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

[Burnside]

So does that mean the second attack can be with fire?

Or do they need to make one regular attack, then one attack with something other than fire (punch it with their fist, for example), and then they can use fire?

What sort of performance is required to satisfy the other people at the table that you haven't metagamed?

Maybe everybody should roll a d8, and whatever number they get, on that round they can use fire?

You're describing a grotesque situation but I can assure you that at my table it works perfectly well and is fun and smooth. I have no idea why this seems to bother you so much.

 

[Blue]

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.

You have missed the critical distiction. It may be possible for the player not to act on that information. However, what we are talking about is the character acting on that information. A character not using fire/acid on a troll because they don't know it will stop the regeneration and a character not using fire/acid on a troll because the player decided their character doesn't know that - in both cases the character is not acting, including in the negative, on that information.

That's why your second example is polite, because you can play your character and not ruin a module for others because of your player choice of inaction.

 

[Burnside]

So what your feedback loop (or social contract) does is, effectively, take some amount of reasonable action declarations in context off the table until someone basically asks questions that likely result in an ability check at which point they may or may not be able to put those action declarations back on the table, depending on the result of said check. If the ability check is failed, then they have the option to play at experimentation for an undetermined amount of time before the gated action declarations are judged as acceptable. Or as @Charlaquin mentions, they can play at ignorance.

Do I have that right?

Again, and I feel like I've said this ad naseum so I'll give up after this, but give me credit for not creating an encounter wherein passing or failing a skill check is the ONLY way the characters can succeed or learn about the successful tactic.

 

[Charlaquin]

If the DM is running a prepublished adventure, it may well be because they are not in a situation where they have the time to be able to run their own plot, or even just make significant changes to the plot. Hence why I think that level of metagaming would be regarded as at least, rude.

In such a scenario, I think it would be appropriate to establish as part of the social contract of the game that players not act on any prior knowledge about the module, without first taking steps in-character to establish how the character might have access to such knowledge. And if that is an established part of the social contract, it would certainly be rude to violate it.

Trust the players to put themselves in their character's shoes when it comes to deciding what their characters will do. There is no magic number of rounds required to show good faith, and if nothing else, there are knowledge checks.

(The only time I've actually been in that situation in 5e, we ended up having to kill the trolls without fire or acid, simply because we didn't have immediate access to any.)

Ok, but if trust in the character is the only metric by which you’re determining whether or not the player has put themselves in the character’s shoes, then deciding to try fire first should be permissible, on the grounds that you trust the player to have arrived at that decision by putting themselves in the character’s shoes. If you feel that would not be an appropriate action for the character to take, there must be an unspoken criteria beyond trust.

 

[Yardiff]

For the troll thing, If you fail a knowledge check on trolls and no one has acid or fire to use, you beat the troll down tie it up and get the falk out of there to reseach/gather information about trolls for next time.

 

[Blue]

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.

By "any" encounter, if you mean "any encounter where the foes seem to be swiftly regenerating", then fire, silver, and various magic damage types get tried rather quickly.

If by "any" you mean "change working battle tactics to something else for no observed reason", then not too much, except in the case you have caster who throws it out as the most common low level damage type. So still a good deal.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Excellent idea!

So, if the player immediately uses fire on the troll, do you trust they have done that? Or do you suspect them of metagaming?

Unless fire isn't something they use regularly or have access to, I have no issues and just carry on.

If it seems rather out of character or strange I'll give the player an option to explain their character's reasoning, both as an interesting addition to the story, and to head off potential ill-feeling among the other players.

 

[iserith]

Again, and I feel like I've said this ad naseum so I'll give up after this, but give me credit for not creating an encounter wherein passing or failing a skill check is the ONLY way the characters can succeed or learn about the successful tactic.

Sure, there's often more than one way to succeed. And it sounds like you telegraph some things, which is good.

But is what I described what happens at your table, albeit abstractly?

 

[Charlaquin]

Sorry, I was not intentionally avoiding the question.

A) Within a round or two, somebody hit it with a fire bolt or acid splash (I don't remember which). I was pretty confident that was going to happen, because it was the go-to attack cantrip for that character and they used it in most fights. Once that happened, I described the effect accordingly and had the troll react in the way you termed "telegraphing" the effectiveness of the attack.

B) If somebody had hit it with, say fire bolt in the first round at the top of initiative, I would have described the troll freaking out as above. Other players would likely have hit it with other stuff, and I would have described how that was less effective or how the troll was regenerating. I would then expect the characters to assemble the context clues and figure out that the fire was good.

Thank you for the direct answer that helps me understand where you’re coming from, and seems like a perfectly reasonable way to run it if that’s what you and your players enjoy. Personally I wouldn’t care for that, but like you said, different strokes.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

1. Do you think I did anything wrong and how am I supposed to play this? I can't like forget that she is an evil lich.

2. What do you think of our strategy to eliminate her?

Yes. You made a mistake.
You should have raised an eyebrow at the DM. Then said..."Really?..." in a quizzical tone. Then said "I think I know who she is....what's the chance my character might know?". That leaves it up to the DM to decide if you can use your player knowledge.

But your BIG mistake? Was acting on that knowledge. See below...

If I was the DM...I'd have her be just an elf who wanted some help and companions to join. Maybe she read the name in some books as a child and always liked that name...so she became and adventurer and started using it. Maybe she got 'free stuff' from people who though she was the 'real' one...and she stuck with it. Her family might be really powerful in elven society, or maybe she is actually named after her "auntie Valindra"...

Then, if the Players use that supposedly "player knowledge" and just assassinate her one night when she isn't looking...well... lets just say that the phrase "...you really stepped in it now!" comes to mind. The "real" Valindra finds out that some adventurers just up and cold-bloodedly-murdered her little, innocent, naïve niece and she's none to happy about it! LOL! Well...if the PC's thought they had a potential enemy in the group, well, now they DO have an enemy...but now they have no idea when or how said new lich-enemy-chick will strike at them for revenge!

In short...I'd make you and everyone who participated in your plan suffer the consequences of using Player knowledge.

Don't do it again.... or do. Your choice...

^_^

Paul L. Ming