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

[iserith]

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?

Because bringing up that old chestnut is required in any thread related to this topic. Blue was just doing his or her duty.

 

[Mort]

Ironically, my answer to that is "a good DM would fix it."

By which I mean that as a DM, I would not put my players into a situation in which they can only survive by means of employing metagaming knowledge. The info they need would be available from an in-game source.

And to answer the specific troll scenario because this one HAS come up in my games: characters, including characters run by players who knew about trolls, attacked with all means at their disposal and learned, in character, by trial and error, what was effective.

So here's the funny thing about the OPs scenario:

Not knowing the NPC is a Litch will have no negative impact on the PCs. They'll just interact with her briefly and move on.

The OP has actually caused a much bigger problem for himself and the group by having, imparting and wanting to act on the knowledge. Attacking a lich with 5th level characters is near suicide. So actually, the OP scenario shows how much of a problem out of character knowledge can be.

As for other situations, like being a player in a Module where you know the ins and outs of it? You tell the DM you know the module (hopefully before he buys it or before you agree to play in it) and will that be a problem? There are usually fun solutions to be had here.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Well - the player never had the CHANCE to guess or extrapolate because they immediately spoiled the storyline, out of character, for the whole table. Hardly the DM's fault.

Totally the DM's fault. The DM agreed to run that adventure for that set of players without communicating his/her expectations for metagaming. If the DM knew the NPC was from a book, he/she could have changed the name but didn't. If the DM had expectations of the players, those should have been communicated.

Besides, the DM is the master of the game. It's in the title. Every problem that happens at the same is the DM's fault. It's his/her game. That means known the world/adventure, knowing the players, setting expectations - everything. It's his/her game. Such is life as the DM.

If something I don't like happens at my table it is my fault - 100%.
If something someone else at my table doesn't like happens at my table it is still my fault - 100%.

 

[Hriston]

Well - the player never had the CHANCE to guess or extrapolate because they immediately spoiled the storyline, out of character, for the whole table. Hardly the DM's fault.

Then doesn't the storyline just become that the PC recognizes the name of the famous lich? How is the storyline that no one suspected she was a lich inherently better?

 

[iserith]

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.

As @Bawylie said it's more about personal responsibility. What can I do in my role to mitigate something with which I have a problem? For the DM that means adjudicating with "progress combined with a setback" and changing up statblocks or lore from time to time, plus reminding players that acting on bad assumptions can lead to bad outcomes (as per the DMG). All players have to do in this regard is to keep that latter bit in mind and to make an effort to verify their assumptions before acting on them.

If someone truly wants to eradicate "metagaming" in their games, recognizing one's own hand in creating it and then taking steps to stop doing that is the most effective way. Or, I suppose, one could just do nothing and continue to create all kinds of incentive to "metagame" by way of presentation and adjudication and then hope the players don't do what they're being incentivized to do. I'd rather do it the easy way, personally.

 

[Burnside]

As @Bawylie said it's more about personal responsibility. What can I do in my role to mitigate something with which I have a problem? For the DM that means adjudicating with "progress combined with a setback" and changing up statblocks or lore from time to time, plus reminding players that acting on bad assumptions can lead to bad outcomes (as per the DMG). All players have to do in this regard is to keep that latter bit in mind and to make an effort to verify their assumptions before acting on them.

Wouldn't the DM changing the as-written lich into a nice elf lady directly fall into this category?

 

[billd91]

Then doesn't the storyline just become that the PC recognizes the name of the famous lich? How is the storyline that no one suspected she was a lich inherently better?

I think the OP kind of alludes to the problem. "...but now the whole party .... and it is an entirely good and leaning lawful party .... knows this companion is a lich. We can't live with that but we are honestly probably no match for her unless she is some nerfed version of a lich."

That knowledge has put them on a collision course with her that didn't need to occur (or at the very least, not at this stage).

 

[Burnside]

Then doesn't the storyline just become that the PC recognizes the name of the famous lich? How is the storyline that no one suspected she was a lich inherently better?

That table will never know.

 

[iserith]

Wouldn't the DM changing the as-written lich into a nice elf lady directly fall into this category?

It might. I still wouldn't change it mid-game to teach my players some kind of lesson. That's not the role of the DM in my view.

 

[Burnside]

It might. I still wouldn't change it mid-game to teach my players some kind of lesson. That's not the role of the DM in my view.

But it is the DM's role to "remind players that bad assumptions have bad outcomes?"

You're splitting hairs there, in my opinion. I appreciate the desire not to be authoritarian, but at a certain point you can't really have it both ways.

I also definitely would not point my finger and say "I DID THIS TO TEACH YOU NOT TO METAGAME!"

I would just go ahead and let them murder the nice elf if they're so sure of themselves. Then if they say, "But she was a lich", I'd just say, "I have no idea why you people thought she was a lich."

(P.S. this is all academic. My players wouldn't do this.)