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

[DarkCrisis]

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...

I am not a “it can be only black or white” person so having the game company say I am “required” to do something a specific way irks me.

As I also said in the post, I think it’s just the wording that really bothers me

 

[Vaalingrade]

As we've seen time and time again: some DMs need that bluntness. Many will still ignore the directive and ruin someone's game, possibly even running that person out of the hobby. It's in WotC and the hobby's best interest to stop using kid gloves on this kind of thing.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

The book doesn’t have magical powers of compulsion. If you don’t like it, say “Not today WotC!” and do whatever you want.

 

[Velderan]

For you. Not for everyone.

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

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.

Spot on. I'm far more concerned about the friends at my table having fun and coming out of it with a story to tell over getting the mechanics right on a game situation.

A few weeks back, I had my first TPK as a GM in any system. After it happened we discussed what we could do going forward whether it be they stay dead and reroll, they become ghouls using the archetype rules the system has for that since they were defeated by a group of ghouls, or I put them in a capture scenario where I give them a chance to escape and regroup. Only 1 of the 6 players was ok with becoming a ghoul, all of them were ok with rerolling, but all preferred getting a chance to escape and just continuing on so that's what we did.

 

[Oofta]

The book doesn’t have magical powers of compulsion. If you don’t like it, say “Not today WotC!” and do whatever you want.

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!

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

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!

I think the expectation of character death is still out there in D&D. Doing otherwise is still (for now) unusual.

 

[Velderan]

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!

Tell them your neighbor has MtG cards prior to their street date, then run out the back door while they go deal with that!

 

[Reynard]

As we've seen time and time again: some DMs need that bluntness. Many will still ignore the directive and ruin someone's game, possibly even running that person out of the hobby. It's in WotC and the hobby's best interest to stop using kid gloves on this kind of thing.

There's no enforcement arm. I don't even know what "stop using kid gloves" means in this context.

Players are the ones that decides whether a given GM runs a game appropriately. Don't talk to GMs, talk to players. If a GM sucks, just walk. And -- and this is important-- ONE OF YOU RUN THE GAME.

The best defense against a-hole GMs is for players to step up and run a game.

 

[mamba]

Last I checked the majority of player characters play Heroes.

guess they have not played D&D in a long time

 

[Warpiglet-7]

When I play chess with my friend I usually ask for his consent to beat him.

Then he soundly beats me and I am mad because he did not ask for my consent. Wait, bad example.

All kidding aside, times have changed. If you played wargames with your bearded wargame pals smoking camels in the basement some yesteryear, this contract or agreement would seem pretty absurd.

But culture and times change. Expectations differ. The player base has gotten younger and more sensitive to certain things. You market to your audience.

Though I do remember whining a fair bit when my DM cursed my dwarven fighter with lyncanthropy of some odd sort. I would turn into a moon dog and did not want to roleplay it. Maybe I should have had a contract with him probably would have been better than my whining.

Now? I would roll with it. But people have different preferences.