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

[iserith]

I totally agree that if the action the player has declared is reasonable, I wouldn't have any issue.

"I'm committing suicide" isn't a reasonable action.

The toad isn't committing suicide in this example. It is leaping into a life-threatening hazard because it is scared. It gets killed as a result, ending the spell.

Particularly that it's blatantly obvious why you're doing it. Again, repeating my point, you would NEVER declare this action if it didn't break the spell.

I would put a character in harm's way, even if it meant certain death, if it was a good choice in the situation. I have done it and would do it again.

But you still seem to be in the position of judging my declared action, not by its reasonableness in the fictional context, but because you suspect I am doing so for advantage and that's somehow bad. Again, why does it matter to you why I chose a perfectly reasonable action? What business is that of yours?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Again, am I a bad DM for instantly killing the PC? Maybe my hag's polymorph isn't the spell but, rather an effect that is particular to hags? After all, mind flayers can use Plane Shift offensively, forcing a saving throw or be banished to another plane. Why can't my hag's polymorph be different?

Or would that be the DM acting in bad faith?

I think this reply is especially interesting. Maybe it gets at the essence of some of the difference.

No, in general you're not a bad DM for instantly killing a PC, as long as you are doing it to contribute to the story.

But if you are killing the PC as punishment for, or to retaliate for a perceived abuse then it's not so much that you're a bad DM or acting in bad faith as much as it is that you and the player are clearly in some kind of contention over the reason you're both participating in the game. It's the fact that you see the player's action as something that needs to be punished, or met -for-tat, that is revealing.

And, again, not "revealing" of something bad, just revealing that maybe your goals are different from mine and iserith's.

(As an aside, I don't see my self as iserith's equal in this: he is the guru; I am the disciple. Although I was never much bothered by metagaming, he provided the well-reasoned and articulated arguments...the philosophical framework...that helped me understand why.)

 

[Seramus]

What that sounds like to me is a failure on your part to imagine the possibility this could be a good choice in some other situation.

If everyone else at the table also suffers this failure of imagination, then you will probably be taken aside after the game and have a conversation about being disruptive. Claiming the position of the more enlightened party against the social expectations of the group is... the kind of thing that doesn't get you invited back.

Though, you can always seek out likeminded people and have fun with them.

 

[iserith]

If everyone else at the table also suffers this failure of imagination, then you will probably be taken aside after the game and have a conversation about being disruptive. Claiming the position of the more enlightened party against the social expectations of the group is... the kind of thing that doesn't get you invited back.

Though, you can always seek out likeminded people and have fun with them.

Sure, obviously, we should hang out with the people we find fun. This goes without saying.

I still think it's important to show what's really going on here in some cases so people know what they're getting into: Some folks are bothering themselves to try to discern and judge the intent of another player to determine if an action declaration is valid instead of judging the reasonableness of the action in the context of the scene. It's not enough to describe something the toad might do. Everyone has to believe you're not having the wrong thoughts while doing it.

It's worth examining one's own motivations behind that in my view.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
It's worth examining one's own motivations behind that in my view.

Physician heal thyself.

I'm perfectly clear with my motivations here. The player is playing in pretty obviously bad faith and is only taking the action because he or she wants to cheese weasel out of a failed save by playing silly buggers rules lawyer games and then trying to cover it up with wide eyed innocence "Oh, well, it's perfectly reasonable that a frog would leap onto a sword and die!"

I mean, come on here. Let's be serious. This isn't about "roleplaying" at all. And, as far as judging intent, the BLOODY PLAYER STATED HIS INTENT!!! It's not really secret is it?

Look, everyone has a line on meta-gaming. Mine's pretty lax, to be honest. Most of the time this sort of stuff doesn't faze me in the slightest. But, good grief, this is pretty ballsy, even for me.

