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

[Salthorae]

To me that is sophistic... since when did self harm or suicide become a valid action, outside of trying to achieve a game effect? You don’t even have to question what someone is thinking in this example because it’s so egregious.

And no, I wouldn’t let a newbie or a vet player try to suicide a polymorph away unless there was some valid IC reason for the PC to know anything about the spell. Nor would that be a valid strategy or action in any of the tabletop or online rpg groups I’ve been a part of or played with through the years.

 

[iserith]

To me that is sophistic... since when did self harm or suicide become a valid action, outside of trying to achieve a game effect? You don’t even have to question what someone is thinking in this example because it’s so egregious.

Why does it matter that the player is choosing the action to "achieve a game effect?"

And no, I wouldn’t let a newbie or a vet player try to suicide a polymorph away unless there was some valid IC reason for the PC to know anything about the spell. Nor would that be a valid strategy or action in any of the tabletop or online rpg groups I’ve been a part of or played with through the years.

Does the DM have the authority in his or her role as defined by the game to tell players what their characters may try to do?

 

[Salthorae]

Why does it matter that the player is choosing the action to "achieve a game effect?"

You keep going on and on about questioning people's thinking in this thread, and my point is that you don't have to question anything in this scenario. Even if the player doesn't state it, there is no reason other than to end polymorph for the player to kill his little frog-PC, so no questions are involved in their motivation.

Does the DM have the authority in his or her role as defined by the game to tell players what their characters may try to do?

Sure.

The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game.

Players can say what they want their actions to be, but it's up to the DM to decide if those actions are reasonable or allowable within the frame work of the world they have either built or are running. Just like a DM has say over whether a PC can play a certain race in their game or not, a DM has the authority to set the boundaries and expectations for their games.

If I as a DM set the expectation at Session 0 that Arcana checks are required to know things about spells (which I do), then unless you've made that check, have the spell in your spellbook, or have had some past in game experience with a spell, you don't get to "arbitrarily" take action that "whoops, got myself killed, guess that detrimental effect was pointless"

I mean 4th level spells an higher aren't common in any established game world. Not even Eberron where magic is EVERYWHERE, are 4th level spells common. So expecting a character to know how to end a polymorph effect without any checks or basis for that is a stretch.

 

[Rexwell]

The metagame is needed to play the game at all. You just appear not to like the thoughts the player in the example is having, despite the reasonableness of the action in the fictional context./QUOTE]


No one has said ALL metagaming is bad. Quite the opposite. What people have said is this toad example is a bridge too far and doesn’t pass the smell test for themselves and their tables. Especially with the mental contortions required to justify it as completely innocent.

Because if you do accept ALL metagaming, why refuse the player who “accidentally “ makes gunpowder? That would be being a thought police in your view, wouldn’t it? The character in game is just randomly mixing common things, wrapping it just so and sticking a fuse in it. Why disallow it for “genre” reasons?

 

[iserith]

You keep going on and on about questioning people's thinking in this thread, and my point is that you don't have to question anything in this scenario. Even if the player doesn't state it, there is no reason other than to end polymorph for the player to kill his little frog-PC, so no questions are involved in their motivation.

I'll point out that you did not answer the question I posed so I'll ask again: Why does it matter that the player is choosing the action to "achieve a game effect?"

Sure. Players can say what they want their actions to be, but it's up to the DM to decide if those actions are reasonable or allowable within the frame work of the world they have either built or are running. Just like a DM has say over whether a PC can play a certain race in their game or not, a DM has the authority to set the boundaries and expectations for their games.

In the context of the game, the DM can describe the environment, decide whether an action has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure, assign a mechanic to resolve that uncertainty (if any), and narrate the result of the adventurers' actions. I submit that the section you are quoting refers to the mechanics being employed for any given adjudication that arises during game play. The DMG makes a distinction between the "rules of the game" and "table rules," which deal with how the game is played.

The group as a whole can discuss and agree upon table rules (DMG, p. 235) which may include "Metagame Thinking" (which I address in my own table rules). The group may decide that the DM can say whether a player is allowed to make a given action declaration. But again this sits at the level of table rules, not the rules of the game itself. I have said and will continue to say that whatever pre-game agreements are made should be upheld by those who agree to them. The question under discussion is not whether table rules exist or should be followed once agreed to, but rather why some people take issue with how other people choose the actions they do, if those actions are otherwise reasonable in context.

If I as a DM set the expectation at Session 0 that Arcana checks are required to know things about spells (which I do), then unless you've made that check, have the spell in your spellbook, or have had some past in game experience with a spell, you don't get to "arbitrarily" take action that "whoops, got myself killed, guess that detrimental effect was pointless"

As has been shown, knowledge of the spell is not required for the toad to take the action. If you do declare that it is required, then to be consistent, no toad in your campaign world can ever accidentally die unless it has knowledge of spells. Is that true of toads in your setting? I imagine that is not the case, but then we are talking about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery that shares elements with childhood games of make-believe so anything's possible, right?

I mean 4th level spells an higher aren't common in any established game world. Not even Eberron where magic is EVERYWHERE, are 4th level spells common. So expecting a character to know how to end a polymorph effect without any checks or basis for that is a stretch.

On what basis are you making this assertion? Can you reference anything specific to back up your claim? I'm running an Eberron game right now so I'd like to know for my own purposes how common 4th-level spells are.

Does your claim apply to homebrew worlds as well?

