I want to believe

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Maybe I'm missing something here...

It really looks like the OP (and/or the other players) used OOC knowledge and are now trying to explain it away and justify it. The GM certainly could have handled things differently too.

At the end of the day... so what?

If the OP manages to badger people into giving up, because he continues to revise what happened and so forth... then what? Are you going to drag your GM over to the computer and force him to read (so far) 8 pages and then declare how he was wrong and the players were right? Is your GM _really_ going to care about the opinions of a bunch of people on ENWorld?

This totally seems like the sort of thing that needs to be hashed out with the group and the GM. You lot are the ones that have to all play together. Right now, this seems to be some sort of mutant form of rules-lawyering or something. I know I personally would either kick out a player engaged in the kind of behavior that the OP seems to be engaged in, or simply quit running a game and let someone else do it; depending on how good a friend I was with the people in question.

What is the actual point to all of this?

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

I think the reason this whole discussion got out of hand is because it was never supposed to be an argument about metagaming. The argument was supposed to be this, “If we already believed the corpse to be a fake, does failing a will save force us to give up on that belief?”

My argument was that it does not. The Will save didn’t cause the body to change in any way. It still looked and felt real to us. Now, if the Will save had succeeded the body would have changed, it would have become transparent.

The point is this, the body was exactly the same before and after the Will save was rolled. So if we thought it was a fake before the Will save then why would we not think so after, seeing as nothing had changed?

Irdeggman, you suggest we not roll search, sense motive, and knowledge checks if we are going to ignore the results. I think you misunderstand how those skills work and what they are for. The purpose of those skills is to gather information. Once that information has been gathered, we process it and decide what our characters do with it. Your implication is that these skills aren’t for information gathering, but for determining what our characters believe. Failing a search check on a chest doesn’t make your character believe there is no trap. It just means he fails to gather any information about a trap being present. And if you already have information on the chest being trapped, such as the owner telling you it is, then your PC would still believe it is trapped despite the failed search check.

I am ashamed to admit that I didn’t try to put a stop to the “Metagaiming” argument when it first came up. The argument was off topic and derailed the post. And I foolishly tried fighting it when I should have just asked that it be removed and the original argument be addressed. I not only feed the troll, but invited it to an all you can eat, 9 page buffet. And for that I am sorry.

 

[irdeggman]

Irdeggman, you suggest we not roll search, sense motive, and knowledge checks if we are going to ignore the results. I think you misunderstand how those skills work and what they are for. The purpose of those skills is to gather information. Once that information has been gathered, we process it and decide what our characters do with it. Your implication is that these skills aren’t for information gathering, but for determining what our characters believe. Failing a search check on a chest doesn’t make your character believe there is no trap. It just means he fails to gather any information about a trap being present. And if you already have information on the chest being trapped, such as the owner telling you it is, then your PC would still believe it is trapped despite the failed search check.[/quiote]

Actually I fully understand what they are for - they are for determined what information the PC knows about certain topics. This is the information that the player is supposed to use in order to make judgements for his PC.

I am ashamed to admit that I didn’t try to put a stop to the “Metagaiming” argument when it first came up. The argument was off topic and derailed the post. And I foolishly tried fighting it when I should have just asked that it be removed and the original argument be addressed. I not only feed the troll, but invited it to an all you can eat, 9 page buffet. And for that I am sorry.

I resent being called (or inferred to be) a troll. I never started in seeking to stir things up and start an endless argument. I don't think I have ever been accused of being a troll or even of using poor arguments - only of being mistaken and having a differing opinion of the RAW.

My opinions are based on reading of the RAW and of my experiences in good role-playing games and bad role-playing games (more roll playing than role-playing) gained over my 30+ years of playing D&D (well there was about a 7 year gap in there during my late college years and early "real life" ones but other than that it has been pretty consistent playing from 1st ed through 2nd ed (included all of the Player's Option materials) to 3.0/3.5 with a couple of extremely good play-by-post games and a couple of pretty bad ones too.

The reason the metagaming argument came up was because the players were ignoring the results of the will saves and specifically targeting a dispel magic to disprove the result of such a save.

I still hold absolutely to the belief that a failed disbelief save means the PC believes the illusion to be real and then if a PC immediately with out any other evidence discovered since the failed will save asks for a dispel magic to check for an illusion he is trying to disprove his failed saving throw or perceptions.

Evidently your DM feels the same way which is why (as you describe) he called for everyone to make a will save to attempt to remove any metagaming from the process and try to show the players what the PCs actually "knew" and then from the description of his behaviour that you provided he finally got fed up arguing with the players that they were metagaming and said he didn't care what the rules said he was going to ejudicate them the way he wanted.

