D&D 5E (2014) Mechanics you don't want to see, ever

[Lanefan]

There are limits. There are things you don't do to a PC without the player's consent.

Exactly what those things are will vary from table to table. But, a blanket, "Well you failed your save, so they get to do what they want," is not generally acceptable.

Yes it is.

With a DM this can veer into abuse of authority etc., but if it's another player who in theory is your equal at the table, anything goes.

And on a broader scale, everyone involved has to realize and accept, up front, that bad things can and will happen to their PCs. They could die, they could lose levels, they could be put through the wringer and handed back to you as rabbits, they could be corrupted, dominated, mind-controlled, aged (up or down), imprisoned, and any number of other "not fun" outcomes. The source of these bad things is usually the setting (via traps, curses, etc.) or the opposition (via spell, inherent ability, or weapon); but sometimes it could be your own party or even yourself.

This is the flip side of all the good things that much more often happen to PCs - they gain fame and wealth, they gain levels, they gain powers, social standing, knowledge, experience, and so forth*.

* - and, ultimately, the ability to inflict all those bad things on to others if they so choose.

 

[Monayuris]

I definitely think that such mechanics belong in a somewhat siloed work, perhaps 3pp, that is clearly demarcated as optional and meant to be used in a campaign that focuses on that sort of play.

That being said, I’m working on an Inspiration variant that is exactly that, available to all player characters.

I think the DMG has options to either convert Inspiration or it creates a new currency that can provide narrative control of the game.

Personally, I don't want that in 5e, but I'm ok with it being an option for those who would want it.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Yes it is.

With a DM this can veer into abuse of authority etc., but if it's another player who in theory is your equal at the table, anything goes.

"Anything goes" PvP is one way to play, but it's far from being the most common style. Most tables will have written or unwritten rules that limit player conflict.

Of course, with unwritten rules you sometimes get players who have different ideas of what the rules are, which is a good recipe for drama.

 

[Umbran]

With a DM this can veer into abuse of authority etc., but if it's another player who in theory is your equal at the table, anything goes.

With respect - you don't get to say what goes at any table other than your own.

If one player at my table, for example, tries to use Dominate Person on another PC to initiate sexual contact without the other player's consent, they will be booted out of the game, permanently. If I am a player, and not running the game, play is still going to stop, as I am still not going to tolerate that BS in my presence.

So, no more of that telling me "anything goes". Because, no, it does not.

 

[Lanefan]

"Anything goes" PvP is one way to play, but it's far from being the most common style. Most tables will have written or unwritten rules that limit player conflict.

Of course, with unwritten rules you sometimes get players who have different ideas of what the rules are, which is a good recipe for drama.

The thing is, just because the philosophy is "anything goes" doesn't necessarily mean that it will, or not all the time.

Oftentimes a group of PCs will find they get along (more or less) well and work together well, and things hum along just like at any other table. What's important, however, is that this happens due to in-character play rather than there being some meta-game rule that forces it; and if-when they do argue they're then free to do so in whatever manner makes sense for those characters, again without meta-restraint.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

The thing is, just because the philosophy is "anything goes" doesn't necessarily mean that it will, or not all the time.

Oftentimes a group of PCs will find they get along (more or less) well and work together well, and things hum along just like at any other table. What's important, however, is that this happens due to in-character play rather than there being some meta-game rule that forces it; and if-when they do argue they're then free to do so in whatever manner makes sense for those characters, again without meta-restraint.

You can play how you like, but understand that your table is in the minority, most gamers prefer a different style where players are responsible for playing their characters in a way that keeps the party together.

 

[Lanefan]

With respect - you don't get to say what goes at any table other than your own.

Nor, however, do you.

If one player at my table, for example, tries to use Dominate Person on another PC to initiate sexual contact without the other player's consent, they will be booted out of the game, permanently. If I am a player, and not running the game, play is still going to stop, as I am still not going to tolerate that BS in my presence.

Fair enough...though if I'm the player whose PC is casting the Dominate and you're not the target, you'd in theory have no way of knowing what's going on (and as player I would, I hope, be smart enough to do all this via note to the DM rather than saying it out loud!).

But if the same player uses Dominate Person to turn another PC into their own personal meat shield and thus gets said PC killed, then what?

Fun story apropos to your example above: a character using Charm Person in order to get two other characters to spend a romantic (and lustful) night together led to one of the more hilarous firefights I've ever seen once those two PCs woke up in the morning and realized what had happened, and why, and because of who......

Everyone was cool with all of it, because that's how we roll: characters do what characters do and players keep it separate from real life. Never mind they were all too busy laughing...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

In D&D, you're coming together to tell a story. There are lots of stories where the ostensible protagonists turn on each other and start murdering. But there are also lots of stories where they don't. At most D&D tables, the story being told just so happens to be of the latter variety.

 

[Lanefan]

No ....

It is not a "meta-restraint" to have a table of people that get along and are not jerks to each other. That's called, you know, being friends. Not being jerks. That's an agreed-to social compact.

It's entirely possible to have a table of players who get along with each other just fine even while their PCs fight like a bunch of cats and do awful horrible things to each other...or try to.

The restraints and smack-down hammers come in if things come out of character and players at the table start arguing. Big - and easily noticeable - difference.

The trick is not to take it all too seriously...and to only game with friends!