D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[MGibster]

Again, this isn't a rules issue.

I never claimed it was a rules issue. Others have focused very strongly on the rules.

It's a player/DM communication issue. The player and DM need to be on the same page as you expectations. A player who acts against DM expectations WHEN HE KNOWS what they are is not being a good player. A DM who punishes a player for violating his expectations WITHOUT FIRST TELLING THEM WHAT THEY ARE us being a bad DM.

I explicitly said I'd warn the player before he jumped.

This has been fun but I think we've reached the point where further discussion on the topic is fruitless. So I'm going to mosey on out of the thread now.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

This seems more like a thematic/stylistic question than anything else. It should be the rare scenario where the DM narrates a character being captured then executed with no input from thr player or the other players. I can't really envision such a scenario being fun - and if it's not fun - why is it happening?

Well that's easy. That experience isn't about having fun.

Now, before you get on me about that, let me ask you a question about something related. If I'm watching say, The Fly and I get to the point where Jeff Goldblum barfs on the donut and his ear falls off. What emotion do you feel in that moment? Probably a mix of fear and disgust. But, isn't watching a movie supposed to be a fun, entertaining time? Usually, yes, but not in this case because the artists involved aren't going for "fun" or "cool", they're going for "scary", for "disgust", for "oh god why". Why are they doing this? Because they are trying to set a different kind of tone. To bring this to TTRPG's, I suggest looking no further than Call of Cthulhu, a horror TTRPG where mindbending cosmic horror is, quite literally, the name of the game.

"But that's all well and good" you might be saying, "But D&D isn't a horror RPG, it's a fantasy RPG." You would, 100%, be right. However, there are different types of fantasy. Sure, Lord of the Rings and A Song of Ice and Fire are both fantasy, but would you argue they are the same because they are both fantasy? I would hope the answer would be "Not at all, they are going for different tones". And well, there's your answer, maybe you like a game where the rules a sacrosanct and any new situation would be handled using those rules as application. I wouldn't, personally. I prefer that we take into context what is happening, because as hilarious a mental image as having to reset a guillotine a few times in order to execute the Barbarian would be, if that happened in the game, I would be taken out of it and think the situation is dumb. So, as much as it might be against the rules to do so, IMO, the story matters more, so the Barbarian getting the Robespierre special is going to die immediately, no save.

That's just the kinda TTRPG gamer I am I guess, I put the story over the rules, because that's ultimately what I'm playing for.

 

[Mort]

Well that's easy. That experience isn't about having fun.

Now, before you get on me about that, let me ask you a question about something related. If I'm watching say, The Fly and I get to the point where Jeff Goldblum barfs on the donut and his ear falls off. What emotion do you feel in that moment? Probably a mix of fear and disgust. But, isn't watching a movie supposed to be a fun, entertaining time? Usually, yes, but not in this case because the artists involved aren't going for "fun" or "cool", they're going for "scary", for "disgust", for "oh god why". Why are they doing this? Because they are trying to set a different kind of tone. To bring this to TTRPG's, I suggest looking no further than Call of Cthulhu, a horror TTRPG where mindbending cosmic horror is, quite literally, the name of the game.

But since the players signed up for the Call of Cthulhu game and know what they're getting into - that is FUN for them. Fun doesn't mean happy, happy joy, joy. It means getting and enjoying exactly what you signed up for. So yes, the fly, call of Cthulhu etc. Is FUN to the right crowd.

Now if the players signed up for an epic fantasy game and got Call of Cthulhu - Then they might not have fun. That's a disconnect of expectations.

"But that's all well and good" you might be saying, "But D&D isn't a horror RPG, it's a fantasy RPG." You would, 100%, be right. However, there are different types of fantasy. Sure, Lord of the Rings and A Song of Ice and Fire are both fantasy, but would you argue they are the same because they are both fantasy? I would hope the answer would be "Not at all, they are going for different tones". And well, there's your answer, maybe you like a game where the rules a sacrosanct and any new situation would be handled using those rules as application. I wouldn't, personally. I prefer that we take into context what is happening, because as hilarious a mental image as having to reset a guillotine a few times in order to execute the Barbarian would be, if that happened in the game, I would be taken out of it and think the situation is dumb. So, as much as it might be against the rules to do so, IMO, the story matters more, so the Barbarian getting the Robespierre special is going to die immediately, no save.

That's just the kinda TTRPG gamer I am I guess, I put the story over the rules, because that's ultimately what I'm playing for.

I don't mind a gritty, game or a rules light game or any variation thereof all can be a fun game. But I like for the players and I or the DM if I'm a player to be on the same page so we don't have differing expectations of the experience.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yes.

Though looking back at the posts and the actual arguments, I don't think this is actually a rules dispute. Both sides are aware what the rules say and what the RAW result would be. The dispute is more a question of is this a good call by the DM.

I'm pretty sure that some of the folks in this thread consider this to be a rules issue, since they called it cheating.

FWIW, I agree with you that it isn't cheating. In the extreme, it could be a case of the DM abusing his or her authority, but that's the extent of it. As long as the DM is communicating the potential consequences clearly to the player (and I've seen no one advocating for "gotchas") and ruling with impartiality, I don't think there is generally anything wrong with it.

