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

[Crimson Longinus]

Can I play a character who's uncle told them about trolls, or who survived a caravan ambush thanks to some quick thinking caravan guards?

Can I play a character who learned the name of a lich through some backstory?

Here's the think, when a player declares an action that appears to leverage out of character knowledge, I think we'll both ask, "and how does your character know that?" The difference is that you'll ask it because you are policing the play of the character and I'll ask it because I want the player to add to their character with a new story which I can then leverage in play. So, if you face trolls and the player pulls out a torch, you might ask because it appears to be metagaming and you want to prevent that -- because trolls are a harder challenge if everyone faffs about a bit. I'll ask because I'd like to hear why this character knows to use fire against trolls -- it evokes more character from them and makes the player present a fuller character in play. So, yeah, if the point is to play a character who isn't you, I get that in droves because I ask my players questions to find out more about their characters and don't just try to restrict play because "mah trollz!"

I don't think it so binary. Sometimes the such backstory justification might make sense sometimes it might not. And I think to most of us there is some point where such a backstory justification might start to seem like stretching it, we might just differ on where exactly we judge that point to be.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don’t think anyone is confused about whether or not the player and the character are the same. I think there is merely a difference of opinion as to whether or not it’s the DM’s place to tell a player what their character “would” or “wouldn’t” do.

Well. it certainly is GMs job to provide information about the setting and if the GM says that the character doesn't know something about the setting, then they don't. Furthermore, whilst it might not exactly be GMs job to tell the players how their characters act, a character acting in a manner which is not consistent with their established personality and the information they posses is bad roleplaying and I'm not interested in GMing for bad roleplayers.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think it so binary. Sometimes the such backstory justification might make sense sometimes it might not. And I think to most of us there is some point where such a backstory justification might start to seem like stretching it, we might just differ on where exactly we judge that point to be.

Again, if I present my game where such knowledge isn't important to the challenge presented, then it doesn't reach a point where stretching happens. It's really only when the GM makes this a problem that it's, well, you know, a problem. Don't make it a problem and it won't exist. The solution to "metagaming" is entirely up to the GM and it doesn't require table rules or even more work -- just a slightly different approach. For example, don't include trolls expecting that encounter to be harder because they regenerate. Include trolls because it's thematic, or neat, or for fun, but don't expect that the value of this encounter is the characters not knowing to use fire.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, if I present my game where such knowledge isn't important to the challenge presented, then it doesn't reach a point where stretching happens. It's really only when the GM makes this a problem that it's, well, you know, a problem. Don't make it a problem and it won't exist. The solution to "metagaming" is entirely up to the GM and it doesn't require table rules or even more work -- just a slightly different approach. For example, don't include trolls expecting that encounter to be harder because they regenerate. Include trolls because it's thematic, or neat, or for fun, but don't expect that the value of this encounter is the characters not knowing to use fire.

With the trolls being such an iconic and well known example this might indeed be true for that specific instance. (And let's face it, if trolls were common in the setting their vulnerabilities would be known.) But if we go to the territory of someone's low int fighter with no knowledge skills starting to apply the player's encyclopedic knowledge of the setting gained from several source books and novels and perhaps even including the module being played then that is another matter completely. Same with applying real world knowledge that is not appropriate for the tech level of the setting. These simply are not things the characters could reasonably know, and yes, ultimately the GM has to be the judge of what's 'reasonable.'

 

[Maxperson]

I agree that sounds contentious. But it already became adversarial when you all agreed to a "no player knowledge" house-rule, and they broke that agreement. Right?



So I guess you don't have to worry about it becoming adversarial.

You do realize that this was just a general discussion, right?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I believe that their games, as well as my own are more cooperative between players and DM, where it is the characters who oppose the DM's challenges and both players and DM have fun playing them though them, even if characters may end up failing and dying.
Compared with that, the DM matching wits more directly against the players' OOC knowledge in the game is more . . . adversarial.

You have it wrong. I don't match wits against my players OOC knowledge, I don't care about it. I make changes to my game because it helps me present the kind of challenges I want to present, not because the players might know something. I work to make challenges, both in an out of combat, dynamic and interesting on their own and not because of secret gimmicks.

I often tell players outright what the monster's stat blocks say if it would be something that would be apparent. I do this for custom critters and MM ones. I overshare like crazy, including often outright stating how some things are or what a result is. This has made my games work better, faster, and with more engagement. You might have different outcomes, but please don't suggest that my approach (which I share with @Charlaquin in large part) is more adversarial. One of my core play principles I stole from PbtA games -- be a fan of the PCs.

Nope. That's part of ensuring a more fun experience for everyone. Adding more monsters to retain encounter challenge is much easier than trying to retain the thrill players get as their characters discover something.

Let's be clear, playing through your character "discovering" trolls are weak to fire is pretty much not thrilling at all after maybe the 1st time through. Pretending you don't know that NPC is a lich doesn't make a later betrayal because, well, lich any more thrilling. Let's not imagine that players really love pretending to know things they don't know, or, at least, let's not pretend this is more thrilling that finding out what happens in the game without pretending.

