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

[Charlaquin]

The DM may or may not care what new technology is introduced in their world.

I was just noting that if a player wanted to invent and fund bicycles, combines, printing presses, and lots of other improvements and/or inventions that could be very profitable, if not world-shaking - which depend only on the simple machines, then the justification "they just don't work" seems a bit less reasonable to me than it does for gun-powder.

Hopefully a player wouldn't just spam inventions and go against genre without talking to the DM first.

I mean... One could argue that Leonardo Da Vinci was doing exactly this. Most of his inventions were never even made, let alone produced in quantity, and those that were made were mostly used in theater. The mere knowledge of how to make something doesn’t guarantee its logistical plausibility, nor that your ideas will be appreciated or even taken seriously.

 

[Charlaquin]

Only if the DM changes things up a significant portion of the time. Otherwise it's pretty much always going to work.

You underestimate the risk aversion of players. In my experience, it only takes one assumption being proven wrong for them to start taking steps to avoid that happening again. After the first time you attack a troll with fire only to learn this particular troll is immune, you’ll start taking actions to confirm or deny your assumptions before acting on them.

 

[Cadence]

I mean... One could argue that Leonardo Da Vinci was doing exactly this. Most of his inventions were never even made, let alone produced in quantity, and those that were made were mostly used in theater. The mere knowledge of how to make something doesn’t guarantee its logistical plausibility, nor that your ideas will be appreciated or even taken seriously.

Did Da Vinci care about actually building them? Did he put design flaws intentionally in some plans? Did ADHD derail some of them?

Anyway, is 5e the version where the PCs supposedly have nothing to spend their gold on? A decent amount of money feels like it can usually buy someone to humor you and build the needed parts. And once you start turning out the first mass printed materials, for example, it feels like a bit more gold could ensure they get some notice. If the players thought ahead, they might even have had their characters take appropriate security arrangements in advance so that they weren't quickly taken out by scribe-guild's hired assassins (are there no nobles who would be impressed by a demonstration and offer protection? are the characters not powerful enough themselves?) The DM could always have some priests have visions of chaos and either destroy the parts early on or have the nobility outlaw printing (in every kingdom?), but that feels a bit more petulant to me and I'd rather just talk to the players out of game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Did Da Vinci care about actually building them? Did he put design flaws intentionally in some plans? Did ADHD derail some of them?

Anyway, is 5e the version where the PCs supposedly have nothing to spend their gold on? A decent amount of money feels like it can usually buy someone to humor you and build the needed parts. And once you start turning out the first mass printed materials, for example, it feels like a bit more gold could ensure they get some notice. If the players thought ahead, they might even have had their characters take appropriate security arrangements in advance so that they weren't quickly taken out by scribe-guild's hired assassins (are there no nobles who would be impressed by a demonstration and offer protection? are the characters not powerful enough themselves?) The DM could always have some priests have visions of chaos and either destroy the parts early on or have the nobility outlaw printing (in every kingdom?), but that feels a bit more petulant to me and I'd rather just talk to the players out of game.

This is, fundamentally, about what kinds of genre tropes your table agrees to. It's not the Wild West, where any player with an idea and a gun can make their way until they meet insurmountable odds. It's your game. If these things are okay at your table, then great, it won't bother the game. If these ideas represent a game you don't want to play or run, then the proper place for that discussion is Session Zero, or a Session X+1/2, which you hold whenever Session 0 stuff needs revisting. If this causes a problem in play, then it's the GM's fault. I mean, it's not a mortal sin or anything, but the GM should be having a table discussion if the game is moving in a way they don't find fun, just as any player should.

 

[Maxperson]

The idea that weaknesses, resistances, immunities, and special abilities like a troll’s regeneration “might as well not exist” if the players know how to exploit or circumvent them (and are allowed to do so) is absurd. Those abilities still force the players to use particular tactics they would not otherwise have to use, thereby increasing the challenge of the encounter.

Is your campaign set in the stone age where fire is hard to come by or something?

You underestimate the risk aversion of players. In my experience, it only takes one assumption being proven wrong for them to start taking steps to avoid that happening again. After the first time you attack a troll with fire only to learn this particular troll is immune, you’ll start taking actions to confirm or deny your assumptions before acting on them.

Sure. They'll confirm by using the primary tactic that works in the book. They aren't going to see a troll and hit it with radiant, necrotic and thunder damage to see if you changed it. They're going to hit it with fire first and learn that way. If it's one of the rare instances where it changed, oops. The vast majority of the time they will simply be right.

 

[Charlaquin]

Did Da Vinci care about actually building them? Did he put design flaws intentionally in some plans? Did ADHD derail some of them?

