D&D 5E player knowlege vs character knowlege (spoiler)

[iserith]

I am talking about roleplaying hobby in general. The GM is the final arbitrator of what goes. But hey, if you insist, for example DMG page 5:

Sometimes mediating the rules means setting limits.
If a player tells you, "I want to run up and attack the
orc," but the character doesn't have enough movement
to reach the orc, you say, "It 's too far away to move up
and still attack. What would you like to do instead?"
The player takes the information and comes up with a
different plan.

So yeah, the action cannot be attempted, because the GM determined that the prerequisite conditions are not met. This is no different than GM determining that an action cannot be attempted because the character doesn't have the prerequisite knowledge. I trust that in light of this information you will now alter how you run your games to be in compliance with the rules as written!

The rules say a player determines what a character thinks, says, and does. If the player says the character thinks the NPC is a lich or that fire is good to use on trolls, then that's what the character thinks. (It doesn't mean the character is right.) If the player says the character draws upon relevant knowledge or experience to recall if the NPC is a lich or that fire is good to use on trolls, then the DM gets to adjudicate this action and narrate the results. Even if the character can't recall anything useful - either because the roll went poorly or the DM rules automatic failure - the character can still go on thinking the NPC is a lich and can even try to attack the troll with a lit torch.

I think you're confused about what the assumptions of the D&D's designers are, but I really don't care about that. Rules are just guidelines anyway, so you of course are free to have fun whatever way you like.

Sure. Claim that it's just your preference, perhaps developed in other games, and I have no argument against that. Have fun however you want and glad to hear it, even if I have criticisms having played that way. Claim that the rules in the current books support this approach? There I will debate you. It's just not there. Now, a D&D 3e book I think you could make the case quite well that it is supported by the rules. Just not this game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You just assumed that someone bringing a copy of the module to the game was a jerk. So you did determine that. And you only have an issue with the assumed motivation of ruining the game, even though according to you it wouldn't ruin the game...

Sorry, but this just doesn't make any sense to me.

If all evidence didn't point to you engaging in an open-minded, sincere way, I would be starting to wonder if maybe you weren't trying to devise trap questions, to which you could then disingenuously pretend to be confused by the answers. I'm glad that I would never suspect that of you.

In any event, you're right: in the example you gave I was jumping to judgment. I think it was your use of the word "mysteriously", which suggested to me that player was being intentionally dishonest about what he/she was doing, which I think in general qualifies as jerk behavior. But I only know that because you gave me the metagame information, as it were. As the actual DM in that scenario I might be unaware of what was going on, in which case I might very well be oblivious to it.

But let's say the player is not a jerk, and thus is open about reading the module. I think I'd probably ask why, and start a discussion about what everybody at the table considers fun. But let's further assume, as odd as it may sound, that this conversation ends with the player still using the module. Ok, fair enough. Now that I know that, I just make sure I don't run the module exactly as it's written. Problem solved.

Does that clarify things?

 

[Cadence]

Sorry if these seem tangential. My brain has been mulling over various posts above...

For those who don't like metagaming...

Is particularly avoiding PvP conflict as a player actually metagaming, since the character wouldn't particularly treat the other pcs any differently than an npc they hang out with a lot? (I'm trying to remember if most of my DMs have even brought it up, or if we just assumed that being too much of a jerk to another character was against an unspoken social contract).

For those who don't police metagaming...

I think I've had my cleric choose to intentionally not use much healing or not heal a PC that acted in a way the Cleric would have found particularly egregious. That isn't PvP conflict in the sense that needs an adjudication though, right?

Having an alternate methods of resolution for PvP conflict (besides narration a skill checks and combat) is a table rule that should be discussed in session 0, right?

If you use the narration to resolve PvP conflict, what happens in the case where the thief chooses to pocket what was in the chest he just opened before the others see it resolved? (Which of the several other party members narrates it? Or is that not something you'd use that resolution for?)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If all evidence didn't point to you engaging in an open-minded, sincere way, I would be starting to wonder if maybe you weren't trying to devise trap questions, to which you could then disingenuously pretend to be confused by the answers. I'm glad that I would never suspect that of you.

I can assure you that all confusion was quite genuine.

In any event, you're right: in the example you gave I was jumping to judgment. I think it was your use of the word "mysteriously", which suggested to me that player was being intentionally dishonest about what he/she was doing, which I think in general qualifies as jerk behavior. But I only know that because you gave me the metagame information, as it were. As the actual DM in that scenario I might be unaware of what was going on, in which case I might very well be oblivious to it.

