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

[MikalC]

Sweet! I'll write a little app that does that for me, and will go get pizza while the app tells you what my character does. That way we get to play D&D and eat pizza! It's a win-win.

EDIT: I just realized that @MikalC must be reading their way through the thread, replying to posts as they read them, and is still several pages behind so hasn't seen any of my responses.

nope. I’m caught up. I just disagree with what you’re saying.
And Don’t worry- if you had an attitude at that at my table where you couldn’t handle your pc somehow not knowing everything you know as a player and came out with “guess I’ll make an app and go get a pizza?”
You can just tell that delivery driver to send it to your house cause you’re no longer playing in that days session.

if You can’t handle the slightest adjudication to help you differentiate between in character and out of character knowledge, you aren’t welcome at my table.

Is one of the list, "I dont like playing with player "x" anymore, theres the door, dont come back"?

Surprisingly enough that IS what 90-100 is on the table yes.

I guess that’s at least a clear and consistent rule. It certainly doesn’t look like a rule I would enjoy playing under. In fact it looks like exactly the kind of thing I decided to stop worrying about metagaming in order to avoid.

I don’t see it as worrying about metagaming. I see it as using the pc abilities to overcome a challenge, not a players abilities.

also note that I would use that only if other in character options have been exhausted (knowledge checks, class abilities, potential background items)

just like I don’t make players lift stuff or try and pin me for strength checks and grapples, I make an effort to reward them for spending resources for their character in ways that make sense in world. I build towards verisimilitude in my games, and out of character knowledge being acted on is one of the top five ways of killing that.

i expect my players to not break the social contract and do so, and in accordance i make the effort to reward proper in game ability.

which is also why I completely eschew things like riddle trap— there’s no way whatsoever to adjudicate that with in character knowledge only.

 

[iserith]

by... realizing that this is a game and stuff needs to be adjudicated by the DM? I mean if you’re incapable of realizing doing that helps keep in chara character more than “pc mystically knows all the player does about anything”, wow. Just...wow.

Having a sidebar with the DM is not, in fact, staying in-character. It is stepping out of character to have a clarifying conversation in the metagame. It is not roleplaying.

By contrast, making an action declaration by way of active or descriptive roleplaying to recall lore or make deductions is staying in character. Those action declarations do not cover what the character knows, but rather what the character can recall or deduce.

"Knowledge checks" come from other games, not this one. A DM can only adjudicate an action. A question about what the character knows is not an action. What the character knows about the current situation is provided in the DM's description of the environment and can be refined as the scene unfolds, particularly as the character attempts to recall lore, make deductions, or otherwise takes action that uncovers new information. Those tasks may be resolved with ability checks, if there's an uncertain outcome to the task and a meaningful consequence for failure.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I can see that, provided the module is sufficiently dynamic and the players play different characters and make different choices. The card reading element in various adaptations of Ravenloft, for instance, are specifically meant to increase the module’s replayability.

 

[iserith]

hey look-one of the single most used sentences said by players to defend their jerkish and disruptive behaviors.

I have a special table I roll when players think that lets them get away with stuff like metagaming, pvp, and other things that break the social contract we agreed to at the start of the campaign.

Your social contract doesn't apply to anyone else's game.

Further, I would expect all players regardless of their knowledge of the adventure to "bypass bad things and go for the good stuff only." That is smart play. It's how adventurers stay alive and maximize their XP and treasure. So in terms of goal and outcome, what's the difference between someone who knows the adventure and someone who doesn't, except that the former might be slightly more effective?

 

[iserith]

I run one-shots quite frequently with pickup groups, on average 3 per month. Lots of players frequently sign up to play in my adventures multiple times. Sometimes I let them do so, if I am short on people who haven't played it. Sometimes a group who has played it before will stick together and have a second or third go at it.

My adventures often include a number of randomized elements which make them more replayable, but static things like traps, hazards, secret doors, or monsters keyed to specific locations all remain the same. I do exactly nothing to admonish these players to keep their inside knowledge to themselves, except for my table rules which remind them about taking steps to avoid bad assumptions. Sometimes they use their knowledge. Sometimes they don't. It has had zero meaningful impact on the game experience. I would suggest that if an adventure is somehow ruined by players knowing some of its details, then that adventure scenario really needs some work.

 

[MikalC]

Your social contract doesn't apply to anyone else's game.

So? If we’re talking universal truths here everything you’ve said up to this point is equally invalid. If you want to go that route feel free to ignore what I say from now on and I’ll happily do the same for you.

Further, I would expect all players regardless of their knowledge of the adventure to "bypass bad things and go for the good stuff only." That is smart play. It's how adventurers stay alive and maximize their XP and treasure. So in terms of goal and outcome, what's the difference between someone who knows the adventure and someone who doesn't, except that the former might be slightly more effective?

Got it. You’re cool with your players cheating. understood.

Having a sidebar with the DM is not, in fact, staying in-character. It is stepping out of character to have a clarifying conversation in the metagame. It is not roleplaying.

yet allowing your cormyrian fighter who’s never even met a lich, is barely literate, and doesn’t know the first thing about elves know everything about this one just by her name is role playing. Yeah. Sure.

"Knowledge checks" come from other games, not this one. A DM can only adjudicate an action. A question about what the character knows is not an action. What the character knows about the current situation is provided in the DM's description of the environment and can be refined as the scene unfolds, particularly as the character attempts to recall lore, make deductions, or otherwise takes action that uncovers new information. Those tasks may be resolved with ability checks, if there's an uncertain outcome to the task and a meaningful consequence for failure.

Wrong.

