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

[ninjayeti]

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.

 

[LordEntrails]

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

There is nothing in what you quoted/posted that requires a DM to do anything.

As a DM, you always require player consent*. Any player can get up and walk away from the table or not come to the next session anytime they chose to. Reminding DMs that a topic is one they should actually talk players out of character in a mature and sensitive manner about a potentially troublesome aspect of an adventure is never inappropriate. You might wish to step back and look at why this has triggered you. Perhaps a re-evaluation is in order.
*unless you kidnap them etc

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….?”

So you are jumping to conclusions about a single aspect take out of context and then defending taking a stance on a something you know is incomplete and you have next to no context for?

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Maybe the effects of curses and infections can be different, suffering a mixture of penalties and gifts by mutations.

 

[Reynard]

I actually don’t think player prior consent is necessary for what this appears to be (based on the limited text in the attached image). I wouldn't expect to have to get player prior consent to afflict their character with any other in game effect or whatever.

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.

Of course, I also think that players should feel free to raise an X card at any time. I've never seen someone do it because they were trying to avoid a consequence. I have only ever seen it used for its intended purpose of creating player safety.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I actually don’t think player prior consent is necessary for what this appears to be (based on the limited text in the attached image). I wouldn't expect to have to get player prior consent to afflict their character with any other in game effect or whatever.

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.

Of course, I also think that players should feel free to raise an X card at any time. I've never seen someone do it because they were trying to avoid a consequence. I have only ever seen it used for its intended purpose of creating player safety.

Yes, I would classify player buy-in as consent. To the point that I'm surprised you see any meaningful difference here.

 

[Divine2021]

lol this thread is going exactly as you would expect it to. This is the type of thing that happens when you hire more consultants than copyeditors. WoTC requiring stuff is lame as hell, but you should always have a session 0 to let your players know what MIGHT happen or come up in the game, to simply see it they would be cool with it. But I don’t play games to be nannied by creators who who don’t know me, my group, or what we are comfortable or not comfortable doing. This isn’t a question of common decency, it’s a question of common sense by both creator, executor (GM), and player of the game.

 

[Scribe]

Yeah, session 0 it, its a body horror aspect, not a 'excuse me, are you ok if I stab you right now?'

There needs to be some buy in to the fact that if you are playing a cosmic horror game, that some bad things are within the scope of the story.

Hopefully more people play BG3 and understand that there is room for players to be feel some angst and discomfort and they will actually be fine because its not real.

 

[Reynard]

Yes, I would classify player buy-in as consent. To the point that I'm surprised you see any meaningful difference here.

I'm mostly thinking about specificity and timing as the differences.

 

[Longspeak]

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.

One thing people sometimes forget... player consent is always required. I don't think the quoted piece was WotC telling you. It was them reminding you. It's just pointing out that something has a high probability of touching on a nerve.

I played in a game once where another player outright quit when some fey gave his character bunny ears. The same player noped out on an in-game opportunity in a game I was running, because it required his character to get markings. He was absolutely against body modification.

Sure, you as GM can do anything you want to a player's character. Right up to the point the player quits. If you want to avoid that, consent is required.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

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.