Decline Is this what role-playing is like now?

[Stella Brando]

The state of modern roleplaying has changed. A simple review of most forums suggests the following:

>People look to shows like Critical Role or Dimension 20 for inspiration
>Player characters must have some kind of schtick or gimmick
>Character death is rare, often pre-determined, and "cinematic"
>No real stakes. DMs often encouraged to fudge rolls for the purposes of "story"
>Characters must start out inherently strong and stay freakishly strong
>5e, which facilitates all of the above, is considered the "standard" most people wish to play
>Dungeon delving, classic traps, and acquiring loot are no longer considered worthwhile pastimes
>The DM is also expected to write story hooks or even plot around complicated back-stories. Players come to the game with full on crown successions written into their backstory. Characters like "Percy" and "Vax" from CR are prime examples of this.
>Systems often boast "tactical combat" making the success of a character less about player creativity and more about how much they can game the existing rules
>Not following strict RAW will earn you the ire of players.
>Journeys are hand-waved. No getting lost. No stumbling upon random encounters. Fast travel is now a part of the tabletop
>Gone are the unique racial features of Dwarves and Elves. In fact, it's considered "boring" to play a human now when you can play tiefling, machine-race, or bird race or some shit.
>No mechanics to support creative solutions to problems. If you don't have a class feature or applicable feat, tripping someone with a staff (for example) isn't possible.
>Miniatures, expensive set pieces, projected maps, and the like are now the norm. Theatre of the mind is dead.

When did it all go wrong? What recourse do we have? Am I finally a grognard?

https://boards.4channel.org/tg/thread/84624168

 

[Humbaba]

 

[Silva]

Nah. Roleplaying these days is the most varied and prolific it ever was.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

>Not following strict RAW will earn you the ire of players.

nice

 

[Dr1f7]

thats what happen when u invite a CRINGE GIRL to boy's night :puke:

 

[JamesDixon]

The state of modern roleplaying has changed. A simple review of most forums suggests the following:

>People look to shows like Critical Role or Dimension 20 for inspiration
>Player characters must have some kind of schtick or gimmick
>Character death is rare, often pre-determined, and "cinematic"
>No real stakes. DMs often encouraged to fudge rolls for the purposes of "story"
>Characters must start out inherently strong and stay freakishly strong
>5e, which facilitates all of the above, is considered the "standard" most people wish to play
>Dungeon delving, classic traps, and acquiring loot are no longer considered worthwhile pastimes
>The DM is also expected to write story hooks or even plot around complicated back-stories. Players come to the game with full on crown successions written into their backstory. Characters like "Percy" and "Vax" from CR are prime examples of this.
>Systems often boast "tactical combat" making the success of a character less about player creativity and more about how much they can game the existing rules
>Not following strict RAW will earn you the ire of players.
>Journeys are hand-waved. No getting lost. No stumbling upon random encounters. Fast travel is now a part of the tabletop
>Gone are the unique racial features of Dwarves and Elves. In fact, it's considered "boring" to play a human now when you can play tiefling, machine-race, or bird race or some shit.
>No mechanics to support creative solutions to problems. If you don't have a class feature or applicable feat, tripping someone with a staff (for example) isn't possible.
>Miniatures, expensive set pieces, projected maps, and the like are now the norm. Theatre of the mind is dead.

When did it all go wrong? What recourse do we have? Am I finally a grognard?

https://boards.4channel.org/tg/thread/84624168

>Player characters must have some kind of schtick or gimmick
>Character death is rare, often pre-determined, and "cinematic"
>No real stakes. DMs often encouraged to fudge rolls for the purposes of "story"
>The DM is also expected to write story hooks or even plot around complicated back-stories. Players come to the game with full on crown successions written into their backstory. Characters like "Percy" and "Vax" from CR are prime examples of this.

Certain old school games, like Hero System/GURPS/WEG D6, encourage these things to make a good campaign. These tips go back to the late 1970s to early 1980s, so this person is an idiot.

 

[spectre]

I have a sneaking suspicion that guy doesn't really do RPGs, but will bitch about them all day long.
Half of that shit can be fixed by: "Don't want heroic fantasy shit? Don't play heroic fantasy shit".

