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

[tetrasodium]

Oh, I see. Predetermining you have an in with the mayor of Smallville doesn't help with the mayor of Largeburg. True. Have a large family? You only have so many social contacts. We still meet the Vaalgarde test, however.





It obviates the problem with no expenditure of resources. You wave your hand, "my sister is employed here, we have an in." And, three real / game months down the road there is nothing preventing you doing the same thing. Apparently, your sister is multi-talented and travels a lot.

The issue isn't players deciding aspects of the game world, it is having a wild card to obviate rather than solve the situation. Now, we're being rather vague in our thought experiment, which is their nature. Let me be a touch more concrete.

I have been fortunate recently in having a number of new players. They were a bit boggled by the equipment lists I have, so I made a group of five "fast packs". Adventurer, Scholar, Scout, Delver, and Camper. About half the equipment is the same and the rest more dedicated to a theme. I did this because there was one too many times when the party needed 50' of rope to cross a ravine and not only did no one have any they didn't think to buy anything but arms and armor. So these packs are "training wheels" for forethought, in a way. And, if shopping is tedious for them, they have a standard Adventurer pack that covers most of the typical needs, without any intended "gotcha"s.

Another example, characters, expecially thieves with their urban focus, have a number of contacts which increase with level. I would go into more, but am out of time at the moment.

It's worth noting that the sister was not my example. She came up earlier when in a discussion on how the GM is powerless to hold a player's BIFTs to the fire like it seemed some proto-5e ruleset had for at least one session. At the time I had this to say about it & someone brought up fridging soon after just to underscore how terrible she is as an example. Most NPC's players create aren't going to be the inspiration for an ignorable BIFT like the sister was in this case, instead they will come from the character's background. Prior to 5e backgrounds were something that needed to be worked out with the gm rather than thrust on the gm in a multipage backstory not even set in the world. 5e added backgrounds by default, which is good, but it also failed to include any way for those backgrounds to influence a character with complications & conflicts while making it so the PC's don't need anything that could influence them either

How is that going to hurt the play of the game?

Where did I lose you? NPCs in the world need to act like they are affected by external factors in the world that impact their needs with conflicts & complications. Some examples might be floods wars monster living nearby, PCs burning down a building, etc. PCs however do not have needs in 5e. NPCs need to at least sometimes treat PCs as if they too exist in the world like any other human/elf/dwarf/etc with needs or the PCs will begin acting like murderhobos who don't care about the world either, but that only goes one way because the PCs don't need anything. Magic items aren't needed. Gold is not needed. NPCsdon't have any need to engage in appropriately flavored noblesse oblige fitting their background like NPCs that the gm wants to remain believable. There is no landholdings at stake & they can't be created because there is no need for them to fill for PCs. PCs can sleep in a gutter in the rain just fine so don't even need shelter. PCs recover so fast they don't even need to be allowed in town to safely rest up between adventures. PCs technically don't even need food & water because outlander. Because of all that when an NPC presents a conflict or complication to exist like sunglasses people in free guy.

The "sister of a PC" example is one that just can't be moved beyond but not every NPC is a PC's sister, some of theNPCs in the world are bad guys & their associates. Those NPCs exert influence in the world that creates complications & conflicts that a PC's sister obviously would not & are often called bad guys or villains but aren't always immediately identifiable to a PC. In a world like Eberron that might even include not quite villains like the megacorp-like dragonmarked houses that exert extreme influence over shipping manufacturing entertainment communication & so on in ways that make them a force with interests that can't be ignored by everyone with needs.

@Hussar all four of those are fine ways a GM could choose to use as a guidepost for how they handle creating NPCs for various gamestyles, that's step one & there are no problems there. Step two is when those NPCs pull back on an entity that has no needs obligations or holdings in the world. Up until 5e PCs always had things they needed mechanically as they advanced in levels & there were no problems at step two. The fact that I can work around the system doesn't change in the system the fact that the system is now designed to treat PCs like the sunglasses people explained above. Why do you keep looping back to step1 with step1 advice while asking where the problem, is in step1?.

