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

[Charlaquin]

Cause I own the book, let me get the context

Spoiler

View attachment 294565
View attachment 294566

That’s rad as hell! I might pick up a copy of this book.

 

[overgeeked]

Yes, and a large part of the fun lies in the game's challenges...

For you. Not for everyone.

You like the idea of nasty physical transformation as a fail state. That doesn't mean it's universal.

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.

At the time, I agreed with you. Since then I've realize what a terribly insensitive and crappy attitude that is. The game is not more important than the people playing it. The people at the table are more important than the game.

 

[overgeeked]

You have mentioned lines and veils a couple times, and while I think I understand the terms from context, do you have a link to a detailed explanation of the terms?

Here's a thread.

 

[Malmuria]

From what people have posted, this adventure seems to be adding a bespoke mechanic (though with mostly cosmetic effects). From the player's point of view, they've signed up to play the game according to the mechanics in the PHB. If you want to add supplemental rules, it seems to make sense to discuss that with your group in advance, or at least give them a heads up that certain things might happen that are outside of the bounds of the usual campaign.

Those rules, by the way, also "require" DMs and players to do all sorts of things, with the caveat, expressed throughout the core books, that your group can change any of it.

 

[Shardstone]

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.

And of course they whole long discussion of players not having real consequences for their actions. Mess with Illithids and you might get your mind ate.

As long as everyone has fun I guess. Seems a tad unfair to everyone in the long run though when you can establish that any bad choice or action or simply bad luck can be undone just because…

I as a DM have many times prevented a character death because I felt it wasn’t right at the time. Usually to prevent a TPK but telling me I HAVE to do it. Nah.

Your feelings are valid, but this is overly sensitive. Get over yourself.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

And of course they whole long discussion of players not having real consequences for their actions. Mess with Illithids and you might get your mind ate.

As long as everyone has fun I guess. Seems a tad unfair to everyone in the long run though when you can establish that any bad choice or action or simply bad luck can be undone just because…

I as a DM have many times prevented a character death because I felt it wasn’t right at the time. Usually to prevent a TPK but telling me I HAVE to do it. Nah.

TBH this is the kind of player's consent I endorse. I am not sure I am reading this right but it sounds like having your character forcefully changed, not killed or given a penalty. So it amounts to telling the player they now have to play something different. It is worth than death, which normally means they need to roll another character but they will still choose what. It is a form of bullying as it can lead to the player wanting to leave the game and then being even blamed for not be sporty enough. I wouldn't even use a 'belt of gender switch' on a character without their player's consent honestly, so for me this time this is a good move by the designers.

But I can agree on the wording being maybe a bit too hard: they should have striven to be convincing, not imposing it as a 'rule'.

 

[DarkCrisis]

TBH this is the kind of player's consent I endorse. I am not sure I am reading this right but it sounds like having your character forcefully changed, not killed or given a penalty. So it amounts to telling the player they now have to play something different. It is worth than death, which normally means they need to roll another character but they will still choose what. It is a form of bullying as it can lead to the player wanting to leave the game and then being even blamed for not be sporty enough. I wouldn't even use a 'belt of gender switch' on a character without their player's consent honestly, so for me this time this is a good move by the designers.

But I can agree on the wording being maybe a bit too hard: they should have striven to be convincing, not imposing it as a 'rule'.

Where is the line?

DM: “Steve, the evil Wizard is going to cast polymorph on you and turn you into a Newt. Are you okay with that?”

 

[overgeeked]

Where is the line?

DM: “Steve, the evil Wizard is going to cast polymorph on you and turn you into a Newt. Are you okay with that?”

It's fairly easy to distinguish between a permanent alteration (as we have with the snippet that started this thread) and a temporary alteration (such as a limited-duration spell like polymorph). It's also fairly easy to see why those are treated differently, handled differently, and players tend to react to them differently.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

I don't, actually. Because, again, most people are actually halfway decent. Not great, certainly able to make foolish, selfish, or dangerous choices. Like I said, any policy which depends on all or almost all people choosing good is a recipe for disaster.

"People" are too complex to put into a single box unless, and until, they are dead.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Valid question. My point is that the line seems to be getting more and more restrictive all the time; this being the first time I've ever encountered permanent polymorph as being across said line where IME it's always just been a known - if bloody rare - in-character risk along with all the others. What's next?

Personally, I'm fine with graphic torture, in-game racism (as long as it stays completely in-game, Elves can say and think anything they like about Dwarves, and vice versa!), etc. but not violent sexual assault.

Some players can't even handle their character getting killed in the game - which tells me the game probably isn't suited for those people and really never has been.

All of that is pretty much where I'm at too personally.