>Not following strict RAW will earn you the ire of players.
Because we never had rules lawyers in the past?
Get better players, get better GMs. If you can't, give feedback, get feedback, it's supposed to be a group project.
Also, people always suck at improvisation at first, but it's teachable.

Ok, I must admit, my dice-rolling days are probably behind me, so perhaps things have indeed gone bad,
but I remember a lot of newfags rolling in after the first Baldurs Gate. They too needed some setting straight.

Perhaps it's similar with people raised on cRPGs and boardgames which are pretty mainstream right now.
The uninitiated might have heard the name "Dungeons and Dragons" being tossed around, thinking it's the go-to RPG experience.
Still, same solution as above, if you don't want WotC-made pulp, don't buy WotC-made pulp.

>The DM is also expected to write story hooks or even plot around complicated back-stories.
Oh fuck off, it's basic decency to at least gloss over the shit people scribbled on their character sheets. At worst, you might be getting free inspiration (awful shame, none of you got Animal Handling, huh?)
Sure there's always this guy who'll rub one off writing an entire FBI profile for their chars, just remember to throw him a bone every now and then.

 

[JamesDixon]

After giving the list a third go through I found two more errors from this idiot.

>Not following strict RAW will earn you the ire of players.

This is incorrect. Prior to DANDINO 3E the GM/DM was expected to house rule the game to fit their table. There were extensive articles in Dragon and pages devoted to it in various GM/DM sources. The players required the GM/DM to be a fair arbiter of the rules in situations that weren't covered by the rules.

>No mechanics to support creative solutions to problems. If you don't have a class feature or applicable feat, tripping someone with a staff (for example) isn't possible.

This is the DANDINO modern game design. It is retarded to its core because it's You Can't Do X Because You Lack Y. Prior to DANDINO 3.x, the systems were all You Can Try. If you could think of a creative solution the GM/DM would give you the information you needed to resolve the action then award you bonus experience for coming up with the solution. In fact, in real D&D it was encouraged to the players to think creatively. That's why when you read modules like Temple of Elemental Evil with the death traps you were expected to think outside of the box using all of the resources you had available. That was including hiring npcs to travel with you to be orderlies and treasure carriers. That's why the 10 Foot Pole was created by player ideas to have the hirelings go ahead of the party and stab the floors in front of them. In doing so, the traps are discovered and set off safely for the party. The hireling on the hand may not be so lucky.

 

[Alex]

The state of modern roleplaying has changed. A simple review of most forums suggests the following:

>People look to shows like Critical Role or Dimension 20 for inspiration
>Player characters must have some kind of schtick or gimmick
>Character death is rare, often pre-determined, and "cinematic"
>No real stakes. DMs often encouraged to fudge rolls for the purposes of "story"
>Characters must start out inherently strong and stay freakishly strong
>5e, which facilitates all of the above, is considered the "standard" most people wish to play
>Dungeon delving, classic traps, and acquiring loot are no longer considered worthwhile pastimes
>The DM is also expected to write story hooks or even plot around complicated back-stories. Players come to the game with full on crown successions written into their backstory. Characters like "Percy" and "Vax" from CR are prime examples of this.
>Systems often boast "tactical combat" making the success of a character less about player creativity and more about how much they can game the existing rules
>Not following strict RAW will earn you the ire of players.
>Journeys are hand-waved. No getting lost. No stumbling upon random encounters. Fast travel is now a part of the tabletop
>Gone are the unique racial features of Dwarves and Elves. In fact, it's considered "boring" to play a human now when you can play tiefling, machine-race, or bird race or some shit.
>No mechanics to support creative solutions to problems. If you don't have a class feature or applicable feat, tripping someone with a staff (for example) isn't possible.
>Miniatures, expensive set pieces, projected maps, and the like are now the norm. Theatre of the mind is dead.

When did it all go wrong? What recourse do we have? Am I finally a grognard?

https://boards.4channel.org/tg/thread/84624168

>Player characters must have some kind of schtick or gimmick
>Character death is rare, often pre-determined, and "cinematic"
>No real stakes. DMs often encouraged to fudge rolls for the purposes of "story"
>The DM is also expected to write story hooks or even plot around complicated back-stories. Players come to the game with full on crown successions written into their backstory. Characters like "Percy" and "Vax" from CR are prime examples of this.

