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

[iserith]

Because for the people I play with, always choosing the most advantageous action isn't fun at our table.

What is the most advantageous choice is relative, and I made that clear (with an asterisk even) in the post where I made that comment.

 

[iserith]

Meta gaming is fine, but, try to keep it in the realm of plausible. If in doubt, err on the side of caution. Please be respectful of everyone's play preferences, not just your own.

Doesn't seem to difficult.

How would you define "metagaming" in this context? In this scenario, I'm a prospective player to your group and might not know what that word means or might be operating under a different definition.

 

[iserith]

Imagining what the other players are thinking is half the fun.

Seeing them make connections, assemble the clues, create theories, arrive at conclusions. Following their thought process to see how they got there? Exciting. Not having that would be like watching a black and white movie to me. Entertaining, but lacking a lot of detail and nuance that adds flavor.

But some people love black and white movies. I'm cool with that.

It really is fun to imagine what other players are thinking.

It's no fun, in my view, to imagine what other players are thinking and then say the wrong-thoughts I imagine them having make their action declarations invalid.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I prefer mysteries that are actually mysterious. I don’t think pretending to be surprised the first time a wizard casts magic missile is particularly fun or interesting.

While I consider that roleplaying a PC.

This is worth unpacking. It reveals some of the differences in underlying assumptions. Maybe what we're talking about here is the difference between actor stance, director stance, and some other stance...although to be honest I'm not 100% positive what those terms mean.

I could agree with Salthorae (in this example) if there's a strong connection to the character concept. Let's say the character comes from a land (plane, era) without magic, and is astonished at all the wondrous things he/she discovers in this new land. In that case I think it would add to the experience at the table if the first one...or maybe two...times somebody cast a spell that player roleplayed wide-eyed amazement. But, again, it would have to be done in order to highlight an important trait of that character. And then once that narrative point is made, that's enough. I would either want to see new ways of drawing attention to that facet of the character, or (better yet) see the player highlight other facets I haven't seen, which may even be brand new facets they that reflect their character's evolution, even if it's just because they thought of it that moment, opportunistically.

In other words, if it gets to the point where I can predict what a player will do in order to roleplay their character, I've lost interest in seeing/hearing it. "John just pretended to be amazed by a spell again. Oh joy."

And if there isn't a strong reason why the character would be especially surprised by a magic spell...that is, if he/she is your typical adventurer from a magical fantasy world and would be no more nor less amazed by a spell than any other typical adventurer, then I would think that roleplaying that facet is, to be totally honest, a complete waste of precious table time. Even if that's what a person might likely to in that situation. It's just not...interesting.

But I get the sense...from this and many other threads...that what some players like to see is consistency. That the ability to constantly be "in character", doing things the way that character "would do it", is the mark of good roleplaying.

Is that accurate?

 

[Hussar]

How would you define "metagaming" in this context? In this scenario, I'm a prospective player to your group and might not know what that word means or might be operating under a different definition.

Our definition of metagaming would be something along the lines of any time the actions you take in game are driven solely by game constructs. So, yeah, lots of the time, it's perfectly fine - do I attack A or B is largely a meta-game decision. Choosing this or that action based on initiative is largely a meta game decision that won't really trigger any reaction from anyone. One that bugs me but the rest of the group is fine with is spinning square area of effects so they don't snap to grid. OTOH, it is plausible and makes a certain degree of sense, so, it's mostly just my OCD piping up.

But, if the action you are taking is completely driven by mechanics and make zero sense to the people sitting at the table outside of that context, don't do it. If your actions are pretty much just "gaming the system", try to keep that to a minimum, please. And, if in doubt, float the idea and see what reaction you get.

Again, this seems pretty straightforward to me. It's not rocket science. And it works for us. I'm not saying that what we're doing is the one true way of gaming. It's the way we play.

So, the question really has to be asked, why are you trying to force your one true way on the rest of us? How are you any different from [MENTION=6703052]SA[/MENTION]elorn who insists that any meta gaming is bad and must be excised from the game? To me, you are both the same - extremes trying to force a specific play style on the rest of us who float somewhere in between the two poles.

 

[iserith]

So, the question really has to be asked, why are you trying to force your one true way on the rest of us? How are you any different from [MENTION=6703052]SA[/MENTION]elorn who insists that any meta gaming is bad and must be excised from the game? To me, you are both the same - extremes trying to force a specific play style on the rest of us who float somewhere in between the two poles.

First, I don't think there is One True Way and have stated, several times, people should play in the way they find fun.

Second, I'm not forcing anything upon anyone. I've laid out the parameters of an example. I've said what I'd do in that context. I've said what I understand to be the case for what others do in that context based on my past experience with such approaches. I've answered questions put to me honestly and posed questions for others to answer. I've pointed out where these approaches don't work as well as they could to achieve the intended goal and why.

Third, my goal here is to hear everyone articulate their thoughts on what they do and why they do it. In part, that's so posters have an opportunity to explain themselves and see where their arguments are not as strong as they could be or where they might discover inconsistencies or flaws. And as I have already stated, I also want others who are reading to have the opportunity to see all sides of this issue and choose for themselves which is the most consistent, logical way to play that most effectively achieves the goals they have for their own tables.

I've done all this calmly, rationally, and in a way that isn't intended to cause discord, sometimes going over the same ground several times due to the same misapprehensions or obfuscations arising, often from the same few posters. If you somehow feel persecuted by me for the way you play, brother, that's on how you're reading posts, not on how I'm writing them. And I hope that, considering the topic of discussion, the irony of misattributing thoughts to me that you cannot know and that I do not have is not lost on you.

 

[Daniel Van Patten]

It's no fun, in my view, to imagine what other players are thinking and then say the wrong-thoughts I imagine them having make their action declarations invalid.

It's no fun to keep playing with somebody who repeatedly brings down the mood. That goes for both sides, majority wins. Irreconcilable differences.

 

[Seramus]

So, the question really has to be asked, why are you trying to force your one true way on the rest of us? How are you any different from [MENTION=6703052]SA[/MENTION]elorn who insists that any meta gaming is bad and must be excised from the game? To me, you are both the same - extremes trying to force a specific play style on the rest of us who float somewhere in between the two poles.

To be fair, he's not trying to force his one true way on the rest of us. Granted, he was using some really shady methods to undermine his opposition earlier in the thread, but he's toned it down and been more neutral since then (which I've noticed, thank you [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]).

He's effectively campaigning for his perspective, where keeping the conversation going is his win condition. The more exposure he gets, the more he encourages thought, and it's theoretically win/win for everybody.

Though it would be nice if there was another thread for this, so other competing ideas could be presented. It's been fairly binary so far.

 

[Maxperson]

The character retains his or her alignment and personality and, since mental ability scores have no meaningful effect on what the player chooses to do unless the player decides they do, the player ultimately decides what the toad will do which could reasonably include impaling itself on the nearest ally's sword so as to end the spell.

Sure, you retain alignment and personality, but you don't retain memories or ability to reason at any level greater than a toad's. I wouldn't think that there are a lot of toads running around with a working understand of polymorph, or who are willing to impale themselves on swords. In my opinion that would be a very poor example of roleplaying.

 

[iserith]

Sure, you retain alignment and personality, but you don't retain memories or ability to reason at any level greater than a toad's. I wouldn't think that there are a lot of toads running around with a working understand of polymorph, or who are willing to impale themselves on swords. In my opinion that would be a very poor example of roleplaying.

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] - if you're just getting started on this thread, you might want to read it the whole way through before responding as you have a lot of catching up to do.