'Mysteriously' here merely refered by any of the myriad ways in which the player might try to justify the character having such knowledge, be it via having seen a map or having genuine 'mysterious' premonitions. I assumed that by your earlier stance you would be ok with the player merely just declaring such justifications for having the knowledge.

But let's say the player is not a jerk, and thus is open about reading the module. I think I'd probably ask why, and start a discussion about what everybody at the table considers fun. But let's further assume, as odd as it may sound, that this conversation ends with the player still using the module. Ok, fair enough. Now that I know that, I just make sure I don't run the module exactly as it's written. Problem solved.

Does that clarify things?

Yes. Personally I wouldn't feel that it wouldn't be fair for the player to put the GM in a position that they're forced to alter the module. Now you might not mind doing that and I definitely wouldn't doing mind that, but it is something that the GM should do if they want because they felt it will be better that way, not to thwart the metagaming.

As on topic in general, I'd still like to hear how people feel about a no-knowledge-skills, low int character knowing everything about the setting because the player read the setting manual. Because to me that absolutely is not fair towards players who actually gave their character knowledge skills and high intelligence.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

For those who don't like metagaming...

Is particularly avoiding PvP conflict as a player actually metagaming, since the character wouldn't particularly treat the other pcs any differently than an npc they hang out with a lot? (I'm trying to remember if most of my DMs have even brought it up, or if we just assumed that being too much of a jerk to another character was against an unspoken social contract).

I think when creating characters there should be a group discussion to make sure that the characters have sufficient reasons to get along. So session zero stuff basically.

If you use the narration to resolve PvP conflict, what happens in the case where the thief chooses to pocket what was in the chest he just opened before the others see it resolved? (Which of the several other party members narrates it? Or is that not something you'd use that resolution for?)

This is a good example where separating the player and character knowledge is important. The players know that the thief pocketed something but the characters don't.

 

[Cadence]

I think when creating characters there should be a group discussion to make sure that the characters have sufficient reasons to get along. So session zero stuff basically.

Is "borrowing" something from another character necessarily not getting along?

This is a good example where separating the player and character knowledge is important. The players know that the thief pocketed something but the characters don't.

I was trying to think if there was a way of nicely doing this passing notes, but couldn't. Are your players usually able to play just fine with that knowledge? Or do some become a bit bitter?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Is "borrowing" something from another character necessarily not getting along?

It might not be. It even probably wouldn't be. But I think this is the sort of combination of characters that should be discussed beforehand. A character who 'borrows' trivial items is probably not an issue... except if one of the other characters is some sort of a lawful psychotic Judge Dredd paladin with zero tolerance to anything that even remotely smell like crime.

I was trying to think if there was a way of nicely doing this passing notes, but couldn't. Are your players usually able to play just fine with that knowledge? Or do some become a bit bitter?

If it is just some worthless gold or a magic trinket, who really cares? Frankly, it is probably better if the players know; their characters may be deceived, but they're not.

 

[iserith]

For those who don't police metagaming...

I think I've had my cleric choose to intentionally not use much healing or not heal a PC that acted in a way the Cleric would have found particularly egregious. That isn't PvP conflict in the sense that needs an adjudication though, right?

I don't think so. I would hope that this isn't some kind of player conflict. And anyway the other PC has hit dice, right?

Having an alternate methods of resolution for PvP conflict (besides narration a skill checks and combat) is a table rule that should be discussed in session 0, right?

I think so, yes. It's good to get all the Table Rules established and agreed to before the game in my view, whether that's how to deal with "metagaming," pvp, or who's going to pay for my share of the pizza.

If you use the narration to resolve PvP conflict, what happens in the case where the thief chooses to pocket what was in the chest he just opened before the others see it resolved? (Which of the several other party members narrates it? Or is that not something you'd use that resolution for?)

Since this would be seen as a hindrance at my table and thus subject to our table rules, any player could come up with a way for the hindrance to resolve itself. In our Avernus game, the yuan-ti PC (a charlatan warlock in a party of holy rollers) was skimming soul coins for many sessions. We would pretend not to notice, but would occasionally make ironic comments about it for comedic effect (e.g. "I can't believe how poorly paid the forces of Hell are..."). Later on in the campaign, the yuan-ti got hit with a Feeblemind spell. So while we were feeding him his tapioca one day, we found the soul coins on him, then later used them to get him cured. And of course he was good with that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, but...