 

[Baron Opal II]

In a game of shared imagination, I'm not sure why imagining a sister who will leave the side gate open doesn't count as a solution, whereas (let's say) imaging climbing over the wall with a rope does.

It is a solution, as I have said before.

The real resources in these examples appear to be a certain way in which time is spent at the table; and the idea of solutions seems to me to correlate very closely to my idea upthread of the setting-as-puzzlebox. If the setting is a puzzle for the players to solve, why would they bother investing in it in the form of PC connections? The GM will throw up the puzzles regardless. The only answer I can see is that choosing PC relationships at the time of PC building is itself part of the process of solving the puzzle!

We seem to agree. Of course the PCs should have relationships with other NPCs.

If this is not a thought experiment but an actual description of play, then it seems very close to the OA Yakuza class published in the mid-1980s. Precisely because of the problem that @Hussar has identified, that class allowed the player to make up the contacts as needed rather than in advance.

I'm pretty sure I have that on a shelf somewhere, I'll look into that. Out of curiosity, what is your "sister limit"? How many times can a player claim that they have a very convenient solution or shortcut to a problem that requires no forethought?

 

[Baron Opal II]

It's worth noting that the sister was not my example.

No, that's all me.

 

[pemerton]

Out of curiosity, what is your "sister limit"? How many times can a player claim that they have a very convenient solution or shortcut to a problem that requires no forethought?

Reposting from upthread:

My personal preference in RPGing is that establishing the NPC (who is no more a "quantum" contact then every other part of the fiction which is authored when it becomes relevant, which is most of the fiction in RPGing) the players have to engage with the system in some fashion, spending a resource (eg a Plot Point in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, or paying for a Relationship out of starting build points in Burning Wheel, or having to write a relationship into your starting 100 word description in HeroWars/Quest) or making a check, which brings with it the risk of the adverse consequences of failure (eg Circle in Burning Wheel and Torchbearer, or Streetwise in 4e D&D or Classic Traveller).

The reason for that is it gives the whole social/relationship dynamic of the game a bit more "teeth".

That said, and to stick my hippy wig back on: if the system we're playing doesn't have that sort of thing in it, and so we have to resort to negotiation and consensus in order to resolve these questions about "Do I know someone who works at . . .", well so be it. I can't see any reason why the answer should default to, or even typically be, No. Let's just frame a scene where the PC calls in their favour from the person whom they know, and see what happens next!

So if we're doing all this connections and NPC stuff via freeform negotiation, then I guess my "limit" is when it gets silly. In my experience players don't like silliness either, and so it may be that they, not the GM, enforce the limit in the context of freeform negotiation.

sometimes it's fun to use a connection in game tied to a backstory, but I wouldn't want PCs making up long lost cousins in every town just to bypass an obstacle. Not sure it needs a full mechanic, but the DM should be able to veto or complicate it if it would be disruptive.

If "disruptive" means "silly", then your second sentence is close to what I've written just above, except you're leaning more heavily on the GM whereas I see it as a group thing.

What I'm still missing is what is going on with "bypassing an obstacle" (Remathilis) or a "solution or shortcut to a problem that requires no forethought" (Baron Opal II). What obstacles are being bypassed? What problems are being shortcutted?

To get concrete: a situation arises in the game where it would be handy for the PCs to enter the mayor's house. Having the sister leave the side gate open counts as "bypassing" or "shortcutting". Does climbing the wall with rope, or via a Levitate spell; or does having one PC sneak through a window then open the side gate for the others, count as bypassing or shortcutting?

Or suppose a situation arises in the game where it would be handy for the PCs to have an audience with Her Ladyship. Having the cousin who is Her Ladyship's secretary write the meeting into her diary counts as "bypassing" or "shortcutting". Does sending a polite request for an audience count as that too? Does hanging around at an upmarket coffeehouse waiting for Her Ladyship to turn up and then striking up a conversation count as bypassing or shortcutting?

