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

[Maxperson]

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.

So I see both sides of this.

1) If the players are not playing in good faith, the spell does nothing if you let the players do as they will.
2) If the players are playing in good faith, then you can let them do as they will and they will respond to the spell.
3) The spell is really worthless in 5e. It doesn't even make the target a friend. Just a friendly acquaintance. You know, like that guy at the party that the host introduced to you. That's the extent of the bond. Some guy you briefly met at a party that's not hostile and you talked to a bit.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

No, the action never takes place because the specific rules of the Incapacitated condition prevent the player from taking an action, so there has been no action for the DM to adjudicate.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Thinking about this on the drive home.

One of the problems we are encountering is that we are using vague language to mean multiple things. One example is "I want", as in "I want to attack the orc." As has been mentioned, technically this just a statement not even of intent but just of desire. No action has yet been declared. Even though, at the table, we might understand this to mean a declaration of action.

The more important phrase, though, is "You can't". Both parts of this statement are vague. "You" can mean the player, or the character. And "can't" can mean both "are unable to succeed" and "do not have permission".

To take some examples from this thread:

"I recite the first 10 digits of Pi."
"You can't."
This one is an edge case, because the DM might be saying, "I adjudicated that action declaration and your character didn't say the correct digits". Or the DM might be saying, "I'm not giving you, the player, permission to do this."

"I say out loud 'three one four one five nine two six five three five'"
"You can't"
Here it's clearly a matter of permission. There's nothing that would obviously prevent the character from speaking those numbers out loud, so the real meaning is that you, the player, don't have permission to declare that action." (Reminder: this is a valid ruling, if your table rule is "no OOC knowledge". I'm just pointing out the meaning of the words, not rendering judgment.). (EDIT: oops, tacked the following onto the wrong paragraph). This is not adjudication of the outcome of the action; it's adjudication of the player's statement. The DM is rewinding the tape and saying, "The action never happened because that's an invalid move."

"Even though I failed my saving throw against hold person, I'll attack the orc"
"You can't"
Here it's a valid action declaration, but it fails. The character is in control of their thoughts, and wills their muscles into action, and nothing happens. So the "you" is the character, and the "can't" means "tried and failed". This is not adjudication of the outcome of the action; it's adjudication of the player's statement. The DM is rewinding the tape and saying, "The action never happened because that's an invalid move."

The logical error Max is making is to use "you can't" in these different ways, but treating them as identical. Or, at least, suggesting that if one version of "you can't" is ok, they all are.

EDIT: And maybe the precision error we are making is to say "DMs adjudicate actions" when really we mean "DMs adjudicate the outcome of the action". (I'm guessing @iserith has been very precise about this; I may have been sloppier. I'm not really going to read through the thread checking.)

 

[Maxperson]

No, the action never takes place because the specific rules of the Incapacitated condition prevent the player from taking an action, so there has been no action for the DM to adjudicate.

The only reason that it never takes place due to that specific rule is because the DM adjudicated the situation. You are literally arguing that if the DM adjudicates a situation by following the rules, he's not adjudicating. That's absurd. Think about what you are arguing here.

Page 5 of the DMG says you're wrong, by the way.

"Sometimes mediating the rules means setting limits. If a player tells you, "I want to run up and attack the orc," but the character doesn't have enough movement to reach the orc, you say, "It's too far away to move up and still attack. What would you like to do instead?"

Here we have a player declaring an action that breaks the rules. The DM mediates(adjudicates) the rules setting a limit(saying no you can't do that) and then asks for something else.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

But the spell only makes the character to think that the charmer is a friendly acquaintance. It doesn't stop the character from taking any physical actions. What if the player says that their character thinks that hitting friendly acquaintances with a sword is an OK thing to do sometimes? Or perhaps they decide that their character thinks that their acquaintance wishes to commit suicide and out of mercy decide to help. Or whatever such obvious nonsense with which they can use to 'justify' their action.

Sure, this would not happen due the player self policing but logically your stance should allow it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

*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.

GREAT example. If the player just declared, "I punch X" a DM who polices thoughts and actions might very well and intervene and disallow it. If you trust your players, they will tell good stories.

 

[Guest 6801328]

No, the action never takes place because the specific rules of the Incapacitated condition prevent the player from taking an action, so there has been no action for the DM to adjudicate.

I actually see this differently. I think the player tries to take the action, strains against the effects of the spell, and automatically fails. It's really no different from a missed sword stroke, except that the outcome is certain so doesn't require a dice roll.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Sure, this would not happen but ht player self policing but logically your stance should allow it.

Yup. Logically it does.

What's the problem?

 

[Maxperson]

I actually see this differently. I think the player tries to take the action, strains against the effects of the spell, and automatically fails. It's really no different from a missed sword stroke, except that the outcome is certain so doesn't require a dice roll.

You can't try to take an action. You get no action to try and take. You could fluff roleplay straining, but that's different.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You can't try to take an action. You get no action to try and take.

Oh, right. You lose your action.

I'll edit my earlier longer post.

I gotta give Max credit for a clever example.

Here's the first definition of adjudication I found:

make a formal judgment or decision about a problem or disputed matter

But there's no problem or disputed matter here, and the DM is not making a judgment or decision. There is none to make; the rules are unambiguous. The player didn't know or remember the rules, and somebody (which in Max's example happens to be the DM) reminds the person of what the rules are.

This is no different from a player trying to take an action when it isn't their turn, or trying to take two bonus actions, or whatever. There's no adjudication necessary, just clarification.

Now, let's say on the player's turn they state, "I blink my eyes three times." Here the DM might have to adjudicate. The description of the spell says you are paralyzed (no movement or speech), which in turn says you are incapacitated (no actions or reactions). But it doesn't really give more detail than that. Here if the DM says, "You can't" I would interpret that to mean, "You try and fail."

Alternately, the DM might rule, "Ok. It doesn't say you can't do that. Go for it."

Or, the DM might say, "Let's see a Wisdom check, DC same as the spell. You'll still get your save at the end of your turn; this one is just to see if you can blink."

Adjudication.