D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Alzrius]

So what, EXACTLY do YOU think the poison does?

Because it's clear that it matters to you, as you're unwilling to consider it to be instant death, and want to change your answer if it is.

Your second sentence makes it clear that you've misunderstood my position, because the question of what the poison actually does hasn't ever been relevant to the discussion. It's not about the consequences (other than the fact that there are consequences at all), but rather it's about clarifying who defines what aspect(s) of that interaction between the PCs and the game world, as well as about the nature of what the mechanics do and do not define (i.e. the die roll being called for/made). The rest of it is a separate discussion, and not one that I've had in this thread.

 

[iserith]

I think it's right on a line, and I see both sides of it. Most tables I've experienced including mine, waffle back and forth across that line when it comes to narration of the resolution of a proposition.

Part of the resolution of the narration of this proposition involved needing to make some sort of saving throw. If the save was successful it implies the character did something to mitigate against the damage. The narration that Maxperson is giving is implying that either the PC would take the fireball to the face or else they were forced to do something on reflex and instinct in order to avoid that, in this case hurl themselves behind a pillar.

Fundamentally, this is narration that I think is intended solely as color and not to make any meaningful change in the fictional positioning of the scene or to compromise the player's agency, and I think most players at most tables would take it at that.

But it does cross a bit over the line, and some tables - particularly ones sensitive to these sorts of concerns about player's right to self-narration - would hand it over to the player to narrate how they escaped the fireball contingent on the idea that the player could be trusted to narrate only as color and not try to gain some advantage in the fictional positioning out of the narration. This last bit is often a sticking point, and it's also worth noting that handing narration off to a player who is in the fog of war and so doesn't have all the information risks accidentally doing fictional positioning that isn't merely color. This is why for example, Matt Mercer - who has very good players whom he trusts a lot - nonetheless rarely hands narrative control of a scene over to a player fully except on a death blow or the conclusion of a scene.

Frankly, in these situations, I blame the player first and the DM second. If the game is a structured conversation and that conversation becomes the "story" of the game, either role creating a vacuum invites the other to come in. In this case, the player says nothing, so the DM feels obligated to say something to fill in the blanks in the narrative. The most common example I see is the player offering a terse action declaration, usually an attack ("I attack." rolls), and the DM embellishing it after the dice are resolved ("You feint left, then right, getting inside the orc's reach and stabbing it in the gut as you vow vengeance for the death of your parents.") with the player sometimes objecting to what the DM establishes about the character ("I wouldn't have vowed vengeance like that."). So this goes back to everyone performing their own role to the best of their ability. If everyone does this, then these opportunities for overstepping one's role simply don't arise.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I think it's right on a line, and I see both sides of it. Most tables I've experienced including mine, waffle back and forth across that line when it comes to narration of the resolution of a proposition.

Part of the resolution of the narration of this proposition involved needing to make some sort of saving throw. If the save was successful it implies the character did something to mitigate against the damage. The narration that Maxperson is giving is implying that either the PC would take the fireball to the face or else they were forced to do something on reflex and instinct in order to avoid that, in this case hurl themselves behind a pillar.

Fundamentally, this is narration that I think is intended solely as color and not to make any meaningful change in the fictional positioning of the scene or to compromise the player's agency, and I think most players at most tables would take it at that.

But it does cross a bit over the line, and some tables - particularly ones sensitive to these sorts of concerns about player's right to self-narration - would hand it over to the player to narrate how they escaped the fireball contingent on the idea that the player could be trusted to narrate only as color and not try to gain some advantage in the fictional positioning out of the narration. This last bit is often a sticking point, and it's also worth noting that handing narration off to a player who is in the fog of war and so doesn't have all the information risks accidentally doing fictional positioning that isn't merely color. This is why for example, Matt Mercer - who has very good players whom he trusts a lot - nonetheless rarely hands narrative control of a scene over to a player fully except on a death blow or the conclusion of a scene.

All great points - thank you for the thoughtful response.

 

[Alzrius]

Which isn't what's happening here.

The player assumed gloves came with their kit and that they were protected.

Some people are so concerned about protecting DM authority that they will ignore it and just declare the player is being abusive.

And, to be fair, some people are so concerned with the potential for DMs abusing their authority that they'll ignore that the gloves were never actually listed as part of the kit, nor written on their character sheet, and just declare that the DM is overreaching. But that's not what's happening here either; there's a legitimate objection to be raised if the player says that they had something which there was no indication of them having, and it obviates the consequences of their action.

