D&D 5E (2014) DM imposed restrictions to the game (+)

[CreamCloud0]

The thing I find hilarious is that people apparently don't care about being told in no uncertain terms that their character is in a particular emotional state--given "Frightened" and such have been conditions in D&D for ages upon ages--but other emotional or behavioral states? Totally unacceptable.

Can't wait to see folks use the exact same arguments once made in defense of slimes going prone, that were so eagerly rejected.

well, y'know it's different isn't it.

for reasons.

no we won't be elaborating how and why.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don’t think the divide is simply “mechanically constrained roleplay” versus “mechanics-free situational roleplay,” because even players who prioritize situational roleplay usually accept mechanics that strongly constrain character behavior when they’re well grounded in the fiction (for example, dragon-induced supernatural fear in 5e d&d).

A lot of the disagreement is about whether a player can psychologically internalize those constraints as part of the character’s lived experience, or whether they instead feel like something externally imposed by the system. Different people land in different places on that spectrum.

In practice it’s usually tradeoff driven, because an RPG isn’t a single unified activity but several overlapping ones - fictional improvisation, game rule engagement, tactical or narrative decision-making, all operating at once.

 

[Remathilis]

well, y'know it's different isn't it.

for reasons.

no we won't be elaborating how and why.

You haven't so far. Why start now?

 

[AlViking]

I don’t think the divide is simply “mechanically constrained roleplay” versus “mechanics-free situational roleplay,” because even players who prioritize situational roleplay usually accept mechanics that strongly constrain character behavior when they’re well grounded in the fiction (for example, dragon-induced supernatural fear in 5e d&d).

A lot of the disagreement is about whether a player can psychologically internalize those constraints as part of the character’s lived experience, or whether they instead feel like something externally imposed by the system. Different people land in different places on that spectrum.

In practice it’s usually tradeoff driven, because an RPG isn’t a single unified activity but several overlapping ones - fictional improvisation, game rule engagement, tactical or narrative decision-making, all operating at once.

I don't have an issue with supernatural effects manipulating my emotional state - whether that's fear, charm or anything else - because magic overrides any response my character might normally have. But it's that "response my character might normally have" that just doesn't have any real mechanical teeth in D&D and I don't personally want any. Unlike some other games, I decide what is going to make my character angry, what they are going to be frightened of, how they are going to change over the course of the campaign.

A game has to simplify and codify a lot in order to make it playable. My reaction to mundane real world things like emotional response? Not one of them.

 

[FrogReaver]

well, y'know it's different isn't it.

for reasons.

no we won't be elaborating how and why.

I think this needs stated explicitly.

I don’t treat mechanics as fully abstract rules with interchangeable fiction. The fictional context is part of the rule’s operative identity - so different fictional sources can legitimately produce different experiential implementations of the same mechanical tag.

That is the explanation that’s been circled but not explictly stated. Accept it or reject it, but that’s the source of the difference.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't have an issue with supernatural effects manipulating my emotional state - whether that's fear, charm or anything else - because magic overrides any response my character might normally have. But it's that "response my character might normally have" that just doesn't have any real mechanical teeth in D&D and I don't personally want any. Unlike some other games, I decide what is going to make my character angry, what they are going to be frightened of, how they are going to change over the course of the campaign.

A game has to simplify and codify a lot in order to make it playable. My reaction to mundane real world things like emotional response? Not one of them.

Right, I’m attempting to elaborate on why that is the case, not just that it is.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I... Actually think we are arguing for the same thing. You impose a condition, I get to react with my character in a way that is within the boundaries of the condition.

Ah, my apologies. We are very much in agreement then.

What I've been arguing about is when the game forces a specific action or specific thought on me.

If my PC is frightened. I get to take my action within the boundaries of the frightened condition. If my Character is charmed, he still is himself, he just now views the charmer in a different light. I react poorly when the dice (or DM) tells me what my action will be. You WILL run screaming though the dungeon, trigging every trap and alerting every monster, because the dice say you do. You will backstab your best friend because the bard asked you nicely enough. You will give your money to the con man because you believe he is 100% honest. You will punch the ogre because you are so mad you forget you're a 4 ft tall gnome with an 8 strength and you ain't heard no bell yet!

