D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Snarf Zagyg]

The problem is a lot of people are asserting the motivation issue, so responses have been framed in that vein - it's not easy to separate them out and responses may get muddled.

I've already stated that I basically agree with your core statement (from previously) and don't actually think anything I've said is contrary to it,



I wasn't actually calling anyone a jerk (certainly not intentionally - it's a long thread). The one post that may be on point about it was a poster taking an accidental misquote (where I accidentally used the quote feature improperly and didn't catch myself to edit until later) and rubbing it in.

As for smug and condescending your post came off as a pat on the head and "guess you're just not evolved enough to understand the correct perspective" vibe when I first read it - but that could very well be me taking out the thread on the post. So apologies and I shouldn't have said anything about smug or condescending.

I genuinely don't think that there's really that much to discuss. From the 1000' point of view, it's a very fundamental divide between approaches to the game.

That doesn't mean that it's a black/white thing; of course there are gradations and most people tend to borrow from one camp or the other, but I've seen this over and over again not just in this thread, or RPG forums over time, but all the way back for decades.

Think of how many different debates are encapsulated in that divide. "DM Empowerment" and "Player Agency." "Optimization" and "Roleplaying." "RAW" and "RAI." Even terms you see tossed around (players complaining about "Mother May I" or DMs complaining about "Rules Lawyers") often go back to that divide.

It's not that I don't understand the principles or the disagreements, it's just that I've gotten to the point where it seems tiring and facile. I totally get why some people prefer clear, unambiguous rules. I also understand why some players prefer getting deep into the numbers and feel that this type of rules mastery should be rewarded (and, conversely, that a failure to reward this mastery is punishment).

At the end of the day, it's a question of preferences. There are bad players, and there are bad DMs. I think what happens is that people conflate their preference for a style of play with their prior experience with bad players and bad DMs.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think staying within agreed upon thematic elements of the game is a good metric and as stated it is the DMs role to ensure the group keeps within those themes. I just think that existing rules are usually a good guide to staying within those thematic elements (is there a wound system, how difficult is healing, how likely is a character to walk away from a fall etc.) as long as the result is not absurd/unwanted.

One problem is that jumping of a 200+ foot cliff for the lulz is an absurd situation so is very easy to see leading to absurd/unwanted results.

Right, I'm strictly referring to absurd/unwanted outcomes. Otherwise, I too would stick to the RAW (barring any house rules or whatnot).

Yes, it is an absurd situation, but such things do happen.

I've mentioned the time that the player who played a troll in one of the campaigns I played in years ago jumped off a mountain for lulz (because his character was too lazy to walk down). As I've thought more on it, I realized that it wasn't the Savage Species troll but rather a home brewed troll that had Fast Healing (as opposed to regeneration). So, hypothetically, a fall of such magnitude could kill a troll of his species. But since he had a really high Constitution he had an enormous number of HP (over 120) despite being less than level 10.

The player knew his character would survive the fall, and with fast healing he wouldn't even be down hp for long, so he did it because he found it amusing.

He was allowed to, but it really rubbed everyone the wrong way and ruined the session. At the time, we weren't really experienced enough to understand why. After that campaign, the DM who was running it added rules for breaking bones due to long falls, to add serious consequences in the event that something like that happened again.

 

[Mort]

Right, I'm strictly referring to absurd/unwanted outcomes. Otherwise, I too would stick to the RAW (barring any house rules or whatnot).

Yes, it is an absurd situation, but such things do happen.

I've mentioned the time that the player who played a troll in one of the campaigns I played in years ago jumped off a mountain for lulz (because his character was too lazy to walk down). As I've thought more on it, I realized that it wasn't the Savage Species troll but rather a home brewed troll that had Fast Healing (as opposed to regeneration). So, hypothetically, a fall of such magnitude could kill a troll of his species. But since he had a really high Constitution he had an enormous number of HP (over 120) despite being less than level 10.

The player knew his character would survive the fall, and with fast healing he wouldn't even be down hp for long, so he did it because he found it amusing.

He was allowed to, but it really rubbed everyone the wrong way and ruined the session. At the time, we weren't really experienced enough to understand why. After that campaign, the DM who was running it added rules for breaking bones due to long falls, to add serious consequences in the event that something like that happened again.

Yeah, the player really had no way of knowing that the jump was against any thematic elements, Character was a troll, had fast healing and lots of HP to boot - who knows maybe jumping off cliffs is how the trolls show their manliness.

The DM probably wasn't expecting such a cartoonish thing to happen (DMs keep track of a lot!) so it snuck up.

But I suppose the point is everyone was on the same page after - so no harm no foul.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yeah, the player really had no way of knowing that the jump was against any thematic elements, Character was a troll, had fast healing and lots of HP to boot - who knows maybe jumping off cliffs is how the trolls show their manliness.

The DM probably wasn't expecting such a cartoonish thing to happen (DMs keep track of a lot!) so it snuck up.

