D&D 5E Player knowledge and Character knowledge

[The Crimson Binome]

No. Meta-gaming is using OOC knowledge to make in-game decisions, whether or not your character would make those decisions itself. I think that's what this thread is supposed to be about.

Meta-gaming is bad because it's an example of not role-playing. You cannot role-play if you are meta-gaming, because your character cannot possibly take out-of-game information into account when making decisions.

It's also possible to not role-play (or just to role-play poorly) without relying upon out-of-game information to do so. That can be a lot harder to identify, though, since you should know your character better than anyone else at the table does. If someone calls you on not role-playing in situations where meta-gaming isn't a factor, then you would have to be breaking your previously established character pretty egregiously.

For practical purposes, meta-gaming is the anti-thesis of role-playing, even if the strict definition would be broader.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Unless I, who am the final arbiter of my character, decide that my player "knows it". Then it's perfectly in character for my character to know it. If you know what I mean.

Did you mean decide that your *character* knows it? (I'm assuming that you did, but the thread has gotten confusing enough I wanted to check.)

Now, maybe you play a form of D&D where the DM has authority to say, "No, you don't know that. I designed this world, and I get to dictate what knowledge the characters have." That's fine, you're allowed to play that way, but there's nothing that says yours is the "correct" way to play.

If the DM designed the world, then the level of knowledge that the people in it have about things is something the DM determines. Whether or not something has even existed in the world for example is up to the DM, and she would be quite within the authority we grant her by agreeing to play D&D to point out that a character from a world with no elves in is not going to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of Drow politics for example.

Many of us simply do not grant that authority to the DM; we prefer to let players have some say in those decisions.

The players have a say: the DM just has authority to overrule them. Do you grant the DM authority to describe what your character knows when you make an Intelligence(Arcane) check regarding an unusual symbol on the wall of a temple?

If you are not happy with the way a DM uses her authority, then you're free to leave a group. If the DM is actually abusing their authority, she probably won't have any players left. But you don't get to decide to play but not allow the DM the authority of the DM.

And/or we would prefer that the DM, if he really doesn't want players to know things, simply change the bits he wants to keep a mystery so that the players don't actually know, and therefore don't have to pretend.

That can be a real hassle, particularly in the case of where a player has preread the adventure path the group is on and decided that as the final arbiter of their character, their character "knows it". Then its perfectly in character for their character to know it. If you see what I mean.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Until the first nuclear weapon is built

Dreaming you built a nuclear weapon doesn't mean you know how to actually build a nuclear weapon when you wake up - even if you remember the entire process down to ever fine detail as it occurred in the dream, there is no guarantee that process actually works. The character would have to go through a likely quite long research and development cycle involving numerous actions for which the DM narrates the results, and thus no nuke is built unless the DM wants it to be.

If he wanted to dream up the answer to the puzzle, I'd say no way.

And I'd say "sure, you dream that you answer the puzzle." and point out that what the answer was in the dream is not necessarily what the answer is in the character's waking life - of course, I expect that this example scenario wouldn't actually come up because I already have a system in place for how receive hints, so there is no motivation to attempt to find the answer by means of a dream.

 

[Maxperson]

It's funny that Max says "it's not a Democracy" because of course it is. Well, at least as much of a Democracy as any country is. In no Democracy are the citizens polled on every decision; rather you get to vote at discrete times, and in between you are expected to abide by the rulings of those to whom you have granted power.

Likewise at an rpg table. Sure, you can't override a DM decision during a session, but you can cast a very clear vote on his performance by the beginning of the next session. And in the case of extreme tyranny you can cast your vote mid-session.

Max wasn't the one that said that, though it's true. D&D is more like an enlightened dictatorship. Sure the DM has all of the power, but as you noted, people are free to revolt and walk away if it is abused. That means that the while the DM can do anything he wants, in practice he takes the desires of his citizens into consideration before he rules on something.

 

[marcelvdpol]

Are we still discussing what is the "best" way to roleplay in Dungeons & Dragons. Imho, all views are equally valid. If you want to approach D&D as a tactical miniature wargame, this is fine. If you want to approach D&D as a Munchkin Optimization Problem this is fine as well. If you want to approach D&D as a Shakespearean Actor, this is fine as well. As long as it is accepted within the group that there are different ways of playing D&D this shouldn't be such an issue. The most important thing is to have fun; this of course means different things to different people, as we are all different (and the world would be such a boring place if everyone is the same).

