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

[lingual]

How would you handle a low intelligence character played by a player who is Googling everything during the game? At some point, just saying "this what what my character thinks" (and being defacto omniscient) is too much

 

[Guest 6801328]

How would you handle a low intelligence character played by a player who is Googling everything during the game? At some point, just saying "this what what my character thinks" (and being defacto omniscient) is too much

Umm....how would you handle a character who does that without you noticing, and then pretends that his character just happens to try exactly the right thing?

Jerks are jerks. Invalid argument.

(Also, Google what exactly? Last I checked, Google hasn't managed to index the contents of my brain when I'm DMing. Although it wouldn't surprise me to learn they're trying.)

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

How would you handle a low intelligence character played by a player who is Googling everything during the game? At some point, just saying "this what what my character thinks" (and being defacto omniscient) is too much

I think everyone draws that line in a different place, but at the point it becomes against the social contract (i.e. disruptive to the group's enjoyment of the game) I'm guessing that most people would take them aside and ask them to stop.

 

[Helldritch]

I think everyone draws that line in a different place, but at the point it becomes against the social contract (i.e. disruptive to the group's enjoyment of the game) I'm guessing that most people would take them aside and ask them to stop.

Fully agree with this. I even had to ban cell phones from the game. I even had to ask a player to either stop using her cell phone at the game or give her place to a new player. She understood. Although she was not googling, it was disruptive enough. FB has no pla e at my table...
Edit: she is a social media addict and she is consulting to get rid of this.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

You just wrote this a few posts ago:



Can you help me understand the difference?

Guessing, based only on what was written:
The first post explains that it is hypothetical only, since the situation does not actually come up. It details what they would do and why if they were put into that situation.

The second is based on what actually happens in their games. It details what they actually do and why.

Do you adjust encounters to keep them challenging, or don't you?

I believe that the words used were "fresh and exciting". This may include an element of increased challenge but they can also denote appeal due to the interest of discovery of new things.

I don't really care about why you do it. But if you do it all the time for non-player knowledge reasons, but claim to be unwilling to do it for player knowledge reasons,

They have stated than they would be willing (or at least feel required) to do it for player knowledge reasons, should things be forced into that sort of player/DM relationship. However since that sort of player/DM relationship would be unpleasant for the group, it has not, and is unlikely to ever actually come up.

then that just means you have an aesthetic bias against it (which is fine) not that it's actually a problem for the game.

The unwillingness is to enter into that adversarial player/DM relationship in the first place I believe.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The unwillingness is to enter into that adversarial player/DM relationship in the first place I believe.

I don’t know why some people think of it as adversarial. I guess if your premise is that it has to be done in order to counter cheating, that would make sense.

Whereas I see the policing of others’ role playing in the first place as adversarial, but the switching up of monster stats makes the game more fun, because it keeps me, the player, guessing.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I don’t know why some people think of it as adversarial.

At a guess? Because it would pit the players against the DM, rather than the characters against the challenges the DM has designed for them.

I guess if your premise is that it has to be done in order to counter cheating, that would make sense.

Yep. Hence why the better option is to discourage the cheating in the first place rather than having to scramble to counter it each time.

Whereas I see the policing of others’ role playing in the first place as adversarial,

I've found that policing player action declarations etc is sometimes necessary to preserve a good table environment. I try to frame it as explaining why rather than flat-out telling a player to not do something. In most cases.

but the switching up of monster stats makes the game more fun, because it keeps me, the player, guessing.

I find it makes the game less fun because it keeps me, the DM, having to do extra work.
It really can require the DM to do more prep for the game, particularly if they like internal consistency and have to think about knock-on effects of the changes they make.

 

[iserith]

How would you handle a low intelligence character played by a player who is Googling everything during the game? At some point, just saying "this what what my character thinks" (and being defacto omniscient) is too much

My players could be doing this right now for all I know, since I play online. It doesn't affect me as DM, since my role is to describe the environment and narrate the result of the adventurers' actions. I can only adjudicate what they do, so how they arrive at those decisions is not important (though perhaps may be interesting, if offered).

As a player, I'd be happy to have such an effective character on my team, though anything based on assumptions comes with some risk of a bad outcome. I'd advise we should try to verify our assumptions in the context of the game before acting on them just to be sure. Google may be correct about adventure or Monster Manual content, but it doesn't know if our DM changed anything and we don't either.

This problem, if it can even be called a problem but for a self-imposed social contract, sorts itself out because of the incentive to mitigate risk inherent in the game. The DM need do nothing more than remind players, as the DMG suggests, that bad assumptions can lead to bad outcomes.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

How would you handle a low intelligence character played by a player who is Googling everything during the game? At some point, just saying "this what what my character thinks" (and being defacto omniscient) is too much

The first time it happens, you throw a book at the player's head. If that doesn't work, you forcefully throw the player out of the house because he/she isn't a good fit for the group.

 

[Guest 6801328]

At a guess? Because it would pit the players against the DM, rather than the characters against the challenges the DM has designed for them.

How so more than anything else in the game? The DM's job is to present challenging, interesting encounters. If the players know that (for example...) trolls regenerate unless they take fire damage, and the DM knows they know that, why is it suddenly "adversarial" to switch things up? Or to use more trolls, if you believe that knowledge negates the challenge?

If on game night an extra few people showed up, you'd make the encounters harder, right? Is that "adversarial"?

On the other hand, if your table agrees that it is cheating, and players are doing it anyway, it seems to me like things have already gone adversarial, regardless of how the DM responds.

Yep. Hence why the better option is to discourage the cheating in the first place rather than having to scramble to counter it each time.

Agreed. If you and your table believe it is cheating, you should definitely try to prevent it, rather than passive-aggressively try to undermine their cheating.

I've found that policing player action declarations etc is sometimes necessary to preserve a good table environment. I try to frame it as explaining why rather than flat-out telling a player to not do something. In most cases.

Yeah. Again, if your table all agrees to play with that house-rule, then it makes sense to enforce it consistently. Otherwise why have the house-rule?

(Although...improvising on the fly is "scrambling", but policing player action declarations on the fly is not?)

I find it makes the game less fun because it keeps me, the DM, having to do extra work.
It really can require the DM to do more prep for the game, particularly if they like internal consistency and have to think about knock-on effects of the changes they make.

Sure. If that feels like extra work to you, I can see why you wouldn't want to do it.