D&D 5E Player knowledge and Character knowledge

[Morinth]

Whenever I have a question about whether my character would know something that I as a player know, I simply ask my GM "would Sylvia the Bard know about this type of enemy? Do you want me to do a knowledge check?" And if the answer is no, then I proceed as if she does not know whatever it is. I find that a character's ignorance can often serve the story just as well as their knowledge, and it can be fun to roleplay.

 

[Hriston]

When starting a new character how do you decide how much of your knowledge as a seasoned player is available to your character?

For me, the distinction is clear. I don't need to decide because the character only exists in a fictional world with no access to me or my thoughts whatsoever. The game is about me getting into the character's mind, not the character getting into my mind.

 

[FrogReaver]

For me, the distinction is clear. I don't need to decide because the character only exists in a fictional world with no access to me or my thoughts whatsoever. The game is about me getting into the character's mind, not the character getting into my mind.

You decide everything about the character. There is nothing you can make your character do that isn't role play. Nothing.

 

[Hriston]

You decide everything about the character. There is nothing you can make your character do that isn't role play. Nothing.

This is correct. The character, on the other hand, has no idea it's been created by you.

 

[Arial Black]

There's a difference between you knowing how to make gunpowder so all your PCs do too, and your PC having heard that trolls are vulnerable to fire.

I wouldn't consider it metagaming if a PC sees a lion for the first time in his fictional life and says, "I'm keeping away from the sharp end!"

We can say that the player has one set of knowledge and the character has another set of knowledge, but this doesn't imply that there can be no overlap. As a player, you might have read the MM and know the HP, AC and all the rest about trolls, and we know that the character cannot have read the MM, cannot know about game mechanics like HP and AC, and cannot know he is a fictional character, but this doesn't mean that he knows nothing! Knowing, or thinking he knows, that trolls are vulnerable to fire does not imply impossibly known game mechanics! A trolls vulnerability to fire is discoverable in-game in a way that 'armour class' cannot. And, once known, this vulnerability can (and certainly would!) be knowledge that would be taught to children (in areas plagued by trolls). No adult is going to insist that trolls/fire should be kept secret from the kids, because telling them would be somehow 'cheating'! Imagine that we never told our kids about the correct way to cross a busy road on the grounds that it would be 'cheating' to tell them what to avoid until they've personally actually been run over by a truck!

So, yeah, we have to assume that our PCs have a body of knowledge of their own. We have to decide what is reasonable (Stay away from the sharp end!) and what is not (Gunpowder? Easy peasy lemon squeezy!).

 

[Maxperson]

You decide everything about the character. There is nothing you can make your character do that isn't role play. Nothing.

False. You set up the role of the character when you create it. If you step outside of that role, you are not roleplaying. Roleplaying = playing a role. Roleplaying =/= doing anything you feel like.

By establishing that role, you have established the limits of what the PC knows and can do. The game world also sets limits. Your fantasy D&D PC might have engineering, but since you accepted fantasy as part of the character, he's not going to know how to engineer up a jackhammer, even if you personally or your modern PC can do it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Oh, drat. In an effort to avoid double-posting I ended up not posting at all. I wrote a beautiful, utterly persuasive post, too. Y'all would have converted.

Anyway...

I want to clarify that I'm not claiming using player knowledge is roleplaying. I'm just saying that not roleplaying all the time isn't synonymous with "bad" roleplaying. Nor is staying in character synonymous with "good" roleplaying.

Let's take two extreme examples:

Player 1 never breaks character. He never metagames, he pretends to not know that trolls burn, and every action he takes he is thinking, "Ok, how would my wood elf archer with low Charisma do this" and tries his best to behave that way. As a result he ends up repeating the same roleplaying, over and over again. For example, every time he interacts with an urban NPC he makes the same off-putting comments about their lack of connection with nature and their wastefulness with wood. Or something like that. But he's consistent.

