D&D General Just Eat the Dang Fruit

[iserith]

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.

It's not rhetorical because I don't know you or your preferences. My character ate the fruit. The other characters did not. What reason their characters have for doing that may well be different than the players' motivations. Would "I don't feel like eating fruit right now" work for you? How about "I'm on keto?" Or "I don't trust fruit from a stranger in a buried city?" Would any of these mean the group is "lame" as you said in an earlier post?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

They certainly should be, in my view.

 

[iserith]

They certainly should be, in my view.

Sometimes they will be. Sometimes they won't. That's how it goes when controlling someone other than yourself.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

But seeing the other character make a saving throw isn’t the only reason a character might not want to eat the fruit. Even if that’s why the player doesn’t want their character to do it, why can’t the character not do it for an unrelated reason, such as… I dunno, not liking pineapple or whatever.

 

[MarkB]

They certainly should be, in my view.

Well, then the characters should definitely not eat the fruit. Because the player's reason cannot be "I think the fruit is probably harmless and it would be rude not to" if the player knows that the fruit is not harmless.

Even if the player decides to have their character eat the fruit, their reason for doing so is "I'm going to go along with this obvious trap and see where it leads." That certainly isn't the character's reason for doing it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, then the characters should definitely not eat the fruit. Because the player's reason cannot be "I think the fruit is probably harmless and it would be rude not to" if the player knows that the fruit is not harmless.

Even if the player decides to have their character eat the fruit, their reason for doing so is "I'm going to go along with this obvious trap and see where it leads." That certainly isn't the character's reason for doing it.

This is maybe the clearest illustration of the double-standard inherent in policing “metagaming” I’ve ever seen.

 

[OB1]

For me, it comes down to two simple guidelines.
1. Players should strive to not meta-game
2. DMs should never police players decisions with their PCs

However, the DM, having complete control of their world, has every right to create purposeful anti-metagaming encounters. ie

• Fire causes the Troll to regain HP
• Fruit requiring a constitution save upon eating was to determine if the antidote to the poisonous air in the room took effect in time to save the PC. And what a way for the NPC to see if the characters follow the hospitality rules of the culture!

Note that in either example above, the DM should make this decision before the actual encounter, and when it makes sense, give the PCs a chance to gain that knowledge before the encounter takes place.

 

[MarkB]

For me, it comes down to two simple guidelines.
1. Players should strive to not meta-game
2. DMs should never police players decisions with their PCs

However, the DM, having complete control of their world, has every right to create purposeful anti-metagaming encounters. ie

• Fire causes the Troll to regain HP
• Fruit requiring a constitution save upon eating was to determine if the antidote to the poisonous air in the room took effect in time to save the PC. And what a way for the NPC to see if the characters follow the hospitality rules of the culture!

Note that in either example above, the DM should make this decision before the actual encounter, and when it makes sense, give the PCs a chance to gain that knowledge before the encounter takes place.

So basically, metagaming is mine sayeth the DM.

 

[OB1]

So basically, metagaming is mine sayeth the DM.

I'm not sure I follow? I'm saying both sides should strive not to metagame, but if it happens, neither side should tell the other that they can/can't do something because of it. And then adding that metagaming can lead to unexpected results if the thing the player 'knows' doesn't actually align with the situation.

 

[aco175]

As the DM, you can metagame back at the players and PCs. Like what @OB1 just said above, you can change the poison to be airborne instead of in the food if you need everyone to make a save. Like some other threads we have about changing the rules and dice rolls. The DM can make the poison airborne and make the DC 25 if he wants. Not everyone's style of play and doing this often makes the players upset if they catch you doing it.