesting and engaging story, the players won't want invulnerable characters. Because you have set up a power struggle at the table where you feel you need to "curb player power", players will automatically pull against you.

The basic question is, who is unhappy here? If the players are perfectly happy but you aren't, they aren't the problem. Neither are you. The problem is, you are the wrong DM for that table. It's a very difficult thing to ever admit and even probably harder to do anything about, but, there it is. If you are the only one at the table who has a problem with this, then that's on you. Instead of trying to have the game force these players to play the way you want to play, you need to find a new group who agrees with you.

Because the other route- having rules that force preferences just leads to toxic tables and more problems. Because no matter what changes you make, the players are going to automatically resist them because it is so one sided. "Your character is too powerful for the game, and I know better than the game makers, and I know better than you, so, we need to change your character" is NEVER going to go over well, no matter how well you phrase it.

One suggestion I will make though @overgeeked that has helped me with this sort of thing. TRACK the numbers. Don't go with your gut because your gut is wrong. It is always wrong. Stupid gut. Keep a record of damage done per PC, success rates per PC, whatever. Do it for a couple of sessions.

THEN start talking about the need for changes. Because if you're just basing this on your own observations and no actual empirical evidence, I can guarantee that your observations are wrong. Personal bias is too strong for your observations not to be skewed by it. Every DM in the world is guilty of this - myself just as much as any other - and you need that empirical evidence before you can make any sort of definitive statement.

 

[overgeeked]

So here's the deal.

If the result of having vulnerable and... tied down?... characters is that they get shredded and die, then you still don't have an interesting and engaging story to play in. A game isn't the same as a novels as the character being destroyed isn't just the author's brainchild, but the avatar of another actual person trying to participate and even novels that do this kind of thing too much will lose readers due to apathy induced in the audience.

Game of Thrones. Interesting and connected characters who get shredded and die…and it’s an interesting and engaging story.

If a player cannot accept there’s risk to a character’s life and limb they shouldn’t be playing a game that’s heavy on combat. Simple as.

Either 1) you want a game that involves risks, or; 2) you don’t.

Either 3) you want an interesting story with vulnerable characters, or; 4) you don’t.

D&D is good at 1, especially older editions. You can force it to do 2, but then why bother with a game as it’s just DM fiat story time at that point. Earlier editions produce vulnerable characters, and emergent stories. If the players find that interesting, great. If not, again, why are you playing the game? If you’re shooting for 4, why?

 

[Fifth Element]

If a player cannot accept there’s risk to a character’s life and limb they shouldn’t be playing a game that’s heavy on combat. Simple as.

Or, they should play whatever game they like in whatever way they prefer. It's not up to any of us to determine what game any particular people should be playing, or how they play it. It's baffling that this still needs to be said.

Also, there are very notable genres in which combat is commonplace but protagonists are expected to survive in general. So in addition to being very judgmental, your comment is incorrect on its face, due to how broadly it's posited.

 

[overgeeked]

I think what you'll find is if you indulge the interesting and engaging story, the players won't want invulnerable characters. Because you have set up a power struggle at the table where you feel you need to "curb player power", players will automatically pull against you.

The story emerges from the PCs interacting with the world. So they have to be made before the story happens. The players build characters that are invulnerable and uncaring…then the DM has nowhere to go.

The basic question is, who is unhappy here? If the players are perfectly happy but you aren't, they aren't the problem. Neither are you. The problem is, you are the wrong DM for that table. It's a very difficult thing to ever admit and even probably harder to do anything about, but, there it is. If you are the only one at the table who has a problem with this, then that's on you. Instead of trying to have the game force these players to play the way you want to play, you need to find a new group who agrees with you.

Or I house rule the game into what I want and invite players who’re interested in vaguely the same thing. Everyone’s happy. Doesn’t change this weird thing where generally players want mutually exclusive things, like interesting stories and invulnerable characters.

One suggestion I will make though @overgeeked that has helped me with this sort of thing. TRACK the numbers. Don't go with your gut because your gut is wrong. It is always wrong. Stupid gut. Keep a record of damage done per PC, success rates per PC, whatever. Do it for a couple of sessions.

THEN start talking about the need for changes. Because if you're just basing this on your own observations and no actual empirical evidence, I can guarantee that your observations are wrong. Personal bias is too strong for your observations not to be skewed by it. Every DM in the world is guilty of this - myself just as much as any other - and you need that empirical evidence before you can make any sort of definitive statement.

I have. That’s why I house ruled the game the ways I did. I run hexcrawl West Marches 5E, so spreadsheets are an everyday part of my prep. I track just about everything. Running RAW balanced encounters saw no thread of characters being downed or killed unless I pushed things well into deadly every fight. That got boring, fast. So ignore balance. They fight what the fight. It’s on them to decide.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Game of Thrones. Interesting and connected characters who get shredded and die…and it’s an interesting and engaging story.

You are preaching to the wrong choir there, man. I can't stand GoT or it's billions of imitators that ruined Fantasy novels for a good decade. The show explodicating its good will is the best thing that ever happened to my reading life.

 

[jasper]

No, this doesn't work in this context. While this is a valid approach to designing a game, it does not accurately describe early D&D. Look at some other RPGs and you can see the design intent. In D&D is was more like "uh, how about this?" "Yeah write that down!"

The fifth knows the truth. Looks left and right. Breaks a fifth over the fifth. Now they the fourth.

 

[overgeeked]

You are preaching to the wrong choir there, man. I can't stand GoT or it's billions of imitators that ruined Fantasy novels for a good decade. The show explodicating its good will is the best thing that ever happened to my reading life.

I’m not preaching for it. I’ve only read the first book and seen maybe a few episodes. But it is wildly popular, has many imitators, and is an interesting and engaging story. The notion that characters cannot die (or even be harmed) for a story to be engaging is ridiculously wrong. It’s literally the opposite. For a story to be engaging the characters have to be vulnerable. Otherwise there’s no stakes, no drama. “I always win and never fail” isn’t a story. Yet there’s a whole host of players who, apparently, want exactly that.

Try Lord of the Rings. Imagine Frodo and Sam as stoic, uncaring machines who never show a vulnerability. No one’s ever worried. They know they’re predestined to win without issue or struggle. They just win. No drama. No tension. Gandalf just flies on the back of an eagle over Mount Doom and drops in the ring. No fuss, no muss. Not a hair on Frodo’s head out of place.