WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

[Maxperson]

The whole Times of Troubles turned me off hard to FR.

And that's the problem with both adding new stuff AND sticking with the old stuff. You'll have people turned off by the change, and other people who were turned off already that are now interested.

 

[AnotherGuy]

And that's the problem with both adding new stuff AND sticking with the old stuff. You'll have people turned off by the change, and other people who were turned off already that are now interested.

Besides the novels, I never purchased any FR product prior 5e - so I can understand why traditional setting enthusiasts might have been turned off by the Time of Troubles but I liked it because my exposure to it was via the novels and then the Baldur's Gate games. Fandom likes and dislikes are a messy business.

 

[Lanefan]

Give me a break. You don't "just roll the dice." You, the DM, actively decided that this was a risk rather than let this be something the player had a choice in or simply not have it be an issue at all.

That's the second time you've said the player didn't have a choice, and it's no more true now than it was the first time. The player both had and made a choice as to whether or not the character would engage in that situation; meaning all we're talking about here are the potential consequences of a choice that was already made.

Think about it - take this same rationale and apply it to other aspects of the game and see what it leads to. For example, if there's the potential of a deadly Ogre behind a door whose presence might cause one or more characters to become unplayable for a while (because they're dead!), I'd have to discuss it ahead of time with the player(s) and get clearance to put the Ogre there before the decision is made whether or not the character(s) would open said door.

Sorry, but no. The choice is simple: open the door or don't, but if you do decide to open it you have to accept whatever consequences (if any!) might follow.

 

[Remathilis]

That's the second time you've said the player didn't have a choice, and it's no more true now than it was the first time. The player both had and made a choice as to whether or not the character would engage in that situation; meaning all we're talking about here are the potential consequences of a choice that was already made.

Think about it - take this same rationale and apply it to other aspects of the game and see what it leads to. For example, if there's the potential of a deadly Ogre behind a door whose presence might cause one or more characters to become unplayable for a while (because they're dead!), I'd have to discuss it ahead of time with the player(s) and get clearance to put the Ogre there before the decision is made whether or not the character(s) would open said door.

Sorry, but no. The choice is simple: open the door or don't, but if you do decide to open it you have to accept whatever consequences (if any!) might follow.

I assume this only matters to female PCs, as male PCs can sire countless offspring and not have to miss sessions of game due to a random dice roll?

 

[FrozenNorth]

And why would I, with something so random and (unless preventative measures are taken) so out of the PC's control, talk it over with the player? The player's already made the decision to have their PC get it on with whoever, any consequences arising from that are now in the hands of the fates.

Nope, this is one where the dice decide.

Edit to add: and to the best of my knowledge this side-topic around in-game sex etc. has nothing to do with Elon Musk, as he is not an NPC in my game and I'm willing to bet not in anyone else's either.

So, how does that work? Do the players have to explicitly tell you they use protection? Or do you assume that they did not if they don’t specify? Do you call them out if they didn’t specify that they purchased protection beforehand and they are in a location where protection isn’t readily available? Are player characters required to specify whether the sexual acts they engaged in can result in pregnancy? If they don’t, do you assume that they engaged in acts that could result in pregnancy?

 

[Voadam]

I assume this only matters to female PCs, as male PCs can sire countless offspring and not have to miss sessions of game due to a random dice roll?

For the most part pregnancy would be a direct physical condition only for women after conception same as in the real world. Whether any sessions would need to be skipped would be up to how things were handled in the game. Time advancement is an easy option.

Its D&D though. I was in a game where a male PC shaman character was impregnated by a god being. The character kept going with the group for a long time as a pregnant character, but was increasingly worried about how exactly birth would occur (spoiler, caesarian and heal spells). It was a very atypical rare situation, but D&D is not really absolutely categorical here.

D&D fantasy can handle sex and pregnancy in a number of ways. Dice rolls and narrative decisions are both viable methods of handling it. I think in the Forgotten Realms there is easy common birth control as a background world element so even if dice rolls were the option used, PCs could generally control whether the rolls, if used, even would come into play.

 

[Gradine]

I would make the point here that "women" are not the only category of people that can get pregnant but I get the sense that this isn't the type of issue that is going to drop up at these kinds of tables

 

[Azzy]

This whole random chance of pregnancy for D&D characters is beyond stupid. If pregnancy is on the table for an RPG, it should be entirely a narrative issue, not a roll of the dice.

 

[WarDriveWorley]

This whole random chance of pregnancy for D&D characters is beyond stupid. If pregnancy is on the table for an RPG, it should be entirely a narrative issue, not a roll of the dice.

Agreed. not everything needs to be codified.

 

[Faolyn]

That's the second time you've said the player didn't have a choice, and it's no more true now than it was the first time. The player both had and made a choice as to whether or not the character would engage in that situation; meaning all we're talking about here are the potential consequences of a choice that was already made.

Think about it - take this same rationale and apply it to other aspects of the game and see what it leads to. For example, if there's the potential of a deadly Ogre behind a door whose presence might cause one or more characters to become unplayable for a while (because they're dead!), I'd have to discuss it ahead of time with the player(s) and get clearance to put the Ogre there before the decision is made whether or not the character(s) would open said door.

Sorry, but no. The choice is simple: open the door or don't, but if you do decide to open it you have to accept whatever consequences (if any!) might follow.

There's a huge difference between engaging in normal adventuring activity and engaging in sex. People agree to go into dungeons and battle ogres. Agreeing to have sex is not the same thing as agreeing to get pregnant.

You are being unnecessarily punitive to women who decide to have sex. Somehow I doubt that you have anything equally debilitating happen to the men. Do you automatically dock 5% of their share of the treasure to go to child support?