QuoteIn the latest D&D 5E adventure module, there is box text requiring the DM to get player consent before the character turns into a mind flayer after getting infected from poor choices the player made. Are there no consequences to poor actions in D&D anymore?
https://twitter.com/KraftyMattKraft/status/1700361641169412207 (https://twitter.com/KraftyMattKraft/status/1700361641169412207)
This sounds like some Safety Tools derived BS about asking for player permission to include anything in your game.
That being said I'm not sure I agree that the outcome described in this adventure scenario is necessarily the result of "poor (Player/PC) actions in D&D". But rather (from what I can decipher from the screen capped text) it seems like it is a foregone conclusion that if the PCs somehow fail to stop the cultists or whatever before the timer runs out (i.e. they "complete the ritual" or whatnot) that the PCs (and I'm guessing everyone within an entire region) will instantly turn into Mindflayers (no mention if a save is allowed, but I'm guessing not).
And I really hate adventures with foregone outcomes baked in that have drastic major elements to them, such as "EVERY fucking body within an entire region is instantly transformed into another creature if no one manages to stop X from happening". Do people even get a save for this? How does this work? IDK.
But even putting that all aside. If the PCs fail to stop the cultists/fanatics/whatever, is that really "poor actions"? I would describe poor actions as something that's 100% on the PCs, like bad planning or decisions. But if something is set to happen regardless UNLESS someone steps in a manages to stop it from happening, not managing to stop it is not really a "poor action". But more like failing an ability check to stop something that was going to happen regardless, it's just that you fucked up your roll.
/nitpick
Do these people also need to consent to pay you rent in Monopoly?
What the fuck...
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 09, 2023, 02:55:33 AM
QuoteIn the latest D&D 5E adventure module, there is box text requiring the DM to get player consent before the character turns into a mind flayer after getting infected from poor choices the player made. Are there no consequences to poor actions in D&D anymore?
https://twitter.com/KraftyMattKraft/status/1700361641169412207 (https://twitter.com/KraftyMattKraft/status/1700361641169412207)
I'll be honest... To me, this reads like "optional consent is required to let me do a stupid thing as a result of a stupid adventure".
I can't really get worked up about it.
Quote from: Brad on September 09, 2023, 09:36:32 AM
Do these people also need to consent to pay you rent in Monopoly?
What the fuck...
Me: You land on Park place which I own and owe me $150
Snowflake Player: I don't consent to paying you that money. I should be able to be here for free.
Safe spaces and other BS do the snowflakes coming up no favors.
Quote from: Brad on September 09, 2023, 09:36:32 AM
Do these people also need to consent to pay you rent in Monopoly?
What the fuck...
Well if a plandemic is in effect then you cannot collect rent, or evict the tenant, and thereafter the squatters get $500 every time they pass GO.
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 09:44:40 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 09, 2023, 02:55:33 AM
QuoteIn the latest D&D 5E adventure module, there is box text requiring the DM to get player consent before the character turns into a mind flayer after getting infected from poor choices the player made. Are there no consequences to poor actions in D&D anymore?
https://twitter.com/KraftyMattKraft/status/1700361641169412207 (https://twitter.com/KraftyMattKraft/status/1700361641169412207)
I'll be honest... To me, this reads like "optional consent is required to let me do a stupid thing as a result of a stupid adventure".
I can't really get worked up about it.
This. In this case, it feels merely like a formalization of something the GM should have talked about before starting the game. Setting expectations.
So, I'd rant about how people nowadays don't plan ahead with stuff in general, but I won't.
I think that situation comes up because of poor adventure design.
Turning a PC into a Mind Flayer? The solution for that is to make the player make a new character. That's really the sort of situation one doesn't come back from,
I personally wouldn't inflict that on a player and expect them to play it.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley on September 09, 2023, 11:19:16 AM
I think that situation comes up because of poor adventure design.
Turning a PC into a Mind Flayer? The solution for that is to make the player make a new character. That's really the sort of situation one doesn't come back from,
I personally wouldn't inflict that on a player and expect them to play it.
Right, that's sort of what I was getting at.
If you design an adventure that, if the players fail it, they all turn in to mindflayers? As far as I'm concerned, either from a GM or player perspective, that's effectively indistinguishable from a TPK. The campaign is over.
Unless that's your intent when you make the adventure, a sort of doomsday scenario end-of-the-campaign-anyways thing, it's piss poor design.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley on September 09, 2023, 11:19:16 AM
I think that situation comes up because of poor adventure design.
Turning a PC into a Mind Flayer? The solution for that is to make the player make a new character. That's really the sort of situation one doesn't come back from,
I personally wouldn't inflict that on a player and expect them to play it.
The other alternative is that the player now has a Mindflayer PC. And depending on the player that might not be viewed as a bad thing.
I wouldn't mind playing a Mindflayer PC, but I'm iffy about having my character turned into one because the adventure flat out demanded it happened as an irrevocable outcome of failing to play along and succeeding.
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 11:24:33 AM
Quote from: Darrin Kelley on September 09, 2023, 11:19:16 AM
I think that situation comes up because of poor adventure design.
Turning a PC into a Mind Flayer? The solution for that is to make the player make a new character. That's really the sort of situation one doesn't come back from,
I personally wouldn't inflict that on a player and expect them to play it.
Right, that's sort of what I was getting at.
If you design an adventure that, if the players fail it, they all turn in to mindflayers? As far as I'm concerned, either from a GM or player perspective, that's effectively indistinguishable from a TPK. The campaign is over.
Unless that's your intent when you make the adventure, a sort of doomsday scenario end-of-the-campaign-anyways thing, it's piss poor design.
Succeed on this adventure. Or less...
EDIT/PS: And this is in NO WAY comparable to not wanting to pay rent in Monopoly. Having your character inevitably and irrevocably turned into a monster for failing to stop the bad guys in an adventure is not a normal outcome of play in a TTRPG.
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 11:24:33 AM
Right, that's sort of what I was getting at.
If you design an adventure that, if the players fail it, they all turn in to mindflayers? As far as I'm concerned, either from a GM or player perspective, that's effectively indistinguishable from a TPK. The campaign is over.
Unless that's your intent when you make the adventure, a sort of doomsday scenario end-of-the-campaign-anyways thing, it's piss poor design.
Well I believe TPK of any kind is a hallmark of poor GMing. The GM always has the option of stopping things before that outcome happens. So there is really no excuse for it.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 09, 2023, 11:29:57 AM
I wouldn't mind playing a Mindflayer PC, but I'm iffy about having my character turned into one because the adventure flat out demanded it happened as an irrevocable outcome of failing to play along and succeeding.
Realistically, I see two outcomes from being turned into a mindflayer:
Either the PC becomes a mindflayer, mentally, at which point he's a monster and becomes an NPC, or else the player commits suicide in short order, which case, well, he's dead.
Unless you're playing in a game so high-fantasy where undoing something like that is anything less than an epic quest.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 09, 2023, 11:29:57 AM
The other alternative is that the player now has a Mindflayer PC. And depending on the player that might not be viewed as a bad thing.
I wouldn't mind playing a Mindflayer PC, but I'm iffy about having my character turned into one because the adventure flat out demanded it happened as an irrevocable outcome of failing to play along and succeeding.
I wouldn't go there at all. The damage to a PC would be irreversible. Even if they somehow were returned to their original species. Their mind would be forever altered.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley on September 09, 2023, 11:19:16 AM
I think that situation comes up because of poor adventure design.
Turning a PC into a Mind Flayer? The solution for that is to make the player make a new character. That's really the sort of situation one doesn't come back from,
I personally wouldn't inflict that on a player and expect them to play it.
Many years ago this exact scenario happened in my long-running campaign and it became a focal-point. So much so, that the campaign turned into "How do we deal with this?" - the solution of course is grist for the campaign mill.
THAT becomes the adventure - the Options available in dealing with an insurmountable (seemingly) problem. The binary of "Is/Isn't" a mindflayer is only a non-starter because someone hasn't come up with other alternatives. That's the GM's and Player's job (but let's face it - mostly the GM's). So I did what any good GM would do - I used all the resources contextually at the disposal of the PC's via my NPC's.
1) As it turned out the PC's mother was vastly powerful archmage (LE too) specializing in Enchantment and the creation of magical items.
2) She placed the PC in stasis for months while she mind-fucked an entire tribe of local gnolls, and started a breeding program, which involved increasing the intelligence of the gnolls - specifically for the PC to feed on in lieu of other more civilized races (hey! She's Lawful Evil - and she didn't tell anyone else about it).
3) Then as another experiment she created these biomantic tanks (a new form of magic! Biomancy!) to hybridize her son with the illithid components of his body...
The result was the excuse for the PC to become the 3e Cerebremancer with some unique racial stats. And yes, he ate Smart Gnoll brains on occasion. Corollary - the smart gnolls became a playable race in our campaign and one of the group's NPC companions was a particularly loyal gnoll-ranger badass (of course he lived outside of the city in the wilds with his gnoll friends).
This is simply playing the ball where it lands. If the resources of the PC's within the game weren't available - then yeah, he'd have become a mindflayer and everyone would have rightly killed him. This whole thing of player permission is for children and unimaginative morons.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley on September 09, 2023, 11:34:13 AM
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 11:24:33 AM
Right, that's sort of what I was getting at.
If you design an adventure that, if the players fail it, they all turn in to mindflayers? As far as I'm concerned, either from a GM or player perspective, that's effectively indistinguishable from a TPK. The campaign is over.
Unless that's your intent when you make the adventure, a sort of doomsday scenario end-of-the-campaign-anyways thing, it's piss poor design.
Well I believe TPK of any kind is a hallmark of poor GMing. The GM always has the option of stopping things before that outcome happens. So there is really no excuse for it.
That's doing a disservice to your setting. A GM shouldn't be doing anything except reacting honestly, and yes, with slight favor, to the PC's. It doesn't mean that the PC's are unkillable. That's a kindergarten, not a setting conceit. Otherwise you're playing an elaborate storytime game and pretending to roll dice that matter when they don't.
Quote from: tenbones on September 09, 2023, 12:30:26 PMThat's doing a disservice to your setting. A GM shouldn't be doing anything except reacting honestly, and yes, with slight favor, to the PC's. It doesn't mean that the PC's are unkillable. That's a kindergarten, not a setting conceit. Otherwise you're playing an elaborate storytime game and pretending to roll dice that matter when they don't.
Honestly, I wasn't saying anything about making the PCs unkillable. I'm opposed to TPK. Which ends the fun for everybody.
Quote from: tenbones on September 09, 2023, 12:30:26 PM
Quote from: Darrin Kelley on September 09, 2023, 11:34:13 AM
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 11:24:33 AM
Right, that's sort of what I was getting at.
If you design an adventure that, if the players fail it, they all turn in to mindflayers? As far as I'm concerned, either from a GM or player perspective, that's effectively indistinguishable from a TPK. The campaign is over.
Unless that's your intent when you make the adventure, a sort of doomsday scenario end-of-the-campaign-anyways thing, it's piss poor design.
Well I believe TPK of any kind is a hallmark of poor GMing. The GM always has the option of stopping things before that outcome happens. So there is really no excuse for it.
That's doing a disservice to your setting. A GM shouldn't be doing anything except reacting honestly, and yes, with slight favor, to the PC's. It doesn't mean that the PC's are unkillable. That's a kindergarten, not a setting conceit. Otherwise you're playing an elaborate storytime game and pretending to roll dice that matter when they don't.
There is a difference between a "let the dice fall where they may... more or less" approach to gaming, and setting up intentional "succeed or TPK" scenarios.
If the players seek out Tsyr'inox the Unkillable, an elder dragon, and get themselves turned into crispy bits, that's one thing. If I make Tsyr'inox attack the players in such a way they can't avoid it, and they die as a result, that's another.
This seems more like the second thing than the first.
There's a difference between an adventure happening to end up in a TPK as a result of poor player choices and/or a series of unfortunate rolls. And a (effective) TPK that's preplanned and guaranteed for everyone (PC or NPC) in the entire region unless the PCs 1) play along AND succeed, or 2) they get the hell out of Dodge before things go south.
The first is just shit happening. The second is the GM planning a shit adventure.
EDIT: Ninja'd
Anyone who joins a game I'm running is consenting to having their asses handed to them if they play stupid. Without the possibility of dire consequences an RPG session is boring.
Quote from: Thor's Nads on September 09, 2023, 01:11:43 PM
Anyone who joins a game I'm running is consenting to having their asses handed to them if they play stupid. Without the possibility of dire consequences an RPG session is boring.
You're not contradicting what I'm saying. I think we may disagree on the definition of "play stupid", though.
To the first point, yeah, a player has to consent. If you're playing at my table, you consented. If your ass is still at the table after it happened, you still consent. In session zero, I always give my players a heads up that I run a PG to PG-13 game, it's played without the training wheels so no retcons or PC saving on my part, and I have no issues with dooming a PC and having a player roll up another.
As to whether this is bad adventure design, I think it can be totally gold in the hands of a decent GM. First, I would not have the change to being a Mind Flayer be instantaneous, it would take months. Second, I would have the PC have random moments where the Mind Flayer aspect come to the surface; sometimes it would be difficult urges to suck brains and sometimes it will be insights or abilities come up. Finally, I love the idea of a Lost Boys type struggle that the player would have. Maybe thee would be a cure for the player to quest for like the vampire quest in Morrowind or maybe it's an opportunity for the player to play out going out in a blaze of glory like John Wayne's character in The Shootist.
Quote from: BadApple on September 09, 2023, 01:46:05 PM
As to whether this is bad adventure design, I think it can be totally gold in the hands of a decent GM. First, I would not have the change to being a Mind Flayer be instantaneous, it would take months. Second, I would have the PC have random moments where the Mind Flayer aspect come to the surface; sometimes it would be difficult urges to suck brains and sometimes it will be insights or abilities come up. Finally, I love the idea of a Lost Boys type struggle that the player would have. Maybe thee would be a cure for the player to quest for like the vampire quest in Morrowind or maybe it's an opportunity for the player to play out going out in a blaze of glory like John Wayne's character in The Shootist.
