A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Maxperson]

The point that I, [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] and others are making is that there is no reaosn to doubt that it is character knowledge. If the player imputes the knowledge to the character, then the player is using character knowledge.

We have provided you multiple reasons to doubt that it is character knowledge, and you have discussed those reasons. You might be of the opinion that there is no GOOD reason, but to say that there is no reason is something you know to be false.

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is asserting that the rules of the game forbid the player from imputing such knowledge to a character, while asserting at the same time that there is no problem with imputing to the character knowledge of how to search for traps, look for secret doors, etc. My claim, in response, is that this distinction is arbitrary and without foundation except as a local table convention.

I've never argued for inputting player knowledge to the PCs with regard to searching and such. That's your Strawman of my argument. What I am saying is that PCs aren't morons(generally) and can use reason. I've never seen a mud hut up close, but were I in one looking around and I saw holes in the wall, with barbed points in said holes, I would know that this is unusual. It's a trap!!

My point is that it is no more "metagaming" to declare that my PC had an uncle that taught her about trolls, than to take it for granted that my PC has had some experience or training that means s/he knows about the possibility of moving masonry, presssure plates, and the like. (And when I say "my point", really I mean [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s point.)

No edition of D&D allows you to do that, though. The DM can choose to allow it, but players have no ability to just declare such things in order to get metagame knowledge to their PCs in order to do an end around metagaming.

What you're saying, in the quote just above, is that the challenge of the puzzle is replaced with a challenge of playing your PC subobtipmally until the GM lets you "flip the switch". What I'm saying is that that is insipid roleplaying that alienates the player from the character. Instead of inhabiting my character and playing him/her to the hilt, I'm playing a game of "persuade the GM".

Why even bother trying to "flip the switch?" When I play and encounter trolls, I usually just beat them down and leave. Most of the time I find out how to kill these beasts later, but sometimes I don't even bother to do that much. So yes, if you step back into gamist behavior to try and "win" the game, it makes sense to start engaging in "flip the switch."

The basic "pitch" for roleplaying is you can be a hero trying to change, maybe save, the world. How does it get so changed to become pretend to be a hero who doesn't know yet how to change, or save, the world?

Is the idea of growing into a hero who saves the world so foreign to you?

When [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] talks about "discovery", he is not talking about imaging one's PC learning something that one already knows. He's talking about a real thing that actually happens at the table: the participants in the game learning new things about the shared fiction.

When I learn what my PC knows or doesn't know, it's a new thing learned about the shared fiction. The participants didn't know until that moment.

 

[Aldarc]

What I am saying is that PCs aren't morons(generally) and can use reason. I've never seen a mud hut up close, but were I in one looking around and I saw holes in the wall, with barbed points in said holes, I would know that this is unusual. It's a trap!!

Your character has never encountered a trap before. Good roleplay involves intentionally triggering the trap to doom your character.

When I learn what my PC knows or doesn't know, it's a new thing learned about the shared fiction. The participants didn't know until that moment.

Ah, yes. Again, the previously discussed situation where the mental headspace of your PC exists as Schrödinger's Cat.

 

[Numidius]

If Player knowledge must be separated from Pc knowledge, what's the point of talking IC in first person?
Pc is on trial, Player must debate IC before being allowed to roll/set the difficulty. Why? The Player ain't no lawyer, ain't no Bard.
Pc is under siege, Player must come up with a detailed escape plan before being allowed to proceed. Why? Player ain't no expert tactician, Battlemaster, or anything.
Hey, but freeform RP is awesome! But:
How can one Drama roleplay at all, or why people gets upset if the silent Player likes to play Bards, if Pc/Player are separated? How can one value pure roleplay if there's no way to tell which is which?

 

[Numidius]

the previously discussed situation where the mental headspace of your PC exists as Schrödinger's Cat.

Wanted: dead or alive
Schrodinger's Cat

 

[Imaculata]

If Player knowledge must be separated from Pc knowledge, what's the point of talking IC in first person?
Pc is on trial, Player must debate IC before being allowed to roll/set the difficulty. Why? The Player ain't no lawyer, ain't no Bard.
Pc is under siege, Player must come up with a detailed escape plan before being allowed to proceed. Why? Player ain't no expert tactician, Battlemaster, or anything.
Hey, but freeform RP is awesome! But:
How can one Drama roleplay at all, or why people gets upset if the silent Player likes to play Bards, if Pc/Player are separated? How can one value pure roleplay if there's no way to tell which is which?

