I want to believe

[irdeggman]

The DM tells you that you failed to beat his bluff. You must know fully believe that this man is honest is doing completely honest business.

Why is the DM telling you failed to beat his bluff?

The DM should (IMO) be telling you that your character believes what he is telling you is true or that it seems reasonable.

Saying you failed to beat his bluff check is poor DMing, IMO.

Oh and the RAW under bluff states specifically

A successful bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes somehting that you want it to beleive.

Oh and under the Sense Motive skill description in the PHB (pg 81)

Your DM may decide to make your Snense Motive check secretly, so that you don't necessarily know whether you were successful.

The rules are clear on interaction skills and PCs (Rules Compendium pg 66)

Some of these skills can be used against player characters as well, but players decide what their characters do unless those characters are magically compelled to do otherwise.

But IMO the DM is fully free to penalize a player for acting out of character or metagaming by ignoring all information he has (or perceives).

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

Obviously it would be bad DMing to tell players they just failed a sense motive check. But I think you missed the point.

The logic being argued by those claming metagame is this. If you fail your sense motive you must believe the man is doing honest business and react accordingly. Reacting accordingly means buying his merchandise. If you find someone selling jewelry for less than a quarter of the cost you’re going to buy it. With a decent diplomacy check you should be able to sell it off for more then you paid. So you can make the claim that if someone chooses not buy the jewelry from the shady man, they are metagaming. Simply choosing not to buy because they know they failed a sense motive.

But even if I fail a sense motive check, and sense no deception in what the man is saying, I can still choose not to purchase his wares. He is still a shady little man selling expensive jewelry for little cost, and that should make me wary enough of him to steer clear even after failing my sense motive. Otherwise you might as well have the shady man wave his hand through the air and say “You want to buy my merchandice”, to which my character responds, “I want to buy your merchandice.”

 

[irdeggman]

Obviously it would be bad DMing to tell players they just failed a sense motive check. But I think you missed the point.

Then why did you phrase it the way you did?

The way you have phrased things have been the basis of peoples answers because they point towards an implied response that you are seeking.

The logic being argued by those claming metagame is this. If you fail your sense motive you must believe the man is doing honest business and react accordingly. Reacting accordingly means buying his merchandise. If you find someone selling jewelry for less than a quarter of the cost you’re going to buy it. With a decent diplomacy check you should be able to sell it off for more then you paid. So you can make the claim that if someone chooses not buy the jewelry from the shady man, they are metagaming. Simply choosing not to buy because they know they failed a sense motive.

But even if I fail a sense motive check, and sense no deception in what the man is saying, I can still choose not to purchase his wares. He is still a shady little man selling expensive jewelry for little cost, and that should make me wary enough of him to steer clear even after failing my sense motive. Otherwise you might as well have the shady man wave his hand through the air and say “You want to buy my merchandice”, to which my character responds, “I want to buy your merchandice.”

Interaction skills have a specific note about not "forcing" players to act in a certain way.

What everyone is saying here (which is something you seem to constantly be missing) is that PCs act according to the information they have.

A failed saving throw on an illusion means that the PC perceives the illusion to be real.

The reason for the save, in this case the missing kama is supposed to involved in why the save was getting to be made.

In this case noticing the missing kama triggered the save to determine if it was an illusion.

The character failed his saving throw therefor he percieves that the missing kama is irrelevant to the body of the illusion and that he must have missed something pertaining to the kama.

Now per your post the character immediately asked another player to perform a Detect Magic becasue it was the wrong body.

This is so very clearly metagaming that I have a hard time figuring out the logic you can posibly use to say otherwise.

The point of the save was to determine if the illusion was what it was meant to be - the body you were looking for.

The result of the save (failed) indicates that the PC perceives it to be the corect body.

The action the PC does next "perform a detect magic on the body becasue I don't think it is real" is absolutely contrary to the result of the saving throw.

If on the other hadn the PC had asked for a Detect Magic to be done to find the missing kama that would be something entirely different and in line with what you said was the standard operating procedure of the party - but he didn't he said something specific to the illusion that his PC perceives to be real.

We opened a door in this dungeon to reveal a vampire sitting on a throne, next to a stone coffin. We kill the vampire, whose gaseous form travels into the coffin. Upon opening the coffin we find the body and decapitate/burn it.

One of the PCs noticed the magical kama the vampire attacked us with was not in the coffin, at which point he said, “I think something funny is going on.”

He got a chance to disbelieve.

He failed his save but still figured something was screwy so he asked the cleric to do a detect magic to determine if there was any illusion or trickery at work.

Well maybe I oversimplied the original text but he still asked for a Detect Magic to determine if there was any illusion - which is what he specifically failed his saving throw for.

