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

[Guest 6801328]

This would not happen, but in theory I would ask how do they know and how would their character know. And lets face it, the the reason is that they have read the module and are using that information to metagame and this would be an indication that we have incompatible gaming preferences. We would have to discuss whether we can come to an agreement how to handle matter or whether it is just better than we do not play together. And the latter is a perfectly fine solution; I think that choosing a group of players with roughly compatible preferences and expectations is one of the key elements for running a successful game.

But what happens if they never admit to reading the module? You suspect, but you aren't sure. Then what?

When we are envisioning how this fictional person is, the game statistic inform us on that right? (Perhaps we assign different weight on how much though, and that was also reflected on our disagreement on the importance of racial ASIs?) So when I look at my fictional person and try to think how much they would know I look at their game statistics for the clue. High intelligence and a lot of knowledge skills tells me that the character is either well educated or otherwise knowledgeable, the lack of those tells me opposite. So when answering to the question whether my character knows who is the Prime Minister of Thay (there isn't one, right?) I would not go for my own memories about the matter, nor I would pick up the FR sourcebook as those are things that my character doesn't have automatic access to.

But somebody IRL who...I don't know how to say this gently...has a really low Int score is going to have all kinds of random facts stored away. On a test of the leaders of countries around the world, for example, they might score lower, even a lot lower, than other people, but they're not going to get zero. That's what the Int modifer represents: that reduced but non-zero chance.

So, yeah, it's entirely reasonable that your low Int character knows who the Prime Minister of Thay is. Or, as @iserith repeatedly point out, maybe that's just who your character thinks is the Prime Minister of Thay. And in those cases where the DM decides that outcome is uncertain, he/she will call for an Int roll. By not calling for a roll, the DM is signalling....like not asking a low-Strength character for a roll in order to walk up stairs...that the challenge is low enough that you get it for free.

In other words, the modifier to declared actions is plenty of penalty. I don't feel the need to also pretend my character doesn't know any facts, or can never deduce any clues or solve any puzzles. If the DM thinks the outcome is uncertain, he/she will ask for a roll.

EDIT: Of course, you and I are both free to decide that our characters don't know a certain fact, for the purposes of roleplaying. But that's the point: it's up to us to decide.

As for the gunpowder, this should never, even come up and would be a total dealbreaker. It is not even about whether it would work, it is a completely absurd action taken by a character in this fictional setting and would indicate that the player is not trying to properly play the role and I would have no interest in playing with them.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect the gunpowder scenario to actually come up (although that might not be true for others' campaigns.) Like your module-reading scenario, I was using an extreme example to "stress test" the approach. Hopefully I demonstrated that even in that extreme example player knowledge doesn't break anything.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Frankly, this is just pointless sophistry. There is no real difference.

Funny, because to a lot of us there's a very clear difference.

You think you, and thus your character, know who the Prime Minister of Thay is.

The DM calls for an Int check, you fail, and....lo and behold!...the Prime Minister of Thay is NOT who it says in the sourcebook after all!

If you want to see what pointless sophistry looks like, check out @Maxperson trying to explain how "not denied" is neither "allowed" nor "not allowed".

 

[Maxperson]

Funny, because to a lot of us there's a very clear difference.

You really can't see the difference between, X is disallowed and requires a house rule to change, and X isn't specifically allowed or disallowed and requires a simple ruling by the DM?

If you want to see what pointless sophistry looks like, check out @Maxperson trying to explain how "not denied" is neither "allowed" nor "not allowed".

Insult me again and I will report it.

 

[iserith]

Frankly, this is just pointless sophistry. There is no real difference.

Yes, there is. It's critical to understanding what's happening in the fiction when a player says what a character thinks, which is the sole domain of the player (short of magical compulsion or the like). What the character thinks just might not be correct. Because there is an incentive to mitigate risk in the game, the smart play is to turn what a character thinks into what a character knows by taking action to verify what the character thinks is true (or not). This sorts itself out without any special table rules about "no metagaming."

 

[iserith]

I literally quoted the rulebook for the part where is says that the GM can decide that the action cannot even be attempted if they feel that the prerequisite conditions are not met. If the GM feels that the action declaration is inappropriate they can ask the player to choose another action.

That section of the DMG is discussing the DM being a mediator between the RULES and the players and how sometimes mediating the RULES means setting limits. The specific example in that section has to do with the character's movement speed relative to the distance between the character and an orc which is a factor of rules.

A group's stance on "metagaming" doesn't sit at the level of the rules. It sits at the level of table rules. These are different things and will vary from table to table.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But what happens if they never admit to reading the module? You suspect, but you aren't sure. Then what?

This cannot happen as I would not play with people who I could not trust to be truthful on such a matter and regardless such trust issues are things beyond the scope of the game.

But somebody IRL who...I don't know how to say this gently...has a really low Int score is going to have all kinds of random facts stored away. On a test of the leaders of countries around the world, for example, they might score lower, even a lot lower, than other people, but they're not going to get zero. That's what the Int modifer represents: that reduced but non-zero chance.

