D&D 5E Player consent required -spoilers for new adv book

[delericho]

I do, however, believe it is necessary to get general player buy in. "This adventure has strong body horror elements that may well affect PCs. If we are going to run this, everyone has to be in for that possibility." Maybe "buy in" counts as consent.

This.

Back in Session 0 we'd discuss things that are likely to be an issue. If any player isn't happy with that, we play something else. Which is absolutely fine with me.

But a player at my table doesn't get to individually opt out of something like that - it's either on the table for all the PCs, or none.

(And, yes, there's the possibility that something that wasn't expected to cause an issue suddenly turns into one. If that ever does happen, I'll let you know how it goes.)

 

[overgeeked]

Seems like a good idea for the overwhelming majority of DMs running this game. If you are a highly experienced DM who knows your players well enough to feel you can forgo this advice for your particular group, you are certainly experienced enough to understand that you are not actually required to do something the book tells you.

So think of it as a test: if you believe you are required to do this, you are.

And this is exactly why the rules in the book can never “protect” players from bad referees. Because the rules in the book are words on a page the referee is free to follow or ignore at their whim.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

So, in a game that to a large degree is about player characters being serial thieves and robbers, going on regular grissly murder sprees sometimes bordering on genocide, I need to get consent from every player for including a possibility of physically transformative effects in case they are overly sensitive to it?

This is silly beyond reason, I'm very happy I don't play D&D anymore.

Last I checked the majority of player characters play Heroes.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Cause I own the book, let me get the context

Spoiler

 

[overgeeked]

View attachment 294552

I haven’t seen it myself but apparently this is from the new adventure book….?

To flat out “Require it”.

I’m not for WotC requiring me to do anything. Suggest maybe. I think I just don’t like the wording.

And of course they whole long discussion of players not having real consequences for their actions. Mess with Illithids and you might get your mind ate.

As long as everyone has fun I guess. Seems a tad unfair to everyone in the long run though when you can establish that any bad choice or action or simply bad luck can be undone just because…

I as a DM have many times prevented a character death because I felt it wasn’t right at the time. Usually to prevent a TPK but telling me I HAVE to do it. Nah.

Honestly, good for them for stating it so strongly. Personal body horror is a line for a lot of people. I’ve had players rage quit for even the slightest transformations. One player touched raw warpstone and gained a mutation giving their character cat ears and they bounced immediately. Making sure it’s acceptable to your players is a great idea. Using safety tools like lines and veils when introducing horror elements is a great idea. And no, it doesn’t matter how long you’ve played with the same group. Unless you’ve sat down and talked about lines and veils you don’t really know what your players’ line and veils are.

 

[MarkB]

So, you're not for WotC requiring you to do anything, but you're okay with you requiring your players to do something.

Tell me you see the irony, at least.

 

[Stormonu]

Reminds me of the opening of the Ravenloft adventures, where everyone would get killed/transformed into monsters at the start of the adventure. I never ran those adventures (and sure as hell wouldn't be a player in them) as I was never a fan of such heavy-handed tactics. If they players have a decent/slim chance to avoid the transformation, I'd be on board.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Last I checked the majority of player characters play Heroes.

I’m not shure all of their victims would agree.

 

[Scribe]

I’m not shure all of their victims would agree.

One man's freedom fighter...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So, in a game that to a large degree is about player characters being serial thieves and robbers

Nah. I've literally never played one of those. I've been playing for over two decades.

going on regular grissly murder sprees

My characters have never murdered anyone in D&D or TTRPGs. Ever. They have killed people, certainly. Not one instance of that was murder.

sometimes bordering on genocide,

I find it ill-informed at best to use the term "genocide" for the kinds of things characters do in TTRPGs. It is extremely difficult for a single person to commit genocide, whether in the formal, legal definition, or in the loose, colloquial one.

And, not to be a broken record, but: Nothing any group I've played in has ever attempted, let alone done.

I need to get consent from every player for including a possibility of physically transformative effects in case they are overly sensitive to it?

This is silly beyond reason, I'm very happy I don't play D&D anymore.

Ah, yes, because everyone knows your standards are the objective ones everyone should stick to. There's no possible dispute there, nope none at all.

Oooooor...we could instead recognize that different people have different lines, and that the actually respectful, productive thing to do is to talk to them about it rather than enforcing your will from on high and mocking anyone who disagrees.