Some things he certainly didn’t care about being built and were just concepts he drew up, essentially for his resume (and in particular the war machines he drew up he would have hoped wouldn’t ever be built, as he was a pacifist). Others, like the ideal city, he would certainly have wanted put into practice but couldn’t realistically find funding for. Some, like his flying machines, he would similarly have loved to have made but simply couldn’t have worked with the materials available in his time. I’m not aware of any intentional design flaws he put into his concepts. And the idea he had ADHD, while popular speculation, is basically impossible to prove or disprove. Certainly he was very prone to starting projects and not finishing them, but that was usually more his art projects than his designs. And I think attributing his aversion to finishing his works of art to ADHD would be a mistake - it was likely more to do with his philosophy as it related to art, that a work should never be considered finished, as he would always want to return to his past works to improve them as he improved as an artist. I imagine he’d get along well with George Lucas.

Anyway, is 5e the version where the PCs supposedly have nothing to spend their gold on? A decent amount of money feels like it can usually buy someone to humor you and build the needed parts. And once you start turning out the first mass printed materials, for example, it feels like a bit more gold could ensure they get some notice. If the players thought ahead, they might even have had their characters take appropriate security arrangements in advance so that they weren't quickly taken out by scribe-guild's hired assassins (are there no nobles who would be impressed by a demonstration and offer protection? are the characters not powerful enough themselves?) The DM could always have some priests have visions of chaos and either destroy the parts early on or have the nobility outlaw printing (in every kingdom?), but that feels a bit more petulant to me and I'd rather just talk to the players out of game.

I feel like the hypothetical players described here would rather be playing a different game than D&D.

 

[Charlaquin]

Is your campaign set in the stone age where fire is hard to come by or something?

No, it’s just that when the players need to use a particular damage type, their most effective tactics usually aren’t available. Not many characters would attack a torch over a +1 magic sword if they had the choice.

Sure. They'll confirm by using the primary tactic that works in the book. They aren't going to see a troll and hit it with radiant, necrotic and thunder damage to see if you changed it. They're going to hit it with fire first and learn that way. If it's one of the rare instances where it changed, oops. The vast majority of the time they will simply be right.

This is not consistent with my experience. More likely, someone will use an action to attempt to recall lore about the creature first.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it’s just that when the players need to use a particular damage type, their most effective tactics usually aren’t available. Not many characters would attack a torch over a +1 magic sword if they had the choice.

More often than not someone in the party will have the attack type handy.

This is not consistent with my experience. More likely, someone will use an action to attempt to recall lore about the creature first.

That's a subpar tactic. The vast majority of the time they will simply be right and not waste the action. The rare time that they are wrong, someone in the party can attempt to use lore in round 2.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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),

Has Max stated that he would actually change the declared action of a character, or simply try to resolve potential bad faith play with the player directly?

but the DM can't call for any ability check unless the players have described what they want to do

This DM can, and does.

The thread has me more convinced than ever that the "no player knowledge" stance is a house of cards built on a foundation of emotion and nostalgia, with maybe some reinforcing rods made of gatekeeping. As each of the arguments is dismantled, it always comes back to some variant of "But it's just WRONG". As if repeating their mindless assertions makes them valid.

As I said upthread, they sound just like the freestyle skateboarders of the late 70's, upset and offended that the newcomers were completely disrespecting their tradition of doing dorky tricks on flat pavement, and instead were doing freaking aerials out of empty swimming pools.

Or think about each of the major shifts in art history. It's always the old guard sticking their noses in the air saying the new stuff "isn't art", invoking their seniority as it provides validity to their arguments, but their only real defense is tautology. "It's not art because I am an artist and I say so." (Never mind when comic books became an art form.)

You see it over and over and over again, in every art, profession, academic discipline, sport, hobby, etc. The old guard, opposed to change (in business I've heard them referred to as the "root guards" because they think they are guarding the roots of the organization) try to discredit, not with logic but with insults, the changes that seem to threaten the traditions they hold dear. Even though those traditions don't provide any substantive benefit.

The thread has me the same convinced that the "any player knowledge is fine" stance is an absolutely valid way of enjoying the game if that is the way the group prefers.

 

[Charlaquin]

More often than not someone in the party will have the attack type handy.

Yes, but more often than not it will not be their highest damage option. Ergo, the ability is relevant because it forced the party to use different tactics than they otherwise would.

That's a subpar tactic. The vast majority of the time they will simply be right and not waste the action. The rare time that they are wrong, someone in the party can attempt to use lore in round 2.

And yet, in my experience, it is what players will usually do.