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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

A person might not be a bastard, but people are stupid panicky animals and you know it.

 

[Lanefan]

Honestly, good for them for stating it so strongly. Personal body horror is a line for a lot of people. I’ve had players rage quit for even the slightest transformations. One player touched raw warpstone and gained a mutation giving their character cat ears and they bounced immediately.

Had that happened in my game I'd have said "good riddance", as that's not a player I'd want at the table. You sign up for the in-character bad along with the in-character good.

The following passage, or something close enough, really needs to be somewhere up-front in the PH in great big letters:

"Adventuring is risky business. Exposure to those in-character risks will likely at some point(s) result in a wide variety of unpleasant consequences, some of which neither you nor your character will like, enjoy, or approve of." It could then go on to list some examples of said consequences, and on that list would be permanent mutation or polymorph.

That, and in most typical settings there's means available to reverse pretty much any negative consequence given some in-character effort, time, and money.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

No, we really don't, but some people will assume the WotC party line on any issue is correct regardless.

 

[Riley]

Body horror is something I categorically dislike. It’s not something I find enjoyable in movies, in books, or in games.

Other people have other aversions, and other interests.

It seems essential to maintain an ongoing discussion of what people would enjoy, and what they might not, when deciding where a campaign should go next?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Is that because those games, subtly or otherwise, either steer you toward the good path or reward you for taking it?

 

[Reynard]

Had that happened in my game I'd have said "good riddance", as that's not a player I'd want at the table. You sign up for the in-character bad along with the in-character good.

The following passage, or something close enough, really needs to be somewhere up-front in the PH in great big letters:

"Adventuring is risky business. Exposure to those in-character risks will likely at some point(s) result in a wide variety of unpleasant consequences, some of which neither you nor your character will like, enjoy, or approve of." It could then go on to list some examples of said consequences, and on that list would be permanent mutation or polymorph.

That, and in most typical settings there's means available to reverse pretty much any negative consequence given some in-character effort, time, and money.

I generally agree, but I think body horror merits a special mention in session zero. A LOT of folks have very real issues with even descriptions of body horror. I know people that are otherwise very "edgy" who can't do Stephen King, for example (and not just because he is required by his contract to describe ever female character breasts first).

 

[Cadence]

Had that happened in my game I'd have said "good riddance", as that's not a player I'd want at the table. You sign up for the in-character bad along with the in-character good.

The following passage, or something close enough, really needs to be somewhere up-front in the PH in great big letters:

"Adventuring is risky business. Exposure to those in-character risks will likely at some point(s) result in a wide variety of unpleasant consequences, some of which neither you nor your character will like, enjoy, or approve of." It could then go on to list some examples of said consequences, and on that list would be permanent mutation or polymorph.

That, and in most typical settings there's means available to reverse pretty much any negative consequence given some in-character effort, time, and money.

If one didn't know the DM (or poster on here), would a disclaimer like (without the list of possible consequences) also be expected to allow for rape, graphic torture, racist insults, etc... in game?

If no, then I guess my question is related to what @Reynard brings up a page back, where is the line? Transformations never struck me as a common issue, but if personal body horror were a big thing to lots of players, does that change anything?

The list of some possibilities seems to make a huge difference.

 

[Scribe]

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.

Well of course.

To be Good, is good. To be Evil, is bad. This is taught to most of us from the time we can crawl and first take a toy from another infant.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise. My own BG3 character, Folk Hero, Paladin of Ancients, talks to Cats and Dogs, saves the day. I am the Big Damn Hero.

Most stories, most media in general paints a picture where there absolutely is a 'Good' and 'Evil' and of course you as a good member of society have been taught what is 'Good' and that you want to be 'Good', not 'Evil'.

A game which tried to flip the script on this, would likely not do very well at a commercial level, it would ask too much of the players philosophically.

Just let me be the Hero, get the girl, and save the world, right?

 

[Lanefan]

I generally agree, but I think body horror merits a special mention in session zero. A LOT of folks have very real issues with even descriptions of body horror.

I guess I'm not one such, then, as the idea of being turned into a Mind Flayer is to me about on a par with picking up lycanthropy and turning into a savage beast every full moon: I just don't equate it with "horror", somehow. That said, I would see it as a "loss" condition and do what I could in-character to get it reversed somehow.

A character picking up a permanent set of cat ears is comedy, not horror.

And this is coming from someone who doesn't do horror movies and rarely if ever reads horror novels.

 

[overgeeked]

"Adventuring is risky business. Exposure to those in-character risks will likely at some point(s) result in a wide variety of unpleasant consequences, some of which neither you nor your character will like, enjoy, or approve of."

Considering this is a game people play for fun...