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

[iserith]

Then I submit that saying that your approach on this is extremely pedantic isn't unkind, it's descriptive. You would pretty much know what the player is getting at, but it isn't following your highly prescribed role so it is unacceptable though I wager it would be considered acceptable at 90% of other tables. That is extremely pedantic.

I am not excessively concerned with minor details or rules. Ask me about a class feature or a spell and I'm likely going to have to look it up. I would submit that the respective roles of the DM and player aren't minor. They are fundamental to the workings of the game, outlined in a section called "How to Play." The game runs the smoothest when this is made a priority for the group in my experience.

 

[iserith]

It's not germane to the rest of the thread, but still has me befuddled.

So my bard who had a very bad attempt at picking a song the lord would like at the beginning of the challenge (rolled a 1), made the remainder of the challenge more difficult?

It depends on the structure of the challenge. Let's say in the context of a social interaction challenge your failed attempt at choosing a song for the lord might have changed his attitude from Indifferent to Hostile, which shuts down certain asks altogether and makes even minor ones a great deal harder to get.

Do you find that you do it more often since you changed your views on play? Do you do it more often in the non-campaign games?

[And thanks again for answering a bunch of my questions!]

Happy to answer questions. Since homebrewing this or that has pretty much been a part of my DMing since the beginning (and I surmise an expectation in most of the editions), I don't think my views have changed.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

That’s fair, but I think it also depends on how much of a factor the issue may be. How important is it to that specific scene, session, adventure, or campaign?

Taking the OP as an example, the NPC in question isn’t essential to the adventure. The PCs aren’t really required to interact with her in any way. So her secret agenda being revealed or not revealed isn’t likely to impact the overall game all that much, unless either the players or DM decides to run with it in some way.

Most likely, the interaction might really consist only of one scene. So overall, not a big deal. If I was asked to ignore the blurted secret for a scene, I can certainly manage.

But as an overall approach, it’s not my preference at all. That scene or session would not be nearly as enjoyable for me as one where the DM simply let the player’s knowledge be the character’s, figure out how this was known, and then see what happens.

It’s not so much that I’m assuming the worst as it is that general approach to play is not my preference. And the more that approach impacted play...not just a scene but a session....not just a session but an entire adventure or the whole campaign....the less likely I am to enjoy it.

 

[auburn2]

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.

So where do you draw the line line here? Do you roll an ability check to know that wizards cast spells or that clerics worship gods or fighters can use action surge or that gold is the currency in the city you are in? Do you need an ability check to know you can get food at a tavern and buy a room to sleep in at an inn and if you fail those checks does that mean you can't eat or sleep while you are in a city?

In the example I used my character has a background of cloistered scholar and he does not know who one of the most infamous historical personalities on the sword coast is?

 

[Guest 6801328]

So where do you draw the line line here? Do you roll an ability check to know that wizards cast spells or that clerics worship gods or fighters can use action surge or that gold is the currency in the city you are in? Do you need an ability check to know you can get food at a tavern and buy a room to sleep in at an inn and if you fail those checks does that mean you can't eat or sleep while you are in a city?

I'll be honest: I have no idea what this reply means, or what it has to do with my post.

I just finished saying that I no longer ascribe to the belief that players have to pretend to not know things. Given that, why on earth would I think you need to roll dice in any of those examples you gave?

In the example I used my character has a background of cloistered scholar and he does not know who one of the most infamous historical personalities on the sword coast is?

I'm not sure what this means, either.

But here's what I would say: regardless of background I bet you could think of a hundred reasons why your character would or would not (your choice!) have heard of this NPC. Therefore:
1) If you think it would be fun to pretend to not know who she is (maybe because you want the other people at the table to be surprised) go for it.
2) But if you don't want to, you shouldn't feel any pressure to.

If your DM simultaneously doesn't want players to use out-of-game knowledge and used an NPC straight out of best-selling novels, then...man, I just don't even know what to say. That's just crazy. That's just as dumb as using tall, green, warty monsters...and maybe even referring to them as "trolls"...and then expecting players to pretend they don't know to use fire.

