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

[pemerton]

I think its more a case of few people wanting to feel like they're forced into the adventure, and personal stakes tend to be closer to that than less personal ones. People like to think they can have the option to walk away, either because they have some dissonance with the GM on occasion or because they just don't like the degree of pressure.

My personal view is that, for a lot of RPGing, this is an incoherent attitude. If the GM has turned up with one scenario ready-to-go, then either we play that or we all go home, yeah?

Obviously there are RPGs that don't depend on this sort of scenario-prep - modern ones like Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel, and old ones like dungeon-bashing D&D (it needs prep, but not scenario prep) - but even taken together these seem to be a significant minority of contemporary play. Most people seem to be playing GM-scenario-driven games. And in this case either the scenario sucks, or it doesn't, but it's a bit hard for me to see that it sucks more because my PC has a stake in it.

(NB. I am not resiling from my soft-move/hard-move posts upthread. There are many ways to give a PC a stake in a scenario without using the murder of their family as an element of framing.)

But there's fiction and there's fiction. Some forms many players just don't appreciate, but GMs sometimes have very different ideas of where that line is.

Sure. See my parenthetical sentence just above, and the posts it refers to.

Thing is, it's not that 95% of the players encountered don't like the specpfic kind of drama someone's offering; it's that there's a very large cohort of players out there - maybe even an outright majority of them - who don't really want or like much drama in their D&D at all.

<snip>

Trying to force drama on to these players is usually a waste of effort.

I read in this thread, or another active one, that there are 10 million D&D players. So that leaves half-a-million who don't mind drama. @overgeeked only needs to find 5 of them.

Her help comes with strings that snap back later, sometimes that might put her in danger or uncomfortable situations. Just look back over the last few pages for examples of people derscribing that overreach of dm power. Also like I said later in that post.... "The trouble is not usually with mundane commoner NPCs who are usually tough to involve too much though. Things start getting hairy when bob is playing something like a noble, guild artisan, folk hero, soldier, criminal/spy, accolyte, etc. Those backgrounds come with connections to powerful people with real clout who players might often expect to call in favors from"

Isn't that the point of having such a background? I'm still not seeing what the problem is.

 

[pemerton]

The problem is, as with all the other examples listed, the player is leveraging this self-created NPC to (attempt to) gain an in-game advantage the PCs wouldn't otherwise have access to.

And? What's the problem? The player obviously wants the GM to frame scene in which the PC is inside the manor, or having an audience with her ladyship, or similar. What's wrong with doing that?

 

[Hussar]

Her help comes with strings that snap back later, sometimes that might put her in danger or uncomfortable situations. Just look back over the last few pages for examples of people derscribing that overreach of dm power. Also like I said later in that post.... "The trouble is not usually with mundane commoner NPCs who are usually tough to involve too much though. Things start getting hairy when bob is playing something like a noble, guild artisan, folk hero, soldier, criminal/spy, accolyte, etc. Those backgrounds come with connections to powerful people with real clout who players might often expect to call in favors from"

I was going to mention this.

A Folk Hero background or an Artisan background would get you all those things you mentioned, and more, without a SINGLE in game connection for you to leverage. And, I'm pretty sure, I've never, ever heard anyone ever complain about how backgrounds are too powerful and unbalancing in the game.

So, if having a little sister do any of the things that a basic background could easily do is too powerful for the balance of your game, I'm going to flat out say that the problem isn't the game.

You cannot bitch about players not engaging in your setting and then refuse to allow them any tools with which to engage in your setting.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Note the example I responded to was a no-magic one. I'm hard pressed why someone would use D#D for that, other than kneejerk familiarity issues.

Agreed completely. But I think a lot of people call themselves historically reenacting despite knowing next to nothing about actual history beyond what wikipedia can provide.

 

[tetrasodium]

Isn't that the point of having such a background? I'm still not seeing what the problem is.

Yes, It also comes with problems comparable to the benefits

I was going to mention this.

A Folk Hero background or an Artisan background would get you all those things you mentioned, and more, without a SINGLE in game connection for you to leverage. And, I'm pretty sure, I've never, ever heard anyone ever complain about how backgrounds are too powerful and unbalancing in the game.

So, if having a little sister do any of the things that a basic background could easily do is too powerful for the balance of your game, I'm going to flat out say that the problem isn't the game.

You cannot bitch about players not engaging in your setting and then refuse to allow them any tools with which to engage in your setting.

Huh? I might have missed something, but I was under the impression that we were talking about NPCs being put in situations comparable to their value & players revolting or wanting to ignore it when that happens not game balance. the problem is not that those backgrounds have better connections with more clout, the problem is that those backgrounds come with connections that can get themselves in worse trouble but the GM has nothing the player needs when they want to just shrug that problem off.

 

[SkidAce]

Exactly. Drama. The complications, conflict, and choices that come from poking at a PC’s NPC connections. It’s great…so of course most players seem allergic to it.

or "tired" of it perhaps?

I mean we have been playing a long time.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, It also comes with problems comparable to the benefits

<snip>

the problem is not that those backgrounds have better connections with more clout, the problem is that those backgrounds come with connections that can get themselves in worse trouble but the GM has nothing the player needs when they want to just shrug that problem off.

I don't understand what you are trying to achieve in your GMing, which is undermined by a player's character having a sister who can leave the side gate open, or having the ear of the cardinal.

 

[Lanefan]

And? What's the problem? The player obviously wants the GM to frame scene in which the PC is inside the manor, or having an audience with her ladyship, or similar. What's wrong with doing that?

The player might want the GM to frame that scene but the GM might be thinking "Wait a minute - let's back up and make sure you-as-character can even get to that scene, as it's not guaranteed in the fiction that you can."

Just because a player wants to be framed into a scene isn't enough reason for that scene to automatically happen, or happen right away, in exclusion of other setting constraints. For example if there's usually at least a week's wait for an audience with Lady Carsa then IMO a player shouldn't be able to invent out of whole cloth an in-setting reason (in this case, a conveniently-placed NPC relative) to bypass that wait.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In 4e, knowledge checks get used at least two ways. One is in skill challenges, where in structural terms they work like any other skill. The second is monster knowledge checks, where they provide the players with mechanical information that permits more informed decision-making about resource deployment.

I really liked how useful knowledge skills were in 4e. I wish they’d kept some of that. IIRC you could do more than just monster knowledge and research stuff with them, too. Like Arcana could be used to basically do a detect magic or an identify.

 

[overgeeked]

8. Historical Reenactment: The campaign is based on real-world history. The DM uses a real-world map. Your character has a historic name that fits the period, the region, and their status. You use real-world technology based on an agreed-upon date, and everything is rigorously reviewed by everyone at the table for accuracy. The Exodus. The Wars of the Roses. The Crusades. Discovery of the New World. There are no dragons, elves, or magic...but that's okay: there are fifty-six different polearms, gunpowder, and the Bubonic Plague. Lots of overlap with the SCA. Gaining in popularity with the advent of the Internet.

TSR pushed something like this, for a time, with their green-covered line of Historical Reference books...though they were decidedly D&D in periods of history, rather than the purer form you're describing here.