D&D General Just Eat the Dang Fruit

[iserith]

Could. Wasn't. That is the whole point. There was no other reason, and even the reason you mention is weak as hell because Iserith's description makes zero mention of such concerns until after the saving throw. Only then is it suddenly sooooo concerning that this guy is in a weird place offering food. That makes no sense! Why would their paranoia suddenly flare to life when they had observed...nothing at all?

The players' and their characters' reasons need not be equal.

 

[Charlaquin]

We have a violently different PoV in how this scene plays out.
The poison scene is part of the framing, part of the encounter challenge, part of moving the story along (I mentioned exposition) and giving the party further clues from which the adventure can play out.

No, I understood that was what you meant. But in order to frame the scene that way, you have to narrate the players’ actions (eating the poisoned food), without their input. Just because it’s part of the scene framing doesn’t make it not railroading.

It has nothing to do with me taking away player agency. Also see my response to @MarkB with regards to the possibility of suspicion existing.

It has everything to do with you taking away player agency. You’re just doing it in a way that you (and presumably your players?) find acceptable. And that’s fine, if you have everyone’s agreement, more power to you. But I do think it’s something a lot of players could quite reasonably take issue with.

 

[AnotherGuy]

"You're poisoned and there was nothing you could do to avoid that fate" is a "gotcha." It doesn't matter if you're doing it as hard scene-framing.

The BBEG sends an assassin/invisible stalker after you and attacks you at night in your room at the inn = gotcha?
Rise of Tiamat in the ToD storyline has 3 or 4 such gotchas.

 

[Charlaquin]

@EzekielRaiden I think you are reading a lot into the characters’ behaviors prior to the saving throw being called for that are not at all expressed in the example. Beyond that, I don’t think continuing our exchange is likely to bear fruit, so I’m gonna dip out. Have a good one!

 

[AnotherGuy]

No, I understood that was what you meant. But in order to frame the scene that way, you have to narrate the players’ actions (eating the poisoned food), without their input. Just because it’s part of the scene framing doesn’t make it not railroading.

It has everything to do with you taking away player agency. You’re just doing it in a way that you (and presumably your players?) find acceptable. And that’s fine, if you have everyone’s agreement, more power to you. But I do think it’s something a lot of players could quite reasonably take issue with.

Fair enough. You understand my position and I understand yours. And it is true our table, historically, with 2 other DMs, has and is ok with this style of play as long as it's meaningful within the story or even a character's arc.
I also agree with you that this style is not for everyone.

 

[iserith]

The BBEG sends an assassin/invisible stalker after you and attacks you at night in your room at the inn = gotcha?
Rise of Tiamat in the ToD storyline has 3 or 4 such gotchas.

Depending on the setup and whether the players had any sort of ability to affect the outcome, they could be "gotchas," yes.

 

[iserith]

On the one, hand, I agree that it is ultimately up to the players what their characters do, even including having them act on information the player has but the character does not, per the example.

But it is up to me whether I want to continue to put my time and effort into players who aren't willing to buy into the story.

Does "buying into the story" necessarily mean they must eat the fruit? Or could a story potentially involve people not eating the fruit for perfectly logical reasons in context?

 

[AnotherGuy]

Depending on the setup and whether the players had any sort of ability to affect the outcome, they could be "gotchas," yes.

I see. For me "gotchas" were more prevalent in the lack of exploration by PCs within earlier editions which led to the pejorative phrase of pixel bitching. All good.

 

[iserith]

I see. For me "gotchas" were more prevalent in the lack of exploration by PCs within earlier editions which led to the pejorative phrase of pixel bitching.

Depends on how the DM presents the challenge. "Gotchas" can certainly arise in those circumstances, which is why it's advisable to telgraph liberally in my view.

 

[Clint_L]

Does "buying into the story" necessarily mean they must eat the fruit? Or could a story potentially involve people not eating the fruit for perfectly logical reasons in context?

I'm going with the example as described. The answer to your question seems obvious so I assume that you meant it rhetorically. But if I must spell out the obvious, buying into the story means doing what makes sense for your character in context. Did you character see the player be asked for and make a saving throw? No, in the situation as described, they saw him enjoying some fruit that was served to them, and apparently "hospitality is big in the culture of this region."

I would hope that the players would role-play their characters accordingly. They should do what they would have done had there been no roll.