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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8958572" data-attributes="member: 6779196">This argument is ultimately about who gets to decide whether or not the characters have a good reason not to eat the fruit. My position is that such a decision should always be the sole discretion of the players. If I’m the DM, who the heck am I to decide what reasons are or aren’t good for the players’ characters to make? The point of the game is for them to make decisions as they imagine their characters would do. By saying “no, your character has no good reason to do that,” I would be taking away the agency that is the central conceit of the game.B doesn’t follow from A. The characters could easily have willingly sat at the table in spite of suspicions about the stranger, but consider eating food they didn’t see being prepared could be a bridge too far.Nor are such factors excluded as a possibility in the premise.Again, the other characters could just not want to. That’s a perfectly valid justification in my book.You don’t see any reason external to the characters explicitly presented in the example. But A. there could be external reasons that were not explicitly presented, and B. there are limitless reasons internal to the characters that might lead them not to want to partake. And frankly, I think B is enough; even if [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] were to clarify that the host had given no indication they couldn’t be trusted and the PCs had no allergies, the PCs could still have an unmotivated hunch, or just plain not feel like eating fruit and not care if they insult the host. That, to me, is the players’ decision to make and no one else’s.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?</blockquote>

Verification