Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kahuna Burger" data-source="post: 1492866" data-attributes="member: 8439">Actually, throwing torture into a non discussed game strikes me as the DM being the munchkin. Torture can happen in every genre, but it does not happen in every story. A good rpg game is a story, and a well run one is a story that everyone involved in knows the basic plot of. The basic plot of the story must also be supported by the mechanics. If the story includes the use of poison, poison use is included in the mechanics. Both delivery and defenses are spelled out in terms of how to save against it, class and race bonses to those saves, magical defenses and cures, etc. If the story includes domination magic, domination magic is spelled out in the mechanics. Delievery and defense, feats, equiptment and spell use to guard against it. If the story is going to include torture, in order to play the game fairly, torture MUST be spelled out and integrated into the mechanics. Several mechanics have been suggested, but to add them in mid game with no chance for the characters to have any feats, spells, equiptment, class abilities or racial adjustments to defend against it is the munchkin situation here, not simply stating "this isn't the game this character was designed for, and if you are retrofitting the game, I am retrofitting my character to match." If there are no pre agreed mechanics to it, torture is merely a story element in the character's history, such as falling in love or having a child which are at the discretion of the player, not the DM.There is no pain in D&D within the mechanics. There is no psychological trauma, no mental disadvantages, no rules for phobias unless you use a suplemental rule book. Therefore, in the baseline rules of D&D, torture does not exist as an in game occurance. To add it is to change the rules, and to add it in arbitrarily without the other mechanics changing to fit is to change the rules very badly. To compare an objection to that with throwing a fit because a character takes damage according to the base and understood rules of the game is just foolish and insulting.This is a topic I've dwelt on and discussed at length in the past, even to the extent of an intermittent side project on the defenses that would exist in a D&D world if "R-rated" dangers existed, and how to integrate them into the base rules. As a result, I ramble on a bit on the topic. As an additional result, I snicker when someone calls the stance munchkin...Kahuna Burger</blockquote>

Verification