So, basically, if everything were different, it would be good.
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 01:52:59 PM
So, basically, if everything were different, it would be good.
OK, sure.
IDK about you, but I almost never run an adventure as it's written. I modify adventures all the time. It's my innate belief that settings, adventures, and even core books exist to inspire my play at the table, not define it or (shudder) confine it.
This just reads like terrible adventure design that tries to excuse how terrible it is by shoving the onus onto GMs to "properly get your player's consent." Is anyone really surprised anymore that this is the quality of content from modern DnD? It's a neat idea, with plenty opportunity for some interesting story-beats. It's just handled with all the grace of a drunk paraplegic trying to swim.
Regarding consent. A player can withdraw any time if they are made to feel uncomfortable. They can leave the table and the group. Nobody is holding a pistol to their head and making them stay.
My problem with RPG Safety Tools comes from things like the X-Card. Which enables a player to effectively stop the group or upend the table. I think that's going too far. A player shouldn't be able to have their tantrum enabled.
Quote from: BadApple on September 09, 2023, 02:02:33 PM
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 01:52:59 PM
So, basically, if everything were different, it would be good.
OK, sure.
IDK about you, but I almost never run an adventure as it's written. I modify adventures all the time. It's my innate belief that settings, adventures, and even core books exist to inspire my play at the table, not define it or (shudder) confine it.
That doesn't' excuse shit adventure design. By that rationale, all RPG products are fine. Hell, with enough work on my part, I could salvage Thirsty Sword Lesbians, or that scam "Native Americans are Perfect" RPG, or something. That doesn't mean they are not shit.
Shit adventure design doesn't become okay just because we want to make fun of wokeism or something. It's still shit adventure design.
GTFO!
Just don't play 5e.
Quote from: BadApple on September 09, 2023, 01:46:05 PM
To the first point, yeah, a player has to consent. If you're playing at my table, you consented. If your ass is still at the table after it happened, you still consent. In session zero, I always give my players a heads up that I run a PG to PG-13 game, it's played without the training wheels so no retcons or PC saving on my part, and I have no issues with dooming a PC and having a player roll up another.
As to whether this is bad adventure design, I think it can be totally gold in the hands of a decent GM. First, I would not have the change to being a Mind Flayer be instantaneous, it would take months. Second, I would have the PC have random moments where the Mind Flayer aspect come to the surface; sometimes it would be difficult urges to suck brains and sometimes it will be insights or abilities come up. Finally, I love the idea of a Lost Boys type struggle that the player would have. Maybe thee would be a cure for the player to quest for like the vampire quest in Morrowind or maybe it's an opportunity for the player to play out going out in a blaze of glory like John Wayne's character in The Shootist.
That's why I created my modified rules for catching Lycantropy, you can and will, but you don't always end up a ravenous monster eating people.
Quote from: BadApple on September 09, 2023, 02:02:33 PM
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 01:52:59 PM
So, basically, if everything were different, it would be good.
OK, sure.
IDK about you, but I almost never run an adventure as it's written. I modify adventures all the time. It's my innate belief that settings, adventures, and even core books exist to inspire my play at the table, not define it or (shudder) confine it.
Only begginer GMs run adventures RAW, I don't even buy adventures anymore, I cook my own.
But among 5e GMs there's this culture of playing RAW because they have been crippled by WotKKK to turn them into paypigs.
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 02:20:53 PM
Quote from: BadApple on September 09, 2023, 02:02:33 PM
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 01:52:59 PM
So, basically, if everything were different, it would be good.
OK, sure.
IDK about you, but I almost never run an adventure as it's written. I modify adventures all the time. It's my innate belief that settings, adventures, and even core books exist to inspire my play at the table, not define it or (shudder) confine it.
That doesn't' excuse shit adventure design. By that rationale, all RPG products are fine. Hell, with enough work on my part, I could salvage Thirsty Sword Lesbians, or that scam "Native Americans are Perfect" RPG, or something. That doesn't mean they are not shit.
Shit adventure design doesn't become okay just because we want to make fun of wokeism or something. It's still shit adventure design.
Assuming it's not written like that TO FORCE the GMs to engage in safety tools behaviour.
I think it was designed to encourage asking the player for consent before bad things happen to the PC.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 09, 2023, 02:23:59 PM
Only begginer GMs run adventures RAW, I don't even buy adventures anymore, I cook my own.
But among 5e GMs there's this culture of playing RAW because they have been crippled by WotKKK to turn them into paypigs.
I generally never buy adventures unless I just want to harvest setting information from them, because some product lines have this annoying habit of making setting information books and adventures kind of the same thing.
I noticed the "Run as written or else you're running it wrong!" trend start with 3E, and absolutely explode in 4E. 5E is just continuing the trend.
There was a stretch where scripted TPKs and/or transformations were de rigeur in RAVENLOFT adventures--mostly end of 1992 through 1994--probably based on Bruce Nesmith's idea that the only way to frighten players in an RPG was to threaten the one thing they cared about, their character. With one or two exceptions, those modules are not well-regarded today.
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 02:20:53 PM
That doesn't' excuse shit adventure design. By that rationale, all RPG products are fine. Hell, with enough work on my part, I could salvage Thirsty Sword Lesbians, or that scam "Native Americans are Perfect" RPG, or something. That doesn't mean they are not shit.
Shit adventure design doesn't become okay just because we want to make fun of wokeism or something. It's still shit adventure design.
I'm not excusing either bad ethics (I believe that x-card and other safety tools are bad ethics) nor poor game design. All I was doing is saying that there is an element here that a good game designer/GM could capitalize on. Fuck the author and perform the requiem for the poor tree that died to give him something to write on.
I am saying that if you see something that might be useful, take it. Steal ideas without shame. I'm will to take diamonds, even from pig shit.
Quote from: BadApple on September 09, 2023, 02:39:47 PM
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 02:20:53 PM
That doesn't' excuse shit adventure design. By that rationale, all RPG products are fine. Hell, with enough work on my part, I could salvage Thirsty Sword Lesbians, or that scam "Native Americans are Perfect" RPG, or something. That doesn't mean they are not shit.
Shit adventure design doesn't become okay just because we want to make fun of wokeism or something. It's still shit adventure design.
I'm not excusing either bad ethics (I believe that x-card and other safety tools are bad ethics) nor poor game design. All I was doing is saying that there is an element here that a good game designer/GM could capitalize on. Fuck the author and perform the requiem for the poor tree that died to give him something to write on.
I am saying that if you see something that might be useful, take it. Steal ideas without shame. I'm will to take diamonds, even from pig shit.
I think we may have slightly lost the plot of this thread. Looks like we. Mostly agree that this adventure, as written, is not great. We also agree that even shitty adventures can have elements that can be used by a creative GM. I think the point of bringing up the fact that it is a bad adventure is to show that the issue of "player consent" is only an problem here precisely because it is a badly written adventure. As multiple people have demonstrated, becoming a mindflayer or some other tpk equivalent can be an interesting outcome to an adventure if you sufficiently telegraph the danger or provide some alternate approaches to either continue the campaign or mitigate the fallout. However, what amounts to a rocks fall everyone dies situation looks like it is extremely lazy and/or purposely engineered to make "player consent" an issue at all.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 09, 2023, 02:55:33 AM
QuoteIn the latest D&D 5E adventure module, there is box text requiring the DM to get player consent before the character turns into a mind flayer after getting infected from poor choices the player made. Are there no consequences to poor actions in D&D anymore?
https://twitter.com/KraftyMattKraft/status/1700361641169412207 (https://twitter.com/KraftyMattKraft/status/1700361641169412207)
They sat down at my table knowing the game and the adventure type.
That's consent.
Well what else can you expect from a Children's/Snowflake RPG? I don't know any actual adults who play it. I mean maturity wise, not necessarily age wise.
Quote from: PulpHerb on September 09, 2023, 03:21:56 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 09, 2023, 02:55:33 AM
QuoteIn the latest D&D 5E adventure module, there is box text requiring the DM to get player consent before the character turns into a mind flayer after getting infected from poor choices the player made. Are there no consequences to poor actions in D&D anymore?
https://twitter.com/KraftyMattKraft/status/1700361641169412207 (https://twitter.com/KraftyMattKraft/status/1700361641169412207)
They sat down at my table knowing the game and the adventure type.
That's consent.
And if that were the module you were thinking of running, I'd get right up and walk away because only a newb who didn't know any better or an asshole would run that module even remotely close to as written.
No one is arguing the GM can't do what they want; they're arguing it's a shit adventure that tries to use consent tools to cover up for shit design... the same sort of shit tactics I've seen people walk away from GM's over all the time.
Those who don't learn to not be shit GMs end up with either empty tables or the shittiest players no other GM wants.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 09, 2023, 09:58:30 AM
Quote from: Brad on September 09, 2023, 09:36:32 AM
Do these people also need to consent to pay you rent in Monopoly?
What the fuck...
Well if a plandemic is in effect then you cannot collect rent, or evict the tenant, and thereafter the squatters get $500 every time they pass GO.
BS. I collected rent during the plandemic.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley on September 09, 2023, 11:19:16 AM
I personally wouldn't inflict that on a player and expect them to play it.
Why not? It is just a matter of minutes as the mindflayer attacks the rest of the party and either wins or loses. What's the big deal? How can one expect to go out and kill others, take their stuff in the name of gaining power and NOT expect that some days are just gonna be fcked?
Quote from: Darrin Kelley on September 09, 2023, 12:37:25 PM
Honestly, I wasn't saying anything about making the PCs unkillable. I'm opposed to TPK. Which ends the fun for everybody.
Then you're making some unspoken claims without nuance.
You said
QuoteWell I believe TPK of any kind is a hallmark of poor GMing. The GM always has the option of stopping things before that outcome happens. So there is really no excuse for it.
Is it a hallmark of poor GMing? Could it be the hallmark of poor decision-making of the players? GM's *always* have *any* option by fiat. Does that mean they *must* adjudicate all outcomes that preclude TPK's from happening. Being opposed to "TPK's" literally means making PC's unkillable - anything is on the table other than killing the whole party literally means the PC's are unkillable.
Now you might mean - "one or two PC's are killable" but not the whole party. Obviously you mean "something bad happens" but they don't die. Without context this is *bad* GMing. Because at that point you're removing agency from your PC's to DO STUPID things - yes, they have that right. But you're also doing a disservice to the setting and whatever context you can muster (yes, GM's can vary in this capacity wildly. These are usually the hallmarks of good/bad GMs) in service of this silly idea that no matter what, TPK's = Bad because TPK's kill fun.
I'd say bad playing is not fun. And bad playing leads to TPK's. And if it wasn't fun in the first place - then you lose nothing. Start a new game. The corollary of which might mean - you get new players, or maybe you, the GM could be the real problem because you're not curating your players enough to keep bad players from playing. There's a LOT of room to maneuver here, but your quote is pretty binary.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley on September 09, 2023, 11:34:13 AM
Well I believe TPK of any kind is a hallmark of poor GMing.
Stupid players can get themselves killed with no over kill set up by the GM. There is NO saving throw versus stupidity. I've seen it happen many times in almost 50 years of playing. So your "belief" is garbage.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 09, 2023, 12:55:37 PM
There's a difference between an adventure happening to end up in a TPK as a result of poor player choices and/or a series of unfortunate rolls. And a (effective) TPK that's preplanned and guaranteed for everyone (PC or NPC) in the entire region unless the PCs 1) play along AND succeed, or 2) they get the hell out of Dodge before things go south.
The first is just shit happening. The second is the GM planning a shit adventure.
EDIT: Ninja'd
Well there's a big difference between "planning and adventure" and running a sandbox where the world responds to the plans and actions of the players. One requires the GM nail down details that often remove player agency. The other requires the GM prepare a world and set it into motion that reacts organically to the plans and actions of the PC's (and through them their players) where they have maximal agency.
If I know they plan to assassinate the leader of an evil cult, but they don't know this is their high-holiday and their temple is packed with several hundred worshippers that are bloodthirsty killers, a little bit of planning on the PC's part can go a *long* way.
As a GM I don't *plan* adventures. I color in details between game sessions that may/may not arise based on the trajectory of the PC's and their plans. I flesh out the world constantly. Yes its more work than "planning" a linear adventure. I flood my settings with plot-hooks that could lead to things, but the players make the choices, and do the planning. TPK's *HAPPEN* I don't just "allow" or "disallow" anything. If you're a GM that's planning a TPK, you're just being an asshole, and frankly that's not really GMing. The whole point that a GM *can* do anything means it's your responsibility, if you care at all about player agency, to *do as little as possible* to plan your PC's fates.
What you do is populate your world with NPC's and factions with their own goals, and set standards that everyone gets to abide by - and you feel free to let the PC's break/go along with those setting's conventions to the level of their own ambition and desires. They can kill NPC's as much as they want. They can advocate for political movements, establish their own kingdoms, cults, or anything they see fit and roleplay/role-dice that will let them accomplish their goals. They'll make enemies and allies along the way (theoretically)... but to wholesale say "TPK's should never happen" or that they are the "hallmark of poor GMing" - means there is a metric fuck-ton of nuance not being discussed.
Quote from: BadApple on September 09, 2023, 02:02:33 PM
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 01:52:59 PM
So, basically, if everything were different, it would be good.
OK, sure.
IDK about you, but I almost never run an adventure as it's written. I modify adventures all the time. It's my innate belief that settings, adventures, and even core books exist to inspire my play at the table, not define it or (shudder) confine it.