This seems more like a thematic/stylistic question than anything else. It should be the rare scenario where the DM narrates a character being captured then executed with no input from thr player or the other players. I can't really envision such a scenario being fun - and if it's not fun - why is it happening?

Again, I don't actually think there is disagreement here.

Note that I explicitly stated that the player ought to be given every reasonable opportunity to save their character leading up to the execution.

You're the one bringing up the DM capturing and executing the character with no input from the player. I agree that would be a bad thing.

I had a solo game in mind, but yes, the other players should be given any reasonable opportunities to rescue the character prior to the blade descending.

However, once the guillotine blade drops that's it. No matter how many HP the character had.

As above, this seems less a rules dispute and more a player and DM having different expectations of the campaign/scenario.

Now I'm never a fan of the player getting into some kind of pissing contest with the DM - that's just stupid and bound to end badly. But it's the DMs job to address the situation with the player. Maybe the player has always been in campaigns where doing stuff like this "for the lulz" is just how things were done?

Again, not really a rules dispute; much more a player/DM communication issue.

Effective communication is important.

I'm pretty sure that someone in this thread, however, stated that such things ought to be covered in a session zero. I disagree. I lack the foresight to predict all possible silly shenanigans the players might attempt in the campaign. I'm not going to be bound by the idea that just because I didn't explicitly say in session zero that you can't punch through 10 feet of stone because your bones will break, that therefore you can punch rocks as much as you like without consequence. Nope. Not happening.

Players also need to have realistic expectations. Just because their old DM did things one way doesn't mean that their new DM is going to rule the same way. The new DM may not think stating something like "chopping your head off with a guillotine will kill you regardless of your HP total" is necessary. I'd frankly be a bit surprised if a player came into my game and didn't think that's how things work.

However, the DM absolutely needs to communicate the potential consequences to the player if the character attempts such an action, so that the player can make an informed decision.

 

[Arial Black]

IMC, if you get knocked off a mountain and fall it gets handled by the rules. But if a player decides to jump off a mountain for the lulz, because he thinks it can't kill him, then I will inform him that it will kill him. The gods are liable to intervene on your behalf if the hero falls off the mountain (arete), but not if he dives off for the lulz like an idiot (hubris).

It was posted recently that the campaign works like reality but with magic added, and rules to help us adjudicate the action.

According to your quote, in your campaign gravity does not work like in reality. In the real world, masses attract other masses, with the amount of mass and the distance between the masses determining how strong the attractive force between them.

Where in the equations is the part where what thinking creatures want gravity to do actually changes the way gravity works, such that gravity does the opposite of what you want?

Falling does 1d6 damage per 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6.....unless you want to fall? Because if you want to fall then you die without any damage at all (because you didn't roll any), the universe just decided you should die.

Knowing that, the PC pulls the lever and the floor drops away and the mooks fall into the chasm. He wants them to fall, and experiment has shown that wanting to fall results in auto-death, right? No, gravity knows your motives (somehow) and hates you! It will always do the opposite of what you want it to do.

RPGs aren't just one thing. They aren't just a game with rules, like chess. But they are also a game with rules, and the referee has the responsibility to be a fair and impartial judge.

How can your players trust you? You have the laws of nature themselves change how they work in order to screw them over.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It was posted recently that the campaign works like reality but with magic added, and rules to help us adjudicate the action.

According to your quote, in your campaign gravity does not work like in reality. In the real world, masses attract other masses, with the amount of mass and the distance between the masses determining how strong the attractive force between them.

Where in the equations is the part where what thinking creatures want gravity to do actually changes the way gravity works, such that gravity does the opposite of what you want?

Falling does 1d6 damage per 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6.....unless you want to fall? Because if you want to fall then you die without any damage at all (because you didn't roll any), the universe just decided you should die.

Knowing that, the PC pulls the lever and the floor drops away and the mooks fall into the chasm. He wants them to fall, and experiment has shown that wanting to fall results in auto-death, right? No, gravity knows your motives (somehow) and hates you! It will always do the opposite of what you want it to do.

RPGs aren't just one thing. They aren't just a game with rules, like chess. But they are also a game with rules, and the referee has the responsibility to be a fair and impartial judge.

How can your players trust you? You have the laws of nature themselves change how they work in order to screw them over.

How exactly am I screwing them over?

If you pull the lever, and the mooks fall, we resolve it by the rules.

If the mooks pull the lever, and your character falls, we resolve it by the rules.

If you are playing a character with 200 HP and you dive head first 200 feet onto hard rocks because you think it is funny and 20d6 is negligible damage to you, then I will give you fair warning that doing so will kill you, and that you may choose to do something else if desired. Same if you have your character stick their head into a guillotine and decide to drop the blade, expecting your bare neck to stop the blade. I will warn you that this action will result in your character's death and give you an opportunity to choose a different action. If you persist, then your character will die.

As I see it, HP aren't a force field or ablative dermal reinforcement. They're the responses you take to protect yourself as well as various other factors such as luck or divine protection. There's some toughness there as well, but it isn't supernatural.

