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

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

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

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.