Sure - an adventure takes place in a setting. YOUR SETTING. We could both be playing in Greyhawk, in the Kingdom of Furyondy, and your take on that location might be a lot different than mine - for legitimate reasons.
We both could pick up a module that has *nothing* to do with our setting, but we like elements of it, so our jobs as GM's is to curate it so it works in our setting. In this example I'm using, we could both be using the exact same setting, same locale, and same adventure module, and have it come out *radically* different for our players.
This is how it should be.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley on September 09, 2023, 12:37:25 PM
Honestly, I wasn't saying anything about making the PCs unkillable. I'm opposed to TPK. Which ends the fun for everybody.
This adventure example is completely terrible. The party could succeed but perhaps do so two minutes late and $1 short. There may be some consequences for this, perhaps the rewards get diminished, some pretty bad things happen and the victory isn't quite as truimphant as possible but these things happen and not always due to poor player decisions. This sounds more like a timed quest in a computer game. You screw up, have to reset the game and do it again getting it EXACTLY right. You gotta learn how to hit those button combinations perfectly to advance the game. This sounds more like setting expectations for AI game masters really.
A TPK only ends the fun if you let it. Players making dumb decisions as a whole group can cause this if they do not learn from prior mistakes. Playing a system which provides for character generation in minutes greatly aids in allowing the fun to continue rather quickly. After all, players who constantly do stupid shit without consequence never learn or become better players. In that light, the DM who coddles them is keeping them at the shit player level forever. It is a GAME after all and any game which cannot be lost also cannot be won.
Quote from: tenbones on September 09, 2023, 04:43:52 PMSure - an adventure takes place in a setting. YOUR SETTING. We could both be playing in Greyhawk, in the Kingdom of Furyondy, and your take on that location might be a lot different than mine - for legitimate reasons.
We both could pick up a module that has *nothing* to do with our setting, but we like elements of it, so our jobs as GM's is to curate it so it works in our setting. In this example I'm using, we could both be using the exact same setting, same locale, and same adventure module, and have it come out *radically* different for our players.
This is how it should be.
Okay, but at that point there's nothing to talk about. We're clearly talking about a situation where the expectation is that the DM is going to run the adventure more or less as-written.
Again: If we take "I can make this work for me" as a valid response, it's always the
only response, and there are really no bad products.
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 04:52:02 PM
Quote from: tenbones on September 09, 2023, 04:43:52 PMSure - an adventure takes place in a setting. YOUR SETTING. We could both be playing in Greyhawk, in the Kingdom of Furyondy, and your take on that location might be a lot different than mine - for legitimate reasons.
We both could pick up a module that has *nothing* to do with our setting, but we like elements of it, so our jobs as GM's is to curate it so it works in our setting. In this example I'm using, we could both be using the exact same setting, same locale, and same adventure module, and have it come out *radically* different for our players.
This is how it should be.
Okay, but at that point there's nothing to talk about. We're clearly talking about a situation where the expectation is that the DM is going to run the adventure more or less as-written.
Again: If we take "I can make this work for me" as a valid response, it's always the only response, and there are really no bad products.
Well... there is another response: don't buy adventure modules. I don't. (edit: caveat, I will buy adventures if there is something worthwhile in them, but that's pretty rare.)
in regards to this entire premise of "Player consent" vs. "the TPK issue" - the answer for me is the same: I'm an adult. I run TTRPG's for adults 99.999% of the time. I have no problem finding new players, I don't pick up rando's on the street/internet and just slot them in. I interview them, usually over lunch or dinner, and we get a sniff-test. They'll know what I'm about and vice versa. So yeah I don't have *any* of these problems because I put in the work to keep my hobby clean of shit I don't need or like at my table.
I find it laughable that people (not necessarily you) *pay* money for product like this, to justify even dumber ideas about "how to GM" that caters to the dumb ideas that you payed for that services no one worth gaming with.
Quote from: tenbones on September 09, 2023, 04:58:39 PM
<snip>
in regards to this entire premise of "Player consent" vs. "the TPK issue" - the answer for me is the same: I'm an adult. I run TTRPG's for adults 99.999% of the time. I have no problem finding new players, I don't pick up rando's on the street/internet and just slot them in. I interview them, usually over lunch or dinner, and we get a sniff-test. They'll know what I'm about and vice versa. So yeah I don't have *any* of these problems because I put in the work to keep my hobby clean of shit I don't need or like at my table.
<snip>
And reading this thread, it sounds like you are one of the very few that does that much work before letting players join.
Quote from: tenbones on September 09, 2023, 04:58:39 PMWell... there is another response: don't buy adventure modules. I don't. (edit: caveat, I will buy adventures if there is something worthwhile in them, but that's pretty rare.)
Pretty much the same. I used to like to buy Shadowrun adventures - they were generally pretty well written, and were a good source of world building and such. And I do have a weakness for the "one page adventure" things where it's just a little micro dungeon or something you can slot in wherever you need some filler. But by and large, I don't buy adventures.
But realistically a lot of people do.
Quote from: tenbones on September 09, 2023, 04:58:39 PMin regards to this entire premise of "Player consent" vs. "the TPK issue" - the answer for me is the same: I'm an adult. I run TTRPG's for adults 99.999% of the time. I have no problem finding new players, I don't pick up rando's on the street/internet and just slot them in. I interview them, usually over lunch or dinner, and we get a sniff-test. They'll know what I'm about and vice versa. So yeah I don't have *any* of these problems because I put in the work to keep my hobby clean of shit I don't need or like at my table.
I find it laughable that people (not necessarily you) *pay* money for product like this, to justify even dumber ideas about "how to GM" that caters to the dumb ideas that you payed for that services no one worth gaming with.
For me I think that the whole "I'm an adult, I run games for adults" thing cuts both ways to some extent. I'm not interested in wasting people's time. That's why I avoid setting up situations where a TPK is expected to have a high likelihood of occurring. I trust my players not to try to kill the unkillable dragon, because I don't assume my players are morons, but in turn they trust me not to drop the unkillable dragon on top of them and say "sink or swim, suckers".
As the GM I have infinite power. It literally takes no effort to kill my PCs. Sometimes it does take a modicum of skill and restraint not to, though.
Whoever thought this idea up should be fired for being afraid to hurt the player's feelings.
Quote from: Chris24601 on September 09, 2023, 03:57:51 PM
Quote from: PulpHerb on September 09, 2023, 03:21:56 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 09, 2023, 02:55:33 AM
QuoteIn the latest D&D 5E adventure module, there is box text requiring the DM to get player consent before the character turns into a mind flayer after getting infected from poor choices the player made. Are there no consequences to poor actions in D&D anymore?
https://twitter.com/KraftyMattKraft/status/1700361641169412207 (https://twitter.com/KraftyMattKraft/status/1700361641169412207)
They sat down at my table knowing the game and the adventure type.
That's consent.
And if that were the module you were thinking of running, I'd get right up and walk away because only a newb who didn't know any better or an asshole would run that module even remotely close to as written.
No one is arguing the GM can't do what they want; they're arguing it's a shit adventure that tries to use consent tools to cover up for shit design... the same sort of shit tactics I've seen people walk away from GM's over all the time.
Those who don't learn to not be shit GMs end up with either empty tables or the shittiest players no other GM wants.
I have no interest in running the adventure. I spend a good deal of time letting players know what they're getting into and double checking before going ahead with something I think should be obviously stupid.
But I am tired of SSC people having made finding S&M partners harder despite them having a small point trying to ruin RPGs as well but bringing marginally useful tools in their own context (where they are not about consent except tangentially) from the S&M scene to RPGs.
Quote from: Chris24601 on September 09, 2023, 03:57:51 PM
Quote from: PulpHerb on September 09, 2023, 03:21:56 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 09, 2023, 02:55:33 AM
QuoteIn the latest D&D 5E adventure module, there is box text requiring the DM to get player consent before the character turns into a mind flayer after getting infected from poor choices the player made. Are there no consequences to poor actions in D&D anymore?
https://twitter.com/KraftyMattKraft/status/1700361641169412207 (https://twitter.com/KraftyMattKraft/status/1700361641169412207)
They sat down at my table knowing the game and the adventure type.
That's consent.
And if that were the module you were thinking of running, I'd get right up and walk away because only a newb who didn't know any better or an asshole would run that module even remotely close to as written.
No one is arguing the GM can't do what they want; they're arguing it's a shit adventure that tries to use consent tools to cover up for shit design... the same sort of shit tactics I've seen people walk away from GM's over all the time.
Those who don't learn to not be shit GMs end up with either empty tables or the shittiest players no other GM wants.
Also, if you don't find what I'm running to your taste I'm happy to shake your hand and, if I have any ideas, help you find a game more to your taste.
This consent shit in general is an attempt to force GMs to run for players who don't match their table. Instead of giving players a way to stop shit GMs tell them to stand up and find a new table.
As for this being a shit adventure...it's from WotC. If someone offers to run a modern WotC adventure I'm walking away before I ever learn about something like this mindflyer transformation.
I don't really know where to start.
I don't know anything about the module. But the gist of the thread appears to me? " WOTC says you have to get a player's permission to change his character into something else."
Once my astonishment subsides enough for me to respond I reply, "lycanthropy, vampirism, girdle of femininity (probably no longer an issue), item of opposite alignment, various curses and shape changes, level drain, poison, turn to stone, disintegrate and oh yeah and hit points. If you play, things will happen to your character. Sometimes just because of an unlucky die roll. It's part of the game."
Quote from: Tod13 on September 09, 2023, 05:07:17 PM
Quote from: tenbones on September 09, 2023, 04:58:39 PM
<snip>
in regards to this entire premise of "Player consent" vs. "the TPK issue" - the answer for me is the same: I'm an adult. I run TTRPG's for adults 99.999% of the time. I have no problem finding new players, I don't pick up rando's on the street/internet and just slot them in. I interview them, usually over lunch or dinner, and we get a sniff-test. They'll know what I'm about and vice versa. So yeah I don't have *any* of these problems because I put in the work to keep my hobby clean of shit I don't need or like at my table.
<snip>
And reading this thread, it sounds like you are one of the very few that does that much work before letting players join.
Probably true. But I say it all the time: I like Good. I don't care in what form it comes from - I want it to be Good. And when it comes to my TTRPGs (or anything else I engage with) I do my part to make it good.
Which is why I don't complain a lot about the problems others do. But I feel everyone's annoyance, I feel this "extra work" is merely the ounce of prevention that prevents the metric shit-tons of pain.
Quote from: Baron on September 10, 2023, 12:00:51 AM
Once my astonishment subsides enough for me to respond I reply, "lycanthropy, vampirism, girdle of femininity (probably no longer an issue)
;D
Quote from: Baron on September 10, 2023, 12:00:51 AM
Once my astonishment subsides enough for me to respond I reply, "lycanthropy, vampirism, girdle of femininity (probably no longer an issue), item of opposite alignment, various curses and shape changes, level drain, poison, turn to stone, disintegrate and oh yeah and hit points. If you play, things will happen to your character. Sometimes just because of an unlucky die roll. It's part of the game."
Lycanthropy has two different ways to avoid contracting it even if you do get infected. Vampirism requires you actually die to begin with, so it's a moot point. Cursed items require you actually put a magic item on blindly. All the rest of the things you mentioned have in game mechanics to prevent them - saving throws, armor class, etc.
None of them are comparable to the situation presented in this shitty adventure.
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 10, 2023, 08:58:05 AM
Quote from: Baron on September 10, 2023, 12:00:51 AM
Once my astonishment subsides enough for me to respond I reply, "lycanthropy, vampirism, girdle of femininity (probably no longer an issue), item of opposite alignment, various curses and shape changes, level drain, poison, turn to stone, disintegrate and oh yeah and hit points. If you play, things will happen to your character. Sometimes just because of an unlucky die roll. It's part of the game."
Lycanthropy has two different ways to avoid contracting it even if you do get infected. Vampirism requires you actually die to begin with, so it's a moot point.
No it isn't idiot. They all change the PC without its consent. Go see wizard about that brain.
Quote from: Scooter on September 10, 2023, 09:07:00 AM
No it isn't idiot. They all change the PC without its consent. Go see wizard about that brain.
I'm sorry you're too wrapped up in your whole "anti-social asshole" persona to realize that, in fact, having game mechanics that can be engaged with in different ways or avoided entirely is different from "rocks fall, everyone dies" GMing, but here we are.
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 10, 2023, 09:10:06 AM
I'm sorry you're too wrapped up in your whole "anti-social asshole" persona to realize that, in fact, having game mechanics that can be engaged with in different ways or avoided entirely is different from "rocks fall, everyone dies" GMing, but here we are.
Well, even rocks falling allows a saving throw. The only thing that doesn't is falling into lava.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 10, 2023, 09:36:36 AM
Well, even rocks falling allows a saving throw. The only thing that doesn't is falling into lava.
"Rocks fall, everyone dies" implies no saving throw. It's shorthand for DM fiat to do a shortcut around mechanics to force a TPK.
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 10, 2023, 09:10:06 AM
Quote from: Scooter on September 10, 2023, 09:07:00 AM
No it isn't idiot. They all change the PC without its consent. Go see wizard about that brain.
I'm sorry you're too wrapped up in your whole "anti-social asshole" persona to realize that, in fact, having game mechanics that can be engaged with in different ways or avoided entirely is different from "rocks fall, everyone dies" GMing, but here we are.
Arguing with Scooter is like playing chess with a pigeon. All he does is topple all the pieces and shit on the board, then strut around victoriously like he won. ;)
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 10, 2023, 08:58:05 AM
Quote from: Baron on September 10, 2023, 12:00:51 AM
Once my astonishment subsides enough for me to respond I reply, "lycanthropy, vampirism, girdle of femininity (probably no longer an issue), item of opposite alignment, various curses and shape changes, level drain, poison, turn to stone, disintegrate and oh yeah and hit points. If you play, things will happen to your character. Sometimes just because of an unlucky die roll. It's part of the game."
