D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Alzrius]

The DM called for the saving throw because they believed the character touched the contact poison with exposed skin (as that is a requirement of contact poison). The player objected to the presumption that the character wasn't wearing gloves. So at this point, whether or not the character is wearing gloves would have to be hashed out before the saving throw could proceed.

Right, and I'm suggesting that there's an alternative, one which makes that irrelevant (i.e. the determinative nature of the dice, as outlined above). That works, to my mind, because it eliminates the presumption that a player could conceivably introduce a never-previously-declared-but-potentially-relevant narrative aspect of their character when a roll is called for.

 

[iserith]

Right, and I'm suggesting that there's an alternative, one which makes that irrelevant (i.e. the determinative nature of the dice, as outlined above). That works, to my mind, because it eliminates the presumption that a player could conceivably introduce a never-previously-declared-but-potentially-relevant narrative aspect of their character when a roll is called for.

I think it's important to ask oneself in this situation whether it's worth taking control of a player's character just to get a contact poison trap off on them. There seems like a lot of downsides with the approach you are suggesting. The DM could simply tell them they got some schmutz on their gloves and see what they do about that.

 

[Alzrius]

I think it's important to ask oneself in this situation whether it's worth taking control of a player's character just to get a contact poison trap off on them. There seems like a lot of downsides with the approach you are suggesting. The DM could simply tell them they got some schmutz on their gloves and see what they do about that.

I disagree. I think it's more important for a DM to ask themselves if they want to allow a player to keep rewriting a scene with "but I've always had this thing I never mentioned before" in order to potentially avoid negative outcomes (even if those outcomes are still potential because the die hasn't been rolled yet). Particularly when that seems like it has the effect of encouraging adversarial back-and-forths ("no, you didn't say you had gloves before, so you don't now!") between the player and the DM. Far better to treat the dice as determinative, I think, even if that means making minor, purely cosmetic infringements on player agency.

 

[iserith]

I disagree. I think it's more important for a DM to ask themselves if they want to allow a player to keep rewriting a scene with "but I've always had this thing I never mentioned before" in order to potentially avoid negative outcomes (even if those outcomes are still potential because the die hasn't been rolled yet). Particularly when that seems like it has the potential to encourage adversarial back-and-forths ("no, you didn't say you had gloves before, so you don't now!") between the player and the DM. Far better to treat the dice as determinative, I think, even if that means making minor, cosmetic infringements on player agency.

First, there's no real reason to believe the player will keep doing this. That assumes the player is acting in bad faith, when the DM may have no reason to believe that is true. Perhaps in this case, they really did think that they had gloves on. Is it worth getting into it with the player when you can just introduce a new complication e.g. now the gloves are contaminated? Further, the DM could just say "No" since there are no gloves on the character sheet, nor in the rules for traveler's clothes - the player is simply mistaken, and part of the DM's role is mediating between the rules and the players. I think that while it's best to go with the player here and introduce a new complication, it's still better to just say "No" than to step outside of the DM's role and take control of the character. That is a nasty DM habit in my view. A common one to be sure, but one to be avoided as I see it. The DM already controls most of the game - do they really need to take this part over too?

 

[Maxperson]

But if the player did not say their character was trying to tumble out of the way, the DM is now telling the player what their PC is doing.

My other option is to just announce that since he's standing there doing nothing he takes full damage. It's my job to narrate the results of player actions, including saving throws.

The DM adjudicates results (and does everything else).

That's what I'm doing. I'm narrating the result of the saving throw.

 

[Alzrius]

First, there's no real reason to believe the player will keep doing this. That assumes the player is acting in bad faith, when the DM may have no reason to believe that is true. Perhaps in this case, they really did think that they had gloves on. Is it worth getting into it with the player when you can just introduce a new complication e.g. now the gloves are contaminated? Further, the DM could just say "No" since there are no gloves on the character sheet, nor in the rules for traveler's clothes - the player is simply mistaken, and part of the DM's role is mediating between the rules and the players. I think that while it's best to go with the player here and introduce a new complication, it's still better to just say "No" than to step outside of the DM's role and take control of the character. That is a nasty DM habit in my view. A common one to be sure, but one to be avoided as I see it. The DM already controls most of the game - do they really need to take this part over too?

It's worth pointing out that there's also no real reason to believe that the DM will abuse their power to narrate how the PC reacts to a failed save, a successful attack against them on the part of an enemy, etc. The idea that this somehow, in-and-of-itself makes things in any way worse for the player is one that, quite frankly, I don't understand. There's no "takeover" going on; that makes this sound like it's an issue of principle rather than practicality. Assuming the DM is respectful of the player and their character, then I'm honestly not sure what the problem is beyond "some people just don't like it." Which is fine, but shouldn't be presented as any sort of categorical (at least not more than any other issue of play-style).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I disagree. I think it's more important for a DM to ask themselves if they want to allow a player to keep rewriting a scene with "but I've always had this thing I never mentioned before" in order to potentially avoid negative outcomes (even if those outcomes are still potential because the die hasn't been rolled yet). Particularly when that seems like it has the effect of encouraging adversarial back-and-forths ("no, you didn't say you had gloves before, so you don't now!") between the player and the DM. Far better to treat the dice as determinative, I think, even if that means making minor, purely cosmetic infringements on player agency.

I have to say I think you really don't get the psychology of this from the player perspective, and you don't see how totally unnecessary what you're doing is, nor that it's storing up trouble for future. All you're doing is overriding a player in order to straight-up insta-kill their PC, and you think this is going go great for you and not have long-term impacts on how your players regard you lol.

This kind of override in a situation this serious is barely a step short of "rocks fall, you die".