The way that I'm making sense of all this is that we're talking about scenarios where the GM has contrived a situation, and the players are expected to puzzle it out in some fashion, and having a familial or social contact is too much like cutting the Gordian knot. But is that what's going on in others' minds too?

What hasn't been discussed, but to me seems the bigger deal, is this: only the thief (let's say) can climb the wall or sneak through the window, but anyone can have a sister; only the bard (let's say) can write a polite note or hang out at upmarket coffeehouses, but anyone can have a cousin;, so we have some sort of possible infringement of niche/spotlight protection. Is that another thing that in others' minds though they haven't posted about it.?

 

[Vaalingrade]

I just had one of the vague family I keep talking about in-game turn out to include the character of a new player. This has in no way made my life easier.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In a game of shared imagination, I'm not sure why imagining a sister who will leave the side gate open doesn't count as a solution, whereas (let's say) imaging climbing over the wall with a rope does.

The real resources in these examples appear to be a certain way in which time is spent at the table; and the idea of solutions seems to me to correlate very closely to my idea upthread of the setting-as-puzzlebox. If the setting is a puzzle for the players to solve, why would they bother investing in it in the form of PC connections? The GM will throw up the puzzles regardless. The only answer I can see is that choosing PC relationships at the time of PC building is itself part of the process of solving the puzzle!

If this is not a thought experiment but an actual description of play, then it seems very close to the OA Yakuza class published in the mid-1980s. Precisely because of the problem that @Hussar has identified, that class allowed the player to make up the contacts as needed rather than in advance.

It's an example of operationalising the idea of "I have a sister who will leave the gate open for us", not an alternative to it.

Also an explicit class feature, not an ad hoc addition to the narrative reality. Altering your fictional position, as you would say (I think).

 

[Baron Opal II]

What I'm still missing is what is going on with "bypassing an obstacle" (Remathilis) or a "solution or shortcut to a problem that requires no forethought" (Baron Opal II). What obstacles are being bypassed? What problems are being shortcutted?

You're focusing on the what, not the when.

All of your examples are perfectly reasonable methods of solving the problem. Did they have the tool, the spell, the social contact, bribe money, horse to trade? Or did they make it up on the spot since that was what was needed at the time? The latter is my problem. You don't get to decide that your sister, whom you have never mentioned before, just happens to be able to get you into the place you need access to now. You can certainly decide that you need access, and she is a means to do so, and perform the machinations to get her in place.

The way that I'm making sense of all this is that we're talking about scenarios where the GM has contrived a situation, and the players are expected to puzzle it out in some fashion, and having a familial or social contact is too much like cutting the Gordian knot. But is that what's going on in others' minds too?

Finding a way to cut the Gordian knot is a mark of cleverness and is to be rewarded.

What hasn't been discussed, but to me seems the bigger deal, is this: only the thief (let's say) can climb the wall or sneak through the window, but anyone can have a sister; only the bard (let's say) can write a polite note or hang out at upmarket coffeehouses, but anyone can have a cousin;, so we have some sort of possible infringement of niche/spotlight protection. Is that another thing that in others' minds though they haven't posted about it.?

Not at all. I don't care if the wall is surmounted by the thief, a wizard with spider climb, or a fighter who can dig their fingers into the very stone. Unless there is something very specific (I have a bag that can produce one typical item per day; oh, look- we need a ladder! Got one!), one of the rules of the game is that you solve the puzzle with the tools at hand. There are lots of ways to get inside the mansion. Some of them require forethought and preparation.

Oh, thanks for answering my previous question. What you are referencing in other rule sets is the expenditure of a resource. That's all I'm asking for. In D&D, which is nearly the only game I play, I've made some social contact rules so that if people need to call on the resources of a social circle they can do so. But you have to have the social circle first so you know what favors you can call on. This also leads to what areas a character would want to develop and strengthen during play should that be a goal.

