D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Fanaelialae]

What you have described is a disruptive player. Whether because he's deliberately being disruptive or because his idea of "fun" is completely at odds with the rest of the group.

This is not an in game problem and should not be treated as one.



But why do I care if the player is "treating his character like a token." As long as he's staying within the rules, not being disruptive, and not subtracting from the fun of the table, he should be able to play his character how he likes.

As DM, I have most of the control of the game - especially in D&D - where player narrative control is extremely limited.

I try to not but in on the players controlling their character, and assume, unless shown otherwise that the player is doing so in good faith. So if the player has his PC dive off a cliff I don't assume anything but that they're doing it for the fun of the game (and willing to take the consequences of doing so - which may very well result in death or other negative).

IME, this does not lead to more fun at the table (assuming the player is just jumping the character off for the lulz).

It wrecks the fun of everyone who is trying to take the game seriously, because it destroys immersion and wrecks verisimilitude.

 

[Mort]

I disagree. As I've stated previously, if Batman fell 200 feet without his gear onto rocks, then yes, I think the reader would expect him to die or at least be seriously injured. Note that if he had some way to slow his fall (he hit a few ledges on the way down, or landed in conveniently placed lake) then being able to walk away from that becomes plausible.

But that's the point! The average joe, falling/jumping off the cliff just sees the cliff and the ground - SPLAT. Batman sees the various indentations in the cliff, soft spots to bounce off of, perfect landing points etc. and knows how to exploit them. This is something HPs can model easily.

Not if he free falls 200 feet onto solid rock though. That would be cartoonish, IMO, if he did that and just continued on like nothing happened. I don't run a cartoonish game, regardless of level.

As I just said above, it doesn't have to be cartoonish at all. It's all about how you choose to look at it.

I'm not suggesting that someone who does want to run it that way is wrong. Just that I wouldn't want to play in their game because it rubs me the wrong way.

Note that my players don't abide it either. There were plenty of heated arguments at the table back in the day between guys who wanted a serious game and those who just wanted to screw around, if the DM didn't intervene. Nowadays, we just avoid playing with people who won't take the game seriously. (Note that it's not like we take a somber tone to the game. We make plenty of OOC jokes while we're playing and have lots of fun. But we do expect characters to behave in a non cartoonish manner.)

YMMV

The players and the DM being on the same page/level is the most important thing - as you say. I've been playing with my group for a LONG time and we keep things in the heroic/mythic arena - never straying into cartoonish. It's not even a discussion anymore, we just all know what we like.

I just don't think we're nearly as far apart as you may think.

 

[jaelis]

The impression you give is that a DM is "bad" if they make a ruling that disagrees with your strict reading of RAW. For example because you can point to things that, to you, define all animals as creatures for purposes of spells, you should be able to hex a chicken.

That's not the impression I mean to give. I don't think that chickens are creatures for the purpose of hex, and in fact I don't think there is any sensible way to give an all-purpose definition of "creature" given the rules. @Arial Black seems to disagree with me on this, although we agree about some other things that have been discussed.

For the record: I think a DM is welcome to, and pretty much required to, interpret the rules as seems best.

Some of us disagree. If the DM says that you can't hex a chicken that is the rule at the table. If a DM rules that jumping off a 200 ft cliff (with or without qualification) kills your PC it does. Hopefully the DM will let you know before you cast hex or jump off that cliff.

I agree with all of that. But I do argue that a DM is a bad DM if he rules that whether you can survive jumping off a cliff depends the DM's own interpretation of your character's motivation for doing so.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But why do I care if the player is "treating his character like a token." As long as he's staying within the rules, not being disruptive, and not subtracting from the fun of the table, he should be able to play his character how he likes.

I don't think that quote can be explained any further, but I will try since you seem to be trying to wrestle with it.

You view this is as an issue of "staying within the rules." But that really put the cart before the horse, if you look into the very basic and essential divide that is going on; which is to say, What are the rules in relation to the game that you are playing?

