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

[iserith]

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).

A player having the character state that an NPC is a lich is saying what the character thinks which is entirely in the domain of the player's role per the rules (barring some kind of magical compulsion or the like). There's nothing to test here with game mechanics because the player hasn't stated an action that the DM can adjudicate. Intelligence checks resolve the outcome of a task to recall lore or make deductions when the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. That's not what is going on when a player has a character act based on the player's knowledge. There is no rules-prescribed prohibitions on action declarations because of the limitations of a character's knowledge. A character doesn't have to know that fire's useful against trolls to hit it with a lit torch.

There is no support for the "no metagaming" position in the D&D 5e rules. It's a table rule at the social contract level and, in my view, an identity for many groups. One might be able to find support for this position in other games, but not this one.

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.

Which is a clue that the game doesn't care about the sort of "metagaming" some people are talking about in this thread. It's being dragged into this game by some folks from other games that did care about it. And that's fine - people can play how they want, obviously. But I think it's worth examining where this thinking comes from and whether it's actually useful in the context of this game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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).

Whoah.

So let me get this straight...

Even though player knowledge is not mentioned in the section that explicitly discusses meta game thinking, the mere existence of skills that can be used to determine knowledge leads you to conclude that using player knowledge violates RAW? Not just RAI, but RAW?

So here’s a thought experiment:

If their intent was to allow player knowledge, would that mean they would have excluded any reference to knowledge in the skills section?

 

[Maxperson]

Even though player knowledge is not mentioned in the section that explicitly discusses meta game thinking, the mere existence of skills that can be used to determine knowledge leads you to conclude that using player knowledge violates RAW? Not just RAI, but RAW?

If players can just decide that their PCs know everything, those skills would not exist. There would be no point to them. The player would simply decide at every knowledge point whether their PCs knows or not.

If their intent was to allow player knowledge, would that mean they would have excluded any reference to knowledge in the skills section?

Probably, which I'm sure is why they did refer to knowledge in the skills section. They refer to knowledge of planar creatures, animals, spells, items, places, history, traditins, symbols, planes, and so on. A huge portion of the intelligence ability check section is about knowledge, because knowledge isn't just something that gets decided by the players.

 

[iserith]

If players can just decide that their PCs know everything, those skills would not exist. There would be no point to them. The player would simply decide at every knowledge point whether their PCs knows or not.

So by that logic, there are no ability checks in my game to recall lore or make deductions, when those tasks have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. But we do have said checks in my game. How can this be?

 

[Charlaquin]

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).

I dispute your interpretation of the skills section here. What it says is:

An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning. The Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, and Religion Skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Intelligence Checks.

And then the various skills under Intelligence go on to list subjects they can be applied to Intelligence checks to recall lore about. No mention of determining what your character knows or doesn’t know, just attempts to draw on memory. So, for instance, a player might declare an action like, “I draw on my past experiences studying at the House of Knowledge to try and remember reading anything about trolls and if they have any vulnerabilities.” And if the DM determines that this action has a chance of success, chance of failure, and consequences, they might call for an Intelligence check (perhaps with Nature proficiency?) to resolve that uncertainty. And that would be smart play on the part of the player. Simply attacking the troll with fire without taking such an action first would be a riskier play, since there is no guarantee that trolls are vulnerable to fire, but nothing in the rules forbids such an action.

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.

Yes, that’s the point. It’s the only time metagaming is addressed in the rules at all, and it’s a different sort of metagaming than what you are referring to. Ergo, your assertion that your preferred method of play is the RAW method is not correct.

 

[Maxperson]

I dispute your interpretation of the skills section here. What it says is:

An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning. The Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, and Religion Skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Intelligence Checks.

And then the various skills under Intelligence go on to list subjects they can be applied to Intelligence checks to recall lore about. No mention of determining what your character knows or doesn’t know, just attempts to draw on memory. So, for instance, a player might declare an action like, “I draw on my past experiences studying at the House of Knowledge to try and remember reading anything about trolls and if they have any vulnerabilities.” And if the DM determines that this action has a chance of success, chance of failure, and consequences, they might call for an Intelligence check (perhaps with Nature proficiency?) to resolve that uncertainty. And that would be smart play on the part of the player. Simply attacking the troll with fire without taking such an action first would be a riskier play, since there is no guarantee that trolls are vulnerable to fire, but nothing in the rules forbids such an action.

Yes, that’s the point. It’s the only time metagaming is addressed in the rules at all, and it’s a different sort of metagaming than what you are referring to. Ergo, your assertion that your preferred method of play is the RAW method is not correct.

What do you think knowledge is, if not memory? If you go around the rules by simply giving your PC the memory(knowledge), that goes against the RAW of ability checks. It's also being a jerk as defined above, since it is going against the social contract of the game(assuming the DM hasn't changed RAW to allow it).

 

[Guest 6801328]

Max, I think you are conflating "knowing" with "believing".

When the player says that "my character knows X" he/she is really saying "my character believes X".

Whether or not that is actually true is determined by the DM. When the DM decides it's uncertain, an ability check might be useful. Those are the rules you are citing.

If the players are facing two doors, and there's a dragon behind one and treasure behind the other, and a player says (in character) "I know that the treasure is behind door A!" that player is actually stating a belief. Even if the player secretly read the module, it's still just a belief.

