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

[iserith]

You're crouching it in scare words, but this is literally a normal process in every aspect of your social life, and at the gaming table. There's nothing wrong with it at a basic level because that's how social contracts operate, and every table is going to have a different tolerance to it.

Sure, do what you want, but know and be honest with what you're doing is all I'm saying. My experience is that when many people really take a good, hard look at this approach and why they do it, it becomes unpalatable. It's hard to defend choosing to base one's fun and immersion on what thought crimes someone else may be committing. It's an abdication of personal responsibility as I see it.

You're creating a strawman here. There may have been one or two posters in this specific thread that haven taken the position of "No Metagaming Ever!" but your major interactions over the past 10 pages or so have been people who seem to have no problem with a moderate amount of metagaming.

The point is that the very basis for the "no 'metagaming'" or "as little 'metagaming' as possible" approach is "metagaming." Drill down to analyze the approach and that's where we end up - "metagaming" to avoid "metagaming." There are heaps of cognitive dissonance to be found here. I encourage everyone to really think this through. In my experience, this approach is usually adopted due to legacy ("this is what we've always done" or "this is how I learned the game from my cousin") and isn't rigorously tested.

 

[iserith]

I'll invite him to the thread. That would probably be the most nonpartisan approach, so he can make his own decisions. Besides the whole "already one of my players, so probably shares a similar mindset" thing.[/FONT][/COLOR]

That's very fair of you. I would add that I don't expect to change the minds of anyone who already declared this view here. Often when you try to convince someone of a flaw in a given approach, they just double-down on the way they do things. Maybe it has to do with sunk cost or group identity. I don't know.

My arguments are chiefly aimed at people who haven't made up their minds yet, the people who may be reading, but not posting. Or at least people who employ this approach but haven't declared it in this thread or forum. Once someone is "declared" in public, that's likely someone who will not be changing his or her mind.

I would add that I think this is also tied up with people's personal definition of "roleplaying" such that they are unable to see a player taking the action I've discussed as "roleplaying" since they see it instead as "metagaming." Those things are not opposites, according to the definition of "roleplaying" the game gives us. That same definition tells us that the player in the example is playing the role of a toad that gets itself into trouble.

 

[Seramus]

Sure, do what you want, but know and be honest with what you're doing is all I'm saying. My experience is that when many people really take a good, hard look at this approach and why they do it, it becomes unpalatable. It's hard to defend choosing to base one's fun and immersion on what thought crimes someone else may be committing. It's an abdication of personal responsibility as I see it.

Stop for a moment. Re-read what you wrote. "Be honest", "It becomes unpalatable", "It's hard to defend", "Thought crimes", "Abdication of personal responsibility." You just went Fox News on me.

The point is that the very basis for the "no 'metagaming'" or "as little 'metagaming' as possible" approach is "metagaming." Drill down to analyze the approach and that's where we end up - "metagaming" to avoid "metagaming." There are heaps of cognitive dissonance to be found here. I encourage everyone to really think this through. In my experience, this approach is usually adopted due to legacy ("this is what we've always done" or "this is how I learned the game from my cousin") and isn't rigorously tested.

Good metagaming to avoid bad metagaming is normal. There's no cognitive dissonance, just disagreement about where to draw the line between the two.

I've thought it through.
Really, deeply, seriously thought it through.
And I disagree with you.

 

[Seramus]

My arguments are chiefly aimed at people who haven't made up their minds yet, the people who may be reading, but not posting. Or at least people who employ this approach but haven't declared it in this thread or forum. Once someone is "declared" in public, that's likely someone who will not be changing his or her mind.

Of course, we're both speaking more to the studio audience than to each other at this point. I'm just getting adamant because the rhetoric tactics you are using are pretty shady.

 

[iserith]

Stop for a moment. Re-read what you wrote. "Be honest", "It becomes unpalatable", "It's hard to defend", "Thought crimes", "Abdication of personal responsibility."

