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

[Micah Sweet]

You can easily play a D&D campaign where PC death isn't on the table. It isn't my preference, but it isn't hard to do. You just make a house rule that "dead" characters end up in a coma or whatever suits you needs. It isn't a new phenomenon. People have had this preference almost since the game came out. See The Elusive Shift.

I know of it, but it's not a preference I'll ever really understand for D&D, and I don't really want to be a part of it on either side of the screen.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. There are plenty of games which reward you with powers and stuff when you do terrible things to others. "Video Game Cruelty Potential" is a TVTropes page for a reason.

That's why I referred to things where players get a choice, and are expected to get replay value out of a game. For example, Shadowrun: Dragonfall has a sequence of events where you can choose to either be nice to a dog or be mean to/completely ignore him. If you were consistently nice to the dog, when he's revealed to have actual powers, he will join you as a companion. If you were fickle or inconsistent or just straight-up mean, then he will attack you instead, and you get karma (=XP) for killing him, as you would any opponent.

The vast majority of people who reached that point chose to be nice to the dog and got the achievement for recruiting him. Less than a quarter as many have the achievement for killing him. It is both easier and, in general, more mechanically-beneficial to kill him--you have a limited party size and he's honestly pretty weak compared to the other companions you can bring (and compared to yourself, since you can build as you like, so that extra karma is a solid benefit.) Yet most players still choose to be nice. Why? Because being nice to animals feels good, even if it isn't always the most effective thing to do. Because humans have a hilariously over-tuned pack-bonding instinct. Because we recognize that an animal in pain--even just emotional pain--is a kindred spirit that we can connect with and, in so doing, come to terms with our existence.

Or, if you prefer rather more effective rhetoric than my own: "We must do this, not because it is economically advantageous – although it is; not because the laws of God command it – although they do; not because people in other lands wish it so. We must do it for the single and fundamental reason that it is the right thing to do."

These are among our human instincts. So are objectively terrible, despicable, obscene things. That is the duality of man. How are we to respond to that? I argue that something much more nuanced than "literally 100% of the time when you have a collection of humans greater than 1, they become collective absolute bastards" is simply more precise, accurate, realistic, and productive. Yes--groupthink is a problem. Yes--humans have proven that they are inconsistent and, quite often, dangerous, whether individually or collectively. Yes--the world is full of problems, and those problems are apt to make men do wicked things even when they would prefer to do otherwise.

Not one of those things actually means that human beings are the monstrous caricatures so often depicted. We can be--and, in many cases, have been--better. Hope alone will not bring forth those angels of our better nature. But that is no reason to abandon hope. It is, instead, a reason to weld courage and wisdom to it.

 

[bedir than]

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?”

This is why you talk to your friends about their expectations and/or real life fears.

It's not that hard to do. They're your friends. Be friendly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is why you talk to your friends about their expectations and/or real life fears.

It's not that hard to do. They're your friends. Be friendly.

Does that mean that you think the question @DarkCrisis asked should actually happen in the game like that? Because that sounds like a pretty silly question to me as it is presented.

 

[bedir than]

Does that mean that you think the question @DarkCrisis asked should actually happen in the game like that? Because that sounds like a pretty silly question to me as it is presented.

In that specific case I'd say in session zero that the spells that exist in the base game should be expected to be used against you

 

[Lanefan]

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).

Polymorph (Other) used to be permanent, and IMO still should be. It's not a spell you should be casting on your allies.

 

[LordEntrails]

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?

Restrictive? Or informative? Do you somehow see people talking, caring, and being sensitive to each other as being a negative and restrictive thing? So, no personal growth? No possibility of different people being different from you? Everyone in your world must have the same fears, limits, and desires as you?

I know of it, but it's not a preference I'll ever really understand for D&D, and I don't really want to be a part of it on either side of the screen.

Seems like it would be pretty important for a game you are going to play in have a session 0 and discuss whether killing is going to happen or not. Imagine how upset you would be if you joined a DMs game and they ended up not allowing NPCs to be killed in it!

 

[Lanefan]

In that specific case I'd say in session zero that the spells that exist in the base game should be expected to be used against you

Or more broadly, if your character can (now or potentially) do something nasty then expect that an NPC or monster might be able to do it against you.

 

[Cadence]

Polymorph (Other) used to be permanent, and IMO still should be. It's not a spell you should be casting on your allies.

I've had a few over the decades I'd say were more "allies" with the quotes though...

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

So... you are upset that WotC forced something on you that you find distasteful and don't want to partake in as part of a game.

If only they have been compelled to form some sort of covenant with you before doing so...