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

[Baron Opal II]

It seems to me that, in this thread, the reasons against having a PCs' relative help the PCs get somewhere, or learn something, or gain an audience, always come back to because the GM's preconception was that the help, or information, or audience, would be achieved in this other fashion that I already decided on.

That is incorrect, at least as far as I understand. I direct you to post #2,507.

 

[Remathilis]

This is just bizarre. Unless by "the adventure" we mean "GM's story time".

Yup, I figured you were going to turn this into a sandbox vs railroad debate. Fine.

I will first start this out by saying I run games in an adventure path style. As in, a series of checkpoints that advance the narrative, in which the players have remarkable freedom on how to accomplish said check points. I find true sandboxes end up with a lot of decision paralysis players hanging out in the tavern, and my players generally like to have some direction to go in.

With that in mind, I have no problem with events or actions that advance to the next checkpoint. I was only advising the use of such a system to short circuit my checkpoint system. Which is why while I do use and like contacts, allies and the like, it's with the caveat they will help serve the narrative, not to replace it.

I realize this system isn't for everyone, and every sandbox DM right now is preparing to burn me atop a bonfire of DL 1: Dragons of Despair. But I only stressed what my concern for me is.

 

[Hussar]

I wonder if one side is expecting the players to pull out the "magic background card" for almost any challenge, and the other side expects the players to be reasonable about it and it will maybe happen once or twice ever for each player.

I wonder if the skeptical/non-skeptical sides here are the opposite of who would be skeptical about the DMs abusing something.

Honestly? Yeah, that's probably the biggest hurdle here. The idea that players would pull out the "magic background card" and abuse it just isn't an issue IME or opinion. But, I do see a very strong strain of "Players must earn everything" streak in play here.

 

[Hussar]

@Remathilis - like you I'm not really into sandboxes. I have no problem with, what you call, checkpoint play. My difference though would be that I don't really see such a system as short circuiting anything. Sure, you are getting past the checkpoint of "How do I get to see the Mayor" in possibly a faster/easier way, but, the point of that checkpoint is that they will get past it. And, as a DM, I have unlimited checkpoints, so, even if the players do completely short circuit this particular one, I have more that I can bring to the table.

I see two main benefits to this method.

1. It allows players to directly affect pacing. If the player (s) really aren't feeling this particular scenario/checkpoint/whatever, they can pull this out and fast forward. Great, AFAIC. And, it might not be that they skip over every single checkpoint of this time. It's far more likely that it's a one time thing (or a very few times thing) and might just be because the player isn't feeling the scenario right now.

2. It engages the players directly to take some ownership over the setting. Which, to me, engages the players in the game to such a great extent that it's more than worth chucking this particular challenge under the bus. The reward far outweighs the cost.

Now, I realize that this only applies to ME. I'm certainly not trying to make a larger point or saying that this will work for everyone. I know that it won't. There are players out there that are 100% not interested in taking any sort of authorial control over the game, for example. It's just one tool in the box, not one that works in all situations.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Honestly? Yeah, that's probably the biggest hurdle here. The idea that players would pull out the "magic background card" and abuse it just isn't an issue IME or opinion. But, I do see a very strong strain of "Players must earn everything" streak in play here.

I kind of think one side is kneejerk and the other blase about this.

Not everyone plays with people who will not overuse tools (and not respond well to suggestions they're overdoing it), so acting like that's an illegitmate concern is a bit off. On the other hand, the assumption everyone will do it to excess and abuse the process is more than a bit eye-rolling too, and there are clearly some people who approach with that as a default assumption.

 

[tetrasodium]

This is just bizarre. Unless by "the adventure" we mean "GM's story time".

To recap: @Remathilis posits that "the adventure" requires the PCs to meet a sage who reads Draconic. He then expresses concern that, if the players posit a family member who can help them out (eg read the Draconic), they will bypass or circumvent the plot of the adventure: "if the adventure funnels all choices to B, adding a family member that gets to B is fine, but adding one that avoids B is not."

I then ask, Well why can't the GM just have B show up? I mean, it's the GM who has decided that this sage who speaks Draconic matters, and the GM has a lot of control over the background setting and fiction. So if the GM thinks the sage is so important, why not just narrate a scene in which the sage is there? I mean, this could be anything from the sage visiting the PCs' family member for dinner (Gandalf seems to make a habit of that), to meeting the sage on the road, to having the sage take shelter from a storm at the same inn as the PCs, to . . . etc..

