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

[EzekielRaiden]

I’m not shure all of their victims would agree.

One man's freedom fighter...

It is documented fact, from multiple video games where players have the ability to choose whether to do good or evil, they overwhelmingly break toward good. Even in things where it's expected that you play through it multiple times, and thus (for example) achievement statistics should eventually regress toward most players at least attempting both paths, the overwhelming majority only choose the "good" path, at least as the game in question defines it.

Humans aren't nearly the bastards you portray them to be. Yeah, we often suck, and trusting that truly not one person will do bad things is a recipe for disaster. But it is certainly closer to correct than assuming that all or almost all people are puppy-kicking, bloodthirsty thieves and murderers. Even in D&D, where our fantasies can come to life, people (believe it or not!) often fantasize about doing right by others.

 

[Reynard]

It is documented fact, from multiple video games where players have the ability to choose whether to do good or evil, they overwhelmingly break toward good. Even in things where it's expected that you play through it multiple times, and thus (for example) achievement statistics should eventually regress toward most players at least attempting both paths, the overwhelming majority only choose the "good" path, at least as the game in question defines it.

Nearly every time I decide I am going to finally do the "evil path" for a game, I fail miserably and at most end up choose the jerk dialog options and asking for money for doing the right thing.

 

[overgeeked]

One man's freedom fighter...

“If crime fighters fight crime and firefighters fight fires, what do freedom fighters fight?” —George Carlin

 

[Oofta]

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.

First, not everyone plays murder hoboes. Second, since you don't play the game any more, why do you care?

 

[Micah Sweet]

and rightfully so, have you read the part that comes after this?

Given the rest of your answer I’d say no, this is not about getting killed in a fight or anything. This is something that happens just for being in that location

I don't see any reason to require player consent here. Bad things happen to characters sometimes. Have a discussion in session 0 if there's a concern, but other than that, stuff happens.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, I would classify player buy-in as consent. To the point that I'm surprised you see any meaningful difference here.

General buy-in for stuff like this before the campaign begins is different from stopping the session to talk about the possibility of becoming a mind flyer. The former I fully support.

 

[Reynard]

The question of what sorts of things require player consent is an interesting one when you move beyond safety stuff.

For example, if the GM decides to introduce a new element based on a PC's backstory, does that require player consent. Say the GM introduces a villain as the player's uncle. Assuming this doesn't actively contradict anything the player developed for their backstory, does the player have a right of refusal? (Again, we are presuming no safety issues regarding the player; of course if they have a problematic uncle IRL they can pull an X card.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Last I checked the majority of player characters play Heroes.

Not necessarily. The game has a long history of non-superhero motivations. And who cares about the majority anyway?

 

[Reynard]

Last I checked the majority of player characters play Heroes.

Who did you check with?

I'm being flip, but we really don't have any reliable way to assess what sorts of table behaviors are typical,do we?

 

[DarkCrisis]

So, you're not for WotC requiring you to do anything, but you're okay with you requiring your players to do something.

Tell me you see the irony, at least.

Yes? I require them to make level 1 characters. I require them to use only official races and classes. I require them to play only good or neutral aligned characters. If the story adventure calls for it I could even require they all play elves or have at least one Paladin. As DM I can require them to do quite a few things. If that doesn’t work for them we can play something else or someone else can run the adventure. Just like they are free to walk away whenever they like.