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

[billd91]

I have to admit I'm really curious why @Flamestrike thinks it's fine for players to know about Balenorns but not about Valindra. Their post was the first time I've even heard of such a thing as Balenorns.

Potentially because baelnorns are a class of thing while Valindra is a specific member of a class. It's like knowing there is a class of vessels designated as cruisers, maybe even Ticonderoga class cruises, vs knowing the USS Valley Forge one of them when you are introduced to its name. There are some people who will recognize it, but that group is probably smaller than the ones who will have heard of Ticonderoga class cruisers, and that group will be smaller than the ones who are aware of what cruisers in general are.

 

[iserith]

I have to admit I'm really curious why @Flamestrike thinks it's fine for players to know about Balenorns but not about Valindra. Their post was the first time I've even heard of such a thing as Balenorns.

It sounds like they have two categories in mind, "things adventurers would know" and "things adventurers would not know". But how do they decide what goes into which bucket?

And is it possible that not every adventurer would have identical buckets?

The best way to look at this in my view is through the lens of this being an identity, not a playstyle. This approach is not supported in at least the last and current edition of the game. It's easy to change a playstyle - any kid can do it the second they switch from one board game with a set of rules to another board game with a different set of rules.

On the other hand, it's not so easy to change an identity that has been reinforced for years wherein those who don't identify with your group are "cheaters." Cheaters are by definition dishonest people, liars, sinners even. In effect, to the extent we are even asking, we're asking people with this identity to become dishonest people. Imagine going back to your group of 10 years and saying you don't think it's a sin anymore to establish what your own character thinks. That's going to be very hard, even if all we're talking about is a game of make-believe and dice.

When we point out how it's not supported by the game and is full of flaws and inconsistencies, and even offer concrete ways to make it so you don't have to worry about it, we often get an angry response which looks like cognitive dissonance to me, the same as when someone pokes holes in someone's religion. At best we get a "well, that's how we have fun so..." and that's fair enough! But if you want to know where the resistance and apparent anger comes from? I think it's because we're questioning an identity, not a playstyle. It explains a lot in my opinion and, of course and as always, they're welcome to their own identity if that is what makes them happy.

 

[Charlaquin]

The best way to look at this in my view is through the lens of this being an identity, not a playstyle. This approach is not supported in at least the last and current edition of the game. It's easy to change a playstyle - any kid can do it the second they switch from one board game with a set of rules to another board game with a different set of rules.

On the other hand, it's not so easy to change an identity that has been reinforced for years wherein those who don't identify with your group are "cheaters." Cheaters are by definition dishonest people, liars, sinners even. In effect, to the extent we are even asking, we're asking people with this identity to become dishonest people. Imagine going back to your group of 10 years and saying you don't think it's a sin anymore to establish what your own character thinks. That's going to be very hard, even if all we're talking about is a game of make-believe and dice.

When we point out how it's not supported by the game and is full of flaws and inconsistencies, and even offer concrete ways to make it so you don't have to worry about it, we often get an angry response which looks like cognitive dissonance to me, the same as when someone pokes holes in someone's religion. At best we get a "well, that's how we have fun so..." and that's fair enough! But if you want to know where the resistance and apparent anger comes from? I think it's because we're questioning an identity, not a playstyle. It explains a lot in my opinion and, of course and as always, they're welcome to their own identity if that is what makes them happy.

This model is consistent with my experience as a former anti-metagaming DM. I didn’t have any conscious reasoning behind my anti-metagaming stance, it was just a universally accepted truth of the game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Potentially because baelnorns are a class of thing while Valindra is a specific member of a class. It's like knowing there is a class of vessels designated as cruisers, maybe even Ticonderoga class cruises, vs knowing the USS Valley Forge one of them when you are introduced to its name. There are some people who will recognize it, but that group is probably smaller than the ones who will have heard of Ticonderoga class cruisers, and that group will be smaller than the ones who are aware of what cruisers in general are.

I find that to be a huge assumption, and probably a false one.

I'm sure there are lots and lots of people who, for one reason or another, know the names of individual navy vessels, but have only the vaguest notions, and probably outdated notions at that, of what the different types (classes) are.

For example, I recently saw in the news that the "Bonhomme Richard" is burning off of San Diego. I know the articles I read told me what class that ship is, but now I don't remember. And yet the name sticks in my memory. And even if (when) it slips away, if I ever saw that name again I'm sure it would trigger the memory.

And I'd bet that's true across all kinds of domains. I can name a bunch of famous boxers, but I don't know what weight class they are in, and if asked I could only tell you a couple of those classes.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The best way to look at this in my view is through the lens of this being an identity, not a playstyle. This approach is not supported in at least the last and current edition of the game. It's easy to change a playstyle - any kid can do it the second they switch from one board game with a set of rules to another board game with a different set of rules.

On the other hand, it's not so easy to change an identity that has been reinforced for years wherein those who don't identify with your group are "cheaters." Cheaters are by definition dishonest people, liars, sinners even. In effect, to the extent we are even asking, we're asking people with this identity to become dishonest people. Imagine going back to your group of 10 years and saying you don't think it's a sin anymore to establish what your own character thinks. That's going to be very hard, even if all we're talking about is a game of make-believe and dice.