Player 2 is almost never in character. He says anachronistic things as he charges into combat. He metagames ("if you move one square over you'll let so-and-so use his such-and-such ability"). He simply states skill use without describing it ("I guess I'll roll Deception..."). But he's developed a unique and interesting character, and every now and then...a few times per session...he'll jump into character with something brilliantly descriptive, with the result that everybody at the table knows this character's personality. So that even when he's not roleplaying at all ("I roll Deception...") the other players at the table have a colorful mental model. Sort of like when a character in a novel says or does something totally innocuous (c.f. anything by Cormac McCarthy) you have a strong image because the author has already done a great job developing that character.

Player1 is clearly the more disciplined roleplayer. But I might very well call Player2 the better roleplayer.

By the way, I am NOT saying these two things are mutually exclusive. Player 1 might very well also have moments of sublime roleplaying. And Player 2, based on personal observations, is just as likely (if not more so) to be a bad roleplayer in general. I acknowledge that. I'm making a necessary vs. sufficient argument, not a mutual exclusivity argument.

I just don't find version 1, by itself, very interesting or "immersive". Consistency is not a prerequisite for quality.

 

[Mallus]

You set up the role of the character when you create it. If you step outside of that role, you are not roleplaying.

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.

Here's the best role-played PC I've ever had the pleasure of DM'ing for, from my old 2e campaign. Z. began as a street thief from a stereotypical "city of thieves". He was designed to be an assassin, a professional strangler and a bit of a coward (he's probably claim it was just prudence). By the end of the campaign he was a diplomat, a nation-builder, a husband to a neutral good princess, and something of a religious philosopher on a quest to find the true nature of the setting's 17 gods. A little like Diogenes, if Diogenes carried a garrote instead of a lamp.

This change happened slowly & organically over the course of several years of real time. Z. grew, just like a good character in a novel. Or a real person in real life. This is bad role-playing?

To reference some D&D nerd faves from other media, is Londo Molari from B5 a bad character? Are Bilbo and Frodo?

Roleplaying = playing a role.

The role is also defined during play, over the course of the campaign, by the choices a player makes. Also, tautology is no one's friend, with the possible exception of Gertrude Stein.

edit: just like in the endless 5 INT thread, I'm noticing the people with the strongest opinions on what "good role-playing" is aren't the one's providing any examples. Funny, that.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The role is also defined during play, over the course of the campaign

That is such a key point. The most interesting and richest "characters" I've seen in RPGs have developed (like Z, above) organically over time. Whatever ideas the players had when creating the character, what ends up happening is that they decide to do something spontaneously that doesn't necessarily fit the concept they had sketched. But it works, it's fun, and the table enjoys it, and as the player says, "Ooh, I think I like this quirk/trait/phobia/passion" the character grows into that new role.

Roleplaying where you discover the character is, for me, so much more interesting and engaging than mere slavish adherence to choices at level 1.

Above somebody mentioned "roleplaying an elf" a couple of times. If that means "elves have certain characteristics...you must adhere to them" then that's just a boring, unimaginative straightjacket.

On the other hand, if what that poster meant was "you decide what that means, and then roleplay it" then the fact that it's an elf is irrelevant. What he should have written was "roleplay your character". Even if elves in your campaign come from a specific culture with typical biases and tendencies, that should only be grist for the creative mill. Sort of like a writing prompt. Start with it, but then feel free to decide why YOUR elf is totally different.

 

[Mallus]

Whatever ideas the players had when creating the character, what ends up happening is that they decide to do something spontaneously that doesn't necessarily fit the concept they had sketched.

That's when gaming is the most entertaining & most immersive for me - when I stop thinking about what my character would do and just do it. My most memorable sessions are ones where I pause at least once to say, "Where did that come from?!" or "What did I just say?!".

Roleplaying where you discover the character is, for me, so much more interesting and engaging than mere slavish adherence to choices at level 1.

Absolutely.