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

[Hussar]

Again, I just can't accept that an inability to author extra-PC content in session automatically makes players less inclined to engage in the world. I have a remarkable inability to alter reality outside of my own actions in real life, but I still engage with the world, and I generally try to play my PCs as if they exist in the world. I don't see a necessary connection.

The difference being, in the real world, you have a rather richer number of choices to make. If you want to talk to any number of people on any given day, there really is nothing stopping you. You likely have dozens or more of people you can contact on any given day. In an RPG, you generally never have anything close to that. So, we add in some sort of mechanic or free-form that allows you to recreate that in game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The difference being, in the real world, you have a rather richer number of choices to make. If you want to talk to any number of people on any given day, there really is nothing stopping you. You likely have dozens or more of people you can contact on any given day. In an RPG, you generally never have anything close to that. So, we add in some sort of mechanic or free-form that allows you to recreate that in game.

I see what you're getting at, and I don't see a huge problem with the occasional player add-on (just not created on-the-spot specifically to solved an active issue). But PCs can talk to whoever they want to in game, and a reasonable question to the GM about who might be around to talk to sounds to me, as mentioned above, like a good compromise.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That’s kinda the point about gamers and how they say they want “story” in their games. They can and do everything in their (sometimes considerable) power to drain every single obstacle of tension and trivialize every problem. That’s smart play in a game, but it makes for a rather dull story. So the DM pushes for obstacles and problems that aren’t easily overcome with pressing a button on the character sheet and/or a simple die roll...and in response, gamers do what? Complain, mostly.

Or, alternatively, the players have a different level of tension and difficulty they find appropriate to play, and when they just don't go along with the GMs take on that, the GM complains that they "don't want drama".

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't see much of a point to "the GM has set the mayor to away, how do you wish to proceed" play really. This reads very much like @pemerton's GM's puzzle box, where the GM has set an obstacle and wants players to overcome it by solving the puzzle the GM has created, and so becomes upset when the players deploy an asset to bypass the puzzle solving. Fictionally, this kind of solution works 100%, it's only in the metagame there's an issue with the GM.

And, again, @pemerton was pretty clear a few times that there should be some kind of check or cost to deploying these assets -- the idea that this is just "the players make up how they solve it this time and the GM is powerless" is a strawman of large proportion. Your sister pens you into the appointment book? Well, she wants something for this or you need to convince her to do so. Unless it's a resource token of some kinds that is spent, in which case it's still paid for.

The mayor might not even be part of the prepared quest. That quest the GM prepared for tonight's game might not even be in town. Her assistant could even have already given the PCs a second quest that fits the goals & motivations of those involved. She's not there/not available due to meetings till next week because it would be "boring" for whatever reason otherwise.

That leads into the problem of trying to critique a hypothetical situation rather than accept there could be a situation where the GM is justified with an NPC expecting the exert influence over the PCs.... Why does the party want to avoid the prepared & secondary quest working for a smuggler who was careful to dot his i's & cropss his t's by making sure the mayor was out of town & the constable was busy elsewhere? Why doesn't the GM just listen when part of the party is telling the GM they want to be capital L Lawful capital G Good in a campaign not using absolute morality? Would that be the smuggler created or sought out to get the PCs a ship past the blockade to the moonshaes right now so they could meet up with the high priestess of Selune? Doesn't that kind of go back to NPCs wanting to be treated like people instead of being used like an old sock & happily discarded by sunglasses people PCs? Should the Cap L Lawful Cap G Good PC's not have sought out the smuggler who may or may not be a PC's uncle with a shipping business willing to run a blockade if the PCs were not willing to work for smugglers that agreed to do a job for a job in return?

watched the first 7 or so minutes of the first video you mentioned. I think the advice is bad, and I personally would never follow it.

I also don't think that a goal like "destroy the ring" is terrible at all
Colville appears to look at D&D play through the lens of the GM dictating all content and all player goals.

