How much do characters know about game mechanics?

[Alex319]

One question that comes up a lot in RPGs is how much characters know about things like levels, hit points, etc. Generally it is assumed that characters would not know about such topics. I will propose an argument that shows that characters would know much more about the underlying game mechanics than is commonly assumed.

My argument is based on the following premises:

1. The game world operates in a consistent manner.
2. Characters can make logical deductions based on their observations.
3. Characters have at least the minimal amount of information necessary to be effective.
4. Characters can communicate information to each other, and learn information from sources like study and training.

Consider the following example: encounter/daily powers in 4e. Would characters know about these powers, and know about their recharge limitations?

Certainly, characters must know what powers they have and know (in general, if not in exact details such as stats) what they do. Otherwise it is hard to see how they could be even minimally effective in combat if they didn't even know how their own powers worked. For example, if a character didn't know he had a particular encounter power, he wouldn't know to use that power at all, and would get no benefit out of it. (Or he might end up using the power without knowing it, but if he didn't know about it he would not be able to use any tactics to make the most of the power.)

Now when a character uses a power, he must observe its effects. Suppose a character didn't know that a particular power was encounter only, and tried to use it again in the same encounter. What happens? Whatever happens (whether he wastes his action, or whether he uses an at-will instead, or whatever) he must realize that the power didn't work as expected. Thus he would soon realize that the power only worked correctly the first time he used it in an encounter, and would soon deduce what was going on. (Note that this has nothing to do with the underlying mechanism behind the limitation. It only states that GIVEN that the limitation exists, characters should be able to figure out that it exists.)

By premise (1), this works consistently, so all fighters (and other characters with PC classes) in the game world would observe the same effects. Thus by premise (4), if the character had any sort of training beforehand, presumably this training would include how to use powers effectively, and the fact that the powers have use limitations would be part of that training. (Even if the character missed this part of the training he would still easily figure it out after a few encounters.)

---

A similar argument could apply to many different areas of game mechanics. Levels? Characters get certain powers at certain levels, so if they know what powers they are getting they know where they are in the progression. Enhancement bonuses on weapons? When crafting weapons, characters must know how much residuum they are using, and they can figure out from that that different amounts give different strength enchantments. (And presumably someone selling magic items would rate them according to their strength so customers would know what they are buying.)

 

[WanderingMonster]

I think your premise is valid. There would certainly be a whole lot of jargon and lingo within each class, such that a warlock and a paladin wouldn't be able to compare notes. Factor in race and region, and the waters are muddied considerably.

But if the universe had been operating consistently for ages upon ages, than these things can be overcome. It's a fun idea to think about!

 

[Morrus]

Now when a character uses a power, he must observe its effects. Suppose a character didn't know that a particular power was encounter only, and tried to use it again in the same encounter. What happens? Whatever happens (whether he wastes his action, or whether he uses an at-will instead, or whatever) he must realize that the power didn't work as expected. Thus he would soon realize that the power only worked correctly the first time he used it in an encounter, and would soon deduce what was going on. (Note that this has nothing to do with the underlying mechanism behind the limitation. It only states that GIVEN that the limitation exists, characters should be able to figure out that it exists.)

I disagree. D&D is fairly abstract (hp, movement rates and so forth) and there's an assumption that a LOT is going on not specifically outlined by mechanics. Every step he takes isn't described in detail; just that he moved from A to B. Every sword swing isn't described in detail. Movement doesn't stop and start in 6-second increments. not every terrain is equally easy to traverse, unless it's "difficult", in which case it's exactly twice as difficult. This is just an abstraction for us players to make it simple to play the game; but in a narrative sense, that's not what the character experiences.

From his POV, it's simply that on average he only gets opportunity to use that power once per fight. Sometimes he doesn't use it; so it's less than once per fight. It's not that he is suddenly incapable of the movement; the correct circumstances to use it didn't arise. D&D abstracts that to once per encounter, but just as we don't describe each foot placement during the character's walk, we don't describe the minuatia which encompass that situation.

I don't think that a cinematic abstraction equates to a simulationist representation. What happened - in narrative terms - isn't all that could happen; it's just what happened that time. The character is not aware of it.

 

[Leatherhead]

I disagree. D&D is fairly abstract (hp, movement rates and so forth) and there's an assumption that a LOT is going on not specifically outlined by mechanics.

And I shall disagree with you. The abstraction is merely for the players' benefit, so they know how to use the powers and compare them to others for the sake of balance and party roles. The characters need no abstractions to understand their world, because they already understand their world, or at least how they can interact with it and how the world interacts with them.

The character knows how to push, pull, make someone bleed, gain the attention of something, shoot a ball of fire from a wand, and all of the other things that they do. The characters would also know that trying to do said things all the time would not work for whatever reason, by virtue of experience and training. If the power needs to have an opening, gets blatantly obvious after the first time, that it drains their reserves of energy, or perhaps even some combination of those. A character would also know the relative potency of what they could do.