Certain old school games, like Hero System/GURPS/WEG D6, encourage these things to make a good campaign. These tips go back to the late 1970s to early 1980s, so this person is an idiot.

Yeah, but back then DMs/GMs were still as likely to just ignore such bad advice as they were not. Nowadays, these ideas appear in most games and GMs are a lot likely to follow them.

 

[JamesDixon]

Yeah, but back then DMs/GMs were still as likely to just ignore such bad advice as they were not. Nowadays, these ideas appear in most games and GMs are a lot likely to follow them.

I'll ask for some clarification here Alex before I can reply fully. What bad advice? Would it be what I said or the moron?

 

[Alex]

Yeah, but back then DMs/GMs were still as likely to just ignore such bad advice as they were not. Nowadays, these ideas appear in most games and GMs are a lot likely to follow them.

I'll ask for some clarification here Alex before I can reply fully. What bad advice? Would it be what I said or the moron?

I meant the stuff you quoted:

>Player characters must have some kind of schtick or gimmick

There is a whole lot of stuff that could be meant by this (and actually, all propositions); including a concept that is sometimes addressed as "niche protection", which holds that a character should be about "something" (such as sneaking, healing, hacking, or whatever else is a PC activity in game); and the game is bad if it allows another player to do that kind of thing as well or even better. A classic example of that is a magic user using an invisibility spell to sneak better than a thief. My problem with that is that; besides forcing the game-world to conform to game balance, that it can also stifle the challenge of the game. as it can be interpreted that the player shouldn't be challenged on that field. For instance, people who hold this view may think the design of 3e Shadowrun (not speaking about newer editions because I don't know how they do it) as bad because a decker player might be useless if he doesn't understand yet how the matrix works, and thus might end up playing "badly". Or because he might fail badly, either because of a critical failure, or because he assumed the system he was entering to follow a different pattern and ended up triggering a whole bunch of ice.

Of course, maybe he meant something entirely different, I don't know. For all I know he meant PCs need to all be "quirky" now, which is nowhere as bad but still decline.

>Character death is rare, often pre-determined, and "cinematic"

I don't mind if PC death is rare, in fact I prefer it. But refusing to play games where they are common is a kind of decline. A cinematic death; that is, a death where the death doesn't come across a just a bad throw of dice, is not necessarily a bad thing. There are games that have systems to manage PC death so this is less likely. Either there is some security against death happening or at least some way to make the death be less pointless. This kind of stuff cam be important to make the game match some expectations of certain genres. But "pre-determined" death scenes for PCs just sounds like the worst kind of railroading to me. I will admit I've never actually played a game where the GM railroaded everything and the players where more or less playing an actual role in his story. Maybe it would be fun, but if I ever do play a game like that, I would prefer to be straightforward about it; not pretend there are dice rules, but ignore those if it would throw the story out of the planned path.

>No real stakes. DMs often encouraged to fudge rolls for the purposes of "story"

Again, railroady stuff. I don't really have anything against people that enjoy this kind of play, but I am more a "let the dice fall where they may" kind of guy. I don't have a problem with DMs changing how a roll is made at any time, but the intent should be to better represent the situation in question, not to get a specific result.

>The DM is also expected to write story hooks or even plot around complicated back-stories. Players come to the game with full on crown successions written into their backstory. Characters like "Percy" and "Vax" from CR are prime examples of this.

I have no idea who "percy" or "vax" are (although now I am imagining that vax is Jax from Mortal Kombat after getting myocarditis from some corona virus vaccine). To be honest, I actually like to give the players some editorial power, so the characters they create are not only a part of the setting, but a part of the setting the player also got to either create or at least influence. I don't really have anything against this; but I can understand how GMs might be frustrated if they wanted to play a simple game and some player kept derailing it by trying to make his PC important in the "story".

 

[JamesDixon]

Thanks for the clarification and expansion on your answer.

I meant the stuff you quoted:

There is a whole lot of stuff that could be meant by this (and actually, all propositions); including a concept that is sometimes addressed as "niche protection", which holds that a character should be about "something" (such as sneaking, healing, hacking, or whatever else is a PC activity in game); and the game is bad if it allows another player to do that kind of thing as well or even better. A classic example of that is a magic user using an invisibility spell to sneak better than a thief. My problem with that is that; besides forcing the game-world to conform to game balance, that it can also stifle the challenge of the game. as it can be interpreted that the player shouldn't be challenged on that field. For instance, people who hold this view may think the design of 3e Shadowrun (not speaking about newer editions because I don't know how they do it) as bad because a decker player might be useless if he doesn't understand yet how the matrix works, and thus might end up playing "badly". Or because he might fail badly, either because of a critical failure, or because he assumed the system he was entering to follow a different pattern and ended up triggering a whole bunch of ice.

