D&D 5E Polymorph is a bad de-buff spell

[Bawylie]

I wrote something long, but decided to take it back because after some consideration, I actually agree with you.

"MY fun is based in large part on the thoughts in YOUR head, regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, and it's YOUR responsibility to make sure *I* am not suspicious of YOUR motives."

Yes. You are right.

Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you say you're stealing the spotlight because your feelings are more important than mine, we're going to have an issue.

Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you say you're defending Jane's character because you want to get into her pants, we're going to have an issue.

Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you say you cheated on your dice roll, we're going to have an issue.

Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you say you're only doing it because you really hate another player and want him to suffer, we're going to have an issue.

But if he decides on the direction a frog might leap, would that be equivalent to trying to get into Jane’s pants?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

That is the position though and it has been demonstrated in this very thread. Some people don't like the fact that the player in the example is taking an action specifically to end the polymorph spell, no matter how reasonable that action is in the context of the fictional situation. Some of those same people would give a pass to a player new to the game who didn't know that's how the spell works. But anyone else is guilty of "metagaming" due to how he or she is thinking about the action that is proposed and ruining everyone else's fun because of their thoughts. You might not like the words I choose to describe it, and that's okay, but this approach boils down to that exactly.

Dang you [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] with your consistent, if not stubborn, logical tone! And by "dang you", I really mean: thank you. Count me among your disciples.

So, I've been one DM who has gotten bent out of shape when a player did something that was, in my mind, cheese-weaseling metagaming. "Why are they messing about like this, self?" I would ask... myself. "Cheating cheaters gonna cheat!? Not on my watch!" Then I'd wonder later why I felt like I was getting burned out.

Over time, I realized I was robbing myself of fun with this stance. I was letting something bother me that did not truly matter to the greater story being told. And now I can see ways in which I was ironically encouraging the very player behavior that drove me mad through trying to rigidly control it.

I'm certainly still learning and am very far from perfecting the art, but the more I'm able to give narrative control of the fiction to the players, the more easy-going the game becomes and the more I can relax and enjoy - and when the DM is genuinely enjoying a session, I think it can be a contagious positive feedback loop.

Describe the scene. Let the players declare their PCs' goals and approaches. Then adjudicate without judgement of player intention. Push the "your character wouldn't do that!" reaction out of your mind. It has made a difference for me.

 

[Seramus]

But if he decides on the direction a frog might leap, would that be equivalent to trying to get into Jane’s pants?

If the player knows how to break polymorph, and he says he is going to have the frog suicide to break the polymorph without any IC knowledge or rolls to know about how polymorph works... I would rate that around the "cheating on dice rolls" level of disruption at my table.

 

[Iry]

Describe the scene. Let the players declare their PCs' goals and approaches. Then adjudicate without judgement of player intention. Push the "your character wouldn't do that!" reaction out of your mind. It has made a difference for me.

Different strokes for different folks. I actually ran a campaign where metagaming was completely allowed. The novelty was incredibly fun at first, and I don't regret the experience, but the players quickly lost engagement and stopped having fun. We had meetings to see what we would do to spark life back into things, but nothing cut the mustard.

It didn't work out for me or mine, but I recommend everyone at least give it a try.
See for themselves. That's how we grow as gamers.

 

[Bawylie]

If the player knows how to break polymorph, and he says he is going to have the frog suicide to break the polymorph without any IC knowledge or rolls to know about how polymorph works... I would rate that around the "cheating on dice rolls" level of disruption at my table.

Has it been established that breaking polymorph is not common knowledge in the world? Is there a reason the character wouldn’t know how to?

 

[Seramus]

Has it been established that breaking polymorph is not common knowledge in the world? Is there a reason the character wouldn’t know how to?

Yes.

"Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes."

The DC would depend on the setting and background of the character, of course. DC15 is the usual at my table. If you're hanging around places with a high caster concentration, then DC10. If someone has outright told you, then no roll is necessary.

 

[iserith]

I wrote something long, but decided to take it back because after some consideration, I actually agree with you.

"MY fun is based in large part on the thoughts in YOUR head, regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, and it's YOUR responsibility to make sure *I* am not suspicious of YOUR motives."

Yes. You are right.

Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you say you're stealing the spotlight because your feelings are more important than mine, we're going to have an issue.

Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you say you're defending Jane's character because you want to get into her pants, we're going to have an issue.

Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you say you cheated on your dice roll, we're going to have an issue.

Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you say you're only doing it because you really hate another player and want him to suffer, we're going to have an issue.

These are all great things to discuss in another context. Here they serve to obfuscate a point that has already been made, that being some people are choosing to have their fun spoiled by having an otherwise reasonable action rendered questionable by their concern over what they think someone else is thinking.

 

[iserith]

Dang you [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] with your consistent, if not stubborn, logical tone! And by "dang you", I really mean: thank you. Count me among your disciples.

Having disciples seems like a lot of responsibility. How about "colleagues?"

 

[Bawylie]

Yes.

"Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes."

The DC would depend on the setting and background of the character, of course. DC15 is the usual at my table. If you're hanging around places with a high caster concentration, then DC10.

Right on. Although, conceivably that check only comes into play when there’s uncertainty as to the outcome.

For instance, just about everybody knows or has seen magic missile, fireball, cure wounds, etc. Stuff that’s recognizable on sight. So it’s possible polymorph and other spells are within common knowledge and would not require a roll.

Hypothetically, in a situation where Polymorph is sufficiently well known, would you still have a problem with a polymorphed frog leaping to its death?

 

[iserith]

Different strokes for different folks. I actually ran a campaign where metagaming was completely allowed. The novelty was incredibly fun at first, and I don't regret the experience, but the players quickly lost engagement and stopped having fun. We had meetings to see what we would do to spark life back into things, but nothing cut the mustard.

It didn't work out for me or mine, but I recommend everyone at least give it a try.
See for themselves. That's how we grow as gamers.

What sort of "metagaming" did they get up to? Was that the only aspect of the game that was different than how you usually play?