D&D General Just Eat the Dang Fruit

[Hriston]

To be fair, I could see that being interpreted a couple of ways. One way is the DM is saying it to just my character, who said nothing about it to anyone else, and kept on eating. Or the DM said it to everyone as noticeable, intending to telegraph that something is off about this fruit (or at least off about my character). I don't actually know which is true, despite being there. I do know the DM doesn't care about "metagaming" though, and may very well have just thrown it out there to let us decide whether we notice it or not.

Okay, the way I'm looking at it, there's no reason to think a wave of exhaustion coming over your character is something that wouldn't be observable to everyone present, especially since the DM is describing it to the entire table. It would be weird (IMO) to expect the players to ask the DM if they're supposed to pretend they didn't know about it.

 

[iserith]

Okay, the way I'm looking at it, there's no reason to think a wave of exhaustion coming over your character is something that wouldn't be observable to everyone present, especially since the DM is describing it to the entire table. It would be weird (IMO) to expect the players to ask the DM if they're supposed to pretend they didn't know about it.

Yeah, I think that if the DM did want justification for why people were not interested in the fruit (again, I find it unusual to care about that, but nevermind), then a player could cite the "wave of exhaustion" being perceptible on Brick's face and posture or something. Then it would be up to the DM to object to that I guess (e.g. "I meant that only for Brickyard.").

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure. “I wasn’t hungry” is a reason, and there are infinitely many other possible reasons.

So, as I said, nothing is forbidden, everything is permitted. Jabbering about your Walkman dying because the Energizer Bunny didn't keep going and going and going, so you'll have to swing by Walmart and maybe pick up a Dr Pepper and some Twizzlers is perfectly acceptable because, well, there could be any reason at all why someone might say such things on a planet with no relationship to Earth and no such things as Walkmans, Energizers, Walmarts, Dr Pepper, or Twizzler.

Again, who gets to decide if the action has an in-character motive, and if it isn’t the person playing the character, why not?

Either the DM or the table collectively. Who else?

To turn it back on you, per the intentionally facetious statements above: Why do players get to abuse such latitude whenever they like, however they like, to their utmost advantage, despite it being rude to the other people at the table and completely destructive of the experience?

Two can play at the "let's make every possible presumption to support myself and thus deny everything the other side might comment upon."

The decision being made “suddenly” is not explicitly described in the example.

Really? That's certainly how it reads to me. Not a whisper of it, and then immediately after the saving throw, then and only then is opposition voiced. Sounds explicitly sudden to me. We of course can simply ask @iserith if it was sudden or not.

You legit don't see how people can be verbally polite or non-aggressive and yet still be suspicious of strangers?

No. Not in this context, especially not when it was explicitly said that hospitality is a big deal in this culture.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, I think that if the DM did want justification for why people were not interested in the fruit (again, I find it unusual to care about that, but nevermind), then a player could cite the "wave of exhaustion" being perceptible on Brick's face and posture or something. Then it would be up to the DM to object to that I guess (e.g. "I meant that only for Brickyard.").

You find it unusual to care about whether a character actually does have a real reason for doing something, and not simply for purely metagame reasons, even if they're able to provide a fig-leaf excuse?

Curious. What if the DM is running a pre-written adventure, would you mind it if a player bought the adventure as well, read it in advance with intent to exploit that knowledge? E.g., always making the correct decisions, and finding all the loot, exploiting all the secret enemy weaknesses, etc.? "Oh, I just got lucky, it's what my gut told me." "Oh, my dad was a thief, remember? You always check the safe for a hidden secret compartment!" "When I was a kid back in Mapleton, Old Man McGurk told us a story about mobile yellow puddings and how they're weak to the cold."

And if that is not acceptable, why? What differentiates the cases?

 

[iserith]

You find it unusual to care about whether a character actually does have a real reason for doing something, and not simply for purely metagame reasons, even if they're able to provide a fig-leaf excuse?

I find it unusual to ask about it in what looks to me like an investigation into the possibility someone is "metagaming," yes.

Curious. What if the DM is running a pre-written adventure, would you mind it if a player bought the adventure as well, read it in advance with intent to exploit that knowledge? E.g., always making the correct decisions, and finding all the loot, exploiting all the secret enemy weaknesses, etc.? "Oh, I just got lucky, it's what my gut told me." "Oh, my dad was a thief, remember? You always check the safe for a hidden secret compartment!" "When I was a kid back in Mapleton, Old Man McGurk told us a story about mobile yellow puddings and how they're weak to the cold."

And if that is not acceptable, why? What differentiates the cases?

No issue with this either. Similar to this scenario, I've had many, many players replay adventures of mine, sometimes several times over. That's actually better than reading a module because they also get the benefit of knowing how I'm likely to rule on one thing or another. Still a fun game every time. And if they want to offer something like those justifications you give as example, that's fun, too. They just in my view don't have to.

 

[iserith]

Really? That's certainly how it reads to me. Not a whisper of it, and then immediately after the saving throw, then and only then is opposition voiced. Sounds explicitly sudden to me. We of course can simply ask @iserith if it was sudden or not.

I'm not really sure what "sudden" looks like in this context. I ate the fruit, they didn't. Not really sure how this whole line of inquiry matters.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

No. Not in this context, especially not when it was explicitly said that hospitality is a big deal in this culture.

Strange. Here in the real world we have all sorts of different standards of polite behavior - such as taboos against line crashing, tail gating, or using language considered obscene, for example, that are nevertheless violated all the time. A much more typical response to these social violations, in my personal life experience, would be snide remarks or negative personal reactions rather than sincere disbelief that a person could possibly act that way.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

we have all sorts of different standards of polite behavior - such as taboos against line crashing, tail gating, or using language considered obscene, for example, that are nevertheless violated all the time. A much more typical response to these social violations, in my personal life experience, would be snide remarks or negative personal reactions rather than sincere disbelief that a person could possibly act that way.

Ignoring your completely unwarranted jab, yes, those things occur.

And they incur a social cost.

Didn't see a single mention of that here.

 

[Vaalingrade]

What social costs are we talking there? Shunning? Scarlet M? Stripping them naked and making them walk through the game store, thereby punishing everyone else?

How do was punish this the totally serious social faux pas of not treating a game as seriously as we want?

 

[Imaculata]

What if the DM is running a pre-written adventure, would you mind it if a player bought the adventure as well, read it in advance with intent to exploit that knowledge?

I have played adventures with players who have played the same adventure before. All I asked of them, is that they don't spoil any surprises for the other players, and to not assume everything will play out exactly as before. But, I also encouraged them to seek out other parts of the story that they didn't get to experience the first time. And no, they didn't need to give me a reason why their character chose to chase a different lead this time. They are in control of their character, and they can do whatever they like. It's like a choose-your-own-adventure, but with a social contract.

And everyone still had lots of fun. Sure, one player knew of a few of the traps, plot twists and surprise encounters, but he kept it all to himself. And he was still surprised by a few things. The adventure even had a different ending, due to different choices made by the new group.