5e SRD:History Skill - D&D Wiki

www.dandwiki.com

5e SRD:Arcana Skill - D&D Wiki

www.dandwiki.com

5e SRD:Nature Skill - D&D Wiki

www.dandwiki.com

5e SRD:Religion Skill - D&D Wiki

www.dandwiki.com

Hey look kids! Knowledge checks!

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well, yes. People play D&D in different ways, and have fun doing so.
It is possible to accept that without feeling the need to mock them.

Yes, I am mocking them. But not for their playstyle preferences. Rather for their haughty attitude that they are roleplaying and the rest of us are not.

I believe he was talking about Insight as a character ability, which would provide further information regarding the environment that their character was in in order to enable better roleplaying of their character.

I'm not quite sure where you got the "dice tell you how to roleplay". Do you mean like roleplaying your character having different responses if they had just been defeated in a combat compared to if they had won it? Do you regard that as purely mechanical and utterly devoid of meaning?

No. But if combat were resolved with a single die roll (or a single opposed roll) I would probably feel differently. "I attack the orc!" "Ok, make a combat check. Sorry, he kills you."

But combat is complex enough, and dice are (mostly?) used only to resolve uncertainty, that player decisions...and even player knowledge (for example, about the math behind the game)...factor heavily in the outcome.

Imagine if you wanted to move into a position that would prevent a monster from getting to your wizard without drawing an opportunity attack, and the DM said, "Let's see an Int roll. No, sorry, you actually move to this other square." And you were required to roleplay this as if it's what you wanted to do.

Or, once you were in that position, you decide to take the Dodge action: "Let's see if your character thinks that's a good idea..."

If you want to compare/contrast combat and knowledge checks, that's how I would make them both apples (or oranges, take your pick.)

 

[MikalC]

Yes, I am mocking them. But not for their playstyle preferences. Rather for their haughty attitude that they are roleplaying and the rest of us are not.



No. But if combat were resolved with a single die roll (or a single opposed roll) I would probably feel differently. "I attack the orc!" "Ok, make a combat check. Sorry, he kills you."

But combat is complex enough, and dice are (mostly?) used only to resolve uncertainty, that player decisions...and even player knowledge (for example, about the math behind the game)...factor heavily in the outcome.

Imagine if you wanted to move into a position that would prevent a monster from getting to your wizard without drawing an opportunity attack, and the DM said, "Let's see an Int roll. No, sorry, you actually move to this other square." And you were required to roleplay this as if it's what you wanted to do.

Or, once you were in that position, you decide to take the Dodge action: "Let's see if your character thinks that's a good idea..."

If you want to compare/contrast combat and knowledge checks, that's how I would make them both apples (or oranges, take your pick.)

The difference here is that in combat you know you’re fighting an enemy and you know dodging helps you to not be hit.

insight is used to tell whether or not someone knows something hidden.

a better comparison is using perception to break stealth on a hiding enemy trying to sneak attack you.

Your pc is not you. You aren’t your pc. If you want to actually use your skills for your pc then sure. I’ll get my weights out of my home gym. Have fun making those strength checks. And you better hope you’re good enough with words as a player to convince those guards you’re not trying to break in and steal the royal jewels. You, not your character. Don’t bother to roll, after all we’re using your abilities and knowledge, not your pc.

 

[Cadence]

Your social contract doesn't apply to anyone else's game.

Amen.

Further, I would expect all players regardless of their knowledge of the adventure to "bypass bad things and go for the good stuff only." That is smart play. It's how adventurers stay alive and maximize their XP and treasure.

It feels like there are lots of character goals and personality drivers that don't necessarily help staying alive or maximize XP and treasure. I had a character fall in to essentially adopting a child at one point because there was no other way I saw of effectively dealing with the situation. I don't think it helped us stay alive, and it was kind of anti-treasure in the sense of the expenditures involved to care for them while the party was dungeon crawling. I can imagine a character with a particular hatred deciding to wipe out a room of something dangerous with little treasure, even if it doesn't advance the goal.

My adventures often include a number of randomized elements which make them more replayable, but static things like traps, hazards, secret doors, or monsters keyed to specific locations all remain the same. I do exactly nothing to admonish these players to keep their inside knowledge to themselves, except for my table rules which remind them about taking steps to avoid bad assumptions. Sometimes they use their knowledge. Sometimes they don't. It has had zero meaningful impact on the game experience. I would suggest that if an adventure is somehow ruined by players knowing some of its details, then that adventure scenario really needs some work.

Does this imply that handing the players a map with all the traps, hazards, secret doors, and monsters keyed to specific locations at the beginning of every adventure shouldn't change anything meaningfully for an adventure scenario that (you think) is well designed?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

No. But if combat were resolved with a single die roll (or a single opposed roll) I would probably feel differently. "I attack the orc!" "Ok, make a combat check. Sorry, he kills you."

But combat is complex enough, and dice are (mostly?) used only to resolve uncertainty, that player decisions...and even player knowledge (for example, about the math behind the game)...factor heavily in the outcome.

Imagine if you wanted to move into a position that would prevent a monster from getting to your wizard without drawing an opportunity attack, and the DM said, "Let's see an Int roll. No, sorry, you actually move to this other square." And you were required to roleplay this as if it's what you wanted to do.

Or, once you were in that position, you decide to take the Dodge action: "Let's see if your character thinks that's a good idea..."

Just to clarify, because I've not spotted it: Where does this example come from? Has anyone said that as DM they would dictate the actions of a character outside the normal procedure based on results of knowledge checks or similar?

If you want to compare/contrast combat and knowledge checks, that's how I would make them both apples (or oranges, take your pick.)

Make is perception checks if combat is too complex: Would you allow whether your character sees something (based on the results of a perception check) to affect their actions?