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

[Blue]

You're right on what Intelligence checks cover, but asking the DM what your character knows isn't an action the DM can adjudicate.

Yet that is a basic use of Intelligence checks, so the game system expects a DM to be able to adjudicate that.

 

[iserith]

I'm not Charlaquin, but I can answer for my table.

It sounds like it takes some unreasonable action declarations made without context off the table. The seems good. And "time" is not the only measure of experimentation, and there are other solutions as well (chopping them down and running away, pushing their remains off a cliff, etc.)

Lighting a torch at the outset and hitting the troll with it might be deemed unreasonable action declarations at some tables for certain characters, I imagine, even if it's a perfectly reasonable thing in context for any given person to attack a monster with fire.

 

[Blue]

Yeah, I find those kinds of questions very annoying. I'd much rather a player attempt to establish that type of resource through an action declaration. I'd probably turn the question around on the player and say, "That depends. What did you do during your week of downtime?" and then we could resolve the player's action. Now, if the party was going to take a week of downtime, I'd ask them what they're doing beforehand rather than do it as a flashback, but that's also a viable option.

I'm sorry that you find those questions annoying, that doesn't mean that they are wrong, just another valid way to play.

I disagree with your first sentence, though. The DM's job is to describe the environment and the results of the PCs' actions. What a PC knows is not part of the environment. If a player wants to establish that their character knows some piece of information, s/he's free to do so by deciding that's the case. If s/he wants to verify that the information is correct, however, then s/he needs to take some sort of action to do so, which can then be adjudicated. Then we're playing D&D, not 20 questions.

I just went through this elsewhere in the thread, but two of the four primary uses of an Intelligence check is education and memory. Therefore, the rules expect the player attemtping to find out what a character knows from the DM is common. The others are logic and deductive reasoning. Again, things that the rules expect the DM to be able to clarify for the players. And therefore most certainly part of a DM's job.

 

[iserith]

Yet that is a basic use of Intelligence checks, so the game system expects a DM to be able to adjudicate that.

Ability checks of any kind are used to adjudicate actions. Questions to the DM about what the character knows aren't actions. Questions to the DM aren't active or descriptive roleplaying either, meaning they aren't even a player playing a role in that moment. Which seems like an odd choice for anyone seeking to remain in-character and not have the metagame intrude on anyone's immersion to much. That approach doesn't seem in line with the goal to me.

 

[Blue]

Lighting a torch at the outset and hitting the troll with it might be deemed unreasonable action declarations at some tables for certain characters, I imagine, even if it's a perfectly reasonable thing in context for any given person to attack a monster with fire.

It feels like you think that disagrees with the point.

If every battle you attack with your bow, and suddenly this battle, at a table that has a social contract that precludes metagaming, you happen to change to wanting to light a torch and use it against a creature you haven't encountered before but just so happens to have aweakness to fire, then that is an unreasonable action to start with because it goes against the social contract.

Not all tables will have that social contract against metagaming/player knowledge. Then it's a reasonable action. Everyone have fun with their table.

 

[iserith]

It feels like you think that disagrees with the point.

If every battle you attack with your bow, and suddenly this battle, at a table that has a social contract that precludes metagaming, you happen to change to wanting to light a torch and use it against a creature you haven't encountered before but just so happens to have aweakness to fire, then that is an unreasonable action to start with because it goes against the social contract.

Not all tables will have that social contract against metagaming/player knowledge. Then it's a reasonable action. Everyone have fun with their table.

Sure. But, again, this approach to the game doesn't sound like a good fit for the desired goal. It requires a lot of thinking about and interacting in the metagame. At least more than in my game and I don't even care about "metagaming."

 

[Blue]

Ability checks of any kind are used to adjudicate actions. Questions to the DM about what the character knows aren't actions. Questions to the DM aren't active or descriptive roleplaying either, meaning they aren't even a player playing a role in that moment. Which seems like an odd choice for anyone seeking to remain in-character and not have the metagame intrude on anyone's immersion to much. That approach doesn't seem in line with the goal to me.

An action may need to ask clarification from a director or writer in order to better portray their character. That act of clarification happens at a game level as much as rolling dice does - it's part of the flow of the game. What's happening in the game isn't advancing or being changed by that.

 

[iserith]

An action may need to ask clarification from a director or writer in order to better portray their character. That act of clarification happens at a game level as much as rolling dice does - it's part of the flow of the game. What's happening in the game isn't advancing or being changed by that.

How does regularly breaking character to sidebar with the DM help a player's immersion? Why not simply be in the moment, engaged in active and/or descriptive roleplaying, declaring what actions you think are reasonable and fun in the context of the setting, leaving the DM to adjudicate?

 

[Blue]

Sure. But, again, this approach to the game doesn't sound like a good fit for the desired goal. It requires a lot of thinking about and interacting in the metagame. At least more than in my game and I don't even care about "metagaming."

I think we're using "metagame" in different ways. Interactring with the DM and the rules, rolling dice - none of that is "metagaming".

Also, ignorance that someone is metagaming because you aren't thinking about it is not lack of metagaming. From your previous descriptions where people bring in out-of-character knowledge, a classic example of metagaming, your game has huge amounts of metagaming. Just not caring about it so you don't count it does not make it less, just like lack of a pregnancy test keeps one from being pregnant.

 

[Blue]

How does regularly breaking character to sidebar with the DM help a player's immersion? Why not simply be in the moment, engaged in active and/or descriptive roleplaying, declaring what actions you think are reasonable and fun in the context of the setting, leaving the DM to adjudicate?

Now you're moving the goalposts from lack of metagaming to maintaining immersion. They can be related but they are different things.