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

[pemerton]

OK, the main character is a noble, so obviously he was one last week when the party visited the temple. Why didn't he say "I'm the Baron of Fubar, you must serve me!"? Make something up! There's no lack of 'white space' out there to fill in (notionally) to make room for why this was.

This, this, this . . .

Especially make something up!

And so often, that something itself need be nothing more than a sketch or a hint. For instance,

Going back and retconning that the fighter's brother has been following the party for the last 3 months? Make sure he's trained in Stealth and don't worry about it, there are plenty of chances he could do this.

And did he have ninjas helping him? Was he under a curse of Coventry? (Some Rolemaster supplement had such a thing.)

In my Traveller game, we know that one of the main PCs regained consciousness in a damaged cold sleep berth stacked in a warehouse in the domed city on the backwater world of Byron (this was the PC's introduction into the campaign), when the last thing she remembered was being in the naval hospital on Shelley (which was the only easy way to fit her PC gen backstory into what had already been established about the setting). How did she get from Shelley to Byron? Presumably in a cold sleep berth, but how did she get into that? And how did it become damaged in the warehouse? Subsequent events in the game have suggested some answers to the first couple of questions, though not complete certainty (the one person who actually knows is a prisoner of the Imperium); and the answer to that last one no one knows (the NPCs who might have provided answers mostly got killed in firefights or arrested by Byron's police force).

In real life no one seems to know when exactly the house I live in was built. (The planning documents I have seen don't appear to settle it, because they seem to treat what was really a build as if it was a renovation of the prior dwelling on the block; one neighbour probably knew the answer, but she had some cognitive issues when I met her and has died since.) That's effective "white space" in the real world, in respect of a house about 40 years old in one of the world's most effectively governed cities! Let alone a RPG world.

 

[pemerton]

Perhaps instead it's the equivalent of being thirsty, someone handing me a glass of water (which I drink), and then the same someone telling me two hours later that there's beer in the fridge and has been all day; had I known this at the time I'd likely have had one of those instead.

But this is metagaming through and through! That is, had it been thought of earlier, then you would have authored other things differently.

I mean, even if that's true, so what?

 

[Sadras]

This brings up, again, the things I did in hacking 4e. Not only is all conflict using challenge mechanics (or combat) but players have a built-in set of mechanics they can use to have their characters buy successes in those challenges. You can see how this would open up a lot of possibilities (and yes, you could argue that the players will simply buy success all the time, but many of these costs are permanent and fairly steep, so they'd certainly be making significant choices about how the fiction would proceed from there).

I agree. I prefer though, in D&D, to be flexible than have a built-in set of mechanics (aka Skill Challenge, Soft/Hard Moves on Failure...etc) as an option to use than be tied down to a particular mechanic. So sometimes I'd prefer to run it free-form, other times it might be scripted and other times I'd use a mechanic. For me every idea presented by fellow posters in this thread is just one more creative way to adjudicate things at the table or, to use @Manbearcat's description, to add to the 'primordial ooze'.

And this style of adjudication might very well be specific to D&D, maybe because the RPG lends itself to home-brewing.

 

[pemerton]

The part where you actually manage to establish that this is knowledge that the PC doesn't have.

The DM is the one that decides these things, unless the DM changes how the game runs. There are no rules allowing players to make up backgrounds on the fly, or to just decide the players know things about the game world.

This is the bit that I regard as mere assertion. It's not stated, nor implied, in any rules of any RPG I play.

In my Moldvay Basic days, as a player I knew that swords hurt more than daggers because I read the variable weapon damage chart; and I knew that green slimes need fire because I read the Monster chapter. The rules directed me to read both bits, and drew no distinction between the two bits of knowledge I gained. And nowhere did they say that the GM could direct me to pretend I didn't know one or the other or both.

