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

[Iry]

I used to hold those preferences though and, after some considerable thought on them, I decided the problem was that I was allowing my fun to be threatened by how other people made decisions regardless of the reasonableness of the decision in context. I can't control how other people make decisions and, frankly, I shouldn't want to. Upon that realization, I stepped away from that way of playing right then and there. After all, if the toad jumping under the bard's boot and being squished makes sense in context, then why should I care that the player did that to gain an advantage? It's a cool outcome and I should be happy that it happened. I should not let why that person did that spoil my fun. At least, that's the conclusion I drew some years ago.

There are people who have come to the same conclusion as you and been very happy with the outcome, just as there are people who came to the same conclusion but discovered they were having considerably less fun, and several other stops along the spectrum. Encouraging people to consider these things is great, and a big part of why I think having these discussions are important for the hobby. But these evolutions as a gamer are part of a diaspora of thought, not a linear conclusion.

Now we're getting overly vague and philosophical.

 

[Hussar]

Please explain what isn't plausible about an Int-1 toad, panicked by the raging battle around it, leaping into the path of danger, accidentally killing itself in the process.

Because it isn't accidental? The player has flat out declared that he's committing suicide to break the spell. What is accidental about that?

See, I don't get this. At all. I *think* you are saying that the suicide frog is disruptive because it's so far out of the bounds of the expected that the only explanation for it happening is that another player is metagaming. (If I've got that wrong, please correct me.)

Yup, that's about right. Do you really think this isn't metagaming?

And yet...this is occurring in a world with floating castles, plane-shifting brain eaters, time stop magic, demon invasions, and rapiers. You, and the character you play, are totally willing to accept just about any crazy fiction. And yet somehow a suicidal frog is a bridge too far.

So let's approach this from another angle. Your characters enter dungeon room, and there on the floor is a large frog. Just as you are about to inspect this frog, the DM says that it leaps at your sword, and impales itself.

Is your immersion blown? Or do you assume there's some explanation for this that only the DM understands? I'm assuming the latter. (Again, if not, please correct me.)

So if we're still on the same page, what we have is this: when the DM introduces a suicidal frog it's fine, because crazy, bizarre things happen in this fantasy world, and this is pretty much the least of them. But when the player who is polymorphed into a frog does the suicidal thing, it's immersion-breaking metagaming because:
a) You know that according to the rules of the game the player can't introduce bizarre new magic on his own volition
b) You also know that according to the rules of the game this action would help him escape from a polymorph spell

See where I'm going with this? It becomes immersion-breaking for you because you are applying the "rules of the game" to the narrative scene. Your character, ignorant of the difference between DM-actions and player-actions, would take this totally in stride. It's the player who is bothered by it.

Thus it is metagame thinking that lets it be disruptive. A truly immersed player wouldn't notice.

/snip.

Bollocks.

A truly immersed player wouldn't be such an incredible cheese weasel and try to get out of the negative consequences of a failed save in such a blindingly obvious way.

Again, the ONLY reason that the player declares this is to break the spell. Put it another way, since we're doing hypotheticals here:

Would a player EVER declare this action if it didn't break the spell? Would a player EVER commit suicide in this fashion​

The obvious answer is no. The ONLY reason that the player has declared this action is because of the rules of the game. Has ZERO to do with role play and everything to do with a player who just wants a cheap way to get out of a failed save. Like I said, my response would be at least a critical hit on the PC for deliberately doing this, if not instant death.

After all, if it's all about the role play, and not about abusing the rules, then the player should be perfectly happy with a dead PC. He's the one who committed suicide after all. I didn't force the character to do anything. I simply gave the results of his action. Dead PC. Everyone's happy right?

 

[iserith]

Because it isn't accidental? The player has flat out declared that he's committing suicide to break the spell. What is accidental about that?

As I've already stated several times in this discussion, the player's decision may be intentional; the toad's fate is accidental in the context of the fiction as described by the player. The toad is not saying or thinking "Gadzooks! My superior knowledge of magic tells me, a common toad, that I am under the effects of the hag's fell polymorph spell and the way out of this predicament is to die under that running bard's boot! Excelsior!" *leap* *squish*

Instead, it is startled by the battle raging around it, leaps because it is scared, and accidentally gets squashed by the bard.

