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

[Lanefan]

By the player you mean @Lanefan. I can tell you that when I'm the player it matters to me how and why the GM is establishing the information. It makes a very big difference to my play experience.

Because for some reason you've conditioned yourself to pay attention to these things, and focus your play experience around the source of the fiction/information rather than the content.

Your will, your way, I suppose...

Here's a post from you that illustrates the point:

What you call "a mess" is what DW calls playing the game. That's the difference, right there. It's a real thing that really matters to play.

The "mess" I refer to is the post-hoc note-taking so that I can be consistent next session with the stuff I ad-libbed tonight, as I know full well I'll never remember it all and I also know full well that the one detail I forget or get wrong will be the one a player calls me on as they too expect consistency, as is their right.

Surely this has happened to you as well - you've got a big elaborate scene framed and action ongoing, and then the session has to end in mid-scene as it's getting too late and people have to work in the morning. Now you have to remember (or write down) the details so you can present the same scene next week at the same point in the action that the players remember from this week. (player memories and notes can help too, of course, as can a quick photo on someone's phone if you're using minis or a map)

 

[pemerton]

Because for some reason you've conditioned yourself to pay attention to these things, and focus your play experience around the source of the fiction/information rather than the content.

If you mean I'm conditioned to recognise the difference between playing a game and being told a story, then sure. I wouldn't have thought that's a very unusual thing to be sensitive to.

 

[Lanefan]

From the 4e PHB (pp 9, 18, 24):

Your "piece" in the Dungeons & Dragons game is your character. He or she is your representative in the game world. Through your character, you can interact
with the game world in any way you want. . . .

The Dungeons & Dragons game is, first and foremost, a roleplaying game, which means that it’s all about taking on the role of a character in the game. . . .

[T]hinking about your birthplace, family, and upbringing can help you decide how to play your character.​

The question of what knowledge a player is able to impute to his/her PC is not explicitly addressed.

I've bolded the relevant bit here: taking on the role of a character means playing that role as if you were that character, using its knowledge*, its senses*, its feelings*^, its emotions^, and its personality^.

* - the information for what these provide comes from the GM, and if it's not enough, ask for more.
^ - these come from the player
(and both of these can be interrupted by various magical effects, of course: darkness or silence can affect the senses, charm can affect the emotions, and so on)

Huh? I'm not making anything up. Here's the 4e PHB (p 269) on declaring attack actions during a combat:

During your turn, you can take a few actions. You decide what to do with each, considering how your actions can help you and your allies achieve victory.​

This is entirely consistent with the fact that 4e D&D is a game, in which players use their cognitive capacities to make "moves" in the form of action declarations. If a player believes, based on his/her accumulated knowledge, that a good move to declare against a troll is a Fire-attack, because s/he knows that trolls are vulnerable to fire, then s/he can declare such a move. Conversely, if a player is uncertain about what would be a good move, s/he is always entitled to attempt a monster knowledge check (which does not require an action). If this is successful, it may help the player choose an action which s/he believes will help him/her and his/her allies achieve victory.

As I said, the 5e rules on this are not something I'm very familiar with, but the 4e rules are crystal clear: the player character is the player's "piece" in the game, and the player gets to decide what his/her PC does, and when it comes to declaring attacks is expected to consider how a declared act will lead to victory in combat.

Which actually goes against what you quoted from the 4e PH above. There it says you take on the role of a character (1e has it that you "become" the character), where here it wants you to be remote from the character.

The GM doesn't get to "force a check" in these circumstances.

Knowledge checks are used "to remember a useful bit of information in [a skill's] field of knowledge or to recognize a clue related to it . . . [or] to identify certain kinds of monsters" (4e PHB p 179). That is (as I've already said), knowledge checks are a mechanical device that a player can use to oblige the GM to provide more information; they are not a gate on the player's use of information s/he already has.There's simply no such rule in 4e. It's not a game in which the GM is allowed to gate player action declarations in the way you are advocating for, and in the way that [MENTION=6888436]sd_jasper[/MENTION] appears to suggest here:

Depends whether you're prioritizing player knowledge or character knowledge. If you're prioritizing character knowledge then the player's own knowledge is irrelevant - and if the player is being honest is should be she who calls for the check if she feels she knows something that the character might not!

And if a GM feels a player isn't being honest then AFAIC she's well within her rights to say "Hey, wait a minute - you know that, but does your character? Roll a check." (this happens often in low-level play in our games here too, though using different mechanics, and we're all fine with it)

 

[Lanefan]

If you mean I'm conditioned to recognise the difference between playing a game and being told a story, then sure. I wouldn't have thought that's a very unusual thing to be sensitive to.

"Being told a story" implies you're just sitting there like a lump with no choice and no input to anything.

