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

[Charlaquin]

What I find amusing is that in discussions where Intelligence is lamented as being a "dump stat" and totally useless in D&D 5e, I'm always arguing the other way. If the players can find value in recalling lore or making deductions, they will take those actions and the DM can adjudicate using Intelligence ability checks as needed.

Careful, you’re treading dangerously close to suggesting that the game runs better the way you interpret it, which would make you a bad one-true-wayist

 

[iserith]

This reminds me of discussions where someone is asserting that some skill proficiency, spell, class feature, etc. is "overpowered" or "underpowered." Then when you dig into why they think that, it's almost always because they play the game in a single, narrow way that might not even be supported by the rules and, having played no other way, they can't see why the thing they are complaining about actually works just fine outside of the very specific way they are playing.

 

[Mort]

What I find amusing is that in discussions where Intelligence is lamented as being a "dump stat" and totally useless in D&D 5e, I'm always arguing the other way. If the players can find value in recalling lore or making deductions, they will take those actions and the DM can adjudicate using Intelligence ability checks as needed.

What people seem to be deathly afraid of is the Int: 6-8 character that through OOC knowledge can still navigate every challenge successfully because their OOC is so good that they never require a knowledge (or other relevant) check (their knowledge is never in doubt). Completely forgetting that such a scenario is functionally impossible (or so improbable as to essentially be so) in even a moderately well run game.

 

[iserith]

What people seem to be deathly afraid of is the Int: 6-8 character that through OOC knowledge can still navigate every challenge successfully because their OOC is so good that they never require a knowledge (or other relevant) check (their knowledge is never in doubt). Completely forgetting that such a scenario is functionally impossible (or so improbable as to essentially be so) in even a moderately well run game.

As long as they don't attempt to recall lore or make deductions, they should be good... except that acting on assumptions without verifying them exposes the character to more risk than necessary.

 

[Mort]

As long as they don't attempt to recall lore or make deductions, they should be good...

"But other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"

Not 100% on point, but what I thought of after your comment.

 

[Guest 6801328]

We have gone over this several times. How the knowledge skills work, how there are information gathering spells and other such features, how there are in-game items that yield information and how information gathering in the setting is an important part of many adventures. I doubt that the intent ever was to bypass any of this via OOC knowledge. You may disagree, but the fact is that overwhelming majority of the players interpret it the same way than I so that is the intent the writers ended up communicating, be it intentionally or not. (I believe it is intentional, as I don't think the writers would be so incompetent that they would miscommunicate this badly. )

Yes, we HAVE gone over this multiple times. Not policing players for how they choose actions does not eliminate the need for knowledge skills or information gathering spells or other ways of gathering information.

Let's look at some of the strawmen that you and Max (ironic, no?) repeatedly use to try to refute this:

1. "If the player can just declare they know anything." (Answer: the players won't know everything, and just declaring it doesn't make it true. If they want to be sure they're right, declare an action that can be adjudicated.)
2. "This makes knowledge skills useless." (Answer: same as above. The players can claim their characters know whatever they want; doesn't make it true. If they want to be sure they're right, declare an action that can be adjudicated.)
3. "If they declare they know X, they can also just declare they jump the river or kill the orc." (Answer: Again, the declaration doesn't make it true. Declare an action to jump the river or kill the orc and the DM will adjudicate it.)
4. And one more: "'I recall the time that...' is declaring an action, and thus can be adjudicated." (Answer: If you want to twist it that way, you'll just teach your players to state it without trying to roleplay.)

 

[Maxperson]

Three seems to be the best supported interpretation of the text to me.

Then why do you think @iserith is claiming that outlr way is a power grab. It can only be a power grab if the power isn't 1) already in the hands of the DM, which it is since he decided which way it goes, and 2) the game explicitly gives the power to the players, which it doesn't.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Then why do you think @iserith is claiming that outlr way is a power grab. It can only be a power grab if the power isn't 1) already in the hands of the DM, which it is since he decided which way it goes, and 2) the game explicitly gives the power to the players, which it doesn't.

The DM is free to make up house rules. Some of those house rules will cede power to the players. Some of those house rules will grab power for the DM.

What is hard to understand about that?

 

[iserith]

The DM is free to make up house rules. Some of those house rules will cede power to the players. Some of those house rules will grab power for the DM.

What is hard to understand about that?

Right. If I have a table rule that says players can describe parts of the environment, that gives more power to the players. If I have a table rule that says the DM can unilaterally decide some action declarations are off the table for the characters, that gives more power to the DM.

Personally, I think the DM has enough power by way of the rules. I don't need to start meddling with what little power the players have over their own characters. But my opinion on this doesn't matter at other tables where the DM wants that power and doesn't mind taking it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

1. "If the player can just declare they know anything." (Answer: the players won't know everything, and just declaring it doesn't make it true.)
2. "This makes knowledge skills useless." (Answer: same as above. The players can claim their characters know whatever they want; doesn't make it true.)
3. "If they declare they know X, they can also just declare they jump the river or kill the orc." (Answer: Again, the declaration doesn't make it true.)

It doesn't make knowledge skills completely useless, but it makes them way less useful and allows bypassing a lot of uses of them. And this whole 'declaring it doesn't make it true' relies on the GM altering the setting/module/whatever was the source of the OOC information to make that thing 'not true.' This is simply not something many GMs are willing to do. (I am not among them and this is exactly I know that a lot of people disagree with me on this!)

A character without history skill should not be an expert in the history of Forgotten Realms just because the player is aficionado of the setting and knows every detail (as is the GM and thus they're not gonna change anything so the players information remains valid.) The way to be expert of history is invest in that skill on your character, that is why the skill exist. This is hardly controversial, this is super basic stuff.