 

[Seramus]

I still think it's important to show what's really going on here in some cases so people know what they're getting into: Some folks are bothering themselves to try to discern and judge the intent of another player to determine if an action declaration is valid instead of judging the reasonableness of the action in the context of the scene. It's not enough to describe something the toad might do. Everyone has to believe you're not having the wrong thoughts while doing it.

Yes. That's fairly standard behavior in every facet of society, which includes the social contracts common in cooperative roleplaying games. The degree to which it happens can vary from one group to another, from nonexistent to extremely severe. Arguing that there is something wrong with that standard is entirely your right, but it really is perfectly normal social behavior. Even the premise of this conversation revolves around multiple sides determining which thoughts are undesirable to their respective groups.

I guess the important takeaway is... you don't have secret wisdom (on this issue). You just have a preference.

 

[Seramus]

Hilarious aside. I asked one of my players about this scenario, and did my absolute best to phrase it in a neutral way. Since this is my player there is already considerable bias, but his answer cracked me up:

"That's not even subtle. That's like the metagame equivalent of whippin' out your business and giving everyone a helicopter show."

 

[Hussar]

See, I take a slightly different road.

I know it's metagaming when my character uses fire on a troll or whatever. I know that. Don't, most of the time, really care. It's just not going to matter that much in the grand scheme of things. And, frankly, usually it's fairly plausible, so, no worries. And, I'm certainly no role playing purist. I believe that it's impossible to play an RPG without metagaming. We do it all the time. Heh, there's a poster here who argues quite strongly that meta-gaming is the antithesis of role play and he has had me on ignore for goodness knows how long because I argued the point with him.

But, again, there are limits. For the same reason that my Forge Cleric isn't using Creation spells to create several pounds of nitroglycerine, despite the fact that I, personally, know how that's done. Or, heck, white phosphorous. That's a mineral. A 5 foot cube of white phosphorous would be a really big badaboom. But, we don't do that, because, well, it's cheese weaseling and I don't do that sort of thing anymore.

So, for me, this is one of those limits. It's the player deliberately sidestepping things because the rules say he or she can.

At the end of the day, I'd have to agree with the OP. 5e Polymorph is a terrible de-buff.

 

[Seramus]

But, again, there are limits. For the same reason that my Forge Cleric isn't using Creation spells to create several pounds of nitroglycerine, despite the fact that I, personally, know how that's done. Or, heck, white phosphorous. That's a mineral. A 5 foot cube of white phosphorous would be a really big badaboom. But, we don't do that, because, well, it's cheese weaseling and I don't do that sort of thing anymore.

Oh yeah. I'm definitely in the same boat. I'm not the metagame police, and have no problem with a moderate amount if everyone at the table is having fun. There's a pretty big chunk of the spectrum that is totally fine in my books.

This just pushes the meter hard into the red. Hard.

 

[iserith]

Physician heal thyself.

I'm perfectly clear with my motivations here. The player is playing in pretty obviously bad faith and is only taking the action because he or she wants to cheese weasel out of a failed save by playing silly buggers rules lawyer games and then trying to cover it up with wide eyed innocence "Oh, well, it's perfectly reasonable that a frog would leap onto a sword and die!"

I mean, come on here. Let's be serious. This isn't about "roleplaying" at all. And, as far as judging intent, the BLOODY PLAYER STATED HIS INTENT!!! It's not really secret is it?

Look, everyone has a line on meta-gaming. Mine's pretty lax, to be honest. Most of the time this sort of stuff doesn't faze me in the slightest. But, good grief, this is pretty ballsy, even for me.

The only reason you think it's "bad faith" though is exactly what I said: You have decided it's the intent matters at least as much as the action when someone like me doesn't care about your intent at all. I'm not on guard for wrong-think. I'm only judging the reasonableness of the action in context.

Even if the player clearly states his or her intent behind taking the action, again, that only matters to the extent you're judging the action by the intent rather than what is happening in the fiction. Stop worrying about it and all these concerns about "metagaming" go away.