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

[hawkeyefan]

except it’s not because rpgs have these things called rules, ya see.

but hey, thanks for contributing nothing to the discussion

It’s all a matter of play preference. What you consider “cheating” isn’t considered that by others. So telling people that they allow cheating in their game is kind of rude. And also is factually incorrect as I don’t believe that you’ll find anything in 5e that says this is cheating.

Having said that, in looking at the two approaches and how they’d apply to the scenario in the OP....

In one, the DM simply lets it stand. They ask the player how the PC knows this, and then incorporates this into play. Play then proceeds with the party being on guard around this NPC.

In another, the DM tells the players to disregard what they know. Their characters do not know. Perhaps this is determined by checks of some sort, but if those checks fail, then NO ONE KNOWS THE THING WE ALL KNOW. Play proceeds with everyone pretending to not know she’s a possible enemy with an ulterior motive. And everyone must act surprised if she reveals her true colors.

They’re both approaches to play, and different groups will have different preferences. For me, the second option sounds distracting and frustrating and for very little, if any, benefit. Any kind of twist with a NPC revealing their true colors loses any impact if the players are already aware of the twist. So it just seems better to allow the knowledge to happen rather than bog down play out of some misguided attempt to avoid “cheating”.

 

[jasper]

The game in which you pretend to be an elf is magic tea party.

Lies lies lies
It is a magic COFFEE party. And Coffee is the life of the party.

 

[Bawylie]

except it’s not because rpgs have these things called rules, ya see.

but hey, thanks for contributing nothing to the discussion

Tea parties have all sorts of rules. If you mess one up, your school-age daughter or your grandmother will absolutely let you know.

Social norms like that vary from table to table, and some govern seating and serving order, and some govern time and host rotation, and some govern topics of discussion.

Just like D&D. The group’s rules are sovereign over the game rules (the developers and writers say so, and often). So a group that has a “wall of separation” between player and character knowledge is every bit as valid as a group that believes that wall is counterproductive.

You can call it cheating. I won’t disagree if that’s how your table plays. At mine, we won’t waste time pretending we don’t know that fire works on trolls until our characters learn that. It’s not fun and it wastes time (and I hate wasting valuable game time on things that aren’t fun).

Aside from that. Does the “wall of separation” even work? In court, sometimes a judge will order a jury to “disregard” some statement by a witness or lawyer. Basically, it’s an order to forget that something was said. Does anyone ever forget it? Does anyone really Not Consider it?

If OP’s DM had said to the other players, “that’s player knowledge, but not character knowledge. Please ignore that statement and carry on as if you never heard it,” would the players truly be able to ignore the idea that the adventurers are within 5 feet of incredibly powerful evil? Or would they be hyper vigilant against any slipping? Why wouldn’t it be, as MikalC suggests, a flurry of insight checks? And if it would be a flurry of insight checks until the adventurers could “ratify” the OOC knowledge, then isn’t that just procedure? What meaningful change happened in the game? And if the outcome is sure - that is, the adventurers will definitely throw dice until the characters know the NPC is a lich, if that’s sure and not in any doubt, why bother rolling? They’re taking 20 on insight (to use an old rule). They’ll get it. Do we need to sit here until a 20 shows up?

Edit - ninja’d by Hawkeye

 

[Cadence]

The only thing it would change is, perhaps, the effectiveness of the PCs in reducing the difficulty of the challenges. The pace may also be quicker. And if dice are involved, as they frequently are, there's no guarantee difficulty will be reduced or pace will quicken.

I'm curious what kind of traps and hazards they are such that knowing where they are, what they are, and how they can be thwarted wouldn't reduce the difficulty. I'm imaging some traps - say where there is a lever some of the dungeon denizens use to deactivate it that might have been discovered on a previous run, or a location where the bad consequences will hit can be avoided while disarming, or where having a head start when the boulder starts coming makes it less dangerous. In those cases it would feel very strange for the effectiveness and difficulty to not be changed a lot. (If you randomly changed details about the traps then that wouldn't matter). On the other hand, I can imagine a trap encounter that's more like an open locks check that explodes if you don't make your roll, where pre-knowledge and trying to be creative wouldn't affect the difficulty. But that seems kind of meh to me.

I'm not sure why dice being involved changes the difficulty class. Did you mean that success in overcoming them still isn't guaranteed so that it might not be any quicker?

Somewhat related, do you find that seeing a movie or reading a book for the first time with little foreknowledge is different than seeing or reading it for the second time in any important ways? Are you a read the spoiler first, avoid the spoiler, or don't care type?

Nope. Ability checks, which may or may not have a skill proficiency added to them, resolve tasks undertaken by the characters. Asking the DM a question in the metagame about what the character knows is not a task undertaken by the character and thus cannot be resolved with an ability check. It is not a player stating how the character is thinking, acting, or talking and is thus not roleplaying.

