Critical Role Critical Role Episode #26 - spoilers!

[Istbor]

Personally, I see no problem with a player deciding that in a certain situation, they have disadvantage. Either due to fear, distraction, moral strife, or other emotions affecting their actions. Makes the Character feel more real, and not just a robot running around killing fools.

 

[iserith]

Sure they can.
The player can close their eyes and gain the Blinded condition. At any time they can impose a negative effect on themselves.

The player can describe the character as closing his or her eyes. The DM then applies the appropriate rules to that action, as necessary.

So why can't a player declare "I'm terrified of spiders and suffers from acute arachnophobia. I'm making myself frightened of the drider."? Why do they need to ask "DM may I?" to hinder themselves. Is any DM really going to argue? The DM saying "No, you are NOT frightened" is so much worse...

Per the rules, a player can declare being terrified of spiders and having arachnophobia. A player cannot say the character is Frightened in a mechanical sense. My assertion is that this is the DM's role and the burden of proof for that assertion is satisfied in my view by pointing to the rules of the game. Now, if you or @Istbor want to allow players to decide the mechanical effects of their actions, nobody is stopping you. I'm just saying that's not what the rules say and it's likely why someone like @robus would find what he saw on Critical Role strange (in addition to it not being telegraphed). I would find it strange, too, and said as much.

Personally, I would advise a player against this. A player-imposed hindrance to a character is a hindrance to the entire team to varying degrees. It messes at some level with the difficulty of the challenge. I would instead encourage the player to write an appropriate personal characteristic (personality traits, ideal, bond, flaw) for the character regarding his or her fears, portray it accordingly with no mechanical hindrance, then take Inspiration for doing so. This encourages the behavior rather than discourages it via a disincentive.

 

[robus]

Personally, I would advise a player against this. A player-imposed hindrance to a character is a hindrance to the entire team to varying degrees. It messes at some level with the difficulty of the challenge. I would instead encourage the player to write an appropriate personal characteristic (personality traits, ideal, bond, flaw) for the character regarding his or her fears, portray it accordingly with no mechanical hindrance, then take Inspiration for doing so. This encourages the behavior rather than discourages it via a disincentive.

Right - all this player needed to do to show their fear was to remain out of the fight (just take non-combat actions - dash, dodge) and for a melee fighter, just stay out of melee range and take cover. Then the others could have role-played an attempt to rally her and get her into the fight. But once she said she'd have disadvantage on everything the wind kind of went out of their sails. (I still think they were massively out of their depth especially once the intelligence they'd received also turned out to be flawed...)

 

[Jester David]

I'm just saying that's not what the rules say

Fair enough.
What page of the rulebook are you referencing?

and it's likely why someone like @robus would find what he saw on Critical Role strange (in addition to it not being telegraphed). I would find it strange, too, and said as much.

She didn't say she was "frightened". She asked if she could roll with disadvantage because she was frightened or uncertain. (I forget the exact wording.) And the DM, of course, said "yes".

Personally, I would advise a player against this. A player-imposed hindrance to a character is a hindrance to the entire team to varying degrees. It messes at some level with the difficulty of the challenge. I would instead encourage the player to write an appropriate personal characteristic (personality traits, ideal, bond, flaw) for the character regarding his or her fears, portray it accordingly with no mechanical hindrance, then take Inspiration for doing so. This encourages the behavior rather than discourages it via a disincentive.

First, DM of Critical Role doesn't award Inspiration. So that aspect of a "reward" is absent.

Secondly, your argument is that you should portray your fear but take no mechanical penalties nor play your character as making poor tactical choices. And, by saying you're scared and RPing in an entirely cosmetic fashion, you get a mechanical BONUS?!

Third, isn't being scared supposed to mess with the difficulty of the challenge? It's emotional terrain at that point.

 

[robus]

She didn't say she was "frightened". She asked if she could roll with disadvantage because she was frightened or uncertain. (I forget the exact wording.) And the DM, of course, said "yes".

I don't remember her asking but just stating that because her character was frightened she felt she should roll with disadvantage and Matt said fine (again this kind of led into my feeling that some of this was pre-planned... and perhaps it was discussed in character development...) Still it was quite a bomb to drop on a group that was already short staffed

 

[MarkB]

I don't remember her asking but just stating that because her character was frightened she felt she should roll with disadvantage and Matt said fine (again this kind of led into my feeling that some of this was pre-planned... and perhaps it was discussed in character development...) Still it was quite a bomb to drop on a group that was already short staffed

Yes, she asked. She specifically asked whether a player deciding that their character would have disadvantage in a particular situation was something that CR did at their table, and Matt answered that yes, players had done just that on previous occasions, Sam in particular.

So, this was not a player 'fiat' declaration, it was something the player thought would be appropriate for their character, and then went ahead and checked with the DM and the group in general for permission, both for the concept in principal, and for this specific instance.

