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

[Maxperson]

It's not a good point. Max is conflating thinking and knowing and thereby having the DM claim dominion over what a character thinks and by extension what the character attempts to do, both of which are the player's role. Intelligence checks are for resolving tasks to recall and deduce (when those tasks have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure), but the DM can't call for any ability check unless the players have described what they want to do e.g. "I try to recall the weaknesses of trolls based on my life growing up near the Trollhaunt" or "I try to deduce if trolls are vulnerable to fire based on available clues."

It's not conflation. Your argument is semantics. When you always "think" the correct answer, you are effectively having your PC know what those things are and trying to justify it by calling it "thinking" instead of "knowing." The only way around that sort of behavior is for the DM to enter an arms race with the players and just change up everything or at least a large portion of things.

"I try to hit the troll with a lit torch" does not require an Intelligence check before the action declaration can be deemed valid. That's a pure authoritarian power grab by the DM.

The power grab is by the player who up until that moment, used his much more powerful sword that is still at his side. There's no good reason that absent the attempt below to give the PC knowledge that fire is more effective, the PC would use the torch as his go to weapon against the troll.

However, a player so inclined could - before attempting to hit a troll with a torch - try to recall lore about the weaknesses of trolls, possibly make an ability check at the DM's behest to resolve the task, fail, then decide to attack with an arrow instead.

Or the player can choose to have the character attack with the torch anyway, taking a risk that this is a good tactic against this troll right here and not a bad one because the DM changed the stat block.

If the DM isn't being adversarial and entered into an arms race against the players, there is no appreciable risk here.

 

[iserith]

It's not conflation. Your argument is semantics. When you always "think" the correct answer, you are effectively having your PC know what those things are and trying to justify it by calling it "thinking" instead of "knowing." The only way around that sort of behavior is for the DM to enter an arms race with the players and just change up everything or at least a large portion of things.

If the DM isn't being adversarial and entered into an arms race against the players, there is no appreciable risk here.

You have a lot of work to do to prove that such an "arms race" exists. DMs have been homebrewing monsters since the game's inception for all manner of reasons. As I've already said upthread, I change very little, but the idea that I change things sometimes is enough to create a risk for the players. Since players are incentivized to mitigate risk in D&D, this works itself out without the DM grabbing power over the characters.

And as can be seen by these objections, at it's heart we have a DM who is perfectly fine with setting up the conditions for "metagaming" to occur and to be incentivized, but then requiring a social contract where the players won't make certain action declarations without getting the DM's permission first.

The power grab is by the player who up until that moment, used his much more powerful sword that is still at his side. There's no good reason that absent the attempt below to give the PC knowledge that fire is more effective, the PC would use the torch as his go to weapon against the troll.

The player is not required to offer any reason for using a torch on a troll. To require such a thing is the DM's grab for more power than the great power the game already assigns to the role.

 

[Cadence]

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?

I think the two are very different in terms of the players. Even if it is not the playstyle suggested by the D&D rules anymore, the idea of playing the character as a character in the story or world is something some tables might find as part of the fun of the game (even if it is obviously impossible to fully do). It feels like many works of fiction would be very different if the authors had the different protagonists in all their books regularly pull out the authors knowledge on various subject if it was helpful (even restricting it to knowledge outside the particular book being written).

Within the wotld, wouldn't the NPCs of the world react differently to a PC who regularly spouts out things they heard from reading grimoires of questionable quality or hearing voices that are sometimes wrong and sometimes not, vs. one who is always correct because they apparently either had a book of actual factual lore on important things that weren't common knowledge or are able to channel the truth? It feels like one would get headshakes and the other could get many interested parties checking them out.

Do any of your players use out of character knowledge regularly and obviously enough that this would be an issue? If it is infrequent, then it seems like a non-issue. And, of course the idea of changing things up in the world so it isn't always fire that hurts every type of troll, and the common sense of not using famous names if you don't want them recognized fixes a lot of it.

I played in one group where one of the players actually typed up the results of the previous session story style as if it were chapters in a book the PCs were the main characters in. It feels like someone reading those notes as if they were a book might get a different impression if the outside of game knowledge was used in some ways. On the other hand, some might just wonder why anyone would think the a game session could make something close to a story a person could read like a book.

 

[Cadence]

but the DM can't call for any ability check unless the players have described what they want to do e.g. "I try to recall the weaknesses of trolls based on my life growing up near the Trollhaunt" or "I try to deduce if trolls are vulnerable to fire based on available clues."

Does RAW require that the players state they are seeking knowledge to get a knowledge roll? Say that upon describing a scene the DM knows that someone with a back story like one of the characters has could have a chance to recognize something based on their skills and background. Is the DM forbidden from just offering the chance to make a roll. Without being asked?

 

[iserith]

Does RAW require that the players state they are seeking knowledge to get a knowledge roll? Say that upon describing a scene the DM knows that someone with a back story like one of the characters has could have a chance to recognize something based on their skills and background. Is the DM forbidden from just offering the chance to make a roll. Without being asked?

The DM is not prohibited from just providing the information for any reason the DM sees fit when describing the environment. An ability check, however, can only follow an action declaration by a player that (1) isn't impossible or trivially easy and (2) has a meaningful consequence for failure.

