D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Helldritch]

Me neither. I never had a player making his character commit suicide (save a samurai that did sepuku for honnor). But if I had to make such a ruling I would without hesitation (after warning the player of course).

 

[jaelis]

Me neither. I never had a player making his character commit suicide (save a samurai that did sepuku for honnor). But if I had to make such a ruling I would without hesitation (after warning the player of course).

Cool then we are maybe thinking the same. If a character actually tries to hurt themselves, then we don't have to stick to the normal injury rules. But we don't assume that a character is trying to hurt themselves without something telling us so pretty explicitly. I think that is it the second part which is the main source of contention.

 

[Oofta]

I used to assume that PCs had a sense of self preservation. I would give them second chances, saving throws and so on when they went into dangerous situations since I've never been a "kill them all and let the gods sort them out" kind of DM.

Then Jack joined my game. He continuously pushed the boundaries of what his PC should survive (and I did eventually kill the PC). Turns out Jack just wanted to push my buttons to see if I would kill his PC. That his PC had been suicidal all along; not because of RP purposes but because Jack really wanted an adversarial relationship with the DM (me).

It got to the point where I would throw potential plot threads in his direction to see what excuse he would come up with to not follow them. He left the game after a bit because he didn't like the idea that I had plot threads and a backstory. He wanted to just "go to the tavern and see what happens." I still have no real clue what he wanted, but no DM is going to work for every player.

So I no longer assume players are not doing stupidly suicidal things with their PC to just see what happens. Fortunately I haven't had a Jack in a long time.

 

[Mort]

This is where I disagree with you. The PCs are not hit by the giants, they're grazed. They somehow dodged the ancient dragon's breath. The average Joe just take the hit and becomes jello. The average Joe is roasted like an over cooked kebab.
HP are not a force field. HP are not stamina. HP are not physical for the most part (I'd even say that anything higher than 4 hp is related to luck, fate and favors of the gods). A human (or whatever PC race) does not have as much resilience as a horse. HP are a combination of luck, fate and the favors of the gods.

It doesn't matter. HPs model a lot of things. The point is the high level character has them. The DM taking them away because he doesn't like the reason they're being used for (not because he doesn't like the mechanic) - I see that as a problem.

The PC falling the cliff for a good reason will have luck, fate and the favor of his god(s) on his side. A tree growing on the cliff will slow his fall just a wee bit. Thick bushes at the bottom will slow his fall again or may be there will be a small pond/stream with just enough current and water depth so that the hero will survive. The average Joe won't have that chance and if he has, will not survive either way.


Again see the above and previous posts. A player making his character committing suicide his denying his fate, luck and the gods' favors. Without this protection, he is just the average Joe. This is akin to the samurai commiting sepuku. I want to do my sepuku but I have 200 hp... It will take me 27 attemps with my ceremonial knife (1d4 +5 = 7.5 average damage...) to succede. Is it logical? Of course not. The same goes with falling. Falling such a height for a heroic reason will give your character the plot armor/shield that luck, fate and favor of the gods provide. Otherwise, you're on you own, just like the average Joe.

This is a case of specific beats general. Logic here is the specific. The DM is entirely entitled to dictate how the gods will react to a suicidal action. In this case they will do nothing.

The BIG difference here is - who gets to decide why the character jumped? I prefer it be the player not the DM. You keep saying that if YOU (the DM) determine the character is "trying to commit suicide," then SPLAT. I think that's totally wrong - the player should decide the character's motivation!

On the other hand, if the DM does not warn the player about this, then is it is bad DMing and the player has all the justifications needed to be angry and frustrated.

If the DM warns the player and he has his character going this way anyways, then the player should accept the verdict, his character is quite dead.

So if the player says 'I'm jumping down the cliff because I REALLY want to cut the monster off and I think otherwise we'll miss it! Yeah it'll hurt, but I can take it!"

You reserve the right to say "Nah, that's suicide, I don't care what the rules are - jump and you die!"

I think that's wrong on several levels - not the least of which, you just stepped into playing the player's character for him!