Ok, maybe an outside-D&D example will help me get across what I’m trying to express here. Are you familiar at all with the Dragon Age series of video games? CRPGs with a heavy emphasis on characters, roleplaying, and player choices with significant story consequences. One of the most infamous decision points in the first game has you choosing who will become the next king of the Dwarven city of Orzamar. One candidate is presented as power-hungry and corrupt, willing to go to any lengths to become king, and in fact had his own elder brother assassinated so he would be next in line (and if you play as a dwarf noble, you’re the middle child who he framed for the assassination.) But, he is more progressive than the other candidate, who is presented as honorable and kind; an advisor to the previous king, who allegedly named him as his successor on his death bed (though no one else was around to corroborate the story). He is a staunch traditionalist. Now, when you make this decision, you have relatively little information about either candidate, unless you are a dwarf noble.

Most players, on their first time playing, tend to pick the candidate who is presented as more noble. Now, in the epilogue, it is revealed that this candidate ruled pretty incompetently, becoming essentially a puppet for the corrupt noble council, driving Orzamar into further isolation from the surface, and exacerbating the extreme wealth and power inequality in dwarven society. Many players, on a repeat playthrough, want to find out if the other candidate would be a better choice. Choosing differently the second time around is in part based on out of character knowledge. You, the player, know what happens when one candidate is chosen, and want to see the outcome if you choose the other. But choosing the other candidate on a second playthrough can still be a roleplaying decision; you’re still imagining yourself as the character you’ve created, in the fictional scenario, making the decision as you imagine that character would. You’ve just decided to play a character with different values than the one you played the first time, who would pick the more progressive candidate even if he seems less “honorable.” That decision may have been motivated by out of character information (I want to see what happens if I pick the other guy), but it is still arrived at through roleplaying (“I’ll play an ends-justify-the-means” anti-hero this time,” or “I’ll play a dwarf noble who forgives her brother this time.”)

Now, to bring this back to D&D, when a player comes in with foreknowledge of the setting, module, or whatever, I trust that even if some of their decisions are motivated by their foreknowledge, they are still arriving at those decisions through roleplaying. They’re still imagining themselves as their characters, making decisions as they imagine their characters would. And frankly, even if they’re not... what’s it to me? As long as they’re working towards the common goal of having fun and creating exciting, memorable stories, I’m not worried about whether or not they’re “really roleplaying.” Different players have fun in different ways, I don’t think it’s my business to judge them as bad roleplayers if they let their own foreknowledge influence their characters’ decisions.

I haven't played the computer game you mentioned, but I get what you mean. This is much subtler use of meta-knowledge and something that cannot be completely avoided anyway, and is probably harmless, might even be beneficial. Of course the players behaviour is always somehow influenced what they know. Avoiding metagaming is really about avoiding gaining an unfair advantage or giving the character access to information that they reasonably shouldn't have. (And I maintain that ultimately the GM is the judge of what is 'reasonable' albeit in a like-minded group disagreements on the matter are in my experience exceedingly rare.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

'Mysteriously' here merely refered by any of the myriad ways in which the player might try to justify the character having such knowledge, be it via having seen a map or having genuine 'mysterious' premonitions. I assumed that by your earlier stance you would be ok with the player merely just declaring such justifications for having the knowledge.

Yes, I do think it's interesting/useful to come up with extreme edge cases, just to see how a system responds. So even though the scenario you described is bizarre and improbable, I think it can be accommodated just fine.

How about your approach? Let's say somebody shows up at your game and "mysteriously" looks for the secret doors in all the right places, tries just the right attacks on monsters with resistances, checks for traps at just the right times, etc. But does so with persuasive innocence, claiming to just be really lucky? How do you handle it?

As on topic in general, I'd still like to hear how people feel about a no-knowledge-skills, low int character knowing everything about the setting because the player read the setting manual. Because to me that absolutely is not fair towards players who actually gave their character knowledge skills and high intelligence.

I don't quite understand the problem. While players bringing in their own foreknowledge will (or really "might") sometimes obviate the need for a roll, there can still be plenty of other occasions where they don't have player knowledge. Especially if the DM switches things up.

Take the gunpowder example. The low-Int, zero-skill player might say, "Oh I got this. Equal parts potassium nitrate, charcoal, and sulfur." So they try it and...lo and behold!...in this game world, that doesn't work. So now the Wizard with Arcana proficiency says his favorite class in wizard school was pyrotechnics, and he says "I'm pretty sure it's 2 parts dragonbone, 1 part crushed carrior crawler chitin, and a cup of gelatinous cube." The DM maybe asks for an arcana check, or just decides that the characters proficiency & Intelligence, plus Rule of Cool, means that it works.

High Int & proficiency > player knowledge.