D&D 5E Polymorph is a bad de-buff spell

[billd91]

The toad is not intentionally doing anything though. The player is. The toad is accidentally getting killed.

Well, duh. Hence our problems with metagaming rather than role playing as the toad (or frog or whatever 1hp amphibian we're talking about).

 

[TwoSix]

I would say "inhabitation of the fictional situation" is being addressed, alongside making an optimal decision. They aren't at odds in the example I have given. The player is both making an optimal decision and inhabiting the fictional situation by describing the toad's accidental death.

Sure, but it's not enough to merely inhabit the situation. You have to demonstrate that your focus is on habitation by selecting the non-optimal, or even dangerous, response.

As you said above, you may find it useless to try and ascertain someone's interior mental process. But for a lot of people, determining the player's motivation is a valid concern, even if they're uncomfortable describing it in that manner.

 

[iserith]

Well, duh. Hence our problems with metagaming rather than role playing as the toad (or frog or whatever 1hp amphibian we're talking about).

The player is roleplaying as the toad in the example provided. 1-hp amphibians are capable of life-threatening errors in a chaotic battle, right?

 

[iserith]

Sure, but it's not enough to merely inhabit the situation. You have to demonstrate that your focus is on habitation by selecting the non-optimal, or even dangerous, response.

As you said above, you may find it useless to try and ascertain someone's interior mental process. But for a lot of people, determining the player's motivation is a valid concern, even if they're uncomfortable describing it in that manner.

Not just useless, but kind of creepy and authoritarian, too (in my opinion).

But I am somewhat heartened that progress was made in this discussion in that some folks were willing to admit this, directly or indirectly. If I recall past discussions correctly, posters in that camp did not want to come out and say that this was the case. I'm happy that folks reading this discussion who may be somewhat on the fence regarding these "playstyles" can now see, in part, what really underpins this mindset.

 

[billd91]

The player is roleplaying as the toad in the example provided. 1-hp amphibians are capable of life-threatening errors in a chaotic battle, right?

Moving a token around isn't role playing - getting into the toad's headspace and trying to faithfully play the toad would be a better example of role playing.

 

[TwoSix]

Not just useless, but kind of creepy and authoritarian, too (in my opinion).

But I am somewhat heartened that progress was made in this discussion in that some folks were willing to admit this, directly or indirectly. If I recall past discussions correctly, posters in that camp did not want to come out and say that this was the case. I'm happy that folks reading this discussion who may be somewhat on the fence regarding these "playstyles" can now see, in part, what really underpins this mindset.

Well, I doubt anyone will actually come out and say it directly.

Purely anecdotal, but "maintain verisimilitude" is a super common play priority, and social contracts to maintain that are very strong among a lot of tables. I find it easier to just roll with it, even if there are ways I could get around it. It really comes down to reading the room to see what's appropriate for the table.

 

[iserith]

Moving a token around isn't role playing - getting into the toad's headspace and trying to faithfully play the toad would be a better example of role playing.

My definition of roleplaying is the one the game provides us.

But anyway, what is not faithful about portraying a toad as being startled enough to accidentally leap to its death in a chaotic battlefield? Isn't that a thing a frightened toad could do? It seems reasonable to me.

What's more, this isn't really about getting into the headspace of the toad, is it? Rather, it's about everyone else at the table getting into the headspace of the person playing the toad. That seems to be where the dissatisfaction is coming from.

 

[iserith]

Well, I doubt anyone will actually come out and say it directly.

Purely anecdotal, but "maintain verisimilitude" is a super common play priority, and social contracts to maintain that are very strong among a lot of tables. I find it easier to just roll with it, even if there are ways I could get around it. It really comes down to reading the room to see what's appropriate for the table.

Assuming verisimilitude is defined as seeming true or real, it still has not been shown by the posters here why a toad accidentally dying in a battle with multiple combatants does not seem true or real. It does not appear to have anything to do with it and everything to do with what wrong-thoughts the person controlling the toad may have in his or her noggin.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Moving a token around isn't role playing - getting into the toad's headspace and trying to faithfully play the toad would be a better example of role playing.

This sounds suspiciously like the "roleplaying is doing what that character would do" definition.

The problem with that definition is that what your character would most likely do would be to stay home and farm. He definitely wouldn't go down those creepy stairs into the dungeon. And never, ever would he charge at the dragon.

Good stories are made from people doing surprising, unexpected, improbable, out of character things...like volunteering to carry the ring to Mordor. Walking, no less. (Even though one does not do such a thing, you know.)

Now, one might argue that so-and-so was perfectly in character when he chose to undertake the adventure because he was special and unique. Sure, all his friends and relatives would stay home and quake in fear, but this fellow, he was different. You never knew what he might do next.

Kind of like the frog.

 

[Dausuul]

Still confused as to why experienced adventurers (high enough level to be facing enemies with polymorph) would be totally ignorant of a whole class of spells. It isn't just polymorph, after all. Every shapechanging effect in the game works much the same way: Destroying the shapechanged form is a ticket back to your original self.

This is the sort of survival knowledge I expect to be general among adventurers. A barbarian may not understand the precise technical differences between polymorph and Wild Shape, but knowing that the answer to certain types of evil wizardry is to throw yourself fearlessly into the jaws of death? Sure. For most barbarians, that's the answer to everything anyway.

(And if you want to rule that polymorph's impact on mental stats makes you incapable of reason, the DM should just take over running the polymorphed character and be done with it. As a player, I would prefer that to having my every move policed for whether it is sufficiently stupid. Being micromanaged is bad enough when you're being paid to put up with it; as part of a supposedly fun leisure activity, screw that.)