If the players description of the characters action is: "I am thinking back to the illustrations in the heraldry book I studied as an apprentice, and am trying to recall what family uses the one the knight has", would they get a knowledge check to see if they knew what family it was?

Then I change up lore or monsters from time to time to reinforce that incentive. I do this as opposed to setting up a social contract that requires players to engage in the metagame with the DM before they can determine which action declarations are valid and which ones are not.

Do you mostly run one-shots or stand-alone multi-session adventures, or do long-term world building campaign stuff?

 

[Burnside]

ITT: Both "sides" of this discussion assuming that players at the opposite "side's" tables will engage in the most annoying and exasperating behavior possible in order to illustrate how "right" they are, ignoring the fact that everybody seems pretty content with how their games are played.

 

[billd91]

If the players description of the characters action is: "I am thinking back to the illustrations in the heraldry book I studied as an apprentice, and am trying to recall what family uses the one the knight has", would they get a knowledge check to see if they knew what family it was?

One thing to keep in mind with these threads is that iserith is extremely pedantic about how he describes 5e gameplay. If you take the DM aside and ask if your PC would know about the lich and some of the events in the novel, then it's perfectly reasonable for him to have the player roll the intelligence (arcana or history) check even if there's no specific action being taken.

 

[Cadence]

It is a magic COFFEE party. And Coffee is the life of the party.

Are Coffee Stouts and Porters (the beers, not the halflings or the folks maybe represented by the teamsters) allowed at a Coffee party?

 

[Bawylie]

ITT: Both "sides" of this discussion assuming that players at the opposite "side's" tables will engage in the most annoying and exasperating behavior possible in order to illustrate how "right" they are, ignoring the fact that everybody seems pretty content with how their games are played.

Yeah sometimes.

I read this thing that said “Treat people like human beings and not political abstractions,” and good lord - I see myself doing it and then have to make conscious effort not to. Like, once I saw it happening, I couldn’t un-see it.

That seems to me to be strongly related to the OP. I got some clarifying knowledge and now I have to make sure I take it into account rather than ignoring it and pretending I never read it.

It’s very easy to assume everyone who isn’t me is a cardboard cut-out. But it’s wrong.

 

[iserith]

I'm curious what kind of traps and hazards they are such that knowing where they are, what they are, and how they can be thwarted wouldn't reduce the difficulty. I'm imaging some traps - say where there is a lever some of the dungeon denizens use to deactivate it that might have been discovered on a previous run, or a location where the bad consequences will hit can be avoided while disarming, or where having a head start when the boulder starts coming makes it less dangerous. In those cases it would feel very strange for the effectiveness and difficulty to not be changed a lot. (If you randomly changed details about the traps then that wouldn't matter). On the other hand, I can imagine a trap encounter that's more like an open locks check that explodes if you don't make your roll, where pre-knowledge and trying to be creative wouldn't affect the difficulty. But that seems kind of meh to me.

My statement was that foreknowledge can affect difficulty, but it depends on the design of the challenge. I don't think we need to get into any specific examples which tend to become a problem in discussions like these.

I'm not sure why dice being involved changes the difficulty class. Did you mean that success in overcoming them still isn't guaranteed so that it might not be any quicker?

To be clear, I'm not referring to "difficulty class." I'm referring to difficulty as in how hard or easy a given challenge is as a whole. Decisions by the players and DM plus luck affect difficulty. Foreknowledge can affect player decisions which can make the difficulty easier. Bad dice rolls, if there are any, can make difficulty harder.

Somewhat related, do you find that seeing a movie or reading a book for the first time with little foreknowledge is different than seeing or reading it for the second time in any important ways? Are you a read the spoiler first, avoid the spoiler, or don't care type?

I don't really care.

If the players description of the characters action is: "I am thinking back to the illustrations in the heraldry book I studied as an apprentice, and am trying to recall what family uses the one the knight has", would they get a knowledge check to see if they knew what family it was?

That is an action the DM can adjudicate as it contains an approach to a goal which the DM can judge. Like any other action declaration, it may or may not be resolved with ability check. It is an example of active roleplaying.

Do you mostly run one-shots or stand-alone multi-session adventures, or do long-term world building campaign stuff?

I run one campaign, play in two campaigns, and run 3 one-shots with pickup groups per month on average.

 

[Charlaquin]

Regarding that specifically - I do find that card reading makes the module more replayable for me a as a DM, running it for different groups. But it wouldn't make it sufficiently replayable for me as a player.

FWIW, I have never run through the same adventure twice as a player, and have never run an adventure as a DM for a player who has already played it.

Obviously preferences will vary from player to player. For me, if the random element is just for my benefit as DM running it for different groups, it’s not really necessary, and could potentially be improved by consciously choosing the best results for story reasons and sticking with those. Whereas, as a player I’d consider it a sufficient change to make a repeat playthrough fresh. That’s just me though, to each their own.