D&D 5E Player knowledge and Character knowledge

[ChrisCarlson]

Thus the use of the word "usually". No label can suit all people, but even in this thread you have posters using some of the same arguments.

The ol' "present company excluded" caveat to sugarcoat the insult, eh?...

Not to mention, people always seem to get incredibly defensively when someone suggests they may prefer the game portion to the story portion.

Do they? I exceedingly more often see people say, "I don't, but play the game how you like. It's your game. If your table has fun doing it that way, more power to you."

It's not like it's a crime. Hell I prefer the game portion, so I'm not attacking either side.

So you do not enjoy the story?

People mention the Stormwind Fallacy way too often.

Or perhaps... People commit the Stormwind Fallacy way too often.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

Look, I'm posting my observations, just like many other posters. I'm not coming here with some kind of agenda.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So can my roll be that of a character who, as a child, his grandfather regaled him with tales of how trolls are hurt by fire? Is that not a playable role? If not, who decides that?

That sounds like a playable character to me, sure, but your DM is the one who decides whether any given background is suitable for their campaign. If you came to the DM with this having been an element of your backstory, and the DM approved it, then it would be a poor DM who later decided that your character didn't actually know that. I can't imagine that sort of DM would have many players who were willing to put up with that for any significant period of time.

More likely, the DM would say that trolls are too rare (or new) for your grandfather to have heard tales about them. Alternatively, the DM might say that trolls are so common that every adventurer has heard tales. Somewhere in between, a DM might allow an Int-based check to any character that grew up within a certain region of the world, where trolls actually exist.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I see.

So when you play D&D with the people you play it with, you are used to being able to sit down and say "I am a force timelord whose current regeneration is that of a Gelfling and I have saved the universe so many times that I have been ascended to being a junior member of the Q continuum." and people just... go with it.

I take this as further evidence (c.f. thread on 5 Int Geniuses) that one of the divides among gamers is that for some preventing unscrupulous players from abusing latitude is an important goal. That if you leave any openings in the parameters around roleplaying that can be exploited, somebody, somewhere might go all god-mode on you and ruin the fun. Or, at the very least, ruin the fiction. (e.g. "Oh, so if somebody says their character knows how to make nuclear weapons, that's ok?")

And for others, expanding the opportunities for participants to contribute to and expand upon the fiction...and trusting them to do so wisely...is worth the risk, because you always have the option of not playing with the people who exploit it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And even then, even if "acting in character" where the end-all-be-all, who is defining the character?

Characters are created through a collaboration of the player and the GM. Sometimes it's more on the player end, with the player coming up with all of the details and the GM merely signing off on it. Sometimes it's more on the GM end, with the GM making all CharGen decisions (including background details) and the player merely interpreting the character within defined parameters.

Regardless, character definition isn't part of the game itself. It's a pre-game activity. Likewise, the dice interface and charts aren't part of the game, but merely administrative overhead. The game portion of the activity is just in deciding what those established characters actually do in any given situation.

Unless you're using the term "game" to refer to everything involved with the hobby, including the dice and maps and Mtn. Dew, which is an informal usage that might be causing some confusion in this conversation.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Everytime this topic comes up, I can't help but feel the real divide on metagaming comes from one key concept:

Should the game challenge the player vs. Should the game challenge the character.

Players that want the game to challenge players usually don't sweat metagaming and IC Vs. OOC knowledge. To them, they're looking for a fun time being challenged and overcoming trials through clever thinking, tactics, and decision making. They would rather legitimately not know how to solve a problem, than pretend they don't. They're looking for real challenges, not pretend ones. It isn't about deciding what their character does or does not know, because the only time that matters is when they're challenged, and they can usually come up with any number of explanations for why their character knows trolls are weak to fire.

My observations show that generally it's the older gamers, the ones playing for many many years that prefer to be challenged as a player.

Players that want the game to challenge them as a character are looking to play in an interesting story. It isn't always whether the combat or trap or situation is difficult to solve, because they may already know the answer. It's about how the situation affects this character. What makes it different from other characters. Separating character and player knowledge is important, because the story is important, and consistency and immersion are the key to that.