But I suppose the point is everyone was on the same page after - so no harm no foul.

I couldn't say whether he knew or not. However, he was an experienced player at the table and other cartoonish things had previously caused issues.

The fact that the other players went, "come on man, are you really going to do that" ought to have at least given him pause, had he cared. He was a bit of a problem player and a problem DM, and we don't game with him anymore. It was a weird situation because most of the time he was a fine DM and a fine player, but every now and then, he'd basically go off the deep end. Most of his campaigns ended after dozens of enjoyable sessions with him screaming at the players and aborting the campaign. The troll thing is actually a very mild example of this behavior, but the one pertinent to this discussion.

There was another player that we sometimes gamed with who made a man-bat character named Namtab (and when that character died, tried to being in a bird-man named Nibor). Funny enough, the player of the troll was one of the ones who took great issue with the guy who wanted the punny name.

Back then we didn't really have the concept of a social contract at the table. One existed nonetheless, but at more of an intuitive level rather than something we discussed and defined.

Nowadays that kind of thing isn't an issue though. Everyone is on the same page.

 

[Arial Black]

As I've stated previously, if Batman fell 200 feet without his gear onto rocks, then yes, I think the reader would expect him to die or at least be seriously injured.

Really?

At the end of an episode, Batman gets pushed out of a plane at 1000 feet. The action freezes while the announcer says, "Will Batman survive the fall? Will The Riddler get away with his dastardly plan? Tune in next week! Same bat time, same bat channel!"

....and YOU think that the viewer expects the next episode to begin, whooooo....kersplat!

Announcer: "....well, Bat fans, the show is ending sooner than expected...! Still, at least it was realistic, right? I mean, realism is what you're here for. Right? Right?"

We know that high level D&D characters can do stuff that mere mortals would find fatal, and we know this because the rules result in high level PCs doing what they do and surviving the experience. Not just survive falls, but Mess With Knowledge Man Was Not Meant To Know! High level characters can create new planes of existence! Raise the dead! Wish for whatever they want!

And you think all that is okay, but surviving a fall is fall is unrealistic?

Player: My wizard is going to cast Demiplane.
DM: Why?
Player: ...Huh?
DM: What's your wizards motivation?
Player: Er, just because he can, and he wants to use up his spell slots before his long rest.
DM: Right, such a clearly suicidal action means the gods take your luck away and you die from the planar energies. You are gaming the system by casting a spell just to use up spell slots.

Sounds stupid? Replace 'wizard' with 'fighter' and 'spell slots' with 'hit points' and that's the way one side of this debate would rule.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Really?

At the end of an episode, Batman gets pushed out of a plane at 1000 feet. The action freezes while the announcer says, "Will Batman survive the fall? Will The Riddler get away with his dastardly plan? Tune in next week! Same bat time, same bat channel!"

....and YOU think that the viewer expects the next episode to begin, whooooo....kersplat!

Announcer: "....well, Bat fans, the show is ending sooner than expected...! Still, at least it was realistic, right? I mean, realism is what you're here for. Right? Right?"

We know that high level D&D characters can do stuff that mere mortals would find fatal, and we know this because the rules result in high level PCs doing what they do and surviving the experience. Not just survive falls, but Mess With Knowledge Man Was Not Meant To Know! High level characters can create new planes of existence! Raise the dead! Wish for whatever they want!

And you think all that is okay, but surviving a fall is fall is unrealistic?

Player: My wizard is going to cast Demiplane.
DM: Why?
Player: ...Huh?
DM: What's your wizards motivation?
Player: Er, just because he can, and he wants to use up his spell slots before his long rest.
DM: Right, such a clearly suicidal action means the gods take your luck away and you die from the planar energies. You are gaming the system by casting a spell just to use up spell slots.

Sounds stupid? Replace 'wizard' with 'fighter' and 'spell slots' with 'hit points' and that's the way one side of this debate would rule.

A) The fact that you're choosing to use one of the most cartoonish versions of batman speaks volumes.

B) Even that version of batman relied on devices to survive, irrespective of how far fetched they were. I mean, shark spray? Although there was some luck (like the time a dolphin conveniently dove in front of a torpedo).

C) I absolutely think that the audience would be flummoxed and have their suspension of disbelief wrecked if that version of batman falls 1000 feet out of a plane and, without any devices to slow his fall, just rolls with the impact and walks away.

I've already explained. It has nothing to do with the DM not liking the character's motivation. It is that the character's actions are at odds with the agreed upon social contract that surrounds the game (not in accord with the themes), and that the DM is enforcing that contract.

If we all decide to play a dark and gritty game of Call of Cthulhu, then you don't get to decide 2 sessions into the game that you are donning a clown costume and running around throwing pies in people's faces. That is slapstick, which is basically the opposite of dark and gritty.

Normally, I firmly believe that the character is entirely the player's domain, but not if it violates the accord that was agreed on by the table. It doesn't matter whether you've explicitly agreed to the accord. Maybe you joined the group mid campaign and didn't get a say. Once the group explains the game and the themes and you choose to join, you have tacitly consented to the contract and if you violate that agreement then you are in the wrong.