Lycanthropy has two different ways to avoid contracting it even if you do get infected. Vampirism requires you actually die to begin with, so it's a moot point. Cursed items require you actually put a magic item on blindly. All the rest of the things you mentioned have in game mechanics to prevent them - saving throws, armor class, etc.
None of them are comparable to the situation presented in this shitty adventure.
The player choose to fuck around, meaning if your character goes fucking around to/with mindflayers... Whatever happens is by YOUR choice.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 10, 2023, 11:36:53 AM
The player choose to fuck around, meaning if your character goes fucking around to/with mindflayers... Whatever happens is by YOUR choice.
That's not how it's presented in this adventure. It's literally "do this, or everyone in the area turns into mindflayers".
The only sense in which it's your choice is that you were dumb enough to sit down at a table for someone running a WotC product in 2023.
Geeky probably didn't even read WTF this adventure was about. He just read something about "player consent" being brought up and immediately creamed himself thinking this was meat for his Two Minutes Hate. This is how this module is marketed at the D&D Store (https://dndstore.wizards.com/us/en/product/820931/phandelver-and-below-the-shattered-obelisk-digital-plus-physical-bundle).
QuoteIn Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk, journey to the beloved town of Phandalin, where a malevolent cult threatens to overtake the region. Together with your party, solve mysteries and stamp out growing corruption as you uncover more about the peculiar happenings plaguing the town.
Discover what lurks below in this high-fantasy adventure that begins with the familiar story of Lost Mine of Phandelver and then delves into the perilous Underdark.
For use with the fifth edition Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide.
All books are English only.
KEY FEATURES
- Offers Dungeon Masters and players a chance to test their mettle in a classic dungeon crawl
- Retains the beloved Lost Mine of Phandelver quests that unfold into a brand-new adventure with classic D&D themes and a tinge of horror
- Presents a bestiary with approximately two-dozen new creatures that showcase psionic magic, mutates , and more
- Provides a magic appendix that includes new consumable metamagic items and duergar magic
- Includes a double-sided poster map with the Phandalin region on one side and the town of Phandalin plus multiple dungeons featured throughout the adventure on the other
INCLUDES:
- Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk printed adventure book
- D&D Beyond digital copy of Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk
- This preorder grants you Early Access to Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk on D&D Beyond starting September 5, 2023
Instantly unlock exclusive preorder perks on D&D Beyond
- The Faction Digital Dice Pack, 10 character sheet frames, and 4 sheet backdrops
There's nothing in there about fucking around with Mind Flayers. That's just something that PCs discover as they delve deeper into this mystery while trying to save a town. There's not even any Mind Flayers mentioned in the marketing text. I basically had to find the module the guy in Twitter was taking about by finding a review that mentioned the modules actual name (https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-dragons-phandelin-shattered-obelisk-mind-flayers/). Then search for it by name.
This transformation is just a surprise ending if you fuck up while going after this cult. And it affects the entire region the town is located on. Not just the PCs who get involved. This is in NO WAY comparable to PCs getting infected with lycanthropy or whatever. This thread is what happens when idiots refuse to read, then jump in to vociferously opine on a topic, cuz they can't be bothered with pesky things like facts. They're just in it to "win" arguments on the internet.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 10, 2023, 12:20:39 PM
Geeky probably didn't even read WTF this adventure was about. He just read something about "player consent" being brought up and immediately creamed himself thinking this was meat for his Two Minutes Hate. This is how this module is marketed at the D&D Store (https://dndstore.wizards.com/us/en/product/820931/phandelver-and-below-the-shattered-obelisk-digital-plus-physical-bundle).
QuoteIn Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk, journey to the beloved town of Phandalin, where a malevolent cult threatens to overtake the region. Together with your party, solve mysteries and stamp out growing corruption as you uncover more about the peculiar happenings plaguing the town.
Discover what lurks below in this high-fantasy adventure that begins with the familiar story of Lost Mine of Phandelver and then delves into the perilous Underdark.
For use with the fifth edition Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide.
All books are English only.
KEY FEATURES
- Offers Dungeon Masters and players a chance to test their mettle in a classic dungeon crawl
- Retains the beloved Lost Mine of Phandelver quests that unfold into a brand-new adventure with classic D&D themes and a tinge of horror
- Presents a bestiary with approximately two-dozen new creatures that showcase psionic magic, mutates , and more
- Provides a magic appendix that includes new consumable metamagic items and duergar magic
- Includes a double-sided poster map with the Phandalin region on one side and the town of Phandalin plus multiple dungeons featured throughout the adventure on the other
INCLUDES:
- Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk printed adventure book
- D&D Beyond digital copy of Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk
- This preorder grants you Early Access to Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk on D&D Beyond starting September 5, 2023
Instantly unlock exclusive preorder perks on D&D Beyond
- The Faction Digital Dice Pack, 10 character sheet frames, and 4 sheet backdrops
There's nothing in there about fucking around with Mind Flayers. That's just something that PCs discover as they delve deeper into this mystery while trying to save a town. There's not even any Mind Flayers mentioned in the marketing text. I basically had to find the module the guy in Twitter was taking about by finding a review that mentioned the modules actual name (https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-dragons-phandelin-shattered-obelisk-mind-flayers/). Then search for it by name.
This transformation is just a surprise ending if you fuck up while going after this cult. And it affects the entire region the town is located on. Not just the PCs who get involved. This is in NO WAY comparable to PCs getting infected with lycanthropy or whatever. This thread is what happens when idiots refuse to read, then jump in to vociferously opine on a topic, cuz they can't be bothered with pesky things like facts. They're just in it to "win" arguments on the internet.
Out of curiosity, do you have the same response to
Death, Frost, Doom. There is nothing in the backmatter telling you that you're one mistake from unleashing the zombie apocalypse. If not, what is the difference? Before the former is from Raggi and thus you expect it but not from WotC?
Does every possibility need to be explained upfront or is a GM allowed to have secrets that need to be discovered? If in the process of discovering those secrets do the players have the right to effectively X-card the side effects. Can an adventure not have world changing stakes? If it does, is it meaningful if losing has no cost?
Quote from: PulpHerb on September 10, 2023, 02:37:20 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 10, 2023, 12:20:39 PM
Geeky probably didn't even read WTF this adventure was about. He just read something about "player consent" being brought up and immediately creamed himself thinking this was meat for his Two Minutes Hate. This is how this module is marketed at the D&D Store (https://dndstore.wizards.com/us/en/product/820931/phandelver-and-below-the-shattered-obelisk-digital-plus-physical-bundle).
QuoteIn Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk, journey to the beloved town of Phandalin, where a malevolent cult threatens to overtake the region. Together with your party, solve mysteries and stamp out growing corruption as you uncover more about the peculiar happenings plaguing the town.
Discover what lurks below in this high-fantasy adventure that begins with the familiar story of Lost Mine of Phandelver and then delves into the perilous Underdark.
For use with the fifth edition Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide.
All books are English only.
KEY FEATURES
- Offers Dungeon Masters and players a chance to test their mettle in a classic dungeon crawl
- Retains the beloved Lost Mine of Phandelver quests that unfold into a brand-new adventure with classic D&D themes and a tinge of horror
- Presents a bestiary with approximately two-dozen new creatures that showcase psionic magic, mutates , and more
- Provides a magic appendix that includes new consumable metamagic items and duergar magic
- Includes a double-sided poster map with the Phandalin region on one side and the town of Phandalin plus multiple dungeons featured throughout the adventure on the other
INCLUDES:
- Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk printed adventure book
- D&D Beyond digital copy of Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk
- This preorder grants you Early Access to Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk on D&D Beyond starting September 5, 2023
Instantly unlock exclusive preorder perks on D&D Beyond
- The Faction Digital Dice Pack, 10 character sheet frames, and 4 sheet backdrops
There's nothing in there about fucking around with Mind Flayers. That's just something that PCs discover as they delve deeper into this mystery while trying to save a town. There's not even any Mind Flayers mentioned in the marketing text. I basically had to find the module the guy in Twitter was taking about by finding a review that mentioned the modules actual name (https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-dragons-phandelin-shattered-obelisk-mind-flayers/). Then search for it by name.
This transformation is just a surprise ending if you fuck up while going after this cult. And it affects the entire region the town is located on. Not just the PCs who get involved. This is in NO WAY comparable to PCs getting infected with lycanthropy or whatever. This thread is what happens when idiots refuse to read, then jump in to vociferously opine on a topic, cuz they can't be bothered with pesky things like facts. They're just in it to "win" arguments on the internet.
Out of curiosity, do you have the same response to Death, Frost, Doom. There is nothing in the backmatter telling you that you're one mistake from unleashing the zombie apocalypse. If not, what is the difference? Before the former is from Raggi and thus you expect it but not from WotC?
Does every possibility need to be explained upfront or is a GM allowed to have secrets that need to be discovered? If in the process of discovering those secrets do the players have the right to effectively X-card the side effects. Can an adventure not have world changing stakes? If it does, is it meaningful if losing has no cost?
No, of course you have to disclose EVERYTHING upfront, else it isn't consent, you also can't roll for random encounters (because then there's no consent).
I'm being sarcastic, WHO buy's the adventure module? The GM, not the players, who creates his own adventures? Again, not the players.
Take our current campaign:
Went to a dungeon, saw a ghost, since we had no one able to dispossse of it we ran, because running is also an option.
How do non-retards react to the unexpected change to their character?
https://twitter.com/ChaosChief9/status/1700903571959517244 (https://twitter.com/ChaosChief9/status/1700903571959517244)
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 10, 2023, 11:44:07 AM
.....
The only sense in which it's your choice is that you were dumb enough to sit down at a table for someone running a WotC product in 2023.
This, thousand times this.
As an aside, when I read this I expected the usual, oh great, here the stupid goes again.......
But, for whatever reason, I just....don't care. Maybe it's because I realize I've finally buried "official" D&D stuff. I'm not a part of Watzi equation's anymore.
It's kinda like the epiphany I got when Watzi said that anything before 2014 isn't canon.....it's like I felt this freedom. So all this great gaming stuff I own is awesome!!!!
If everything before 2014 is not canon, then by the reverse, anything 5e and after is not canon to me.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 10, 2023, 04:59:47 PM
How do non-retards react to the unexpected change to their character?
https://twitter.com/ChaosChief9/status/1700903571959517244 (https://twitter.com/ChaosChief9/status/1700903571959517244)
Telling retards how non-retards react to something isn't gonna help...
Quote from: PulpHerb on September 10, 2023, 02:37:20 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 10, 2023, 12:20:39 PM
Geeky probably didn't even read WTF this adventure was about. He just read something about "player consent" being brought up and immediately creamed himself thinking this was meat for his Two Minutes Hate. This is how this module is marketed at the D&D Store (https://dndstore.wizards.com/us/en/product/820931/phandelver-and-below-the-shattered-obelisk-digital-plus-physical-bundle).
QuoteIn Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk, journey to the beloved town of Phandalin, where a malevolent cult threatens to overtake the region. Together with your party, solve mysteries and stamp out growing corruption as you uncover more about the peculiar happenings plaguing the town.
Discover what lurks below in this high-fantasy adventure that begins with the familiar story of Lost Mine of Phandelver and then delves into the perilous Underdark.
For use with the fifth edition Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide.
All books are English only.
KEY FEATURES
- Offers Dungeon Masters and players a chance to test their mettle in a classic dungeon crawl
- Retains the beloved Lost Mine of Phandelver quests that unfold into a brand-new adventure with classic D&D themes and a tinge of horror
- Presents a bestiary with approximately two-dozen new creatures that showcase psionic magic, mutates , and more
- Provides a magic appendix that includes new consumable metamagic items and duergar magic
- Includes a double-sided poster map with the Phandalin region on one side and the town of Phandalin plus multiple dungeons featured throughout the adventure on the other
INCLUDES:
- Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk printed adventure book
- D&D Beyond digital copy of Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk
- This preorder grants you Early Access to Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk on D&D Beyond starting September 5, 2023
Instantly unlock exclusive preorder perks on D&D Beyond
- The Faction Digital Dice Pack, 10 character sheet frames, and 4 sheet backdrops
There's nothing in there about fucking around with Mind Flayers. That's just something that PCs discover as they delve deeper into this mystery while trying to save a town. There's not even any Mind Flayers mentioned in the marketing text. I basically had to find the module the guy in Twitter was taking about by finding a review that mentioned the modules actual name (https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-dragons-phandelin-shattered-obelisk-mind-flayers/). Then search for it by name.
This transformation is just a surprise ending if you fuck up while going after this cult. And it affects the entire region the town is located on. Not just the PCs who get involved. This is in NO WAY comparable to PCs getting infected with lycanthropy or whatever. This thread is what happens when idiots refuse to read, then jump in to vociferously opine on a topic, cuz they can't be bothered with pesky things like facts. They're just in it to "win" arguments on the internet.
Out of curiosity, do you have the same response to Death, Frost, Doom. There is nothing in the backmatter telling you that you're one mistake from unleashing the zombie apocalypse. If not, what is the difference? Before the former is from Raggi and thus you expect it but not from WotC?
Does every possibility need to be explained upfront or is a GM allowed to have secrets that need to be discovered? If in the process of discovering those secrets do the players have the right to effectively X-card the side effects. Can an adventure not have world changing stakes? If it does, is it meaningful if losing has no cost?
I am unfamiliar with that adventure, but this is moving the goalposts and completely besides the point. The point is that specific criticisms about this adventure are being made by certain posters in this thread, such as Bruwulf, myself and others. And those criticisms are being met with gotcha rebuttals that not only fail to address the points being made, but are false equivalences that reveal that the posters in question haven't even read WTF it is that other posters are criticizing. Yet this second group of posters are still shooting off the cuff, confident in their positions despite not knowing WTF they're talking about.