A character would understand how to riposte on an opening. A player would understand that the triggering attack receives a penalty, and they can make a melee basic attack as an Opportunity Action once per encounter.

 

[Alex319]

I disagree. D&D is fairly abstract (hp, movement rates and so forth) and there's an assumption that a LOT is going on not specifically outlined by mechanics.

This is irrelevant. The fact that there is a lot going on that is not specifically outlined by mechanics does not imply anything about the things that ARE specifically outlined by mechanics.

From his POV, it's simply that on average he only gets opportunity to use that power once per fight. Sometimes he doesn't use it; so it's less than once per fight. It's not that he is suddenly incapable of the movement; the correct circumstances to use it didn't arise. D&D abstracts that to once per encounter, but just as we don't describe each foot placement during the character's walk, we don't describe the minuatia which encompass that situation.

Can the character control when that opportunity arises?

If so, then why isn't he aware that he can only create the opportunity once per encounter? Why doesn't he realize what's going on when he tries again and it doesn't work?

If not, does that mean that characters have no control over when they use their encounter powers? So they can't use any standard tactics, like front-loading, setting up combos with teammates, using a burst power when the enemies are grouped together, etc?

I don't think that a cinematic abstraction equates to a simulationist representation. What happened - in narrative terms - isn't all that could happen; it's just what happened that time. The character is not aware of it.

That's true, but there are some things that couldn't have happened, like the same power being used more than once (without being recharged by some other effect).

 

[howandwhy99]

Character knowledge never includes knowledge of game mechanics. That's the key difference between roll playing and role playing.

However, character knowledge is absolutely an element of roleplaying. For Players, it is what they themselves learn while playing the game. The elements not abstracted by mechanics. For GMs it is the tracked information each NPC or any sort of general "knowledge holder" has, like a book for instance. Both can be tracked, but for the GM it's a requirement. At least if the world and people populating it are going to have any kind of dynamism to them.

 

[Christian]

Can the character control when that opportunity arises?

No. The player can, but not the character.

If not, does that mean that characters have no control over when they use their encounter powers? So they can't use any standard tactics, like front-loading, setting up combos with teammates, using a burst power when the enemies are grouped together, etc?

That's right. Only the players can use those tactics.

OK, that's too strong. I would probably alter my mental model based on the class & power source. A wizard or warlock may just need to rest five minutes before he can recharge her arcane batteries that power an encounter power, or six hours to recharge a daily power. But for nearly any martial power, I would definitely model it at the more abstract level.

 

[Gadget]

I just want to chime in and say Morrus has the right of it my book. He said everything I would have said only better.

 

[Woas]

None. The player does though and they dictate what the character does/feels. So a player would say, "I line up my laser scope on the target, right between the eyes of the target and squeeze the trigger." As the GM I'd say back to the player, "Awesome. Roll a Gun skill check! You get such and such bonus for taking time to aim, including other game mechanic examples too."
To the intangible character that exists in our imagination all he/she did was aim at a target with a gun and fire the same you or I would in the real world.

 

[Morrus]

And I shall disagree with you.

The characters need no abstractions to understand their world, because they already understand their world, or at least how they can interact with it and how the world interacts with them.

But in that case - does every character believe that everyone moves at the same basic speed? That the world is constructed of 5' squares? I mean, that is how his world works.

The abstraction is merely for the players' benefit, so they know how to use the powers and compare them to others for the sake of balance and party roles.

That's exactly what I said. The rules are an abstract simplification for the players; they only exist in the players' mind. The character does not perceive these things. He's not aware of rounds, initiative order, milestones, or anything else.

Or, to put it another way - the rules aren't gameworld physics that the character can understand. He's not aware of classes, levels, feats, etc. he just knows that he can do some thing well, and other things not so well.

If so, then why isn't he aware that he can only create the opportunity once per encounter? Why doesn't he realize what's going on when he tries again and it doesn't work?

He can't create the opportunity. The player can. 4E, in particular, puts a larger part of the storytelling in the hands of the players. The use of Action Points to insert a cinematic moment just when it's needed, for example. The character doesn't know he's just spent his one Action POint, and that he'll get another when he reaches a milestone, but that the total will go back down to one if he has an extended rest. He just knows that - for reasons of skill, luck, divine favour or whatever - he managed to do something cool.

Another way of looking at it - amongst all the to-ing and fro-ing and exchanges of sword blows, and dodging and weaving, the fighter tries all sorts of things. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail; they're not all repressented by die rolls (a ranger doesn't stand still like a statue for 6 seconds, strike out with both swords, stand still for 6 seconds, etc. - he's doing stuff all that time). So maybe that encounter power nearly got pulled off a half-dozen times; it's the one time the player gets to roll the attack roll that represents the time everything fell into place and gave him a decent shot at it.