A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

Numidius said:

Could they allow to have a glimpse at Dm-notes for that particular encounter, beyond common knowledge? [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] said so, if I got it correctly.

Click to expand...

Yes, in game research and divinations can reveal information that only the DM has. In older editions, though, it was risky as [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] points out. BECMI, 1e and 2e were much more fatal than later editions.

Maxperson said:

If the player remembers something that the PC encountered in the game or we established that the PC knows, the PC also remembers. If the player forgets something that the PC encountered in the game or we established that the PC knows, there will be a roll to remember most times, unless it's something so important to the story or PC that the PC wouldn't forget, then I will just tell the player.

Click to expand...

Why? Why do you play this way? I would venture to guess it is a matter of practicality.

The rolling that I'm talking about in this thread is where the knowledge of the PC is uncertain, but the player knows the answer. It's metagaming for the player to use the knowledge without knowing if the PC knows, or to do so if the PC doesn't know.

Click to expand...

All PC knowledge is uncertain. You cannot say what PCs know or don't know, except in a vanishingly small set of cases. What you are doing is establishing things based on some sort of criteria. Those criteria are inevitably related to how and why you play at the table. They are, inevitably, almost completely outside of any in game considerations.

What I'm saying is, what you CLAIM to be doing, is mostly NOT what you are doing. It may be what you have convinced yourself you are doing, but it isn't what is actually happening at the table.

AbdulAlhazred said:

Why? Why do you play this way? I would venture to guess it is a matter of practicality.

Click to expand...

Because it makes sense to do it that way.

All PC knowledge is uncertain. You cannot say what PCs know or don't know, except in a vanishingly small set of cases. What you are doing is establishing things based on some sort of criteria. Those criteria are inevitably related to how and why you play at the table. They are, inevitably, almost completely outside of any in game considerations.

Click to expand...

If the PCs find an obscure religious symbol in a ruin, make a religion check to know what it is. If they are wanting to know about the history of a town, make a history roll to know what it is. If they want to know what a plant does, make a nature check to know what it does. Contrary to your statement above, in-game considerations are pretty much all that there is. If I can't tie the information to something in game for the PC, the answer is going to be no, as there will be nothing in the PCs background, game experiences, skills, etc. that would give the PC a reasonable chance to know the information.

Maxperson said:

Every rule is gating. You say that as if DM-Gating is a bad thing, when it isn't. It's just playing the game. Every rule in the book and every DM ruling is gating. You do it. I do it. Everyone else in the thread does it. Gating is part of game play.

Click to expand...

(1) Not every rule is GM-gating.

(2) There is a very big difference, in the play of a game (including a RPG) between rules, and discretionary gating. To elide that difference is to elide much of what is interesting/significant in game design.

Maxperson said:

What I said about the RuneQuest was only to point out that it says in the rule YOU brought to the thread, is that you can't use player knowledge if the PC does not know about that knowledge. I also pointed out how the rule was wrong about cooperation being necessary.

Click to expand...

I actually just quoted you saying, of the bit about cooperation, that "The players working together just means that they shouldn't be jerks about ideas on what to do."

But now you're (i) saying that it is something else, and (ii) saying that that something else is wrong.

Also, your description of what the book says as "you can't use player knowledge if the PC does not know about that knowledge" is not very precise, and fails to identify the actual point at issue, which is who gets to decide what a PC knows? The RQ book actually says that "your first duty is to play within the limits of the characters you generate. Even though you are a chemistry major, for instance, your shepherd character cannot (without learning or training) stroll to a game world village and open an alchemy shop." This does not tell us how PC knowledge is established, although it makes it clear that PC background is relevant (eg shepherds typically don't know alchemy). Who gets to interpret and extrapolate from that background - player or GM - is left unstated, although the subsequent discussion of cooperation strongly implies that it is a mutual endeavour.

Your view that the GM has sole and overwhelming authority in this respect, which - as best I can tell - extends to vast swathes of setting information also, (i) as a matter of practice will tend to produce pawn stance play (as I suggested not far upthread in reply to [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION]), and (ii) is a very strong form of GM-gating.

I am currently GMing a game (Classic Traveller) in which players are expected to conform their action declarations, in part, to their PCs Intelligence and Education ratings. We have one PC with an INT of 2 (on a 1 to 15 scale, with 7 being typical). That is certainly an important factor in action declaration for that PC, but my table would regard as laughable the idea that it's a matter solely, or even primarily, for GM adjudication.

pemerton said:

(1) Not every rule is GM-gating.

(2) There is a very big difference, in the play of a game (including a RPG) between rules, and discretionary gating.

Click to expand...

So what. You have yet to show even a shred of evidence that all DM gating is bad. Gating is how games run.

I actually just quoted you saying, of the bit about cooperation, that "The players working together just means that they shouldn't be jerks about ideas on what to do."

Click to expand...

That rule says in a nutshell that the players shouldn't be jerks to one another. Failing to cooperate =/= being a jerk. It can mean that, but doesn't automatically mean that.

Also, your description of what the book says as "you can't use player knowledge if the PC does not know about that knowledge" is not very precise, and fails to identify the actual point at issue, which is who gets to decide what a PC knows? The RQ book actually says that "your first duty is to play within the limits of the characters you generate. Even though you are a chemistry major, for instance, your shepherd character cannot (without learning or training) stroll to a game world village and open an alchemy shop." This does not tell us how PC knowledge is established, although it makes it clear that PC background is relevant (eg shepherds typically don't know alchemy). Who gets to interpret and extrapolate from that background - player or GM - is left unstated, although the subsequent discussion of cooperation strongly implies that it is a mutual endeavour.