I mean, FFS, how easy is it to rename Valindra to something else, or give trolls stocky builds and brown fur and then don't use the word "troll"?

As other posters, and the Angry DM, have said...metagaming "problems" (if you think they are problems) are 100% the doing of the DM.

 

[Burnside]

As other posters, and the Angry DM, have said...metagaming "problems" (if you think they are problems) are 100% the doing of the DM.

(In OP's case, the DM's mistake was not having read some dreadful, tangentially-related novel years earlier and consequently not realizing that an NPC in a pre-written adventure wasn't original to that adventure.)

I can understand that in your view there's no problem regardless, because metagaming isn't a problem at all. But if you DO see metagaming as a problem, it's hard to see how you pin this one on the DM and not the designer.

 

[Guest 6801328]

(In OP's case, the DM's mistake was not having read some dreadful, tangentially-related novel years earlier and consequently not realizing that an NPC in a pre-written adventure wasn't original to that adventure.)

I can understand that in your view there's no problem regardless, because metagaming isn't a problem at all. But if you DO see metagaming as a problem, it's hard to see how you pin this one on the DM and not the designer.

Perhaps that makes it a more understandable mistake, or an honest mistake, but if you're going to play in the Forgotten Realms you're going to have to accept that some players are going to know a lot of the lore. And then, once it happened, he should have been able to roll with it and adapt to the surprise turn of events.

I certainly don't think the player did anything wrong. He had a very human reaction to an unexpected surprise.

 

[Mort]

Perhaps that makes it a more understandable mistake, or an honest mistake, but if you're going to play in the Forgotten Realms you're going to have to accept that some players are going to know a lot of the lore. And then, once it happened, he should have been able to roll with it and adapt to the surprise turn of events.

I certainly don't think the player did anything wrong. He had a very human reaction to an unexpected surprise.

Right, you're in the Forgotten Realms, part of the fun is possibly recognizing one of the "famous" references. Frankly, I can see fans getting upset if a Module writer (for one of the biggies line this one) didn't include some kind of Easter egg.

As to the player doing anything wrong? I don't think so - at least not on the recognition. She's a possibly known entity the player /character recognized her, moving on.

Trying to plot and execute a plan to eliminate her? That doesn't seem like a smart move! I mean, they think she's a lich, which is WAY above their pay grade. The thought shouldn't be about eliminating her. It should be about avoiding /surviving the big bad litch lady!

 

[Burnside]

That’s fair, but I think it also depends on how much of a factor the issue may be. How important is it to that specific scene, session, adventure, or campaign?

Taking the OP as an example, the NPC in question isn’t essential to the adventure. The PCs aren’t really required to interact with her in any way. So her secret agenda being revealed or not revealed isn’t likely to impact the overall game all that much, unless either the players or DM decides to run with it in some way.

Most likely, the interaction might really consist only of one scene. So overall, not a big deal. If I was asked to ignore the blurted secret for a scene, I can certainly manage.

But as an overall approach, it’s not my preference at all. That scene or session would not be nearly as enjoyable for me as one where the DM simply let the player’s knowledge be the character’s, figure out how this was known, and then see what happens.

It’s not so much that I’m assuming the worst as it is that general approach to play is not my preference. And the more that approach impacted play...not just a scene but a session....not just a session but an entire adventure or the whole campaign....the less likely I am to enjoy it.

I generally agree that, particularly in this instance, it's far from a game-shattering event that that players and/or their characters now know which lich is lich. Equally, I don't think it would take an "impossible", mind-bending effort of will for the OP to have pretended he didn't for the relatively limited amount of table time it's likely to take for it to come out anyway.

 

[Charlaquin]

Right, you're in the Forgotten Realms, part of the fun is possibly recognizing one of the "famous" references. Frankly, I can see fans getting upset if a Module writer (for one of the biggies line this one) didn't include some kind of Easter egg.

Ugh, this is why I hate Forgotten Realms. The entire setting is like some giant in-joke. If you’re not in on it, you won’t get what people who are in on it are talking about, and if you try to joke about it yourself, it’ll inevitably land wrong.