Would you allow this?

[FrogReaver]

The game you are playing dooesn't have hit locations to begin with. Within the rules, you technically *cannot* remove an ability from a character. There are no rules for removing appendages.

Rulings not rules remember. If the DM and players both agree then it is a rule. Heck if the DM rules it the. It is a rule, although I'd prefer to include the players as well as it's really the social contract that holds it all together.

So, the player cannot have done this on their own - they have no ability that would accomplish it. So, the removal of the wings was an exception, an agreement with the GM *outside* the rules, in the first place. It is too late to invoke "you don't have the ability to do that," as the player has already been enabled to step outside the rules.

there was nothing in the original agreement/contract that allowed for sudden regrowth of wings. If there were then no one here would habe an issue. The thread would have lasted like a page or 2.

Edit to add: At the point where the GM says the PC cannot use an ability that, by game design and balance they are supposed to have, teh GM should, in fairness, offer something to replace it. Players choosing not to use their abilities is different from the GM forbidding them.

The player didn't choose just not to use the ability. Nor did the DM simply disallow the ability. They ageees the character would not have the ability and even created in game fiction around that (wing stubs). There was no agreement made that the player would be granted a class ability to remedy that situation. If there were then we would all be fine with that.

Most of us like the outcome and would allow it for that reason. That still doesn't validate the methods used to get to that outcome. An agreement at the beginning that in the future the player could choose to regain that ability when cuz happens or when the player decides or whatever would have been sufficient.

 

[Maxperson]

Rulings not rules remember. If the DM and players both agree then it is a rule. Heck if the DM rules it the. It is a rule, although I'd prefer to include the players as well as it's really the social contract that holds it all together.



there was nothing in the original agreement/contract that allowed for sudden regrowth of wings. If there were then no one here would habe an issue. The thread would have lasted like a page or 2.



The player didn't choose just not to use the ability. Nor did the DM simply disallow the ability. They ageees the character would not have the ability and even created in game fiction around that (wing stubs). There was no agreement made that the player would be granted a class ability to remedy that situation. If there were then we would all be fine with that.

Most of us like the outcome and would allow it for that reason. That still doesn't validate the methods used to get to that outcome. An agreement at the beginning that in the future the player could choose to regain that ability when cuz happens or when the player decides or whatever would have been sufficient.

The only thing I really disagree with there is the social contract portion of the first statement. The DM unilaterally making rules is a part of the social contract as the players and DM agreed to play a game where the DM is allowed to unilaterally create, remove or modify rules. There are still lines that can be crossed and become DM abuse of power, but a reasonable rules change like hit locations wouldn't be abuse of power. That said, a rule that could impact fun like hit locations and permanent injury is one that I personally would discuss with the players before hand. I just don't think it's a social contract issue.

 

[FrogReaver]

The only thing I really disagree with there is the social contract portion of the first statement. The DM unilaterally making rules is a part of the social contract as the players and DM agreed to play a game where the DM is allowed to unilaterally create, remove or modify rules. There are still lines that can be crossed and become DM abuse of power, but a reasonable rules change like hit locations wouldn't be abuse of power. That said, a rule that could impact fun like hit locations and permanent injury is one that I personally would discuss with the players before hand. I just don't think it's a social contract issue.

Well looks at that. I put that in there to avoid having people bring up "that's not right social contract blah blah blah". Sometimes one just can't win. I accept defeat. I was unable to avoid the inevitable.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I would allow the wings, but not the narrative control.

The player should privately talk with me (asking for a pause so they can do so is easy) asking if they can do that. Since something like that makes sense to me for a highly supernatural being like an aasimar, I'd okay it, then I'd offer them the choice to describe it themselves or let me have it, making sure to let them know about any potential limitations (like if the bad guys were going to be taking shots at them as they flew away, then they shouldn't narrate successfully making it any more than they do in the normal process of the game where the player describes what they want to do and the DM describes the results).

Just letting a player suddenly take narrative control half way through a campaign? No, not any more than I'd let them start declaring dice roll results without rolling. Half of the fun of D&D is discovery and exploration, which is impossible to do when you are creating for yourself the environment to be discovered and explored.

 

[Dausuul]

This is a hypothetical situation: I'm asking not because it occurred at the table but because I think different POV's about roleplaying/rules might result in different answers, which might be interesting.

Situation: a player wants to play an Aasimar, but thinks the flying is kind of cheesy/OP, so describes the character as having burn-scarred stumps instead of wings (with an appropriate backstory explaining how this happened.) The player asks the DM for nothing in exchange for giving up this ability.

Many levels later, the player finds him/herself in a desperate situation where a short burst of flight will save the party from TPK. He/she narrates that in a burst of divine energy, newly formed wings burst forth from the stumps, and the character proceeds to fly, as per RAW in SCAG.

Would you allow it? Why/why not?

