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

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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.

Hence why different tables play differently.

 

[iserith]

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.

No, I mean literally telling the players before the game that they can draw upon their player skill and knowledge, but the risk is that something's been changed. For example, this from my table rules document:

"Metagame, but Verify. We will never question the reason for another player's choices for his or her character as long as it achieves the goals of play. Use your player skill and knowledge to succeed, but be aware that assumptions can be risky so it's skillful play to verify your assumptions through action before making choices based on them. Monsters and lore may be frequently modified from what you may expect."

 

[Burnside]

No, I mean literally telling the players before the game that they can draw upon their player skill and knowledge, but the risk is that something's been changed. For example, this from my table rules document:

"Metagame, but Verify. We will never question the reason for another player's choices for his or her character as long as it achieves the goals of play. Use your player skill and knowledge to succeed, but be aware that assumptions can be risky so it's skillful play to verify your assumptions through action before making choices based on them. Monsters and lore may be frequently modified from what you may expect."

I buy this. Because again, if this is something everybody at the table agrees to and enjoys, then of course. It just isn't the way I would do it. And part of the reason is definitely because (especially these days) I run a TON of games for a TON of players and I often don't have the prep time to modify monsters and lore.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

The DM certainly isn’t obligated to change things to discourage metagaming. But it’s generally a good practice if metagaming is something said DM wants to discourage.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

How do you determine how much trial and error is needed before it’s appropriate for the players to “try” fire or acid? What if that happened to be the first thing a character “tried”? That’s the thing about “separating player knowledge and character knowledge.” What you’re really doing is acting on player knowledge in order to create a facsimile of a character who lacks that knowledge.

 

[iserith]

I buy this. Because again, if this is something everybody at the table agrees to and enjoys, then of course. It just isn't the way I would do it. And part of the reason is definitely because (especially these days) I run a TON of games for a TON of players and I often don't have the prep time to modify monsters and lore.

Here's the thing though: You don't actually have to change them often. I very rarely do. But I do from time to time, telegraphing whatever changes are important to note. That plus the reminder in my table rules is enough in my view. (And notably I change them because it fits my challenge in some way, not because I'm trying to discourage "metagaming." It just so happens that it does.)

 

[Marandahir]

If you somehow said "she's a lich!" in-character, that will have to be your new nervous tick throughout the campaign.

If she weights the same as a puck…

She's a lich!


In all seriousness, this is easily rectifiable.

maybe your character is rightfully afeared that any and everyone you come into encounter with in Chuult is actually undead? This is a place rotting with the stench of undead in a lot of places, after all.

Maybe this is a new concern the character's come upon, and the rest of the party hasn't realised your fears yet, and took you at face value. Maybe you'll even reveal that she is a Lich by accident, and you can say, "I knew it! Even though I was just wild mass guessing!" Or maybe you're right this time, but you'll cry wolf next time, and the party will get into trouble because of it.

 

[Campbell]

In general if your scenario design requires keeping players in the dark it is a poor design.

 

[Hriston]

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).

And the problem with a story in which the good guys are on a collision course with a powerful evil is what exactly?

 

[Hriston]

That table will never know.

You could say the same thing about the other table.