That's why those of us with a differing viewpoint can discuss what is in the PHB and the DMG about DM Authority, or Rule 0, whatever, but it doesn't matter. Because it's really a philosophical difference.

For some people, the rules are like a game of chess (for example). They define what is, and isn't, possible. By definition, you play the game by the rules. The DM can make houserules, but then those are just rules that need to be written down (or "noticed" to the players) and followed, just like any other rule. It is a game, played by rules.

For others, it is a game about exploring an imaginary world (an RPG) mediated by a referee (a GM or DM) and dice and rules; but the rules do not and cannot fully define the world or the play of the game. As such, the rules help effectuate what happens, but do not (and cannot) be the be-all, end-all of the interactions in the world.

Due to the difference, there cannot be a meeting of the minds on this, really. It's just a complete incompatibility.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

That said, I do think that the reason for jumping matters. There are things that are thematically appropriate IMC and things which aren't. For example, you shouldn't swan dive off a 200' cliff onto rocks.

So now the reason for jumping matters?

 

[jaelis]

So now the reason for jumping matters?

Yes I think we all agree that the reason for jumping matters. If the player says they are committing suicide, I think we all would say they die.

The question is, is it fair for the DM to decide that the character is committing suicide, even if the player says otherwise? Or: who decides what the "true" reason is, the DM or the player?

Which is what seems to tie the question to the hex issue, if you see the motivation as important there.

 

[Mort]

So now the reason for jumping matters?

That was just an accidental misapplication of the quote function on my part when I was quoting @Fanaelialae

Hopefully you didn't catch that and are not deliberately being a jerk?

 

[Oofta]

That's not the impression I mean to give. I don't think that chickens are creatures for the purpose of hex, and in fact I don't think there is any sensible way to give an all-purpose definition of "creature" given the rules. @Arial Black seems to disagree with me on this, although we agree about some other things that have been discussed.

For the record: I think a DM is welcome to, and pretty much required to, interpret the rules as seems best.


I agree with all of that. But I do argue that a DM is a bad DM if he rules that whether you can survive jumping off a cliff depends the DM's own interpretation of your character's motivation for doing so.

You're right - I should have that some people seem to think that and that there are a lot of gray areas in between.

Personally I'm probably a bit extreme on the "DM is always right" side of the spectrum.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Personally I'm probably a bit extreme on the "DM is always right" side of the spectrum.

The DM is not final because the DM is right, but the DM is right because the DM is final.

 

[Mort]

I don't think that quote can be explained any further, but I will try since you seem to be trying to wrestle with it.

You view this is as an issue of "staying within the rules." But that really put the cart before the horse, if you look into the very basic and essential divide that is going on; which is to say, What are the rules in relation to the game that you are playing?

That's why those of us with a differing viewpoint can discuss what is in the PHB and the DMG about DM Authority, or Rule 0, whatever, but it doesn't matter. Because it's really a philosophical difference.

For some people, the rules are like a game of chess (for example). They define what is, and isn't, possible. By definition, you play the game by the rules. The DM can make houserules, but then those are just rules that need to be written down (or "noticed" to the players) and followed, just like any other rule. It is a game, played by rules.

For others, it is a game about exploring an imaginary world (an RPG) mediated by a referee (a GM or DM) and dice and rules; but the rules do not and cannot fully define the world or the play of the game. As such, the rules help effectuate what happens, but do not (and cannot) be the be-all, end-all of the interactions in the world.

Due to the difference, there cannot be a meeting of the minds on this, really. It's just a complete incompatibility.

I suspect it's not your intention, but do you see how smug an condescending you post is?

I fully get and even support that the " rules do not and cannot fully define the world or the play of the game. As such, the rules help effectuate what happens, but do not (and cannot) be the be-all, end-all of the interactions in the world." I AGREE with that entire statement!

My problem is the assertion that the rules should be yanked away when the DM disagrees with the players motivation and nothing more. I see that as a blunt and heavy handed use of DM fiat that should be discouraged.