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

[DarkCrisis]

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.

Hopefully this works:
Edit: Full image clarification pic

Cause I own the book, let me get the context

Spoiler

View attachment 294565
View attachment 294566

 

[mamba]

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

To flat out “Require it”.

and rightfully so, have you read the part that comes after this?

Given the rest of your answer I’d say no, this is not about getting killed in a fight or anything. This is something that happens just for being in that location

 

[DarkCrisis]

and rightfully so, have you read the part that comes after this?

Given the rest of your answer I’d say no, this is not about getting killed in a fight or anything

Did you read the first sentence in my post? Given your reply I’d say no.

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

 

[Oofta]

If I'm going to introduce something that will transform a PC, the PC will know what they're getting into. Perhaps there are some short term benefits if they accept, but it comes with at least a potential cost. But I will be 100% transparent about the risks they face there is no way I'm going to surprise someone by telling them that their PC is now irrevocably a calamari hybrid. It would be a great way to lose players and it would be a violation of trust.

I don't guarantee success or safety in my games, but a transformation like this without knowing what the character was risking would cross the line. Both as a DM and player.

 

[plisnithus8]

A spoiler warning would probably be a good idea on this thread.

 

[mamba]

Did you read the first sentence in my post? Given your reply I’d say no.

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

yes, but the question is how much more you saw / heard, past that sentence.

Even the screenshot talks about transformation into a Mindflayer already...

So in other words you have no idea what this is about, but you are upset about it anyway. Just making sure…

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Whereas I am absolutely 100% in favor of WotC telling GMs to abide by basic rules of common decency.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, required. How the hell is that controversial?

 

[Spectral Anomaly]

So to use the optional rules that can drastically affect a PC, you need to have buy-in from the players? Seems reasonable to me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, required. How the hell is that controversial?

Why, it would imply the GM is not at absolute liberty to do whatever they like, whenever they like, for as long as they like.

GM Empowerment, at its finest.

God Save Us from the Queen.