Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7924291" data-attributes="member: 97077">It adds risk for DM-player conflict, yes. And "peak dramatic moments" can happen without it. I'm still not seeing an upside here.Which only serves to bolster my position that certain techniques, including the one you're advocating, are just attempts at solutions to an underlying issue without addressing the underlying issue. In this case, the DM not having "a certain skill set," which could otherwise be addressed by working on that. Like any skill, that path to improvement is doing it.I'll try again: If the DM tells a player that his or her character feels fear (excepting magical compulsion or the like), the player is now put in the position to either go along with that or object to the DM's imposition on the player's character. You can imagine that some players are just going to go along with it so as not to create awkwardness at the table. This is a form of social manipulation at the metagame level that the DM may not even realize he or she is doing. They probably just like the results they get without understanding what this is doing to some players.This looks to me like more self-justification and post-hoc reasoning. There's either a mechanical fear effect (for example) or there's not. If there isn't, then the player gets to decide the reaction to stimuli, not the DM. You might get a player to go along with an assertion that his or her character feels a certain way via the aforementioned social pressure or the player might happen to agree with you in that instance, but some players will object. That sort of conflict is not desirable in my opinion and is completely avoidable by the DM staying in his or her lane. With so much control over the game as is, why on earth would the DM want to assert more control over the PCs?Which are mechanical things that one would expect can be changed in D&D. It's a long-held tradition to hack the game in this way. But telling a player what his or her character's feelings are about something? That goes to very foundation of how to play the game as outlined by the rules to no apparent upside, except for a DM who is trying to push the game in certain directions or is covering over an underlying issue.Look, I know I'm not going to convince you that what you're advocating is problematic. I knew that from the first post when you tried to justify the approach you are using. So everything I'm writing is really for other people who are doing this or are playing in games with a DM that uses this approach or people who could use a heads up about how ubiquitous this approach seems to be at present (at least in my experience). To them I say: The DM doesn't have to do this and arguably shouldn't given the downsides. Further I challenge those who do this to stop, give the players space to decide this for themselves without the DM saying anything about it, and see what happens. And if you're a player in such a game, ask the DM to respect your agency and not do this anymore, and see what happens. I'd be interested in hearing the results.</blockquote>

Verification