The saving throw was to determine if the illusion was real or not - he failed, it now appears to be real to the PC. Asking for a Detect Magic to determine if there is an illusion there at this point is metagaming.

 

[Jhaelen]

We opened a door in this dungeon to reveal a vampire sitting on a throne, next to a stone coffin. We kill the vampire, whose gaseous form travels into the coffin. Upon opening the coffin we find the body and decapitate/burn it. One of the PCs noticed the magical kama the vampire attacked us with was not in the coffin, at which point he said, “I think something funny is going on.” He got a chance to disbelieve. He failed his save but still figured something was screwy so he asked the cleric to do a detect magic to determine if there was any illusion or trickery at work.

Emphasis mine.

Now I didn't read the whole thread but I think the part I bolded is the root of the problem. The kama (or an illusionary representation of it) should have been in the coffin!

Alternatively, after not making the save, the character should have suddenly noticed the kama, that he didn't initially see:
"Ah, wait, there it is! Dunno why I missed it when I first looked."

I.e. After failing the save, the character will be convinced everything is in order.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Emphasis mine.

Now I didn't read the whole thread but I think the part I bolded is the root of the problem. The kama (or an illusionary representation of it) should have been in the coffin!

Alternatively, after not making the save, the character should have suddenly noticed the kama, that he didn't initially see:
"Ah, wait, there it is! Dunno why I missed it when I first looked."

I.e. After failing the save, the character will be convinced everything is in order.

No, he should not have seen the kama there. He should have been convinced the body itself was real. He may then think, "oh,maybe the kama is underneath the body" or "maybe the kama was dropped elsewhere" or "the kama went to a hidden location" or something else. If the kama was not part of the original illusion, it won't suddenly appear upon a failed Will save, even if this DM's illusions are on par with epic level spells.

If the PCs had first done a detect magic before the Will save ("Let's see if there are magical traps, cast detect magic first!") then it clearly would not have been metagaming. Even after the failed Will save, if the players had said, "Cast detect magic, maybe the kama is hidden somewhere inside the coffin," it also clearly would not have been metagaming. Or, if they just said, "let's cast detect magic on the whole room, I want that magical kama, where is it?" I think they are fine as well.

Additionally, since the PCs have had extensive experience with illusions, I don't think it's out of line for them to have asked for a detect magic in their situation, especially since there was missing treasure. Maybe the kama was hidden by illusion? I don't think the way the OP phrased it in game was the best way to do it, but I don't think he was out of line in asking for a detect magic there.

 

[irdeggman]

No, he should not have seen the kama there. He should have been convinced the body itself was real. He may then think, "oh,maybe the kama is underneath the body" or "maybe the kama was dropped elsewhere" or "the kama went to a hidden location" or something else. If the kama was not part of the original illusion, it won't suddenly appear upon a failed Will save, even if this DM's illusions are on par with epic level spells.

The problem I have is that he failed his save versus the illusion and then asked for the cleric to do a detect magic to check for illusions.

That is the big problem.

He asked for a check against something he just was convinced was real (because of the failed saving throw).

I think the other justifications you pointed are extremely valid (and I believe I even said so before).

I have a problem with a player running his character and asking for someone to check on something to see if it is false that he (the character) specifically believes is true (result of the failed saving throw). That so much screams metagaming that I can't get over it.

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

The argument is that we were using out of character information about a failed Will save. That argument implies that if a Will save were never rolled then we would never had suspected the body of being an illusion.

Lets assume the DM knew everyone’s will save, and rolled them in secret to find that we all failed. When we get the idea that the corpse is a fake the DM could just say, “Looks perfectly real” without even calling for a saving throw. At that point we still would have thought the corpse was a fake and done a thorough investigation of the coffin. There would have been no out of character knowledge of a Will save, therefore, all metagaming arguments would fall flat.

Lets say your DM is running a particular module. You happen to have read part of this particular module before and know of a location of a secret door. You don’t want to use metagaming, but by a certain point your character has overwhelming proof that a secret door exists. So you search the area for a door. Your DM, who knows you read the module before, claims you are metagaming. You try to explain that you did know about the secret door before hand, but the evidence you character has is more then enough to convince him a door is there. You DM doesn’t care, your mind had been compromised out of character knowledge. Now matter how much evidence your character has, he can “never” search for that door.

That’s the argument being made against the party. The claim is that the knowledge of a Will save being rolled “compromised” us, and from now on, all actions we take are suspect.

 

[Dross]

A few points here:

The argument is that we were using out of character information about a failed Will save. That argument implies that if a Will save were never rolled then we would never had suspected the body of being an illusion.