 

[Bawylie]

The DM is not prohibited from just providing the information for any reason the DM sees fit when describing the environment. An ability check, however, can only follow an action declaration by a player that (1) isn't impossible or trivially easy and (2) has a meaningful consequence for failure.

Well - even that comes with a qualification. What about DM’s who take the “roll with it” approach to the dice? They roll for everything.

Compare that to those who “Ignore the dice.”

I wonder if we’re actually having a debate between “rolling the dice is how you play the game” and “making decisions is how you play the game.” Certainly seems to explain quite a bit of other disagreements.

 

[iserith]

Well - even that comes with a qualification. What about DM’s who take the “roll with it” approach to the dice? They roll for everything.

Compare that to those who “Ignore the dice.”

I wonder if we’re actually having a debate between “rolling the dice is how you play the game” and “making decisions is how you play the game.” Certainly seems to explain quite a bit of other disagreements.

Even the "Roll With It" crowd needs action declarations to precede the roll. In that method, the DM just always decides there's uncertainty and a meaningful consequence for failure, regardless of what the player actually says. (Which is why under that method, the DMG warns that roleplaying can diminish since the players realize what they say doesn't matter that much as they are going to roll regardless.)

 

[Cadence]

Does it say in 5e that's the only time? (Are the others explicitly prohibited by RAW?).

The paragraphs on ability checks in the social interaction section says the DM can call for a Charisma check at any point during an interaction. Can I ask for one just in response to the.character saying something, or allowing a pause?

On the other hand, the rules on noticing threats while traveling are quite explicit about using the passive check. So spotting something while traveling a long ways is always passive? (Even if the players say they will be trying to actively keep there eyes out for things as they travel, because that's repeatedly doing it which is what passive checks are about). [Googling around to a Crawford podcast, I was interested to see that one can never do worse than their passive perception value - it acts as a floor. Which is nice that there's no penalty for trying an active one.]

 

[billd91]

On the other hand, the rules on noticing threats while traveling are quite explicit about using the passive check. So spotting something while traveling a long ways is always passive? (Even if the players say they will be trying to actively keep there eyes out for things as they travel, because that's repeatedly doing it which is what passive checks are about). [Googling around to a Crawford podcast, I was interested to see that one can never do worse than their passive perception value - it acts as a floor. Which is nice that there's no penalty for trying an active one.]

This is, at best, a poor interpretation of their own rules. Passive checks are nice because they avoid repetitive rolling that players might otherwise ask for, particularly if you require an action declaration. The passive roll sets the DM up to bypass that need for something that should be an ongoing process - observing the environment around the PCs.

But setting a passive check as a floor? Well, hell, let's just drop all DCs by 10 and roll a d10 because we aren't using the full d20 range anyway. It's a bad interpretation to have published. Honestly, I think they're having trouble really explaining what the passive check is supposed to be for and how it should compare with a regular check. Should feats that modify passive checks like Observant also modify active checks? Their interpretation effectively makes them do so, yet that's not at all in the text of the feat.

 

[iserith]

Does it say in 5e that's the only time? (Are the others explicitly prohibited by RAW?).

See Chapter 7 in PHB in the section called "Ability Checks" as well as DMG, page 237. These inform us the circumstances in which we can call for ability checks. The character must attempt an action and that action must not be trivial or impossible and must have a meaningful consequence for failure.

The paragraphs on ability checks in the social interaction section says the DM can call for a Charisma check at any point during an interaction. Can I ask for one just in response to the.character saying something, or allowing a pause?

If the character has stated an approach to a goal via either active or descriptive roleplaying and the task is neither impossible nor trivial and there's a meaningful consequence for failure, then the DM can ask for an ability check.

On the other hand, the rules on noticing threats while traveling are quite explicit about using the passive check. So spotting something while traveling a long ways is always passive? (Even if the players say they will be trying to actively keep there eyes out for things as they travel, because that's repeatedly doing it which is what passive checks are about). [Googling around to a Crawford podcast, I was interested to see that one can never do worse than their passive perception value - it acts as a floor. Which is nice that there's no penalty for trying an active one.]

A passive check is used when a character is performing a task repeatedly (and that task has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure) or if the DM wants to keep the adjudication secret for some reason. In the case of traveling, the characters are performing tasks, such as keeping watch for danger, during the journey. But this is still something they have to say they are doing and then the DM can use the passive check to resolve whether the PCs in a given spot in the marching order can notice a trap, hazard, or lurking monster.

In Crawford's podcast, the context is they were discussing combat where the rules do say that most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around in which case the passive Perception is the floor for an ability check related to the Search action. Outside of combat, it depends on the specific action declarations the players make. If they undertake certain tasks while traveling, they aren't staying alert for danger in which case they run afoul of the trap or are surprised by the monster, no check needed. (Though one would hope the DM is adequately telegraphing threats.) Notably, rangers in favored terrain can both stay alert for danger while traveling an hour or more and perform another task.

It's important to note that passive checks don't represent characters not being active - it's just that there's no roll. There is no such thing as an "active check." There are ability checks and passive checks, which is a special kind of ability check for particular situations. Both resolve actions the characters are taking which the players have declared.