 

[Remathilis]

What I'm still missing is what is going on with "bypassing an obstacle" (Remathilis) or a "solution or shortcut to a problem that requires no forethought" (Baron Opal II). What obstacles are being bypassed? What problems are being shortcutted?

So for me, the biggest problem would be if part of the adventure requires the PCs finding something or meeting someone, and the PCs try to use their contact to bypass that part of the plot. For example, if part of a quest requires them to find someone who can read Ancient Draconic (an obscure and rarely studied language) so the PCs have to find a certain sage who is familiar with it, I would be against a PC saying "you know, my brother worked in a library. He can read Ancient Draconic." Whereas I would not be against them saying "you know, my brother worked in a library, maybe he knows a guy who can read it." The latter is a way to advance the plot, the former just tries to circumvent it.

 

[pemerton]

the GM is powerless to hold a player's BIFTs to the fire

I take it by this that you mean there are no Fate-style compels.

Burning Wheel doesn't have compels. That doesn't stop Beliefs and Relationships being held to the fire. An example from actual play:

My PC is Thurgon, a warrior cleric type (heavy armour, Faithful to the Lord of Battle, Last Knight of the Iron Tower, etc). His companion is Aramina, a sorcerer. His ancestral estate, which he has not visited for 5 years, is Auxol.

At the start of the session, Thurgon had the following four Beliefs - The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory; I am a Knight of the Iron Tower, and by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory; Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more!; Aramina will need my protection

<snip>

Thurgon has a Relationship with his mother Xanthippe but no other family member

<snip details of the return to Auxol>

The characters continued on, and soon arrived at Auxol,. The GM narrated the estate still being worked, but looking somewhat run-down compared to Thurgon's memories of it. An old, bowed woman greeted us - Xanthippe, looking much more than her 61 years. She welcomed Thurgon back, but chided him for having been away. And asked him not to leave again.

Now Burning Wheel has social resolution mechanics, and so my GM was getting ready for a Duel of Wits; but I circumvented it instead by praying for a Minor Miracle, which resulted in the years falling away from Xanthippe and her agreeing to join Thurgon in the liberation of Auxol.

My impression is that most D&D players dislike social mechanics of the DoW sort, and so would play out the conversation between Thurgon and Xanthippe as free roleplay. But that doesn't change the fact that the player's Beliefs and Relationships - or, in 5e terminology, BIFTs - are being held to the fire.

Most NPC's players create aren't going to be the inspiration for an ignorable BIFT like the sister was in this case, instead they will come from the character's background. Prior to 5e backgrounds were something that needed to be worked out with the gm rather than thrust on the gm in a multipage backstory not even set in the world. 5e added backgrounds by default, which is good, but it also failed to include any way for those backgrounds to influence a character with complications & conflicts while making it so the PC's don't need anything that could influence them either

<snip>

PCs however do not have needs in 5e. NPCs need to at least sometimes treat PCs as if they too exist in the world like any other human/elf/dwarf/etc with needs or the PCs will begin acting like murderhobos who don't care about the world either, but that only goes one way because the PCs don't need anything. Magic items aren't needed. Gold is not needed.

This is where you lose me.

The reason I, as a player, risked the divine retribution of calling down a Minor Miracle wasn't because the GM was tempting me with gold or magic items or other power-ups. It's because I was (and am) invested in the fiction of my PC. That's why I built the PC, that's why I play him, that's why I play the game!

If the only way to get a group of RPG players to care about friends or families or acquaintances is because their material interests - gold, magic items, etc - are at stake, you are already so far down the path of sacrificing value for expedience that I don't understand why you are even worrying about whether or not the PCs have connections to the fiction or are, instead, "men with no name".

Speaking in the language of solution rather than diagnosis: the way to get the players to play something other than "murderhobos" is not to persuade them that they can become more materially and mechanically powerful by being decent. It's to create a fiction that they are actually invested in and care about.

 

[Baron Opal II]

What's a "BIFT"?