Maybe such a rule is stated in the 2nd ed AD&D DMG? I've never read that book.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Probably because that's what it said. The admonition was to play what the character knows, and that doesn't change just because you have one single example of real world knowledge. Especially given that the MM information is also knowledge gained in the real world, so it isn't any different in that regard than chemistry. You learn chemistry in the real world. You learn about the monsters in the MM in the real world. Knowledge of both of those things can be taken into the game world and used. Why would you think that one example of knowledge gained in the real world(chemistry) would be forbidden, but the other example of knowledge gained in the real world(MM info) isn't forbidden?

The 5e rules state the GM has yes/no/uncertain authority over actions, not what the PC thinks, which is called out as within the players' balliwick. In 5e, the GM has no authority within the rules to police PC thoughts, only actions. You've brought that idea with you and have assumed the rules agree with you. They don't -- they're silent on the issue of GM approval of PC thoughts. Meanwhile, they do say that players get to determine what their PC thinks, which is contrary to your claims.

Now, the path I think you're going down us the vague admonishion against metagaming, which is located in the DM's guide and not the Players'. That doesn't fully define metagaming at all, so you've, again, brought your definition with you -- it's not defined by the text. Further, that section is a vague admonishion only: there are no additional authorities or guides presented that provide GM authority over PC thoughts.

 

[Maxperson]

The 5e rules state the GM has yes/no/uncertain authority over actions, not what the PC thinks, which is called out as within the players' balliwick. In 5e, the GM has no authority within the rules to police PC thoughts, only actions. You've brought that idea with you and have assumed the rules agree with you. They don't -- they're silent on the issue of GM approval of PC thoughts. Meanwhile, they do say that players get to determine what their PC thinks, which is contrary to your claims.

The 5e rules say straight out to discourage metagaming, and using your knowledge of monsters as your PC's knowledge, when your PC wouldn't or might not have it is metagaming.

Now, the path I think you're going down us the vague admonishion against metagaming, which is located in the DM's guide and not the Players'. That doesn't fully define metagaming at all, so you've, again, brought your definition with you -- it's not defined by the text. Further, that section is a vague admonishion only: there are no additional authorities or guides presented that provide GM authority over PC thoughts.

It's a good enough definition to stop metagaming.

Edit:By the way, the metagaming portion specifically says to discourage metagame THINKING, so yes the rules state that the DM has authority of what the PC thinks and direct the DM to use that authority with metagaming.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not afraid of bad GMs actually. I am simply convinced that RPGs can provide improved play process and better results when the GM has certain structures to work with.

You can always improve systems. My problem is you and others are arguing this around style. Like Maxperson said, the games you want to play, are not the ones he wants to play. Design improvements around style and preferences are not objective or universal improvments. They are targeted to a particular demographic of gamers. If I am making a game meant to appeal to players and GMs like Maxperson, then the things people are identifying as bad design would actually be in my list of things to include. This gets back to my point, the analysis is skewed because the examiners are inserting their own biases into it.

 

[Maxperson]

This is the bit that I regard as mere assertion. It's not stated, nor implied, in any rules of any RPG I play.

In my Moldvay Basic days, as a player I knew that swords hurt more than daggers because I read the variable weapon damage chart; and I knew that green slimes need fire because I read the Monster chapter. The rules directed me to read both bits, and drew no distinction between the two bits of knowledge I gained. And nowhere did they say that the GM could direct me to pretend I didn't know one or the other or both.

Maybe such a rule is stated in the 2nd ed AD&D DMG? I've never read that book.

The into section of 5e. The players decribe to the DM what they want their characters to do. You want your character to remember what a troll's weakness is. The DM narrates the results after deciding yes, no or uncertain which requires a roll.

Read the exchange where the player experienced at the game doesn't just know what a gargoyle is. He "has a feeling" that the gargoyles may not be statues, but still has to look at them and make a roll to see if they are gargoyles or not. The DM ultimately has him make an intelligence(investigation) check.

You also have the Commune with Nature spell, which allows the player to get knowledge of some kinds of creatures. You wouldn't need a 5th level spell for that if you could just use your player knowledge about those creatures.