But imagine if a player creates a PC and a player authors the backstory about the mysterious ring. And then the events of play - including Gandalf's revelations - are all narrated in response to successful or unsuccessful checks. There's nothing dysfunctional about that.

destroying the ring involves traveling to the far end of the world to drop it in a particular volcano. As a result it's a goal that either needs to be ignored entirely or override the entire campaign

Spoiler: Here's an example of how it fits several campaigns

• GM: Ok guys, you all got the setup & agreed to show up with characters ready to play $campaign
• HotDQ
  • GM opens with Starting Scene
  • Frodo: Actually I have this magic ring that corrupts the bearer that needs to be dropped in a volcano on the other end of the world. I need to go do that cause my character really wants to retire & go live happily ever after with lots of food & drink.
  • GM: "Ok your character leaves the group. Start making a PC ready to play this with us
• RoT: same loop
• PotA: same loop
• OotA: same loop
• CoS: See above
• StK: See above
• TyP: Hard to say since it's an anthology but probably the same loop
• ToA: Same Loop
• Dragon Heist: Again same loop.
• DoMM: See above
• Ghosts of saltmarsh: same loop
• DiA: Frodo should rejoice for not being sucked into Avernus before starting the same Loop
• Frostmaiden: Frodo is warm & toasty as he starts the same loop
• candlekeep: Same loop
• Witchlight Strixhaven & so on?: same loop:
• Almost any homebrew campaign not involving traveling to mount doom?: Frodo go make a character that will fit the group of adventurers doing this campaign so we don't need to constantly strongarm your character away from the buffet table & mount doom trek to join the rest of the group

I don't need to imagine what a character writes for the quest to destroy the one ring by tossing it in mount doom with gollum as described in over a thousand pages across three or four novels because it does not fit any campaign but that specific one written be Tolkien & even then depends pretty significantly on one player being The Main Character. A character with that goal can find a new one real quick or go be an NPC working on that goal.

In my 4e game, one of the PCs - the invoker/wizard - has had the goal of restoring the Rod of Seven Parts since 2nd level (the game is at 30th, and he is close to getting the seventh piece). Initially (ie at 2nd level), the PC had a close encounter - in a dying/dream-type sequence - with Erathis. I asked the player why Erathis would send the PC back, and he suggested that it was to find an important item in the Nerathi ruins where the PCs were. That was the first bit of the Rod, although the idea that it was part of the Rod only came up later in the campaign.

I don't see why something similar couldn't happen with an heirloom.

Assemble several parts of a thing that could have parts scattered anywhere in the control of anyone or anything that may or may not need an untold number of other factors involved in order to actually complete the process even after getting them is a much better goal. I think that it's unreasonable for a PC trying to squeeze such a powerful legendary/artifact grade item out of a family history type backstory but trying to gather the things needed to assemble build and/or repair are pretty good goals both long & short term because they can be hooked into almost anything as payment excuse to adventure or complication that makes something not as simple as mere snatch & grab.

 

[pemerton]

It feels like knowing people I didn't come up with during downtime or meet previously in play can still be a thing, without me as a player needing to come up with their names and traits as I'm playing.

"I go see if any of the usuals I play cards with are at the neighborhood bar." (as a character that might have mentioned looking for card games before or have cards on their list from a background)

"Are any of the neighborhood urchins I recognize around." (as a person who lives in the neighborhood)

"Does my usual armorer have any contacts who would know about the teamsters who bring in ore?" (as someone who has adventured for a while from a base town and wears armor)

"I go talk to someone at the brewers guild that I'm on good terms with" (as someone with brewing as a background)

"Do any of my neighbors have a son about the age of the person we're trying to impersonate?" (as someone living somewhere during downtime)

It feels kind of similar to:

"I use my old regiments battle cry." (ex-mercenary)

"I spin an upbeat song about a local legendary hero" or "I sing a popular local drinking song that would go over well with the men but not their wives" (bard)

In reverse order:

Which hero? What is the battle cry? What day is your neighbour's birthday? What's the name of your brewer friend? Is your usual armourer a human, a Dwarf, or neither? Are the urchins orphans, or just from poor families? What are the usuals' favourite drinks?

This is what I mean by "thin" setting.

To thicken it: either the player provides the answers to my questions - which is what you are saying you don't want to do - or else the player asks the GM to answer them - in which case we haven't really achieved our goal of getting the players to invest in and connect to the fiction. We've just got more narration from the GM.

 

[pemerton]

Again, I just can't accept that an inability to author extra-PC content in session automatically makes players less inclined to engage in the world. I have a remarkable inability to alter reality outside of my own actions in real life, but I still engage with the world, and I generally try to play my PCs as if they exist in the world. I don't see a necessary connection.

This is utter non-sequitur. In the real world you don't learn the name of your friend, their favourite drink, and when their birthday is, by waiting for an omniscient narrator to tell you. You actually engage with the world.

