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

[EzekielRaiden]

When designing an adventure, if I decide to throw in a chamber that's so eeeeevil that anyone non-evil has to save on entering the space, and those who fail feel so uneasy they have to leave the room and cannot re-enter, I'm not going to clear it with anyone. It'll just be there, as one challenge among many that they have to find a way to overcome.

I believe what @AlViking meant was that you clear the optional rule usage, like during session 0, not that you clear every individual instance. Given what I've seen of their arguments, I genuinely cannot believe they could be arguing for that. Maybe, at absolute most, a gentle reminder that such rules are in play at the start of an adventure that would be likely to invoke them (e.g. "Just a reminder, we agreed to use the Sanity rules, so be on your toes.") But even that seems unlikely to be their intent.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is not true of magic.

Why not?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Like the example i gave in the post you quoted, if you think you have a valid reason why your character wouldn’t be scared by X or Y I’d be genuinely open to hearing your argument in that situation, but to me, you don’t get to just claim fearlessness by yourself.

Absolutely. I'm 100% in favor of us having a conversation that establishes why your character might genuinely be immune--but it has to be a genuine conversation. That means both sides have to be open to working with a solution, but both sides also should give a full-throated defense of their position. It also means that neither party can be engaging in bad faith, both have to respect each other and not ask for things that are beyond the pale or offensive.

So, just to quickly invent something, let's say I've got a player, Luke, who plays Ekool Ja, a lizardfolk mercenary and tracker from a faraway land, is faced with a creature that is widely feared for its loathsome, horrendous breath. A breath so foul it can debilitate--blind, enervate, hobble--for a minute or more from a single momentary exposure. But Luke says Ekool Ja is from a faraway continent, where no such creatures exist. He has never seen one before, and because they're not exactly commonplace, nobody has ever explained them to him. Luke asks if Ekool Ja can get an automatic success, not because he isn't capable of fear, but because his ignorance blinds him to the truth of things until he's seen them with his own eyes.

If I heard that, you bet your BRITCHES that I'm taking that offer and running with it. That player has just handed me a golden opportunity. I can now intentionally feed them misleading information anytime there's anything social or folkloric or the like, because it's an established part of Ekool's story that he's a stranger in a strange land. Now, I would use this sparingly and deftly, not to prevent the players from succeeding, but to complicate situations. Even the barest hint of suspicion of overuse would be going too far. But as a bargain with the player? As a "anything you aren't established as knowing, you don't" offer, couched in how it can help them? Oh hell yes, I'm doing that without hesitation.

That's the kind of thing that can drive whole campaigns if you let it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why not?

There is no form of magic that does not require something at least as hard-to-get as extensive training. Having a relative associated with powerful magic, or being coincidentally exposed to enormously powerful magic personally, is not reliable and both much rarer than extensive training, so the addition of Sorcerers to the mix doesn't change the facts.

The one and only way to acquire magic without being born with it or trained to use that one specific kind of magic, is to make a deal with a Warlock patron, which isn't any better, because that's just (effectively) becoming a sorcerer by paying to get magically adopted.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There is no form of magic that does not require something at least as hard-to-get as extensive training.

So, exactly the the same as real world science and engineering.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So, exactly the the same as real world science and engineering.

Except that those things don't allow you to transcend what physical limitations impose.

Again, I'm not the person here who said that only magic could alter a character's emotional state (though they referred to it as mind control.)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Except that those things don't allow you to transcend what physical limitations impose.

That's a rather silly argument, since magic isn't real. In D&D-land, where magic is real, with study and hard work you can learn to do stuff that is not possible in our universe, but is possible in that universe. Magic does not "transcend physical limitations". D&D just has different physics.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's a rather silly argument, since magic isn't real. In D&D-land, where magic is real, with study and hard work you can learn to do stuff that is not possible in our universe, but is possible in that universe. Magic does not "transcend physical limitations". D&D just has different physics.

In D&D-land, where the limits of our physical abilities don't apply, how do you know that the mundane cannot achieve what magic can?

If I can't assume that magic is separate, why can you assume that magic can do what the mundane simply cannot?

 

[CreamCloud0]

The spider example is also one you have wildly misunderstood, it was originally made back in 676 by @CreamCloud0 as a no broader context needed example of a player trivially making a case for why they should be unaffected by what seems to be the source and it was implied the reasoning was just as trivially given a nod of agreement.

Just to be accurate, I believe the spider example first came from @Mecheon in the post I responded to, but I don’t think that really changes any context.

 

[Remathilis]

.Again, I'm not the person here who said that only magic could alter a character's emotional state (though they referred to it as mind control.)

I think it's worth noting there are at least three different non-exclusive positions that this statement is lumping together.

• My character cannot be told what to think about something without player consent. That is, they cannot be told what to fear, who to trust, or what they hate without explicit supernatural forces taking that choice from both player and character.. Literal mind control.
• My character can be subject to outside forces that can change and manipulate their mind in the game world, but the ability to react to the effect is determined by the player, not the effect. A character who is frightened or charmed may act within the limits of the condition, but cannot be told to perform certain actions (attack a foe, run away) unless again magical mind control has taken the choice away from both player and character.
• The character can be subject to whatever forces the game imposes, including dictating specific reactions to specific stimuli, but the DM cannot impose restrictions outside of the game rules on the player (no evil, no theft, no pvp) without expressed consent of the player.

That is three different ways to players rejecting DMs meddling with their characters. It's the difference between "I'll decide if my character is greedy enough to steal the kings crown" vs "the dice say I'm tempted to steal the crown, but I'm not stupid enough to try" vs "The DM can't tell me I'm not allowed steal the crown if I want."