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

[hawkeyefan]

Trust in self, mostly; and a sense of doing what's good for one's own game in both the short term and the long.


Difference of perspective.

In general, the player's first focus is on the success of their PC (and somtimes, of the party) and on the immediate here-and-now elements that go into as best as possible ensuring that success. The player has much less impetus to do anything on a bigger scale to ensure the game itself keeps going any longer than maybe the next few sessions, and can (and IME almost universally does) leave that up to the DM. By the same token, it's hard (though, sadly, not impossible) for a single player to do something that sinks the whole game.

The DM, meanwhile, not only has to focus on the immediate here-and-now run of play in order to keep the game going right now but also has to focus on the long term and think of what will keep the game going for the next one or two or fifteen years, assuming that's her intent. What this means is that, because a DM can sink a game far more easily than can a player, she has to be able to trust herself not to do something that would sink it. And so, even though any DM has infinite dragons and infinite falling rocks to throw at the party the wise DM knows it's in her best interests not to use them, making this often-used example really nothing but hyperbole.

Do you solely GM? When you play, do your instincts about what makes up a reasonably balanced yet challenging game vanish? Aren't many players also GMs and vice versa? Is it a quality of the role in the game that causes the phenomenon, or is it a quality of the person?

I GM quite a lot, but I also play. I don't tend to look at the games I play in as somehow less "mine". I'm responsible for how those games go. I'm not solely responsible. But I'm not solely responsible for how the games I GM go, either.

Perhaps it's the sharing of responsibility for the game that makes players less likely to scramble for every competitive advantage? Perhaps withholding the ability to have input on the game makes folks desperate for any bit they're allowed?

I don't know.... there seem to be some odd correlations here.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah, I have rarely met any group of players where even a significant minority have a group first mentality. Mostly they want to play their character how they want, as successfully as possible. Cooperation happens when it suits the individual to do so, and making a great story for the group over the individual is not a priority.

The type of gamer you're describing is an entirely different species in my experience.

Really? I've always thought a big part of D&D was The Party. Most classes are designed to perform some kind of function within a group. There's the whole "don't split the party". Many folks here on ENW rail against PVP or playing evil or other "disruptive" types of characters.

I think quite a bit revolves around the group over the individual. Which isn't a bad thing.... it's a group activity, after all. Plenty of games do this.

 

[Fifth Element]

In general, the player's first focus is on the success of their PC (and somtimes, of the party) and on the immediate here-and-now elements that go into as best as possible ensuring that success.

If that's the type of player you're used to playing with, that could explain a lot of things that you seem to believe represent general truths about how the game is played. Because the above is not a general truth about how players play the game.

 

[Fifth Element]

Yeah, I have rarely met any group of players where even a significant minority have a group first mentality. Mostly they want to play their character how they want, as successfully as possible. Cooperation happens when it suits the individual to do so, and making a great story for the group over the individual is not a priority.

The type of gamer you're describing is an entirely different species in my experience.

And the correlation between this type of experience (you do not appear to be the only one with it) and a particular opinion on giving players agency in the world-building seem to be very strong. Just remember this the next time you're tempted to generalize your own experiences to the game as a whole.

 

[Cadence]

I GM quite a lot, but I also play. I don't tend to look at the games I play in as somehow less "mine". I'm responsible for how those games go. I'm not solely responsible. But I'm not solely responsible for how the games I GM go, either.

I think I always think of it as "<DM 1 name's> Conan Campaign" or "<DM 2's> Norse Campaign". But I don't think I've ever been in a memorable one where it didn't involve a group of players that bought in. And the few people I remember as not being pleasant to play with were the ones who didn't buy in - whether it was going just for their own PC, not leaning into the DM's world, or putting no effort into contributing when the DM asked for suggestions to help fill out the world.

 

[Lanefan]

Do you solely GM?

No, I also play.

When you play, do your instincts about what makes up a reasonably balanced yet challenging game vanish?

More or less, yes; I'm there to play my character(s) to the best of my/their abilities* in the setting given them by the DM. I actively try to turn off my DM-brain as a player, with varying degrees of success.

* - by this I don't necessarily mean playing them to their mechanical optimum; I mean playing them as themselves first and in the process trying to be at least somewhat entertaining.

Aren't many players also GMs and vice versa? Is it a quality of the role in the game that causes the phenomenon, or is it a quality of the person?

I GM quite a lot, but I also play. I don't tend to look at the games I play in as somehow less "mine".

I do. The character is mine, the setting it's operating in is not, nor is it any other player's, and nor should it be.

