I want to believe

[Jhaelen]

What information do we have as players that our PCs don’t? [...] Everything we experience from that world, be it magic or monsters, we experience through our characters. So, by default they have just as much information as us. Perhaps more since they experienced this things first hand.

So with the same information as our PCs, the players called the body a fake. Not an illusion necessarily, but a fake. You can’t claim we were using out of character knowledge because out of character knowledge doesn’t exist in real life. You cant know something you don’t know.

Umm. I'm completely baffled. I don't think you want anyone to answer to this. This is starting to get slightly unreal.

I think I'm starting to bow out of this thread before it gets even more weird... (or I get booted by the moderators because I spell out what I think about this).

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

It does sound unreal, but that’s the point. If a body appearing real to all your physical senses cant be called a fake, then how did we do it. You cant call out of character knowledge on real life assumptions.

I’ll try to play devils advocate here however. I think what irdeggman is arguing is that we had every right to believe the corpse was a fake at first, but that failing the Will saves should have made those suspicions go away. I can see that as a rational argument.

The problem starts when the first player said, “I think this corpse is a fake.” That statement was made before the Will save, and ergo without knowledge of such a save. The argument is that failing the save makes that suspicion go away. But I don’t think that it should.

Most people are dead set in their opinions and beliefs, and nothing much can change them. Take this argument for example, we have people on both sides, but after 8 pages of discussion I don’t think anyone has changed their opinion. The first PC said the corpse was a fake, at that point it was dead set in our minds, and no amount of “proof” or “evidence” was ever going to convince us otherwise. We already claimed the corpse to be fake, and as stubborn humans (or dwarves, elves, etc.) nothing will ever change our opinion.

 

[Theroc]

I believe the primary issue was that you still acted on the assumption it was an illusion rather than some other form of trickery, such as an aforementioned(in this topic) twin corpse used to fool the party, but you seemed to continue insisting after the failed save that it was an illusory fake, which is what brought the metagaming accusations about.

In other words, had the player who asked for the Detect Magic asked for "Detect Magic to see if this is a preserved body rather than the vampire we fought..." this whole discussion wouldn't have occurred.

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

Ill admit that the Will saves threw us off and started us talking about illusion rather than just a “fake” in general. I’ll agree that we did have out of character knowledge and it may have colored our language. That is, changing our language to illusion rather than decoy.

But does the terminology really matter? We figured all along, even before the saves, that the body was a fake. The object of our investigation was the coffin, the body was examined with detect magic because it was right there, so why not take a few rounds to look at it once detect magic is up.

The body has become the focal point of this argument but it’s really a red herring. It was the coffin we were searching. Imagine a money counterfeiter takes you into his base of operations. He prints off a few 20s on the big machine in is basement and hands one to you to keep. Are your really going to inspect the bill? Are you honestly going to hold it up to the light to see the watermark is there? Of course not, you already know the bill to be counterfeit, there is no point in an investigation. The same way there was no reason for us to investigate the corpse.

 

[irdeggman]

Ill admit that the Will saves threw us off and started us talking about illusion rather than just a “fake” in general. I’ll agree that we did have out of character knowledge and it may have colored our language. That is, changing our language to illusion rather than decoy.

The words used reflect the thoughts of the players - that is why people are arguing that it is metagaming.

But does the terminology really matter? We figured all along, even before the saves, that the body was a fake. The object of our investigation was the coffin, the body was examined with detect magic because it was right there, so why not take a few rounds to look at it once detect magic is up.

The body has become the focal point of this argument but it’s really a red herring. It was the coffin we were searching. Imagine a money counterfeiter takes you into his base of operations. He prints off a few 20s on the big machine in is basement and hands one to you to keep. Are your really going to inspect the bill? Are you honestly going to hold it up to the light to see the watermark is there? Of course not, you already know the bill to be counterfeit, there is no point in an investigation. The same way there was no reason for us to investigate the corpse.

But that is not what your words said was the intention. You wanted to see if it was an illusion (the body).

You never once said that you wanted to check the coffin (on character), and it was not really implied as such.

It also looks like a "search" check was never done - which is appropriate check for finding things like fake bottoms or the like.

Also there is no way for the PCs to absolutely know the body was fake - they failed 2 saving throws indicating that either they believed the illusion or they failed to notice something was amiss (which means that everything appears to be in order).

 

[irdeggman]

It does sound unreal, but that’s the point. If a body appearing real to all your physical senses cant be called a fake, then how did we do it. You cant call out of character knowledge on real life assumptions.

I’ll try to play devils advocate here however. I think what irdeggman is arguing is that we had every right to believe the corpse was a fake at first, but that failing the Will saves should have made those suspicions go away. I can see that as a rational argument.

The problem starts when the first player said, “I think this corpse is a fake.” That statement was made before the Will save, and ergo without knowledge of such a save. The argument is that failing the save makes that suspicion go away. But I don’t think that it should.

