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

[Lanefan]

A thought on this: in LotR the principal characters are from different places - Mirkwood, the Iron Hills, the Shire, Gondor, etc - but most of the time are in situations that are grounded or connected to them in some fashion: the Hobbits were friends before they started journeying together, and they meet Bilbo at Rivendell; Gimli re-enters Khazad-Dum; Legolas meets Elves in Lorien; Aragorn is on a quest to his ancestral homeland, through lands that he has travelled before (and he see the Argonath, the statues of his ancestors, for the first time); when Gandalf arrives at Edoras, and at Minas Tirith, he is not a stranger to his hosts. Etc.

So it seems to me that the idea that @Hussar and I are trying to convey isn't just about geography - although that may sometimes be an aspect of it. It's about all the different ways in which PCs can be connected to a setting: location, kin, history and legacy, etc.

I was thinking of LotR when I posted what you quoted.

The Fellowship hail from all over the place, and while several get to touch their homeland (present or past) during their travels, never more than one of them is at or near home at any given time.

For most of the piece Strider/Aragorn doesn't have a home; and Gandalf never does. Boromir does have a home but dies before anyone gets there. The Hobbits are away from home the entire time, though we do get to see them leave and return. Legolas (at least in the movies) is one of the Mirkwood Elves, who don't figure into LotR.

Sure these people are (or become) well known to many, and have pre-existing associations in some cases. But those pre-existing associations are generally only with key important people rather than commoners or relatives.

 

[pemerton]

those pre-existing associations are generally only with key important people

The sorts of people who might leave side gates open, or arrange or even grant audiences!

That you don't see when and in what manner players taking narrative control is sometimes circumventing and sometimes playing I think is the main obstacle. That's where we are talking past one another.

No one has posted an account of this, I think, other than to do it all before play, as part of backstory generation. (One poster talked about using Inspiration, but I can't remember who that was - apologies to that poster) I've responded that I think that's not feasible.

Upthread you posted this:

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.

This does not explain how we establish things like Aragorn's welcome at Lorien, or that Glorfindel is looking for the ring-bearer, or that the guards of Minas Tirith know who Gandalf is.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Double post

 

[Baron Opal II]

No one has posted an account of this, I think, other than to do it all before play, as part of backstory generation. (One poster talked about using Inspiration, but I can't remember who that was - apologies to that poster) I've responded that I think that's not feasible.

Upthread you posted this:

And often times it is, players can have plenty of control.

And I look at it that way, too. That you don't see when and in what manner players taking narrative control is sometimes circumventing and sometimes playing I think is the main obstacle. That's where we are talking past one another.

This does not explain how we establish things like Aragorn's welcome at Lorien, or that Glorfindel is looking for the ring-bearer, or that the guards of Minas Tirith know who Gandalf is.

Yes, it does. It is part of backstory or previous play. Aragorn had been to Lorien before in a previous game. Much like Gandalf and Minas Tirith. Glorfindel was an NPC the DM sent when they realized that all the Nazgul were going to be chasing after the PCs.

 

[Hussar]

I am curious about what this means...the Avengers (at least in the MCU) had a fairly stable lineup, no?

While I'm not @Lanefan, I think (or at least, this is how I interpreted it) it means that we have a group of characters, completely separate from each other, with pretty much no ties (other than Hawkeye and Black Widow I suppose) to the group who are only there to resolve whatever problem of the day the writers (DM) is presenting.

So, while the Avengers movies are set in New York, or Sorkovia (sp), none of the characters have any real connection to anything in those places. Thor is from Asgard, Hulk has no ties at all, Captain America is the proverbial Fish out of Water character, Black Widow has ties to Shield, Hawkeye's family doesn't live anywhere near anything, and Iron Man is from California.

None of their personal stories have really anything to do with the group as a whole and when we actually do delve into each character's backgrounds, it's in solo movies. Additionally, in the comic books, the Avengers lineup changes all the time. The Avengers and what the Avengers do typically has nothing to do with who is actually in the lineup and you could replace any character with any other (popular) Marvel character and tell exactly the same story.

So, we have D&D groups where the PC's are from Somewhere Elsewhere, they arrive into the campaign more or less sprung from the head of Zeus without any actual connection to the campaign. Take out Dave's Elf Wizard and replace it with a Dragonborn Rogue and nothing in the campaign actually changes. You are still facing the exact same challenges, dealing with the exact same NPC's. The characters might be interesting, sure, but the campaign lacks depth because the characters are completely interchangeable.

Compare to, say, a Gotham campaign. You can't replace Robin with Cyborg or The Flash or another character. The stories stop working. If I took the Avengers and replace Black Widow with Spider-Man, nothing in the stories really changes. They still face Thanos, they still have to deal with all the same stuff. That's the point of The Avengers - it's like a sports team. You follow the team, rather than the individual.