And your response to this is "Oh yeah, but what about THIS other adventure? What do you say to THAT?" When you haven't even responded to the original points. But now I need to weigh in on some other adventure I don't know about on the issue of GM disclosure? When this isn't even about GM disclosure per se. So it's whataboutism AND moving the goalposts.
Go back to Bruwulf's recent posts distinguishing things like Lycanthropy and other forms of transformations from the Mind Flayer transformation used in the adventure being discussed. And Geeky's response to that post for additional context. That's what my post was in relation to. Not about criticizing the presence or absence of GM disclosure.
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/player-consent-needed-to-turn-the-pc-into-a-mindflayer/msg1263745/#msg1263745
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 10, 2023, 06:23:35 PM
Quote from: PulpHerb on September 10, 2023, 02:37:20 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 10, 2023, 12:20:39 PM
Geeky probably didn't even read WTF this adventure was about. He just read something about "player consent" being brought up and immediately creamed himself thinking this was meat for his Two Minutes Hate. This is how this module is marketed at the D&D Store (https://dndstore.wizards.com/us/en/product/820931/phandelver-and-below-the-shattered-obelisk-digital-plus-physical-bundle).
QuoteIn Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk, journey to the beloved town of Phandalin, where a malevolent cult threatens to overtake the region. Together with your party, solve mysteries and stamp out growing corruption as you uncover more about the peculiar happenings plaguing the town.
Discover what lurks below in this high-fantasy adventure that begins with the familiar story of Lost Mine of Phandelver and then delves into the perilous Underdark.
For use with the fifth edition Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide.
All books are English only.
KEY FEATURES
- Offers Dungeon Masters and players a chance to test their mettle in a classic dungeon crawl
- Retains the beloved Lost Mine of Phandelver quests that unfold into a brand-new adventure with classic D&D themes and a tinge of horror
- Presents a bestiary with approximately two-dozen new creatures that showcase psionic magic, mutates , and more
- Provides a magic appendix that includes new consumable metamagic items and duergar magic
- Includes a double-sided poster map with the Phandalin region on one side and the town of Phandalin plus multiple dungeons featured throughout the adventure on the other
INCLUDES:
- Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk printed adventure book
- D&D Beyond digital copy of Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk
- This preorder grants you Early Access to Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk on D&D Beyond starting September 5, 2023
Instantly unlock exclusive preorder perks on D&D Beyond
- The Faction Digital Dice Pack, 10 character sheet frames, and 4 sheet backdrops
There's nothing in there about fucking around with Mind Flayers. That's just something that PCs discover as they delve deeper into this mystery while trying to save a town. There's not even any Mind Flayers mentioned in the marketing text. I basically had to find the module the guy in Twitter was taking about by finding a review that mentioned the modules actual name (https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-dragons-phandelin-shattered-obelisk-mind-flayers/). Then search for it by name.
This transformation is just a surprise ending if you fuck up while going after this cult. And it affects the entire region the town is located on. Not just the PCs who get involved. This is in NO WAY comparable to PCs getting infected with lycanthropy or whatever. This thread is what happens when idiots refuse to read, then jump in to vociferously opine on a topic, cuz they can't be bothered with pesky things like facts. They're just in it to "win" arguments on the internet.
Out of curiosity, do you have the same response to Death, Frost, Doom. There is nothing in the backmatter telling you that you're one mistake from unleashing the zombie apocalypse. If not, what is the difference? Before the former is from Raggi and thus you expect it but not from WotC?
Does every possibility need to be explained upfront or is a GM allowed to have secrets that need to be discovered? If in the process of discovering those secrets do the players have the right to effectively X-card the side effects. Can an adventure not have world changing stakes? If it does, is it meaningful if losing has no cost?
I am unfamiliar with that adventure, but this is moving the goalposts and completely besides the point. The point is that specific criticisms about this adventure are being made by certain posters in this thread, such as Bruwulf, myself and others. And those criticisms are being met with gotcha rebuttals that not only fail to address the points being made, but are false equivalences that reveal that the posters in question haven't even read WTF it is that other posters are criticizing. Yet this second group of posters are still shooting off the cuff, confident in their positions despite not knowing WTF they're talking about.
And your response to this is "Oh yeah, but what about THIS other adventure? What do you say to THAT?" When you haven't even responded to the original points. But now I need to weigh in on some other adventure I don't know about on the issue of GM disclosure? When this isn't even about GM disclosure per se. So it's whataboutism AND moving the goalposts.
Go back to Bruwulf's recent posts distinguishing things like Lycanthropy and other forms of transformations from the Mind Flayer transformation used in the adventure being discussed. And Geeky's response to that post for additional context. That's what my post was in relation to. Not about criticizing the presence or absence of GM disclosure.
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/player-consent-needed-to-turn-the-pc-into-a-mindflayer/msg1263745/#msg1263745
You can easily look up the adventure.
My point was you're saying "there is nothing here to warn the player about Mind Flayers". I'm asking if that is a universal, that all adventures with widespread consequences need to disclose the nature of those risks up front. I choose one I'm familiar with as an example. If you're prefer a better example I'm happy to entertain it but my question remains the same, does
"There's nothing in there about fucking around with Mind Flayers. That's just something that PCs discover as they delve deeper into this mystery while trying to save a town. There's not even any Mind Flayers mentioned in the marketing text. I basically had to find the module the guy in Twitter was taking about by finding a review that mentioned the modules actual name. Then search for it by name.
This transformation is just a surprise ending if you fuck up while going after this cult. And it affects the entire region the town is located on. Not just the PCs who get involved."
Mean you think if it isn't mentioned in marketing copy it is not fair game to spring on the players. I'm trying to understand your line of thought, but if you want to just dismiss the question I'll work from that.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 10, 2023, 12:20:39 PM
KEY FEATURES
- Offers Dungeon Masters and players a chance to test their mettle in a classic dungeon crawl
So serious question. Does Watzi even know what a classic dungeon crawl is, anymore? Cause I seriously have doubts.[/list]
Quote from: PulpHerb on September 10, 2023, 09:01:24 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 10, 2023, 06:23:35 PM
*snip*
You can easily look up the adventure.
My point was you're saying "there is nothing here to warn the player about Mind Flayers". I'm asking if that is a universal, that all adventures with widespread consequences need to disclose the nature of those risks up front. I choose one I'm familiar with as an example. If you're prefer a better example I'm happy to entertain it but my question remains the same, does
"There's nothing in there about fucking around with Mind Flayers. That's just something that PCs discover as they delve deeper into this mystery while trying to save a town. There's not even any Mind Flayers mentioned in the marketing text. I basically had to find the module the guy in Twitter was taking about by finding a review that mentioned the modules actual name. Then search for it by name.
This transformation is just a surprise ending if you fuck up while going after this cult. And it affects the entire region the town is located on. Not just the PCs who get involved."
Mean you think if it isn't mentioned in marketing copy it is not fair game to spring on the players. I'm trying to understand your line of thought, but if you want to just dismiss the question I'll work from that.
As I already mentioned, my comment was in relation to the preceding posts from Bruwulf and GeekyBugle, and it was made in that context. I don't care that the adventure doesn't warn player about Mind Flayers. That is not the point.
Geeky said this in response to Bruwulf's post...
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 10, 2023, 11:36:53 AM
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 10, 2023, 08:58:05 AM
Quote from: Baron on September 10, 2023, 12:00:51 AM
Once my astonishment subsides enough for me to respond I reply, "lycanthropy, vampirism, girdle of femininity (probably no longer an issue), item of opposite alignment, various curses and shape changes, level drain, poison, turn to stone, disintegrate and oh yeah and hit points. If you play, things will happen to your character. Sometimes just because of an unlucky die roll. It's part of the game."
Lycanthropy has two different ways to avoid contracting it even if you do get infected. Vampirism requires you actually die to begin with, so it's a moot point. Cursed items require you actually put a magic item on blindly. All the rest of the things you mentioned have in game mechanics to prevent them - saving throws, armor class, etc.
None of them are comparable to the situation presented in this shitty adventure.
The player choose to fuck around, meaning if your character goes fucking around to/with mindflayers... Whatever happens is by YOUR choice.
...except that Mind Flayers aren't even mentioned in the marketing. So the players did NOT in fact "choose to fuck around mindflayers" specifically. And Geeky's rebuttal is still not addressing the points that are actually being made. He's just trying to "win" an argument in the internet (as I already mentioned in the post that kicked this tangent off). THAT is why I brought that up. This entire tangent is beside the point.
Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on September 10, 2023, 09:04:29 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 10, 2023, 12:20:39 PM
KEY FEATURES
- Offers Dungeon Masters and players a chance to test their mettle in a classic dungeon crawl
So serious question. Does Watzi even know what a classic dungeon crawl is, anymore? Cause I seriously have doubts.[/list]
With Watzi, it's hard to even tell if they know what a TTRPG is, given that they're desperately trying to reinvent video games with their new VTT. So I wouldn't be surprised if they don't know what a classic dungeon crawl is.
Quote from: PulpHerb on September 10, 2023, 09:01:24 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 10, 2023, 06:23:35 PM
Quote from: PulpHerb on September 10, 2023, 02:37:20 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 10, 2023, 12:20:39 PM
Geeky probably didn't even read WTF this adventure was about. He just read something about "player consent" being brought up and immediately creamed himself thinking this was meat for his Two Minutes Hate. This is how this module is marketed at the D&D Store (https://dndstore.wizards.com/us/en/product/820931/phandelver-and-below-the-shattered-obelisk-digital-plus-physical-bundle).
QuoteIn Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk, journey to the beloved town of Phandalin, where a malevolent cult threatens to overtake the region. Together with your party, solve mysteries and stamp out growing corruption as you uncover more about the peculiar happenings plaguing the town.
Discover what lurks below in this high-fantasy adventure that begins with the familiar story of Lost Mine of Phandelver and then delves into the perilous Underdark.
For use with the fifth edition Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide.
All books are English only.
KEY FEATURES
- Offers Dungeon Masters and players a chance to test their mettle in a classic dungeon crawl
- Retains the beloved Lost Mine of Phandelver quests that unfold into a brand-new adventure with classic D&D themes and a tinge of horror
- Presents a bestiary with approximately two-dozen new creatures that showcase psionic magic, mutates , and more
- Provides a magic appendix that includes new consumable metamagic items and duergar magic
- Includes a double-sided poster map with the Phandalin region on one side and the town of Phandalin plus multiple dungeons featured throughout the adventure on the other
INCLUDES:
- Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk printed adventure book
- D&D Beyond digital copy of Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk
- This preorder grants you Early Access to Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk on D&D Beyond starting September 5, 2023
Instantly unlock exclusive preorder perks on D&D Beyond
- The Faction Digital Dice Pack, 10 character sheet frames, and 4 sheet backdrops
There's nothing in there about fucking around with Mind Flayers. That's just something that PCs discover as they delve deeper into this mystery while trying to save a town. There's not even any Mind Flayers mentioned in the marketing text. I basically had to find the module the guy in Twitter was taking about by finding a review that mentioned the modules actual name (https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-dragons-phandelin-shattered-obelisk-mind-flayers/). Then search for it by name.
This transformation is just a surprise ending if you fuck up while going after this cult. And it affects the entire region the town is located on. Not just the PCs who get involved. This is in NO WAY comparable to PCs getting infected with lycanthropy or whatever. This thread is what happens when idiots refuse to read, then jump in to vociferously opine on a topic, cuz they can't be bothered with pesky things like facts. They're just in it to "win" arguments on the internet.
Out of curiosity, do you have the same response to Death, Frost, Doom. There is nothing in the backmatter telling you that you're one mistake from unleashing the zombie apocalypse. If not, what is the difference? Before the former is from Raggi and thus you expect it but not from WotC?
Does every possibility need to be explained upfront or is a GM allowed to have secrets that need to be discovered? If in the process of discovering those secrets do the players have the right to effectively X-card the side effects. Can an adventure not have world changing stakes? If it does, is it meaningful if losing has no cost?
I am unfamiliar with that adventure, but this is moving the goalposts and completely besides the point. The point is that specific criticisms about this adventure are being made by certain posters in this thread, such as Bruwulf, myself and others. And those criticisms are being met with gotcha rebuttals that not only fail to address the points being made, but are false equivalences that reveal that the posters in question haven't even read WTF it is that other posters are criticizing. Yet this second group of posters are still shooting off the cuff, confident in their positions despite not knowing WTF they're talking about.
And your response to this is "Oh yeah, but what about THIS other adventure? What do you say to THAT?" When you haven't even responded to the original points. But now I need to weigh in on some other adventure I don't know about on the issue of GM disclosure? When this isn't even about GM disclosure per se. So it's whataboutism AND moving the goalposts.
Go back to Bruwulf's recent posts distinguishing things like Lycanthropy and other forms of transformations from the Mind Flayer transformation used in the adventure being discussed. And Geeky's response to that post for additional context. That's what my post was in relation to. Not about criticizing the presence or absence of GM disclosure.
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/player-consent-needed-to-turn-the-pc-into-a-mindflayer/msg1263745/#msg1263745
You can easily look up the adventure.
My point was you're saying "there is nothing here to warn the player about Mind Flayers". I'm asking if that is a universal, that all adventures with widespread consequences need to disclose the nature of those risks up front. I choose one I'm familiar with as an example. If you're prefer a better example I'm happy to entertain it but my question remains the same, does
"There's nothing in there about fucking around with Mind Flayers. That's just something that PCs discover as they delve deeper into this mystery while trying to save a town. There's not even any Mind Flayers mentioned in the marketing text. I basically had to find the module the guy in Twitter was taking about by finding a review that mentioned the modules actual name. Then search for it by name.
This transformation is just a surprise ending if you fuck up while going after this cult. And it affects the entire region the town is located on. Not just the PCs who get involved."
