D&D General Just Eat the Dang Fruit

[Shiroiken]

The GM's mistake was to ask for a saving throw before every player had declared to eat a fruit or not.
If it's a tasteless poison, it's going to take a minute or two to kick in. (Probably even much longer than that.)

My exact thought as well. Give everyone time to screw up before checking the results.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sounds to me like the problem is one of meta-knowledge, and the best way to resolve that is to push for non-meta justification, and non-meta consequences.

So: they saw you as a player roll a save. What did the character see? Was there some kind of tell, and if so, what was it, and how did they see it?

Maybe they saw your eye twitch at a bitter flavor. How did they see that? Since you consumed the fruit with no visible issues (having passed your save), the signs must have been relatively minor. That sounds, to me, like some kind of Perception check, or possibly an Insight check against the host to determine their true intent.

Beyond that, let's just say for the sake of argument that the DM gives them this meta-knowledge, some kind of reason or even just gut feeling that the fruit is unsafe. You mentioned hospitality is a big deal in this culture, which usually means that breaking the laws of hospitality is a HUGE no-no. The guest and the host must equally refrain from injuring one another, so long as they are bound by the guest right; in cultures that observe this sort of thing IRL, a host who violates their sacred duties has committed a horrible offense and will likely be ostracized by the community as a result (and, at least in myth, should expect a special delivery atmospheric electrical discharge courtesy of everyone's favorite divine philanderer.) This then means that an accusation of violating these sacred duties is an incredibly serious charge, one that should not be made lightly.

Hence, I would expect some kind of save or social-skill roll to do that without giving massive offense. Just because they believe the fruit may be unsafe, does not mean they can simply refuse outright. They've been caught in a trap of social expectations, and have to find their way out.

There may be other ways. Perhaps eagle-eyed or medically-trained characters could spot something awry about the fruit itself, or deceptive characters could try to bluff the host into thinking they've enjoyed the fruit when they haven't, or some other way of wriggling out of this trap without actually setting it off. But they can't just blanket refuse, without in-character reasons, and expect that to be the end of it.

Edit: That said, yes, the DM could also have altered their approach so as to prevent some of this, by asking how each player responded to the feast before detailing what it was like. At that point, more diverse responses open up, e.g. the players have taken fruit but get a chance to try to spot that eager-fruit-eater @iserith had an odd response to it, and thus a chance to change their behavior just in the nick of time...or not.

 

[Charlaquin]

My fellow characters and I are exploring a lost city buried beneath the sands of a vast desert. Shortly into our first foray, we come across a well-appointed dining chamber and its occupant, a friendly and immaculately dressed fellow who invites us to partake of refreshment. He is joined by several servants who attend to us. Hospitality is big in the culture of this region, and though it's a bit odd that this dude and his servants are in this buried city, it's the first friendly face we've seen in a while.

Bowls of fruit and wine are brought out. My character, Brickyard Lot, has a flaw that reads: "If I see fruit, I eat it." This has notably gotten him into trouble before (and the party doesn't trust him with pocket goodberries). Anyway, naturally I'm eating the fruit before the bowls can be set down. "A wave of exhaustion washes over you," says the DM. "Make a Con save." I roll the dice and succeed, belching and happily continuing to eat.

The food and drink is offered to my comrades, of course, but having seen me need to roll a save, nobody wants to partake. Does anyone see any issue with this refusal? If so, what are the issues and how do you resolve them. If not, why not?

Let's consider another angle as well: Say my character has the aforementioned flaw, but isn't the first to eat the fruit. I witness another character make a saving throw after eating it. I then refuse to eat the fruit or drink the wine, despite the flaw. Does this change the calculation at all as to whether this is an issue that needs to be addressed?

To answer the question right off the bat, I don’t see any problem with the refusal. As I’m sure you all know by now, I’m hardline on the position that what a PC does or doesn’t do is entirely up to that player and no one else. So, if the other players don’t want their characters to eat the fruit after seeing you make a saving throw? That’s their decision.

Now, that said, I can see why it might seem odd for all the other characters to refuse if there was no perceptible in-universe indication that your character was negatively affected by eating the fruit. If someone were bothered by this, it could be resolved by tying the save (not just its results) to some in-fiction event that the other characters can perceive. For example, maybe narrate some disconcerting gastral sounds emanating from the character’s gut.

 

[cranberry]

A reasonable in-game explanation (to avoid the metagaming) is that the other PC's see your character briefly struggle with eating the fruit, and come to the conclusion that it may not be ripe or taste good...so they choose not to try the fruit.

 

[Clint_L]

To answer the question right off the bat, I don’t see any problem with the refusal. As I’m sure you all know by now, I’m hardline on the position that what a PC does or doesn’t do is entirely up to that player and no one else.

I'm curious as to how far this would go. My position is that the game involves a social contract, and each player, including the DM, has a responsibility to be clear about expectations. After that, they should make a good faith effort to live up to expectations, and I would not be shy about reminding them.

For example, if we have agreed that we will try to play our characters from their in-universe perspective, then I think players should stick to that as much as possible. So if a player suddenly starting meta-gaming, especially to the extent described in the example, that would be a real problem for me, unless extenuating circumstances.

