Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7569010" data-attributes="member: 97077">So my experience is that, in these types of games, this is the point where the player either (1) Declares his or her character doesn't know anything about polymorph, then signals to the rest of the group that he or she is not a filthy metagamer by doing something unproductive or counterproductive; or (2) Asks, &quot;Do I know anything about the polymorph spell?&quot; or &quot;Can I make a check to see if I know anything about polymorph spells?&quot; then the DM either says the character does or doesn't or asks for a roll. After what must be an immersion-shattering side conversation that breaks up the narrative is resolved, the player can then move forward accordingly.If the player's character has received the seal of approval from the DM about knowing how polymorph spells work, suicide away! Nobody's immersion is at risk once the DM taps the player with the not-metagaming wand. If the DM decides otherwise, then don't you dare do anything that might cause other people at the table to suspect you're taking a beneficial action based on your player knowledge of polymorph spells, even if that action is a completely reasonable thing for the toad to do in context. Because what you think is more important than what you do.But here's the thing: The knowledge of polymorph spells and the action I propose the player have the frog take are not necessarily connected at all. The frog is startled and accidentally leaps to its death. We don't need to establish anything about the fighter's knowledge of polymorph spells for that to happen. It's only in these groups where they review the action declaration through the lens of what the player's motivation is instead of the reasonableness of the action itself in the context of the game world.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 7569010, member: 97077"] So my experience is that, in these types of games, this is the point where the player either (1) Declares his or her character doesn't know anything about [I]polymorph[/I], then signals to the rest of the group that he or she is not a filthy metagamer by doing something unproductive or counterproductive; or (2) Asks, "Do I know anything about the [I]polymorph[/I] spell?" or "Can I make a check to see if I know anything about [I]polymorph[/I] spells?" then the DM either says the character does or doesn't or asks for a roll. After what must be an immersion-shattering side conversation that breaks up the narrative is resolved, the player can then move forward accordingly. If the player's character has received the seal of approval from the DM about knowing how [I]polymorph[/I] spells work, suicide away! Nobody's immersion is at risk once the DM taps the player with the not-metagaming wand. If the DM decides otherwise, then don't you dare do anything that might cause other people at the table to suspect you're taking a beneficial action based on your player knowledge of [I]polymorph[/I] spells, even if that action is a completely reasonable thing for the toad to do in context. Because what you think is more important than what you do. But here's the thing: The knowledge of [I]polymorph[/I] spells and the action I propose the player have the frog take are not necessarily connected at all. The frog is startled and accidentally leaps to its death. We don't need to establish anything about the fighter's knowledge of [I]polymorph[/I] spells for that to happen. It's only in these groups where they review the action declaration through the lens of what the player's motivation is instead of the reasonableness of the action itself in the context of the game world. [/QUOTE]

Verification