[boccaff]

Disclaimer: My view is based on D&D 3Ed.

I think that the the game culture have changed into something where the DM (dungeon master) is just a enforcer of rules/npc builder. Most of the arguments in the text should be discretionary to the DM. If a DM chooses to enforce a "medieval" setting, the campaign will be medieval. "Knights mentioned", "any time select a land", well, I guess the DM can mention knights and not treat land as something that can be bought as long as you have money. It was very different playing a campaign in Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance or Greyhawk, or having a custom world built by a DM.

[ileonichwiesz]

I can’t agree - if anything the role of DM has been expanding since Gygax’s day. The DM was explicitly an „arbiter” in classic D&D, a person whose role was mostly explaining/enforcing the rules and lightly tying the story together. The actual adventure was mostly determined by the setting (often premade) and by random tables (roll to see what’s in the room). In modern D&D, by contrast, the DM is often expected to do worldbuilding, write adventures, and do NPC voices.

[jghn]

> and do NPC voices

The steady increase of the performative acting style of play has been a key part of why I never picked the game back up. Reading that "do[ing] NPC voices" is a key part of the DMs job description doesn't help that stance of mine :)

[nox101]

I played D&D with Lawrence Schick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Schick) in the 80s. He very much did NPC voices back then. It's what made playing with him as the DM amazing. I have always assumed since then, the best DMs can do NPC voices.

[jghn]

I'm not saying it didn't exist back then. My experience was that the performative acting style existed but was less common. But I definitely encountered it.

However I get the impression that this is the standard play style today.

[TheCleric]

Not really. It's the most VISIBLE playing style, because it make for an entertaining live play, so naturally that's what the videos on YouTube lean towards.

But at an everyday table, it's generally not expected. Some players will prefer that type of DM (just as some players prefer combat heavy or dungeon delve heavy campaigns), but I've never had anyone say to me "Why aren't you doing voices? DMs are supposed to do voices!"

[jghn]

Interesting.

To be clear, I do mean more than just NPC voices and am talking about the style of play where everyone is acting a bit. And yes, not unlike those recorded shows, albeit usually less good. And not saying there's anything wrong with it, it's just not for me.

Between what I'd seen online & from friends who play these days I've had the impression that this is much more dominant over what I encountered in the 80s - where that was the less common style. Instead I saw more "my character/I do XYZ", more of a focus on the mechanics of everything vs the RP.

Perhaps I'll poke around a bit then. I'm really only interested in 1e or perhaps 2e but I know there's the whole OSR thing going on so that's easier to find these days.

[ultimafan]

I think both can be true and that seems to track with what you are saying- modern DMs being expected to do much more and overperform in some areas (theatrics, atmosphere, narrative, game/combat balance, make sure players are having "fun" and are being challenged but not too much so) and at the same time are expected to do much less in others (like knowing/refereeing the rules like the back of their hand, being the final arbitrator and having the final and often only say in a ruling). I've definitely noticed the same. And noticed how in some cases the modern approach has "bled back" so to speak and a group I played 1E both before and after 3E/4E/5E, had a completely different expectation of the older game when we returned to it out of nostalgia.

This next part is also purely anecdotal, but something I've observed in several groups so I think it's interesting to note- playing in groups of mostly pre-3E players, I hardly ever see arguments with the DM break out over rules/rulings, both then and now. But playing 3E/5E, or playing other games with people who primarily play 3E/5E, there are many occasions where the flow of the game is interrupted for quite long arguments between player and DM because a player is not satisfied with some resolution or not being allowed to do/play as something in particular and thinks the DM should do it a different way. It feels like there's a much bigger cultural expectation that the DM is there to entertain and enable the players fantasy and not to be an impartial judge for a world the players are exploring. But like all things I'm sure people can chime in with completely different experiences for all the editions

[bigstrat2003]

Indeed - one of my big complaints about 5e is that the rules leave way too much up to the discretion of the DM. And I say this as a DM! I'm not an expert in game design, so having a framework given by the rules is extremely important to me. But all too often 5e's designers didn't do that, just leaving it up to DMs to invent something from whole cloth.

[cthalupa]

> The actual adventure was mostly determined by the setting (often premade)

Hmm. I disagree. Greyhawk and Blackmoor were published fairly early in D&D's history, but the majority of games falling into premade settings didn't really take off until Dragonlance and then the Forgotten Realms in the mid to late 80s.

It's true that DM responsibilities have changed over time - in a way that I am not particularly a fan of - but I think it's the farthest thing from the truth to suggest that DMs weren't supposed to do worldbuilding in the days of OD&D and AD&D 1E/BECMI. If anything, they had to do more - the DM's job was to create a believable living world for the players to exist in. There were very few published "campaigns" back in those days - Dragonlance is really what changed all of this - so most modules were locales you could more or less plop down wherever. Keep on the Borderlands just needed to be in a borderland, the Caverns of Thracia could be anywhere, etc.

Players being fully in control of what their goals were and where the narrative was to head meant that the GM had to build a convincing and interesting world for the players to adventure around. It was quite rare for there to be something akin to a "big bad evil guy" in the early days of D&D, or even for there to be some overarching plot to drive the whole campaign.

> In modern D&D, by contrast, the DM is often expected to do worldbuilding, write adventures, and do NPC voices.

I'm fairly certain the overwhelming majority of D&D played these days happens with the published modules. There's a lot more people playing so I'm sure the absolute number of people writing their own adventures is higher than ever, but I would be willing to wager that the ratio of people running almost exclusively published modules and campaigns vs. their self-written adventures has shifted in the opposite direction.

[davedx]

I remember we once used ad&d rules to replay the Aeniad. That was awesome. Just use your imagination folks, it’s actually that simple!

(Alcohol may have helped. And hindered.)

[jowea]

Disclaimer is very relevant because TFA seems to be very specifically discussing the original DnD, which is not what 90+% of people will think of when reading "D&D", which I think is confusing some of the discussion here. I think other settings like the ones you mentioned have a more developed society that in most cases does not necessarily fit "American dream fantasy" and is inspired by something more medieval or something else, although I still get the impression some of the things said still apply: "Most of D&D’s thousands of imitators, in game and fiction, preserve the game’s democratic bones (cash economy, guns for hire, rags to riches stories) while overlaying a medieval-European skin."