If you fall, then you do whatever you can to save yourself. Luck and higher powers may also intercede on your behalf.

If you dive for the lulz, you aren't doing whatever you can to save yourself (quite the opposite in fact). Luck and higher powers also won't intercede on your behalf because you're displaying grandiose hubris. It's one thing for a god to intervene in some small way when their favored champion is in danger. Quite another for that champion to dive onto rocks demanding divine assistance.

Hence, your HP won't save you. Also, perfectly consistent. As I stated earlier in the thread, there's a difference between combat and suicide. You can't expect the rules for the former to apply to the latter, and there is no inconsistency in that distinction.

I fail to see how the player is getting screwed. I communicate what the outcome will be if they continue with the fatal action. They have an opportunity to do something else. If the DM tells you that willingly cutting your head off with the guillotine will result in instant death, and gives you a chance to not drop the blade, and you choose to drop the blade, you are in fact screwing yourself. The DM didn't do anything beyond verify that you were making an informed (albeit suicidal) choice.

 

[Arial Black]

How exactly am I screwing them over?

If you pull the lever, and the mooks fall, we resolve it by the rules.

If the mooks pull the lever, and your character falls, we resolve it by the rules.

If you are playing a character with 200 HP and you dive head first 200 feet onto hard rocks because you think it is funny and 20d6 is negligible damage to you, then I will give you fair warning that doing so will kill you, and that you may choose to do something else if desired. Same if you have your character stick their head into a guillotine and decide to drop the blade, expecting your bare neck to stop the blade. I will warn you that this action will result in your character's death and give you an opportunity to choose a different action. If you persist, then your character will die.

As I see it, HP aren't a force field or ablative dermal reinforcement. They're the responses you take to protect yourself as well as various other factors such as luck or divine protection. There's some toughness there as well, but it isn't supernatural.

If you fall, then you do whatever you can to save yourself. Luck and higher powers may also intercede on your behalf.

If you dive for the lulz, you aren't doing whatever you can to save yourself (quite the opposite in fact). Luck and higher powers also won't intercede on your behalf because you're displaying grandiose hubris. It's one thing for a god to intervene in some small way when their favored champion is in danger. Quite another for that champion to dive onto rocks demanding divine assistance.

Hence, your HP won't save you. Also, perfectly consistent. As I stated earlier in the thread, there's a difference between combat and suicide. You can't expect the rules for the former to apply to the latter, and there is no inconsistency in that distinction.

I fail to see how the player is getting screwed. I communicate what the outcome will be if they continue with the fatal action. They have an opportunity to do something else. If the DM tells you that willingly cutting your head off with the guillotine will result in instant death, and gives you a chance to not drop the blade, and you choose to drop the blade, you are in fact screwing yourself. The DM didn't do anything beyond verify that you were making an informed (albeit suicidal) choice.

First of all, none of that refutes what I said. You really are having the laws of the universe change how they work based on what they want. All you are doing is saying that you don't care if the player doesn't like it, you feel you are justified.

The thing is, sticking your head into a guillotine, which you have set up as an auto-kill, means that the player, knowing the guillotine rules, intends to be killed.

But the player also knows the falling rules. He can read them in the PHB. So jumping off a cliff with his 200hp is not a decision to die, but a decision to take 20d6 damage. Foolish? Probably. The universe somehow knowing he does not want to die and then altering its own laws so that they do die?

How? Why? For the lulz?

 

[Fenris-77]

Factually correct. There are falling rules, and changing those on the fly specifically to kill a character because you think 'it should' falls outside what I consider a reasonable use of DM fiat.

 

[Fanaelialae]

First of all, none of that refutes what I said. You really are having the laws of the universe change how they work based on what they want. All you are doing is saying that you don't care if the player doesn't like it, you feel you are justified.

The thing is, sticking your head into a guillotine, which you have set up as an auto-kill, means that the player, knowing the guillotine rules, intends to be killed.

But the player also knows the falling rules. He can read them in the PHB. So jumping off a cliff with his 200hp is not a decision to die, but a decision to take 20d6 damage. Foolish? Probably. The universe somehow knowing he does not want to die and then altering its own laws so that they do die?

How? Why? For the lulz?

I actually did explain that.

The gods won't intercede on your behalf if you try to force them for funsies (an act of supreme hubris). So you can't count on help from that angle. If you're performing a suicidal action then you can't count on yourself to save you. Which means that the only thing that could possibly save you is your innate toughness, however that isn't supernatural IMO.

You still haven't explained how, when these consequences are clearly communicated and the player is given a chance to change their action, this screws the player as you claimed. Is it possible that it does not in fact screw the player, but rather that you simply don't like this approach?

 

[Fenris-77]

You still haven't explained how, when these consequences are clearly communicated and the player is given a chance to change their action, this screws the player as you claimed. Is it possible that it does not in fact screw the player, but rather that you simply don't like this approach?

This would be fine with me btw. This example is a little more nuanced than where we started out though. If you warn them and they do it anyway, that's very different than just changing the rule about consequences. Just curious, would you do the same thing if there were great and compelling narrative reasons for jumping, rather than hubris?