But what do you do if you have a player whose attitude is "this is just a game with rules, anything goes, and the coherence of the story doesn't matter"? I've had a player with something approaching this attitude, and although he could be fun at times, I also frequently found his attitude towards the story both frustrating and kind of undermining of my efforts.

 

[Seramus]

I do count it as metagaming, but it's the genre savvy kind. Nobody eats the food in strange places, or you end up like Persephone. Nobody accepts the devil contract, or you end up tricked. Etc.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm curious as to how far this would go. My position is that the game involves a social contract, and each player, including the DM, has a responsibility to be clear about expectations. After that, they should make a good faith effort to live up to expectations, and I would not be shy about reminding them.

So, first off, I very much agree with this position. I think that if part of that agreed-upon social contract is not taking certain actions that may be motivated by out of character information, players should absolutely honor that agreement. I just have a strong preference for not having that be part of the social contract.

For example, if we have agreed that we will try to play our characters from their in-universe perspective, then I think players should stick to that as much as possible. So if a player suddenly starting meta-gaming, especially to the extent described in the example, that would be a real problem for me, unless extenuating circumstances.

So, yeah, in principle I agree, though I would quibble with the definition of “play our characters from their in-universe perspective.” From the fruit example, I think it’s entirely plausible that a character might choose not to eat the fruit, for reasons that are entirely motivated from the character’s in-universe perspective. Like, maybe they just aren’t hungry, or they don’t really like fruit very much. Or maybe they think the whole situation is sketchy, even without noticing any particular reaction from the one who did eat some. Like, if the one character hadn’t eaten either, or if the DM had not called for a con save, would we even question the fact that other characters chose not to eat? I don’t think I would. And I think this is pretty much always the case when a player is accused of “metagaming.” While the player may indeed have been influenced by out of character information, I think there is nearly always a perfectly reasonable in-character justification that doesn’t rely on that information at all.

But what do you do if you have a player whose attitude is "this is just a game with rules, anything goes, and the coherence of the story doesn't matter"? I've had a player with something approaching this attitude, and although he could be fun at times, I also frequently found his attitude towards the story both frustrating and kind of undermining of my efforts.

I don’t think I would have any problem with that player. Or rather, I think any problems that may come up with that player are likely to have another cause than this attitude. My perspective is that it’s not my business why a player is making the character decisions they’re making. Now, if the player refuses to engage with the narrative at all, that may be a separate problem.

 

[Deset Gled]

Generally PCs don't eat any food they don't supply themselves.

Nobody eats the food in strange places, or you end up like Persephone.

I understand this in the case of "don't eat the random food you find in the dungeon," or in an espionage plot, or something similar. But in the case where you're already in a friendly NPC's private dwelling, not on guard (i.e. disarmed, in a friendly way), just kinda hanging out, then there's really no good reason not to eat the food. If they wanted to kill you, it would be much more tactical and efficient to just, you know, kill you. Same goes for times when you're captured and being kept in a cell/dungeon.

 

[aco175]

Half my table would not take food from a street vendor in Waterdeep, nevermind from strangers in a lost city under the desert where they were exploring like it is a dungeon. They all would think it is a trap, but some may go along with it and say their PC would not know and some would want to make a roll to see if they think it is a trap. I would just tell them that it is their PC and if they think it is a trap then they think it is a trap. I would also wait until people tell me if they eat the food to have everyone roll a save.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

My fellow characters and I are exploring a lost city buried beneath the sands of a vast desert. Shortly into our first foray, we come across a well-appointed dining chamber and its occupant, a friendly and immaculately dressed fellow who invites us to partake of refreshment. He is joined by several servants who attend to us. Hospitality is big in the culture of this region, and though it's a bit odd that this dude and his servants are in this buried city, it's the first friendly face we've seen in a while.

Bowls of fruit and wine are brought out. My character, Brickyard Lot, has a flaw that reads: "If I see fruit, I eat it." This has notably gotten him into trouble before (and the party doesn't trust him with pocket goodberries). Anyway, naturally I'm eating the fruit before the bowls can be set down. "A wave of exhaustion washes over you," says the DM. "Make a Con save." I roll the dice and succeed, belching and happily continuing to eat.

The food and drink is offered to my comrades, of course, but having seen me need to roll a save, nobody wants to partake. Does anyone see any issue with this refusal? If so, what are the issues and how do you resolve them. If not, why not?

Let's consider another angle as well: Say my character has the aforementioned flaw, but isn't the first to eat the fruit. I witness another character make a saving throw after eating it. I then refuse to eat the fruit or drink the wine, despite the flaw. Does this change the calculation at all as to whether this is an issue that needs to be addressed?

I try not to call for saving throws or skill checks until it is necessary to discover the outcome. For instance I don't call for a saving against lycanthropy until the next full moon.

If the poison in question takes 10 minutes to act, then I don't call for a roll till I feel everyone has had about 10 minutes to do whatever they're going to do. However, of the onset time for the poison is instantaneous then heck yeah, they see you gagging, or turning purple, or retching, whatever.