So in fact this entire discussion has at its root actually been about metagaming (since the question was prompted by such claims by the DM) and you have missed the root of the issue (as seen from your DM's POV).

Again - this is not a statement that your DM behaved properly or that he was/is using illusion spells in the proper manner.

The DM in my present game is running invisibility in way I know is against the RAW - but he explained it to us before it has ever become an issue or before spellcasters had chosen it for one of their spells. He chooses to treat it entirely as an illusion that you may disbelieve and when presented with evidence may autodisbelieve it. Now as written in probably one of the most powerful 2nd level spells around (and there has always been issues with whether or not it should actually be an alteration spell instead of an illusion one) but. . . Regardless I will go along with they way he wants to run the game, he is the DM and in general a very creative and entertaining storyteller.

This is not about telling a player how to run his character it is about attempting to have him play the information his PC has - which is measured by the result of any saving throws or skill checks made (that is exactly what those are for - to measure what a PC knows or has pieced together and to separate that from what a player knows).

 

[Foxworthy]

Edit: Fixed quote box.

I think the reason this whole discussion got out of hand is because it was never supposed to be an argument about metagaming. The argument was supposed to be this, “If we already believed the corpse to be a fake, does failing a will save force us to give up on that belief?”

No it wasn't it. That's not what you asked. It may have been what you meant, but it wasn't what you asked at all. I'll quote your first post so you can actually see what your original question was. I'm going to snip the in game example though as it's an explanation of the question, rtaher than the question itself.

We had an argument in our last game session about illusions and what it means to fail a will save against them....

...I always thought the players had the right to determine what their characters believed. For example, there have been some “shady” NPCs that I didn’t trust. And even if they make their bluff check when talking to me, I can still choose to not trust them. I thought the same worked with illusions. Am I wrong on this?

You asked what failing a save against an illusion meant, and whether PC's had the right to disbelieve an illusion regardless of the results of the disbelief check.

I am ashamed to admit that I didn’t try to put a stop to the “Metagaiming” argument when it first came up. The argument was off topic and derailed the post. And I foolishly tried fighting it when I should have just asked that it be removed and the original argument be addressed. I not only feed the troll, but invited it to an all you can eat, 9 page buffet. And for that I am sorry.

As you can see you are the one who brought the metagaming topic up, even if you didn't use the word "metagaming" itself.

You brought it up by asking if you could ignore the result of a disbelief check.

I think the reason this whole discussion got out of hand is because it was never supposed to be an argument about metagaming. The argument was supposed to be this, “If we already believed the corpse to be a fake, does failing a will save force us to give up on that belief?”

Now had this been your original question the answer would be simple.

No.

If you suspect a body to be fake and fail to disbelieve the illusion you would still think the body is fake, just not as a result of an illusion.

Failing the will save only means that you believe their is nothing amiss in regards to illusions. As I have mentioned before in this thread you are perfect in your right to suspect the body has had gentle repose cast on it. Or even mundane forms of alteration.

The only problem with your original post was that it made it seem that the failed roll against an illusion led to the expressed statement to another player that they should cast detect magic to check to see if it was an illusion. Which of course the player, that asked for the detect magic against illusion to be cast, character did not believe illusion was the reason. So for him to asked for the person to cast detect magic against an illusion seems like metagaming as opposed to logical investigation.

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

I didn’t intend to refer to anyone as a troll. In this case, my implaction that the metagaming argument itself was the troll. The first time the accusation of metagaiming came up I should have just ignored it. But instead I threw fuel on the flames.

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

I know its my fault. When I make an argument I don’t really put enough thought into making sure other people understand what I am talking about. Its easy to forget that other people don’t have the all the information on the argument that you do, and its easy to think that just because its clear to you that its clear to them.

But now that I have finally made it clear let me add a little more to the argument that was supposed to be discussed. If the failed Will save causes us to stop believing the body is fake.

The definition that irdeggman used in his last post for search, spot, and knowledge checks is essentially the same as mine. So we are in agreement there. Those skills or for determining what, and how much information your characters have. Succeeding on those skills gives your characters more information, but doesn’t take away information your characters already have. If your investigating a crime scene, and roll a 1 on your search check, you fail to find any new evidence. But the evidence you have is still there; failing your search check doesn’t make the bloody glove you found in the garbage can dissapear.

We already had evidence that the corpse was fake, the missing kama. Failing a Will save means we gather no new information, and find no further proof that the corpse is fake. But the clue of the missing kama was still there.

The reason I think the metagaiming argument is off track is this. This first time we called the corpse a fake there had been no save, and none of us had any information about the module. I don’t think anyone is making the claim that calling the corpse fake at that time was metagaming. The accusations of metagaming are there because we continued to call the corpse a fake “after” the save was failed. That’s why the original argument of this topic was supposed to be, “If our characters think a body is a fake, does failing a Will save cause us to give up on that belief. And if so, why.” If I had made the question more clear, we might not have gone on this long. Its my fault that we went on for so many pages without the real question even being asked, much rather answered.