It's not like having B shows up gives the players an "unfair" advantage - the adventure was funnelling all choices to B!, so the players were always meant to find B. It's not like having B show up will mean everyone has to call the session quits and go home - D&D is an open-ended game, and frankly if B is a sage who speaks Draconic I'm 99% sure the GM has some more material in mind that will follow from the encounter with the sage, which sounds like a transition scene rather than the ultimate climax.

It seems to me that, in this thread, the reasons against having a PCs' relative help the PCs get somewhere, or learn something, or gain an audience, always come back to because the GM's preconception was that the help, or information, or audience, would be achieved in this other fashion that I already decided on. If that's the sort of game the GM is running - setting as puzzle-box - then why would the players bother with PC connections to it? Because those connections will never be relevant, unless the GM happens to incorporate them into their puzzle.

Spoiler: Foreshadowing

Foreshadowing is a literary device in which a writer gives an advance hint of what is to come later in the story. Foreshadowing often appears at the beginning of a story, or a chapter, and it helps the reader develop expectations about the upcoming events.[1][2]

A writer may implement foreshadowing in many different ways. Some of these ways include: character dialogues, plot events, and changes in setting. Even the title of a work or a chapter can act as a clue that suggests what is going to happen. Foreshadowing in fiction creates an atmosphere of suspense in a story, so that the readers are interested and want to know more.

This literary device is generally used to build anticipation in the minds of readers about what might happen next, thus adding dramatic tension to a story. Moreover, foreshadowing can make extraordinary and bizarre events appear credible, some events are predicted in order to make the audience feel anticipated for them.[3]

Hints may be about future events, character revelations, and plot twists to create mood, convey theme and building suspense, usually to hint the good events that will likely cross paths or happen to the main character later on.[4]

Plot can be delayed by situations or events to give the impression that something momentous will occur to build anticipation and emphasize importance to them, giving the audience a series of questions particularly after cliff hangers.

This literary device is frequently adapted for use by composers of theatrical music, in the composition of operas, musicals, radio, film, television, gaming, podcast, and internet scores and underscores, and incidental music for spoken theatrical productions.

Foreshadowing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

B might be planned one or more sessions ahead, there might be a vague idea of where B is going to send the players(lets call that C) but parts may still be unwritten because they depend on things that happen over those sessions, I may or may not have the map ready for that & players may or may not be at a level where they can actually do anything but TPK there but if they go in & TPK it's my fault. If they go a different route than C when that time happens because they do things along the way that's cool too but B absolutely can not happen today because I'm only human & can only maintain so many branches ahead.

 

[pemerton]

Ok, getting to B is part of the adventure - the players are supposed to overcome it. Well, the player has brought something interesting and creative to the game and resolved the challenge. Fantastic. But, so many DM's are so fixated on making the players "earn" the success that they completely discourage this type of engagement with the setting. Player must never have any authorial control. Which in turn means that since the player has absolutely no authorial input into the setting, they become passive consumers. Well, if i'm a passive consumer, why would I bother actually engaging with the setting beyond the bare minimum? From that perspective, it is far more rewarding to simply react to whatever the DM places in front of the player and deal with that since no other solutions are possible.

And thus we get these passive players who want the DM to roll up the plot wagon and spoon feed them scene after scene while they passively shovel down whatever the DM puts in front of them.

On this, you were ninja'd by me!

I think we're looking at the phenomenon through slightly different lenses, because I think we have slightly different preferences for our RPGing. But I'm pretty confident we're looking at the same thing!

 

[Hussar]

On this, you were ninja'd by me!

I think we're looking at the phenomenon through slightly different lenses, because I think we have slightly different preferences for our RPGing. But I'm pretty confident we're looking at the same thing!

Yes, I would certainly frame things differently, but, yeah, at the end of the day, we're likely going to get there the same way.

 

[pemerton]

That is incorrect, at least as far as I understand. I direct you to post #2,507.

one of the rules of the game is that you solve the puzzle with the tools at hand.

This seems to be an instance of setting as puzzlebox - you use the word "puzzle", which I've also used.

