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

[Guest 6801328]

The better idea is pretty much what you don't want to: forget she is an evil lich.

But one can't actually forget that. You can only pretend to forget that. And that drives the fundamental difference in playstyle.

I'm currently in a game where we are running an official module that I've run before, which is the one situation where I do agree that you shouldn't use player knowledge. I don't want to spoil things for the rest of the table, so I'm keeping my mouth shut. And it's spoiling a good chunk of the fun. I don't get to participate in the problem solving or decision making, and when I know the rest of the group is making a bad decision I just have to sit there and bite my tongue.

Basically I'm acting like my character, but I don't feel like my character. Which is what you are asking the OP to do.

On the other hand, in a minute you could come up with 100 different reasons his character might recognize that name. If he just runs with that and tells the other players she's a lich, he may spoil the DMs (ill-conceived) plans, but now everybody at the table gets to keep feeling like their characters. "Crap! There's a lich in the party! What do we do?"

I don't think there's a right way versus a wrong way here. I've played both ways and both ways are fun. But overall I prefer not having to pretend to not know things, and with the one exception of not spoiling surprises for others, I don't think there's really anything to be gained by feigned ignorance.

 

[jasper]

Perhaps this is where we differ. For me, the presence of corner cases, means that a system doesn't function properly and should be rebuilt from the ground up.

....

Dude I been playing for 40 years, no system is perfect. I been programming for 27+ year no system every function totally perfect when humans are evolved and I not talking about people just fat fingering data into the system.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Dude I been playing for 40 years, no system is perfect. I been programming for 27+ year no system every function totally perfect when humans are evolved and I not talking about people just fat fingering data into the system.

Of course no system is perfect. They all require rebuilding all the time.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Maybe I should start a new thread with this, but the following occurs to me:

There are a few topics that keep reappearing, and on each topic the same people appear on both sides:

1. Player knowledge (a.k.a. "metagaming")
2. Knowledge checks. EDIT: And also Perception and Insight checks.
3. Players making ability checks rather than declaring narrative actions, and how to resolve outcomes

I might also add:

1. The role of backstory, and whether it's ok to make up backstory on the fly to suit the player's purpose.
2. Whether in-game reality exists independently of the heroes, or if nothing is real until the heroes experience it.

Those topics often end up with the same arguments. One is "player skill" vs. "character skill" (which is then countered with "player skill vs. character-creation skill"). One is about "acting like your character would". It also usually devolves into debates about the definition of roleplaying.

I (and I'm guessing others on my "side") have played the way where I don't use player knowledge, I make some kind of skill check to see if I know things, and I declare actions in the context of a list of skills. When I "roleplay" this way, I'm trying to do what my character "would" do, and sometimes letting the dice tell me what that is. ("Oh? I failed my knowledge check? I guess I don't know <insert fact>. Ok, I'll pretend that."). I've done that. Lots.

I'm not here to tell anybody that this way of playing D&D is wrong. I'm here to excitedly share that I've been playing a new way...thanks largely to the evangelism of a tiny handful of posters here...and it's amazingly fun. The old way now feels (to me) more like my character is a marionette I'm controlling with strings, and the new way feels like I am my character. Also, games are faster and more fluid, I think because everybody just does what they want to without stopping to check if they're allowed to. It turns out that stuff was getting in the way of the game, and I didn't even realize it.

And, as @iserith often shows with citations from the PHB and DMG, we're not just renegades making up house rules. WotC is leaning this way, too, after 40 years of doing it the old way.

 

[iserith]

And, as @iserith often shows with citations from the PHB and DMG, we're not just renegades making up house rules. WotC is leaning this way, too, after 40 years of doing it the old way.

And maybe D&D 6e will take a dim view on "metagaming" because surveys reveal AD&D 2e nostalgia is at an all-time high or whatever. But that's just not how D&D 4e and 5e handle it and so that approach had to be purged from my games.

 

[Cadence]

I'm currently in a game where we are running an official module that I've run before, which is the one situation where I do agree that you shouldn't use player knowledge. I don't want to spoil things for the rest of the table, so I'm keeping my mouth shut. And it's spoiling a good chunk of the fun. I don't get to participate in the problem solving or decision making, and when I know the rest of the group is making a bad decision I just have to sit there and bite my tongue.

I can imagine trying to ignore one fact... but ignoring an entire modules worth? Ouch.

Is there any way for that to work well (a module you know everything about, especially if the others don't) if the DM hasn't switched a lot of things up, no matter how it's played?

 

[Mort]

I can imagine trying to ignore one fact... but ignoring an entire modules worth? Ouch.

Is there any way for that to work well (a module you know everything about, especially if the others don't) if the DM hasn't switched a lot of things up, no matter how it's played?

At that point, IMO the best option would be to make the knowledgeable player a co DM (if there are enough players). Have them run NPCs and monsters, maybe some other duties. Could be fun.

 

[MikalC]

Happens all the time in real life. I've met people at bars, parties, work, etc that I could tell were sketchy and knew enough to keep my distance or just came right out and told them to stay away from me or Im gonna kick their ass. So I think the "I've got a bad feeling based on nothing more than intuition is definitely plausible.

if only there was some sort of skill that helps with this sort of thing. Maybe something that provides insight into someone’s intentions. Hmm

 

[Guest 6801328]

I can imagine trying to ignore one fact... but ignoring an entire modules worth? Ouch.

Bizarrely, there have been posters here who claim that they can happily re-run the same module, with the same group of people, and have a lot of fun. Apparently because they're "so good at roleplaying" that they can easily separate player/character knowledge.

 

[MikalC]

If I were the DM, I would reward the player's knowledge and move on. No problem.

so if the player reads the entire module and uses it to bypass bad things and go for the good stuff only do you reward them there too?