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

[iserith]

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.

I think it's just being drowned out by one poster who's about to catch a block.

I'll consider a new thread, maybe tomorrow. I actually had a situation in my game two sessions ago which might make for a great example.

 

[iserith]

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:

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.

I'm not saying anyone has to do anything. Just that you can, if you want to.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm not saying anyone has to do anything. Just that you can, if you want to.

FWIW, what I hear you saying is, "There's this awesome way to game that completely eliminates these sorts of conflicts and lets you have more fun. I'm trying to spread the word."

Unfortunately that seems to be getting interpreted as, "You are playing wrong and therefore you are a bad person."

 

[Hussar]

See, no. It's not. It's not a reasonable choice of actions in the context of the situation. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

The only reason that this becomes reasonable is if you meta-game the solution to breaking polymorph. That's why the player's stated actions are completely disconnected to what actually happens in the game. This is why we're arguing with you. If the choice of actions was reasonable, no one in this thread would have any problems.

But, here's a different take. A few pages back, someone, perhaps [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]? asked if the player should hide his motivations. Should the player lie about why he's doing something so that the group doesn't object.

That's the wrong question.

The question you should ask is this:

Why would a player continue to play at a table where the prevalent playstyle of the group makes that player feel like he or she needs to hide motivations and lie to the group? I mean, seriously. If you're at a table and you feel like the only way you get to do the things you want to do is to lie to the table, then, why continue to play at that table? There is obviously a serious disconnect between play styles here. Why would anyone continue to play at a table where it's becomes patently obvious that there is no reconciling these play styles?

IOW, if you feel like you have to lie to your fellow players just to do what you think is best, that is a dysfunctional group.

 

[Hussar]

FWIW, what I hear you saying is, "There's this awesome way to game that completely eliminates these sorts of conflicts and lets you have more fun. I'm trying to spread the word."

Unfortunately that seems to be getting interpreted as, "You are playing wrong and therefore you are a bad person."

No, the message I'm hearing is, "My play style is so much better. You'd have so much more fun if you just abandoned your chosen play style and joined with me."

Not once in this entire thread have I made a single value judgement on Iserith's play style. Not once. I've never said it was bad. I7ve never said anything negative about Iserith at all. All this interpretation is all on you [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION].

My whole point has always been, why should I have to change my play style to accomodate someone else when my group doesn't want to do that? We don't have these issues at my table because we have all come to the understanding that gaming the system like this leads to games that are not fun for us. We have no need to change.

Now, again, I'm not one to say that all meta-gaming is bad. It's not. I believe it's imposible to play an RPG without meta-gaming. But, this particular dead horse that we've been beating is a bridge too far for me. A player who did this at my table would probably be a bad fit for my group. You can spread the word all you like. That's fine. But, it does sound very, very onetruewayist to me.

But, hey, it appears that I'm not actually contributing to this conversation, but, rather acting as a roadblock. So, I'll bow out. Probably continue reading, but, unless there is something specific you want me to answer, I'll just back away.

 

[iserith]

See, no. It's not. It's not a reasonable choice of actions in the context of the situation. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

The only reason that this becomes reasonable is if you meta-game the solution to breaking polymorph. That's why the player's stated actions are completely disconnected to what actually happens in the game. This is why we're arguing with you. If the choice of actions was reasonable, no one in this thread would have any problems.

But, here's a different take. A few pages back, someone, perhaps [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]? asked if the player should hide his motivations. Should the player lie about why he's doing something so that the group doesn't object.

That's the wrong question.

The question you should ask is this:

Why would a player continue to play at a table where the prevalent playstyle of the group makes that player feel like he or she needs to hide motivations and lie to the group? I mean, seriously. If you're at a table and you feel like the only way you get to do the things you want to do is to lie to the table, then, why continue to play at that table? There is obviously a serious disconnect between play styles here. Why would anyone continue to play at a table where it's becomes patently obvious that there is no reconciling these play styles?

IOW, if you feel like you have to lie to your fellow players just to do what you think is best, that is a dysfunctional group.

Yes, that is the whole point: The choice is not seen as reasonable by some, not because a toad accidentally died, but because some decided that the player who put the toad in that situation is having the wrong thoughts or voicing the wrong motivation while doing it i.e. wanting to break the spell.

That is what I'm examining.

 

[Satyrn]

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.

It's a toad.

Also. I want to thank this thread for inspiring a new piece of lore for my game. To discourage future fighter toads from trying to kill themselves, I have created a new kind of toad. This cute little fellow sports distinctive, darkvision-eye-catching coloring that screams DON'T STEP ON ME! And he means it. This black and yellow checkered toad EXPLODES when brought to 0 hit points, dealing lots of damage to anyone around.

The important part here is that when used as a polymorph shape, the exploding frog-fighter isn't allowed a a saving throw.

While coming up with this idea, I also realized that I could recreate a weapon from Saint's Row: Gat Out of Hell. That game has a gun that launches exploding frogs. My game now has a hand held catapult that magically conjures it's ammo. Exploding frogs, not cats.

And while I was at it, now that I had both exploding toads and frogs, I added turtles ( cute little guys like Mr Turtle; if you've ever watched My Name Is Earl, you know what I'm saying) that explode when their shell cracks. Need a grenade? Throw a turtle.


All of these dangerous little animals share the distinctive black and yellow checkered coloring that screams EXPLOSIONS! And this is why Torgue, the legendary dwarven gun smith, inlaid his weapons with that pattern.

 

[Seramus]

It's a toad.

Also. I want to thank this thread for inspiring a new piece of lore for my game. To discourage future fighter toads from trying to kill themselves, I have created a new kind of toad. This cute little fellow sports distinctive, darkvision-eye-catching coloring that screams DON'T STEP ON ME! And he means it. This black and yellow checkered toad EXPLODES when brought to 0 hit points, dealing lots of damage to anyone around.

That's a brilliant idea.
You polymorph them into a Catachan Barking Toad

 

[Guest 6801328]

Not once in this entire thread have I made a single value judgement on Iserith's play style. Not once. I've never said it was bad. I7ve never said anything negative about Iserith at all. All this interpretation is all on you [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION].

Huh? Where did I say that you had done such a thing? I was speaking entirely about what iserith is saying, and how that is being received.