Generally, if I have to police player's character action declarations, it is because they have tried to do something obviously against the house rules. Often the "No PvP" or "No inappropriate behaviour" houserules. Picking up and policing that sort of thing on the fly can be pretty simple, although I do indeed try to enforce the house rules consistently.

Isn't this policing the players, not the action declarations? I certainly wouldn't deal with a violation of a table rule by policing the action declarations, I'd have a talk with the player.

It does indeed "feel" like extra work to me.

I get this, but then it doesn't feel like extra work to me because it's the work I'd put in anyway. It just so happens to also do the other things.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Trolls being such an iconic and well known example this might be true for that specific instance. (And let's face it, if trolls were common in the setting their vulnerabilities would be known.) But if we go to the territory of someone's low int fighter with no knowledge skills starting to apply the players encyclopedic knowledge of the setting gleamed from several source books and novels and perhaps even including the module being played then that is another matter completely. Same with applying real world knowledge that is not appropriate for the tech level of the setting. These simply are not things the characters could reasonably know, and yes, ultimately the GM has to be the judge of what's 'reasonable.'

Again, application of knowledge is one of those action declaration things, where the GM adjudicates and may call for an INT check -- where the fighter's low INT will result in problems. The player knowing things doesn't always make them true, and, even if it does, you can trivially design around it. If you don't care if the player's know what the resistances of a creature are, then the low INT fighter's player knowing them doesn't matter. I tell my players these thing often, and it doesn't make for easier combats. I often give this kind of information out freely to PCs that have proficiencies, with no roll needed at all. To be honest, I'd find a way to tell them anyway, I just like leaning on proficiency because it's an ROI for that player's build choice. Doesn't make my game trivially easy.

If you remove the problem on the GM's side, then what the players do just doesn't matter. "Metagaming" is a GM created problem.

This isn't to say that if your table likes playing in a specific way that's usually characterized by "metagaming" that this is bad. It isn't. But, if it is a problem, then the problem is on the GM's side of the screen. If it isn't a problem, and everyone agrees, then it's absolutely the right way for that group to play. The only right way to play D&D is the way that is fun for all.

 

[Charlaquin]

Indeed. It isn't whether "the character is the player". It is whether a character's knowledge should reflect that of the player who did read the monster manual.

But once again, a character doesn’t need to know something for it to be plausible to act. You don’t have to know trolls are weak to fire to use a fire attack against one. You don’t need to know a woman is a lich to suspect she might be.

It is part of a DM's job to tell a player if their behaviour is inappropriate and their character would not do something.

I disagree. Strongly.

There is discussion where a suitable place to draw the line in terms of allowing characters to act on player knowledge is appropriate.

And that’s the discussion we’re having.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well. it certainly is GMs job to provide information about the setting and if the GM says that the character doesn't know something about the setting, then they don't. Furthermore, whilst it might not exactly be GMs job to tell the players how their characters act, a character acting in a manner which is not consistent with their established personality and the information they posses is bad roleplaying and I'm not interested in GMing for bad roleplayers.

I’m not interested in passing judgment on the quality of other people’s roleplaying. Roleplaying is simply the act of imagining yourself as someone else and/or in a fictional scenario and making decisions as you imagine you or that other person would. So long as the player is doing that, they’re roleplaying “well,” and it’s not my place to judge or question how they imagine their character’s decision-making.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, application of knowledge is one of those action declaration things, where the GM adjudicates and may call for an INT check -- where the fighter's low INT will result in problems. The player knowing things doesn't always make them true, and, even if it does, you can trivially design around it. If you don't care if the player's know what the resistances of a creature are, then the low INT fighter's player knowing them doesn't matter. I tell my players these thing often, and it doesn't make for easier combats. I often give this kind of information out freely to PCs that have proficiencies, with no roll needed at all. To be honest, I'd find a way to tell them anyway, I just like leaning on proficiency because it's an ROI for that player's build choice. Doesn't make my game trivially easy.

If you remove the problem on the GM's side, then what the players do just doesn't matter. "Metagaming" is a GM created problem.

This isn't to say that if your table likes playing in a specific way that's usually characterized by "metagaming" that this is bad. It isn't. But, if it is a problem, then the problem is on the GM's side of the screen. If it isn't a problem, and everyone agrees, then it's absolutely the right way for that group to play. The only right way to play D&D is the way that is fun for all.

I am really not merely talking about things like mechanical vulnerabilities. Though even with them there needs to be some in-character justification for why the character would know that for the acting on that information to make sense in the fiction, regardless of by whom the information was provided. But the issue is much bigger than that and I have hard time grasping how one could not see it. There is a lot of information in the setting books and modules that the players might know yet the characters wouldn't. I really don't get how this can be controversial at all. And the GM constantly changing the setting to counter the metagaming is an absurd solution.