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

[Baron Opal II]

Upthread, the concern expressed was that players build and play PCs who are largely "men with no name", without connections to the gameworld/setting.

I don't see that you're offering a solution to that concern: you're taking it as given that the players will engage a predominantly GM-authored setting. Given that premise, the concern won't arise.

Well, yes, it's a "GM authored" setting. The players then change it according to their will, becoming co-authors.

Forethought as to what?

Who the contact is, what they do, what their general personalities are, their relationship with the PC.

As I read this, you are the one who decided the backstory about Empress, Doges and Barons; about the method of becoming a Baron; abut the undead ruler of the fallen city-state.

If you have players who are excited about this GM-authored setting, then as I said, the problem that I was proposing a solution to will not be a problem that you have.

Yes. It isn't even what she was awarded her barony for, actually. She chose something else to do, knowing the world well, which actually gained her the prize. She then picked out where her barony would be on the map, chose her noble name, designed her coat of arms, picked out which barony she would ally with and which to feud with, about when she would take a year off from adventuring to birth an heir.... She has pretty big plans- she's looking to take the undead controlled city and elevate herself to Countess given the territory she will control.

The wizard picked up seven brass tablets from an efreet. The first two tablets are defined, the other five are just tied to "fire magic". He wanted the third one to be wall of fire, so it is.

I thank you for the consideration of my replies and your thoughtful responses.

 

[Hussar]

I cannot comprehend how you come to this conclusion after I explicitly stated that I would listen to and apply character backstories.

We obviously have different experiences and preferences. Thank you for the conversation.

Look at what you wrote. YOU stated that YOU would listen and YOU would apply character backstories.

At no point does the player do any of that. At no point can a player apply character back stories.

Which is my point.

 

[Hussar]

I find it odd that the game years ago where my character decided to adopt an urchin, chose how they would be raised, selected their caregivers and training, etc.. gave me no incentive or ownership just because the DM had put the urchin there, the DM had decided the urchin's guardian was crappy, the DM gave me the list of potential caregivers, and the DM could have vetoed the training I wanted them to get.

And what an interesting story you would have if the DM chose not to have that urchin there.

Or that the party I was in last year had no incentives and didn't demonstrate any ownership when we decided to try and rehabilitate the bandit we knew from in town, or when we decided to overthrow the corrupt government and lay the ground worn for on he subsequent one in the kingdom to the south instead of just grabbing what we needed and leaving, just because it was the DM that said we all knew the bandit from in town, and because it was the DM who decided how many allies and reinforcements the corrupt king had.

And what an interesting story you would have if the DM chose not to have that bandit there.

Or that a party mate and I didn't demonstrate any ownership when we decided he should sacrifice my character on a tree to try and commune with Odin, just because the DM had to make the decision whether it worked or if I just died.

And what an interesting story you would have if the DM chose not to have Odin in the setting.

How exactly are you countering the point I'm making? There's nothing WRONG with having the DM be in charge of the setting. That's perfectly fine and lots of people play this way. But, IME, giving the players the actual authority to tell ME the DM details makes for a much more invested player and a better game.

 

[tetrasodium]

Look at what you wrote. YOU stated that YOU would listen and YOU would apply character backstories.

At no point does the player do any of that. At no point can a player apply character back stories.

Which is my point.

At some point the gm needs to decide something simply because that is part of the GM's role. It does not seem that you make allowance for the gm ever deciding anything.what is the role of the gm if they do not decide anything?

 

[Hussar]

The wizard picked up seven brass tablets from an efreet. The first two tablets are defined, the other five are just tied to "fire magic". He wanted the third one to be wall of fire, so it is.

Here's a perfect example. The player has ZERO power here. Had you decided that the third one wasn't Wall of Fire, then it wouldn't be. You chose to go with the player's idea. That's fine. And a perfectly fun way to play. But, imagine the player instead TELLS YOU that the third one is wall of fire. Would that be okay? Why or why not?

 

[Hussar]

At some point the gm needs to decide something simply because that is part of the GM's role. It does not seem that you make allowance for the gm ever deciding anything.

And, here we're right back to this.

Because yes, allowing a player to decide that his sister works for the mayor is the same as not allowing the GM to ever decide anything in the game.

 

[Cadence]

Here's a perfect example. The player has ZERO power here. Had you decided that the third one wasn't Wall of Fire, then it wouldn't be. You chose to go with the player's idea. That's fine. And a perfectly fun way to play. But, imagine the player instead TELLS YOU that the third one is wall of fire. Would that be okay? Why or why not?

So, he sometimes goes with the players idea, but that isn't what you mean. So do you always go with the player's idea with no veto or alteration?

 

[tetrasodium]

And, here we're right back to this.

Because yes, allowing a player to decide that his sister works for the mayor is the same as not allowing the GM to ever decide anything in the game.

No we are not. There are games that can be run without a gm, but d&d is not one of them. The gm needs to decide things at some point even if that decision is simply what to do when the N page backstories written by two different players conflict what adventure to run or how a monster responds to a player action.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, he sometimes goes with the players idea, but that isn't what you mean. So do you always go with the player's idea with no veto or alteration?

More like there are places where the player gets a say and places where the GM gets a say. And by say, I mean they get what they want out of the fiction.

Here's usually how this goes -- the players tell the GM what they want the game to be about. They establish some themes and important conflicts they want to see in play. The GM then HAS to provide this, because that was the players' say. But, the GM gets the how and what of the say, so they frame a situation that speaks to what the players said and puts that into danger and play. The players then get to say what it is that they do, and have some pretty wide latitude to bring in elements that don't contradict established play (note, not the GM's notes, but what's been established in play at the table). The GM either goes with that say, or challenges it. If the GM challenges (and they probably should since it's an important bit of play the players wanted) then it goes to mechanics, and we get to see that way who ends up with the say -- does the player end up with the say or is the GM now required to put out a say that goes against what the PC wanted?

In the case of the tablets, I don't really see a moment of play turning on this. Rather this seems like a version of "ask the player questions, then use the answers." This is a bit of PbtA and FitD principle that say if you ask the question, you're bound to use the answer, and that you should ask the questions! Of course, there's little in these games that can give quite the mechanical "I Win" that items and spells and whatnot do in D&D. I'm of the strong opinion that using these kinds of techniques in D&D causes problems due to how the system is structured -- you cannot escape GM says and still be playing D&D. Well, 4e being a notable exception in many ways.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here's a perfect example. The player has ZERO power here. Had you decided that the third one wasn't Wall of Fire, then it wouldn't be. You chose to go with the player's idea. That's fine. And a perfectly fun way to play. But, imagine the player instead TELLS YOU that the third one is wall of fire. Would that be okay? Why or why not?

Your own point is coming back to you. Giving the players authority to decide stuff is a perfectly fine way to play. More power to you. Other tables prefer a more GM-driven approach, and that's fine too. Can't we just leave it at that? Do we have to insist that your way is better for player engagement?