D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Alzrius]

This is a problem because the GM is narrating what a PC thinks. Only the player of that PC. has that authority

So there's no room (notwithstanding mind-affecting effects) for a GM narrating a PC's actions, even in response to a roll that they made? For instance, if someone rolled a natural 1 on a check to open a chest that was covered in contact poison, indicating that they'd poisoned themselves, the GM would be out of line to say "during the process, you brush away a drop of sweat running down your nose, and transfer the poison from your gloves onto the skin of your face"?

 

[aco175]

Do I really need to find a bunch of images, or are you willing to not make up weird objections? Because I can find more images.

I'm glad they never made carry my own urn. These guys are made from leaf-springs and whale bones.

 

[Reynard]

So there's no room (notwithstanding mind-affecting effects) for a GM narrating a PC's actions, even in response to a roll that they made? For instance, if someone rolled a natural 1 on a check to open a chest that was covered in contact poison, indicating that they'd poisoned themselves, the GM would be out of line to say "during the process, you brush away a drop of sweat running down your nose, and transfer the poison from your gloves onto the skin of your face"?

That's not a thing that is a substantive player choice. The player chose an action that led to a roll that had a consequence. A tony bit of color isn't a violation of agency.

By contrast "you decide not to take off your poison soaked gloves" invites all kinds of arguments.

 

[Voadam]

But you have continued here to argue on the absence of evidence. You aren't bring forward any positive evidence.

Explicitly.

There is no evidence of whether the character is wearing gloves other than the broad fact of wearing a set of undefined traveler's clothes.

Just because nothing contradicts the possibility that gloves are part of the clothing does not mean that there are gloves.

Correct, and vice versa.

Just because nothing contradicts the possibility that gloves are not a part of the clothing set does not mean that there are no gloves.

You can't retcon on the basis of the absence of evidence. This is like VAR in soccer. If you want to overturn the referee's call on the field you have to present definitive evidence that the call is wrong. The GM and not the player is wearing the referee hat. The GM's call and not the players call is the one that has authority. The GM is the referee. Everyone that is sitting at the table agreed to that implicitly and explicitly. Arguing with the referee is just poor sportsmanship.

This is the part you are presenting as fact and I am disagreeing with.

The DM took an undeclared player detail and declared it.

Different groups can have different boundaries between DM and player roles. Declaring undeclared details about a PC can be but is not normally the DM's job.

Making up PC choices and details is not a referee type ruling, it is an editorial one.

Which the DM has every right to do. The DM has every right to decide by fiat whatever is vague or debatable or unstated or unknown.

Another view is the players determine the details of their characters and the DM determines things about the world the players interact with.

And if I'm the other player sitting at this table while you are arguing with the GM, I'm really wishing that in addition to filing a review of the GM with the convention, I can file a review of the player and ask that they never again be allowed to waste my time. And if you are a friend pulling that stunt, I'm like, "Just roll the dice and get on with the game.", the same way I feel when parents are yelling at the referee in a soccer game about every single call as if they could do a better job or something. And 90% of the time, the parents are just flat out wrong because the laws of the game aren't that the player who went down harder was the one that committed the foul, which almost every parent seems to think.

My experience is sometimes players will be fine with DMs crossing over into dictating stuff for a player and sometimes they will not. When a player says something reasonable about their character most experiences I have had have been other players supporting them and not chastising them for taking any time to argue.

If for instance the player had a character portrait with gloves which nobody else had seen, I think everybody would be on board with it even though the DM had decided differently by fiat based on the unknown.

I think it would be the same for a difference of opinion on unstated character details, generally people expect the PC to be the one who can determine those and a DM who crosses over one should generally respect the PC's views of them.

The time it has crossed over into fellow PC disapproval in my experience has been after the DM hearing the player's argument and the player then not accepting "I'm ruling this way for now so we can keep going." and the player continuing to argue the point and delaying the action further. Not for initially speaking up about a factor that goes in the player's favor.

 

[TheSword]

So as someone who has to use some pretty nasty chemicals from time to time at work, I will mention we need to use galvanized rubber gauntlets. Even normal rubber gloves would degrade quickly. That isn’t even stuff which could kill - it’s just potent.

If I used leather gloves and touched it wet, they would disintegrate and even if they didn’t it would soak through quickly.

So let the player wear gloves. That’s what a saving through is for.

I ask my players to send pictures of their characters. There’s a nice easy way of deciding what they are wearing or not, for future reference.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So there's no room (notwithstanding mind-affecting effects) for a GM narrating a PC's actions, even in response to a roll that they made? For instance, if someone rolled a natural 1 on a check to open a chest that was covered in contact poison, indicating that they'd poisoned themselves, the GM would be out of line to say "during the process, you brush away a drop of sweat running down your nose, and transfer the poison from your gloves onto the skin of your face"?

In 5e, there is no room, IMO.
It's the player's job to decide how their PC acts, thinks, and speaks. Indeed, it's their only job. It's the DM's job, among many other things, to describe the change in the fictional environment (including NPCs) as a result of the PCs' actions.

In your example above, the Saving Throw failed and the PC is poisoned. If the player wishes to add to the fiction by describing it further, great. If not, let's move on to what happens next and not have the DM "take control" of the PC, even for the sake of narrative description.

 

[Alzrius]

That's not a thing that is a substantive player choice. The player chose an action that led to a roll that had a consequence. A tony bit of color isn't a violation of agency.

By contrast "you decide not to take off your poison soaked gloves" invites all kinds of arguments.

But they're both the DM flavoring a bad roll with something that the PC does (or doesn't do) as a method of explaining what the roll means from an in-character standpoint. I'm not seeing why one is a violation of the player's agency and the other isn't.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Interestingly, in the 3.0 Arms and Equipment Guide (affiliate link), gloves are not only listed on Table 2-2: Clothing, but there are four different types: leather (5 sp), canvas (5 cp), mittens (8 sp), and silk (15 gp). None have descriptions.

Ah. The greatest splatbook of all time.

 

[Alzrius]

In 5e, there is no room, IMO.
It's the player's job to decide how their PC acts, thinks, and speaks. Indeed, it's their only job. It's the DM's job, among many other things, to describe the change in the fictional environment (including NPCs) as a result of the PCs' actions.

In your example above, the Saving Throw failed and the PC is poisoned. If the player wishes to add to the fiction by describing it further, great. If not, let's move on to what happens next and not have the DM "take control" of the PC, even for the sake of narrative description.

This is where I disagree. While I can certainly see potential for abuse (though to be fair, "potential for abuse" borders on being universal, since the game at its core arguably relies on trust between the players and the GM as much, or even more than, the dice), I don't think it violates the PCs agency if the DM narrates (for the purposes of this discussion/example) a failed roll on the part of a PC.

If the PC fails a Perception check, and the monsters get surprise on them, the DM saying something like "you're taken by surprise, and can't bring yourself to react in time as the trolls rush up to you, claws and fangs bared," strikes me as being both innocuous and appropriate.

 

[TheSword]

I was always impressed by the vintage radio 4 comedy show - Just A Minute. Who’s eloquent and genteel host would give the benefit of the doubt the first time it was required and rule against the next time uncertainty came up. With total impartiality and fairness. An excellent referee…

Nicholas Parsons

View attachment 1F216B36-D4CA-42C0-BE5A-50C61E341602.webp