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

[Retreater]

What's all the debate about? Casters who know how the spell works can "kill" the frog to end the spell with a magic missile or other spell. I wasn't suggesting the frog commit suicide.

 

[Satyrn]

What's all the debate about? Casters who know how the spell works can "kill" the frog to end the spell with a magic missile or other spell. I wasn't suggesting the frog commit suicide.

Metagaming is one of the forum's favorite topics of discussion.


(There should be "scare quotes" around at least three of the words in that sentence)

 

[Guest 6801328]

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], I didn't say stories can't have blind luck. I said I dislike when blind luck saves the heroes. Happening to put his hand on the ring was setting up future plotlines.

As for happening to coincidentally take his hand out of his pocket at just the right time, I actually did roll my eyes a bit at that. But at least it's something that people normally do all the time, as opposed to a frog happening to leap into the path of a [mild expletive] sword.

More to the point, I'm not interested in arguing this or that specific example from this or that piece of fiction. I specifically said there were occasional exceptions if the author or story were brilliant enough.

But unless it's parody, a human saving himself from being turned into a frog because he happens to accidentally kill himself, and that happens to actually break the spell (which, as I also said above, I already find incredibly nonsensical as an element of the fiction, even though I understand it as a game balance mechanic) will never, ever be one of those exceptions.

Ok, fair enough. By the same token, maybe I was being hyperbolic with "blind luck" and "saves the day".

How about just "totally unexpected" actions and events leading to "surprising twists" in the story? Would the frog hopping unnoticed into the fight and getting stepped on by the Barbarian qualify?

 

[Guest 6801328]

It seems to me that if the player at your table was brand new to the game and legitimately had no idea how polymorph worked, his or her proposal of the toad jumping under the running bard's boot and being squished would not be suspicious.

This is one of my favorite counter-arguments in most of these debates.

Everybody seems to agree that they would have no problem with the brand-new player using fire on trolls, or whatever. It's only when veteran players do it that the metagaming police go nuts. Which demonstrates that it's not that the character action is wrong, but rather it's the player motivation they are policing.

Which means, in turn, that its the anti-metagmers who are the ones metagaming!

Crazy.

 

[Satyrn]

This is one of my favorite counter-arguments in most of these debates.

Everybody seems to agree that they would have no problem with the brand-new player using fire on trolls, or whatever. It's only when veteran players do it that the metagaming police go nuts. Which demonstrates that it's not that the character action is wrong, but rather it's the player motivation they are policing.

Which means, in turn, that its the anti-metagmers who are the ones metagaming!

Crazy.

It's turtles metagaming all the way down.



Yeah I really got nothing to contribute beyond lame jokes

 

[iserith]

This is one of my favorite counter-arguments in most of these debates.

Everybody seems to agree that they would have no problem with the brand-new player using fire on trolls, or whatever. It's only when veteran players do it that the metagaming police go nuts. Which demonstrates that it's not that the character action is wrong, but rather it's the player motivation they are policing.

Which means, in turn, that its the anti-metagmers who are the ones metagaming!

Crazy.

Yes, and having once been of the same mindset of the people with whom we're debating, I understand the thinking and can see where the flaws are. The problem so far as I can tell is that many a group's culture can be based on this thinking such that seeing the flaws is problematic. It's easier to ignore the flaws and contradictions than to consider whether a longstanding way of doing things might have been a waste of time and energy.

You bring up another good point: What is more "immersive" - focusing solely on what's going on in the fiction or focusing on what a player and/or character knows to justify the action declaration? Or, as I often see in such groups, having a little side discussion about who knows what, sometimes relying on rolls to resolve that before any actions are declared? "Does my fighter know how the polymorph spell works? Would he remember that when turned into a 1-Int toad?" It's like an approval process so the player can be cleared of any suspicion of "metagaming" and proceed to the action declaration. It's not clear to me how that helps with "immersion" either.

 

[Iry]

But even without the actual interruption at the table, think about what's going on here: if another player 'metagaming' is breaking your immersion, it's because you are letting yourself worry about what the player is thinking, not what their character is doing. You are either breaking your own immersion by going there, or you weren't really immersed in the first place because you were already in the mindset of thinking of the other characters as their players, not as the characters themselves.

Other way around. In this case everyone is thinking about the character as someone who was suddenly transformed into a frog with no knowledge of how polymorph works. If the player proposes anything in the vast spectrum of reasonable actions, nobody would blink an eye. If one of those reasonable actions happens to result in the frog dying because that's the way the die rolled, nobody would blink an eye.

If the player tells you the frog intentionally runs under someone's foot and waits for it to come crushing down, or throws itself onto a spear after a long sigh. Everyone else at the table would stop any other thought process they had going on and wonder what the hell is going on. I would then hear about it after the game from a half dozen people.