 

[Mort]

Thing #1 - Keg's rolling at disadvantage. I felt like this kind of blindsided the group and was not necessarily foreshadowed enough. Perhaps I missed it in the lead up - but I do think Keg should have been a lot more trepidatious about the encounter so that her immediate panic would have made more sense in context. I also think Ashley should have made Keg at least attempt to overcome her fear by making a charisma save (perhaps DC 20 to illustrate how hard it is for her character to overcome her fear). Making her frightened by fiat made it seem more of a screwjob. (Note: I don't want to make this into a pile on to Ashley. I thought she was a fun player that participated with gusto. I'm more interested in how others might have handled that development).

As has been mentioned - Keg's player imposing disadvantage on herself had no actual impact mechanically - she already had disadvantage because of range.

That said, it was a melee character running away from combat - so she was a complete non-factor. Considering how short the group already was (3 PCs in the fight vs. their usual 7) it was a crippling decision on the player's part.

She did redeem herself completely though, the seemingly only reason the encounter was not a TPK was because of her actions. As such, she really was the MVP here, not the dead weight.

Thing #2 - Molly's death. Did I miss it or were there no death saving throws made? Matt just said "Molly's dead" and that was it? Is this a homebrew rule? I have to think that this was pre-arranged (at least the possibility, and acceptability, was agreed upon before the session), otherwise this characters death was quite perfunctory.

This played really oddly. Mechanically it was fine - Molly drops, Lorenzo crits him twice - auto killing him. But the odd part was that Molly essentially suicides: he was standing in front of Lorenzo with 4 HPs and decides to do an ability that does 1d6 damage to himself? Now if this was a reaction and he was about to be hit anyway - then he really didn't have much choice (I suspect this is what happened, happened pretty fast!), if he could have disengaged though - then it was odd.

Thing #3 - Not a TPK. Given how on the ropes the party was it could have easily ended as a TPK. Matt dialed it back and made them witnesses to Lorenzo's brutality. Which is fine and well within the DMs purview. But it also supports my theory that Molly's death was pre-planned - otherwise Taleisin would feel even more screwed over (he could have been added to the prisoners instead).

The plan seemed to be to really shake up the players. Not sure if Molly's death was planned, but considering the encounter at least 1 death was extremely likely.

I suspect even if they had been much better tactically (as in Knot being fully involved in the fight, Keg not running, attempting to pick off the villains instead of engaging head on and splitting their attacks etc.) they still would not have prevailed. I have a very strong suspicion that Lorenzo is not remotely what he appeared to be and that the party had basically a 0% chance of taking him out.

 

[lkj]

I think the official Critical Role recap took the steam away from doing an article here.

They also do text recaps on the DDB site, if that's helpful (for those of us who don't youtube our recaps during the day).

https://www.dndbeyond.com/tag/critical-role

AD

 

[robus]

Yes, she asked. She specifically asked whether a player deciding that their character would have disadvantage in a particular situation was something that CR did at their table, and Matt answered that yes, players had done just that on previous occasions, Sam in particular.

So, this was not a player 'fiat' declaration, it was something the player thought would be appropriate for their character, and then went ahead and checked with the DM and the group in general for permission, both for the concept in principal, and for this specific instance.

You're right - I just rewatched that bit and she does ask if it's weird to give yourself disadvantage and the answer from the table was no. So she then declares that she'll have disadvantage on everything and Matt says OK.

So I guess my question is asked and answered for their table, but it still felt off to me and not something I would encourage at my table for the reasons [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has noted above.

 

[iserith]

Fair enough.
What page of the rulebook are you referencing?

Same one as always: Basic Rules, page 3, "How to Play."

Also, DMG section on Master of Rules and Master of Rules preamble in the Introduction. The player and DM roles are well-defined in D&D 5e and the game works best in my opinion when those roles are respected. (That includes the DM not stepping on player roles, just so I'm making it clear I'm not just DM power-tripping here.)

She didn't say she was "frightened". She asked if she could roll with disadvantage because she was frightened or uncertain. (I forget the exact wording.) And the DM, of course, said "yes".

I don't know the entire context but I'd be inclined to disallow that for the reasons stated.

First, DM of Critical Role doesn't award Inspiration. So that aspect of a "reward" is absent.

Secondly, your argument is that you should portray your fear but take no mechanical penalties nor play your character as making poor tactical choices. And, by saying you're scared and RPing in an entirely cosmetic fashion, you get a mechanical BONUS?!

Third, isn't being scared supposed to mess with the difficulty of the challenge? It's emotional terrain at that point.

Inspiration is a critically underused mechanic in my experience. See my Case for Inspiration. When people play in my games, it is by far the #1 thing players tell me they take back to their other games.

If I'm trying to encourage players to portray their characters in accordance with established characteristics, giving them a mechanical penalty for doing so is not in my view a good method for achieving that goal, nor is it in line with the rules for Inspiration. I also took no particular position on the character making either good or poor tactical choices.