Upthread a concern was expressed. I've posted what I believe to be reliable techniques for addressing it. If you don't experience the issue then my posts are not relevant to you. But if players weren't deeply engaged by the GM narrating the setting up until now, I don't see that the GM narrating them their PCs' biographies is going to change that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or, alternatively, the players have a different level of tension and difficulty they find appropriate to play, and when they just don't go along with the GMs take on that, the GM complains that they "don't want drama".

Guys, guys. Let's just agree that players and DMs are BOTH terrible.

 

[pemerton]

That’s kinda the point about gamers and how they say they want “story” in their games. They can and do everything in their (sometimes considerable) power to drain every single obstacle of tension and trivialize every problem. That’s smart play in a game, but it makes for a rather dull story. So the DM pushes for obstacles and problems that aren’t easily overcome with pressing a button on the character sheet and/or a simple die roll...and in response, gamers do what? Complain, mostly.

Which gamers are you talking about? You seem to be describing pathological or degenerate cases. I have a lot of play experience, using a range of RPG systems - Rolemaster, Classic Traveller, 4e D&D, Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, just to name some of them - which belies your assertion.

The way to introduce "story" into a game is to let the players contribute to "story". For a group wanting to experiment, and using 5e D&D, I'd suggest starting with 3rd level PCs and getting every player to author a kicker for their PC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is utter non-sequitur. In the real world you don't learn the name of your friend, their favourite drink, and when their birthday is, by waiting for an omniscient narrator to tell you. You actually engage with the world.

Upthread a concern was expressed. I've posted what I believe to be reliable techniques for addressing it. If you don't experience the issue then my posts are not relevant to you. But if players weren't deeply engaged by the GM narrating the setting up until now, I don't see that the GM narrating them their PCs' biographies is going to change that.

In a game, I would engage with the friend (if an NPC) through free RP if i wanted to find those things. Or it would be part of my backstory. Or, since they're unlikely to be eminently plot-relevent, I would propose answers to the DM.

 

[pemerton]

Plot points in MHR don’t quite work the same way as the sister in the mayor’s office example. You don’t get to slap down a plot point and summon a resource out of the ether where no such thing was established beforehand to obviate an obstacle. The specific limitation is you have to have a skill (specialty) that’s directly related, the resource you gain is represented in the fiction as some person or thing you’re calling on for help, and it’s explicitly temporary. Importantly, they don’t make anything automatic, rather help you in a small way (+1d6 or +1d8, in a system where you regularly roll 5 or 6d10 or 12 for things).

So no, you don’t “slap down a plot point” and automatically get an audience with the mayor…much less automatically get their cooperation. If you had the right skill, you could plop down the plot point and call on the mayor to help you (adding one die to your big pool) to overcome an obstacle, but again, not automatic success at the task. And it’s still limited to making sense in the fiction.

I know how MHRP works. In a Transition Scene a plot point can be spent to establish a resource, which can include a contact. The ensuing action scene would not be arguing with . . . who? . . . to get the audience. It would be resolving the audience, with the player having a bonus die reflecting their resource.

It is also possible to spend a plot point during an Action Scene to trigger an opportunity to create a resource. Here's an actual play example:

The next action cycle took place in the main hall of the steading, into which the PCs were led by the giant at the gate. I drew heavily on the G1 thematic here - all but one of the players was familiar with it. And I got to add in my third scene distinction - Great Wolves under the trestle tables and gnawing on bones at the sides of the hall.

I'm not going to remember all the details of this one, but highlights included: the swordthane opening up negotations with Loge, the giant chief, including - in response to a demand for tribute - offering up the steed as a gift; the scout, after successfully parlaying his Overview of the Steading asset into a Giant Ox in the Barn asset, leading the ox into the hall and trying to trade it for the return of the horse, and failing (despite the giant chief's Slow distinction counting as a d4), and subsequently avoiding being eaten (a stepped-up Put in Mouth complication, as per the Giant datafile in the Guide) only by wedging the giant's mouth open with his knife (a heavily PP-pumped reaction roll); and the swordthane successfully opening a d6 Social resource (based on his Social Expertise) in the form of a giant shaman in the hall, who agreed that the troubles plaguing the human lands were afflicting the giants too, and so they should help one another.

In the end, the PCs succeeded in stepping up their Persuaded to Help complication on Loge above d12, and so he relented and decided to befriend them rather than try and eat them.

This is exactly an illustration of what I'm describing - the player spends a point to create a resource, a shaman, and then builds that into an action declaration that helps resolve the scene in the way the player wants.