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

[Ovinomancer]

On the consensus piece, it's because I've seen it used so many times out-of-game as a bad-faith delaying tactic - usually by the losing side in an argument or debate - that when I see it now I just assume this to be the case, and in response I push for a binding resolution now by vote or other lock-it-in means so as to cut off the backroom lobbying crap before it starts.

The minute I hear someone say "Can we just come to a consensus?", up go the red flags.

Except, you are reaching consensus when everyone at the table agrees to play the game you're playing. Or when you agree to game time. Sure, one person can propose the game or time or location, but everyone that shows up to it is in consensus about it or it doesn't happens.

At least, I hope this is true, and you aren't running a kidnapping ring and running for hostages!

On the in-game religion piece, to me pantheons and deities etc. are part of the background setting* and thus fully under the DM's purview. Sure the DM could open this up so players could in effect build their own deities, but in my settings at least this would risk running aground in two ways:

--- all deities in all my settings work on an underlying universal chassis that players might never see or know about; a player-designed deity might run afoul of this without realizing it, meaning I'd have to keep a hard veto power
--- my pantheons are already designed intentionally so as to allow a wide variance of Cleric types and alignments to be chosen for play; and some of the "holes" left in those lineups are intentional. For example, one can play a Dwarven Nature Cleric (a.k.a. Druid) in my game but to do so said Dwarf has to go out of culture to find a deity as no Dwarven deities support that type of Cleric - what self-respecting Dwarf wants to spend time frolicking about in forests when there's good mining to be done? . A player inventing a Dwarven nature deity to fill this hole would violate this intentional design and in so doing probably force me to come up with a completely bespoke spell list just for it; and that's a crap-ton of work I ain't about to do just for one character, thank you very much.

* - the exception of course being if the PCs are deities, but I've never tried that type of game.

Ok. Yeah, the suggestion was an alternative where you let the player decide, and your only response was about players doing nonsensical things for no reason you could articulate and then saying that this is way it can't work that way. You made up a strange corner case of crazy to leverage the precautionary principle in favor of not letting players have any input because they might, I dunno, hurt themselves or the game? You weren't very clear on what you thought the end outcomes were here.

 

[Hussar]

Why would you come up with a bespoke spell list? That’s a great job for a player. Subject to approval of course but why would you do any of the work?

And I’m afraid things like, it will violate my invisible model that doesn’t really even matter to you is a really bad reason for not changing.

Lastly, if you simply presume bad faith as soon as something like consensus is suggested, why shouldn’t the players presume bad faith on the part of the dm?

 

[tetrasodium]

Except, you are reaching consensus when everyone at the table agrees to play the game you're playing. Or when you agree to game time. Sure, one person can propose the game or time or location, but everyone that shows up to it is in consensus about it or it doesn't happens.

At least, I hope this is true, and you aren't running a kidnapping ring and running for hostages!

Ok. Yeah, the suggestion was an alternative where you let the player decide, and your only response was about players doing nonsensical things for no reason you could articulate and then saying that this is way it can't work that way. You made up a strange corner case of crazy to leverage the precautionary principle in favor of not letting players have any input because they might, I dunno, hurt themselves or the game? You weren't very clear on what you thought the end outcomes were here.

The That bold bit is the problem. The person pushing for consensus is wanting to play something else & will continue to pine for that.

 

[Lanefan]

Why would you come up with a bespoke spell list? That’s a great job for a player. Subject to approval of course but why would you do any of the work?

First off, it would need to be a player who had been around long enogh to know what spells can and can't do at various levels.

Even if such were the case, I'd half expect the approval/editing/ruling process to take as long as doing it all from scratch; with the added complication/time-sink of having to collaborate with someone else. Doable, yes, but probably (relatively) quicker and easier to just do it on my own.

And I’m afraid things like, it will violate my invisible model that doesn’t really even matter to you is a really bad reason for not changing.

Why? In divine matters the invisible model matters to everything a little bit, even if nobody either in or out of character knows the nuts and bolts of it other than me-as-DM.

Lastly, if you simply presume bad faith as soon as something like consensus is suggested, why shouldn’t the players presume bad faith on the part of the dm?

If I'm the DM I won't be suggesting consensus.

 

[Hussar]

If I'm the DM I won't be suggesting consensus.

Funny.

But the point still stands. If you automatically presume bad faith on everyone else's part, why should anyone trust your judgement?

----

Another thought does occur though. You mention the idea of a dwarven druid being a problem in your setting. But, the thing is, in D&D, there are half a dozen druid archetypes that fit dwarves without any problems. Circle of Fire Druid, for example, is a fire worshipping druid - perfect for a forge priest. But, since your campaign was created over a decade ago, everything in the campaign is based on what D&D looked like then and not now.

I think this goes a long way towards explaining differences. To me, a campaign based on D&D as D&D looked ten, twenty or thirty years ago isn't something I'm even remotely interested in playing. There's too much new stuff that I want to try. So, campaigns and campaign settings are disposable to me. If you run a completely new setting every two years, then your setting will much more easily incorporate any new developments that have appeared in the game.

The game adds artificers? No problem. Next campaign will have artificers if someone wants to play one. Players no longer assume a human dominated setting and want to play what would once have been really weird races but are now pretty common in the game? No problems. This next setting will have space for anything you want to play.

Of course, all of this is predicated on the idea that campaigns and campaign settings are collaborative efforts. I talked about the dwarf druid having a bespoke spell list. To me, I'd just hand that off to the player with the admonition of choosing stuff that that player thinks looks about right. IME, players will always be far, far more concerned about balance that I will ever be. If something turns out to be a problem, we'll deal with that then. Otherwise? Go for it. Impress me. Show me what you can do.

Works so much better and it's so much easier on me as a DM.

Then again, I come from a gaming tradition where we always rotated DM's. It wasn't until much, much later that I became the only DM for the group. So, the idea of D&D as collaboration has always been part of my experience. That's how I started playing. So game worlds were always a collaborative effort based around consensus. Bob adds something, Dave adds something else. I add a third thing and then Bob changes what Dave added and so on and so forth.

The very top down approach a lot of people advocate for was not how I learned to game. And, when I met that kind of table, I very much found it not to my taste. I'm currently on full time DM duty because no one else is stepping up. The second someone volunteers, I'm out of the DM chair so fast my pants catch on fire.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The That bold bit is the problem. The person pushing for consensus is wanting to play something else & will continue to pine for that.

Ok. So, you're saying that sometime at your table right now is a last because they don't actually want to play the game you're playing but instead are planning to elitists the game choice layer. Right now,. At your table.

I say that's crap.

 

[tetrasodium]

Ok. So, you're saying that sometime at your table right now is a last because they don't actually want to play the game you're playing but instead are planning to elitists the game choice layer. Right now,. At your table.

I say that's crap.

What does it mean for someone to "[be] a last"?

 

[Ovinomancer]

What does it mean for someone to "[be] a last"?

autocorrect on phone, in a hurry. Be a liar. Someone at your table has to have lied to agree to play but actually not agree to play.

 

[Remathilis]

What does it mean for someone to "[be] a last"?

Ovi's secret nemesis is Autocurrant.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ovi's secret nemesis is Autocurrant.

Bot so secret.