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

[tetrasodium]

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.

Read more carefully perhaps? If you require a save to decide if you are in the "mood" to react to something affecting your PC or not it proves the point. Also "many people"?... were all those instances of "I" like the royal we? Keep in mind that the Lovecraftian Ravenloft domain wasn't and still isn't the straw that crossed the line, that was simply an example where there were not one but two reasons why the world itself would be justified in saying "no" to players who feel like they can simply decide if their character reacts to something affecting their character.

Yor post is still showing why the rule that grants that player entitlement is relevant. Not one of the posters who declared that right to "control" their PC by ignoring the world(again any world not just Lovecraftian Ravenloft domain) made any effort to point to something granting players the option but multiple posters (yourself including) are eager to automatically give it a pass by declaring that the gm needs to do x y & z or that the gm can't do p z &q because RAW while completely dithering over if it's even reasonable to call for or understood why one would call for the rule granting players author level control over a PC that they expect the option of choosing when how and if the world impacts their PC as a reasonable expectation for a player to simply declare mid game and only after being called on it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Read more carefully perhaps? If you require a save to decide if you are in the "mood" to react to something affecting your PC or not it proves the point. Also "many people"?... were all those instances of "I" like the royal we? Keep in mind that the Lovecraftian Ravenloft domain wasn't and still isn't the straw that crossed the line, that was simply an example where there were not one but two reasons why the world itself would be justified in saying "no" to players who feel like they can simply decide if their character reacts to something affecting their character.

Yor post is still showing why the rule that grants that player entitlement is relevant. Not one of the posters who declared that right to "control" their PC by ignoring the world(again any world not just Lovecraftian Ravenloft domain) made any effort to point to something granting players the option but multiple posters (yourself including) are eager to automatically give it a pass by declaring that the gm needs to do x y & z or that the gm can't do p z &q because RAW while completely dithering over if it's even reasonable to call for or understood why one would call for the rule granting players author level control over a PC that they expect the option of choosing when how and if the world impacts their PC as a reasonable expectation for a player to simply declare mid game and only after being called on it.

Mate, if you want to run horror, then learn to cultivate the right atmosphere and make things actually scary disturbing instead of trying to railroad the players via rules. No one is impressed by "this is stuff is scary because the rules say you must be scared." That just kills the proper mood more than it adds to it.

 

[GrimCo]

Mate, if you want to run horror, then learn to cultivate the right atmosphere and make things actually scary disturbing instead of trying to railroad the players via rules. No one is impressed by "this is stuff is scary because the rules say you must be scared." That just kills the proper mood more than it adds to it.

Just to be clear, by that, do you mean scary to players? Cause, there are people who want to play or run horror game where characters are scared, panicked or in distress, but players are chill, relaxed and have fun.

 

[AlViking]

Read more carefully perhaps? If you require a save to decide if you are in the "mood" to react to something affecting your PC or not it proves the point.'

I don't and I don't know where you're getting that idea. I don't ask for a save to react unless it's an explicit supernatural effect like the Yeth Hound's baleful baying.

Also "many people"?... were all those instances of "I" like the royal we? Keep in mind that the Lovecraftian Ravenloft domain wasn't and still isn't the straw that crossed the line, that was simply an example where there were not one but two reasons why the world itself would be justified in saying "no" to players who feel like they can simply decide if their character reacts to something affecting their character.

If there is a written game mechanic that says a character will be affected in a specific way, then that's part of the game. There is no such game mechanic in D&D 5e that is not called out as supernatural or magical except for the lion's roar which is a weird exception to the rule that I would never use.

Yor post is still showing why the rule that grants that player entitlement is relevant. Not one of the posters who declared that right to "control" their PC by ignoring the world(again any world not just Lovecraftian Ravenloft domain) made any effort to point to something granting players the option but multiple posters (yourself including) are eager to automatically give it a pass by declaring that the gm needs to do x y & z or that the gm can't do p z &q because RAW while completely dithering over if it's even reasonable to call for or understood why one would call for the rule granting players author level control over a PC that they expect the option of choosing when how and if the world impacts their PC as a reasonable expectation for a player to simply declare mid game and only after being called on it.

In D&D the player has control of what their character thinks or feels unless they are affected by some specific effect - in 5e 99.9% those are labeled magical or supernatural. Again, the only exception I know of is the lion's roar. Meanwhile the DM controls the world and let's the player know what affect they have on the world around them, if any. As DM I get to decided if a roll is required for NPC if I think the outcome is uncertain. I never get to decide if a roll is required for a PC unless a rule in the book specifically call for it.

The player does have authorial control over their PC. That doesn't mean the PC can do anything they want - they can attempt to do whatever they want and the DM makes the call on whether or not it succeeds. You can try to jump over the moon, you'll just never achieve it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Just to be clear, by that, do you mean scary to players? Cause, there are people who want to play or run horror game where characters are scared, panicked or in distress, but players are chill, relaxed and have fun.

To both. Though probably more scary to the characters. But like the audience of a good horror movie, the players should be a bit scared too. You just cannot replace genuine emotion with rules.

 

[AlViking]

Mate, if you want to run horror, then learn to cultivate the right atmosphere and make things actually scary disturbing instead of trying to railroad the players via rules. No one is impressed by "this is stuff is scary because the rules say you must be scared." That just kills the proper mood more than it adds to it.

I do think that you can ratchet up the tension of a game with players with supernatural effects, but I think it's far more effective if you combine that with description and presentation. Of course some players just aren't going to care one way or another, no matter how gruesome, creepy or terrifying the scenes are.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't and I don't know where you're getting that idea. I don't ask for a save to react unless it's an explicit supernatural effect like the Yeth Hound's baleful baying.



If there is a written game mechanic that says a character will be affected in a specific way, then that's part of the game. There is no such game mechanic in D&D 5e that is not called out as supernatural or magical except for the lion's roar which is a weird exception to the rule that I would never use.



In D&D the player has control of what their character thinks or feels unless they are affected by some specific effect - in 5e 99.9% those are labeled magical or supernatural. Again, the only exception I know of is the lion's roar. Meanwhile the DM controls the world and let's the player know what affect they have on the world around them, if any. As DM I get to decided if a roll is required for NPC if I think the outcome is uncertain. I never get to decide if a roll is required for a PC unless a rule in the book specifically call for it.

The player does have authorial control over their PC. That doesn't mean the PC can do anything they want - they can attempt to do whatever they want and the DM makes the call on whether or not it succeeds. You can try to jump over the moon, you'll just never achieve it.

So basically “my character is immune to any and all non-magical fear effects unless i give the say so”? Yep, I’m calling nonsense on that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So basically “my character is immune to any and all non-magical fear effects unless i give the say so”? Yep, I’m calling nonsense on that.

It's no nonsense. Character who never fears anything would probably be a boring character, unless there was something more to it, but it is the player's right to define the mental landscape of their character. And fear is subjective. People find different things scary, The rules do not take into account that nuance, the players can. And if people constantly make boring characters, get better players.

 

[AlViking]

So basically “my character is immune to any and all non-magical fear effects unless i give the say so”? Yep, I’m calling nonsense on that.

In D&D the player determines what the character thinks or feels unless there's magic involved. If a DM started telling me that I was afraid of something and it wasn't supernaturally induced fear I would no longer play the game. That wouldn't be the case with some non-D&D games, but those games don't really appeal to me and are not what I want out of my gaming.

 

[Eric V]

I don't know many humans IRL who are in constant control of their mental landscape; people don't decide to be furious, melancholic, scared...they just are.