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

[Lanefan]

If the character does not know something, then they cannot react to it in the first place! The characters react to what they perceive and know, and the GM should be telling them what that is.

There's a difference between a character reacting to what it perceives and a character knowing why it is perceiving that thing.

Obviously the DM should tell the player what the character is perceiving

"Through the door you see a room full of dust, some broken furniture, and old dry spider webs"
"You cast your spell but it does nothing"
"As you enter the room you realize it's a highly unpleasant place to be, make a Wisdom save in order to not immediately turn around and leave"

but the DM is under no obligation to tell the player anything the character cannot perceive or has not yet perceived

<the room is under the effect of a Vacancy* spell, what you see is an illusion covering what's really there>
<the caster has been unknowingly hit by a magic-denial effect and cannot access magic right now>
<the room is enchanted to have a repellent effect on any non-Evil creature that enters>

Seems to me it's the latter piece some (not including me!) are disagreeing with; suggesting instead the player should always be told this background info even if the character doesn't know it.

* - an old 1e Illusionist spell, not sure if it lasted into later editions.

 

[Lanefan]

Even if it's not explained in the moment, it should become apparent at some point in my opinion.

Or at least have the potential of becoming apparent if they bother to investigate or ask about it then or later.

An example: I just ran an adventure where the PCs were hit a few times by a spell they'd never heard of either in-character or out. Once they got back to town they were able to learn that the spell had been invented new by the BBEG; they looted his spellbooks, and now that spell can (and will) propagate into the setting.

I once had a demonic Chihuahua that was (supernaturally) terrifying, it was later revealed that it was actually a high level demon lord trapped in the form a tiny dog.

On the other hand I can see how someone could find those little balls of anger terrifying. So much much rage in such a little package.

For me, it's Pomeranians.

 

[Lanefan]

First, dragon fear was 3e not 5e so if you're running a 3e game you should make that clear. Second it was an extraordinary ability - for which there is no term in 5e - it was not a mundane ability. Last, it was an explicit effect called out in the rules of the game not just DM caveat.

If you want to decide what the character thinks or feels because the character exists in your world and you can override how the player thinks the character would react when it suits your purpose that's fine. It's just not in the rules of the game unless you're using the optional rule from the 2014 DMG. There are many ways to play the game.

Here's what I don't get: reading this I get the sense that because dragon-fear isn't in 5e then a 5e DM is outright banned from giving that ability to a dragon.

Bollocks, says me.

Ah for the days when players reading the Monster Manual was considered cheating...

 

[GrimCo]

The Forgotten Realms.

Damn, the most written about setting in all of fantasy. That is A LOT of homework!

I was ninja-ed about it, but Realms has tons of lore and it's all cannon lore. Around 300 novels, tons of lore rich supplements across editions, specially in 1&2ed AD&D. Even basic Campaign guide from 3e was 320 pages book with walls of text and that's campaign setting, without player guide to faerun, underdark, lost empires. It's one of the most lore rich settings out there. I played long time ago in a 3e FR campaign. Even after reading all lore books, i played with DM who read all the novels and bunch of 2ed stuff. It's suffice to say that Campaign books are like tourist guidebooks, with just enough lore to get the feeling of the setting.

IMHO, reading campaign guide before playing, as a player, kills the vibe and ruins the fun of discovery. DM gives short background info and that's it, let me as a player learn about place trough play.

 

[CreamCloud0]

There's a difference between a character reacting to what it perceives and a character knowing why it is perceiving that thing.

Obviously the DM should tell the player what the character is perceiving

"Through the door you see a room full of dust, some broken furniture, and old dry spider webs"
"You cast your spell but it does nothing"
"As you enter the room you realize it's a highly unpleasant place to be, make a Wisdom save in order to not immediately turn around and leave"

but the DM is under no obligation to tell the player anything the character cannot perceive or has not yet perceived

<the room is under the effect of a Vacancy* spell, what you see is an illusion covering what's really there>
<the caster has been unknowingly hit by a magic-denial effect and cannot access magic right now>
<the room is enchanted to have a repellent effect on any non-Evil creature that enters>

Seems to me it's the latter piece some (not including me!) are disagreeing with; suggesting instead the player should always be told this background info even if the character doesn't know it.

