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

[Ovinomancer]

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.

The GM has no general authority to deny actions. The Attack action can only be used if it's specific prerequisites are not met. That's the specific rules for that action, not the GM using a general power to deny any action. And, I see no mention of orcs in those requirements, so I have no idea what you're on about, here.

Again, and please read carefully with the intent to try to understand, the Attack action having prerequisites does not imply that the GM can arbitrarily apply prerequsites to any other action. The GM can do this, via table rules or rulings, but that authority does not flow from the prerequisites on the Attack action -- it's established via the table rule.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

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

Refusing to allow an action to be taken is not adjudication.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

Ok, I see your point.

I still fell that in a situation where the players tend to be careless and get their characters killed there probably has been some failure to communicate the expectations and the lethality level of the game beforehand. Like I would outright tell new players that their low level characters are hella squishy and that they should proceed with caution instead of learning that by a TPK.

 

[Cadence]

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

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.

The GM has no general authority to deny actions.

Refusing to allow an action to be taken is not adjudication.

Are cases of charm, suggestion, dominate monster and the like different?

If Valindra had successfully charmed the player in question, could they still scream out she was a lich and try to attack, even though they viewed her as a "friendly acquaintance"? Can charm always be worked around by a resourceful player since they could think their friendly acquaintance had been replaced by a doppelganger, or maybe had been cursed where the only way to save their soul was to kill them before they committed some evil act?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ok, I see your point.

That...is huge.

I still fell that in a situation where the players tend to be careless and get their characters killed there probably has been some failure to communicate the expectations and the lethality level of the game beforehand. Like I would outright tell new players that their low level characters are hella squishy and that they should proceed with caution instead of learning that by a TPK.

TOTALLY agree. Likewise, "Hey, even though we're playing Module X, be forewarned I've changed some key stuff. If you think you know the module, don't make decisions that depend on what you know being true."

After a few sessions...and maybe their mistakes because they didn't believe you...you don't have to warn them about the lethality of the game, or tell them not to depend on OOC knowledge.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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...."

OK, interesting. If that has been your experience I can certainly understand your stance better. It really is not about that for me at all, I long ago decided that it is better to adapt the story to what the characters are doing. This is part why I am willing to change setting/story details as needed, to make sure that whatever direction the characters take the story, it remains interesting and engaging. The use of meta knowledge (which I barely ever need to police outside perhaps some confusion about the facts/details) is really more about maintaining coherent setting and making sure that the character's skills and traits actually reflect their factual capabilities.

 

[iserith]

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.

That's exactly right. The DM sets the stage for "metagaming" to occur and be incentivized (because risk mitigation is something players do), but then sets up a table rule to require that the players not avail themselves of the opportunity.

Remove the incentive and the problem, such as it is, goes away.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Are cases of charm, suggestion, dominate monster and the like different?

If Valindra had successfully charmed the player in question, could they still scream out she was a lich and try to attack, even though they viewed her as a "friendly acquaintance"? Can charm always be worked around by a resourceful player since they could think their friendly acquaintance had been replaced by a doppelganger, or maybe had been cursed where the only way to save their soul was to kill them before they committed some evil act?

Yeah, that's a great example.

Charm spells do explicitly take full control away from the player, and if the players understand this and violate it (for example, in the way you describe) then there's a social contract problem. Just as much as when the table agrees to a non-OOC knowledge house rule, and somebody violates it anyway. I put this in the same category as somebody who cheats with their dice.

A quick-thinking DM could still recover, but it's an unfortunate situation.

 

[iserith]

Are cases of charm, suggestion, dominate monster and the like different?

If Valindra had successfully charmed the player in question, could they still scream out she was a lich and try to attack, even though they viewed her as a "friendly acquaintance"? Can charm always be worked around by a resourceful player since they could think their friendly acquaintance had been replaced by a doppelganger, or maybe had been cursed where the only way to save their soul was to kill them before they committed some evil act?

Though I wouldn't expect you to, if you search the many posts in this thread, you will see that I've said: "except for magical compulsion or the like."

 

[Guest 6801328]

...is really more about maintaining coherent setting and making sure that the character's skills and traits actually reflect their factual capabilities.

But isn't "your character wouldn't know/guess that" nearly always (or even just always?) a case of "It's unlikely your character would know/guess that?" So to say a given character definitely does not know something is a subjective opinion, and thus to say that it is part of a "coherent" setting really means, "The setting as I, the DM, imagine it."

As I said above, if it's possible to pass a lore check to "know" some knowledge, what we're saying is that it's possible that the character knows it, and we're just using RNG to decide whether or not he/she does. Therefore it's not "incoherent" if this character just happens to know it, without rolling the dice. It may violate your sense of proper game mechanics, but it's not incoherent narratively.