To get back to the original question: there are plenty of ways to "mitigate" OoC knowledge in this game.
1) Make up your own monsters. A Fire Troll might not be vulnerable to fire damage but is instead vulnerable to Ice damage.
2) Let the player roll for it. If the player has some knowledge but the character doesn't, let him roll some ability/skill to see if the character knows. This works especially well with knowledge skills such as History, Medicine, Arcana, Religion or Survival.
3) Let the player make up a story for why the character should know this. If he can involve his background in some way the character might be entitled to claim some knowledge as his own.
4) Don't bother with it at all. If your group consists of tactical miniature players and/or munchkin optimization players, there might not be any problem whatsoever in bring OoC knowledge to in-game decisions. One of the most breached OoC things are the tactical deliberations during a combat (like all players were connected to a hive mind/telepathic bond) where talking alone would take more than the normal 6 seconds per turn. Of course, for a home campaign I might make the encounters more difficult to compensate for this "special ability". During my home campaign I only once forbade players from deliberating during combat and that was because someone had cast Silence in the area where the combat took place.

 

[matskralc]

I don't concern myself much with meta-gaming and whether knowledge belongs to the character or the player. It is just not particularly realistic (or fair) to ask somebody to pretend that they don't know something. Even if a character doesn't know that troll regeneration doesn't activate after taking fire damage, he still might use fire anyway. Who am I to say "your character doesn't know that works, do something else"? We don't necessarily know how a person would act in the absence of particular knowledge, so I'm not going to get particularly bent out of shape by insisting that I do.

I would much rather come up with a reason that the character does know something (maybe they took a course in exotic monster physiology in undergrad) than try to decide what they would do if they didn't know it.

And then from the player's perspective, I don't care if they know that trolls regenerate and kobolds have pack tactics. For one, we're playing a game. One of the rewards of being good at a game is that...you're good at it. If you're not allowed to use that knowledge later, why pay much attention now? And besides, if you seem to have mastered kobolds-with-pack-tactics and are maybe a little too good now, perhaps kobolds have nimble escape in the next campaign instead.

I definitely don't care if players exploit game rules like grid-based movement or gamey tactics like focus fire. Monsters can, too. And again, we're playing a game. You're allowed to be good at it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Did you mean decide that your *character* knows it? (I'm assuming that you did, but the thread has gotten confusing enough I wanted to check.)

Oh, yes. Typo.

If the DM designed the world, then the level of knowledge that the people in it have about things is something the DM determines. Whether or not something has even existed in the world for example is up to the DM, and she would be quite within the authority we grant her by agreeing to play D&D to point out that a character from a world with no elves in is not going to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of Drow politics for example.

If there are genuinely no elves then it wouldn't matter whether or not a character claims to have encylopaedic knowledge of Drow politics. Some people on these forums probably would claim such a thing, and as far as I know there are no elves in the world, so I imagine a character in that world claiming such a thing would probably appear as haplessly nerdy to the residents of that world as....well, you know where I'm going with that. Why would the DM possibly care if the player described his character that way? If there are no Drow then there's no game impact.

If, on the other hand, the DM is planning to introduce Drow, perhaps gating them from another plane, then they do in fact exist.

The players have a say: the DM just has authority to overrule them. Do you grant the DM authority to describe what your character knows when you make an Intelligence(Arcane) check regarding an unusual symbol on the wall of a temple?

No, I do not. I grant him authority over what they actually mean in his game world, and I grant him authority over whether or not he has to tell me (and if he won't tell me then I'm going to have a really tough time roleplaying that I do in fact know). But his authority does not extend to what I know.

Let me reiterate that I'm not claiming this as the One True Way. I realize that a lot of people are happy with DMs dictating what they know, and what they dream, and whether PCs are allowed to Persuade each other, and whether or not they actually find the Warlord to be charismatic and inspiring rather than a self-absorbed megalomaniac. I acknowledge all that as a valid way to play. What I do *not* acknowledge is that that is the One True Way, either.

That can be a real hassle, particularly in the case of where a player has preread the adventure path the group is on and decided that as the final arbiter of their character, their character "knows it". Then its perfectly in character for their character to know it. If you see what I mean.