The moment the setting starts becoming part-mine (as a player) one of two things happens: either my status changes with regards to the other players at the table (which simply cannot end well in any way), or if we can each say "the setting is part-mine" it becomes a pointless exercise in arguing and cat-herding as we try to pull the setting in a number of different directions equal to the number of people at the table. And when the setting is built with the expectation and goal of being robust and consistent enough to endure through an open-ended (i.e. undefined but ideally very big) amount of time, play, characters, and players this becomes untenable.

I'm responsible for how those games go.

My responsibility as a player pretty much starts and ends with showing up on time, being entertaining and engaged, having half a clue about the rules as they pertain to my character, and not being an asshat.

I'm not solely responsible. But I'm not solely responsible for how the games I GM go, either.

I think the DM's say in how the games go is at least equal to, if not greater than, the sum of the players' say. It's easier for the DM to save things whent he players have a bad night than it is for the players to save things when the DM has a bad night.

Perhaps it's the sharing of responsibility for the game that makes players less likely to scramble for every competitive advantage?

I don't think so.

Perhaps withholding the ability to have input on the game makes folks desperate for any bit they're allowed?

Perhaps, but someone still has to have ultimate control over the setting if only to keep it consistent, which means having veto power over any proposed additions or alterations. That person is, most logically, the DM; and if players can't or won't accept this then sorry, I can't help 'em.

 

[Lanefan]

If that's the type of player you're used to playing with, that could explain a lot of things that you seem to believe represent general truths about how the game is played. Because the above is not a general truth about how players play the game.

What else is a player supposed to do other than play their character(s)?

 

[Hussar]

And we’re suddenly back to the “heartless and cruel DM saying no” and “stifling the creative freedom of players.” Players don’t tend to say no to other players. Because they know it cuts both ways. Players tend to be way more permissive, and expect more permissiveness, from other players.

Wow, really?

I find players are FAR more restrictive than I am. My go to answer is almost always yes, with the caveat that something that gets out of hand will be dealt with late. But, I rarely veto anything at the time just because it might cause problems down the line. I'll deal with what is, not what might be.

IME, players OTOH, will veto virtually anything other players suggest far more often. They have just as much of a vested interest in the game as I do, with the added level that they aren't really interested in one player getting too much of a leg up over the other players. It's the crab pot all over.

As an example, I have zero problem with flying PC's. I simply don't care. I don't see it as overpowered and there are a million things I can do with a flying PC. The other players actually voiced opposition to one player playing an Owlfolk because they thought flight was too powerful.

You have very strange experiences iwth players.

 

[Lanefan]

Wow, really?

I find players are FAR more restrictive than I am. My go to answer is almost always yes, with the caveat that something that gets out of hand will be dealt with late. But, I rarely veto anything at the time just because it might cause problems down the line.

Another difference in philosophy: whenever I make any ruling I'm always looking at the down-the-line effects, in that in my view both as player and DM rulings set a binding precedent - which means it's incumbent on the DM to, if needed, take the extra time to get it right.

Retroactively changing a ruling or over-ruling a precedent is IMO one of the worst things a DM can do.

I'll deal with what is, not what might be.

IME, players OTOH, will veto virtually anything other players suggest far more often. They have just as much of a vested interest in the game as I do, with the added level that they aren't really interested in one player getting too much of a leg up over the other players. It's the crab pot all over.

Except IMO it's not the place for other players to even have that sort of veto. You-as-player can't tell me what I can play or how I can play it, but the DM can

As an example, I have zero problem with flying PC's. I simply don't care. I don't see it as overpowered and there are a million things I can do with a flying PC. The other players actually voiced opposition to one player playing an Owlfolk because they thought flight was too powerful.

Where in my view if you-as-DM allow Owlfolk as PCs then that means I-as-player am free to play one, period; and if some other player tries to tell me I can't there's gonna be a brawl - a brawl in which in theory I've got the DM's backing, in that you've specifically allowed that species as a playable PC.

Now if the objecting player instead turns to you-as-DM and asks you to ban Owlfolk as PCs for anyone, that's different: as DM you can ban them* if you like; and if that's your decision I have to abide by it.

* - exception: if there already are or have been any Owlfolk PCs in the same campaign that means the ship has sailed on banning them - it's too late, as precedent says they're allowed.

 

[overgeeked]

* - exception: if there already are or have been any Owlfolk PCs in the same campaign that means the ship has sailed on banning them - it's too late, as precedent says they're allowed.

I mostly agree with you, except this part. Even if something's been allowed in the past, it's not binding that they will forevermore be allowed in the game. For example, allowing something you're not 100% sure about, only to find it disruptive in play. Cool. We tried it. Now we're done. X race is banned. Or whatever example best suits.