So, yeah, it's entirely reasonable that your low Int character knows who the Prime Minister of Thay is. Or, as @iserith repeatedly point out, maybe that's just who your character thinks is the Prime Minister of Thay. And in those cases where the DM decides that outcome is uncertain, he/she will call for an Int roll. By not calling for a roll, the DM is signalling....like not asking a low-Strength character for a roll in order to walk up stairs...that the challenge is low enough that you get it for free.

In other words, the modifier to declared actions is plenty of penalty. I don't feel the need to also pretend my character doesn't know any facts, or can never deduce any clues or solve any puzzles. If the DM thinks the outcome is uncertain, he/she will ask for a roll.

Right. the GM might allow a roll. And in such situations the low-skill player is much less likely to succeed than the high-skill one, and thus in the course of several such events the skilled character ends up knowing much more. As they should. This is completely different than the player just declaring that theeir character knows the thing without a roll due the players OOC knowledge.

EDIT: Of course, you and I are both free to decide that our characters don't know a certain fact, for the purposes of roleplaying. But that's the point: it's up to us to decide.

The GM can decide that too. Just like they can decide that, no your character in this low tech setting cannot know how to make gunpowder.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect the gunpowder scenario to actually come up (although that might not be true for others' campaigns.) Like your module-reading scenario, I was using an extreme example to "stress test" the approach. Hopefully I demonstrated that even in that extreme example player knowledge doesn't break anything.

Of course it breaks something, it breaks something very, very important. It breaks the believable portrayal of a fictional person in a low-tech setting.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Funny, because to a lot of us there's a very clear difference.

You think you, and thus your character, know who the Prime Minister of Thay is.

The DM calls for an Int check, you fail, and....lo and behold!...the Prime Minister of Thay is NOT who it says in the sourcebook after all!

Frankly, this is blatantly absurd. You have just granted stupid characters a magical power to alter the world by declaring random facts while being an idiot!

Furthermore, as incomprehensible it may sound, there apparently are people who like the Forgotten Realms and might actually like to run it as written and not alter the setting to counter metagaming.

If you want to see what pointless sophistry looks like, check out @Maxperson trying to explain how "not denied" is neither "allowed" nor "not allowed".

That seems correct to me. The state of such a thing is undefined.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You really can't see the difference between, X is disallowed and requires a house rule to change, and X isn't specifically allowed or disallowed and requires a simple ruling by the DM?

No. I'm saying there is a big difference between "isn't specifically allowed and would require a DM ruling to change" (for example, swords turning into nuclear weapons) and "isn't specifically allowed because there's nothing to suggest it's not allowed" (for example, your own inner reasoning for why you declare an action to use fire on trolls.). You are categorizing those two things as the same.

But one of them (player knowledge) is on a topic (character decisions) about which the rules have nothing to say, except for advice...for the DM, not even a rule for players...to discourage a certain kind of metagame thinking.

The other one (nuclear swords) is on a topic (causing damage) for which there are lots and lots of lots of very specific rules.

So, yeah, finding a phrase that seems to describe those things as similar ("...things which aren't expressly forbidden..." or whatever it was) is pure sophistry.

Insult me again and I will report it.

While you're at it, report Crimson for using the same insult, ok?

Oh, right, he wasn't insulting anybody. He was dismissing an argument. Hmmm.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Frankly, this is blatantly absurd. You have just granted stupid characters a magical power to alter the world by declaring random facts while being an idiot!

Nope. They didn't alter the world. They were incorrect in their assumptions about the world.

(This does again raise the point that one difference between the two camps is probably in how we view "truth" in the game world. The anti-metagamers in general seem to have a p.o.v. where there is some kind of objective truth to the world that the characters are then experiencing, whereas the other camp seem to have an approach where nothing really exists until it is experienced. An example is how Max allows or even encourages extensive world-building up to the point the campaign starts, and then it is fixed.)

Furthermore, as incomprehensible it may sound, there apparently are people who like the Forgotten Realms and might actually like to run it as written and not alter the setting to counter metagaming.

What I find absurd is the expectation that you can run a game in a well-documented world while expecting that nobody will know anything about that world. Again, problem of their own making.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to, just that it runs into problems, for which anti-metagaming seems to be the solution, but that in turn creates other problems.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This cannot happen as I would not play with people who I could not trust to be truthful on such a matter and regardless such trust issues are things beyond the scope of the game.

So without any proof you would decide you can't trust them, and not play with them?

The GM can decide that too. Just like they can decide that, no your character in this low tech setting cannot know how to make gunpowder.

I realize you think the GM should be able to decide that, but you state it as if it's truth. Can you point to any passages, even any evidence, that the rules assign this power to the GM?

Note again that in the old passage that even remotely relates to this, the section on metagame thinking, the advice is to ask players questions, or set up situations that defy their expectations. What it does NOT say is that the GM can overrule the players.

Of course it breaks something, it breaks something very, very important. It breaks the believable portrayal of a fictional person in a low-tech setting.

Oh. Well that's just a problem of imagination then. Many of us keep saying...repeatedly...that we find this playstyle to be very believable. If you don't find it believable, you probably shouldn't use it.

For my part, when players pretend to flail around trying to stop trolls from regenerating, even though they know perfectly well what to do, I don't find that very believable.