D&D General Just Eat the Dang Fruit

[EzekielRaiden]

Players aren't required to state their reasons for having their characters not do something. So we'll never know. That there are a practically limitless number of reasons that the characters could have acted that way should be sufficient in my view to satisfy any concerns that it "wasn't what your character would do." Because, after all, if you absolutely insist on knowing why (and why would you?), we need only pick one that makes some sense in context.

So...why did you even start the thread then?

There is no such thing as an unjustified action. Nothing is forbidden. Everything is permitted. Why would you even need to ask the question? Why would you care? Why ask:

Does anyone see any issue with this refusal? If so, what are the issues and how do you resolve them. If not, why not?

Because the above is why I see an issue. You literally asked!

 

[iserith]

So...why did you even start the thread then?

To see how others would view and handle this occurrence at their tables.

 

[Charlaquin]

In the example provided, the saving throw visible to all players was a pretty obvious reason for doubt on the part of the players.

So? Isn’t it supposed to be the characters’ motivations that matter?

 

[Micah Sweet]

So? Isn’t it supposed to be the characters’ motivations that matter?

Yes, so they shouldn't base their actions on factors only the players know about.

 

[Charlaquin]

If the player wants to be lame and make up lame excuses for their meta-gaming, that's up to them. I don't really want to play with them, though, because I think that's a player who doesn't want to...well, play. That's a player who wants to win, like they're in a game of monopoly or something.

Ok, hypothetical: if the DM had not asked for a saving throw after the first character ate the fruit, bur the other characters had still decided not to partake, would you still call that a lame excuse? If not, it would seem that the action itself is not what makes the player guilty of metagaming in your eyes, but the fact that they know something. And once they know that thing, they seem to be forbidden from taking a certain action, seemingly because you think they wouldn’t have taken it if they lacked that information. But you can’t know that for certain.

I want to be clear - if it is consistent with their character that they pass up the fruit because they are super rude or allergic or whatever, then that's a different story.

But who gets to decide what is or isn’t consistent with their character(s)? And if it isn’t the player(s) themselves, why not?

But I think we all understand that's not what the OP is describing. The OP is describing a situation where story logic is that the characters would eat the fruit, but the players are saying "Nah, I don't want to have them do that because now I, the player, know there's a saving throw involved, even though everything looks fine to my character."

Who says everything looks fine to their character? The example says no such thing.

Edit: And look, I understand that we are playing a game with rules. But for me the fun of the game is in suspending disbelief and treating it like the story is real, like your characters are real, and not like we are sitting around playing a complicated game of Battleships or whatever.

I don’t understand why making a decision that may be motivated by out of character information necessarily means you aren’t suspending disbelief and treating it like the story is real and the characters are real. If there’s a plausible motivation the character might have for taking that action, it seems to me that taking such an action wouldn’t break that suspension of disbelief.

Edit 2: And yes, I can see everyone arguing, "well, maybe it made sense for the characters to pass on the fruit," etc. Yes, I've already conceded then in that case, fine. But I think it is patently obvious that was not what the OP was describing or asking. So I think folks are just trying to dodge the dilemma.

I disagree, considering the person who wrote the opening post is arguing on the side of “it could have made sense for the characters to pass on the fruit.” I think the actual point of contention is, is there ever a situation in which it couldn't have made sense? I, and I believe @iserith (who wrote the opening post) would both contend that there is not.

But just to clarify where we stand on the argument: let's assume that the only logical course of action was to eat the fruit, and the player explicitly says, "I know that my character loves fruit and hates being rude and it only makes sense for them to eat the fruit, but now that I, the player, see that something bad might happen because I saw you make my buddy make a saving throw here at the gaming table, I refuse to have my character do that."

I’m not sure I can make such an assumption, as I don’t believe a scenario where eating the fruit is the only logical course of action is actually possible.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, so they shouldn't base their actions on factors only the players know about.