Click to expand...

I've never played RuneQuest, so all I know of it that passage. That passage definitely limits PC knowledge, and disallows the player from using player knowledge for a PC that wouldn't have that knowledge.

Your view that the GM has sole and overwhelming authority in this respect, which - as best I can tell - extends to vast swathes of setting information also, (i) as a matter of practice will tend to produce pawn stance play (as I suggested not far upthread in reply to [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION]), and (ii) is a very strong form of GM-gating.

Click to expand...

Sure, if you ignore the rest of what I say. Just as you ignored where I said in multiple posts that my definition of metagaming is not the only one out there. You do that a lot. Ignoring things that prove you wrong, and then claiming in a smug tone some incorrect value judgment about how someone else runs their game.

Maxperson said:

If the PCs find an obscure religious symbol in a ruin, make a religion check to know what it is. If they are wanting to know about the history of a town, make a history roll to know what it is. If they want to know what a plant does, make a nature check to know what it does. Contrary to your statement above, in-game considerations are pretty much all that there is. If I can't tie the information to something in game for the PC, the answer is going to be no, as there will be nothing in the PCs background, game experiences, skills, etc. that would give the PC a reasonable chance to know the information.

Click to expand...

Max, I am very much aware debates online sometimes seem very binary, but I imagine in your game (or any game for that matter) a player is able to petition for their character's knowledge right, in order to get a yes or at least a die roll for uncertainty? For example...

The party encounters trolls. Player turns to you and says - I know we have never encountered trolls before in this campaign, but is it not reasonable to assume that I might have heard about their vulnerability to fire/acid and/or regeneration abilities, considering my character is 5th level, has been adventuring for x period of time and having journeyed the distance from Candlekeep to Luskan and back. Perhaps I picked up a tidbit of information about these creatures in general conversation at a tavern or inn we have stayed at or heard it from a bard's tale or a book I've read?

I very much allow the above since my players are not used to injecting fiction into the game as per the Uncle Elmo example earlier.

Maxperson said:

pemerton said:

Your view that the GM has sole and overwhelming authority in this respect, which - as best I can tell - extends to vast swathes of setting information also, (i) as a matter of practice will tend to produce pawn stance play (as I suggested not far upthread in reply to @Sadras), and (ii) is a very strong form of GM-gating.

Click to expand...

Sure, if you ignore the rest of what I say. Just as you ignored where I said in multiple posts that my definition of metagaming is not the only one out there. You do that a lot. Ignoring things that prove you wrong, and then claiming in a smug tone some incorrect value judgment about how someone else runs their game.

Click to expand...

What am I ignoring? And on what am I wrong? Are you asserting that you don't accord overwhelming authority to the GM in ddtermining what PCs know? Are you denying that such an approach would be a very strong form of GM-gating?

Do you disagree that thin PC background produces pawn stance? If so, what's the basis for your disagreement?

More from Over the Edge (p 196 of 20th Anniversary Edition):


I think this is relevant to the discussion of sudden revelations (whether GM or player authored, like the PC who turns out to be a noble), as well as the original discussion of searching for sect members.

Sadras said:

Max, I am very much aware debates online sometimes seem very binary, but I imagine in your game (or any game for that matter) a player is able to petition for their character's knowledge right, in order to get a yes or at least a die roll for uncertainty? For example...

The party encounters trolls. Player turns to you and says - I know we have never encountered trolls before in this campaign, but is it not reasonable to assume that I might have heard about their vulnerability to fire/acid and/or regeneration abilities, considering my character is 5th level, has been adventuring for x period of time and having journeyed the distance from Candlekeep to Luskan and back. Perhaps I picked up a tidbit of information about these creatures in general conversation at a tavern or inn we have stayed at or heard it from a bard's tale or a book I've read?

I very much allow the above since my players are not used to injecting fiction into the game as per the Uncle Elmo example earlier.

Click to expand...

I have allowed rolls like that, but the DC is generally significantly higher since the players almost always ask me who is in the taverns they go to, so I have a good idea of who has been around to talk and adventuring groups are uncommon. Level also plays into it as someone who is 10th level is more likely to have overheard something like that than say a 5th level PC, since the 10th level PC has been in more taverns and has adventured longer. Commonality of monster type also plays into it. I would flat out say no if they asked about a celestial or fiend that way. Unless of course the area was plagued by celestials or fiends, in which case they would have a stronger in game reason to overhear that knowledge.

pemerton said:

Could vs Should
One creative block that often keeps GMs from winging an adventure successfully is clinging to what "should" happen instead of imagining what "could" happen.

Click to expand...

Speaking for myself (but I don't believe my case to be uncommon), due to RL and time constraints, I got forced into winging it, and the frequency of being thrust into that situation increased as my responsibilities as an adult grew. With everything else one keeps practicing, I became more adept at it.
I believe you have to find the right balance for oneself. There are still a few things that throw me off still, especially if it relates to world-building, but as for normal in-game creativity that doesn't phase me as it once did.

I imagine the noble background example though might touch on the world-building aspect and that is why some might prefer not to wing it. It certainly does require a little more flexibility on the part of the DM in this regard.

EDIT: Forgot to add, my thinking is the world-building decisions are more sensitive due to one's understanding of the setting and internal consistency issues, therefore perhaps requiring more time by the DM, than just making snap decisions during game play. Some do not like having to retcon.