D&D 5E Player consent required -spoilers for new adv book

[QuentinGeorge]

Good to know, because I violated a policy earlier today and I was worried about the WOTC police coming to ... hold on ... there's someone at the door. Be right back!

Me ending oofta's life when he fails to follow WoTC directives.

 

[MGibster]

In Curse of Strahd, the PCs go to a place where they are Dark Gifts, powers, from sinister forces. Each one of these comes with a price, though that's not spelled out to the characters before the gifts are accepted. One of the side effects includes the PCs eyes melting out of their sockets (they can see normally though), losing all their teeth, being terrified of fire, their bodies become covered in oily black fur, etc., etc. So I guess there's precendence for this kind of thing in an AD&D adventure.

While I wouldn't worry too much about a Call of Cthulhu game, I would worry about this in a D&D game. Not because I'm worried anyone is going to be traumatized or harmed by body horror, but because it's not what we typically expect in a game like D&D. I'm not a big fan of the "required" part, but I'd certainly talk to my players about the possibility of this kind of thing happening to make sure they were onboard.

 

[Lanefan]

There is no challenge here, enter the fifth chapter and you mutate, enter the next chapters and you mutate even further with each one...

Sounds like the spellcasting mechanics in DCCRPG.

 

[Lanefan]

Let’s change the example shall we?

In an Adventure Path (or perhaps a home brew campaign, doesn’t matter) the Dm declares after x amount of time, your pc must have a love interest and you must describe and play out that love interest.

Hmmm...that'd sure be an interesting twist for a campaign. I might - seriously - just have to file this idea away for future reference.

 

[Lanefan]

Like it says the player must consent to the increasing effects of the Far Realm as the ritual continues, and does not miss out on any game benefits if they choose not to deal with that.

It’s a simple rule that the player can opt out of dealing with “changes” from Far Realm magic/influence, and the adventure doesn’t punish them for doing so.

Does the adventure punish or penalize or grant benefits to those who do get transformed, though? If yes, then there's no opt-out - it'll work the same for everyone. And if no, then what's the point?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do you have any point of reference to suggest PCs lean murder hobo?

Are those your options now? Hero or murder hobo?

Times really have changed.

 

[Fifth Element]

View attachment 294552

I haven’t seen it myself but apparently this is from the new adventure book….?

To flat out “Require it”.

I’m not for WotC requiring me to do anything. Suggest maybe. I think I just don’t like the wording.

They can't actually make you do anything. If you're getting upset about wording, interpreting it in the worst possible way, then that's on you, not them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Checking if the players are ok with it in something like Session 0 is the entire point of the section.

The implication of that statement was "stop in the middle of the game and make sure they know they're going to turn into an illithid". They said nothing about session 0.

 

[Fifth Element]

So, in a game that to a large degree is about player characters being serial thieves and robbers, going on regular grissly murder sprees sometimes bordering on genocide, I need to get consent from every player for including a possibility of physically transformative effects in case they are overly sensitive to it?

This is silly beyond reason, I'm very happy I don't play D&D anymore.

If that was your experience in D&D, little wonder you don't play any more.

But please don't project your experience onto players as a whole.

 

[Fifth Element]

The implication of that statement was "stop in the middle of the game and make sure they know they're going to turn into an illithid". They said nothing about session 0.

Your inference of the meaning of that statement, you mean.