 

[iserith]

No one has said ALL metagaming is bad. Quite the opposite. What people have said is this toad example is a bridge too far and doesn’t pass the smell test for themselves and their tables. Especially with the mental contortions required to justify it as completely innocent.

"Innocent" would seem to imply that someone could be seen as "guilty." Is that what you mean here? If so, who is guilty of what?

Because if you do accept ALL metagaming, why refuse the player who “accidentally “ makes gunpowder? That would be being a thought police in your view, wouldn’t it? The character in game is just randomly mixing common things, wrapping it just so and sticking a fuse in it. Why disallow it for “genre” reasons?

"Genre expectations" exist at the level of table rules (see my previous post in response to Salthorae). "We're playing D&D 5e, not Shadowrun, so some stuff that goes on in Shadowrun might not be appropriate here." Since I agree that table rules to which the players agree should be upheld, we have no disagreement on this point. The question is why some people think an action is invalid because, for example, the player is "trying to achieve a game effect," even if the action is otherwise reasonable in its fictional context.

 

[iserith]

I'd like to propose we look at this another way. This is not directed to any particular poster so I welcome all responses.

Let's pretend I'm a prospective player to your group. As part of whatever page-setting discussions you conduct, what exactly are you telling me about your table rules regarding what you call "metagaming?" How do you explain what you mean to me, a prospective player?

 

[Satyrn]

I'd like to propose we look at this another way. This is not directed to any particular poster so I welcome all responses.

Let's pretend I'm a prospective player to your group. As part of whatever page-setting discussions you conduct, what exactly are you telling me about your table rules regarding what you call "metagaming?" How do you explain what you mean to me, a prospective player?

My campaign primer says "if you wish to metagame (that is, take any action you want without me questioning your motives) you should seriously consider playing a moon druid and, as soon as possible, visit the Zoo at the the Circle of Sobek and take in the Cheese Weasel Exhibit. While at the Zoo, be sure to visit the Procurer for beast hunting quests. The more you find, the more beast shapes your future druids can assume. Not that there's any greater form than that of the Magnificent Silver Crested Cheese Weasel."

 

[Salthorae]

I'll point out that you did not answer the question I posed so I'll ask again: Why does it matter that the player is choosing the action to "achieve a game effect?"

Every chosen action in an RPG is to achieve a game effect.

You have said repeatedly that suiciding your frog-PC is a "reasonable" and "valid" action. I contend that it is not without in game justification for the action. Therefore it matters why the player is choosing that action at my table. I'm fine with it, if they have a basis for the action in-game or in-character. Because I know the PC's at my table, I know already for which one's that action might be reasonable, so when I ask for an Arcana check, the DC is set accordingly.

The question under discussion is not whether table rules exist or should be followed once agreed to, but rather why some people take issue with how other people choose the actions they do, if those actions are otherwise reasonable in context.

I continue to maintain that self-suicide is not a reasonable action without an in-game basis, regardless of how you try to achieve the effect, because the out of character rationale is to end the effect of polymorph.

As has been shown, knowledge of the spell is not required for the toad to take the action. If you do declare that it is required, then to be consistent, no toad in your campaign world can ever accidentally die unless it has knowledge of spells. Is that true of toads in your setting? I imagine that is not the case, but then we are talking about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery that shares elements with childhood games of make-believe so anything's possible, right?

Knowledge of the spell IS required for a PC to take an action that would end the effect of a spell in my games though.

It's not an accident if you purposefully do it and I'm not sure how or why you continue to conflate them. The toad can't do anything on it's own to die other than jumping into an environmental hazard. That wouldn't be accidental unless as the DM, you said the player had to roll a d12 to determine which "random" direction their frog was trying to go. Otherwise it's purposeful and not accidental.

On what basis are you making this assertion? Can you reference anything specific to back up your claim? I'm running an Eberron game right now so I'd like to know for my own purposes how common 4th-level spells are.

5e based reference, but there are more from 3.5 forward that deal with the same information: http://keith-baker.com/common-magic/

Two 3.5 based articles that deal with the rarity of PC classes and levels which then also speaks to the rarity of higher level magics/abilities:
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebug/20041227a
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20040712a

Does your claim apply to homebrew worlds as well?

Obviously not and now you're nitpicking. When I said "established game worlds" I was referring to "official TSR/WotC published game worlds that I have read, or seen, or played in". I am in no way able to speak to people's homebrewed worlds. I'm sure someone or many someone's out there have worlds where janitors have access to 5th level magic on a regular basis.

Still, that would be an in-game justification for the character knowing how to end the polymorph effect. I'd still require an Arcana check to see if they had experience with it to act accordingly, EVEN in that kind of homebrew world. But the DC would be lower in that kind of a world.

 

[Satyrn]

My campaign primer says "if you wish to metagame (that is, take any action you want without me questioning your motives) you should seriously consider playing a moon druid and, as soon as possible, visit the Zoo at the the Circle of Sobek and take in the Cheese Weasel Exhibit. While at the Zoo, be sure to visit the Procurer for beast hunting quests. The more you find, the more beast shapes your future druids can assume. Not that there's any greater form than that of the Magnificent Silver Crested Cheese Weasel."

Okay, so obviously my campaign primer doesn't quite say that. But it does suggest that the players consider t taking those beast hunting quests to help their future druids. That's one heck of a metagaming reason to choose a quest, right? The player deciding his character does something for the benefit of a future character that doesn't even exist yet.

I actually think one of my players chose to hold off on playing a druid until the Zoo fills up a little with skags and bonerfarts and other beasts that are good in a fight.