Mean you think if it isn't mentioned in marketing copy it is not fair game to spring on the players. I'm trying to understand your line of thought, but if you want to just dismiss the question I'll work from that.
I've been ignoring the degenerate retard (visionstorm) but he keeps name droping me, (you got your fee fees hurt retard?).
So lets see:
The sales copy doesn't mention anything about mindflayers. Okay, and? If the copy doesn't mention it then it shouldn't be there? So if anyone reads the copy he already knows everything inside therefore has an upperhand when engaging with the adventure. Is that what you're complaining about retard? The players don't know everything about the adventure BEFORE sitting to play it? I knew you were a fucking retard but dang that's some retardation.
Now lets talk to the rest of the forum, those who have an IQ above room temperature (which excludes you VS and your degenerate comrades who I'll continue to ignore):
It's been years since I ran ANY bought adventure, but I always do the following (even in my homegrown ones):
Present the hook
If the players engage then procede to react to their actions, which includes disclosing any information the PCs rightfully should know previously or have done enough to "discover".
Drop clues for the PCs to follow or not, which includes clues about the true nature of the BBG (because I'm not an asshole)
So in this adventure said clues would include something towards the BBG having psionic powers, finding corpses with a hole in the head and their brain absent, if they capture a cultist or interrogate someone that escaped a description of the BBG, how it was immune to magic...
Now, lets assume the most assholish GM possible (rocks fall everybody dies type), who doesn't give ANY clue to his players and just drops them in the midle of the BBG...
Does that justify in anyway shape or form that players should give consent to being transformed?
Personally, I would make it known to everyone at the table up front before any game session that PCs are adventurers who face death, dismemberment, and madness at every turn as soon as they engage in an adventure. It is the players' job to create characters who are willing, for their own reasons, to engage such risks for whatever reward their characters will find suitable, and to sit at the table and play the game is to give consent. I'm not here as a GM to hold players' hands as they whine about how they feel about spiders and orcs. I'm here to run a game. These weak-minded people need to either find a way to separate their game worlds from reality, or go play fucking tiddlywinks or something.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 10, 2023, 09:58:55 PM
Now, lets assume the most assholish GM possible (rocks fall everybody dies type), who doesn't give ANY clue to his players and just drops them in the midle of the BBG...
Does that justify in anyway shape or form that players should give consent to being transformed?
What does "justify" even mean, in this context?
I'm not actually defending the stupid X-card stuff. I think if a group needs things like that, it's a fundamentally broken group to begin with. Once we all grew up past highschool ("Haha, your elf gets raped by an ogre!!"), I'd like to think most of us understood how things worked at tables we were regulars at. In essence I agree that consent is already understood, because we're adults and we try not to be stupid, immature cunts.
My contention is that it's a badly designed adventure, and that I don't like heavy-handed "rocks fall, everyone dies" fail states unless that's already understood to be on the table going in. Basically, I view part of the understanding we all have at the table is that generally speaking I'm going to be conforming to the rules and expectations of the game we're playing. The PC's failing and they and the entire area getting turned into monsters might be taken in stride in a Call of Cthulhu game, but not in my average Greyhawk game.
You keep going on about how
you would do things in a way that they were handled well. I'm not doubting you would. I just don't think that matters when it comes to criticizing a published adventure. Again, by that metric, all products are equally good, since a good DM could make anything work.
... Okay, maybe not FATAL. There has to actually be a workable game.
Anyway.
I do think turning players into mindflayers is essentially indistinguishable from a TPK. I stand by that statement. I'll run with body horror. I'll even run monster-focused - hell, I used to be an emo black-wearing World of Darkness goth dweeb back in the 90s for a while. But when I've played standard, Gygaxian fantasy D&D, I've always subscribed to the "if the players get turned into an evil monster, they become an NPC" school of gamemastering. I know that wasn't even the rule by the time I started playing in the late 80s, but it's always worked for me. Which is where my mentioning of things like the multiple solutions to lycanthropy, or the fact that vampirism as written requires the player to die anyway. My point is there are clear rules, not just - to overuse a phrase - "rocks fall, everyone dies". Or, if you prefer, "cultists win, everyone's a mindflayer".
Sometimes a DM has to improvise rules. And certainly a DM has the authority to make new rules for new spells and things. But I'm very wary of this sort of DM fiat. And I say this as someone who is about 95% a DM and has been for most of my career.
... whiiiich brings us full circle back to "what does justify mean in context". I think the whole consent-form thing is equally as stupid as the adventure design. I don't think either one really justifies the other, but I suppose if someone held me down and forced me to run that adventure, I would either omit that section entirely, or else...
Okay, actually, no, there really isn't an "or else". I wouldn't run that adventure as written.
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 10, 2023, 11:34:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 10, 2023, 09:58:55 PM
Now, lets assume the most assholish GM possible (rocks fall everybody dies type), who doesn't give ANY clue to his players and just drops them in the midle of the BBG...
Does that justify in anyway shape or form that players should give consent to being transformed?
What does "justify" even mean, in this context?
I'm not actually defending the stupid X-card stuff. I think if a group needs things like that, it's a fundamentally broken group to begin with. Once we all grew up past highschool ("Haha, your elf gets raped by an ogre!!"), I'd like to think most of us understood how things worked at tables we were regulars at. In essence I agree that consent is already understood, because we're adults and we try not to be stupid, immature cunts.
My contention is that it's a badly designed adventure, and that I don't like heavy-handed "rocks fall, everyone dies" fail states unless that's already understood to be on the table going in. Basically, I view part of the understanding we all have at the table is that generally speaking I'm going to be conforming to the rules and expectations of the game we're playing. The PC's failing and they and the entire area getting turned into monsters might be taken in stride in a Call of Cthulhu game, but not in my average Greyhawk game.
You keep going on about how you would do things in a way that they were handled well. I'm not doubting you would. I just don't think that matters when it comes to criticizing a published adventure. Again, by that metric, all products are equally good, since a good DM could make anything work.
... Okay, maybe not FATAL. There has to actually be a workable game.
Anyway.
I do think turning players into mindflayers is essentially indistinguishable from a TPK. I stand by that statement. I'll run with body horror. I'll even run monster-focused - hell, I used to be an emo black-wearing World of Darkness goth dweeb back in the 90s for a while. But when I've played standard, Gygaxian fantasy D&D, I've always subscribed to the "if the players get turned into an evil monster, they become an NPC" school of gamemastering. I know that wasn't even the rule by the time I started playing in the late 80s, but it's always worked for me. Which is where my mentioning of things like the multiple solutions to lycanthropy, or the fact that vampirism as written requires the player to die anyway. My point is there are clear rules, not just - to overuse a phrase - "rocks fall, everyone dies". Or, if you prefer, "cultists win, everyone's a mindflayer".
Sometimes a DM has to improvise rules. And certainly a DM has the authority to make new rules for new spells and things. But I'm very wary of this sort of DM fiat. And I say this as someone who is about 95% a DM and has been for most of my career.
... whiiiich brings us full circle back to "what does justify mean in context". I think the whole consent-form thing is equally as stupid as the adventure design. I don't think either one really justifies the other, but I suppose if someone held me down and forced me to run that adventure, I would either omit that section entirely, or else...
Okay, actually, no, there really isn't an "or else". I wouldn't run that adventure as written.
Justify means that ghiving the players the power to refuse a result is justified, it's a logical and good thing.
Now, I already told you we disagree mainly in one thing:
You think it's a poorly designed adventure
I think it's designed with the purpouse of forcing the player consent bullshit and getting people used to it. Which to me means it's a bad design, but if it forwards what I assume is the intention of the designer/publisher one cound argue it's a perfectly designed piece of propaganda/adventure.
Edited to add:Justify
verb
show or prove to be right or reasonable.
"the person appointed has fully justified our confidence"
So, in context: To show that requiring player consent to the transformation is right or reasonable
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 10, 2023, 09:58:55 PM
Quote from: PulpHerb on September 10, 2023, 09:01:24 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 10, 2023, 06:23:35 PM
Quote from: PulpHerb on September 10, 2023, 02:37:20 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 10, 2023, 12:20:39 PM
Geeky probably didn't even read WTF this adventure was about. He just read something about "player consent" being brought up and immediately creamed himself thinking this was meat for his Two Minutes Hate. This is how this module is marketed at the D&D Store (https://dndstore.wizards.com/us/en/product/820931/phandelver-and-below-the-shattered-obelisk-digital-plus-physical-bundle).
QuoteIn Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk, journey to the beloved town of Phandalin, where a malevolent cult threatens to overtake the region. Together with your party, solve mysteries and stamp out growing corruption as you uncover more about the peculiar happenings plaguing the town.
Discover what lurks below in this high-fantasy adventure that begins with the familiar story of Lost Mine of Phandelver and then delves into the perilous Underdark.
For use with the fifth edition Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide.
All books are English only.
KEY FEATURES
- Offers Dungeon Masters and players a chance to test their mettle in a classic dungeon crawl
- Retains the beloved Lost Mine of Phandelver quests that unfold into a brand-new adventure with classic D&D themes and a tinge of horror
- Presents a bestiary with approximately two-dozen new creatures that showcase psionic magic, mutates , and more
- Provides a magic appendix that includes new consumable metamagic items and duergar magic
- Includes a double-sided poster map with the Phandalin region on one side and the town of Phandalin plus multiple dungeons featured throughout the adventure on the other
INCLUDES:
- Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk printed adventure book
- D&D Beyond digital copy of Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk
- This preorder grants you Early Access to Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk on D&D Beyond starting September 5, 2023
Instantly unlock exclusive preorder perks on D&D Beyond
- The Faction Digital Dice Pack, 10 character sheet frames, and 4 sheet backdrops
There's nothing in there about fucking around with Mind Flayers. That's just something that PCs discover as they delve deeper into this mystery while trying to save a town. There's not even any Mind Flayers mentioned in the marketing text. I basically had to find the module the guy in Twitter was taking about by finding a review that mentioned the modules actual name (https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-dragons-phandelin-shattered-obelisk-mind-flayers/). Then search for it by name.
This transformation is just a surprise ending if you fuck up while going after this cult. And it affects the entire region the town is located on. Not just the PCs who get involved. This is in NO WAY comparable to PCs getting infected with lycanthropy or whatever. This thread is what happens when idiots refuse to read, then jump in to vociferously opine on a topic, cuz they can't be bothered with pesky things like facts. They're just in it to "win" arguments on the internet.
Out of curiosity, do you have the same response to Death, Frost, Doom. There is nothing in the backmatter telling you that you're one mistake from unleashing the zombie apocalypse. If not, what is the difference? Before the former is from Raggi and thus you expect it but not from WotC?
Does every possibility need to be explained upfront or is a GM allowed to have secrets that need to be discovered? If in the process of discovering those secrets do the players have the right to effectively X-card the side effects. Can an adventure not have world changing stakes? If it does, is it meaningful if losing has no cost?
I am unfamiliar with that adventure, but this is moving the goalposts and completely besides the point. The point is that specific criticisms about this adventure are being made by certain posters in this thread, such as Bruwulf, myself and others. And those criticisms are being met with gotcha rebuttals that not only fail to address the points being made, but are false equivalences that reveal that the posters in question haven't even read WTF it is that other posters are criticizing. Yet this second group of posters are still shooting off the cuff, confident in their positions despite not knowing WTF they're talking about.
And your response to this is "Oh yeah, but what about THIS other adventure? What do you say to THAT?" When you haven't even responded to the original points. But now I need to weigh in on some other adventure I don't know about on the issue of GM disclosure? When this isn't even about GM disclosure per se. So it's whataboutism AND moving the goalposts.
Go back to Bruwulf's recent posts distinguishing things like Lycanthropy and other forms of transformations from the Mind Flayer transformation used in the adventure being discussed. And Geeky's response to that post for additional context. That's what my post was in relation to. Not about criticizing the presence or absence of GM disclosure.
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/player-consent-needed-to-turn-the-pc-into-a-mindflayer/msg1263745/#msg1263745
You can easily look up the adventure.
My point was you're saying "there is nothing here to warn the player about Mind Flayers". I'm asking if that is a universal, that all adventures with widespread consequences need to disclose the nature of those risks up front. I choose one I'm familiar with as an example. If you're prefer a better example I'm happy to entertain it but my question remains the same, does
"There's nothing in there about fucking around with Mind Flayers. That's just something that PCs discover as they delve deeper into this mystery while trying to save a town. There's not even any Mind Flayers mentioned in the marketing text. I basically had to find the module the guy in Twitter was taking about by finding a review that mentioned the modules actual name. Then search for it by name.
This transformation is just a surprise ending if you fuck up while going after this cult. And it affects the entire region the town is located on. Not just the PCs who get involved."
Mean you think if it isn't mentioned in marketing copy it is not fair game to spring on the players. I'm trying to understand your line of thought, but if you want to just dismiss the question I'll work from that.
I've been ignoring the degenerate retard (visionstorm) but he keeps name droping me, (you got your fee fees hurt retard?).
I'm not the one responding from behind a block in full fire mode at imagined slights from other people. So I'm evidently not the one who's ruled by their fee fees.
Quote
So lets see:
The sales copy doesn't mention anything about mindflayers. Okay, and? If the copy doesn't mention it then it shouldn't be there? So if anyone reads the copy he already knows everything inside therefore has an upperhand when engaging with the adventure. Is that what you're complaining about retard? The players don't know everything about the adventure BEFORE sitting to play it? I knew you were a fucking retard but dang that's some retardation.
My reasons for bringing that up have already been addressed and if you bothered to read what was actually said instead of shooting off the cuff or inserting your own hallucinatory interpretation of what people are talking about you'd know that. I'm not gonna rehash it again just cuz you lack reading comprehension and are took goddamn lazy and trigger happy to actually read before you respond.
