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

[pemerton]

IMO there is a significant difference between using the mechanics to determine if one's character knows about trolls, and another in which the player uses their knowledge about falling damage and their current hit point total to inform themselves if their character can survive jumping off a 40 foot height before their action declaration. The latter I would classify as metagaming, not the former.

To repeat what I just posted: what form does the use of mechanics to determine if the character knows about trolls take?

Is it an action declared by the player for the PC (eg "I rack my brains to recall everything I ever heard about trolls!")? Then it is author stance: the player wants to be able to beat the trolls, apprehends that some in-fiction knowledge must be established, and declares an appropriate action. (And easily retrofits a PC motivation - I don't want to be eaten by trolls!)

Is it a check called for by the GM? Then it involves no stance on the player's part, as it's not an action declaration.

Either way, it might establish some fiction - eg that the player knows about trolls, or is ignorant of them - which can then support further actor stance action declarations. But it, itself, is never going to be actor stance as far as I can see.

(Btw, my understanding of orthodox 5e D&D is that the GM doesn't call for knowledge checks in the absence of a player action declaration, so that only the author stance version of a knowledge check can occur. If that's a correct account of 5e, it clearly marks a difference between 5e and some earlier editions, such as AD&D, B/X and 4e.)

What aboutusing knowledge about falling damage and current hit point total to inform a character's decision to jump off a 40 foot clilff? If that mechanical knowledge corresponds to some character mental state then this can easily be done in actor stance. (I assume most D&D players assume that the player knowledge that a sword does d8 damage and a dagger does d4 damage corresponds to character knowledge that swords are more dangerous than daggers. Presumably, then, at some tables the falling damage rules are taken to work the same way.)

If the player's mechanical knowledge does not correspond to anything that is in the character's mind, then this can't be done in actor stance.

I would add: because the relationship between hit points, damage and the fiction is quite flexible in D&D, there are a range of possible character mental states that are in play here. For instance, in 4e I wouldn't assume that the character in this scenario knows s/he will survive. Rather, I would assume that the character reasonably hopes that s/he will survive, and jumps of the cliff in part motivated by that hope. Thus I would say that a player decision that his/her PC jumps could easily occur in actor stance: the action declaration issues from a combination of the character's knowlege/beliefs (there's a 40' cliff; at the bottom of the cliff there are orcs attacking the villagers; I can only help the villagers by getting to the base of the cliff), expectations/hopes (Bahamut's got my back) and desires/commitments (I need to helpf those villagers).

If a table uses D&D-ish hit points, but doesn't allow for character mental states like Pelor's got my back that correlate to having a good hp total, then actor stance in this sort of case becomes much harder. In B/X, for instance, and in Gygax's DMG, hp seem to underlie a pawn stance approach. (This is another instance, in my personal opinion, of 4e taking these classic D&D-isms but really running with them in ways that classic D&D didn't envisage.)

 

[Sadras]

Actor stance doesn't depend on motivations never being authored (as you say, that would be impossible). It depends on motivations being established prior to action declarations, so that they can inform those action declarations. That's why - to repeat a point I've made several times upthread - many of the RPGs published in the immediate post-D&D era (I've pointed to RQ and C&S as two prominent examples) included setting frameworks, and the integration of PC generation into the setting, which would establish the character motivations necessary for actor stance.

In the same way many published D&D modules and AP's have character hooks and preset character motivations.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ovinomancer]

I dunno, IMO there is a significant difference between using the mechanics to determine if one's character knows about trolls, and another in which the player uses their knowledge about falling damage and their current hit point total to inform themselves if their character can survive jumping off a 40 foot height before their action declaration. The latter I would classify as metagaming, not the former. Furthermore in 5e at least, the DM needs to permit your roll, so it is an instruction by the DM.
If my definition of metagaming is falling short to differentiate between the two, which it probably is, then that is on me - but I'm speaking clearly enough for all to understand.

I really do not want to get caught up in a Hussar/Maxperson definition debacle*. Humourous as they are to witness (and they really are) I don't have the energy to be involved in one. [emoji14]

EDIT: *The street urchin one is the conversation to top.

I'd argue that knowing a fall is survivable is part and parcel of the world, not metagaming. The mechanics in this case say how the world operates, it's only when you bring your player knowledge into it that it goes wonky and gets labeled metagaming. I'd argue that NOT thinking you could survive the fall is the metagaming, here. Something, maybe, to chew on? The baggage we bring shouldn't be attributed to the game.