Of course, maybe he meant something entirely different, I don't know. For all I know he meant PCs need to all be "quirky" now, which is nowhere as bad but still decline.

In the superhero genre it's extremely common to have characters that have a specific gimmick that's usually related to their powers. It's to differentiate the character from other characters. It shouldn't be used for niche protection, but I see your point.

RE Invisibility: The spell only affects sight. It does nothing against sound. Most GMs and players forget that. In order to fully replace a thief the mage would need three spells which are Invisibility, Silence, and Knock. The problem with Silence is that it prohibits any spell casting using voice.

I don't mind if PC death is rare, in fact I prefer it. But refusing to play games where they are common is a kind of decline. A cinematic death; that is, a death where the death doesn't come across a just a bad throw of dice, is not necessarily a bad thing. There are games that have systems to manage PC death so this is less likely. Either there is some security against death happening or at least some way to make the death be less pointless. This kind of stuff cam be important to make the game match some expectations of certain genres. But "pre-determined" death scenes for PCs just sounds like the worst kind of railroading to me. I will admit I've never actually played a game where the GM railroaded everything and the players where more or less playing an actual role in his story. Maybe it would be fun, but if I ever do play a game like that, I would prefer to be straightforward about it; not pretend there are dice rules, but ignore those if it would throw the story out of the planned path.

You're looking at this as binary in that cinematic death is not a random death from a roll. That's all a narrative choice. I've killed players when the roll went that way and I described it cinematically that furthered the story. Usually, I intentionally only kill a player's character with their permission. I don't tell them how it will happen just that it will. That's when the player is tired of the character. Otherwise, all deaths are the result of rolls. There is no plot armor for PCs.

I don't railroad or prepare adventures in detail. In fact, JarlFrank, Ninjerk, Alienman, and Ismaul can tell you that the adventure is a natural progression from a prepared starting point. Once the game starts the players dictate what happen and I react to them. This is why when I did run the same scenarios for two different groups the adventure went in two different directions. As such, I agree with you on railroading being a bad thing to do.

Again, railroady stuff. I don't really have anything against people that enjoy this kind of play, but I am more a "let the dice fall where they may" kind of guy. I don't have a problem with DMs changing how a roll is made at any time, but the intent should be to better represent the situation in question, not to get a specific result.

I fudge rolls when the death of a PC will grind the entire adventure to a halt. There is nothing worse then having a character that is in the limelight being removed unceremoniously. I've had games self destruct over it. As such I do agree with you in principle, but it requires a specific circumstances.

I have no idea who "percy" or "vax" are (although now I am imagining that vax is Jax from Mortal Kombat after getting myocarditis from some corona virus vaccine). To be honest, I actually like to give the players some editorial power, so the characters they create are not only a part of the setting, but a part of the setting the player also got to either create or at least influence. I don't really have anything against this; but I can understand how GMs might be frustrated if they wanted to play a simple game and some player kept derailing it by trying to make his PC important in the "story".

I think you misunderstood the point the guy was making. The DM/GM is expected to write up personal stories for the characters in their game. That's in Champions 1E published in 1981.

Finding a goal can be made easier by using the character's disadvantages. If a character's "Hunters" turn up, the scenario can be built around that fact. Or, a character's Dependent NPC could be captured or threatened.

Champions 1E page 41.

His point was that modern gamers expect it. It's been a part of TTRPGs since the beginning.

 

[spectre]

>No real stakes. DMs often encouraged to fudge rolls for the purposes of "story"
>Not following strict RAW will earn you the ire of players.

Also, is it just me or do these two sorta contradict?
Though an autiste would be quick to point out that there usually is a rule telling the GM to fudge rolls when needed, so it might just check out.

Yeah, fudging rolls is one of those things you could write a book about.
My players would often tell me that doesn't matter if we're doing combat romps or narration, the die roll is sacred to them.
It represents they committed to action and fate will decide the outcome.