In my observations, it seems it's usually the newer generation of gamers, or at least ones that haven't been playing for decades that gravitate to this style.

To me, it seems that these arguments rise up because the two sides are almost anathema to each other. Players looking to be challenged hate false challenges and playing pretend. They just want to play the game. They view such efforts as pointless or wastes of valuable play time. Players looking for their character to be challenged view metagaming as the next best thing to cheating. To them, it's ruining the consistency of the story and the potential to see how the situations reflects with the character they're playing. Convincing the two sides to play at the same table is like mixing gasoline and fire.

The best I usually hope for is just that either side can respect that the other prefers a different kind of challenge and wish them good gaming.

My observations are that its very, very rare that someone falls entirely on one side and not the other. I've never encountered a player who treats the entire game as nothing but a tactical wargame or computer RPG and refuses to roleplay at all.
Likewise a lot of the people who have the most fun roleplaying their character and interacting IC with the other characters and NPCs, still enjoy the tactical decision/puzzle solving aspect of the game. Limitations like "I flunked my Int(Arcana) so don't know I need Silver to hurt that creature." and "I've an Int of 8 so I'm generally going to stick to direct, straightforward tactics." are just additional parameters of the situation to take into account when making those tactical decisions. Not much different from "I don't have any AoE spells left." or "We should probably take a few alive to find out what is going on."

The discussion here seems to have pushed people into extreme camps for the sake of arguement, but I seriously doubt that they honestly believe that there is no middle ground, and that people only exist in the extreme camps. Everyone falls somewhere on the spectrum and very very few people would actually be willing to wreck a game just to be able to take an extreme stance.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I talk a lot about the need for players to trust their DM. But there is definitely also a need for the DM to trust his/her players.

I prefer my games with both. So I find I don't have these perceived problems some people around here get so worked up about.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Characters are created through a collaboration of the player and the GM. Sometimes it's more on the player end, with the player coming up with all of the details and the GM merely signing off on it. Sometimes it's more on the GM end, with the GM making all CharGen decisions (including background details) and the player merely interpreting the character within defined parameters.

You play a different style of D&D than I. Clearly. And that's okay. But please quit speaking to me as if you are teaching me the One True Way (tm). Thanks.

Regardless, character definition isn't part of the game itself. It's a pre-game activity.

That's not what the PHB tells me. Also, have you heard of "levels"? They are an ongoing advancement of the character's growth expressed mechanically. It does not occur "pre-game".

Likewise, the dice interface and charts aren't part of the game, but merely administrative overhead. The game portion of the activity is just in deciding what those established characters actually do in any given situation.

Now I am sure your definitions are aberrant to an extreme. And that's still okay. For you and your table. Please quit trying to school us or enlighten us. It is unnecessary.

Unless you're using the term "game" to refer to everything involved with the hobby, including the dice and maps and Mtn. Dew, which is an informal usage that might be causing some confusion in this conversation.

You should start a poll. I think one of us would be much more shocked at the results than the other. I'll save which of us I think that'd be as a surprise.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Now I am sure your definitions are aberrant to an extreme. And that's still okay. For you and your table. Please quit trying to school us or enlighten us. It is unnecessary.

I will stop correcting your definitions when you stop using the wrong definitions, or when you sufficiently convince me that you are a lost cause and that further interaction would be pointless (which is about three minutes from now).

Words have meaning, and no amount of clever twisting on your part will turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I will stop correcting your definitions when you stop using the wrong definitions, or when you sufficiently convince me that you are a lost cause and that further interaction would be pointless (which is about three minutes from now).

Words have meaning, and no amount of clever twisting on your part will turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

There's it is again! In another thread Maxperson, another "One True Way" roleplayer, used that exact same phrase.

Words actually often have meanings, plural, or at least nuance and range of meaning. And then you combine multiple words into sentences and paragraphs and it can become quite subjective. But I think both of you are saying, "My interpretation is the correct one."