Other than the most extreme of railroads and hard-wired APs, the players individually and-or collectively are always going to have input* into the story even in the most Viking-hat GM-driven game - if only because their decisions and actions (and sometimes their dice) are going to in many cases determine what happens in the fiction and almost always will determine how it happens. Did we beat the BBEG or did our dice let us down and let him get away? Do we go after him again or find something else to do? Or is he even really a BBEG or is the Duke feeding us a line - maybe we should check into the Duke? Am I going to park Tabatha in town for the nonce and cycle in Bjarnni for a tour of duty - change up the party a bit?

In any sort of sandbox game this effect is even more pronounced.

* - assuming they want to, of course - some are quite content to just go along for the ride.

On a broader scale, I wonder if part of our differences lie in that I usually tend to see the PCs as small-ish fish in a very big pond - sure they might have an effect on some things but the world went on for a long time before them and it'll keep on going long after they're all dead - where you see them as the biggest or only fish in a pond that only exists for them.

 

[pemerton]

I wonder if part of our differences lie in that I usually tend to see the PCs as small-ish fish in a very big pond - sure they might have an effect on some things but the world went on for a long time before them and it'll keep on going long after they're all dead - where you see them as the biggest or only fish in a pond that only exists for them.

To me, this reads as confused.

In Graeme Greene's The Quiet American, there is no suggestion that what happens to Fowler, Pyle and Phuong is more important in any objective sense than what happens to others in the war. But of course the story is primarily about them.

In a RPG fiction, the gameworld is what it is: in my Traveller game, for instance, it's the whole of the Imperium, and there is no particular reason to think that what the PCs are doing is the biggest deal in the Imperium. But obviously it's the biggest deal at the table - we are playing a game which will reveal what is going on with these PCs. Within the context of our play, the PCs are not just "small-ish fish". They are the focus of the fiction that we are creating.

I've bolded the relevant bit here: taking on the role of a character means playing that role as if you were that character, using its knowledge*, its senses*, its feelings*^, its emotions^, and its personality^.

* - the information for what these provide comes from the GM, and if it's not enough, ask for more.
^ - these come from the player
(and both of these can be interrupted by various magical effects, of course: darkness or silence can affect the senses, charm can affect the emotions, and so on)

<snip>

Which actually goes against what you quoted from the 4e PH above. There it says you take on the role of a character (1e has it that you "become" the character), where here it wants you to be remote from the character.

If you're interpreting the rulebook in such a way as to yield contradiction, that's a good reason to rethink your interpretation!

For instance, nothing in the 4e rules say that everything the PC knows comes from the GM. Nor does anything imply such a thing. If I as a player know that trolls are allergic to fire, and I want to play a PC who knows this, then nothing in the 4e rules precludes me from playing a PC with that knowledge, nor - as per the bit on background that I quoted upthread - from writing up some backstory for my PC that explains how I came by that knowledge.

(For instance, one of the PCs in my 4e game was in his mid-40s at the start of the campaign, and had seen his home city sacked by orcs and other humanoids. It stands to reason that he might know a thing or two about trolls, and nothing in the game makes the GM the gatekeeper of that.)

If you're prioritizing character knowledge then the player's own knowledge is irrelevant - and if the player is being honest is should be she who calls for the check if she feels she knows something that the character might not!

This all rests on an assumption that the player is not free to specify what the character knows. Nothing in the game rules say or suggest this, however. A player is free to decide that his/her PC knows that trolls are allergic to fire. Or to decide that his/her PC is ignorant of that (in which case s/he would hardly call for a check, which would contradict the backstory that s/he has established for his/her PC).

And if a GM feels a player isn't being honest then AFAIC she's well within her rights to say "Hey, wait a minute - you know that, but does your character?

The notiong of being honest is misplaced here. It assumes that it is cheating for a player to decide that his/her PC knows this or that. But the game expressly says that the player gets to decide the PC's background (I quoted the relevant bit above). Not the GM.

Hence [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]'s example (of a player who decides that his/her PC's uncle told stories of the wilds and the creatures there) is completely within the 4e rules.

I'm not making any suggestion about how 5e is to be played. I'm simply talking about what the 4e rules say.

 

[Numidius]

On a broader scale, I wonder if part of our differences lie in that I usually tend to see the PCs as small-ish fish in a very big pond - sure they might have an effect on some things but the world went on for a long time before them and it'll keep on going long after they're all dead - where you see them as the biggest or only fish in a pond that only exists for them.

Immersion. Thermal baths. Ponds. I see a recurrent methaphor. I will add 'diving', then.
The immersive type 'might' be content enough of just bathing in the open water, knowing the ocean had been there for billions of years and will be in the future, or else enjoying a rest on a desert beach in a remote island after encountering a monster of the abyss along the way. The main goal would be to forget their past lives and habits, so no cellphones, no motor boats, no canned food.
The diving type also craves the open water, but prefers a precise location, an involving, focused, experience, in order to obtain which, doesn't disdain the latest tech gadget, if needed, so preparation and procedures are vital. To forget oneself in the process is a welcomed side effect (?), or the main goal as well, but gained with different means.