So yeah, whatever you do, never fuck with that feeling, because it's essential.
Never let the guys feel you're bailing them out, because that kills the mood immediately.
On the fly, creative interpretation of results is what you want to practice instead.

Feel free to fudge rolls when some bollocks pop out from the loot table you've made, but even if you're fudging, make an effort so that nobody notices.
I think this is the critical bit of info a lot of rulebooks need to start including.

 

[Alex]

Thanks for the clarification and expansion on your answer.

In the superhero genre it's extremely common to have characters that have a specific gimmick that's usually related to their powers. It's to differentiate the character from other characters. It shouldn't be used for niche protection, but I see your point.

Maybe you are using the word "gimmick" in a more specific manner than I am. I am not sure what a gimmick is in this context; but I must admit that I tend to not like much rules that affect the "meta-game", that is, rules that have a thematic, but no in-game explanation for existing. One example of that would be the niche protection I mentioned, but I know there are other similar ideas that likewise would try to shape the game's imaginary world along the lines of some kind of "balance". Again, I am not sure if that is what you are talking about (feel free to expound what a gimmick is in that context!), but it might be worth mentioning this.

RE Invisibility: The spell only affects sight. It does nothing against sound. Most GMs and players forget that. In order to fully replace a thief the mage would need three spells which are Invisibility, Silence, and Knock. The problem with Silence is that it prohibits any spell casting using voice.

I would go further and say that a shrewd mage can make do with less, depending on the situation. If you are trying to sneak past a group of creatures, an audible glammer that draws attention to the wrong direction can be much better than a silence spell, for instance. If you have polymorph, turning into a fly can allow you to both sneak undetected and go through many kinds of doors (although it would pay to be careful around frogs and webs). The point here is though, that people who worry about niche protection feel this is bad design, regardless of the mage not being a complete equivalent of a rogue. In fact, I could even agree with them that D&D doesn't do enough to make magic seem like a hard choice. Magic in D&D is always reliable, short of something like a no magic or wild magic zone; or some kind of effect that allows for a saving throw. It could use to be less reliable, either by failing sometimes or by possibly having consequences (like DCC RPG did with it, though not necessarily with that many consequences). But the issue here isn't whether there are trade offs, but whether the niche is protected; and I find protecting character "niches" to be heavy handed and contrary to making the setting seem to have some kind of consistency with itself.

I don't mind if PC death is rare, in fact I prefer it. But refusing to play games where they are common is a kind of decline. A cinematic death; that is, a death where the death doesn't come across a just a bad throw of dice, is not necessarily a bad thing. There are games that have systems to manage PC death so this is less likely. Either there is some security against death happening or at least some way to make the death be less pointless. This kind of stuff cam be important to make the game match some expectations of certain genres. But "pre-determined" death scenes for PCs just sounds like the worst kind of railroading to me. I will admit I've never actually played a game where the GM railroaded everything and the players where more or less playing an actual role in his story. Maybe it would be fun, but if I ever do play a game like that, I would prefer to be straightforward about it; not pretend there are dice rules, but ignore those if it would throw the story out of the planned path.

You're looking at this as binary in that cinematic death is not a random death from a roll. That's all a narrative choice. I've killed players when the roll went that way and I described it cinematically that furthered the story. Usually, I intentionally only kill a player's character with their permission. I don't tell them how it will happen just that it will. That's when the player is tired of the character. Otherwise, all deaths are the result of rolls. There is no plot armor for PCs.

I should have been more specific. By "a death where the death [ugh, I used death twice here, sorry] doesn't come across a{S} just a bad throw of dice", I meant not only how the game is played, but a certain aesthetic as well. I've had a character I built to be a perceptive detective effectively slip on a banana peel because of a critical failure, for instance [he didn't die from that, though]. This kind of thing is, legitimately, very at odds with some kinds of games. Less legitimately, some players find such possibility unacceptable and wouldn't play a game where this could happen. Some games deal with this by eliminating critical failures. Others have failures that consider the fictional competency of the character. I do understand that some games will avoid this, but I will still bemoan that so many of them are doing it.