The Ranger favored enemy gives you a bonus on intelligence rolls to recall information about them. Even the Ranger has to roll to remember info about his FAVORED ENEMY. It's not something the player can just automatically decide.

 

[iserith]

The 5e rules say straight out to discourage metagaming, and using your knowledge of monsters as your PC's knowledge, when your PC wouldn't or might not have it is metagaming.

It's a good enough definition to stop metagaming.

Edit:By the way, the metagaming portion specifically says to discourage metagame THINKING, so yes the rules state that the DM has authority of what the PC thinks and direct the DM to use that authority with metagaming.

I would say you're adding to the D&D 5e's definition of "metagame thinking." Taken as a whole, the DM is told to discourage "metagame thinking" because it can lead the players to getting their characters killed (by assuming the DM would not throw powerful monsters at lower-levels PCs) or wasting valuable session time (by over-exploring an otherwise normal door they thought the DM took longer than usual to describe). It has little to do with the sort of "metagaming" you and others deride. It even suggests you give the a gentle reminder "What do your characters think?" Well, my character thinks fire hurts trolls!

Here's how I discourage "metagame thinking" in my D&D 5e games (from my table rules document): "'Metagaming,' defined here as using player skill or knowledge that a character might not necessarily have, is fine as long as it's fun for everyone and helps contribute to an exciting, memorable story. Assumptions can be risky though so it's skillful play to verify your assumptions through in-game actions before making choices based on them."

So, sure, go right ahead and hit that troll with fire. You just better pray that I didn't change the stat block (which I frequently do) and I hope you were listening when I telegraphed that this troll is different. Discouraging it by explicitly or implicitly saying "You can't take that action because I've arbitrarily decided your character doesn't know about trolls' weaknesses" goes against the rules about a player deciding how his or her character thinks and acts. And anyway, if the character needs a justification for that action, the player can just apply the process that @pemerton outlined which is exceedingly easy to do on the fly, e.g. "My dear Aunt Sally told me about fire killing trolls in nursery rhymes." (The character was raised Aunt Sally because adventurers' parents are always killed, obviously. Probably by trolls.)

 

[iserith]

The into section of 5e. The players decribe to the DM what they want their characters to do. You want your character to remember what a troll's weakness is. The DM narrates the results after deciding yes, no or uncertain which requires a roll.

Not being able to recall a troll's weakness doesn't stop you from lighting a torch and hitting the troll with it. Or lobbing alchemist's fire.

Read the exchange where the player experienced at the game doesn't just know what a gargoyle is. He "has a feeling" that the gargoyles may not be statues, but still has to look at them and make a roll to see if they are gargoyles or not. The DM ultimately has him make an intelligence(investigation) check.

That's a player stating an action to deduce based on available clues whether the statue is something more than a statue. The DM finds the action to have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure and calls for an Intelligence check to which the player would like to say Investigation applies. The DM agrees.

That is the proper play loop and adjudication process. The player rolls and gets a 7 which he believes is a bad result. The DM does not give him anything to work with (arguably a boring result but nevermind). Still, nothing is stopping the player from having his character pull out his or her adamantine blade and striking the statue.

You also have the Commune with Nature spell, which allows the player to get knowledge of some kinds of creatures. You wouldn't need a 5th level spell for that if you could just use your player knowledge about those creatures.

You can just use your player knowledge. You might be wrong though - you remembered the stat block incorrectly or the DM changed it. Commune with Nature helps you verify your assumptions so you don't arrive at a bad outcome.

The Ranger favored enemy gives you a bonus on intelligence rolls to recall information about them. Even the Ranger has to roll to remember info about his FAVORED ENEMY. It's not something the player can just automatically decide.

It is absolutely something the player can decide. The player might, however, be wrong as above. So it's skillful play to verify those assumptions by attempting to recall lore about the enemy in question.