 

[pemerton]

In the same way many published D&D modules and AP's have character hooks and preset character motivations.

As I posted not too far upthread, DL is - as far as I'm aware - the first TSR module series to do this.

It is later than RQ and C&S, though, by several years.

 

[Sadras]

To repeat what I just posted: what form does the use of mechanics to determine if the character knows about trolls take?

Is it an action declared by the player for the PC (eg "I rack my brains to recall everything I ever heard about trolls!")? Then it is author stance: the player wants to be able to beat the trolls, apprehends that some in-fiction knowledge must be established, and declares an appropriate action. (And easily retrofits a PC motivation - I don't want to be eaten by trolls!)

Is it a check called for by the GM? Then it involves no stance on the player's part, as it's not an action declaration.

What if the player is unsure about how to roleplay the situation since nothing has been established in his/her backstory or during roleplay? What if the player just turns to the DM and says "Would my character know about trolls? Do I just make a roll or wouldn't I know?"

This is not an action declaration, this is a honest reaction from a player seeking to know how to roleplay his character. And this has happened at my table numerous times. It has nothing to do about a player wanting to beat trolls, this is about roleplay purity.

EDIT: In all other respects, I agree with your assessments, but the above is murky for the player is the one asking for the roll but not for the reasons you have stated. I would classify that as a check called for by the GM as the player is not pushing for his/her own desires to influence character action/s.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

What if the player is unsure about how to roleplay the situation since nothing has been established in his backstory or during roleplay? What if the player just turns to the DM and says "Would my character know about trolls?"

This is not an action declaration, this is a honest reaction. And this has happened at my table numerous times. It has nothing to do about a player wanting to beat trolls, this is about roleplay purity.

To me, the player asking a question like this is an action declaration. Reworded, it is exactly (to me), the same as saying "[My character] remembers pertinent facts about trolls, as related to him by his uncle Rusty."

Since it was stated in the form of a question, clearly it is in doubt (though, at some tables it might not be in doubt), so the DM should call for a check. This might be Dungeoneering, or Monsterwise, or whatever check seems most appropriate for the specific game you're playing. With success, you recall right information, with failure, your character recalls no useful information or wrong information.

 

[Sadras]

To me, the player asking a question like this is an action declaration. Reworded, it is exactly (to me), the same as saying "[My character] remembers pertinent facts about trolls, as related to him by his uncle Rusty."

Disagree. Player motive for uncle Rusty injection is completely different to the one I stated.

Since it was stated in the form of a question, clearly it is in doubt (though, at some tables it might not be in doubt), so the DM should call for a check. This might be Dungeoneering, or Monsterwise, or whatever check seems most appropriate for the specific game you're playing. With success, you recall right information, with failure, your character recalls no useful information or wrong information.

We are discussing actor and author stances and whether the player temporarily moves from one stance to another in this specific situation (character knowledge).

 

[Aldarc]

I don’t suppose that it occurred to you that “most people” that might disagree with either your positions or your terminology long ago abandoned the thread, and that spending countless posts quoting an essay at each other that would not be accepted by many people is, perhaps, simply engaging in an echo chamber as opposed to usefully communicating?

How many that have abandoned the thread does not really matter when looking to the point where discussion of the stance terminology entered the conversation. (I don't reckon we lost many.) Before that the reasons why those people left the thread may vary but we can't conclude that it has much to do with the terminology discussion.

I dunno man; this slightly slow golden retriever assumed that one of the purposes of communication was to get your argument (in the classic sense) across to your audience; to the extent that you’re communicating to the converted, why bother, and to the extent you’re attemting to convince someone of a point, it is better to use accepted terms than jargon which obfuscates (see also the difference between “actor stance” and “acting”).

But what do I know; LOOK A BALL!!!!

You know who's a good boy? You're a good boy, [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]. What you say about communication is certainly the ideal if there is good faith from both parties. But if one party communicates the argument well but the other nevertheless refuses to listen, understand, or reexamine their position, then the conversation is mostly dead regardless. I would say that these are the accepted terms, and I would suggest that is the case given the absence of alternatives. If you reject terms but fail to supply your own, then the given terms will prevail.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*