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

[Charlaquin]

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.

Why?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Only if the character uses fire attacks against other foes too. If they never do, except in this specific instance with no justification decide to not use their trusty axe they always use and hit this unknown monster with a torch instead, then that is not plausible behaviour. (Granted, GM probably should even set up this situation with trolls in the first place as it is a boring problem.)

You don’t need to know a woman is a lich to suspect she might be.

You probably need to have some hint though. How many people do the character meet during their adventures? How many of them have they suspected to be a lich? Probably none, except this one instance due metagaming. This is not plausible behaviour, unless it was previously established that the character was paranoid and constantly suspected that people might be secretly undead.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Ok. Although I can't speak for others in this thread, "matching wits" is not what I experience. (Just like my characterizations of the "anti-metagaming" stance don't seem to be what the anti-metagamers experience.) But if it feels that way to you...well, you be you.

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.

Oh, I agree! But...oh, wait. You said "the thrill players get as their characters discover something." I read that as the players discover something. My experience is that when the characters "discover" something the players already know, it's not thrilling at all.

See? Another example of how the experience varies.

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.

I interpret that to mean that players break the "No PVP" houserule and the "no inappropriate behavior" houserule more often than they break the "no player knowledge" houserule? Is that correct?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why?

For the fiction to make sense. The actions must make sense from in-character perspective. That's roleplaying.

 

[Charlaquin]

Only if the character uses fire attacks against other foes too. If they never do, except in this specific instance with no justification decide to not use their trusty axe they always use and hit this unknown monster with a torch instead, then that is not plausible behaviour. (Granted, GM probably should even set up this situation with trolls in the first place as it is a boring problem.)

Why not? There could be any number of reasons the character decided to go with a different tactic this time, and I don’t consider it at all worthwhile to interrupt play to hash out why the character decided to do that in this situation, much less tell the player they’re not allowed to do it.

You probably need to have some hint though. How many people do the character meet during their adventures? How many of them have they suspected to be a lich? Probably none, except this one instance due metagaming. This is not plausible behaviour, unless it was previously established that the character was paranoid and constantly suspected that people might be secretly undead.

Again, I assume the player has some internal logic for why they imagine their character would be suspicious in this situation, and I don’t consider it a good use of table time to debate about it. Your character is suspicious of this character. Ok, let’s find out what happens as a result.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Absolutely. I ask my players to write up a background before the campaign begins. I usually get a few paragraphs to a page of background. If your background has an uncle who told you about trolls, or even an uncle who was a troll hunter, troll knowledge makes a lot of sense for your PC to have.

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.

This is simply untrue. I have no interest in saying no or looking to prevent anything. Asking for that purpose would be an example the adversarial kind of DMing that I have no interest in. I'm going to ask to find out why he feels that his PC should automatically have that knowledge, rather than that knowledge being uncertain and requiring an ability check. If he points to Uncle Troll Slayer in his background(assuming I don't remember that detail), he gets that knowledge with no roll. If he tells me that it's because he read the MM or encountered trolls three campaigns ago, it's going to be a roll of the dice to see if the PC knows. At no point, though, am I looking to prevent the action. Prevention isn't why I'm going to ask.

 

[Charlaquin]

For the fiction to make sense. The actions must make sense from in-character perspective. That's roleplaying.

There could be any number of reasons that make sense from the player’s perspective and I’m not interested in interrogating the player about why they thought their character would make this decision. Better to assume they had a good reason and proceed with play.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You might have different outcomes, but please don't suggest that my approach (which I share with @Charlaquin in large part) is more adversarial.

There's a lot of this going on in this thread, isn't there? People who don't allow player knowledge imagine all these terrible consequences of allowing it...adversarial arms races, players Googling everything during the game, combats stripped of challenge and excitement, lots of extra DM work, plagues of locusts, fire and brimstone...and when the people who actually play this way say, "Uh...nope. Actually it works great. In fact, better than when we used to play the old way" there is basically zero acceptance that this could ever possibly be true.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Absolutely. I ask my players to write up a background before the campaign begins. I usually get a few paragraphs to a page of background. If your background has an uncle who told you about trolls, or even an uncle who was a troll hunter, troll knowledge makes a lot of sense for your PC to have.

If you let players write this stuff up before the game starts, why not let them write it up on the fly?

Would you be ok with "...and I had an uncle who was a famous troll-hunter tell me all about them..." in a backstory? If not, why not? Is it because you are the arbiter of what is a good backstory and what is not? And if you would allow it, why not allow it to be invented right before an encounter with trolls?

This is simply untrue. I have no interest in saying no or looking to prevent anything. Asking for that purpose would be an example the adversarial kind of DMing that I have no interest in. I'm going to ask to find out why he feels that his PC should automatically have that knowledge, rather than that knowledge being uncertain and requiring an ability check. If he points to Uncle Troll Slayer in his background(assuming I don't remember that detail), he gets that knowledge with no roll. If he tells me that it's because he read the MM or encountered trolls three campaigns ago, it's going to be a roll of the dice to see if the PC knows.

Whoah.

How is "asking for that purpose" (which you would not do) substantively different from "asking why his PC has that knowledge" (which you would do)?

Weren't you one of the people arguing months ago that "I roll Stealth" is effectively identical to "I try to sneak up on the bad guy"? But now asking about the purpose, and asking about the knowledge that determines that purpose, are two totally different things?

At no point, though, am I looking to prevent the action. Prevention isn't why I'm going to ask.

So even if he fails the knowledge check, you'll let him take the action?

 

[Charlaquin]

There's a lot of this going on in this thread, isn't there? People who don't allow player knowledge imagine all these terrible consequences of allowing it...adversarial arms races, players Googling everything during the game, combats stripped of challenge and excitement, lots of extra DM work, plagues of locusts, fire and brimstone...and when the people who actually play this way say, "Uh...nope. Actually it works great. In fact, better than when we used to play the old way" there is basically zero acceptance that this could ever possibly be true.

It was pretty hard for me to believe it would work at first. It was just so contrary to what I perceived to be common knowledge that I couldn’t imagine how it would work. But seeing a lot of DMs who’s opinions I respected making very strong arguments in favor of it, I figured there had to be something to it. So, I gave it a try for myself and what do you know, my game improved dramatically.