Our DM is experimenting with giving us players more free rein to suggest aspects about the world and especially stuff that concerns our characters. He's finding it's more fun for him if he gets to enjoy what other people add to the story.
I think it's fantastic, but it's difficult to foster that approach in #DnD. It's not really built for it. Of course, at this point the version of "D&D" we are playing is so homebrewed and tweaked that it's eventually not going to qualify as the same game.
Artemis
in reply to Artemis • • •And this is maybe #WotC's biggest vulnerability now. Even people who play D&D almost exclusively are often really playing a game that they and their friends have customized and tailored to themselves.
Trying to force things digital would mean forcing people to play the game "as is", and I'm not sure that's what most dedicated gaming groups want.
Artemis
in reply to Artemis • • •I wish they'd just be content to sell books with cool, creative content instead of trying to somehow gain control over the *game* itself.
You can own the license to publish official D&D content. You *cannot* own D&D.
Jess👾
in reply to Artemis • • •Blame Hasbro and their investors for fundamentally failing to understand the D&D community, and instead wanting to tightly control and monetize it in search of the greatest profits.
Personally, I've been liking the campaign architecture of newer systems like Forged in the Dark or Apocalypse Word for using different ways of encouragement towards specific play styles. Even the way they use dice like 2d6 means you've got a better bell curve distribution of success. Or how "well, bad thing happened, but you can push yourself to resist the bad thing, but the pushing yourself adds up".