Now, I realize I'm painting this in a very negative light and I really shouldn't. THere's nothing wrong with playing like this and I've certainly done it enough and enjoyed it. But, for me, that's the problem. I've been there and done that. I don't want to do that anymore. I want campaigns where the center of the campaign are those PC's. That if a PC dies or is replaced, the entire campaign will need to change. Where you can't just take that character plunk it down in another campaign and carry on as if nothing happened.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, it does. It is part of backstory or previous play. Aragorn had been to Lorien before in a previous game. Much like Gandalf and Minas Tirith. Glorfindel was an NPC the DM sent when they realized that all the Nazgul were going to be chasing after the PCs.

So, the only way your character's backstory matters is if the DM manufactures scenarios where that background is going to come into play? How is that giving any control to the player? If the DM hadn't sent Aragorn to Lorien in a previous game, then that whole thing goes out the window. As you say, Glorifindel only appears because the DM decided.

Thus the whole problem. The players have zero control here. It's entirely on the DM. And, if the DM doesn't reference that backstory, then the player is out of luck. So, you can't really talk about how the players have "plenty of control" and then point to examples where the players have zero control.

 

[Fifth Element]

The world is full of unrelenting negativity parading as objective observation and I don't feel the personal need to add to that.

Indeed. The apparent need to provide objective-sounding bases for your subjective impression of subjective experiences is widespread. It's most pernicious in discussions of films online IMO, but you see it everywhere to some extent. It seems difficult to simply say "it's not to my tastes" and move on without dumping on something you know that other people love.

 

[Hussar]

Indeed. The apparent need to provide objective-sounding bases for your subjective impression of subjective experiences is widespread. It's most pernicious in discussions of films online IMO, but you see it everywhere to some extent. It seems difficult to simply say "it's not to my tastes" and move on without dumping on something you know that other people love.

Sure. One only has to look at the current conversations about Picard or Star Trek Discovery and see this in spades.

Now, on a purely personal note, this is one area where D&D did change significantly for me.

In TSR era D&D, all my D&D stuff came from one source - TSR. Yes, I know that there were things like Judges Guild, but, I never saw it. Other than the odd ad in Dragon, I was completely unaware that there were any sources for D&D other than TSR. And, this being pre-Internet, I had no access to anyone else's home-brew material. So, for me, everything D&D was TSR D&D.

Then came 3e and the OGL (well STL and SRD and various other three letter acronyms ) This was a huge change for me. WotC D&D, other than the three core books, barely registered in my games. My first big purchases were Scarred Lands (also the first published setting I ever collected), followed by Paizo and Dragon and Dungeon. My OGL library was much larger than my WotC library. I picked up a handful of WotC titles over the years, but, my primary D&D experience was always 3rd party. I ran The World Largest Dungeon for a couple of years, for example. Then Savage Tides. The only time I saw WotC material, generally, was when players brought it to my table for their character. I own none of the race or class books for 3.5. Only one Monster Manual. So on and so forth.

And, this largely continued into 4e as well. Granted, 4e was much more WotC oriented, obviously, since 3rd party wasn't really a thing, but, other than a brief Gleemax subscription, the only 4e books I bought were the core 3. I think it was mostly due to the fact that I didn't DM very much in 4e - I was mostly a player and perfectly content with the core books.

Then 5e rolls along and I'm right back in the same boat. Other than my core books, the first WotC book I bought was Dragonheist. That's 2018, so, there was about 4 years that I bought nothing from WotC. Did buy into Primeval Thule, a bunch of Kobold stuff, and then Ghosts of Saltmarsh and now Candlekeep. I did go back and pick up Xanathar's and Tasha's, mostly because one player gave me Xanathar's and I was interested in what Tasha's had to say.

But, again, the notion that my D&D experience is even remotely related to what WotC publishes is just not how thing go for me. And it hasn't been that way for me in twenty plus years. Why on earth would I possibly care what WotC says? If they change rules or do something I don't like, I do what I always do, just not buy that book. I know that something will come along eventually that will tweak my interest. It always has.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, it does. It is part of backstory or previous play. Aragorn had been to Lorien before in a previous game. Much like Gandalf and Minas Tirith. Glorfindel was an NPC the DM sent when they realized that all the Nazgul were going to be chasing after the PCs.

As I already posted, I think putting a real person's worth of social connections into backstory is not feasible. On my last day at work before the current long weekend, I interacted with - I'm pausing to count in my head - at least 10 people whom I know more or less well. It's not feasible to write even 10 people into a PC backstory.

Posting "previous games" doesn't solve the problem. That rules out starting characters with rich backstories. Even if we start every PC as a 16 year old, what about friends and acquaintances from childhood?

And as @Hussar pointed out, having the GM decide to use Glorfindel as a NPC isn't an example of players having plenty of control.

 

[Eric V]

Thanks for the response @Hussar , it's much appreciated and I feel we're in the same space as far as what we've seen and what we might be tired of seeing.

I know you didn't ask for any suggestions, but for a campaign that is very much centred on one area and follows characters through their whole careers (literally; it takes place over 30 years), the Mirkwood Campaign for AiME is fantastic. It's written by Gareth Ryder-Hanrahan and if I ever DM 5e again, it's going to be that. Might be worth checking out...IF you have the players for it. Requires a bit more of a buy-in, IMO.