D&D General Just Eat the Dang Fruit

[Micah Sweet]

Implying that the decision that is mechanically optimal wouldn’t make sense in-universe, which I contend is not the case.

That is what I contend, based on the evidence provided.

 

[iserith]

Like iserith did by blatantly having their character eat the fruit just because they have a trait that says they eat any fruit they see, that monster?

I need that Inspiration to bail my butt out of some other stupid decisions I will undoubtedly make later.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

In this case, yeah. I've played with a lot of people, and nearly all of them would have taken a saving throw with no in-game appearance into consideration.

The critical flaw in your reasoning here being that we don't actually have the faintest idea why these unspecified characters we know nothing about actually chose not to eat the fruit, however much you may assert otherwise. (Seeing as how that information has never been communicated to us). Only that their players witnessed the saving throw having been made beforehand.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The critical flaw in your reasoning here being that you don't actually have the faintest idea why these unspecified characters you know nothing about actually chose not to eat the fruit, however much you may assert otherwise. (Seeing as how that information had never been communicated to us). Only that their players witnessed the saving throw having been made beforehand.

That's true, but the urge to metagame is so strong that, lacking any other evidence, I feel comfortable assuming the saving throw was a powerful factor in the decision.

 

[iserith]

That's true, but the urge to metagame is so strong that, lacking any other evidence, I feel comfortable assuming the saving throw was a powerful factor in the decision.

I think that's a fine assumption. But if there's an "in-universe explanation" that also works, does it matter?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think that's a fine assumption. But if there's an "in-universe explanation" that also works, does it matter?

Absolutely, if one is provided.

 

[Irlo]

Like iserith did by blatantly having their character eat the fruit just because they have a trait that says they eat any fruit they see, that monster?

Iserith didn’t act out of fear either. I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

 

[iserith]

Absolutely, if one is provided.

Interesting. Do your players normally give a reason for why they don't do something? I imagine there's a lot of things that characters don't do, so it seems like that would take up a lot of time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Interesting. Do your players normally give a reason for why they don't do something? I imagine there's a lot of things that characters don't do, so it seems like that would take up a lot of time.

In a situation like the one you described, I would want an explanation, if the players really didn't take the save into consideration.

 

[iserith]

In a situation like the one you described, I would want an explanation, if the players really didn't take the save into consideration.

Why would you want an explanation? What purpose would it serve? What sorts of explanations would work for you in this situation? What happens if the player offers no explanation or one that doesn't sit well with you?