I don't railroad or prepare adventures in detail. In fact, JarlFrank, Ninjerk, Alienman, and Ismaul can tell you that the adventure is a natural progression from a prepared starting point. Once the game starts the players dictate what happen and I react to them. This is why when I did run the same scenarios for two different groups the adventure went in two different directions. As such, I agree with you on railroading being a bad thing to do.

Again, railroady stuff. I don't really have anything against people that enjoy this kind of play, but I am more a "let the dice fall where they may" kind of guy. I don't have a problem with DMs changing how a roll is made at any time, but the intent should be to better represent the situation in question, not to get a specific result.

I fudge rolls when the death of a PC will grind the entire adventure to a halt. There is nothing worse then having a character that is in the limelight being removed unceremoniously. I've had games self destruct over it. As such I do agree with you in principle, but it requires a specific circumstances.

I rather dislike this kind of thing because the kind of game I prefer to play, the character's fate should be determined by the player's choice. I don't have anything against other styles of play; and given beggars can't be choosers, I will play (even gladly) such games myself occasionally. But I do understand why someone would bemoan that this became more of the usual way of playing than just one possible way among others.

I have no idea who "percy" or "vax" are (although now I am imagining that vax is Jax from Mortal Kombat after getting myocarditis from some corona virus vaccine). To be honest, I actually like to give the players some editorial power, so the characters they create are not only a part of the setting, but a part of the setting the player also got to either create or at least influence. I don't really have anything against this; but I can understand how GMs might be frustrated if they wanted to play a simple game and some player kept derailing it by trying to make his PC important in the "story".

I think you misunderstood the point the guy was making. The DM/GM is expected to write up personal stories for the characters in their game. That's in Champions 1E published in 1981.

Finding a goal can be made easier by using the character's disadvantages. If a character's "Hunters" turn up, the scenario can be built around that fact. Or, a character's Dependent NPC could be captured or threatened.

Champions 1E page 41.

His point was that modern gamers expect it. It's been a part of TTRPGs since the beginning.

I think his point was that players expect that games will be played this way. If you got together with your friends to play the B1 module, In Search of the Unknown, the expected way would be to generate a random character to play the module; one about which particular details wouldn't matter for the adventure and even campaign if you progressed from there. Or maybe, depending on the campaign, they might become important at a time, but not the focus of the whole game, which would still be the dungeon. I think the poster is just bemoaning modern games as opposed to old school or possibly osr stuff. Of course, most of the aspects of modern games aren't really recent. In fact, as far as I can tell, the Forge was the last movement that tried to make something actually new in RPGs (not necessarily something good) and even it hardly created any kind of new mechanics, but was much more about structuring mechanics together in a way to obtain a certain kind of game. But I think the issue is not so much that modern games are using newfangled mechanics, but about how most modern games are made with certain design values in mind and how people play those games.

>No real stakes. DMs often encouraged to fudge rolls for the purposes of "story"
>Not following strict RAW will earn you the ire of players.

Also, is it just me or do these two sorta contradict?
Though an autiste would be quick to point out that there usually is a rule telling the GM to fudge rolls when needed, so it might just check out.

I think he is looking at these from different angles. GM fudging rolls could be part of how the game is played, or it could be something that is done outside of the rules, but the players would never know. He is probably bemoaning that modern players and GMs are unlikely to accept stuff that is outside of the rules when done by the player. For instance, a player in AD&D trying to make a called shot rather than a normal attack roll, or wanting to play with a monstrous race, or whatever.

Yeah, fudging rolls is one of those things you could write a book about.
My players would often tell me that doesn't matter if we're doing combat romps or narration, the die roll is sacred to them.
It represents they committed to action and fate will decide the outcome.

So yeah, whatever you do, never fuck with that feeling, because it's essential.
Never let the guys feel you're bailing them out, because that kills the mood immediately.
On the fly, creative interpretation of results is what you want to practice instead.

Feel free to fudge rolls when some bollocks pop out from the loot table you've made, but even if you're fudging, make an effort so that nobody notices.
I think this is the critical bit of info a lot of rulebooks need to start including.

You know, I don't mind if people want to play fudgy games, I just wished they were upfront about it. In fact, if in the end it is GM fiat that decides how a situation go, I would much rather you were upfront about that by throwing away useless rules.

 

[Night Goat]

I have a sneaking suspicion that guy doesn't really do RPGs, but will bitch about them all day long.

Well yeah, it's /tg/.