 

[iserith]

It's worth pointing out that there's also no real reason to believe that the DM will abuse their power to narrate how the PC reacts to a failed save, a successful attack against them on the part of an enemy, etc. The idea that this somehow, in-and-of-itself makes things in any way worse for the player is one that, quite frankly, I don't understand. There's no "takeover" going on; that makes this sound like it's an issue of principle rather than practicality. Assuming the DM is respectful of the player and their character, then I'm honestly not sure what the problem is beyond "some people just don't like it." Which is fine, but shouldn't be presented as any sort of categorical (at least not more than any other issue of play-style).

It's as simple as the rules say what the roles of the DM and player are, and the players describe what their characters are doing, not the DM, short of exceptions like magical compulsion or the like. It's not really any sort of grandiose principle. One of the roles of DM is to mediate between the players and the rules, so the DM is well within their role to tell them no-go on having gloves here. I personally would not much care about something so mundane, so fine, they can have the gloves - record them on your character sheet please - and I'll introduce another complication that reasonably follows from their stated action.

Now, the rules also serve the DM, not the other way around, so you can decide not to do any of this and take control of the character as much as you like. But as has been shown countless times, this just invites more conflict when the DM describes the character as doing something the player doesn't agree with. That is so easily avoided that I wonder why anyone continues to do this at all.

 

[Alzrius]

I have to say I think you really don't get the psychology of this from the player perspective, and you don't see how totally unnecessary what you're doing is, nor that it's storing up trouble for future. All you're doing is overriding a player in order to straight-up insta-kill their PC, and you think this is going go great for you and not have long-term impacts on how your players regard you lol.

This kind of override in a situation this serious is barely a step short of "rocks fall, you die".

No, I understand the argument for the other side completely, I just disagree. Likewise, your characterization of "insta-kill a PC" is flatly wrong, since the saving throw mentioned in the OP is still being rolled. If you can't see how that's different from "rocks fall, you die," then - to quote you - lol.

It's as simple as the rules say what the roles of the DM and player are, and the players describe what their characters are doing, not the DM, short of exceptions like magical compulsion or the like. It's not really any sort of grandiose principle. One of the roles of DM is to mediate between the players and the rules, so the DM is well within their role to tell them no-go on having gloves here. I personally would not much care about something so mundane, so fine, they can have the gloves - record them on your character sheet please - and I'll introduce another complication that reasonably follows from their stated action.

Now, the rules also serve the DM, not the other way around, so you can decide not to do any of this and take control of the character as much as you like. But as has been shown countless times, this just invites more conflict when the DM describes the character as doing something the player doesn't agree with. That is so easily avoided that I wonder why anyone continues to do this at all.

I think appeals to what the rules say should be backed up by citations (i.e. quotes, source titles, and page numbers; hyperlinks work too) in order for them to be taken into consideration in a debate.

Personally, I don't see the idea of what you're outlining here as being any sort of violation of the player playing their own PC in any way that isn't cosmetic. If the dice have already determined a particular outcome, then fleshing out what that means in terms of what things look like in-game strikes me as being relatively minor, at least so long as the DM isn't trying to be a jerk about it. Certainly, if an NPC makes a successful Intimidate check against a PC, the DM telling the PC that they've just wet their pants in fear would be an abuse of trust. Telling them that they hesitate, by contrast, is nowhere near as egregious...and I'd say wasn't egregious in any sense of the word.

Done in a way that's respectful, I don't see this as inviting any more conflict than, well, any other aspect of game-play. Certainly no more than a PC invoking some mundane piece of equipment that's never been noted nor relevant before but is now being introduced as tilting the mechanics of a scenario in their favor. If we're presuming that the PC is acting in good faith, then we should assume the same for the DM. Otherwise, unless the DM speaking in the second-person is a pet peeve of the player, I don't think that should be presented as some sort of line which should never be crossed.

 

[iserith]

I think appeals to what the rules say should be backed up by citations (i.e. quotes, source titles, and page numbers; hyperlinks work too) in order for them to be taken into consideration in a debate.

PHB Introduction, in particular "How to Play." DMG Introduction, Part 3. The roles of player and DM are described here. If you read these sections, you may note that the DM does not describe for the player what their character does.

Personally, I don't see the idea of what you're outlining here as being any sort of violation of the player playing their own PC in any way that isn't cosmetic. If the dice have already determined a particular outcome, then fleshing out what that means in terms of what things look like in-game strikes me as being relatively minor, at least so long as the DM isn't trying to be a jerk about it. Certainly, if an NPC makes a successful Intimidate check against a PC, the DM telling the PC that they've just wet their pants in fear would be an abuse of trust. Telling them that they hesitate, by contrast, is nowhere near as egregious...and I'd say wasn't egregious in any sense of the word.

There can be no "successful Intimidate check against a PC." A player determines what their character thinks and how they act, which removes the uncertainty of the outcome, and thus the prerequisite for the ability check. The DM can describe the NPC as attempting to intimidate the PC, but it's up to the player to say how the character responds.

Done in a way that's respectful, I don't see this as inviting any more conflict than, well, any other aspect of game-play. Certainly no more than a PC invoking some mundane piece of equipment that's never been noted nor relevant before but is now being introduced as tilting the mechanics of a scenario in their favor. If we're presuming that the PC is acting in good faith, then we should assume the same for the DM. Otherwise, unless the DM speaking in the second-person is a pet peeve of the player, I don't think that should be presented as some sort of line which should never be crossed.

Anything is possible if the other person consents to it. But why bother asking for that consent in the first place when this entire thing can be avoided simply by performing the DM's role as described in the rules?