There’s definitely a balance to be struck, and it depends on the table. I would only do this on a table where the rules are actually just guidelines.
For many others, a world needs to make sense internally. It doesn’t need to make real-world sense, but within the world with its different reality, things kinda need to be consistent. For example, if it is easily possible for a wizard to circumvent your will save by asking a trick question, the whole world would look completely different. Almost everyone who interacts with any kind of wizard would be extremely guarded around giving consent for anything since it might just be a ploy to remove their resistances.
A resourceful/logical player would now try to trick an NPC into agreeing first, and well, if it doesn’t work, you can still cast the spell normally, nothing lost. You could ask them to stop, or they could recognize themselves that doing it like that wouldn’t be fun, but if you act in the world you usually always try to make the best decisions. If you artificially limit that in a fourth-wall-breaking way, the game actually starts to lose its appeal.
If you allow stuff like this all the time, eventually the alternate reality of your characters will just become a random clown show. Problem solving will just be about who comes up with the most ridiculous thing that makes everyone laugh about its absurdity. There will be no logic or rational thought involved anymore, it’ll be no simulation anymore, just a sandbox. Which again, might be fine for certain tables, but many want to be able to immerse themselves in a different world that they can accept as at least possible, which is the actual fun for them.
So no, you aren’t necessarily “not fun” if you don’t allow this as a DM. You’re just playing a different kind of game with a different kind of fun.
Almost everyone who interacts with any kind of wizard would be extremely guarded around giving consent for anything since it might just be a ploy to remove their resistances.
And that’s totally fair and matches a lot of wizarding canon. It could very well be that this NPC isn’t particularly bright, or at least not accustomed to dealing with wizards, but the DM can come up with some clever way to still have the story progress (i.e. the NPC happened to be wearing an amulet that protects them from magic, the NPC can communicate telepathically when transformed (so the story can continue), the magical power necessary knocks out the wizard and the spell link is broken, or the transmutation on an unwilling human is temporary and the wizard needs to roll X times above Y to maintain the spell (and X gets lower as the NPC submits).
There are a lot of ways to mitigate the impact of an outrageous player choice and discourage them from pulling further shenanigans. Just saying “no” is rarely the most fun option.
Yes, and their understanding was that they were going to be given a magical sword. It doesn’t matter if the words used were misleading, what matters is what the person thinks they agreed to.
Or maybe the mage is crazy about deals with the devils / geanies, knew exactly what would happen and actually wanted to be polymorphed into a sword. Saying “no” to curb a creative player will simply make them not want to be creative anymore. It’s standup rules - “no saying no, instead say yes, and” to add something interesting happening.
What matters is how will saves with polymorphs work - if you’re taking a person by surprise the mechanics should be consistent. If a genie did the same thing there would still be a will save if they’re doing something that was not the intent of the wisher. Being creative is great, but you have to adhere to the internal rules of the world while doing so.
If you want to go that route then polymorphing can only be done by changing them into a creature. Not a sword. So womp womp. One of the first sentences in the DM guide is “all rules can be changed if it means more fun for the players”.
I won’t belabor that point, because true polymorph exists, and if this character has that ability it can be assumed that’s the spell he means to use. If he doesn’t then it wouldn’t work if he tried.
All rules CAN be changed, but they need a good reason. This guy is trying to cheat the system (skipping a will check). “I said some words but didn’t actually get consent to cast the spell I’m going to cast” isn’t a good enough reason.
I liked to play where if my players tricked me, well they got me, we’ll adjust and keep going. They always realized that I may ask a similar question to them though, and it could always go the same way.
In this specific case, I’d let it happen and they’d probably going on an adventure for a wish in the next session (depending on how important the NPC is to the story, they might need to have him as a humanoid). Just like if you have an asshole paladin, they might find themself trying to atone to get back their favor with the gods.
If the reaction wasn’t an immediate “I’ll allow it” then you aren’t a fun dm
There’s definitely a balance to be struck, and it depends on the table. I would only do this on a table where the rules are actually just guidelines.
For many others, a world needs to make sense internally. It doesn’t need to make real-world sense, but within the world with its different reality, things kinda need to be consistent. For example, if it is easily possible for a wizard to circumvent your will save by asking a trick question, the whole world would look completely different. Almost everyone who interacts with any kind of wizard would be extremely guarded around giving consent for anything since it might just be a ploy to remove their resistances.
A resourceful/logical player would now try to trick an NPC into agreeing first, and well, if it doesn’t work, you can still cast the spell normally, nothing lost. You could ask them to stop, or they could recognize themselves that doing it like that wouldn’t be fun, but if you act in the world you usually always try to make the best decisions. If you artificially limit that in a fourth-wall-breaking way, the game actually starts to lose its appeal.
If you allow stuff like this all the time, eventually the alternate reality of your characters will just become a random clown show. Problem solving will just be about who comes up with the most ridiculous thing that makes everyone laugh about its absurdity. There will be no logic or rational thought involved anymore, it’ll be no simulation anymore, just a sandbox. Which again, might be fine for certain tables, but many want to be able to immerse themselves in a different world that they can accept as at least possible, which is the actual fun for them.
So no, you aren’t necessarily “not fun” if you don’t allow this as a DM. You’re just playing a different kind of game with a different kind of fun.
And that’s totally fair and matches a lot of wizarding canon. It could very well be that this NPC isn’t particularly bright, or at least not accustomed to dealing with wizards, but the DM can come up with some clever way to still have the story progress (i.e. the NPC happened to be wearing an amulet that protects them from magic, the NPC can communicate telepathically when transformed (so the story can continue), the magical power necessary knocks out the wizard and the spell link is broken, or the transmutation on an unwilling human is temporary and the wizard needs to roll X times above Y to maintain the spell (and X gets lower as the NPC submits).
There are a lot of ways to mitigate the impact of an outrageous player choice and discourage them from pulling further shenanigans. Just saying “no” is rarely the most fun option.
The NPC did not agree to be polymorphed into a sword, so there would absolutely be a will save.
Yeah they did, they said “yes” to them asking “can I make you a magical sword”
Yes, and their understanding was that they were going to be given a magical sword. It doesn’t matter if the words used were misleading, what matters is what the person thinks they agreed to.
Or maybe the mage is crazy about deals with the devils / geanies, knew exactly what would happen and actually wanted to be polymorphed into a sword. Saying “no” to curb a creative player will simply make them not want to be creative anymore. It’s standup rules - “no saying no, instead say yes, and” to add something interesting happening.
What matters is how will saves with polymorphs work - if you’re taking a person by surprise the mechanics should be consistent. If a genie did the same thing there would still be a will save if they’re doing something that was not the intent of the wisher. Being creative is great, but you have to adhere to the internal rules of the world while doing so.
If you want to go that route then polymorphing can only be done by changing them into a creature. Not a sword. So womp womp. One of the first sentences in the DM guide is “all rules can be changed if it means more fun for the players”.
I won’t belabor that point, because true polymorph exists, and if this character has that ability it can be assumed that’s the spell he means to use. If he doesn’t then it wouldn’t work if he tried.
All rules CAN be changed, but they need a good reason. This guy is trying to cheat the system (skipping a will check). “I said some words but didn’t actually get consent to cast the spell I’m going to cast” isn’t a good enough reason.
I liked to play where if my players tricked me, well they got me, we’ll adjust and keep going. They always realized that I may ask a similar question to them though, and it could always go the same way.
In this specific case, I’d let it happen and they’d probably going on an adventure for a wish in the next session (depending on how important the NPC is to the story, they might need to have him as a humanoid). Just like if you have an asshole paladin, they might find themself trying to atone to get back their favor with the gods.