I would allow this, yes (I might have to be reminded that the PC's race gives wings by default and the PC gave up those wings with no benefit in return). If I as DM was staring down a likely TPK, I'd be pretty quick to grab onto any semi-plausible argument for how the party could evade it. Since this is just invoking the abilities the PC could have had from the start of the game if not for player aesthetic concerns, it's fine by me.

Afterward, I would probably rule that the wings disappear once the party is out of danger; but the PC can attempt to re-create the phenomenon. It will appear in times of direst need, or with a lucky roll on the dice. Or, if the PC decides to pursue his/her divine heritage, the wings can become normal, fully-available aasimar wings.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This thread is asking for opinions - Would I allow it? No, I would never allow such a thing. Why not? Because it's not role-playing, and I play role-playing games for the purpose of role-playing.

A lot of people would allow it. That's fine, for them.

Ah, ok, cool. I thought you were saying that it's not just your preference/opinion, but NOT (edit: forgot the 'not') that your version is the only real roleplaying.

To me, it says that role-playing is not their priority in a role-playing game, and they'd rather tell a story about their characters than make decisions as their characters. I probably wouldn't have fun at those tables, because (as previously mentioned) I'm there to role-play. I'm willing to commit five hours per week to pretending to be a magical elf, but I'm not willing to spend five hours per week on collectively improvise a story about a magical elf and their friends.

(It's debatable whether a game even qualifies as an RPG if you're just telling stories rather than actually playing roles, but this isn't the place for that debate.)

Whoops! I guess you were saying that, after all!

It's over-stepping, because the player is inventing details about the scarf and so on, which are not things that the character has any control over. The inherent meaning of that scarf was already set in stone before the character started talking, and nothing that they say would be able to change that meaning.

It's also under-stepping, though, because the player isn't making the decisions that their character would have control over. The character would have absolute control over their approach to the situation, and what they want to say, but the player seems to have relegated that decision to the die roll.

It's called "roll-then-narrate" instead of "narrate-then-roll". It's fun. I recommend it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's called "roll-then-narrate" instead of "narrate-then-roll". It's fun. I recommend it.

The catch is that you're narrating. You're playing the narrator. You're describing what happened. You're telling a story about the magical elf.

Contrast that with role-playing, where you're playing the role. You're actually inhabiting the place of the character within the world. You see the world from their perspective, and make decisions as though you were the character actually living within that world. You're pretending to be the magical elf.

It's not that there's anything wrong with narrating, either before or after rolling, if that's what you want to do. There are games which are designed to be played in that kind of way. But I don't want to do that, and I don't want to play those kinds of games. Free time is too valuable to spend on activities that you don't enjoy.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The catch is that you're narrating. You're playing the narrator. You're describing what happened. You're telling a story about the magical elf.

Contrast that with role-playing, where you're playing the role. You're actually inhabiting the place of the character within the world. You see the world from their perspective, and make decisions as though you were the character actually living within that world. You're pretending to be the magical elf.

It's not that there's anything wrong with narrating, either before or after rolling, if that's what you want to do. There are games which are designed to be played in that kind of way. But I don't want to do that, and I don't want to play those kinds of games. Free time is too valuable to spend on activities that you don't enjoy.

Do you roll dice? Because if you do then you're not roleplaying. So does that mean you're not playing a roleplaying game?

You can participate in the narration and roleplay your character.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Do you roll dice? Because if you do then you're not roleplaying. So does that mean you're not playing a roleplaying game?

You can participate in the narration and roleplay your character.

Sometimes I roll dice. Sometimes the DM rolls for me. (Sometimes I let a player roll the dice, when I'm the DM, if they happen to have them ready or my hands are otherwise full.) If there was some way to automate the dice-rolling, then that would also be great. In any case, dice are just part of the game interface, like a pencil and paper. Dice aren't part of the actual game, anymore than a DVD-player is a part of the movie I'm watching; it doesn't interfere with the actual process of making decisions, as my character.

And yes, there are games where you can do both. Many "modern RPGs" will have a player go back and forth between narrator stance and actor stance, as the situation requires. The example under discussion in this thread assumes that the player is role-playing as the character, in addition to narrating the circumstances around the character.

I don't like those types of games, though. I like RPGs where players only role-play, and have zero impact on the game world beyond what their character can actually affect. When I'm role-playing, I never want to think about the game as a game, or as a story; I want to stay in the headspace of my character, to the greatest extent I possibly can.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't like those types of games, though. I like RPGs where players only role-play, and have zero impact on the game world beyond what their character can actually affect. When I'm role-playing, I never want to think about the game as a game, or as a story; I want to stay in the headspace of my character, to the greatest extent I possibly can.

Dude. When you narrate what your character does, you're just narrating what he does in his role. That's every bit as much roleplaying as what you do. It's just a different kind. Saying that you have the one true way to roleplay is kinda arrogant.