The DM might, upon hearing this declaration, suspect the player read the module and switch doors. Or the DM might figure the player got lucky, or even that they don't care either way. Or the DM might call for an ability check, and if the player fails then switch doors, if the player was right, or leave them the same, if the player was wrong. So many choices.

(Oh, and there's one more choice: the DM could accuse the player of cheating and demand player/character separation of knowledge. But I really don't know what that accomplishes.)

But according to your interpretation of the rules, players would not be allowed to declare that their characters believe anything about either door. At least, not without an ability check. And that's just...crazy.

Or, to take a variant of @iserith's example from earlier: what if the OP had said, "I recognize that name! She's actually a high level paladin!" Do you claim that the player is not free to declare that his character believes this, at least not without a roll of the dice?

So, yes, players are absolutely free to decide that their characters "know" (meaning, "believe") anything and everything in the game. Whether the beliefs they are declaring for their characters correspond to the in-game reality is an entirely different thing.

 

[Maxperson]

Max, I think you are conflating "knowing" with "believing".

When the player says that "my character knows X" he/she is really saying "my character believes X".

Whether or not that is actually true is determined by the DM. When the DM decides it's uncertain, an ability check might be useful. Those are the rules you are citing.

If the players are facing two doors, and there's a dragon behind one and treasure behind the other, and a player says (in character) "I know that the treasure is behind door A!" that player is actually stating a belief. Even if the player secretly read the module, it's still just a belief.

The DM might, upon hearing this declaration, suspect the player read the module and switch doors. Or the DM might figure the player got lucky, or even that they don't care either way. Or the DM might call for an ability check, and if the player fails then switch doors, if the player was right, or leave them the same, if the player was wrong. So many choices.

(Oh, and there's one more choice: the DM could accuse the player of cheating and demand player/character separation of knowledge. But I really don't know what that accomplishes.)

But according to your interpretation of the rules, players would not be allowed to declare that their characters believe anything about either door. At least, not without an ability check. And that's just...crazy.

Or, to take a variant of @iserith's example from earlier: what if the OP had said, "I recognize that name! She's actually a high level paladin!" Do you claim that the player is not free to declare that his character believes this, at least not without a roll of the dice?

So, yes, players are absolutely free to decide that their characters "know" (meaning, "believe") anything and everything in the game. Whether the beliefs they are declaring for their characters correspond to the in-game reality is an entirely different thing.

I think a line is crossed when the player's character "believes" everything that is true(knowledge). When he happens to use silver against the werewolf and fire against the troll. When he happens to "believe" that radiant damage hurts X creature more and it's immune to fire. At that point you're always going to "happen" be right unless the DM starts engaging in an arms race against the players and just altering everything. I don't believe in engaging in an arms race and only change things occasionally to add freshness to the game.

There's also a difference between declaring a belief(when the player doesn't know the answer) and declaring beliefs that are always true. That's why I don't really study monsters that I'm not using in my game. I want to be unsure of what's what when I meet them, and so I don't feel like I'm, yes, cheating when I declare my character thinks something and it happens to be correct.

But as we've agreed on earlier, these are just play style preferences and whichever one your group enjoys the most is the best one for you.

 

[Charlaquin]

What do you think knowledge is, if not memory? If you go around the rules by simply giving your PC the memory(knowledge), that goes against the RAW of ability checks.

Let’s look at the example. The characters encounter an elf who introduces herself as Valindra Shadowmantle. The player has read some FR novels, and is aware of a character called Valindra Shadowmantle, who is a lich. The player assumes - perhaps correctly, perhaps incorrectly - that this is the same Valindra Shadowmantle he has read about, and that she is therefore a lich. Nothing in the rules for Intelligence checks says that the player can’t decide that their character suspects the elf he has just met might be a lich. What they do is provide the player with a tool to confirm or deny his suspension that she is a lich, by describing an action that draws on memory or past experience - for example, saying, “I draw on my experience as a Sage to try and recall if I’ve come across that name before in my studies,” to which the DM is free to call for an Intelligence (maybe History?) check, or to to declare the action successful or unsuccessful without a check. This might eliminate the possibility that this is a different Valindra Shadowmantle, or that the DM has changed details of the story, or it might reveal that either of those things is the case, or it might fail and the player might suffer some consequence determined by the DM. Whatever the case may be, that’s the function of the RAW: to give the players the tools to draw on their characters’ past experiences (which they are free to establish) and recall lore, not to restrict them from declaring certain actions without first making a roll to establish whether or not they know something.

It's also being a jerk as defined above, since it is going against the social contract of the game(assuming the DM hasn't changed RAW to allow it).

You have not effectively demonstrated that RAW forbids players from taking certain actions without first making a check to establish character knowledge. If such a restriction is part of a group’s social contract, breaking that contract would certainly be a jerk move. I’m not arguing against that, only disputing your claim that there is support for such restriction in the rules as written.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You have not effectively demonstrated that RAW forbids players from taking certain actions without first making a check to establish character knowledge. If such a restriction is part of a group’s social contract, breaking that contract would certainly be a jerk move. I’m not arguing against that, only disputing your claim that there is support for such restriction in the rules as written.

There it is in a nutshell.