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

[Blue]

To me, as a DM, it creates more work for a player to ask me what their character knows. I have the rest of the world to run. You run your character.

The DM is the interface between the world (including the characters) and the player. History, nature, arcana, religions are skills for a reason - the character lives int he world and experiences it, but the player does not. So there's a way to determine what the character knows that the DM has not yet shared with the player. Just like perception might share with the character that their character is getting pickpocketed - something else they wouldn't know without the DM.

Characters experience much more then the DM tells the player, ad sometime the player wants to draw on that knowledge. "Hey, we just spent a week of downtime in this city, have I come across a place I could buy healing potions?"

 

[iserith]

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.

Right. This sort of method really just sorts itself out the table in my experience. Players get to feel good about being able to use their hard-won skills and knowledge to be better at the game and they don't have to hold anything back if they don't want to. This is balanced out by an incentive in the form of (often resource-lite) risk mitigation which they can get by engaging with the environment. So, I know fire is good to use on trolls. But what about this troll? I'm going to need to roleplay to figure that out or accept the risk that I could be wrong. Possibly dead wrong.

 

[Campbell]

We have been through this song and dance before. If you know something that your character may or may not know it is impossible to not act on that information. Sometimes as in the case of playing through an adventure for the second time that no one else has played before the polite thing may be to play off of it or take a back seat. Still you are always going to be acting off that information. You cannot remove it from your head.

This may be my indie and OSR tendencies coming to surface, but I generally do not enjoy policing player behavior in this way. Of course I do not think the story can be ruined because we have to play to find out what it is.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

I don’t know. That’s not something I’ve ever needed to consider. You’re the one who said they’ve actually dealt with the troll situation in play before, how long did the players need to pretend to flail around before it was ok for them to use fire or acid? How did you decide it was an appropriate amount of time? What would you have done if one of the players had used fire or acid first (roleplaying that they were trying it at random).

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

I’m not accusing you of doing so, I am genuinely asking what your criteria is for determining whether or not the players have sufficiently role played ignorance.

 

[Burnside]

I don’t know. That’s not something I’ve ever needed to consider. You’re the one who said they’ve actually dealt with the troll situation in play before, how long did the players need to pretend to flail around before it was ok for them to use fire or acid? How did you decide it was an appropriate amount of time? What would you have done if one of the players had used fire or acid first (roleplaying that they were trying it at random).


I’m not accusing you of doing so, I am genuinely asking what your criteria is for determining whether or not the players have sufficiently role played ignorance.

I will generally settle for “not overtly metagaming.” As in, when the new player at the table is hitting the troll with crossbow bolts, the experienced players don’t tell them, apropos of nothing and out of character, to use fire or acid.

However, because my players generally share my same approach, it’s very unlikely to go down like that. Instead, somebody would probably say, “How much do I know about trolls?” and I’d call for a check.

You folks seem to assume I’m “policing” this stuff at my table, but the truth is the vast majority of my players wouldn’t metagame in the first place. They find it more fun to stay in character.

I would also meet them halfway by probably not using a troll unless a) there was in-game intelligence available on how to kill them or b) I knew at least one character was using, say, fire bolt as their go-to attack cantrip. I would then describe not only the effect the fire had on the troll but also have the troll react in a way that made it clear that the troll hated and feared the fire attack.

 

[iserith]

I will generally settle for “not overtly metagaming.” As in, when the new player at the table is hitting the troll with crossbow bolts, the experienced players don’t tell them, apropos of nothing and out of character, to use fire or acid.

However, because my players generally share my same approach, it’s very unlikely to go down like that. Instead, somebody would probably say, “How much do I know about trolls?” and I’d call for a check.

You folks seem to assume I’m “policing” this stuff at my table, but the truth is the vast majority of my players wouldn’t metagame in the first place. They find it more fun to stay in character.

I would also meet them halfway by probably not using a troll unless a) there was in-game intelligence available on how to kill them or b) I knew at least one character was using, say, fire bolt as their go-to attack cantrip. I would then describe not only the effect the fire had on the troll but also have the troll react in a way that made it clear that the troll hated and feared the fire attack.

How do you reconcile the goal of "staying in character" with the approach of players stopping to ask the DM what their characters know about trolls?

 

[Guest 6801328]

A DM who doesn't want to incentive "metagaming" is well-advised to do that from time to time.

Not only that, but I think it benefits the players who don't want to metagame. Personally I intensely dislike knowing something I'm not supposed to about a game, and having to both remember to not use it, and to find a way to pretend I don't. I would much, much, much rather actually not know. If I know my DM is always full of surprises, I don't have to worry about it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I will generally settle for “not overtly metagaming.” As in, when the new player at the table is hitting the troll with crossbow bolts, the experienced players don’t tell them, apropos of nothing and out of character, to use fire or acid.

But you haven’t given any criteria for what constitutes “not overtly metagaming.” How do you make a determination as to whether or not a player is overtly metagaming in this scenario? I’m not trying to trick you, I’m asking because I want to better understand your decision-making process.

However, because my players generally share my same approach, it’s very unlikely to go down like that. Instead, somebody would probably say, “How much do I know about trolls?” and I’d call for a check.

Ok, so let’s say that happens, but they fail the check. Say it’s a natural 1. Say everyone who attempts this check rolls a natural 1. At what point is it reasonable for these characters, who it has clearly been established do not know anything about trolls, to use an attack that does fire or acid damage against it? How do you make that determination?

You folks seem to assume I’m “policing” this stuff at my table,

I’m trying not to assume anything, that’s why I’m asking you what you would do.

but the truth is the vast majority of my players wouldn’t metagame in the first place. They find it more fun to stay in character.

That’s fine, what I’m trying to do is form an understanding of what you consider to be metagaming and how you determine what does or doesn’t constitute it.

I would also meet them halfway by probably not using a troll unless a) there was in-game intelligence available on how to kill them or b) I knew at least one character was using, say, fire bolt as their go-to attack cantrip. I would then describe not only the effect the fire had on the troll but also have the troll react in a way that made it clear that the troll hated and feared the fire attack.

That sounds like good use of telegraphing and description, I’m in favor of that and would agree it’s good practice.

 

[Burnside]

How do you reconcile the goal of "staying in character" with the approach of players stopping to ask the DM what their characters know about trolls?

Perhaps I should have phrased it as "maintaining a distinction between player behavior and character behavior" or "allowing the character to remain 'in character'".

That skill check is generally part of the feedback loop at my table.

 

[Burnside]

Ok, so let’s say that happens, but they fail the check. Say it’s a natural 1. Say everyone who attempts this check rolls a natural 1. At what point is it reasonable for these characters, who it has clearly been established do not know anything about trolls, to use an attack that does fire or acid damage against it? How do you make that determination?

I feel like I've answered that one by explaining that I wouldn't create an encounter where a no-option failure state would arise from failing skill checks with no other in-game resources or information at hand. However, knowledge skill checks could certainly HELP the players get there quicker.