* - an old 1e Illusionist spell, not sure if it lasted into later editions.

yeah, this is what i was trying to say, thanks for putting it more coherently.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And yet, they do.

Time was, verbal communication range was limited by, among other things, how loudly one could shout. Then science and engineering invented the two-way radio, which transcended previous physical limitations and massively extended the range of verbal communication. Shouting not required.

Again, that is still 100% exclusively within the limit of physical limitations.

Someone from a pre-tech society would see a radio as being magic.

But it is not.

That's the whole point. It isn't magic. Magic will, according to these folks, always be at least better, and almost always better, than non-magic. Period.

And, again, your own usage of the word "tech" means that fire and the wheel count as "tech". A pre-tech society would not even be able to understand what they were seeing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There's a difference between a character reacting to what it perceives and a character knowing why it is perceiving that thing.

Obviously the DM should tell the player what the character is perceiving

"Through the door you see a room full of dust, some broken furniture, and old dry spider webs"
"You cast your spell but it does nothing"
"As you enter the room you realize it's a highly unpleasant place to be, make a Wisdom save in order to not immediately turn around and leave"

but the DM is under no obligation to tell the player anything the character cannot perceive or has not yet perceived

<the room is under the effect of a Vacancy* spell, what you see is an illusion covering what's really there>
<the caster has been unknowingly hit by a magic-denial effect and cannot access magic right now>
<the room is enchanted to have a repellent effect on any non-Evil creature that enters>

Seems to me it's the latter piece some (not including me!) are disagreeing with; suggesting instead the player should always be told this background info even if the character doesn't know it.

* - an old 1e Illusionist spell, not sure if it lasted into later editions.

Yes, obviously. I already said exactly this when the illusions were discussed earlier. The player does not need to know the latter stuff to form the reaction of their character.

 

[AlViking]

Here's what I don't get: reading this I get the sense that because dragon-fear isn't in 5e then a 5e DM is outright banned from giving that ability to a dragon.

Bollocks, says me.

Ah for the days when players reading the Monster Manual was considered cheating...

The DM can always customize. I do it fairly often. But there is a difference between giving a monster a special ability, creating a unique spell, saying something is cursed and telling the rogue they feel compelled to steal the crown jewels because they're super shiny.

If the jewels are magically cursed or enchanted that's fine. Doing it because rogues are greedy and the character has depicted Slick as being greedy crosses a line. I may describe the jewels as particularly shiny, tell the player that they know they're worth a lot of money, even tell the player how tempting it seems to be. But I will never ask for a wisdom save to force the character to steal them. That would cross a line from description into controlling the character without some in-world external compulsion.

 

[SkidAce]

Actually, I think its far easier than that. Its basically this simple.

• The DM's Power is Absolute.
• The DM controls Everything in the Game World.
• A player character is a Thing in the Game World.
• Therefore, the DM can control the player character.

To say he can't control a player character is to invalidate point one.

Therefore, a Player Character is more of an "NPC on loan" to the player. He allows the player some manner of creative control (naming, rolling stats, picking a class, etc. Of course only within the DM's allowed parameters.) but make-no-mistake, if the DM wants, he has absolute authority to change anything about the character. He can override your declared action, tell you what your character thinks, feels, or believes. He could even change your character's name, gender, or species. DM power is Absolute. Not even the rulebook is a shield against this, the rules can be changed or altered to the DMs whim. If he doesn't like how things are going, he is altering the rules. Pray he does not alter them again.

Therefore, the player's "power" is essentially only what is granted to him by the DM. He can grant as much or as little as he wants, but the fundemental rule is always the same. There is no equity. There is no parality. The DM is God. It is by his grace alone you are allowed to play.

Its simple when you put it like that.

I would rephrase...

DM controls the world.

Players control Characters.

- Exception is anything that removes said player control through force (dominate, etc.)
- Things that are attributes of the character remain in player control. (personality, behavior, morals, etc.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would rephrase...

DM controls the world.

Players control Characters.

- Exception is anything that removes said player control through force (dominate, etc.)
- Things that are attributes of the character remain in player control. (personality, behavior, morals, etc.)

That is not rephrasing, that is the opposite position. @tetrasodium @EzekielRaiden @CreamCloud0 do not agree with your last sentence, they want those things to be subject of the GM's say and random rolls.