Most people are dead set in their opinions and beliefs, and nothing much can change them. Take this argument for example, we have people on both sides, but after 8 pages of discussion I don’t think anyone has changed their opinion. The first PC said the corpse was a fake, at that point it was dead set in our minds, and no amount of “proof” or “evidence” was ever going to convince us otherwise. We already claimed the corpse to be fake, and as stubborn humans (or dwarves, elves, etc.) nothing will ever change our opinion.

Your game needs to include no saving throws for illusions and Search, Sense Motive and Knowledge Checks should never ever be done.

You insist on ignoring the results of those results - which is fine for a hosue-rule, but is strictly against the RAW.

 

[Dross]

Here is how the conversation went down.

Player 1: We decapitate the corpse
Player 2: Be sure to burn it as well.
DM: Ok, you decapitate the body and burn it.
Player 1: Wait, where was that kama he was using?
DM: Its not if the coffin
Player 1: Hold on, I think this body is a fake
DM: Everyone make a save. (we all roll) It looks real to you.
Player 3: What if this is the real body and the one we fought was fake?
DM: evereone make a save. (we all roll) The wounds feel pretty real.
Player 1: Hey, do a detect magic and search the coffin.

Re metagaming: let me ask
What knowledge are players 1 and 2 using as reason to decapitate and burn the body? What experience has any PC in the party have with the ways of finally killing a vampire (I myself don't mind the "hey, your PC encountered on before and needed to ....." call).

Was it:
A: knowledge rolls (religion for undead, maybe history/nobility and royalty if vampire is well known), talking to NPCs that thought they had "killed" the vampire, info from a sage or someone knowledgeable in killing vampires. Or you decapitate and burn every foe you come across.

or:
B: None, no PC has any experience, no info was sought. The players know that this is the way to kill vampires.

"B" is metagaming.


I still wonder why the missing kama is proof beyond all doubt and any other evidence that the corpse is a fake. And as irdeggman says, if you thinking that the corpse is an illusion is based on the type of save you made, that is metagaming.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Can you tell me what it would have taken for your party to think that corpse was NOT a fake (or that the $20 bill was not a fake).

 

[Dross]

Ill admit that the Will saves threw us off and started us talking about illusion rather than just a “fake” in general. I’ll agree that we did have out of character knowledge and it may have colored our language. That is, changing our language to illusion rather than decoy.

But does the terminology really matter? We figured all along, even before the saves, that the body was a fake. The object of our investigation was the coffin, the body was examined with detect magic because it was right there, so why not take a few rounds to look at it once detect magic is up.

The body has become the focal point of this argument but it’s really a red herring. It was the coffin we were searching. Imagine a money counterfeiter takes you into his base of operations. He prints off a few 20s on the big machine in is basement and hands one to you to keep. Are your really going to inspect the bill? Are you honestly going to hold it up to the light to see the watermark is there? Of course not, you already know the bill to be counterfeit, there is no point in an investigation. The same way there was no reason for us to investigate the corpse.

But your party does not see the equivalent of the counterfeiter printing the $$. You only have him handing the $$ to you. so, how do you know the $ is counterfeit?

Prior info? So check for watermark?

Watermark is there? um it still MUST be fake?

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

The first thing to establish is that the missing kama is proof enough that the body is fake. I don’t see why people don’t understand that. A minor detail is usually all the proof you need. Imagine an evil rogue that is harassing your party uses a disguise check to disguise himself has one of your party members. You make spot check to notice that your friend has blue eyes when you know his eyes to be brown. Would you say that’s just a minor detail that you should ignore?

Now that I have established my belief that the missing kama is proof of a fake body, let me establish why a Will save does not make us ignore that proof. Imagine your talking to a German fellow and during the conversation his accent slips and you hear him speak with his native English accent. He then waves his hand through the air like Obi-Wan and says, “You didn’t just hear that.” Of course you heard him. You caught him slip and now you know he is a fake.

When we opened the coffin and saw the Kama was missing, and we knew the body was a fake. The same way you would know that your now blue-eyed friend is an imposter. The Will save in this situation is the vampire doing the jedi mind trick and saying, “You don’t see a missing kama.” But since illusions aren’t mind affecting, it cant convince me that I didn’t notice a clue that’s right in front of my face. I’ve already noticed the missing kama and know the body is a fake. The illusion spell can attempt to “jedi mind trick” me all it wants. I already know the truth.

 

[Theroc]

Now that I have established my belief that the missing kama is proof of a fake body, let me establish why a Will save does not make us ignore that proof. Imagine your talking to a German fellow and during the conversation his accent slips and you hear him speak with his native English accent. He then waves his hand through the air like Obi-Wan and says, “You didn’t just hear that.” Of course you heard him. You caught him slip and now you know he is a fake.

I would believe the German fellow, since many Germans who learn English learn from Britain, thusly their accent when speaking English... is well... English.

So, that's a very poor example for your case.