There is, quite frankly, a much more nuanced position in all of this, which looks at where the line between DM authority and PC autonomy lies. But a distressing number of people seem to want to gravitate to an easier "one side is wrong" answer.

 

[Alzrius]

They're right, though. If the result of the save is death, a roll to save is like spinning the cylinder with multiple bullets in it, the exact number would depend on how likely the save is to fail. Need an 11 or higher to avoid death and the cylinder has half the bullets in it. 50/50 of randomly ending up with death.

Except that's not the position that was posted in the OP. Forget "needing an 11 or higher," we've already established that the entire idea of this being a poison that kills you was added well over a hundred-fifty posts in, by someone who isn't the OP. That's in no way the frame of the discussion that the rest of us are having.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And, to be fair, some people are so concerned with the potential for DMs abusing their authority that they'll ignore that the gloves were never actually listed as part of the kit, nor written on their character sheet,

No one is ignoring this, they're saying that's a system problem.

It's entirely reasonable for someone playing the game to assume gloves exist when it turns out they don't.

 

[Alzrius]

No one is ignoring this, they're saying that's a system problem.

It's entirely reasonable for someone playing the game to assume gloves exist when it turns out they don't.

To be perfectly frank, I think there are several people who are ignoring this; I won't name names, but you don't have to look back through too many pages to see that.

While it's certainly reasonable for someone to assume that the gloves exist, that's an assumption. You can just as easily point to it being reasonable to say that something which isn't in the item description or on the character sheet has no justification for that assumption. Both of which are just nudging at the edges of a much deeper issue (which I don't think is a system problem, simply because I don't see how any system could solve this short of blanket declarations about who gets to decide what in the event of this sort of conflict, which most role-playing systems understandably don't seem to want to do).

 

[iserith]

And, to be fair, some people are so concerned with the potential for DMs abusing their authority that they'll ignore that the gloves were never actually listed as part of the kit, nor written on their character sheet, and just declare that the DM is overreaching. But that's not what's happening here either; there's a legitimate objection to be raised if the player says that they had something which there was no indication of them having, and it obviates the consequences of their action.

There is, quite frankly, a much more nuanced position in all of this, which looks at where the line between DM authority and PC autonomy lies. But a distressing number of people seem to want to gravitate to an easier "one side is wrong" answer.

The only overreaching I see is a DM who wants to establish that the character does something so that the poison can take affect on them.

 

[Celebrim]

There is, quite frankly, a much more nuanced position in all of this, which looks at where the line between DM authority and PC autonomy lies. But a distressing number of people seem to want to gravitate to an easier "one side is wrong" answer.

I would love to have you outline your thoughts here.

I firmly believe the GM is right (though perhaps shouldn't have gotten himself into this situation) and the player is wrong. But I also believe that in practice the most likely situation is that the GM is going to compromise with the unskillful and possibly even antisocial player just to keep everyone happy and the game going forward. That compromise is likely to be advantage on the saving throw or some other small bonus on the throw to placate the player and prevent a temper tantrum from ruining everyone else's fun.

But understand, that's the GM putting on the hat "small group human resources manager" and it has nothing to do with properly refereeing the game. If this is a tournament, the GM is not only right, if the protest continues you call over the game runner and then probably player either concedes or is removed from the game.

 

[iserith]

I would love to have you outline your thoughts here.

I firmly believe the GM is right (though perhaps shouldn't have gotten himself into this situation) and the player is wrong. But I also believe that in practice the most likely situation is that the GM is going to compromise with the unskillful and possibly even antisocial player just to keep everyone happy and the game going forward. That compromise is likely to be advantage on the saving throw or some other small bonus on the throw to placate the player and prevent a temper tantrum from ruining everyone else's fun.

But understand, that's the GM putting on the hat "small group human resources manager" hat and it has nothing to do with properly refereeing the game. If this is a tournament, the GM is not only right, if the protest continues you call over the game runner and probably player either concedes or is removed from the game.

Yes, the player is factually incorrect here and has failed to record gloves on their character sheet. The DM is well within their role of mediating between the rules and the players to tell them so and press on with the saving throw. But in terms of table harmony in the moment, is it worth doing that?