 

[Foxworthy]

The reason I think the metagaiming argument is off track is this. This first time we called the corpse a fake there had been no save, and none of us had any information about the module. I don’t think anyone is making the claim that calling the corpse fake at that time was metagaming. The accusations of metagaming are there because we continued to call the corpse a fake “after” the save was failed. That’s why the original argument of this topic was supposed to be, “If our characters think a body is a fake, does failing a Will save cause us to give up on that belief. And if so, why.” If I had made the question more clear, we might not have gone on this long. Its my fault that we went on for so many pages without the real question even being asked, much rather answered.

The metagaming argument came because you stated you wanted to detect magic for an illusion after failing the will save to disbelief. The metagaming argument had nothing to do with whether or not you believed the body was a fake. Which is really a seperate issue from illusions and sibelief.

Now you are right that if you believe a body is fake, and fail the disbelief check, your character doesn't believe the body is real. You are completely free to believe it's a dummy corpse, just not to believe it's an illusionary corpse.

If he thought the body was an illusion and failed, then he wouldn't think the body was an illusion though.

All the disbelief check does is figure out whether your character believes something is an illusion or not. It won't change a characters thoughts in regards to anything but the illusion.

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

We didn’t cast detect magic to prove the body was an illusion. I fully understand how people made that assumption. In fact, I believe in one of my posts I claimed the detect magic was to spot illusion or trickery. “or trickery” being a key part that people seemed to have ignored.

Before saves were even called for, we assumed the body to be a fake, and that the true coffin was concealed somewhere near by. Obviously trickery was going on, and that kind of trickery almost always includes magic. The detect magic was intended to inspect a various number of things. Perhaps the body was an illusion, perhaps it was polymorph. Perhaps the entrance to the real tomb was concealed somewhere near by. There were an unlimited number of things that our detect magic could have uncovered.

When the Cleric cast detect magic he said “what’s magical?” That’s when the DM said, “everything is magical, including the walls.” The choice of words is a minor detail but very important. If we were a bunch of metagamers, eagerly trying to override a Will save, the first words out of the Clerics mouth would have been “So, do we see the body is and illusion” or something to that effect. Instead he asked what in the room was magical, as the purpose of detect magic was by no means for the body alone. But since the body has been the focal point of this argument I can see how people made that mistake. And my vagueness in explaining things didn’t help either.

 

[irdeggman]

We didn’t cast detect magic to prove the body was an illusion. I fully understand how people made that assumption. In fact, I believe in one of my posts I claimed the detect magic was to spot illusion or trickery. “or trickery” being a key part that people seemed to have ignored.

Before saves were even called for, we assumed the body to be a fake, and that the true coffin was concealed somewhere near by. Obviously trickery was going on, and that kind of trickery almost always includes magic. The detect magic was intended to inspect a various number of things. Perhaps the body was an illusion, perhaps it was polymorph. Perhaps the entrance to the real tomb was concealed somewhere near by. There were an unlimited number of things that our detect magic could have uncovered.

And yet you still go back to "perhaps the body was an illusion" - Foxworthy summed up my reasons for even going with the metagaming point at all.

It was precisely this logic - attempting to use detect magic to specifically disprove the result of a failed saving throw with no additional evidence coming after the failed save.

If you would have not mentioned this - things would have been different but you keep bringing up the fact that it was an illusion (the DM told the players that afterwards) when all present indication (to the PCs' knowledge - as evidenced by the failed saving throw) leads the PCs.

I have to assume the text used was a pretty accurate one of the what the PC had said at the time (to check for illusion. . .)

 

[irdeggman]

The definition that irdeggman used in his last post for search, spot, and knowledge checks is essentially the same as mine. So we are in agreement there. Those skills or for determining what, and how much information your characters have. Succeeding on those skills gives your characters more information, but doesn’t take away information your characters already have. If your investigating a crime scene, and roll a 1 on your search check, you fail to find any new evidence. But the evidence you have is still there; failing your search check doesn’t make the bloody glove you found in the garbage can dissapear.

Actually there is more to it than that, I should have been clearer. The result also can be used to determine how the PC "perceives" things and processes the information present.

For example a Spot check doesn't indicate what the PC knows but what he has made of the indications present (which are always there) - basically how he processes that information.

A sense motive check against a bluff doesn't indicate "knowledge" but perceptions. The result of "you believe he is telling the truth" is an extremely common result to give. It is not knowledge but "perception"., it is not necessarily a "fact" but how the PC "perceives" things.