My take on this is that I don't expect my players to fake ignorance, nor do I expect them to possess the knowledge that their character should have. Their characters are allowed to use what ever assumptions they have as players, but their guess is as good as that of an unexperienced player. Where their knowledge as players is lacking, I provide them with the information that I believe their characters would have so that they are able to play the competent adventurer they are trying to portray.

For example, last night my players defeated two Liches, and being an experienced player, the priest in the party asked me if his character knew about philacteries. I decided to have him make a check to determine the outcome, but I might as well have said 'yes', because my campaign does not hinge on finding and destroying the philacteries of those Liches. I have no intention to have those Liches make a surprise return, and so whether they destroy the philacteries is irrelevant to the campaign honestly.

Is it really a problem that the player uses his knowledge of Liches in the game? His character is a priest, so it is entirely possible that he has some how obtained this knowledge over the years. But even if he hadn't been a priest and had no reason to have this knowledge at all, would it really make a big difference? Does it make the game easier to know what a philactery is when dealing with a Lich? Honestly, to me as a DM the difficulty of my encounters does not hinge on some obscure bit of gotcha knowledge. My players can decide for themselves if their character knows something, and if they are in doubt I'm happy to make that ruling for them. But more often than not, I simply ask my players 'Do YOU think your character would have this knowledge?' rather than telling them 'NO'.

I will however correct misunderstandings about the facts as established in the campaign, if I believe their characters should know better. Players can sometimes get confused or misremember details, especially over the course of a long campaign (which is understandable). For example, the same player thought that the God of Death would disapprove of another player laying the souls of the Liches to rest, but I corrected him on this. I corrected him because I felt that his priest would have a deep understanding of the gods in my campaign world and know things that the player might not.

To me it is all about facilitating my players, and helping them with what they are trying to do. If one player wants to play the wise priest who informs his party about Liches, I try to give him the freedom to do this. I pass that information to him, so the gameplay can continue, rather than come to an abrupt halt. To me there is no benefit to hiding this information from my players or their characters.

 

[Numidius]

My take on this is that I don't expect my players to fake ignorance, nor do I expect them to possess the knowledge that their character should have. Their characters are allowed to use what ever assumptions they have as players, but their guess is as good as that of an unexperienced player. Where their knowledge as players is lacking, I provide them with the information that I believe their characters would have so that they are able to play the competent adventurer they are trying to portray.

For example, last night my players defeated two Liches, and being an experienced player, the priest in the party asked me if his character knew about philacteries. I decided to have him make a check to determine the outcome, but I might as well have said 'yes', because my campaign does not hinge on finding and destroying the philacteries of those Liches. I have no intention to have those Liches make a surprise return, and so whether they destroy the philacteries is irrelevant to the campaign honestly.

Is it really a problem that the player uses his knowledge of Liches in the game? His character is a priest, so it is entirely possible that he has some how obtained this knowledge over the years. But even if he hadn't been a priest and had no reason to have this knowledge at all, would it really make a big difference? Does it make the game easier to know what a philactery is when dealing with a Lich? Honestly, to me as a DM the difficulty of my encounters does not hinge on some obscure bit of gotcha knowledge. My players can decide for themselves if their character knows something, and if they are in doubt I'm happy to make that ruling for them. But more often than not, I simply ask my players 'Do YOU think your character would have this knowledge?' rather than telling them 'NO'.

I will however correct misunderstandings about the facts as established in the campaign, if I believe their characters should know better. Players can sometimes get confused or misremember details, especially over the course of a long campaign (which is understandable). For example, the same player thought that the God of Death would disapprove of another player laying the souls of the Liches to rest, but I corrected him on this. I corrected him because I felt that his priest would have a deep understanding of the gods in my campaign world and know things that the player might not.

To me it is all about facilitating my players, and helping them with what they are trying to do. If one player wants to play the wise priest who informs his party about Liches, I try to give him the freedom to do this. I pass that information to him, so the gameplay can continue, rather than come to an abrupt halt. To me there is no benefit to hiding this information from my players or their characters.

Seems legit and perfectly reasonable. But let's take nothing for granted: How do you know for sure the God of Death will not take offense?

More: that moment of uncertainty from the Player couldn't foresee an important instance of play, I dunno: a dilemma for religious priests in the setting? (Or at least for the Pc?) that even a responsible Gm takes for granted, because see the OP?

What I'm saying is that not only a Gm telling the world is not like reality, also it is not like The Setting.

