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

[Guest 6801328]

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!)

Once again, our approach does not require changing a fact just because it turns out the player thinks he/she knows it.

As long as the GM has previously established that some things have been changed, there will always be doubt. Thus, just because the players turn out to know some "secret" does not make it necessary to change it.

But, yes, if you don't DM this way and suddenly want to do so at the moment that a secret is revealed, you'll have to change the secret. But none of us are suggesting you do it this way.

So that's another strawman.

 

[Charlaquin]

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 game does explicitly give the players the power to describe their characters’ actions. A table rule which allows the DM to veto actions if they feel sufficient character knowledge to justify the action hasn’t been established is completely allowed by the rules, but it does limit the power granted by the players by default and grant more power to the DM. I probably wouldn’t use the words “power grab” myself because it carries more hostile connotations than I think most DMs intend with such table rules, but I also don’t think it’s strictly inaccurate.

 

[iserith]

It doesn't make knowledge skills completely useless, but it makes them way less useful and allows bypassing a lot of uses of them.

This notion of "bypassing" has a presupposition of some kind underpinning it that I don't think lines up with how the game works. Ability checks aren't by default applied to tasks. They're applied only to tasks that have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure which is merely a subset of all possible tasks and probably quite a narrow range. Further, a character is not required by the rules of the game to have certain knowledge as a prerequisite to act. If this is understood, then the idea of "bypassing" doesn't make any sense.

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!)

Yeah, DMs who seem to really care about "metagaming" not doing two simple things to completely neutralize its effects is a strange phenomenon. It's almost like it's not really about eliminating "metagaming" from their game at all, but rather having power over what action declarations the players may choose. Because why else wouldn't you just do those two simple things if neutralizing the effects of "metagaming" was your actual goal?

A character without history skill should 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.

I don't generally run published campaign settings unless all the players are familiar with said setting. It works better that way in my view, almost as if they were real people living in that fictional world. What does it matter to the DM that they know every detail of the setting? That just means they have more context with which to make decisions and drive the game forward.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Once again, our approach does not require changing a fact just because it turns out the player thinks he/she knows it.

As long as the GM has previously established that some things have been changed, there will always be doubt. Thus, just because the players turn out to know some "secret" does not make it necessary to change it.

But, yes, if you don't DM this way and suddenly want to do so at the moment that a secret is revealed, you'll have to change the secret. But none of us are suggesting you do it this way.

So that's another strawman.

This just takes the metagaming on another level. You can start to guess whether the thing you know from OOC is something the GM would change. And once you know the GM you can do that pretty reliably, like in my example of the player being pretty much able to trust the their FR loving GM wouldn't change the setting.

 

[iserith]

The game does explicitly give the players the power to describe their characters’ actions. A table rule which allows the DM to veto actions if they feel sufficient character knowledge to justify the action hasn’t been established is completely allowed by the rules, but it does limit the power granted by the players by default and grant more power to the DM. I probably wouldn’t use the words “power grab” myself because it carries more hostile connotations than I think most DMs intend with such table rules, but I also don’t think it’s strictly inaccurate.

And also, you're not accountable for what I say, nor am I accountable for what you say, even if we agree on most things. If Maxperson has a question about my characterization of this table rule as a "power grab," they are welcome to say something to me directly.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The game does explicitly give the players the power to describe their characters’ actions. A table rule which allows the DM to veto actions if they feel sufficient character knowledge to justify the action hasn’t been established is completely allowed by the rules, but it does limit the power granted by the players by default and grant more power to the DM. I probably wouldn’t use the words “power grab” myself because it carries more hostile connotations than I think most DMs intend with such table rules, but I also don’t think it’s strictly inaccurate.

The GM's ability to veto actions has been established to be in the rules. That you pretend hot to hear this doesn't change the fact.

 

[iserith]

The GM's ability to veto actions has been established to be in the rules. That you pretend hot to hear this doesn't change the fact.

@Ovinomancer has already thoroughly proved the error of this conclusion of yours earlier this morning.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This just takes the metagaming on another level. You can start to guess whether the thing you know from OOC is something the GM would change. And once you know the GM you can do that pretty reliably, like in my example of the player being pretty much able to trust the their FR loving GM wouldn't change the setting.

I mean, if you want to metagame you could do that, I suppose. But...why? Why try to guess which details have been changed? And if that is somebody's natural inclination, do you really think that anti-metagaming rules are going to keep that person from metagaming?

Why do you refuse to believe us (those who actually play this way) when we say that the result is actually that people just stop worrying about it and play the game?

 

[Maxperson]

The game does explicitly give the players the power to describe their characters’ actions.

And it explicitly gives DMs the authority to adjudicate those actions.

A table rule which allows the DM to veto actions if they feel sufficient character knowledge to justify the action hasn’t been established is completely allowed by the rules, but it does limit the power granted by the players by default and grant more power to the DM.

By RAW he players describe their actions and the DM adjudicated them. The games does give the DM that power.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Probably that this is a situation in which the power is already in the hands of the DM. The choices are cede power to the players or retain the power. There's nothing for the DM to grab.