D&D 5E player knowlege vs character knowlege (spoiler)

[iserith]

Long story short, you should not have blurted that out and no, your character does not know everything you know (nor do you know everything your character knows). That is exactly why intelligence skill checks exist.

Intelligence checks exist to resolve uncertainty as to the outcome of a character attempting to recall lore or make deductions when there's a meaningful consequence for failure. They have no bearing on what a character may think (which the player has absolute authority to establish), except as the player decides.

You should have said something like, “Does that name mean anything to my character?” and your DM should have called for an Intelligence (History) skill check. If you fail that, then as far as you’re concerned she’s an elf lady in a floating chunk of earth.

Given the above, in my game it would look more like "I try to recall the significance of that name, drawing upon [some past experience and/or training] to see if this is someone we can trust." If the outcome of that task is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure, then I will ask for a check. If I did ask for a check, the failure condition might be something like "she is an evil lich of some renown... and the expression on her face suggests she knows you know it."

If I was your DM, the fact that your entire party is now conspiring to kill this character based entirely on meta game knowledge they shouldn’t have would immediately cause me to make her an innocent elf who is just trying to help you.

I would never do this as DM. In this instance the DM set the stage for "metagaming" to occur and some DMs would then demand the players don't "metagame" in the face of that. Changing things to thwart the very "metagaming" the DM encouraged is not the way to go in my view. The problem - if it can even be called a problem - is easier solved upstream by reminding the players that assumptions can be wrong and that the smart play is to verify one's assumptions before acting on them.

 

[iserith]

I would say that their assumption that the NPC is a lich should be grounded on some hint or fact that the DM has asserted throughout the course of the adventure or campaign to have any validity.

The player can have the character think, say, and do whatever the player wants for any reason the player wants. It's just that what the character thinks, as established by the player, might be wrong.

 

[Mort]

I would say that their assumption that the NPC is a lich should be grounded on some hint or fact that the DM has asserted throughout the course of the adventure or campaign to have any validity.

The issue here, is that the NPC is well enough known within certain groups. The PC is fifth level and could have easily come upon this information.

As @iserith said above the PC should indicate his suspicions and the DM should determine if he automatically knows the information or if the outcome isn't certain and the PC needs an arcana, history etc. Check.

Frankly, if I where the DM, the cat's of of the bag.

Since the adventure anticipates the PCs identifying her anyway, why go against it if they do? Just confirm the PCs suspicions and move on. Heck it'll add a lot to the adventure of the PCs know who they're dealing with.

The next challenge is dealing with it without getting themselves killed!

 

[R_J_K75]

The player can have the character think, say, and do whatever the player wants for any reason the player wants. It's just that what the character thinks, as established by the player, might be wrong.

True I agree to an extent but if a a player has a regular tendency to have his character come up with unfounded assumptions as a DM I might be inclined to say something in game to subtlety alleviate their concerns.

 

[jasper]

Thanks @Mort

Spoiler: what happen in my campaign

A few hours later they came across Heart of Ubtao. Nuuz Tsarai was able to fly up to the stair landing and throw down some ropes. After the bard slipped, they discover belaying clumsy pc was a good thing. When they all arrived on the landing, they talked and talked and talked, and voted, and voted and voted. They did not want to split the party but did not come to a decision until from out of the darkness of the cave a voice yelled, “Up or in dears, I am tired of hearing argue over it!”. The group fled up the stairs to investigate the hollow tree, and air vent. The Gar Shap the green Grung was lowered down the air vent. He was eaten and as the rope was paying out the Tortle was dragged down also.

The group decide to walk down to the cavern to discover what ate two of their members. They started laughing when they discover both the frog and turtle dress up in doll clothes, tied up, and seated around a kids tea party table. Various markings using the Tortle magical pigments were drawn on his shell. Valindra talked with the group while making her two dollies drink her tea. She gave them the location of Omu, and various others. She disappeared while they rested overnight in the heat.

I forgot my group encounter her. But I think NONE of the players at the time read the books.

 

[iserith]

True I agree to an extent but if a a player has a regular tendency to have his character come up with unfounded assumptions as a DM I might be inclined to say something in game to subtlety alleviate their concerns.

Why do you think the DM should care about this, provided it's not negatively impacting the group's ability to achieve the goals of play?

 

[R_J_K75]

As @iserith said above the PC should indicate his suspicions and the DM should determine if he automatically knows the information or if the outcome isn't certain and the PC needs an arcana, history etc. Check.

I havent read or played the adventure or the novel in question. If the adventure assumes the PCs will find out who she is then as you said continue, but correct its up to the DM to determine the extent of the players knowledge or lack thereof.

 

[R_J_K75]

Why do you think the DM should care about this, provided it's not negatively impacting the group's ability to achieve the goals of play?

Just how I prefer to play. Automatically giving a character information because of something they read in a novel and possibly circumventing a portion of the adventure is not how I run my games as I think it breaks the immersion and Id rather they actually interact with the character to figure things out.

 

[jgsugden]

PCs do not know everything a player does. You should have your PC act as if he does not know who she is. You should not have blurted anything out to ruin the fun of the rest of the PCs. This is akin to someone buying the module, reading it, and then using that knowledge to cheat through encounters.

It is entirely up to the DM to determine if you might know the name based upon an intelligence check. If the DM does not ask you to make one, you can ask if it is appropriate, but you need to accept the ruling of the DM.

 

[iserith]

Just how I prefer to play. Automatically giving a character information because of something they read in a novel and possibly circumventing a portion of the adventure is not how I run my games as I think it breaks the immersion and Id rather they actually interact with the character to figure things out.

To be clear though, the player may establish that his or her character thinks the NPC Is a lich, but doesn't actually know for sure. The character hasn't been "given" any information that is reliable until verified through in-game action. So what is different from this reality and what it is you say you prefer? The character is still in the same spot and has to interact or otherwise take action to figure things out or risk being tragically wrong.