D&D General Just Eat the Dang Fruit

[Charlaquin]

So, as I said, nothing is forbidden, everything is permitted.

Correct.

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.

That has nothing to do with making decisions based on out of character information. We could certainly discuss our policies on anachronistic or otherwise setting-inappropriate speech if you want, but it’s a very different topic than the one at hand. (For the record, my take is that it depends on the tone of the game. That kind of thing fit well in The Adventure Zone, but probably wouldn’t work as well in Dark Dice.)

Either the DM or the table collectively. Who else?

In my opinion? It should be the player who gets to make that decision for their own character, without a doubt. That’s why I asked “if it isn’t the player, why not?”

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?

You’re begging the question here. It is not, in my view, an abuse of anything, since the player (and only the player) is the one who gets to decide what their own character’s motives are and how their character acts on them. Now, if a player’s behavior is rude and disruptive, that’s an entirely different issue. But, since in the example, all of the players who’s characters don’t have flaws that allow them to gain Inspiration by eating the fruit decided not to do so, I assume they’re all good with the others doing so. So, who’s experience is it destroying, do you think?

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

It doesn’t seem to me like either of us are doing that…?

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.

frankly I don’t see any problem with it even if it was sudden. I’m just saying you seem to be reading things into the example that aren’t explicitly stated. The example notes that it’s a weird situation, so I don’t see the players’ suspicion as being sudden at all. I don’t even live in a world where Fey are real, and I know not to accept food from the mysterious well-dressed stranger who turns up in a place you wouldn’t expect any other people to be.

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

That’s crazy to me. In a culture where hospitality is a big deal, the safest thing to do when you’re unsure of someone’s intentions is to behave agreeably, but cautiously. Don’t refuse anything they offer, but don’t consume anything you haven’t seen them consume first. That’s like… Dinner with the extreme conservative in-laws 101.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

All of that is perfectly acceptable in my view.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

And they incur a social cost.

Didn't see a single mention of that here.

Yes, and the players decided that their characters are willing to accept that social cost rather than risk ending up like Persephone. Getting to make those kinds of decisions is the primary appeal of D&D to me! Seems against the spirit of the game to take that decision away from the players because the DM doesn’t think it makes sense for the characters they created and portray to do.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

I think @EzekielRaiden meant that the characters being impolite to their host would incur an in-character social cost.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

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

I have no doubt the cannibals were quite offended. And in the event they survived an encounter with such uncouth murder hobos would have spread tales far and wide about such poor table manners to any future dinners.

"Yeah...so the old beggar who's missing the arm and leg wrinkles his nose at you, and throws back the coin you try to toss to him. 'Nay sir' he states; 'I do not associate with YOUR sort'."

 

[Shadowdweller00]

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

Was not intended as such.

And they incur a social cost.

Didn't see a single mention of that here.

Yes, but then discussion has previously revolved around metagaming. Or at least the parts I've personally read. In-game social consequences for breaking mores would be entirely appropriate regardless of any potential metagaming in my view.

 

[Panzeh]

This is kind of a weird situation because, i think on some level, you have to give the players the choice if you're going to make that food poisoned. If the situational detail is, suddenly in the middle of dusty dungeon people are lavishly offering you food, that would be a bit suspicious and i'd expect caution from players, and characters who are somewhat intelligent adventurers. I wouldn't even be that worried about that sort of metagaming.

If I was being more strict to narratives, though, i'm not going to poison food that i railroad my characters into eating- if i say "You go to the hearth and have a meal with important person x" part of the, imo, implied social contract of an RPG is, nothing i have your characters do is going to be harmful to them, i'm just saving everyone a bunch of time roleplaying eating and getting into chairs, if you want to audible and have your character obviously not eat, cool.

 

[iserith]

Someone who was looking at this scenario told me another angle worth considering is what incentive the players other than me even have to eat the fruit.

I ate the fruit, knowing full well the situation was suspect, because I was trying to get some sweet, sweet Inspiration. So I portrayed my flaw accordingly.

After that save though, the rest of the players have zero incentive to be a "good little RPer" and expose themselves to risk. Instead, for eating the fruit, they get the shaft. Maybe they get to walk away with some level of satisfaction that they were "true to their character," but if death results, that's probably not all that great a payoff.

What does everyone make of that? What incentives do you see that would encourage the players to "not metagame" in this situation?

 

[Panzeh]

The only thing i can think of to make accepting the offered help a thing would be for this dungeon to have several encounters of people willing to help, and kind of acculturate players to the notion that trusting can be beneficial, but this is a very early thing to do that.

Other than 'make it a genuine question by having other situations where eating, or its equivalent is the better choice', there's not much else in game I can think of.

 

[Mort]

Someone who was looking at this scenario told me another angle worth considering is what incentive the players other than me even have to eat the fruit.

I ate the fruit, knowing full well the situation was suspect, because I was trying to get some sweet, sweet Inspiration. So I portrayed my flaw accordingly.

After that save though, the rest of the players have zero incentive to be a "good little RPer" and expose themselves to risk. Instead, for eating the fruit, they get the shaft. Maybe they get to walk away with some level of satisfaction that they were "true to their character," but if death results, that's probably not all that great a payoff.

What does everyone make of that? What incentives do you see that would encourage the players to "not metagame" in this situation?

First, the way you initially presented the scenario - I wouldn't call not eating the fruit metagaming, The scenario was just screaming "this is off, shady, dangerous, clearly a trap!!!" both to the players and PCs. And this, besides any observed saving throw. I'd posit any DM that expects the fruit to be eaten, and gets annoyed if the players don't, is misinterpreting how he presented his own scenario!

But aside from that? if the players misread the situation and decided not to eat the fruit despite all indications that they should (let's say the way it was presented was less creepy etc.), well maybe the fruit is a heroes feast and there are a bunch of fear and wisdom saves later that REALLY makes those that did not partake regret it. Or, less blunt, the host gets annoyed and refuses to share a vital bit of information that would have otherwise helped the players etc. Lots of options. Even here, I think worrying about metagame or not is just going down a rabit hole of possibilities that don't really lead anywhere positive (IMO) - and instead the possible consequences of the PCs actual actions/decisions should be the focus.