D&D 5E Player knowledge and Character knowledge

Mallus · Apr 5, 2016

Saelorn said:
It's not out of line to suggest actual role-playing should be involved.

It's a bit out of line to suggest your personal preferences = "actual role-playing". Or, rather, it's an invitation to criticism. Like this!

And if your suggestion for how to have fun is to not role-play...

I'd turn this around. If your position relies on placing "role-playing" and "having fun" in separate categories, you might need to re-think the way you're framing things.

Cap'n Kobold · Apr 5, 2016

Mallus said:
So characters never change during the course of a campaign? From a fictional standpoint, that sounds like an absence of character development, i.e. boring. From a rules standpoint, that's contrary to the way a PCs evolving role is baked into more than one edition of the game. For example, AD&D assumes a PC begins little better than a common peasant, grows into an important landowner/political figure, and finally into a demigod capable of going toe to toe with mythological figures. That's, umm, more than a single role.

I think that you're confusing "role" with "initial character description".

Peter Jurasik was playing the role of Londo Mollari when he first walked into a room exclaiming "Ah! Mistah Garibaldi!" with a toothy smile while the cameras were running. He was still playing the role of Londo Mollari when they filmed him looking out of the window onto the what would be the destruction of the Narn Homeworld. The role was still "Londo Mollari" as set up by JMS, but the character of Londo Mollari had been changed by events over the course of the campaign.

Likewise the player of Z was always playing the role of Z. And part of playing a role well is how you play the character developing in response to events during play.

robus · Apr 5, 2016

This thread seems destined to incite another flame war. @Yardiff - what was your intention with the original question? You're surely aware that opinions differ wildly on this topic?

Cap'n Kobold · Apr 5, 2016

Regarding the initial question, I'd say that in a situation where character knowledge is uncertain (such as with Trolls and fire), I'd ask the DM. They'll either tell me "Yes its known", "No, its not known", or ask for some sort of check. Problem solved.

Using OOC knowledge, whether from previous experience from other games, or because you pull out your MM and read the statistics aloud while the DM is finishing the description is generally discouraged IME with roleplayers. Its more common with the "D&D as tactical wargame", but even then asking the DM is common as well. If you think that your character has a specific reason to know something, then go for it, or at least make that part of your question to the DM.

Bear in mind that sticking with your character doesn't mean that you have to avoid using fire on a troll, just because you know it works OOC. Its perfectly logical for a character to try fire to hurt something if normal weapons aren't effective for example. "Automatically using fire because OOC you know it works." and "Avoiding using fire under any circumstance because OOC you know it works." are two different extremes, but they are still extremes to be avoided.

Mallus · Apr 5, 2016

TheHobgoblin said:
Put a little more thought into it and you would realize your last sentence is just plain absurd.

As a rule, I like to put just the right amount of thinking into what I write. It's a bit like cooking. Too much results in a burnt lump!

A fictional character within the fictional environment of the game would not inherently have any knowledge of what your previous characters did.

On the other hand, any fictional character I create has me as their author. They know whatever I decide they know. As fictional characters, they are ultimately shaped by all the previous experiences I've had gaming & otherwise; all the books I've read read, film and television I've seen. All the genre assumptions that come of that. That's what they're made out of.

You may not agree with all that, but it does have the advantage of being true.

Nor would they have previous detailed knowledge from the monster manual of all creatures likely to show up nor their number of hit points and special abilities.

Gamers are going to learn the games they play. Short of reading the current published module I'm running, I'm cool with acknowledging the fact experienced players are, in fact, experienced. If I want to confound, challenge, and/or surprise them, all I need do is make their assumptions work against them by customizing things a bit.

Your own definition specifically includes regards to one's previous play experience by the two elements inherently being a "fictional character" and the "game's fiction" as both elements naturally create a set of bounds within which you are expected to choose your actions.

Nothing in my description said anything about "natural bounds". I'm guessing if I were to use that phrase, I'd mean something significantly different than you.

If you have a character act on knowledge of these things that the fictional character within the fictional environment would not have knowledge of, then you are not taking on the role of a fictional character within the rules of the fictional environment.

If by this you mean something like plain old cheating, i.e. reading the current module to gain an advantage, then yes, I'd agree that's poor form. But outside of that? The whole game is built around having & using outside knowledge. We model PCs after characters in external media. We let genre- and adventure-writing conventions guide our in-character decision making. Character decisions are often shaped by consideration for the other real people at the table, i.e. metagaming in service of the social contract. In most systems we're forced into acquiring some level of system mastery in order to get things done. Most settings can be described as a thin crust of specific custom-written fiction layered over a much larger mantle & core made of shared assumptions/elements derived from various external media (game-related & otherwise).

You may as well simply be playing an electronic game with the game guide revealing all the games secrets open at your side and all the game cheats activated.

If all we're talking about is outright, egregious cheating, then yes, I agree.

iserith · Apr 5, 2016

On the subject of "what a character would do," I don't think there is any such thing.

There is only what a character might or could do. And what a character might or could do is whatever the player says he or she does. "My character would do X in this situation" is just one of many things the character might do that are reasonable given the fictional circumstances at that moment.

Whether a character is portrayed according to established characterization is not a determining factor of whether someone is roleplaying or not in my view.

Guest 6801328 · Apr 5, 2016

iserith said:
On the subject of "what a character would do," I don't think there is any such thing.

There is only what a character might or could do. And what a character might or could do is whatever the player says he or she does. "My character would do X in this situation" is just one of many things the character might do that are reasonable given the fictional circumstances at that moment.

Whether a character is portrayed according to established characterization is not a determining factor of whether someone is roleplaying or not in my view.

Well said.

I might build on that and say, "Good roleplaying happens when actions taken form a pattern, discernible to other players, that describes an interesting character."

The Crimson Binome · Apr 5, 2016

Mallus said:
I'd turn this around. If your position relies on placing "role-playing" and "having fun" in separate categories, you might need to re-think the way you're framing things.

It's more a matter of separating out personal preference for what is fun from the group preference for what is fun. What works for one person is fine, for that person; but the only thing that we know about the group - every group that's playing an RPG - is that they've all come together to play a role-playing game.

This is a group-based hobby, and everyone at the table needs to participate. If your personal preferences put you at odds with the group, then you should probably find a different group. If you don't like role-playing, then you might have difficulty in finding an RPG group where you fit in. Don't be that player who ruins it for everyone else.

* Not you, personally. This is mostly directed at the other person, at whom your quoted text was originally directed.

Hriston · Apr 5, 2016

Let's define role-playing. Is it "playing a role"? Or is it playing a role-playing game? If it's the former then I would suggest that role-playing is not the primary activity involved in a role-playing game. Playing the game is. Some call it RPGing to make the distinction.

I would also suggest that RPGing primarily involves what Gary Gygax called role-assumption, rather than engaging in make-believe or play-acting.

Flexor the Mighty! · Apr 5, 2016

I expect players playing my game to use their experience and knowledge to their advantage. Trolls are not that much a challenge to experience players so I don't try to use them as one with my group, at least beyond their basic combat abilities. Why does this 1st level PC have knowledge of trolls and fire? The player can figure that out for themselves if its that important to them, I'll just assume their master imparted that knowledge on them.

Now I don't apply that to specific things like reading a published module I'm running, that's cheating.