I'm sure your game is awesome (like everyone's poster here), but things run smoothly and fine until they don't (see the Chaotic Barbarian's Lawful Wife Incident up-thread). Eg: in my game with the thermal bathers things reached a point in which the Gm would not support my lonely Pc in town because in his mind my requests were "beyond realism". But infact I only needed a sort of Patron Check like in [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] Classic Traveller game, to propel the story forward. We reached the point where we were not supported anymore by agreement and did not have a rule to refer to.

 

[Numidius]

Moreover, from a Gm perspective, why should a Gm always be careful to what decides, pay attention to what is reasonable for Pc to know, regard players as in need of freedom, but also protect them from the perils of the game-world by deploying adequate challenges, enforcing a neutral, plausible realism without negating their protagonism.

"Ornat et fovet. Regit et tuetur"

 

[hawkeyefan]

Correct. If it gives an advantage you can't select it; and the random roll aspect reflects the reality of some people just being born luckier than others.

If it was decided up front that all the PCs would have some sort of advantage via their backgrounds, that's a fine table rule. The reality is, though, that the vast majority of people in ye olde typical medieval society were peasants who really didn't have much going for them at all; and I don't mind if the game reflects this at least to some extent.

Sorry to take so long to reply....I had a busy weekend.

I think the bit I quoted here is really just about preference. I know based on our past discussions that you prefer to play with the expectation that the PCs are "no one special", they're just another person in their world. Which is fine, of course. I don't really care to try and hew to some kind of quasi-medieval social class expectations; my players come up with characters they want to play, and I work with them to make that happen. Any advantage they get from their background is easily offset with an equal disadvantage.

I also think that the life of an adventurer is simply different from whatever society woudl consider "normal", so to me, PCs are special no matter what. They don't need to be some kind of "chosen one" or anything, but I don't think that they are typical by any means.

But again, this is simply preference.

It's different because when being decided on the fly it's usually being decided for a reason: the player/PC needs or wants (and thus is asking for) an advantage in the here and now.

Chances are that had the player/PC known about the advantage ahead of time, the roleplay leading up to this point would have been somewhat different.

Example: party arrives at Karnos, an unfamiliar and not-that-friendly town. Player A, who has up to now left her character background mostly blank, suddenly declares "Oh, don't worry - I'm the local noble here and my word is the law. Everyone knows me. And look, here come some of my personal guards now - they saw us coming.".

If this (that a party member is the local noble here) had been known from square one the party's dealing with and feelings toward Karnos would have almost certainly been much different. Very likely they'd have used it as a safe home base all along, rather than only coming here now because they have to.

In fairness, it's always possible that the player for some reason had kept her PC's noble status a secret up to now; but that's a different matter.

Aren't many of the choices made by players for their characters made to gain an advantage? Weapon or ability selection, spell choice, feats versus stat increses, what magic item to wear in their belt slot.....all these things are done with advantage in mind. There may be other factors as well, but mechanical advantage is likely always a consideration.

Why is that a problem in the scenario you describe? I will point out I think it's a bit of an extreme, and certainly different than the one I presented in a couple of key ways, but still it may be interesting to discuss. What's the big deal if the player does decide to claim lordship of Karsos? Sure, it may make things easier for them in the immediate "hey the guards aren't gonna kill us" kind of way, but I woudl also think it would open up several opportunities. What's the PC's place in Korsos? Are people happy for him to turn back up? Was his family glad he was gone? All kinds of political angles seem to present themselves.

Now, if the goal of play is not to get embroiled in the political situation in Karsos, these concerns don't need to be raised. Perhaps something else can be done with this bit of info. But the question is if this isn't the goal....if this isn't what the player wants, then why would they introduce this idea? Just to avoid being bothered by some guards in a potentially hostile town? Seems a bit of a big card to play for that reason.

Does this interfere with the DM's plans? Or the other players? If so, can that be reconciled? I would imagine a conversation would happen, and the best way to proceed would be decided on by all.

Right - back at it...sorry 'bout the gap there...
Because in session 0 there's no here-and-now stakes, and no clear and obvious immediate advantage to the PC/player. In session 4 when the stakes have become serious it's a bit beyond the pale if Tommy pulls the answer out of thin air like that.

And even then it's probably not the end of the world, except that if Tommy does this once what's to stop him doing a similar thing - that his PC just happens to have the answer to a situation or puzzle or whatever - again, every time his PC is stuck but he-as-player knows the answer? And the answer is, of course, nothing; because the precedent has already been set by the DM allowing it to happen in session 4. Pretty short hop from there to outright bad-faith play.

