D&D General Just Eat the Dang Fruit

[iserith]

Sure, definitely. In this specific case, what @iserith describes creeps the heck out of me. If the setting has similar myths to Persephone (or any of the similar myths in our own world) I would be at full alarm with my head on a swivel.

I don't know if @iserith intended it be creepy, or if the DM portrayed it as creepy, but what's in the opening post IS CREEPY!

Our host and his servants ended up being cannibals, too. There was no way to foresee this going badly.

 

[iserith]

I mean, you did take a trait that is basically 'DM, please poison every fruit in the game'.

Think of all the Inspiration though. I'm playing the long game here.

 

[Laurefindel]

As far as I’m concerned, it would need a failed wisdom saving throw for my character to eat the too-good-to-be-true offer in the first place, let alone watching my comrade belch after eating the fruit and keep going with enthusiasm …

 

[J.Quondam]

I mean, you did take a trait that is basically 'DM, please poison every fruit in the game'.

Tbh, a GM isn't very inspired if they did nothing more than sprinkle poisoned fruit around the campaign. There's so much more other interesting stuff to be done with a flaw like that, good, bad and otherwise for the PC.

 

[iserith]

Tbh, a GM isn't very inspired if they did nothing more than sprinkle poisoned fruit around the campaign. There's so much more other interesting stuff to be done with a flaw like that, good, bad and otherwise for the PC.

Yep, like poisoning fruit-based desserts like lemon bars or banana pudding.

 

[Deset Gled]

Yep, like poisoning fruit-based desserts like lemon bars or banana pudding.

Or meeting a group of tribal (insert species) that have never met humans before, and present you with a tray of magic fruit used in their religious ceremonies.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

My dm often makes us make rolls in the scene before hand, anticipating needing secret rolls. We often don’t know what we are rolling for. “Everyone roll a d20”

 

[Mort]

I mean, you did take a trait that is basically 'DM, please poison every fruit in the game'.

I suppose the charitable way of looking at it is to say that only the fruits that are poisoned actually take up "screen time." Otherwise the PC is just happily munching on "regular" fruit, in the background.

 

[Bacon Bits]

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.)

This is the best answer.

If the scene is supposed to be a trap, then the trap shouldn't spring until the end of the scene. It shouldn't spring until the PCs have realized that a possible danger actually is a real danger.

---

As it is, even if we assume the mistake wasn't a mistake and the poison was an immediate effect, I'd kind of like the game to shift away from being pejorative about this kind of "metagaming" play. I think I've really grown to dislike the style of play that the only communication between players should be "in-character" communication. I don't think that creates the most enjoyable experience, and it mostly encourages players to feel guilty about "metagaming". I increasingly think that it's entirely valid to metagame this way so long as you continue to roleplay your character.

I feel three things to be true:

Firstly, the players can and should collaborate and discuss with each other at any time what they think is going on and what they think the best courses of action should be.

Second, players should role-play their character, meaning each player should decide what their character does based on what motivates that character.

Third, the first truth has nothing to do with the second truth. They're actually totally independent of each other and neither is more important than the other. If we're going to trust that players should have their character behave in-character, then we should actually just do that. We already should expect that sometimes characters will do the opposite of what we as players believe or know to be true, so we should stop fighting against that.

Even if "your character isn't there" you're still a player at the table. You're still a player in the game. You're still responsible for verisimilitude and narrative just as much as the other players and the DM. There is no reason that you shouldn't have input in the collaborative story that the players are discussing in the game world. Indeed, this may be exactly how best to emulate characters being smarter than their players. Intra-player communication should always be open.

I'm sure some people will be urged to comment, "that's what we've done for 50 years and it's how you've always been supposed to run the game," but I really don't think it's how the culture or community or rules of D&D, in particular, started or have grown.

 

[Umbran]

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?

In the best of all worlds, the GM should have been specific about whether the effect was only felt by the character, or led to behavior visible to the other PCs. Lacking the specificity, I'm okay with the other players assuming that the PC who has been poisoned has started yawning, blinking sleepily, and sagging body posture and such.

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?

Not so much - as above, the description doesn't sound to have been really specific, so I'm okay with players figuring they can tell something is up. From there - if you play to your flaw, the GM should give you Inspiration. If you don't... you don't get the Inspiration.