Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sadras" data-source="post: 7638291" data-attributes="member: 6688277"><p>Good question.</p><p></p><p>If I have understood your <em>side's</em> position (and there is a fairly reasonable possibility I have not as I have only skimmed this thread), is that the player having to make the <em>tough choice </em>between A & B without necessarily a change to the character concept is not considered a challenge. If one accepts that, then yes D&D, in general, doesn't have the necessary mechanics per RAW to put pressure on the player's concept of character.</p><p></p><p>In 5e per RAW, personality characteristics are only utilised via the carrot method: The player roleplays their character by adhering to their ideals, bonds or flaws so they may be rewarded with an inspiration point for <em>good</em> roleplaying. (Even in this instance, DM decides). But there are no mechanics, per RAW at least, that allow for placing fundamental pressure on character concepts. </p><p></p><p>As an aside one of my players has a character with the Bond:<strong> Those who fight beside me are those worth dying for.</strong></p><p>My intention is to challenge this character concept - to place the character in a position where if he </p><p>(a) chooses to save a former ally, this may result in a loss of influence (mechanical) for the party; or</p><p>(b) does not choose to save a former ally, which may result in the player having to amend his character's Bond.</p><p></p><p>In (a) the cost is in-game time and a skill challenge used to resolve the possible influence loss suffered.</p><p>In (b) a singular saving throw (with no proficiency modifier) will resolve if the character's bond will have to be amended. If the player fails the saving check, then he can amend the bond with the table deciding if the new bond is reasonable based on their perception of the character and the events that transpired.</p><p>Of course my intention is for the player to know the stakes of (a) and (b) beforehand and for me to be completely transparent with how it will play out. </p><p></p><p>Now granted, the above is not RAW and may not be everyone's cup of tea, but the DM empowerment in 5e permits me to bend the rules of the game and I have a table that trusts me so I'm going to run with that. Of course, I also believe my players will enjoy this type of challenge! </p><p></p><p>Out of curiosity, do you consider the above an example of fundamental pressure on the player's concept of the character?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sadras, post: 7638291, member: 6688277"] Good question. If I have understood your [I]side's[/I] position (and there is a fairly reasonable possibility I have not as I have only skimmed this thread), is that the player having to make the [I]tough choice [/I]between A & B without necessarily a change to the character concept is not considered a challenge. If one accepts that, then yes D&D, in general, doesn't have the necessary mechanics per RAW to put pressure on the player's concept of character. In 5e per RAW, personality characteristics are only utilised via the carrot method: The player roleplays their character by adhering to their ideals, bonds or flaws so they may be rewarded with an inspiration point for [I]good[/I] roleplaying. (Even in this instance, DM decides). But there are no mechanics, per RAW at least, that allow for placing fundamental pressure on character concepts. As an aside one of my players has a character with the Bond:[B] Those who fight beside me are those worth dying for.[/B] My intention is to challenge this character concept - to place the character in a position where if he (a) chooses to save a former ally, this may result in a loss of influence (mechanical) for the party; or (b) does not choose to save a former ally, which may result in the player having to amend his character's Bond. In (a) the cost is in-game time and a skill challenge used to resolve the possible influence loss suffered. In (b) a singular saving throw (with no proficiency modifier) will resolve if the character's bond will have to be amended. If the player fails the saving check, then he can amend the bond with the table deciding if the new bond is reasonable based on their perception of the character and the events that transpired. Of course my intention is for the player to know the stakes of (a) and (b) beforehand and for me to be completely transparent with how it will play out. Now granted, the above is not RAW and may not be everyone's cup of tea, but the DM empowerment in 5e permits me to bend the rules of the game and I have a table that trusts me so I'm going to run with that. Of course, I also believe my players will enjoy this type of challenge! Out of curiosity, do you consider the above an example of fundamental pressure on the player's concept of the character? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
Top