Again, I don't see the problem with the stakes. To me, it's the idea of the player's background actually becoming important in play. That means the player will likely be more invested because the character is more tied to things.

As for the "slippery slope" kind of argument....I don't think that's really a concern. Perhaps with certain players or certain groups, but I think that in general most players can actually handle this without abusing it. It may take a little adjustment to actually incorporate this kind of thing into a game where it previously didn't exist, but I think it's achievable.

Any of those is possible, sure, given the right situation (e.g. screaming or shouting a warning is only any use if the rest of the party is still within earshot; the PCs reading signs assumes they are following and not staying put so the scout can find them when she returns). The "hunch" one is valid, but would get contrived if done too often.

Well, in the case of a wizard or cleric, I don't know. In my 5E game, one of the characters is a Diviner. She gets those kinds of hunches all the time. Perfectly within the fiction that's been established.

And I'm sure we could come up with an explanation for just about any scenario.

The easiest would be to not confirm that the PC is actually dead. Just cut away leaving her actual status unknown. Maybe she's in negative HP, or making death saves or whatever. Then you'll actually get honest action from the players. This would probably be ideal if you want to avoid metagaming.

Oh, absolutely.

It's when players start talking in-character about their late companion and how they need to go back to town and find a replacement when they don't and can't even know she's dead yet and she's not due to return for another hour or so...that's when the smackdown hammer comes out.

(even worse is while she's still alive and out scouting other players won't just shut up and let her player play it out, they insist on offering suggestions or even telling her what to do when their PCs have no way of knowing any specifics of the situation at hand)

No. I ask why are they suddenly moving now when they'd agreed to wait here for at least an hour for her to get back - are they intending to abandon her? And if the answer comes back "well, she's dead" then someone's probably about to get yelled at.

Don't you just flash forward past the hour of waiting? I would expect so. "Okay, an hour's passed and the scout has not returned....you all have an uneasy feeling about this," and you're all set. Play proceeds largely as it would have without the need for pretending not to know what we know thing. The players can play their characters without their knowledge of the scout's death impacting their decision making.

Sometimes I think the attempt to avoid metagaming involves more metagaming than what is trying to be avoided.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I suppose it would only be done for monsters with strengths or weaknesses, which is a lot of them. I have a hard time believing that they wouldn't be okay with trolls and bring in the uncle, but would be golems and not bring in some "reason" to know about golems.

This is the same kind of fear of abuse that people worried about Mother May I are citing. They see it as a GM having the ability to decide things that could lead to abuse. In this case, the players are allowed to decide things, and you're immediately concerned about abuse. "If it can be done once, then why not every time?" applies to both concerns.

I hope that at this point you at least understand how a game's design or how a group chooses to play it could be cause for concern.

I don't like this playstyle and my players don't like this playstyle. Those are pretty good reasons I think.

There are pros and cons to allowing them to create on the fly as well. It all depends on which way is best for you, and your way isn't best for me and my game.

That's perfectly fine. You should definitely do what works for you. I was not asking you to actually change your ways, just asking you to think about how it would go if you did.

The PC is not aware of hit points and knows he can die to a single hit, whether 1st level or 20th level. And if by "Well, this is your very specific take on HP," you mean RAW, then yes it is.

I'm not really concerned with how HP are described in the book because that's changed over the years, and everyone does it the way they prefer.

But if you're telling me that your players are equally cautious when they have 110 HP as they are when they have 14 HP, I would be amazed.

I disagree as well, which is probably why I've said over and over again that in MY GAME it's cheating.

I appreciate you making the clarification. I don't think it's always been clear that you are talking about your game.

It is an unfair advantage. The creature's difficulty is based on those strengths and weaknesses being an actual challenge. If the players are using their knowledge such that they get to automatically know about the monsters' strengths and weaknesses, those monsters become weaker as challenges and I would have to cut down the XP value of them to compensate.

I don't know if the fact that new players won't know about vulnerabilities is what's factored into difficulty so much as the fact that they have resistance to standard attacks or regeneration and the like is what's factored in. A troll is worth whatever XP its worth because it can regenerate, not because characters know or don't know it can regenerate.

If your PCs learn about troll vulnerability through some reasonable in game means, do you then lower the XP reward for any trolls they face? If they meet a merchant guard captain who tells them "there are trolls in the hills....make sure you burn them, or else they'll regenerate" is this an unfair advantage?

