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

[Maxperson]

No, it's not adjudicating the outcome of an action. It's rewinding time and saying, "No, you never even did that."

You may modify the game to grant yourself this power, but it's not in the play loop as described by the game itself.

The DM narrates the outcome of the action declaration. The player tells the DM what he wants to do, not what he does. The outcome of the declaration can be no you can't do that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Let's pretend we have a table full of "rampant metagamers". Why does your approach solve the problems you imagine that causes?

Because I would discuss with them about what sort of game I want to run, and that includes no metagaming. Those who are happy to play that way can stay, those who are not can go find a game that better suits their tastes. It is important for a success of the game that every participant is roughly on the same page about what sort of game they're playing and agree to that premise.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Whether it is a punishment or not, to me it seems like an attempt to correct or at least affect the player behaviour via the game and I simply don't believe in that sort of thing.

If the players split the party, and one groups rushes into the dungeon heedlessly, and quickly get into trouble with traps and monsters, have you "punished" them for poor decision-making?

And how is that a different situation than if you establish that they cannot rely on OOC knowledge, and they make poor decisions by relying on OOC knowledge anyway?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Whether it is a punishment or not, to me it seems like an attempt to correct or at least affect the player behaviour via the game and I simply don't believe in that sort of thing.

I am vehemently against doing this and have a long posting history of saying so. Yet, I don't care about metagamimg.

The challenge for you, here, is to try really hard to hold both facts in your head and see how that might work in practice. What you've been doing is assuming one must be false. The hardest thing to do in grasping a new paradigm is letting go of your assumptions, picking up some new ones, and trying to reconcile. I know, I went through this exact process over the last five years.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, the last on this was me pointing out that not being able to take the Attack action (capotal intended) was due to specific prerequisites for that action. Specific limitations on specific actions that the entire table can see and utilize (as a player I can leverage those limitations to prevent attacks on my character -- see "kiting").do not, on any way, make a case for a general power to deny any action on any reason.

A useful tip for arguing is that you can take a general point into the specific, but you can't take a specific point into the general. Here, you can't extrapolate a general rule for denying actions from the specific requirements for a specific action.

So, yeah, your argument holds no water if your basing your assumption of general GM power to disallow actions on an example that hinges on the specific requirements to take the Attack action by making a melee attack.

Did I say specific and general enough? I feel like I did, but also feel like I maybe didn't say it enough to get the point across.

I guess by this logic this GM's ability to deny an action only applies to attacks against orcs? Yeah, sorry, this is not gonna fly. It is about setting limits and the situation is just an example.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The player tells the DM what he wants to do, not what he does.

Nope.

The phrasing may vary, but the player describes the action the character is attempting, and (probably) what result the player is hoping will be achieved.

The DM has no official authority to prevent the attempt.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I guess by this logic this GM's ability to deny an action only applies to attacks against orcs? Yeah, sorry, this is not gonna fly. It is about setting limits and the situation is just an example.

How so?

If the player attempts to attack an orc and fails, he still made the attack. He just didn't achieve the outcome he hoped for.

The DM might even say, "Sorry, but the manacles holding you to the wall prevent you from trying."

But "Sorry, but your character wouldn't do that?" No.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because I would discuss with them about what sort of game I want to run, and that includes no metagaming. Those who are happy to play that way can stay, those who are not can go find a game that better suits their tastes. It is important for a success of the game that every participant is roughly on the same page about what sort of game they're playing and agree to that premise.

Interestingly, 5 years or so ago I said almost this exact same thing. Turns out that I didn't really want no metagaming, I wanted what I though required a no metaga.ing rule to acheive. The hardest part for me was realizing that no metagaming is a crutch for my GMing, and I could just do it differently and have exactly what I wanted without the overhead of monitoring for metagamimg. All it took was a same change in how I structured play -- I removed my reliance preventing metagaming and instead thought, "can I have an exciting and memorable game even if I hand all of my notes to my players?" Turns out, you absolutely can, if you focus on situations instead of solutions. I don't have to hide the solution behind a no metagaming shield if I don't prep one to begin with.

Now-a-days, I routine advocate for more information sharing to players, and often say I can hand my notes over and players will still find a way to screw up by the numbers. If you aren't guarding secret plot points, you don't need to care about metagaming. I don't worry about my "story," I present challenges and let the story unfold from there.

 

[iserith]

And it is for the GM to determine whether the task has uncertain outcome, not for the player.

A player establishing what the character thinks, which is the sole province of the player, is not anything the DM can adjudicate.

Because I don't believe resolving player behaviour issues by childishly 'punishing' them via the game. If I don't like some behaviour then we can talk about it outside the game like adults and just agree not to do that.

I mean I am super fine with altering setting details and even as a response to player actions if it feels like it would result a more entertaining game (a lot of people really aren't though,) but that is not to thwart metagaming.

Well, great, then we agree. Because I change lore and monsters and not because I want to curb "metagaming." But it has that effect. Now we just need to figure out why more DMs who are concerned about "metagaming" don't do this. Unless, of course, they just prefer having that power over the players.

Because surprisingly not every person living in the setting has perfect information of it. And yes, the players knowing the setting is not a problem at all, as long as they understand that their character might not have access to all that information, especially as some of the things in settings are written from omniscientic perspective rather than from a point of view of a person in the setting. And the knowledge skills exist for a reason. The character who has invested in history skill should know more about the setting's history than one that hasn't.

And when the player declares that the character is trying to recall lore, the character with the History skill proficiency will generally do better than one who hasn't. Further, even if a player does have perfect information of the setting, there's no guarantee the DM hasn't changed some parts of it or added to it. A player very well versed in Eberron lore is not likely to know what is in the dungeon I put outside of Newthrone in Q'barra, even if the player can quote chapter and verse everything about Q'barra. This is really just a non-issue.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't worry about my "story," I present challenges and let the story unfold from there.

Most of the time when I encounter a "no metagaming" DM (I'm part of a large group where people take turns DMing) what really seems to be going on is that the DM has in mind a certain way he/she thinks the story should unfold, or at least a restricted range of possibilities. The point of "no metagaming" is that they don't want to let go of the story they are imagining, or really even share it beyond a certain point.

It can be hard, especially for long-time DMs with ingrained habits protecting their story, to pivot from "Your character wouldn't know that!" to "Huh. I wasn't expecting your character to know that. Let's see what happens now that he/she does...."