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

[billd91]

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

Nothing, per se, but a lot if they can't figure out how to get out of the immediate situation without getting themselves cacked. A little more in-character ignorance might have led to a more timely (and dramatic) reveal. At this point, the DM might be better off doubling-down on revealing information and give the players a better assessment of their chances or of the lich's formidability in order to give them a chance to make a better, long-term choice.

 

[Burnside]

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.

I feel that's an in-game solution to and out-of-game issue. I'd prefer to just say "Please don't do that; I just don't have the prep time right now to work around your metagaming."

 

[Burnside]

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.

Sure. Or to put it another way, we're letting the characters learn that fire kills it.

 

[Burnside]

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

I agree with that. The design of this scenario has issues.

 

[Charlaquin]

I feel that's an in-game solution to and out-of-game issue. I'd prefer to just say "Please don't do that; I just don't have the prep time right now to work around your metagaming."

See, I don’t see it as an issue at all. Players should be able to have their characters take any action, for any reason. If their reason includes some out-of-character knowledge, I don’t see that as a problem. Except in that it is a risk for them to assume that knowledge is accurate in this instance without taking steps to confirm its accuracy. But that’s fine, people take dumb risks based on unfounded assumptions all the time.

 

[Blue]

I disagree. If I know trolls can only be killed by fire and acid, I get four choices:

1) Use fire and acid because my character thinks it might work.
2) Use fire and acid even though my character wouldn't know to use it.
3) Use fire and acid because my character would know to use it.
4) Don't use fire or acid because my character don't know what.
5) Don't use fire or acid because I think my character wouldn't know what.

Personally, I don't think anyone can differentiate between 1 and 2 or 1 and 3.

How does someone who's already read the MM meaningfully arrive at option 1?

"Hey DM, their wounds keep closing. Has my character ever heard of something that will stop that?"

Then, if there's no uncertainty (common knowledge or no one knows) the DM responds, or if there is uncertainty they call for a check.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure. Or to put it another way, we're letting the characters learn that fire kills it.

You didn’t answer the question though. How much “trial and error” do the players have to engage in before it’s appropriate for them to “try” using fire or acid? How do you make that determination? What if fire or acid just happens to be the first thing they “try”?

 

[Burnside]

See, I don’t see it as an issue at all. Players should be able to have their characters take any action, for any reason. If their reason includes some out-of-character knowledge, I don’t see that as a problem. Except in that it is a risk for them to assume that knowledge is accurate in this instance without taking steps to confirm its accuracy. But that’s fine, people take dumb risks based on unfounded assumptions all the time.

Different strokes.

 

[Burnside]

You didn’t answer the question though. How much “trial and error” do the players have to engage in before it’s appropriate for them to “try” using fire or acid? How do you make that determination? What if fire or acid just happens to be the first thing they “try”?

In this specific example? How long does it usually take for somebody in even a low-level 5E party to make some sort of fire attack, in ANY combat encounter?

Again, I'm not putting a party in this situation if they have no viable solution at hand.

 

[Charlaquin]

Different strokes.

Oh, for sure! Just sharing my preferences, not trying to judge anyone else for theirs.