D&D 5E player knowlege vs character knowlege (spoiler)

[Maxperson]

In this case the specific rules for the paralyzed condition are overruling the general rule that the player has control over their character’s actions.

Resulting in the adjudication of, "No you can't take that action.", yes.

 

[Cadence]

Indeed! In the case of Charm Person, I leave it up to the player to interpret what it means for their character to treat the charmer as a friendly acquaintance, trusting them to do so in good faith.

The DM adjudicates the affects of attempted actions. If a charmed player says they swing their sword at their charmer, is "you manage to lift the sword, but find you can't make your arms swing it at your 'friend' ?!?" an allowed adjudication of the action?

 

[Charlaquin]

Resulting in the adjudication of, "No you can't take that action.", yes.

Sure, but because a specific rule is in play, this example fails to demonstrate that the DM has the ability to deny a character’s action in the general case. The Paralyzed condition expressly says that a character affected by it can’t take actions on its turn*. Can you cite a specific rule that says the player can’t take certain actions when relevant background knowledge hasn’t been established?

*well, technically it says the character affected by it is incapacitated, and the incapacitated condition says the character can’t take actions on its turn, but tomato tomahto.

 

[Charlaquin]

The DM adjudicates the affects of attempted actions. If a charmed player says they swing their sword at their charmer, is "you manage to lift the sword, but find you can't make your arms swing it at your 'friend' ?!?" an allowed adjudication of the action?

If the DM determines that swinging their sword at the charmer has no chance of success (presumably at the goal of injuring the charmer)? I would say yes, though I probably wouldn’t make that ruling personally.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but because a specific rule is in play, this example fails to demonstrate that the DM has the ability to deny a character’s action in the general case. The Paralyzed condition expressly says that a character affected by it can’t take actions on its turn*. Can you cite a specific rule that says the player can’t take certain actions when relevant background knowledge hasn’t been established?

*well, technically it says the character affected by it is incapacitated, and the incapacitated condition says the character can’t take actions on its turn, but tomato tomahto.

I get that. @Elfcrusher sparked this side discussion about whether or not denial of an action is adjudication. I answered yes and have proved my position. I've never argued that it would be appropriate to do with the troll/fire example and have said multiple times that I would not stop that action from happening.

These are two separate discussions.

 

[Charlaquin]

I get that. @Elfcrusher sparked this side discussion about whether or not denial of an action is adjudication. I answered yes and have proved my position. I've never argued that it would be appropriate to do with the troll/fire example and have said multiple times that I would not stop that action from happening.

These are two separate discussions.

It isn’t adjudication, though. At best you’re informing the player of a specific rule preventing them from taking the action they wished to take, which they, I guess, forgot about.

 

[Maxperson]

It isn’t adjudication, though. At best you’re informing the player of a specific rule preventing them from taking the action they wished to take, which they, I guess, forgot about.

It absolutely is adjudication. You are judging that declaration and making a ruling based on the rules.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is a really good angle to look at this. Free metagaming stance would logically render this spell completely powerless.

Metagaming has nothing to do with the effectiveness of this spell. It's weird to suggest so. One can abide by the constraints if this spell either way, and one can not abide either way. The only difference is perhaps anti-metagaming table rules being used to orevent things the FM disagrees with from happening, but that's not endemic the charm oerson.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Metagaming has nothing to do with the effectiveness of this spell. It's weird to suggest so. One can abide by the constraints if this spell either way, and one can not abide either way. The only difference is perhaps anti-metagaming table rules being used to orevent things the FM disagrees with from happening, but that's not endemic the charm oerson.

It makes perfect sense. If the GM is not allowed to say that 'your character cannot attempt that action due their mental state' then this spell literally does nothing unless the player wants it to. I would not expect this to be an issue in practice, but logically this is still true.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It makes perfect sense. If the GM is not allowed to say that 'your character cannot attempt that action due their mental state' then this spell literally does nothing unless the player wants it to. I would not expect this to be an issue in practice, but logically this is still true.

Well, here we have the issue. That's not the statement. The statement is that the GM cannot dictate what the character thinks or tries. He can only adjudicate the results. Since Charm places specific restrictions on the PC, it falls into how actions are adjudicated. I, usually, leave this up to my players because their on board with a fun game and aren't jerks. It has never been a problem for me since I started running without worrying or policing metagaming -- no attacks on the charmer*, no abusive actions, lots of things I didn't see coming that made for a fun and memorable game. Charm effects actually got better because I don't bother policing my players carefully, looking for metagaming. I trust them, and it works out.



*You know, I take that back, there was one attack on the charmer. I had one player declare that they punch the charmer -- the argument being that the rest of the party was going to kill them, and the charmed PC had to choose between fighting their friends or quickly saving the charmer with a knockout, which defused the situation. I loved it.