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

[Cadence]

So, yeah, sometimes I indulge players, but never because OOC knowledge is a consideration. They're perfectly free to share or not share as they want, and, to date, both have kept that info to themselves.

How do you handle the case where Player A hands you a note describing how Character A is going to attempt to pilfer something from Player B? Or if they wish to discreetly do something in downtime that Player B would certainly care about if they found out?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I played at a table where some players used OD&D, some B/X, and some AD&D - and I don't know what the DM used - and it all seemed to generally work fine for a group of up to 20 rotating players over a few years. It feels like trying to sit down and play Monopoly or Life (having only ever experienced the other and not having read the new rules) would run into much greater troubles. YMMV.

It feels like very few DMs have eidetically stored every rule and clarification in the various books (DMG page 240?) or has run into inconsistencies (DMG page 240?), and most I know don't stop play to search out a. ll the details. I'm guessing that the sum of their past experience isn't nicely siloed by edition, and that the call they make is influenced by their experience with past ones.

Dave Arneson famously ran a one-shot with one character from each of the following games: OD&D, AD&D 1st, AD&D 2nd, D&D 3rd, and D&D 4th.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I played at a table where some players used OD&D, some B/X, and some AD&D - and I don't know what the DM used - and it all seemed to generally work fine for a group of up to 20 rotating players over a few years. It feels like trying to sit down and play Monopoly or Life (having only ever experienced the other and not having read the new rules) would run into much greater troubles. YMMV.

It feels like very few DMs have eidetically stored every rule and clarification in the various books (DMG page 240?) or has run into inconsistencies (DMG page 240?), and most I know don't stop play to search out all the details. I'm guessing that the sum of their past experience isn't nicely siloed by edition, and that the call they make is influenced by their experience with past ones.

And that can result in poor performance. Can being operative, here. I certainly haven't committed every rule to memory, but I did read the rules and note where things were different from my experiences, and I also have engaged in discussions here that have helped note and cement differences. It's not all or nothing.

 

[Cadence]

Dave Arneson famously ran a one-shot with one character from each of the following games: OD&D, AD&D 1st, AD&D 2nd, D&D 3rd, and D&D 4th.

To be fair, we once connected the corners of three money games Monopoly, Careers, and ???? on the living room floor and played them all together. I think you could pick the board you wanted when you got to a joined corner, and we used the rules for a particular board when on it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

How do you handle the case where Player A hands you a note describing how Character A is going to attempt to pilfer something from Player B? Or if they wish to discreetly do something in downtime that Player B would certainly care about if they found out?

Simply. I tell player B that player A is attempting to steal the thing and ask Player B how that works out. My PvP rules is borrowed from someone here (embarrasingly, I cannot recall) and is simply that the target determines the outcome. This can get into a loop if the outcome tries to harm the first PC in return -- it's not a free card to counter-PvP -- but it usually suffices to let the issues resolve at the table with little to no acrimony.

Of course, this assumes that Player A's attempt is based on a character need/want/desire and is an earnest attempt to introduce more story. If they're being a jerk, see the previous multiple comments on jerk players not being a result of playstyle or GM rulings.

 

[iserith]

I played at a table where some players used OD&D, some B/X, and some AD&D - and I don't know what the DM used - and it all seemed to generally work fine for a group of up to 20 rotating players over a few years. It feels like trying to sit down and play Monopoly or Life (having only ever experienced the other and not having read the new rules) would run into much greater troubles. YMMV.

It feels like very few DMs have eidetically stored every rule and clarification in the various books (DMG page 240?) or has run into inconsistencies (DMG page 240?), and most I know don't stop play to search out all the details. I'm guessing that the sum of their past experience isn't nicely siloed by edition, and that the call they make is influenced by their experience with past ones.

DMG page 240 isn't inconsistent. It's just not an example of what you may have thought it was as I showed upthread.

But anyway, given the many opportunities I have to play in or observe other DM's games, I can absolutely tell where and when they are pulling in techniques that come from other games. Not all of them are detrimental. Some are though. Making an effort to keep one game distinct from another can help put things in perspective and allow the DM to use the techniques most suitable to the game being played.

 

[Charlaquin]

Right, so here it is. I said that we just draw the line at the different place. You feel that having information from the module is something that needs to be dealt with in some way, but not if the information is from the setting book. I really don't see a difference here, I'd treat the both the same way.

And for some of us, there is no line - we’re perfectly happy running modules for players who have played or read them before with no special dialogue about how they should or shouldn’t draw on knowledge from their past experiences with the module necessary. The simple reminder that it is risky to assume things about the current game based on outside knowledge and that it is smart play to verify assumptions before acting on them that applies to all players is perfectly sufficient.

 

[Wishbone]

Simply. I tell player B that player A is attempting to steal the thing and ask Player B how that works out. My PvP rules is borrowed from someone here (embarrasingly, I cannot recall) and is simply that the target determines the outcome. This can get into a loop if the outcome tries to harm the first PC in return -- it's not a free card to counter-PvP -- but it usually suffices to let the issues resolve at the table with little to no acrimony.

Of course, this assumes that Player A's attempt is based on a character need/want/desire and is an earnest attempt to introduce more story. If they're being a jerk, see the previous multiple comments on jerk players not being a result of playstyle or GM rulings.

That seems like a good rule for resolving potential interpersonal conflict at the table. Having table disputes over rulings or specific behavior like potential metagaming settled by a simple voice vote among everyone playing the game after consulting the rules seems like it could address a lot of issues in a pretty straightforward way without putting it all on the DM to decide, but that's super dependent on the playstyle of the group and the people at the table I guess.

 

[Cadence]

DMG page 240 isn't inconsistent. It's just not an example of what you may have thought it was as I showed upthread.

I had two concerns at the time, and pg. 240 certainly alleviated one of them (about the looseness with which passive perception was still checked, albeit with disadvantage) and made me feel like I was close enough to understanding the gist of the other (when rolls could be used in general) that a few more posts got me enough (from you and others, thank you!) that it didn't feel worth the effort for more.


I used a ? in positing it as an inconsistency in the post you replied to. I assume there are some in the book somewhere.

Like any holy book, the DMG has some inconsistencies.

 

[Charlaquin]

How do you handle the case where Player A hands you a note describing how Character A is going to attempt to pilfer something from Player B? Or if they wish to discreetly do something in downtime that Player B would certainly care about if they found out?

The default assumption in my game is that the party is working cooperatively towards the goals of play (having fun and creating memorable stories). Sometimes, this kind of inter-party conflict can be fun and can create memorable stories, but only if all parties involved are aware and consenting, otherwise you are prioritizing your own fun over theirs. Accordingly, if you rake an action that negatively affects another player’s character in my game, then you must state your goal and approach to that player, who then adjudicates, deciding if you succeed, fail, or calling for a check, and narrates the results. That way, if the other player is ok with this bit of roleplayed inter-party conflict they can allow it to succeed or to have a chance of succeeding, and if not they can rule that it fails.