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

[Hriston]

I haven’t read the adventure, but it seems clear to me from what I’ve read here in this thread that the NPC is an Easter egg included to be recognized by fans of the novels in which she appears. To the OP, I would say that your experience is the module working as intended. Your character most likely recognizes the NPC by name because she’s an infamous personage of the FR.

 

[Burnside]

I think you are on the hook to show how this disrupts the game though. It may be a violation of your table's social contract, but the game is perfectly playable without said social contract (if there is one).

Players are free to establish what their characters think. It doesn't make what they say the characters think true, however. And since no particular knowledge is required for a character to attack this NPC, then it doesn't even matter to the resolution of the action that the player and thus the character knows anything about the NPC's true nature.

I totally agree that this is a question of play style and social contract as opposed to right and wrong, and a game where stuff like this goes on is definitely not "unplayable".

However, I personally wouldn't want to play it.

I strongly prefer a social contract wherein player knowledge and character knowledge are quite distinct things. I DM about 3x more often than I play. I've read the Monster Manual and know the strengths and weaknesses and tendencies of most of the monsters therein. My characters do not, and I do not play them as if they do. I'm playing a role.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I totally agree that this is a question of play style and social contract as opposed to right and wrong, and a game where stuff like this goes on is definitely not "unplayable".

However, I personally wouldn't want to play it.

I strongly prefer a social contract wherein player knowledge and character knowledge are quite distinct things. I DM about 3x more often than I play. I've read the Monster Manual and know the strengths and weaknesses and tendencies of most of the monsters therein. My characters do not, and I do not play them as if they do. I'm playing a role.

Why keep that "contract" implicate rather than explicate? That way, people can better decide which game is a good fit got their own interests?

 

[iserith]

I totally agree that this is a question of play style and social contract as opposed to right and wrong, and a game where stuff like this goes on is definitely not "unplayable".

However, I personally wouldn't want to play it.

I strongly prefer a social contract wherein player knowledge and character knowledge are quite distinct things. I DM about 3x more often than I play. I've read the Monster Manual and know the strengths and weaknesses and tendencies of most of the monsters therein. My characters do not, and I do not play them as if they do. I'm playing a role.

Likewise a player can play the role of a character who thinks he or she knows the strengths and weaknesses and tendencies of monsters and acts accordingly. Of course that comes with the risk that the character is wrong - perhaps tragically so - because the DM changed something about the monster's stat block. A DM who doesn't want to incentive "metagaming" is well-advised to do that from time to time.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I run group checks in a similar way. If the action would succeed if any of the participants succeed, the player with the highest modifier to the check rolls. If the action would fail if any of the participants fail, the player with the lowest modifier to the check rolls. If having multiple participants would meaningfully help (usually yes in the former case, no in the latter case), the player making the roll can do so with advantage.

But this raises the "uncertainty and consequences" question. If there are no consequences for failing the search, then maybe a roll wasn't needed in the first place. And if there are consequences, maybe the other characters don't want to start throwing dice around.

 

[billd91]

Since the question I posed was about incorrect player knowledge backfiring in game, what you'd do as a DM does yet again not answer the question.

Sorry, the whole "fool me once, fool me twice", I don't see that it's worth it asking the same question a third time.

So let me ask you a question along the lines of what you were just saying - as a DM. IF you happened to be running a module, and a player bought it explicitly to know the secrets, traps, and hidden treasure, would you reward them for their knowledge?

Basically, is there any line for you where a player exploiting knowledge their character hasn't learned from play a bad thing?

I think he answered your question about exhibiting knowledge about something in the game that he gleaned from an outside source - he'd reward it. And to a certain extent, that's not a bad thing since it means he's engaged enough to read supplemental material and is probably getting more out of the lore of the campaign than the players who don't.

The whole issue of buying the actual adventure in order to cheat - that wasn't the original question. But ultimately, if he's OK with it, it's no skin off your nose. Why exactly bring it up when that's not even the context of the conversation?

 

[Charlaquin]

But this raises the "uncertainty and consequences" question. If there are no consequences for failing the search, then maybe a roll wasn't needed in the first place. And if there are consequences, maybe the other characters don't want to start throwing dice around.

Oh, for sure! I just mean in the case of checks where the players succeed or fail as a group. Normally this is handled with success requiring half or more of the participants to succeed, whereas I prefer to cut down on the number of rolls by just having the player with the highest/lowest bonus roll.

 

[Burnside]

Why keep that "contract" implicate rather than explicate? That way, people can better decide which game is a good fit got their own interests?

Oh, I do make it explicit.

Having said that, most people I play with seem to intuitively follow an idea of "role-playing" that generally agrees with mine. I have rarely seen players who behave as if there is essentially no difference between what they know and what their characters know (or rather, as if their characters know everything they themselves do PLUS additional adventurer-stuff).

Full disclosure: I'm in theater and a large percentage of my players are professional actors. This might cause them to be more likely to assume a play style wherein they naturally see a difference between player knowledge and character knowledge, just as there is a difference between what the actor knows and what the character they're playing knows.

 

[Burnside]

Likewise a player can play the role of a character who thinks he or she knows the strengths and weaknesses and tendencies of monsters and acts accordingly. Of course that comes with the risk that the character is wrong - perhaps tragically so - because the DM changed something about the monster's stat block. A DM who doesn't want to incentive "metagaming" is well-advised to do that from time to time.

This leans too much on the ubiquitous "A good DM would fix it" philosophy wherein the burden of accommodation always seems to fall on the DM, whether it's accommodating flawed design or flawed player behavior. A DM is free to change things to accommodate player behavior, but shouldn't be obliged to. It's just as valid to ask players to change their behavior to suit the table style and not burden the DM, who is already working harder than everybody else, with more work.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Full disclosure: I'm in theater and a large percentage of my players are professional actors. This might cause them to be more likely to assume a play style wherein they naturally see a difference between player knowledge and character knowledge, just as there is a difference between what the actor knows and what the character they're playing knows.

Me too - or was. I got tired of the work schedule and changed industries.

Maybe you guys are much more talented than we are, but I've never met an actor who could honestly separate himself/herself from his/her character completely (I'm not even sure what that would mean. If I don't expect professional actors to do it, I certainly can expect it from my players.