Do I think the DM should outright kill a character for such a violation? No. But the middle of a scene isn't necessarily the appropriate time to get into a deep delve of the game's themes and what is/isn't permitted. Hence the player should be given an informed choice or outright told no, ideally with a brief explanation as to why. The consequences of that informed choice, however, might absolutely include death.

 

[Helldritch]

Normally, I firmly believe that the character is entirely the player's domain, but not if it violates the accord that was agreed on by the table. It doesn't matter whether you've explicitly agreed to the accord. Maybe you joined the group mid campaign and didn't get a say. Once the group explains the game and the themes and you choose to join, you have tacitly consented to the contract and if you violate that agreement then you are in the wrong.

Do I think the DM should outright kill a character for such a violation? No. But the middle of a scene isn't necessarily the appropriate time to get into a deep delve of the game's themes and what is/isn't permitted. Hence the player should be given an informed choice or outright told no, ideally with a brief explanation as to why. The consequences of that informed choice, however, might absolutely include death.

Fully agree with you on that. There are table conventions when you join a game. If you're the new player, you have to follow them until a new campaign is started. If you want to change the feel of the campaign to your taste it can be done. But you must have the agreement of all players and DM at the table.

If you want HP to act like an allmighty shield. Fine. But if this is not the case at the table you are joining; you must abide by the table's decision (or DM ruling depending if the table is democratic like mine or DM driven). Once you know what you got by joining you only have two choices.
1) Either abide.
2) leave.

There is the third option of convincing everyone that you are right but in the end, the table or DM have the final say. I do not play evil campaigns. Yet, we did play one at one of the player's request. It was fun and lasted about 10 month. It was also gritty and gruesome as the player wanted it. Everything can be done and played. As long as you don't impose your vision on everyone else, everything is fine.

 

[Arial Black]

If, I repeat if, you have a player saying that his PC is doing stupid stuff, that's one thing: a player problem, not a rules problem.

But just like The Batman-comics AND TV show-WHEN The Batman survives the fall-and he will!-the writer will provide some explanation.

The player having his high HP character intentionally jumping down the cliff intending to take as little harm as possible can explain why his PC didn't die.

The same explanation, BTW, for surviving the exact same fall if they were pushed by the baddy.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Fully agree with you on that. There are table conventions when you join a game. If you're the new player, you have to follow them until a new campaign is started. If you want to change the feel of the campaign to your taste it can be done. But you must have the agreement of all players and DM at the table.

If you want HP to act like an allmighty shield. Fine. But if this is not the case at the table you are joining; you must abide by the table's decision (or DM ruling depending if the table is democratic like mine or DM driven). Once you know what you got by joining you only have two choices.
1) Either abide.
2) leave.

There is the third option of convincing everyone that you are right but in the end, the table or DM have the final say. I do not play evil campaigns. Yet, we did play one at one of the player's request. It was fun and lasted about 10 month. It was also gritty and gruesome as the player wanted it. Everything can be done and played. As long as you don't impose your vision on everyone else, everything is fine.

I agree, but I would add an addendum to clarify that the middle of a session is not the time to argue that the way you want things is right. I'm not implying that you suggested that, I just wanted to be explicitly clear on that point.

If, I repeat if, you have a player saying that his PC is doing stupid stuff, that's one thing: a player problem, not a rules problem.

But just like The Batman-comics AND TV show-WHEN The Batman survives the fall-and he will!-the writer will provide some explanation.

The player having his high HP character intentionally jumping down the cliff intending to take as little harm as possible can explain why his PC didn't die.

The same explanation, BTW, for surviving the exact same fall if they were pushed by the baddy.

We've been talking about doing stupid stuff since the beginning. Even when this was about doing the hex chicken. No one said they would expect a character die for doing a perfectly reasonable slide down a hillside after all.

My table and I would consider the hex chicken really stupid, and a violation of the table contract. You think it is smart and not a violation. Both views are fine at their respective tables, despite that they are fundamentally in opposition.

I was pretty explicit about the whole swan diving onto rocks thing. I repeated it so many times I'm starting to feel like a broken record. That was the example I used, and I believe you even agreed with me it is suicidal.

Also, even using your example, if jumping off of cliffs for lulz doesn't fit the tone of the game (a serious game) then the DM is well within their rights to point out to the player that their character would not expect to be able to jump off a 200 foot cliff without expecting serious injury or even death.

Saying:
"no you can't, because that would be metagaming"
or "yes you can but you'll need to give me a saving throw to see how many bones you break"
or "yes you can but it will undoubtedly kill you"
are all simply different approaches to enforcing the same (or similar) contracts.

If the game has a serious tone and HP don't make you an ablative variant Superman, then you can't reasonably expect to jump off a tall cliff without injury regardless of your HP total. That expectation runs counter to the agreed upon tone of the game.