When we point out how it's not supported by the game and is full of flaws and inconsistencies, and even offer concrete ways to make it so you don't have to worry about it, we often get an angry response which looks like cognitive dissonance to me, the same as when someone pokes holes in someone's religion. At best we get a "well, that's how we have fun so..." and that's fair enough! But if you want to know where the resistance and apparent anger comes from? I think it's because we're questioning an identity, not a playstyle. It explains a lot in my opinion and, of course and as always, they're welcome to their own identity if that is what makes them happy.

I think this is spot on.

They are having an emotional reaction...a very human, understandable one...and when that happens the brain looks for ways to justify those emotions as rational and logical.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This model is consistent with my experience as a former anti-metagaming DM. I didn’t have any conscious reasoning behind my anti-metagaming stance, it was just a universally accepted truth of the game.

I think @Ovinomancer would concur. They were once adamantly on the other side of this debate.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think @Ovinomancer would concur. They were once adamantly on the other side of this debate.

I was never really adamant about it, but I accepted the other side pretty unquestioningly as The Way Things Are, and after being exposed to a different way of thinking for the first time I found it very jarring. Like, “what do you mean you don’t care about metagaming? It’s like the cardinal sin of RPGs!” But, after looking into it, a lot of the seemingly crazy things some of these DMs were saying did directly address problems I had always had with the game and not even really recognized were problems because I had figured that was just how the game was.

 

[iserith]

I don't recall if this was examined upthread, but if the OP told the other players in the game that his character thinks the NPC was a werewolf (or something other than a lich), is that "metagaming?" Or is it only "metagaming" if the player has his or her character make a correct assertion? What if I have my character say that troll's regeneration is shut down by necrotic damage? Would that be a transgression?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't recall if this was examined upthread, but if the OP told the other players in the game that his character thinks the NPC was a werewolf (or something other than a lich), is that "metagaming?" Or is it only "metagaming" if the player has his or her character make a correct assertion? What if I have my character say that troll's regeneration is shut down by necrotic damage? Would that be a transgression?

Great thought experiment to help tease out the underlying issues.

I suspect at least some traditionalists will argue that it is meta gaming, but the player will get what he deserves for acting on it, so it’s ok.

Which is really all we’ve been saying.

 

[Maxperson]

Could you cite where in 5e it's RAW?

It deals with skills. If you look at the skills section of the PHB, you'll see that knowing something about the inhabitants of the planes(Demons, Devils, etc.) is part of the Arcana skill. Knowing something about animals falls under the Nature skill. And so on. It's pretty clear from the skills section that knowledge of things like creatures is an ability check, not something that the player can simply have his PC know just because he knows or wants his PC to know.

Also, the whole having your PC know things that you know just because you as the player want to know it would also apply to every other skill regarding knowledge. If you the player knows a piece of history, you can do an end around the ability check system and just know it. But that's not how ability checks work. There's no part of that system that says, "The DM will decide the DC or you can just have your PC know it if you want."

The rules for ability checks in the PHB are that the DM only calls for a roll if the outcome is in doubt. So the two examples I gave above where you auto succeed and auto fail fall under the "no doubt" portion. If the outcome is in doubt, the DM can call for a roll. The DMG further clarifies by saying that you should only roll if the outcome has meaning(or something like that).

The section you guys brought up regarding metagaming isn't really talking about the sort of metagaming we use here as "Bringing player knowledge into the game that the PC wouldn't have." Rather it's more along the lines of...

DM: As you crest the top of the mountain you see a valley far below. At the bottom of the valley you see 5 ancient chromatic dragons. One of each color, standing in a circle. They seem to be engaged in a heated discussion. One of them glances up your way, and then returns to the argument. You hear something like, "....internet...," but you can't be sure.

Player: Well, the DM wouldn't put an encounter into the game that we can't handle, so they're probably shapeshifters or illusions or something. Let's go get em!!

That's the sort of metagaming that the DMG is speaking about. It's talking about the game as a game, rather than bringing in knowledge that the PCs wouldn't have.

It's not that the jerk attacks the werewolf with silver without the DM knowing, it's that he "pretends" to discover it after another character fails to damage the wolf. Then it becomes a game of "Wait, I think you already knew that." "No, really, I just thought of it." Etc.

Yes, that's being a jerk (if the social contract of that game expressly forbids it.). But that's my point: both playstyles are vulnerable to jerks. Therefore neither side in this debate can rely on the jerk argument.

I agree that both(and all the other) playstyles are open to jerks. That's why I don't really consider jerks when discussing playstyles. Jerks are a jerk issue, not a playstyle issue.

I meant "necessary" in an objective sense. If a group of players decide that they must always voice act when speaking aloud, that by definition is "necessary" at their table, but that does't make it necessary for the game to function well.

Well, in that sense there's very little in D&D that's necessary. You need players. You need a shared imagined space. And you need some sort of "race" to be able to interact with that imagined space. That's it that I can think of. You don't need monsters. There's no specific race that's necessary. You don't need any specific terrain type or even air for that matter.

Also, maybe it's quick and easy for you because you know FR well, but as I think the OP's story illustrates, the "no player knowledge" approach causes problems if the players know more lore than the DM does, which effectively creates a barrier to entry for DMs. The "player knowledge is fine" approach doesn't have that problem.

I let my players know that I depart from the lore in areas. Some things I don't like, others have changed via play with other groups. If you let the players know that not everything is as they expect or set in stone, they tend to stop doing things like that.