 

[Aldarc]

He wasn't talking about the spell. He was talking about the Bard's knowledge class ability.

There isn't such a class ability, at least in 5e. Legend Lore exists only as a spell in 5e. I believe that it was a bard ability in 1e, which forms the framework for [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s modus operandi, but I am not sufficiently knowledgeable enough to answer how it operates in 1e.

The information provided is new to the player. My whole point is that it doesn't matter a rat's behind whether it's new to the GM or not, from the point of view of the player receiving the information.

Having played DW from the perspective of a player, I don't think that it is the same. Similar, but not the same. In DW I as the player will have a grasp of the potential stakes inherent in the roll. There is potential tension involved with Spout Lore that amounts to more than "new knowledge" vs. "no knowledge." And if you are aware of how DW works, even as a player, then you understand that the DM is effectively drawing in the blanks as opposed to telling you what they previously drew.

I've bolded the relevant bit here: taking on the role of a character means playing that role as if you were that character, using its knowledge*, its senses*, its feelings*^, its emotions^, and its personality^.

* - the information for what these provide comes from the GM, and if it's not enough, ask for more.
^ - these come from the player
(and both of these can be interrupted by various magical effects, of course: darkness or silence can affect the senses, charm can affect the emotions, and so on)

The distinctions you are trying to make here are a bunch of hogwash, and you should know better.

 

[sd_jasper]

Knowledge checks are used "to remember a useful bit of information in [a skill's] field of knowledge or to recognize a clue related to it . . . [or] to identify certain kinds of monsters" (4e PHB p 179). That is (as I've already said), knowledge checks are a mechanical device that a player can use to oblige the GM to provide more information; they are not a gate on the player's use of information s/he already has.There's simply no such rule in 4e. It's not a game in which the GM is allowed to gate player action declarations in the way you are advocating for, and in the way that @sd_jasper appears to suggest here:

So by that logic, you would allow a player who knows how to gather and combine in the correct ratios, the ingredients for blackpowder/gunpowder to have their character do that in your (fantasy) game? What if you were playing a historical game? Could the player use their knowledge of history have their character at the right place at the right time?

edit: comma

 

[Maxperson]

(2) Personally, I find it absolutely baffling, this pretending that a puzzle is still a puzzle when, in fact, you already know the answer. And there is nothing traditional about this way of playing D&D. It is virtually the opposite of what Gygax describes as "skilled play" in his PHB.

The section talking about skilled play does not say anything about the players being able to use metagame knowledge. Further, he says this...

"As a role player, you become Falstaff the fighter. You know how strong, intelligent, wise, healthy, dexterous and, relatively speaking, how commanding a personality you have. Details as to your appearance your body proportions, and your history can be produced by you or the Dungeon Master. You act out the game as this character, staying within your "godgiven abilities", and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment). You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Falstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic! The Dungeon Master will act the parts of "everyone else", and will present to you a variety of new characters to talk with, drink with, gamble with, adventure with, and often fight with! Each of you will become an artful thespian as time goes by - and you will acquire gold, magic items, and great renown as you become Falstaff the Invincible!"

The player knows that Falstaff has a 14 charisma, but explicitly, Falstaff does not.

The following is from page 110 of the 1e DMG where he is talking about troublesome players.

"Peer pressure is another means which can be used to control players who are not totally obnoxious and who you deem worth saving. These types typically attempt to give orders and instructions even when their characters are not present, tell other characters what to do even though the character role they have has nothing to do with that of the one being instructed, or continually attempt actions or activities their characters would have no knowledge of."

Gygax is flat out calling people who metagame their knowledge to their characters, troublesome players. The bolded section is explicitly talking about knowledge the player has, but the characters would not have.

From page 111 of the DMG.

"In general the multiple characters belonging to a single player should not be associates. One should not "know" information, or be able to communicate knowledge which is peculiar to him or her to the other."

Here, despite the player having the knowledge of both PCs, Gygax is saying that the knowledge one PC has should not be known by the other. That's Gygax again saying that metagame knowledge should not be given to the PCs.

 

[Maxperson]

Huh? I'm not making anything up. Here's the 4e PHB (p 269) on declaring attack actions during a combat:

During your turn, you can take a few actions. You decide what to do with each, considering how your actions can help you and your allies achieve victory.​

This is entirely consistent with the fact that 4e D&D is a game, in which players use their cognitive capacities to make "moves" in the form of action declarations. If a player believes, based on his/her accumulated knowledge, that a good move to declare against a troll is a Fire-attack, because s/he knows that trolls are vulnerable to fire, then s/he can declare such a move. Conversely, if a player is uncertain about what would be a good move, s/he is always entitled to attempt a monster knowledge check (which does not require an action). If this is successful, it may help the player choose an action which s/he believes will help him/her and his/her allies achieve victory.

The 4e DMG tells you to discourage metagame thinking and says players get more enjoyment when they don't engage in it. It also tells you to be sure that the explorer player type doesn't use his knowledge of the game world to his advantage.