Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 8958501" data-attributes="member: 7035894">If the player wants to be lame and make up lame excuses for their meta-gaming, that's up to them. I don't really want to play with them, though, because I think that's a player who doesn't want to...well, play. That's a player who wants to win, like they're in a game of monopoly or something.It's like doing improv with someone who just wants to do "no, but..." instead of "yes, and..." That's their choice, but it make for a pretty unfun evening.I want to be clear - if it is consistent with their character that they pass up the fruit because they are super rude or allergic or whatever, then that's a different story. But I think we all understand that's not what the OP is describing. The OP is describing a situation where story logic is that the characters would eat the fruit, but the players are saying "Nah, I don't want to have them do that because now I, the player, know there's a saving throw involved, even though everything looks fine to my character."Edit: And look, I understand that we are playing a game with rules. But for me the fun of the game is in suspending disbelief and treating it like the story is real, like your characters are real, and not like we are sitting around playing a complicated game of Battleships or whatever.Edit 2: And yes, I can see everyone arguing, "well, maybe it made sense for the characters to pass on the fruit," etc. Yes, I've already conceded then in that case, fine. But I think it is patently obvious that was not what the OP was describing or asking. So I think folks are just trying to dodge the dilemma.But just to clarify where we stand on the argument: let's assume that the only logical course of action was to eat the fruit, and the player explicitly says, "I know that my character loves fruit and hates being rude and it only makes sense for them to eat the fruit, but now that I, the player, see that something bad might happen because I saw you make my buddy make a saving throw here at the gaming table, I refuse to have my character do that."If that happened at my table, I would agree that the player can do what they want with their character, for whatever reasons they want. But afterwards, I would explain that the game is a shared fiction and by refusing to engage with the shared fiction, they undermine it. And then if it persisted, I wouldn't invite them back. Because I'm the one doing all the work, and they aren't interested in doing basically the minimum to contribute. YVMV, but that's just not a style of D&D that interests me. At all.</blockquote>

Verification