 

[Iry]

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how my scenario "goes much further than that." It seems to me that if the player at your table was brand new to the game and legitimately had no idea how polymorph worked, his or her proposal of the toad jumping under the running bard's boot and being squished would not be suspicious.

Because it doesn't happen as a direct request. I've seen several dozen 'first time polymorph' encounters from brand new players and grizzled veterans alike, and the number of players who have attempted immediate suicide is... Zero.

Like I posted to Elfcrusher, there have been times where the proposed action accidentally resulted in death, because that's how the dice rolled when the victim attempted to scramble to safety or still got caught in an AOE. But not one single person has committed frog seppuku intentionally, until after they know how the spell works. None.

So what you're actually doing here is policing the thoughts of other people at the table - by choice - and allowing your opinions about how a player arrived at the action declaration to "ruin the fun and enjoyment." Whereas someone like me would only be focused on the toad's action in the context of the scene rather than what the player may or may not know (or his or her character).

Certainly. While there is an enormous range of perfectly reasonable actions, "policing thoughts" is a normal part of the gaming experience when a player is being disruptive to multiple other players. What counts as disruptive will vary from one table to the next, but this variety of metagaming would not be considered a positive by anyone at my table. I would have a very polite conversation with the player afterwards, and hope the behavior doesn't continue.

It doesn't sound like the players are able to compartmentalize their thoughts about what another player or character knows, however. Otherwise they might be able to deal with the confused, dimwitted toad accidentally killing itself in the heat of an unfolding battle between multiple combatants acting of their own accord.

On that subject, I'll ask you what other posters who appear to share your position have so far steadfastly refused to answer: Can you imagine an exciting, memorable situation in a fictional world where an Int-1 toad does something to get itself killed?

Your scenario does not involve accident. It's the intentional suicide by the toad from a player making his intent clear that this is no accident.

 

[iserith]

Because it doesn't happen as a direct request. I've seen several dozen 'first time polymorph' encounters from brand new players and grizzled veterans alike, and the number of players who have attempted immediate suicide is... Zero.

Like I posted to Elfcrusher, there have been times where the proposed action accidentally resulted in death, because that's how the dice rolled when the victim attempted to scramble to safety or still got caught in an AOE. But not one single person has committed frog seppuku intentionally, until after they know how the spell works. None.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right? This is a thing that could happen. If it did, as in the case with the new player with no knowledge of the spell, what would you do? If you do indeed decide to rule that the toad is squished, ending the polymorph spell, would you rule the same way for the grizzled veteran? If not, why not?

Certainly. While there is an enormous range of perfectly reasonable actions, "policing thoughts" is a normal part of the gaming experience when a player is being disruptive to multiple other players. What counts as disruptive will vary from one table to the next, but this variety of metagaming would not be considered a positive by anyone at my table. I would have a very polite conversation with the player afterwards, and hope the behavior doesn't continue.

The question then becomes: If the group wasn't "policing thoughts" to begin with, would anyone be disrupted by the proposed action declaration? I submit that they would not.

Your scenario does not involve accident. It's the intentional suicide by the toad from a player making his intent clear that this is no accident.

It may be an intentional act by the player, but can be described as an unintentional death of the toad - in the heat of the battle which it has little capacity to fully understand or predict, it makes a bad call and jumps in a way that lands it on the path of the bard's boot. Is that reasonable? If not, why not? As well, what would be an example in your view of an Int-1 toad unintentionally getting itself killed in a way that meets your standards? (Everyone seems to be avoiding this question.)

 

[Iry]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right? This is a thing that could happen. If it did, as in the case with the new player with no knowledge of the spell, what would you do? If you do indeed decide to rule that the toad is squished, ending the polymorph spell, would you rule the same way for the grizzled veteran? If not, why not?

If a new player who sincerely knew nothing about polymorph intentionally killed herself? I would politely have a conversation with her after the game about why she didn't seem to be having fun, and what we could do to make things more interesting in the future.

The question then becomes: If the group wasn't "policing thoughts" to begin with, would anyone be disrupted by the proposed action declaration? I submit that they would not.

When you remove emotion and preference from the equation, I suspect you are correct. But that's not a useful thing for the question to become.

It may be an intentional act by the player, but can be described as an unintentional death of the toad - in the heat of the battle which it has little capacity to fully understand or predict, it makes a bad call and jumps in a way that lands it on the path of the bard's boot. Is that reasonable? If not, why not?

Being an intentional act by the player is what makes the experience un-fun for other players. I can think of many ways a player might suggest a course of action that accidentally leads to the death of the frog, including a valiant and amusing "Frog's Last Stand." But intentionally declaring your desire to kill yourself would be disruptive on many levels.

What would be an example in your view of an Int-1 toad unintentionally getting itself killed in a way that meets your standards? (Everyone seems to be avoiding this question.)

Hrrm. Meeting with me before the game and explaining that you would like to kill your character off, to play another character?