Again, the character’s motivation need not (and in fact, can not) have anything to do with factors only the players know about.

 

[Imaculata]

I think the players are free to do as they like. They probably didn't trust the fruit before the saving throw. They'll definitely not trust it after it. I see no issue with players acting on their gaming knowledge. It is more of a problem when players feel like they need to play into an obvious trap. I always tell my players: You're the character, but you're also still the player. Do as you wish.

 

[Charlaquin]

Extremely well-said.

It seems to me absolutely unequivocal and blatantly obvious that the characters have no good reason not to eat the fruit.

This argument is ultimately about who gets to decide whether or not the characters have a good reason not to eat the fruit. My position is that such a decision should always be the sole discretion of the players. If I’m the DM, who the heck am I to decide what reasons are or aren’t good for the players’ characters to make? The point of the game is for them to make decisions as they imagine their characters would do. By saying “no, your character has no good reason to do that,” I would be taking away the agency that is the central conceit of the game.

The characters were not particularly suspicious of the random stranger (they did, after all, willingly come to sit at the table...)

B doesn’t follow from A. The characters could easily have willingly sat at the table in spite of suspicions about the stranger, but consider eating food they didn’t see being prepared could be a bridge too far.

There is no mention of allergies, or particular rudeness, or some other pre-existing factor which would act as a blanket justification.

Nor are such factors excluded as a possibility in the premise.

There are no mitigating circumstances, like the characters noticing Ser Eager Fruit Eater experiencing gastrointestinal distress. Nothing, not one single thing, appears to give any in-character justification, at all.

Again, the other characters could just not want to. That’s a perfectly valid justification in my book.

This does not appear to be a matter of "characters do things for reasons differing from player reasons." Because yes, that's true. The reasons don't have to be 1:1. But the character does need some actual, in-world reason to do what they do. I have not, at any point, seen Iserith provide even the tiniest shred of evidence that there is an in-character reason for this response. If I have overlooked it, then I apologize. But it's really frustrating to be constantly met with "but there COULD be SOME reason!" when literally all signs point to no, there WASN'T some reason.

You don’t see any reason external to the characters explicitly presented in the example. But A. there could be external reasons that were not explicitly presented, and B. there are limitless reasons internal to the characters that might lead them not to want to partake. And frankly, I think B is enough; even if @iserith were to clarify that the host had given no indication they couldn’t be trusted and the PCs had no allergies, the PCs could still have an unmotivated hunch, or just plain not feel like eating fruit and not care if they insult the host. That, to me, is the players’ decision to make and no one else’s.

The one, and ONLY, reason for their in-character behavior was, very clearly, out-of-character knowledge that the characters could not possibly, even in principle, have acquired. No efforts at eagle-eyed detection of rapid poison onset symptoms or digestive distress, no chary-eyed suspicion of the fruit itself, hell, not even a token effort at "I don't trust this guy's motives, does he seem shifty?" Literally, actually nothing...except the purely IRL knowledge that the IRL player had to roll dice.

Hypothetically, had the DM not called for a save, and the other PCs had all passed on the fruit anyway, would you consider that metagaming?

 

[Shadowdweller00]

It seems to me absolutely unequivocal and blatantly obvious that the characters have no good reason not to eat the fruit. The characters were not particularly suspicious of the random stranger (they did, after all, willingly come to sit at the table...) There is no mention of allergies, or particular rudeness, or some other pre-existing factor which would act as a blanket justification. There are no mitigating circumstances, like the characters noticing Ser Eager Fruit Eater experiencing gastrointestinal distress. Nothing, not one single thing, appears to give any in-character justification, at all.

A society of individuals dwelling in an otherwise abandoned city buried beneath desert sands is distinctly Other. Particularly in a magical world filled with shapeshifting, predatory, and/or supernaturally malicious creatures. The concept of drugging and poisoning people has in fact been known to humanity for millennia.

 

[Hriston]

This thread has turned out to be quite the Rorschach test. Well done @iserith !