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

[Charlaquin]

This DM can, and does.

They can, because it’s D&D and the DM is empowered to change the rules if they wish, but the rules as written do not seem to suggest that the DM should do this.

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.

Nice! Then the thread has been successful. For the record, I also think that not allowing actions until character knowledge has been established with a check is a valid way of enjoying the game if that is the way the group prefers. From my experience though, some groups play that way because they have never even considered the alternative, rather than because it is a preference they arrived at through conscious consideration and/or experimentation.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

In other words, it's the "don't play with jerks" argument. "If you use playstyle/rule X, jerks will ruin the game" is never a valid argument, because it's always true.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I agree that the above Strawman doesn't happen. I didn't say trivialize. I said makes the encounters easier, and invalidates the special abilities of the monsters.

No, you didn't use the world "trivialize". You said that, in the case of trolls, it would reduce the CR by 2 (from 5 to 3, in that case.)

But go use the official rules for challenge difficulty calculation, and see what happens when you change the CR from 5 to 3. In the few examples I tried just now, it reduced "Hard" encounters to "Easy" and "Medium" encounters to...wait for it..."Trivial".

And it doesn't invalidate the special abilities. Those abilities still work. In the case of trolls, if the go-to attack of one of the heroes is fire (or acid), the ability is mostly irrelevant, anyway, because they are going to be using fire (or acid) regardless of whether they know they have to. But let's say none of the casters chose a fire cantrip, which happens. What now? Maybe they have 1st level or higher fire spells, but now they have to start spending actual spell slots, every round, to counteract the ability. Or somebody has to use a torch for a weapon (possibly first using a turn to light one) which is going to sink anybody's damage. Or use alchemists fire, which is also a resource. And if there are two trolls then two characters have to be on fire duty.

So even if you don't fumble around for a round or two figuring things out, troll regeneration still has to be dealt with. It's not "invalidated." If it were...and really this is the kicker...there would be no point in having trolls appear more than once per campaign under your rules, or at all in default 5e (since there is no assumption anywhere in 5e that player knowledge is forbidden).

You keep claiming that abilities being secret is "baseline", or other words to that effect. Do you have any evidence of this? Anything from MM or JC? We've already concluded there isn't a single reference anywhere in the game to player knowledge. Anything else you want to cite?

Now, the one thing I will grant you is that each player has one opportunity in their D&D career to encounter trolls for the first time, and that if one genuinely does not know about troll regeneration it can be fun to struggle with this. This is especially true if the whole table is new, but even if there's just one such player, I will typically not spoil the "secret" for them. (Curious how even new D&D players typically think of fire...less frequently acid...very, very quickly.).

The one time I saw a group of players (who, as I mentioned up-thread, were not new but hadn't played in a long time and had actually forgotten about trolls) really struggle with a solution, it was very nearly a TPK. Hard to believe that's a baseline assumption in the design of the game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

As @Charlaquin said, we've made progress then.

And, again, the inverse is also true. If the group prefers to roleplay a division of player/character knowledge, or even if just some of the people at the table prefer doing that, go for it. I would encourage people to seriously consider trying the game without it, because it has made my game so much better, but if that's just too much of a change from tradition, I get it.

What is invalid is any claim that banning player knowledge is the "correct" way to play, or that the game breaks without it. Or that people who don't do so are literally bad players (a claim made in this thread).

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Just to be clear, you and @Charlaquin are talking about what happens in a game where player knowledge is allowed, but some % of the time the DM changes up the abilities.

Since you don't actually play this way, it's a little cheeky for you to be telling people who do play this way what will happen.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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

I would recommend Civilization.

 

[Helldritch]

I would recommend Civilization.

Civ 5. Not Civ 6....
Any of the XCom.
Battletech.
Stellaris.
A lot of games come to mind.

But as for the topic. Yes, I am a bit late. But I actually do both. If something should be common knowledge, such as the troll's vulnerability to fire, the knowledge if known to the palyer is also known to the character. On specific, hard to remember knowledge, then a roll will be called. Is it demons or yuggoloths that are resistant to fire? Which devil is not resistant to fire?

When the knowledge is not easy to remember, then a check will be called. If the knowledge is, well, common knowledge I don't bother with a check.

 

[Maxperson]

No, you didn't use the world "trivialize". You said that, in the case of trolls, it would reduce the CR by 2 (from 5 to 3, in that case.)

But go use the official rules for challenge difficulty calculation, and see what happens when you change the CR from 5 to 3. In the few examples I tried just now, it reduced "Hard" encounters to "Easy" and "Medium" encounters to...wait for it..."Trivial".

Moving the goal posts! 10 yard penalty! You said trivialize THE encounters, not some encounters. And quite frankly, I wouldn't put a trivial encounter against the PCs, there's no point. So none of the encounters I set up would be trivial. At least none that they were intended to fight.

 

[Maxperson]

Just to be clear, you and @Charlaquin are talking about what happens in a game where player knowledge is allowed, but some % of the time the DM changes up the abilities.

Just to be clearer, since my clear statement earlier in the thread apparently wasn't enough, I DO change some monsters. I just do it rarely and just to keep things fresh and exciting. @Charlaquin said that even a few such changes would alter how the players act. It doesn't in my experience, since it doesn't happen often enough to make a difference.

Since you don't actually play this way, it's a little cheeky for you to be telling people who do play this way what will happen.

Since I DO actually play that way, my saying what my experience is is perfectly valid. It's cheeky of you to tell me that I'm being cheeky for it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Moving the goal posts! 10 yard penalty! You said trivialize THE encounters, not some encounters. And quite frankly, I wouldn't put a trivial encounter against the PCs, there's no point. So none of the encounters I set up would be trivial. At least none that they were intended to fight.

Just using the only concrete information you offered. How is that “moving the goal posts”?

And that’s great that you wouldn’t give your players trivial encounters. That means you know how to tune your encounters to account for various factors.

See where this is going?