Lets assume the DM knew everyone’s will save, and rolled them in secret to find that we all failed. When we get the idea that the corpse is a fake the DM could just say, “Looks perfectly real” without even calling for a saving throw. At that point we still would have thought the corpse was a fake and done a thorough investigation of the coffin*2. There would have been no out of character knowledge of a Will save, therefore, all metagaming arguments would fall flat.*3

Lets say your DM is running a particular module. You happen to have read part of this particular module before and know of a location of a secret door. You don’t want to use metagaming, but by a certain point your character has overwhelming proof that a secret door exists. So you search the area for a door. Your DM, who knows you read the module before, claims you are metagaming. You try to explain that you did know about the secret door before hand, but the evidence you character has is more then enough to convince him a door is there.*1 You DM doesn’t care, your mind had been compromised out of character knowledge. Now matter how much evidence your character has, he can “never” search for that door. *A

That’s the argument being made against the party. The claim is that the knowledge of a Will save being rolled “compromised” us, and from now on, all actions we take are suspect.*4

*A: If this is what you have done previously then searching should be fine. But again I'll ask: At what point do you then accept that there is NOT a secret door there?

*1 To fully compare the two, don't you need to add: I've failed my search, but there is absolutely no way/solution/explanation OTHER than a secret door to be there, therefore there is a secret door here somewhere.

Or is the fact that there is a missing kama considered overwhelming evidence that the body is an illusion? I know it is evidence that something might be screwy around here but illusion is only one possible answer.

*2: Then why wait until after the failed save to detect magic? From your posts it is only AFTER the missing kama is noticed and then AFTER the will save failed have you done anything to prove that the body is an illusion. All fears that this was not the body, that this is an illusion, certainly not some other trick come after the failed save.

Given that it seems you were expecting a trick, that the body was thought to be a fake (from later posts), it seems very strange that every attempt to check for such tricks happened after the failed save, and the only attempts to find what was going on were aimed at the trick being an illusion (from your first post).

That is where the calls of metagaming are coming in.

To me, the only way this might not be metagaming is if illusion is the only trick the the DM EVER tries. The PCs are then fine to say: the only trick we encounter is illusions, so if this is an illusion (on the kama, on the body) detect magic will reveal it.

*3 Possibly, but I don't feel that is a reasonable argument because:
This is the central issue: the timing of actions, cause and effect. (Don't think I'm making a strong case on this point ).

*4 Not all actions, just actions specifically to determine that the body is in fact an illusion. Several posters have said: Search for the kama with detect magic: . Search for secret compartments for the kama:. Something is definitely not right, how do we figure out what is going on? . This has got to be an illusion .

Something that hasn't been bought up yet. How do the PC's it is a magical kama? My assumption would be because it had some magical properties that make it obvious such as shedding light, flaming or similar properties?

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

When the fist player said, “I think this corpse is a fake”, the DM immediately had him make a Will save. There was no time for us to investigate, or even to say, “I disbelieve”. I can guarantee you that had the DM not interrupted with a will save, an investigation would have taken place.

People are trying to write off the missing kama as a minor detail, but that was a major clue. Like when an illusionist tries to fool you with copies of himself, but the rouge makes a spot check to see one of the “illusionists” has a red cap and the other have blue. Little clues like that always play a big role in tipping the players off about some trickery going on. The missing kama caused us to believe the corpse was a decoy, and that we should try to find the real one.

Failing a Will save means the corpse appears real in every way. We don’t care if it feels and looks real. We just got through decapitating it, and felt completely real, yet we still decided to call it a fake. That was all before the Will save was made.

 

[MichaelK]

But I dare you to find one piece of RAW that says controlling a player is limited to effects with the Mind Affecting descriptor.

DMG 3.5 page 15

"The important point to remember regarding the actions of player characters during an adventure is that each player controls his or her own character. Don't force a character to take a specific action (unless the character is under a magical compulsion; see below)."

And when we see below, DMG 3.5 page 16

"Your responsibility for dictating PC actions shifts when a player becomes subject to an effect (such as a charm person spell or the domination ability of a vampire) that puts him or her under the control of a monster or an NPC. Now the character is compelled to do the bidding of his or her controller - represented by you."

Although this doesn't specify Mind Affecting, it does provide an equally specific standard of arbitration. Effects which "Put him or her under the control of a monster or an NPC". Illusions do not have this effect, thus the DM is not entitled to control the PC's actions according to the rules as written.

Q.E.D.

(Note: I'm not serious, I just can't resist a dare. I think the solution to this problem is discussion and consideration between the players and the DM to figure out a mutually satisfying conclusion. This shouldn't involve quoting the rule book at each other.)