Quote
Now lets talk to the rest of the forum, those who have an IQ above room temperature (which excludes you VS and your degenerate comrades who I'll continue to ignore):
It's been years since I ran ANY bought adventure, but I always do the following (even in my homegrown ones):
Present the hook
If the players engage then procede to react to their actions, which includes disclosing any information the PCs rightfully should know previously or have done enough to "discover".
Drop clues for the PCs to follow or not, which includes clues about the true nature of the BBG (because I'm not an asshole)
So in this adventure said clues would include something towards the BBG having psionic powers, finding corpses with a hole in the head and their brain absent, if they capture a cultist or interrogate someone that escaped a description of the BBG, how it was immune to magic...
Now, lets assume the most assholish GM possible (rocks fall everybody dies type), who doesn't give ANY clue to his players and just drops them in the midle of the BBG...
Does that justify in anyway shape or form that players should give consent to being transformed?
How you run your adventures is irrelevant to the criticisms being made about this module. If you're not addressing those you're not really addressing what's being said. You're just going around in circles instead of admitting that you don't know WTF you're talking about, but still want to have your say.
That's definitely bad adventure design. It operates outside the understood rules in the same way that a "rocks fall, everybody dies" DM does. I'd probably pass on the adventure and would certainly change that aspect if I did somehow choose to use it.
The "requires consent" is also bad. Characters are subject to what happens in the game universe. They don't get an "I'm special get out of jail free" card.
Putting the bad adventure and the bad consent mechanic together doesn't fix things. It makes them doubleplusbad. The PCs don't get turned into monsters, but it establishes that "rocks fall" is okay and "requiring consent" is okay. for the campaign.
If one must have an everyone turns into mindflayers event, then the player characters need to have the information and means to opt out by taking appropriate action. This is part of the normal game process, not the meta opt-out described. The PCs might find out the nature of the threat before the adventure and have a choice to go do something else. They might find clues during the adventure with enough time to run and get outside the area of effect if they decide it's not worth the risk. Sudden unavoidable death happening to PCs is realistic, but it doesn't make for a fun game.
Quote from: Mishihari on September 11, 2023, 02:11:21 AM
That's definitely bad adventure design. It operates outside the understood rules in the same way that a "rocks fall, everybody dies" DM. I'd probably pass on the adventure and would certainly change that aspect if I did somehow choose to use it.
The "requires consent" is also bad. Characters are subject to what happens in the game universe. They don't get an "I'm special get out of jail free" card.
Putting the bad adventure and the bad consent mechanic doesn't fix things. It makes them doubleplusbad. The PCs don't get turned into monsters, but it establishes that "rocks fall" is okay and "requiring consent" is okay. for the campaign.
If one must have an everyone turns into mindflayers event, then the player characters need to have the information and means to opt out by taking appropriate action. This is part of the normal game process, not the meta opt-out described. The PCs might find out the nature of the threat before the adventure and have a choice to go do something else. They might find clues during the adventure with enough time to run and get outside the area of effect if they decide it's not worth the risk. Sudden unavoidable death happening to PCs is realistic, but it doesn't make for a fun game.
Which is pretty much what I've said.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 11, 2023, 02:29:50 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on September 11, 2023, 02:11:21 AM
That's definitely bad adventure design. It operates outside the understood rules in the same way that a "rocks fall, everybody dies" DM. I'd probably pass on the adventure and would certainly change that aspect if I did somehow choose to use it.
The "requires consent" is also bad. Characters are subject to what happens in the game universe. They don't get an "I'm special get out of jail free" card.
Putting the bad adventure and the bad consent mechanic doesn't fix things. It makes them doubleplusbad. The PCs don't get turned into monsters, but it establishes that "rocks fall" is okay and "requiring consent" is okay. for the campaign.
If one must have an everyone turns into mindflayers event, then the player characters need to have the information and means to opt out by taking appropriate action. This is part of the normal game process, not the meta opt-out described. The PCs might find out the nature of the threat before the adventure and have a choice to go do something else. They might find clues during the adventure with enough time to run and get outside the area of effect if they decide it's not worth the risk. Sudden unavoidable death happening to PCs is realistic, but it doesn't make for a fun game.
Which is pretty much what I've said.
Except that you didn't.
You pretty much stuck to your guns that this was about player consent and that forcing an instant Mind Flayer transformation on everyone across an entire region was no different than the orders of magnitude more easily avoidable Lycanthropy throughout this entire discussion. And it wasn't till your last post before this one that you said anything that could(maybe) be construed as (sorta) similar to what Mishihari said.
But lying and obfuscating reality to "win" an argument is second nature to you. Because this isn't about having a genuine discussion, but about your Two-Minutes-Hate ("OMG, they're adding woke consent forms to modules now! THE HUMANITY!") and pwning the opposition in an online argument with weak gotchas that don't even address their points.
(https://i.gifer.com/W3yi.gif)
Quote from: Mishihari on September 11, 2023, 02:11:21 AM
That's definitely bad adventure design. It operates outside the understood rules in the same way that a "rocks fall, everybody dies" DM. I'd probably pass on the adventure and would certainly change that aspect if I did somehow choose to use it.
The "requires consent" is also bad. Characters are subject to what happens in the game universe. They don't get an "I'm special get out of jail free" card.
Putting the bad adventure and the bad consent mechanic doesn't fix things. It makes them doubleplusbad. The PCs don't get turned into monsters, but it establishes that "rocks fall" is okay and "requiring consent" is okay. for the campaign.
If one must have an everyone turns into mindflayers event, then the player characters need to have the information and means to opt out by taking appropriate action. This is part of the normal game process, not the meta opt-out described. The PCs might find out the nature of the threat before the adventure and have a choice to go do something else. They might find clues during the adventure with enough time to run and get outside the area of effect if they decide it's not worth the risk. Sudden unavoidable death happening to PCs is realistic, but it doesn't make for a fun game.
Even faling rocks get a saving throw. Only thing that does not is falling into lava. The universal rule across every edition.
Quote from: Dropbear on September 10, 2023, 11:10:03 PM
Personally, I would make it known to everyone at the table up front before any game session that PCs are adventurers who face death, dismemberment, and madness at every turn as soon as they engage in an adventure. It is the players' job to create characters who are willing, for their own reasons, to engage such risks for whatever reward their characters will find suitable, and to sit at the table and play the game is to give consent. I'm not here as a GM to hold players' hands as they whine about how they feel about spiders and orcs. I'm here to run a game. These weak-minded people need to either find a way to separate their game worlds from reality, or go play fucking tiddlywinks or something.
Any player that doesn't realize that trying to kill and steal shit from powerful monsters could be life threatening for the PCs is too stupid to explain anything to. So, let dice roll where they may as there is no saving throw vs. stupidity...
I would like to add that no one forces you to run a premade module as written. I've been taking liberties ever since I put a few friends through Quasqueton.
And while yes, I will not shy from putting the party in harm's way, I will occasionally drop a useful item that they may need later (look, I grew up with Infocom games, you ALWAYS picked everything up that you saw). Sometimes it's MUCH later. :)
Quote from: Mishihari on September 11, 2023, 02:11:21 AM
That's definitely bad adventure design. It operates outside the understood rules in the same way that a "rocks fall, everybody dies" DM. I'd probably pass on the adventure and would certainly change that aspect if I did somehow choose to use it.
The "requires consent" is also bad. Characters are subject to what happens in the game universe. They don't get an "I'm special get out of jail free" card.
Putting the bad adventure and the bad consent mechanic doesn't fix things. It makes them doubleplusbad. The PCs don't get turned into monsters, but it establishes that "rocks fall" is okay and "requiring consent" is okay. for the campaign.
This. And yet another example of how screw ups can snowball. As soon as you start thinking about how to keep people "safe" as adventurers, every decision you make is likely to be a screw up. Whereas when you acknowledge that these are fictional constructs engaged in fictional dangerous activity, as a game, and what that inherently means, then it is fairly easy to avoid most of the landmines.
The call out to X-Cards is apt. It's the same kind of stupidity turned up to 11.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 11, 2023, 11:46:58 AMThe call out to X-Cards is apt. It's the same kind of stupidity turned up to 11.
At one time, I thought, "you know, I can see a use for x-cards". I thought, con games and pickup games in game stores, where it's just random people shoved together, and there may be misunderstandings of tone and expectation. That's a legitimate issue. I mean, it can happen in established groups, too! But if you have a good group, you don't need something like "x-cards" and consent forms and shit. A simple, "Whoah, let's talk about this... break for a taco run while we talk about it?" or something works just fine. No need for a system, we're all adults, and hopefully all friends.
But then I realized... It really doesn't help for other situations, either. It's sort of like people who have a partner cheat on them, and then try to establish all these rules so they can "trust" their partner again. No staying out after 7pm, no friends of the opposite sex, no drinking at social functions, etc. If you need those rules, you don't actually trust them, and it's a doomed effort to begin with. And likewise, if you need an x-card system, the dissonance between player expectation and GM is too great for the game to survive long term anyway.
So I guess maybe it could still have a certain degree of utility at random pick up con games where you never expect to see each other again...
... except I've ran demo games for people before, and there's a much easier solution. Demo games and pick-up games are softball games. You /assume ahead of time/ players might not want to go too far. If you need to be slapped in the face with an x-card to realize that, you shouldn't be running demo games and such.
I have literally run hundreds of Convention games.
Maybe IQ's have dropped severely in the last 30-years. But the fact that people can't distinguish Convention games from ones private campaign is a huge problem. Seriously, do people not remember the Good Ol' Days at conventions when you'd be sitting there with half-dozen players you didn't know, and some chucklehead would ask if I'd be willing to use their house-rules on something? There was a reason why people cleaved close to RAW (even though I'd often use my own basic House Rules - 1's are fumbles, 20's are crits) because everyone had House rules. Some were insane, some weren't.
Unless you ran RPGA sanctioned events, you had almost* carte-blanche to run whatever you wanted. The *Almost* is the once tiny crack where this stupid situation we're discussing has mined out into a Grand Canyon. That is the reality even back in the day, you had to modulate your Convention play for the randos that were showing up at the table. So you had to moderate your content accordingly. We never needed some authority to tell us what was "bad", it was simply "Keep it PG for kids, folks." (this was before PG-13 was a thing.)
There have always been weirdo adults. ALWAYS. And there have always been minors. Now there are adults that act like minors. Now Weirdo Adults with brains of minors is the norm.
Another big problem is that it takes some facility and understanding to run a good game and lets face it, WotC does *nothing* to help cultivate good GMing practices. Nor is it in their interest to do so. They *want* people playing their pre-packaged pap-smear adventures, like in a Convention. So it makes sense for them to push all their leftist authoritarian nonsense to go along with it.
I'm going to repost my reply from YouTube:
QuoteMe as DM: "YOU FAILED. The ritual proceeds as planned. Make a save vs Spell at -3"
There, now it's in hands of the dice. No DM bias. No whiney players. Just chance. Fate. Done.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 11, 2023, 07:16:55 AM
Even faling rocks get a saving throw. Only thing that does not is falling into lava. The universal rule across every edition.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/IM1_TSR9171_The_Immortal_Storm.jpg)
:-)
But seriously -- I think there's a difference between having a PC killed vs having the PC mind-controlled. Taking away control of a PC from the player is a meta-game issue that goes past killing.
HAHAHAH touche'!
As far as mind control being an issue... I disagree. Entire games revolve around stuff like this - Vampire? Hello? But of course D&D had it cooked in from the jump with Charm and Suggestion etc.
It's part of the game, and the GM's jurisprudence in running the game should be sacrosanct - players can always not play (even if that means the GM sucks).
Quote from: jhkim on September 11, 2023, 05:49:43 PM
But seriously -- I think there's a difference between having a PC killed vs having the PC mind-controlled. Taking away control of a PC from the player is a meta-game issue that goes past killing.
Of course it's different. BUT, neither needs player permission.
Quote from: jhkim on September 11, 2023, 05:49:43 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 11, 2023, 07:16:55 AM
Even faling rocks get a saving throw. Only thing that does not is falling into lava. The universal rule across every edition.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/IM1_TSR9171_The_Immortal_Storm.jpg)
:-)
The rules do not apply to gods. :D
Oh hey this site was mentioned on one of the major twitter threads about this topic (LINK (https://twitter.com/AlisonCybe/status/1700915508239872065?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet)), claiming y'all were piling on someone and being big meanies (which probably was not people form this site and regardless was not mean but was rather some people expressing rational reasoned dissent for the most part).
Quote from: Mistwell on September 11, 2023, 09:21:18 PM
Oh hey this site was mentioned on one of the major twitter threads about this topic (LINK (https://twitter.com/AlisonCybe/status/1700915508239872065?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet)), claiming y'all were piling on someone and being big meanies (which probably was not people form this site and regardless was not mean but was rather some people expressing rational reasoned dissent for the most part).
Yeah, pundit made a video about it.
Oh, look I'm blocked without ever interacting with whoever this person is.
Edit: Have an archived version
https://archive.fo/dKSnO (https://archive.fo/dKSnO)
Edit the second:
People should go to that thread to learn what "two minutes hate" really looks like, because I haven't seen anyone here hating on someone.
I thought I would post a rational reply, but IMMEDIATLEY deleted my posts. Because I realized there is no way to rationally talk to these people. They'll just say that I'm some "-ist", dogpile on my character as a human being, and say I'm a just a big meanie.
It's not worth it. Their deranged belief system has no influence on my game or the players. So why should I care?
I do find it hilarious because they're way of playing a RPG IMO is very juvenile and incredibly too safe. there is zero risk involved with the PCs.
ZERO.