I see. Yes that is not my preferred way of playing the game - as DM or player.

Some Madness conditions dictate certain actions - such as falling unconscious, breaking into hysterical laughter etc. How do you deal with those?

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't have an issue with supernatural effects manipulating my emotional state - whether that's fear, charm or anything else - because magic overrides any response my character might normally have. But it's that "response my character might normally have" that just doesn't have any real mechanical teeth in D&D and I don't personally want any. Unlike some other games, I decide what is going to make my character angry, what they are going to be frightened of, how they are going to change over the course of the campaign.

A game has to simplify and codify a lot in order to make it playable. My reaction to mundane real world things like emotional response? Not one of them.

Well if you are like the posters who declared the distinction one that would make a difference once they were told about the source of the effect makita difference in if oh wait...

Spoiler: you are...

If you want to use a Lovecraftian Ravenloft domain ability, express it as supernatural influence, but get the player's buy-in first. Because the region might be gloomy, depressing and creepy as hell but it's up to the player to determine how they're going to react. PCs are not normal people, they've likely been around the block a time or two and seen dangers most people never have. Even with normal people there will be some that are quite analytical and would simply dismiss it as illusion. Some people just aren't affected by haunted houses, even when they're an entire realm. Personally? I have to decide to be in the mood to be affected by it, there have been times when I was simply not in the mood for spooky and it wasn't. There may be the occasional jerk or reflex reaction that's hard wired into most people, but that doesn't mean their mental state is altered.

I see a very clear default line in D&D that doesn't necessarily exist in other games - the DM controls the world and the players control their PC. That contract and assumption can be modified of course, but it takes buy-in from the entire group. While it may or may not be that an idealized tough-as-nails-never-react persona is not realistic, when is D&D ever cared a great deal about being realistic?

It very much seems like you DO have an issue
So we are back to needing the rule granting players the right to immediately demand the source of an effect without their pc taking any action or having any reason to know the source or they are totally free to simply ignore it but the DMG and wotc are wrong about modifying rules and engaging in rulings not rules if they have not already removed the ruling in question from the blacklist where anything but strict RAW exists for the GM.

 

[AlViking]

Well if you are like the posters who declared the distinction one that would make a difference once they were told about the source of the effect makita difference in if oh wait...
It very much seems like you DO have an issue
So we are back to needing the rule granting players the right to immediately demand the source of an effect without their pc taking any action or having any reason to know the source or they are totally free to simply ignore it but the DMG and wotc are wrong about modifying rules and engaging in rulings not rules if they have not already removed the ruling in question from the blacklist where anything but strict RAW exists for the GM.

What are you talking about? It's not an issue. I gave an example where many people would be frightened such as a haunted house while I may or may not be. Some people get scared watching a horror movie, some don't. I want to apply the same logic to my character, and think about how easily frightened (or angered or persuaded) they would be. I don't want it dictated by rules or dice unless it's supernatural.

If a DM asks me to make a Wisdom saving throw I'm going to assume there's some supernatural effect. If they tell me that I have to make the saving throw because in my background I was once scared of a dog and Fido, a totally normal dog, just came around the corner I'm going to disagree with the call. On the other hand if Fido is really a Yeth Hound and just used their Baleful Howl ability it's fine because they are baying magically. On the other hand if a Tarrasque walks around the corner my character might be turning tale and running.

 

[Remathilis]

Ah, my apologies. We are very much in agreement then.

No problem.

I see. Yes that is not my preferred way of playing the game - as DM or player.

Some Madness conditions dictate certain actions - such as falling unconscious, breaking into hysterical laughter etc. How do you deal with those?

Well, are we talking magical madness or no? A magical effect overrides the senses (like the confusion spell), so no issues there.

I'm not a big fan mundane madness checks, but if I have to, I prefer to tell the player what they are feeling (you feel dizzy and lightheaded, like you want to pass out) rather than dictate the action (you fall unconscious because your brain can't handle it). I'm a bigger fan of stress systems; less ableist.