What is wrong with that in your view?

 

[iserith]

The ONLY reason that the player has declared this action is because of the rules of the game. Has ZERO to do with role play and everything to do with a player who just wants a cheap way to get out of a failed save.

Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s the player determining how the character thinks, acts, and talks. If I decide my character, now a 1-Int toad, is startled by what's going on and leaps unfortunately to its death, then I am roleplaying by determining how it thinks and acts.

You are for some reason adding another requirement to roleplaying which is that I have to pretend like I don't know the rules of the game. What's more, you're judging my action based on what you THINK is going on in my head rather than just the action myself. You're effectively accusing the player of wrong-think, even if the action described is perfectly reasonable in context.

Like I said, my response would be at least a critical hit on the PC for deliberately doing this, if not instant death.

Mine would be to have the frog squished bright between the toes of the bard's open-toed shoes (bad day to wear your magic red-bottoms, bard, and now they're bloody shoes!), then have the fighter appear in a puff of green smoke, prone, nearly tripping up the bard.

If I as DM wasn't okay with that outcome, perhaps because I didn't want it to be so easy to break the polymorph spell, I would turn the fighter into a killer whale. I would do that especially if I cared as much about "metagaming" as some of you. My challenges would not be based on players pretending not to know what they know.

 

[jgsugden]

There are some simple arguments where if you need to speak them, they'll never be understood.

If a character that does not understand polymorph commits frog suicide while polymorphed, it is 100% metagaming. Whether that is welcome at your table is your business.

 

[TwoSix]

As I've already stated several times in this discussion, the player's decision may be intentional; the toad's fate is accidental in the context of the fiction as described by the player. The toad is not saying or thinking "Gadzooks! My superior knowledge of magic tells me, a common toad, that I am under the effects of the hag's fell polymorph spell and the way out of this predicament is to die under that running bard's boot! Excelsior!" *leap* *squish*

Instead, it is startled by the battle raging around it, leaps because it is scared, and accidentally gets squashed by the bard.

What is wrong with that in your view?

Because putting the character in a disadvantageous situation in pursuit of greater verisimilitude is viewed as virtuous, skilled play by many, many players and tables. Making the most optimal decision and then providing a post hoc narrative isn't the correct play for that play style, because you're demonstrating that inhabitation of the fictional situation is not your primary concern.

 

[billd91]

What fictional reason would work for you to explain why the toad leaped into the way of a sword?

To use a slightly different example, what fictional reason would work for you to explain why the toad leaped in front of a car?

Considering the polymorphed character retains his personality, though with the intelligence of a frog, I'd expect that character to have exhibited an extreme suicidal tendency to deliberately get himself killed since, from the POV of a frog, that's exactly what would be happening. Or maybe a successful Charisma save vs the DC of the spell - and using the frog's Charisma.

 

[billd91]

Please explain what isn't plausible about an Int-1 toad, panicked by the raging battle around it, leaping into the path of danger, accidentally killing itself in the process.

No, what isn't plausible is the toad intentionally getting himself "accidentally" killed in order to break the spell. I'd be far more likely to offer inspiration to the player if they successfully negotiate the fight as a frog desperate to survive or maybe continue the fight against his original opponents (which would fit in with his personality, after all, far more than getting himself cacked by his own comrades).

 

[iserith]

Because putting the character in a disadvantageous situation in pursuit of greater verisimilitude is viewed as virtuous, skilled play by many, many players and tables. Making the most optimal decision and then providing a post hoc narrative isn't the correct play for that play style, because you're demonstrating that inhabitation of the fictional situation is not your primary concern.

I would say "inhabitation of the fictional situation" is being addressed, alongside making an optimal decision. They aren't at odds in the example I have given. The player is both making an optimal decision and inhabiting the fictional situation by describing the toad's accidental death.

 

[iserith]

No, what isn't plausible is the toad intentionally getting himself "accidentally" killed in order to break the spell. I'd be far more likely to offer inspiration to the player if they successfully negotiate the fight as a frog desperate to survive or maybe continue the fight against his original opponents (which would fit in with his personality, after all, far more than getting himself cacked by his own comrades).

The toad is not intentionally doing anything though. The player is. The toad is accidentally getting killed.