 

[Mort]

I used to assume that PCs had a sense of self preservation. I would give them second chances, saving throws and so on when they went into dangerous situations since I've never been a "kill them all and let the gods sort them out" kind of DM.

Then Jack joined my game. He continuously pushed the boundaries of what his PC should survive (and I did eventually kill the PC). Turns out Jack just wanted to push my buttons to see if I would kill his PC. That his PC had been suicidal all along; not because of RP purposes but because Jack really wanted an adversarial relationship with the DM (me).

It got to the point where I would throw potential plot threads in his direction to see what excuse he would come up with to not follow them. He left the game after a bit because he didn't like the idea that I had plot threads and a backstory. He wanted to just "go to the tavern and see what happens." I still have no real clue what he wanted, but no DM is going to work for every player.

So I no longer assume players are not doing stupidly suicidal things with their PC to just see what happens. Fortunately I haven't had a Jack in a long time.

This is a clear case of a Player being disruptive - and an out of game problem. Thankfully I don't have any Jacks in my group either.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's the difference between playing your character and playing a game token. It's the difference between understanding the genre determines the game world physics, not the rules. It's the difference between having the genre determine the appropriate set of what you can do (or try to do) while using the rules to operationalize it and having the rules determine what you can and can't do because RAW. They're very different perspectives that are frequently incompatible at the table and even moreso in these messageboards.

While this has been stated in different ways previously, I just wanted to quote it again because this is about as succinct and as clear a statement as you will find about the difference of opinion that has now consumed over 600 posts.

 

[Helldritch]

It doesn't matter. HPs model a lot of things. The point is the high level character has them. The DM taking them away because he doesn't like the reason they're being used for (not because he doesn't like the mechanic) - I see that as a problem.

And I would too.

The BIG difference here is - who gets to decide why the character jumped? I prefer it be the player not the DM. You keep saying that if YOU (the DM) determine the character is "trying to commit suicide," then SPLAT. I think that's totally wrong - the player should decide the character's motivation!

Dead wrong here. I would not be the one to determine this. The PLAYER WOULD BE THE ONE! There is a big difference between I jump to get the bad guy and I jump because I can. One is heroic, the other one is suicidal.

So if the player says 'I'm jumping down the cliff because I REALLY want to cut the monster off and I think otherwise we'll miss it! Yeah it'll hurt, but I can take it!"

And I would fully agree with the player. Even encourage him to do it!

You reserve the right to say "Nah, that's suicide, I don't care what the rules are - jump and you die!"

I think that's wrong on several levels - not the least of which, you just stepped into playing the player's character for him!

Nope. Not what I said and defended all along. You are putting words into my mouth to justify your position. We always said that the player was jumping for no other reason that his character can take it. Not because of anything else. Even after a warning, the player decides to make his character to jump anyway! Either the player wants to push to DM into doing something or he wants to game the system.

On a small trek around the wilderness Gar the Great saw a cliff. A deep one at that. "Ho a cliff!" said Gar to himself. "Let's jump of of it. I can take it!" And so ended the life of Gar the not so great.

 

[jaelis]

We always said that the player was jumping for no other reason that his character can take it. Not because of anything else.

I don't think this condition was made clearly enough, and I'm not sure that you're speaking for everyone here.

 

[Helldritch]

I think it was clear enough from the begining. On the way, it might have been confused and mixed up in quotes and requotes and what not. But at first, the character was jumping for the fun of it. Nothing else. I might have misread, but that was my impression.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't think this condition was made clearly enough, and I'm not sure that you're speaking for everyone here.

No. This is where it started. Because I first used the example.

Because you're not thinking of this as rules for a game that happen to take place in an imaginary world.

Instead, you are trying to say that the rules define this imaginary world.

In other words, in your conception, a 20th level fighter says, "Hey, I don't have time to wait for feather fall, so I'll just jump down that 200' chasm since I know it won't kill me, and I don't feel pain, or anything like that."

It's a completely different understanding of, um, playing D&D. It's okay, but it's different.

As a side note, I will reiterate that if you keep changing the definitions of what people are talking about, it becomes hard to communicate.