D&D 5E Player knowledge and Character knowledge

[marcelvdpol]

Its always a somewhat thin line and most certainly the player will (sometimes) bring in knowledge that he has but his character might not (or might). After all, the character has stats that define how good he is in certain things, and these could be different from the stats the player has.

In a campaign I'm DM-ing right now the players are much more intelligent compared to their characters (highest INT in the party is 11 and we're talking relatively high IQ people; I'm planning a Sherlock-Holmes-like Murder Mystery just to see how the party would handle it). Every time a character takes an action (decided on by the player) that seems too intelligent for him, I let the player roll an Int skill (or straight up Int Ability check) to see if his character actually could have thought of this.

The same would be true for other stuff; knowledge can pretty easily be captured as there are some knowledge-based skills in the game. This is fortunate, because me as a player would have no clue what the specific history is of this region if I didn't read the source book, nor would I as a player know how recognize if certain animals live in the wilderness that we are in now.

"When in doubt, let the player roll for it" seems to work fine as a general rule.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But more importantly, when you limit roleplaying to just trying to pretend to be your character for the sake of some kind of external pseudo-immersion, you're forgetting the more important form of roleplaying, which is to feel like your character. See the difference? One is putting on a mask for other, and the other is wearing the mask for yourself.

Feeling isn't part of the equation. You can go into the game and specifically look for that sort of thing, if that's what you're into, but that's no more role-playing than the combat monkey who is only in it to kill monsters. Not that there's anything wrong with that either, I mean, but it's just another thing you can do with the rules that isn't really what the game is about.

When you role-play, you make the decisions that the character would make, for the same reasons. Everything else is either gravy or cruft, depending on your personal preference.

And when you pretend to not know something, you're not really being your character because you're not feeling like your character. Your character is thinking "gaaaaah.....what are these things that keep regrowing limbs!" but YOU are thinking "I wonder how long we have to keep this up before we can use fire?"

That just sounds like you're bad at pretending to be an Elf. You should be thinking more like the first thing, and if the second thought keeps intruding, then you need more practice.

 

[marcelvdpol]

Feeling isn't part of the equation. You can go into the game and specifically look for that sort of thing, if that's what you're into, but that's no more role-playing than the combat monkey who is only in it to kill monsters. Not that there's anything wrong with that either, I mean, but it's just another thing you can do with the rules that isn't really what the game is about.

When you role-play, you make the decisions that the character would make, for the same reasons. Everything else is either gravy or cruft, depending on your personal preference.

That just sounds like you're bad at pretending to be an Elf. You should be thinking more like the first thing, and if the second thought keeps intruding, then you need more practice.

Oh, not this discussion again. Just to remind people: everything from the player who wants use RPG's for his fantasy Shakespearean Actor career to the Munchkin Build-Optimizer-2.0 calculator are equally valid ways of playing roleplaying games. The most important thing about roleplaying is that people should have FUN playing them (this is also true for the DM).

 

[Shiroiken]

As a DM, I try to limit myself to common knowledge most characters would know (what is undead, trolls die by fire, etc.), because I have knowledge far beyond that of most players. If I as a player know something, but I don't know if my character knows, I would ask the DM "what do I know about..." and see what he says. He'd probably have me make a roll, unless he wanted me to know already (or knew that my character would have no such knowledge).

As for "roleplaying," this argument is never ending. I've known a player who actively ignored scenes he wasn't involved in, requiring the other players speak in-character to relay information he wasn't present for. I've also know a player who always had an open MM at the table (and one who tried to memorize every adventure before it was ran). Neither side has much respect for each other, each seeing theirs as correct, so I see no purpose to the debate.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Oh, not this discussion again. Just to remind people: everything from the player who wants use RPG's for his fantasy Shakespearean Actor career to the Munchkin Build-Optimizer-2.0 calculator are equally valid ways of playing roleplaying games. The most important thing about roleplaying is that people should have FUN playing them (this is also true for the DM).

Not quite. If your goal is to have fun at any cost, then having fun is the most important. If your goal is to role-play, then the role-playing is the most important. If your goal is to kill monsters, then killing monsters is the most important. Those are all certainly goals that you can have.

This is a forum about role-playing games, though. It's not out of line to suggest actual role-playing should be involved. And if your suggestion for how to have fun is to not role-play, then it's fine if that works for your goals at your table, but bringing them into a public forum for suggestion to other role-players is an open invitation to criticism.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Feeling isn't part of the equation. You can go into the game and specifically look for that sort of thing, if that's what you're into, but that's no more role-playing than the combat monkey who is only in it to kill monsters. Not that there's anything wrong with that either, I mean, but it's just another thing you can do with the rules that isn't really what the game is about.

When you role-play, you make the decisions that the character would make, for the same reasons. Everything else is either gravy or cruft, depending on your personal preference.

That just sounds like you're bad at pretending to be an Elf. You should be thinking more like the first thing, and if the second thought keeps intruding, then you need more practice.

Wow. What an insufferably arrogant post. You aren't even aware of the blinders you have on.

In a meeting for a couple hours but I will respond in detail later.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When you role-play, you make the decisions that the character would make, for the same reasons.

Your definition of roleplaying is too narrow.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Wow. What an insufferably arrogant post. You aren't even aware of the blinders you have on.

In a meeting for a couple hours but I will respond in detail later.

Sometimes, the forum needs a voice of reason. People have forgotten what role-playing actually means, so in this thread which is about how to role-play a particular facet of a character, I'm here to offer the simple reminder: do what the character would do.

If you choose to take that as an insult, when it was not intended as such, then that's your issue.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I notice that in nothing you wrote, not one single solitary sentence of it, did you remotely come within the general region of actually debating the topic at hand. You went off on some weird tangent about people only talking as though they were in character.

Uh...no. Where did I mention "talking in character"?

The topic at hand it using player knowledge in character.

Reading the monster manual and using knowledge of its stat blocks to easily overcome the creatures.
Using knowledge from the campaign setting guide in order to gain an advantage or dismiss challenges.
Reading the adventure ahead of time and using that knowledge to avoid all traps, extort NPCs and prepare for all surprises and twists well before they are revealed.

That is the topic at hand. Not only speaking as the character, not limiting ones dialogue to "period proper" speech. The topic is abusing player knowledge in order to avoid character challenges.

Oh, you're talking about cheating. Yeah, cheating is bad.

What does not cheating have to do with roleplaying again? Sorry...you lost me.

 

[Sunseeker]

Unless for some reason I want my character to specifically not know something, I typically assume that my characters are versed in anything they're proficient in and have at least some basic knowledge about everything else. Just as most real-world people will be able to tell you a lot about the things they're skilled in, and would have some tidbits about the things they're not. Occasionally I denote that my characters DONT know specific things. I had a Dwarf who had no knowledge of plants, and applied his "knowledge nature" which is was proficient in, only to rocks. I had a fighter who only had Knowledge: History>Warfare.

As for when I DM, few situations are going to come along where specific player knowledge is going to come in handy, simply because the stuff you and I know about today will have few applications to the past. Indeed it comes up so rarely, than when it does I usually let it slide, because it makes things more interesting.