IF there is no potential of risk to the PC, then what's the point? It's not heroic. Every PC is a Mary Sue reflection of themselves. Without the potential risk of some sort of negative outcome, it completely takes away from the hero's journey. It's not mature. It's just childish fairy tale nonsense. That's what we are dealing with: emotionally immature people. They cannot bear the thought of their precious pearl of a PC to be at risk for anything. Because their fragile egos are tied to their characters...and that is sad. I understand that sort of response from someone that was a pre-teen, because of emotional immaturity. but an adult? And then you have these narcissists dictate to the DM they MUST have consent from THEM to do harm to their PCs?
Holy fucking shit. In game one of my latest campaign, one of the PCs died. the girl playing the PC is 18 pretty much took it in stride. IT's because I pretty much warned them that the game world is harsh (were using Adv LL rules, which is a HUGE change from using Hackmaster 4E: no 20 HP kicker to PCs, no talents and skills to min/max a PC. It's striaght up Old School with LL rules. anyway i digress...)
but these snowflakes on Tiwtter/X? their fucking heads would explode.
Quote from: blackstone on September 12, 2023, 07:45:50 AM
I do find it hilarious because they're way of playing a RPG IMO is very juvenile and incredibly too safe. there is zero risk involved with the PCs.
ZERO.
Back in the day (late 70's) I had a couple of neighbor kids of around 6 and 7 years old. Their parents paid me to run D&D for them once in a while. That's how I ran the game for them. But, I was kind enough to tell them that in D&D as played by the rules their characters can and will die as a result of mistakes or just bad luck. They understood and switched gears when they got older and played "for real". Many "adult" players these days are not even up to the maturity level of those kids at age 6-7. Shocking
I seriously doubt that that many people actually play that way (the type of play suggested by this Player Consent BS). Most people outside the Culture War conflict don't even think about this stuff. This is largely performative stunts in social media to show off how woke they are, cuz they're all in their tiny little woke circle jerk online. And they need to reaffirm their wokeness from time to time. Same way many people on the anti-woke side obsessively look for this kind of shit, to engage on wild speculation their true hidden agenda, on the basis of stuff gleaned from the idiotic woke circle jerk of twitter randos.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 12, 2023, 09:32:25 AM
I seriously doubt that that many people actually play that way (the type of play suggested by this Player Consent BS). Most people outside the Culture War conflict don't even think about this stuff. This is largely performative stunts in social media to show off how woke they are, cuz they're all in their tiny little woke circle jerk online. And they need to reaffirm their wokeness from time to time. Same way many people on the anti-woke side obsessively look for this kind of shit, to engage on wild speculation their true hidden agenda, on the basis of stuff gleaned from the idiotic woke circle jerk of twitter randos.
I've played in over a dozen convention games that used the X-card, and also a handful of other games by one friend who used it in home games. It made essentially no difference in play. I never saw a player touch the card (i.e. refuse consent).
Based on this, I don't think there is such a huge difference in actual play.
I'm pretty sure that if I had called for player consent in any of my more typical games, it would make virtually no difference. Players were there because they enjoyed the game, and they consented to what was happening. Since I've been playing since I was in grade-school in the 1970s, I have seen some cases where the game blows up into arguments - where the GM pulls some bullshit or a player pulls some bullshit, but it's been extremely rare after grade school.
Overwhelmingly, all the players have fun and agree with what's happening in the game, as does the GM.
Quote from: Scooter on September 12, 2023, 08:33:37 AM
Quote from: blackstone on September 12, 2023, 07:45:50 AM
I do find it hilarious because they're way of playing a RPG IMO is very juvenile and incredibly too safe. there is zero risk involved with the PCs.
ZERO.
Back in the day (late 70's) I had a couple of neighbor kids of around 6 and 7 years old. Their parents paid me to run D&D for them once in a while. That's how I ran the game for them. But, I was kind enough to tell them that in D&D as played by the rules their characters can and will die as a result of mistakes or just bad luck. They understood and switched gears when they got older and played "for real". Many "adult" players these days are not even up to the maturity level of those kids at age 6-7. Shocking
The imbeciles creating "Safety Tools" come from the BDSM scene, where it DOES make sense to have safety meausures to protect everybody. For some reason they seem to think these are needed in RPGs or more likely they are control freaks.
The idiots that swarm you on the twatter if you dare say those aren't needed fall into two or three categories:
Useful idiot ideologically possesed (terminally online)
Useful idiot (it's not a big deal, I have used them and no one abused it) [Normally it's a leftist/progressive who plays among other leftists/progressives and is VERY careful to navigate the minefield of microagressions]
Disingenuous twat (control freak)
You could also engage in BDSM WITHOUT safety meausures and have a wonderful experience, doesn't mean those aren't needed there. Likewise in RPGs you can use them and get lucky or get one or two control freaks/weirdoes that will ruin everybody's fun.
IMNSHO ANYONE who needs "Safety Tools" to play RPGs doesn't belong in anyone's table, should find psychological care and do not pester sane mortals until he/she/it can engage in elfgames like a normal person.
I'm not your therapist, the other players aren't either, and we don't need, want, care what mental issues you have, go search proffesional help
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 12, 2023, 02:08:57 PM
IMNSHO ANYONE who needs "Safety Tools" to play RPGs doesn't belong in anyone's table, should find psychological care and do not pester sane mortals until he/she/it can engage in elfgames like a normal person.
I'm not your therapist, the other players aren't either, and we don't need, want, care what mental issues you have, go search proffesional help
That's the crux of the matter. If I play chess with one of these mentally ill people do I need to get consent before I take one of their pieces? These aren't humans that should be running around unsupervised but, need round the clock mental health care.
Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2023, 01:57:56 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 12, 2023, 09:32:25 AM
I seriously doubt that that many people actually play that way (the type of play suggested by this Player Consent BS). Most people outside the Culture War conflict don't even think about this stuff. This is largely performative stunts in social media to show off how woke they are, cuz they're all in their tiny little woke circle jerk online. And they need to reaffirm their wokeness from time to time. Same way many people on the anti-woke side obsessively look for this kind of shit, to engage on wild speculation their true hidden agenda, on the basis of stuff gleaned from the idiotic woke circle jerk of twitter randos.
I've played in over a dozen convention games that used the X-card, and also a handful of other games by one friend who used it in home games. It made essentially no difference in play. I never saw a player touch the card (i.e. refuse consent).
Based on this, I don't think there is such a huge difference in actual play.
I'm pretty sure that if I had called for player consent in any of my more typical games, it would make virtually no difference. Players were there because they enjoyed the game, and they consented to what was happening. Since I've been playing since I was in grade-school in the 1970s, I have seen some cases where the game blows up into arguments - where the GM pulls some bullshit or a player pulls some bullshit, but it's been extremely rare after grade school.
Overwhelmingly, all the players have fun and agree with what's happening in the game, as does the GM.
I think if a GM asked for my consent in the middle of the game I'd initially look confused then laugh.
I have an idea of a game that would kill two birds with one stone. Entitled players think that the GM is there to support their characters' stories. So they need consent. Fine. Make a game with the consent rules built in, not tacked on. However, there's a twist. If you demand consent to avoid something, then you get your way and immediately become the GM. You stay the GM until someone else asks for consent.
I wouldn't inflict it on anyone normal, but it should produce a "Lord of the Flies" like result in a group of all snowflakes, which might keep them out of mischief for a few hours as they play the consent chicken game. 8)
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 12, 2023, 02:08:57 PM
Quote from: Scooter on September 12, 2023, 08:33:37 AM
Quote from: blackstone on September 12, 2023, 07:45:50 AM
I do find it hilarious because they're way of playing a RPG IMO is very juvenile and incredibly too safe. there is zero risk involved with the PCs.
ZERO.
Back in the day (late 70's) I had a couple of neighbor kids of around 6 and 7 years old. Their parents paid me to run D&D for them once in a while. That's how I ran the game for them. But, I was kind enough to tell them that in D&D as played by the rules their characters can and will die as a result of mistakes or just bad luck. They understood and switched gears when they got older and played "for real". Many "adult" players these days are not even up to the maturity level of those kids at age 6-7. Shocking
The imbeciles creating "Safety Tools" come from the BDSM scene, where it DOES make sense to have safety meausures to protect everybody. For some reason they seem to think these are needed in RPGs or more likely they are control freaks.
They claim they come from that scene. As someone who is from it (as in I've run events, still staff one, and have taught classes) they are playing at the very shallow end and didn't adapt the tools well.
X card rules say you are to just skip ahead and continue playing. You are not allowed to require answers as to what happened. It's based on the safe word. Trust me, any serious player if you safe word until there is discussion and debrief so everyone knows what happened there is no more play. Full stop. If I safe word and you don't want to do that we are never playing again. Why? Because the one thing they get right is everyone has landmines you might hit (mental or physical) they didn't know about. So, if you do or just get too intense, it needs to be discussed.
Or, you might safe word because you got a nose bleed and let's fix that first.
Checklists are for negotiation, not consent. The number of newbies I've seen burned by "he did X, but I didn't agree to it" is numerous and checklists don't fix that. Checklists are more like a quiz on a dating site. I don't bother with experienced players I'm familiar with either directly or by reputation. There are better and, to be honest, more fun ways to negotiate. These days I'd use them if playing with a raw newbie and then mostly to know what they know and where they are. Having them ask "what is this" is valuable and finding and answering those things is part of your responsibility as a new player.
I'd say 80% of my opposition is because they are malformed versions of S&M tools being used for purposes and in ways they aren't even used for in that world.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 12, 2023, 04:42:00 PM
I have an idea of a game that would kill two birds with one stone. Entitled players think that the GM is there to support their characters' stories. So they need consent. Fine. Make a game with the consent rules built in, not tacked on. However, there's a twist. If you demand consent to avoid something, then you get your way and immediately become the GM. You stay the GM until someone else asks for consent.
I wouldn't inflict it on anyone normal, but it should produce a "Lord of the Flies" like result in a group of all snowflakes, which might keep them out of mischief for a few hours as they play the consent chicken game. 8)
I can see a way for that to actually be fun, but the idiots after safety tools wouldn't play that way.
Ya know, one of the D&D characters I never got to play was a mindflayer. The entire shtick was he was kicked out of his colony for getting Nyan Cat stuck in the Elder Brain's head, so he became a bard who telepathically beamed music into people's brains. It's almost a shame that campaign got canned.
My point is that just rolling with the stupid is how you have fun with a game like D&D.
On safety tools:
I am a big fan of a Session Zero discussion where you give the campaign a general movie rating and use Lines and Veils to set content warnings. For example, I nix torture and usually insist sex be behind a veil because that's only titillating to horny teenagers. I require PC-PC romance to be cleared in metagame by all affected players before introducing it into the campaign, and players I've played with have had issues like eyeball-horror phobia or graphic description of gore.
If you do this, not only do you not need the bloody X-Card, you get a better campaign because everyone has a better idea what the feel of the campaign should be.
Also, I'm working on a Clarkson-era Top Gear RPG which is all about players hurling insults at each other or sabotaging each other's vehicles in petty ways. It has a safety tool called, "Technical Difficulties." If one player says something another player thinks is going too far, they say, "Excuse me, we're having technical difficulties" and the narration cuts to when the PCs are driving away, chiding the player who went to far for getting them in some manner of trouble.
My point is that safety tools are an active good and can actively improve a game...provided you haven't stuck your brainstem into a blender and insist on a vanilla implementation of the X-Card. The X-Card is a bad safety tool which was always a stand-in, but the outrage culture mind-meld has made it the defacto safety tool because they lack the wit to make a better one.
Let's assume the character knows they've been infected. I'd tell the player :
- Your immune system may kill the tadpole or it might not. It's up to you if you want to take that chance.
- You may be able to discover ways to kill or remove the tadpole if that's what you want to do.
- If you end up becoming a mind flayer, how you react to that is up to you.
- You might continue playing with sick mind flayer powers.
- You might try to find a way to reverse the transformation, if possible.
- You might decide to retire this character and start a new one.
Personally, I don't put permanent major alteration stuff like this in my games. Presumably, the character you want to play is the one you made; if I had a problem with that, I just wouldn't have allowed the character.
I literally got handed a free copy of "The Shattered Obelisk" at a convention last weekend.
I haven't read it through fully yet. However, I got to page 12, and the whole controversy over the polymorph is completely different than described in these threads. It isn't about being transformed to a mindflayer based on PC failure.
The effect in question is a no-saving-throw, GM-imposed weirdness that happens to the PC as a result of the ongoing magical effects. Each PC starts getting weird minor transformations like nightmares, growing a new eye, a taste for raw meat, and various others. The severity grows over time. It's intended as atmosphere-building, giving the players a feel for what's going on without concrete clues.
---
I discuss the general issue about transforming PCs in my thread "Fun with Transforming PCs".
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/fun-with-transforming-pcs/
It sounds like what ForgottenF described happening to his Hyperborea characters.
Quote from: Effete on September 09, 2023, 02:15:19 PM
This just reads like terrible adventure design that tries to excuse how terrible it is by shoving the onus onto GMs to "properly get your player's consent." Is anyone really surprised anymore that this is the quality of content from modern DnD? It's a neat idea, with plenty opportunity for some interesting story-beats. It's just handled with all the grace of a drunk paraplegic trying to swim.
It smacks of storygamer meddling, again. The old "The DM is a horrible monster and we have to shackle it and chain it down!"
Quote from: Omega on October 05, 2023, 07:13:32 PM
Quote from: Effete on September 09, 2023, 02:15:19 PM
This just reads like terrible adventure design that tries to excuse how terrible it is by shoving the onus onto GMs to "properly get your player's consent." Is anyone really surprised anymore that this is the quality of content from modern DnD? It's a neat idea, with plenty opportunity for some interesting story-beats. It's just handled with all the grace of a drunk paraplegic trying to swim.
It smacks of storygamer meddling, again. The old "The DM is a horrible monster and we have to shackle it and chain it down!"
Yes, that is objectively true. The DM is a monster, and should be abused at every opportunity.