D&D General Just Eat the Dang Fruit

[EzekielRaiden]

Hypothetically, had the DM not called for a save, and the other PCs had all passed on the fruit anyway, would you consider that metagaming?

Depends. Do they--the characters--have a reason, that they can articulate, in-character?

If not, then utterly purposeless action isn't better or worse than meta-game action. It's still action without in-character motive.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A society of individuals dwelling in an otherwise abandoned city buried beneath desert sands is distinctly Other. Particularly in a magical world filled with shapeshifting, predatory, and/or supernaturally malicious creatures. The concept of drugging and poisoning people has in fact been known to humanity for millennia.

And? I legit don't see how any of that leads to "and thus every single character here was always perfectly justified in suddenly deciding not to eat the fruit."

 

[Mecheon]

It seems to me absolutely unequivocal and blatantly obvious that the characters have no good reason not to eat the fruit. The characters were not particularly suspicious of the random stranger (they did, after all, willingly come to sit at the table...) There is no mention of allergies, or particular rudeness, or some other pre-existing factor which would act as a blanket justification. There are no mitigating circumstances, like the characters noticing Ser Eager Fruit Eater experiencing gastrointestinal distress. Nothing, not one single thing, appears to give any in-character justification, at all.

Plenty of reasons to not eat it.

This is a lost city, burried beneath the sands. A place that, by definition, can't have had contact with the outside world for substantial time. A desert, a place known for not really having many fruits. Generally to get fruit out there, would have to be traded. But, uh, lost city. Lost cities don't do trade. That's. Kind of implicet in the whole 'lost' thing.

I mean, maybe they did walk through a well-stocked aquifier earlier and were in the taste testing part, we can call it suspicious they didn't take a bite. But the implication I'm getting is its moreso "You've stumbled into a room and this rich looking dude (How is he rich in this ancient, lost city?) is offering you stuff that is suspiciously well preserved and non-native to this area (It was described as well kept fruit, not 'he's offering you a bunch of cactus apples and some dates')". That, in my book, is less a "Time to take a snack" and more a "Hey, remember the Pale Man from Pan's Labyrinth?" There is a 75% chance this is a Fey trap

 

[Charlaquin]

Depends. Do they--the characters--have a reason, that they can articulate, in-character?

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

If not, then utterly purposeless action isn't better or worse than meta-game action. It's still action without in-character motive.

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?

 

[Charlaquin]

And? I legit don't see how any of that leads to "and thus every single character here was always perfectly justified in suddenly deciding not to eat the fruit."

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

 

[Shadowdweller00]

And? I legit don't see how any of that leads to "and thus every single character here was always perfectly justified in suddenly deciding not to eat the fruit."

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

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Not when one of their party just ate the fruit with no ill effects, no.

 

[Vaalingrade]

We, as a gaming culture, are way, way ,way too scared of the fact that we're playing a game, and by extension, metagaming.

 

[Irlo]

We, as a gaming culture, are way, way ,way too scared of the fact that we're playing a game, and by extension, metagaming.

It's not fear. It's a preference.

EDIT: some people have low tolerance for metagaming. That’s a play style preference and it’s not based on fear.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Not when one of their party just ate the fruit with no ill effects, no.

You're aware that people don't always have identical perspectives, decision-making methodologies, propensities toward trust or mistrust, riiiight? As exemplified by the aphorism: "Would you jump off a cliff if your friends did?"