On this I reiterate what I have already posted, which I think is also consistent with @Hussar's posts: if the setting is a puzzle for the players to solve, why would they bother investing in it via PC connections, relationships etc?

I'm going to elaborate on my view on this by reference to something else you said in post 2507 - I'm not sure how much you meant to lean on it, and how much it was more of a throwaway line, but from my perspective it provides a nice illustration of and entree into my thinking on the topic:

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!)

Suppose the PCs want to climb the wall of the mayor's compound, and one of the players says "I look around for a ladder." How is this action declaration resolved?

If the parameters for its resolution are the GM's notes plus the players' equipment lists (including the rules for growing those lists by spending gold etc) then one upshot is a very thin setting. I live in an inner urban area, and it would be, for practical purposes, impossible to make notes listing every possibly salient things - tools, vehicles, loose cobblestones, overhanging tree branches, etc - for the 8 or so houses in my street, let alone the whole block or the whole neighbourhood. A pseudo-mediaeval neighbourhood won't have quite as many material goods, but will still have more than is feasible to include in notes.

Thin settings are handy for puzzles - the last time I ran a murder mystery RPG, I used pretty standard contrivances to keep the setting thin so that the players had a fair opportunity to acquire and reason with all the clues. But they are not settings that encourage the sort of investment and engagement by players that some posters (including me) find enjoyable.

So how do we make settings thicker? There are a wide range of options - @Hussar already mentioned spending Action points; my overall preference is to have it check-based (Streetwise, Circles, Resources, etc) - but in D&D the default is freeform roleplay and negotiation between players and GM. And my view remains that there is no particular reason why the default answer should be No.

Is there a ladder around here? Maybe there is.

Do I know someone who works in the mayor's house? Maybe you do.

I wonder if one side is expecting the players to pull out the "magic background card" for almost any challenge, and the other side expects the players to be reasonable about it and it will maybe happen once or twice ever for each player.

I still stand by the following view: if every option in "the adventure" funnels the players to B, then getting to B is not a challenge. And so having a sister open the door to B; or having the GM just drop B into play using their (extensive) power to manage the background and frame scenes; is not circumventing any challenge.

As I posted upthread, the real issue for me is the risk of contrivance. But that's always a risk when the fiction is established by free negotiation. The solution is for people to be sensible. My personal experience is that most players don't like contrived fiction any more than GMs, and so won't suggest stuff that seems contrived.

 

[pemerton]

B might be planned one or more sessions ahead, there might be a vague idea of where B is going to send the players(lets call that C) but parts may still be unwritten because they depend on things that happen over those sessions, I may or may not have the map ready for that & players may or may not be at a level where they can actually do anything but TPK there but if they go in & TPK it's my fault. If they go a different route than C when that time happens because they do things along the way that's cool too but B absolutely can not happen today because I'm only human & can only maintain so many branches ahead.

This is exactly an example of what I posted upthread (originally in reply to @Lanefan) - the reason the players can't have a PC's sister leave the side gate open is not because its unrealistic, or contradicts other setting elements, or even that it creates an "unfair" advantage, but because it disrupts the GM's prep and pacing.

OK, fair enough. But if you're a GM running a game that depends on that sort of control over prep and pacing, then I think you have to resign yourself to the players not engaging with your setting via deep investment of their PCs. You're deliberately running a game in which the players have to look to you to provide the fiction!

Yup, I figured you were going to turn this into a sandbox vs railroad debate. Fine.

I don't run sandboxes. I use various forms of scene-framing or PbtA-ish "fiction first, play to find out", as fits the system. With varying degrees of prep depending on system.

I have no problem with events or actions that advance to the next checkpoint. I was only advising the use of such a system to short circuit my checkpoint system.

I don't see why you couldn't just narrate you checkpoint into play, though. Again, I think I'm agreeing here with @Hussar (who has more familiarity than I do with "checkpoint" play).

I mean, going back to your sage example - suppose that the adventure outline posits that to get into the cave you need to speak the password in Draconic. And suppose that the adventure posits that you will get that from the sage, who will also warn you that the cave contains a medusa, so you better pack some mirrors! But now a player wants to introduce their cousin the Draconic-speaker, which means the players won't seek out the sage. Why can't the GM just have the sage turn up?