Here are two more things I acknowledge:

1) There are such things as "cheating", "being a jerk", "ruining the fun for others (and yourself)" etc. But those exist regardless of where you come down on roleplaying, player agency, etc. So using examples of being a jerk to defend a certain mode of roleplaying is avoiding the deeper question entirely. You may play at a table where buying a silvered short sword to go werewolf hunting is considered to be breaking character, and would therefore spoil the fun for others, in which case you shouldn't do it. But that doesn't make it "bad" roleplaying.

2) Modifying adventures so that the players are genuinely in suspense, rather than pretending to be in suspense, is definitely more work for the DM. And 100% worth it, in my opinion. I find pretending to not know things to be a completely dull form of roleplaying, especially if I know everybody else at the table is pretending to not know the same things, and I won't ask my players to do it. YMMV.

 

[Mallus]

The whole table was stunned. It was a pretty amazing moment, if I do say so myself. The GM ended the session right then and there. My buddy punched me in the arm. It's something we still talk about to this day.

Sounds great! For my money, stuff like this is only close-to-objective way to tell good role-playing from bad (or not so good). Did the rest of the table say "Well done!". Do your friends remember your PCs exploits fondly, even years later.

edit: it's over 20 years gone and I can still recall the Crowning Moments of Awesome (and even some of the Quiet Moments of Awesome) of Z. & Fumbler & Miki the Air Cleric in the World of the Islands. It's... wow... 10 years past and I still chortle with the horror/glee over the Four Crazy Bastards of CITY.

 

[Mallus]

There is a big difference between a PC growing, which happens from gameplay with the reasons for it happening game related and obvious, and a PC suddenly knowing something that it couldn't possibly know just because the player knows it.

Yeah, we're talking about different things.

I'm saying: "A PCs role is whatever their player decides it is. If it changes, fine. Whatever factors go into those decisions aren't my concern as DM. Also, I take for granted that the player's previous experiences will have some bearing on any new PC they create. However much or little isn't my concern, either. Just don't read the Monster Monster in front of me when a combat encounter begins."

You're saying: "Don't cheat."

Which is cool.

Re: building jackhammers, atom bombs, and other assorted pieces of modern technology...

This isn't really a problem I've encountered. Mostly, it's just not possible. A PC might have the ideas done, but most settings won't have the industrial base to manufacture anything complex. My problem with this sort of thing isn't that it's metagaming or even cheating. It's that pursuing this direction means a lot of extra work for me-as-DM as I brush up on a mess of history. A player in my old 2e game did, at one point, want to invent modern finance capitalism/the stock market. I could have ran with it, but at the time I just didn't want to put in the effort required to make the process interesting and game-able.

edit: if my group was starting a new campaign and they were all onboard with starting a revolution in finance, i.e. if they agreed it would be a campaign premise, I'd go for it. Do the research. The question isn't "How do they know how to do this?". That's boring. I'm much more interested in "Can I make this enjoyable?".

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Sounds great! For my money, stuff like this is only close-to-objective way to tell good role-playing from bad (or not so good). Did the rest of the table say "Well done!". Do your friends remember your PCs exploits fondly, even years later.

edit: it's over 20 years gone and I can still recall the Crowning Moments of Awesome (and even some of the Quiet Moments of Awesome) of Z. & Fumbler & Miki the Air Cleric in the World of the Islands. It's... wow... 10 years past and I still chortle with the horror/glee over the Four Crazy Bastards of CITY.

Right. Exactly. But my larger point, and why I felt my anecdote was apropos to the debate, is that I never developed any foreshadowing of the reveal. Nowhere on my character sheet did I have a note regarding a romantic interest in the other PC. I never roleplayed any flirting or hints--heck, not even OOC comments at the table--about any of it. Because *I* didn't even know they existed until I said it. The character's had "Schrodinger's feelings". I just blurted it out in the moment because I thought it would be cool.*

Some people would say I wasn't "playing my character as written". I didn't restrict myself to what was already "established" in play or written down as fact pre-moment.



(*We even had entertaining post game/OOC discussions of how various past events could be seen differently given the secret. In hindsight, turns out I tended to be a bit protective of her. But that was because, as the defacto team leader, my character felt responsible for their safety and she tended to get into a lot of trouble. And being a bit of a soldier-gentleman--and because my buddy was playing the female PC, "You don't mess with my friends," bleeds through sometimes--I tended to be a bit more protective of her than others. At the time, not because "love", but just because it played out that way. However, looking back it cast a whole new light on those moments.)