I have no problem if they know about it through reasonable in game means, though, such as pre-written backgrounds and skills, because those are limited and they will sometimes get the info they need, sometimes fail to get it, and sometimes partially get it. The game accounts for that sort of inconsistent knowledge via skills and such, so that would preserve the challenge value of monsters in general.

So I think that what's really the core of the disagreement is the "when" that these things are decided. Would you agree with that?

So no, it's not more of an unfair disadvantage to have the player write a background in advance. The purpose of backgrounds is informational about the PC, not to gain mechanical advantages during game play. Sure, there will be the occasional mechanical advantage such as information about some sort of monster or other, but by and large the background is just fluff. Even when I bring in a portion of it, making that aspect of the background matter and being better for play, it will generally be fluff and carry no mechanical value at all. For example, a player in my game had his PC befriend a hermit. I might one day have that hermit one day track his PC down and ask him to help with some bandits that have taken up residence near the hermit's remote location, making it difficult for him to live.

The purpose of backgrounds is informational, yes, but I would say more importantly that it's also to grant context to the character's place in the world. This can manifest in a variety of ways. Why can't some of them be advantageous to the character?

I think that "background is just fluff" and "I might one day include the PC background" are pretty telling that you expect DM authority on these matters. And again, that's fine....but this is kind of why some folks are critical of this method. They don't want their backgrounds to be "just fluff". They want the GM to actively involve their background into play, or they want a game that allows this to happen. They want the story to be their character's story to a large extent, and not something that could happen to any character.

Look at Luke Skywalker and Han Solo.....both have background elements that come into play heavily in the Star Wars stories. Luke's is more central to the overall story, but Han's is also very important, too....it provides him with motivation, characterization, context in the fictional world, and complications when his past comes back to bite him.

Ideally, we don't go into Star Wars knowing all these details. They emerge as we watch the fiction. Han Solo's background isn't given to us ahead of time in the "Episode IV" scroll. We learn it as we watch the movie....he's a smuggler....he owes a dangerous person a debt....and so on. Those details can also emerge through play in an RPG, rather than being pre-determined. This is the kind of "Discovery" that I think is what [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] is talking about.

So, if a player in a hypothetical game decides to play a smuggler, and a hypothetical GM decides to treat that as just fluff....don't you think that a huge opportunity for a game with potentially strong player investment is being missed?

 

[hawkeyefan]

[MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] said that the DM is being a jerk if he doesn't allow the player to bring in the uncle for troll knowledge, since the players are signaling that they don't want to jump through the hoops of figuring out the troll's weakness. If that's so, then the DM is also being a jerk if he doesn't allow the player to bring in the same uncle for your unique monster, since they are equally signaling that they don't want to jump through the hoops of figuring out your monster's weakness. The same logic applies to both situations.

I said that in context, yes. Imagine the players saying "Hey, we don't want to play Cursre of Strahd" and the DM looks at them blankly for a moment. Then he raises his copy of Curst of Strahd and says "Guess what we're playing?"

A GM of any game that so blatantly ignores what the players are telling him may indeed be a jerk. I also allowed for other reasons....he could be clueless or he could be totally unprepared or incapable of doing things otherwise. But regardless of the reason, this is what makes the situation different.

Removing the bit about the player cuing the DM in to what they want takes away the point I was making.

I think that most games with players who've been aruond for a while don't bother worrying about trolls and fire a whole lot. I'd expect them to have better things to devote their game time to. Does that mean I don't use trolls? Nope.....I love em and use them frequently. What I don't do is use them in such as way that their vulnerability to fire is the major point of the encounter. Their weakness is just a thing....the PCs can try to exploit it to do some more damage to them and to finish them off, but it's not a mystery to be guessed.

We played that encounter when we were kids.

In no version of D&D is a player entitled to a unilateral background. 3e was probably the most forgiving in that regard, but 4e states that the DM should work with the players on their backgrounds so that they fit the story the DM has in mind. In 5e backgrounds are pre-written. In 1e the DM chose them for the players. And so on.

What no edition allows, though, is for the addition of background after play has started, such as when you encounter a troll. Even 3e talks about it as something provided at character creation.

No edition restricts the addition of background after play has started.

I agree that there are certain details about a character background that require collaboration between the player and DM. I just don't think that all needs to be done ahead of time. An idea introduced in play can be one the DM approves. Or he could deny it. I think that it all depends on the specifics.