Those are the conclusions I drew in my own exploration of this issue when I was running and playing in games that employed this approach. They aren't words specifically chosen to offend anyone. They're harsh, but in my view accurate, and those words were applied to me by me at one time.

Good metagaming to avoid bad metagaming is normal. There's no cognitive dissonance, just disagreement about where to draw the line between the two.

I submit there isn't "good metagaming" or "bad metagaming," just metagame thinking which is necessary to play the game at all. What matters is what you choose to do in the game, not how you arrived at the decision to do that thing.

 

[Seramus]

I submit there isn't "good metagaming" or "bad metagaming," just metagame thinking which is necessary to play the game at all. What matters is what you choose to do in the game, not how you arrived at the decision to do that thing.

I submit there is "good metagaming" and "bad metagaming," and each group draws the line at a different place. How you arrived at the decision becomes important when it violates the social contract and makes other people stop having fun.

I also submit that your way of playing is valid if your players are having fun.

I thirdly submit that telling people their way of playing is "hard to defend", "Thought crimes", and "Abdication of personal responsibility" is indeed offensive, along with the repeated implication that we are not agreeing with your line of thinking because we haven't thought about the issue long enough, and/or lack your experience as a gamer.

I do compliment you on being polite about your presentation, and probably rolling higher on the persuasion check than myself. But a successful persuasion check does not create 'truth' for either of us.

 

[iserith]

I thirdly submit that telling people their way of playing is "hard to defend", "Thought crimes", and "Abdication of personal responsibility" is indeed offensive, along with the repeated implication that we are not agreeing with your line of thinking because we haven't thought about the issue long enough, and/or lack your experience as a gamer.

So, first, I have said and will continue to say that people should play how they want to play. My advice is just that it's a good idea to know what it is we're doing, why we're doing it, and to be honest about it with ourselves and others. As I mentioned, I'm heartened that this discussion has borne fruit with regard to the reasons that underpin this method because, in the past, those who employed it had been extremely reluctant to admit what was to some of us plainly obvious. So, progress of a kind has been achieved.

As for the words I've chosen being offensive, let's try to defend an approach that says, essentially, "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." I don't think that can be defended outside of "We just like it." Which is all well and good - like I said, people should play how they want to play - but let's not pretend it's not about thought crimes and abdication of personal responsibility. Use different words, if you like, but I think we'll arrive at the same place.

 

[Seramus]

So, first, I have said and will continue to say that people should play how they want to play.

You say this, but then describe those who enjoy the game differently in very negative terminology.

My advice is just that it's a good idea to know what it is we're doing, why we're doing it, and to be honest about it with ourselves and others. As I mentioned, I'm heartened that this discussion has borne fruit with regard to the reasons that underpin this method because, in the past, those who employed it had been extremely reluctant to admit what was to some of us plainly obvious. So, progress of a kind has been achieved.

You are once again framing this as secret wisdom, and that people are deluding themselves if they do not see things as you do.

As for the words I've chosen being offensive, let's try to defend an approach that says, essentially, "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." I don't think that can be defended outside of "We just like it." Which is all well and good - like I said, people should play how they want to play - but let's not pretend it's not about thought crimes and abdication of personal responsibility. Use different words, if you like, but I think we'll arrive at the same place.

Nobody here is taking that position. Your philosophy has become a hammer, and you are seeing nails.

 

[iserith]

You say this, but then describe those who enjoy the game differently in very negative terminology.

If someone understands what he or she is doing and finds it to be fun anyway, then however I may choose to describe it is not very important.

You are once again framing this as secret wisdom, and that people are deluding themselves if they do not see things as you do.

Not at all. I think many do see what they're doing, but in the past, it has been difficult to admit. At least in related discussions on these forums.

Nobody here is taking that position. Your philosophy has become a righteous hammer, and you are seeing nails.

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.

 

[Seramus]

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.

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.