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

[Hussar]

What would you say makes it less sincere or genuine to you?



Why horrible? If you think "metagaming" makes the story no longer sincere or genuine and you experience loss and disconnect, then reworking your understanding of the concept such that "metagaming" is no longer a concern in any game would be of benefit, right?

In other words, I must accept your playstyle while you do nothing to accept mine? I have to change how I think about the game, to accommodate you while you do nothing to compromise.

You do see why this looks like onetruewayism right? You are expecting everyone else to accept your play style while denigrating anyone who disagrees with you - calling them mistaken, or policing other's thoughts, or inconsistent or flawed.

How is this any different than the "All meta gaming is bad" club?

 

[iserith]

See, there's the issue. You presume that there are inconsistencies or flaws to be discovered while insisting that your own position is unassailable.

You presume what I presume incorrectly. Again. In a discussion where, in part, I'm criticizing people who presume things about other people's thoughts in the game. This would be funny if you didn't keep doing it.

When I say "posters," I'm including myself. Because I, too, am a poster, right? I too benefit from having my positions reviewed and tested by others so I can polish them up as needed.

That your behavior would actively hurt someone else's enjoyment of the game isn't, apparently, an issue for you. You insist that that someone else MUST accept your behavior.

I simply do not.

I have not insisted anyone accept my behavior or that someone else's enjoyment isn't important to me.

You appear to be reading my posts in a highly uncharitable way. Please desist.

 

[iserith]

That the player is no longer making a good faith attempt to be in the character's headspace.

If the action is otherwise reasonable in context, how would you know unless they told you?

That's the same as telling someone to rework their concept of love so they no longer feel heartbroken when a partner cheats on them. It's certainly possible, but takes years or decades to undo socialized responses. Also, it's a slap in the face to anyone who just got cheated on. So, not very popular.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that reworking how one thinks about a made-up concept like "metagaming" and how one thinks about a fundamental human truth like love is probably pretty different.

 

[Daniel Van Patten]

If the action is otherwise reasonable in context, how would you know unless they told you?

I wouldn't. Assuming they are making a good faith attempt is the only thing that maintains the illusion.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that reworking how one thinks about a made-up concept like "metagaming" and how one thinks about a fundamental human truth like love is probably pretty different.

No, I disagree.

 

[iserith]

I wouldn't. Assuming they are making a good faith attempt is the only thing that maintains the illusion.

That strikes me as an honest answer.

*Morpheus voice* What if I told you that you could maintain the illusion yourself?

No, I disagree.

Yikes, I guess that's not saying much for love then.

 

[Hussar]

You presume what I presume incorrectly. Again. In a discussion where, in part, I'm criticizing people who presume things about other people's thoughts in the game. This would be funny if you didn't keep doing it.

When I say "posters," I'm including myself. Because I, too, am a poster, right? I too benefit from having my positions reviewed and tested by others so I can polish them up as needed.



I have not insisted anyone accept my behavior or that someone else's enjoyment isn't important to me.

You appear to be reading my posts in a highly uncharitable way. Please desist.

Sure you have. You keep telling all and sundry that we have to rework how we think about meta-gaming. That we are "Policing" other player's thoughts.

The fact that the fighter's behavior in the frog example is actively making the game less enjoyable for the other people at the table is apparently irrelevant. The fighter's player's behavior is beyond reproach, apparently, and you keep insisting that it is the other people who must change.

Your exact words:

reworking your understanding of the concept such that "metagaming" is no longer a concern in any game would be of benefit

IOW, we have to change, not you. There's no compromise here. You are insisting that everyone else is wrong. That their conception of meta gaming is wrong and everyone would just be happier if they played the way you do.

The notion that a group might not agree is met with repeated comments about how we are mistaken.

Look, again, play what you want. But, accept that other tables do not share this point of view. There is a HUGE excluded middle between you and the "all meta gaming is bad" crowd. No, not all meta gaming is acceptable all the time by every group. It just isn't. It makes the game less enjoyable for some of us.

Instead of telling us to change our minds, why not simply not declare actions that are so blatantly meta? After all, there are many, many options open to our polymorphed fighter that don't include deliberately killing himself. Do one of those and everyone at the table is happy.

Well, you might not be happy since you couldn't take the most advantageous action. That's true. In which case, if it bothers you that much, don't play at my table. Differences in play style are part and parcel of gaming. Nothing about the fact that we both play RPG's in any way means that we should ever share a table.

Game with people who share your tastes and all these problems, which, aren't in fact problems at all, go away.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, and one last time.

You are most definitely NOT "criticizing people who presume things about other people's thoughts in the game". There is no presumption here. In the example, the player has EXPLICITLY STATED WHAT HE IS DOING. There's no secret knowledge here. There's no presumption here.

Please stop trying to paint this discussion about something it has never, ever been.

 

[Daniel Van Patten]

*Morpheus voice* What if I told you that you could maintain the illusion yourself?

Then I wouldn't need anybody to roleplay with.

 

[Seramus]

You presume what I presume incorrectly.

I really do think you should create a new thread. I know it would be a hassle going over some of the same arguments over again (and again), but what you are trying to say is getting drowned out by the frog example.

 

[iserith]

Oh, and one last time.

You are most definitely NOT "criticizing people who presume things about other people's thoughts in the game". There is no presumption here. In the example, the player has EXPLICITLY STATED WHAT HE IS DOING. There's no secret knowledge here. There's no presumption here.

Please stop trying to paint this discussion about something it has never, ever been.

We've discussed many different versions of the example, dude. Some with frogs, some with toads. Some with running under a bard's boot, some with impaling itself on a sword, some with just leaping into an environmental hazard. Some with the player giving his motivations aloud, some with the player keeping that close to his or her chest. The only thing that is consistent in each is that the player's chosen action is reasonable in the context of the situation, regardless of how it is adjudicated.

My position works solidly with all of these examples. Take your pick.