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

[Cadence]

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.

Is cheating with their dice a rules violation or a social contract violation? Do you talk about not playing along with charm spells and cheating with the dice in session 0? (I don't think that ever occurred to me to do so).

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."

Dominate Monster takes away the control, but Charm person merely says they treat them as a friendly acquaintance. How does one adjudicate whether or not a player or character thinks they are treating someone that way? Can they think that their friendly acquaintance has feather fall (people think strange things all the time, like a random elf is a lich) and push them off a cliff as a practical joke? Why is it reasonable to think they used OOC knowledge in an unfair way here? At your table, would it violate any agreed to social contracts? If so, how do you usually discuss it in session 0? Or does it violate a game rule? If so, does that game rule require you to adjudicate what the character was thinking?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

But that's not the example in the rules. It is literally about setting limits and the GM telling the player that the action cannot be attempted. Now some of you seem to think that this could apply only to a physical and not to mental processes, but I see no reason to make such an assumption.

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.

"Sorry your lack of knowledge on the matter prevents you from taking that action."

I think here is the crux of the matter. It is true that lack of knowledge might not prevent taking the action in physical sense. I.e nothing is physically stopping a person who doesn't know how to make gunpowder picking up the materials and combining them. But I think this is a fallacy. Nothing is physically stopping me from saying aloud the ten first digits of pi. They're just numbers, I am capable of physically making those sounds. But without checking first I cannot do it, because I don't remember more than three digits. This simply is not a course of action that a person without such knowledge would take. And I think thus it is perfectly acceptable for the GM to say the lack of the character's knowledge prevents such an action just as surely than the manacles would prevent a physical action.

 

[iserith]

Dominate Monster takes away the control, but Charm person merely says they treat them as a friendly acquaintance. How does one adjudicate whether or not a player or character thinks they are treating someone that way? Can they think that their friendly acquaintance has feather fall (people think strange things all the time, like a random elf is a lich) and push them off a cliff as a practical joke? Why is it reasonable to think they used OOC knowledge in an unfair way here? At your table, would it violate any agreed to social contracts? If so, how do you usually discuss it in session 0? Or does it violate a game rule? If so, does that game rule require you to adjudicate what the character was thinking?

I leave it to the player to decide what to do here in the context of being a "friendly acquaintance" to the NPC.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Is cheating with their dice a rules violation or a social contract violation? Do you talk about not playing along with charm spells and cheating with the dice in session 0? (I don't think that ever occurred to me to do so).

Yeah, I was vague about that distinction. It's probably unnecessary to decide whether it's cheating or social contract violation, or whether those are the same thing.

It's wrong.

Dominate Monster takes away the control, but Charm person merely says they treat them as a friendly acquaintance. How does one adjudicate whether or not a player or character thinks they are treating someone that way? Can they think that their friendly acquaintance has feather fall (people think strange things all the time, like a random elf is a lich) and push them off a cliff as a practical joke? Why is it reasonable to think they used OOC knowledge in an unfair way here? At your table, would it violate any agreed to social contracts? If so, how do you usually discuss it in session 0? Or does it violate a game rule? If so, does that game rule require you to adjudicate what the character was thinking?

Good point! A charmed creature might say, "Valindra! So funny to bump into you in Chult! I see lichdom is treating you well...you don't look a day older!"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Right, sure. But the exact fact that it is achievable via knowledge check meant that such a check should not be bypassed via OOC knowledge just like we wouldn't bypass athletics check because the player is really strong.

In practice there of course is some leeway with this, player skills always matter somewhat, and that's fine. But more esoteric the knowledge is, more of a problem it is if the check is bypassed this way.

And of course some things are not simply knowable or at least knowable to character with that background/education. Some things practically no one knows, and some are known only by few.

 

[Cadence]

I leave it to the player to decide what to do here in the context of being a "friendly acquaintance" to the NPC.

So, charm would not be "magical compulsion or the like".

If one were substituting out monsters' powers and NPC's spells, does that make Charm Person a particularly good one to replace? What would you say to a DM who took as much latitude with the spell's affect on the Monsters and NPCs as a player might when the PC was subjected to it?

Good point! A charmed creature might say, "Valindra! So funny to bump into you in Chult! I see lichdom is treating you well...you don't look a day older!"

That is spectacular.
What about then trying to kill her because they know she's a lich, albeit a friendly one?

 

[Guest 6801328]

"Sorry your lack of knowledge on the matter prevents you from taking that action."

Think about that sentence.

The manacles prevent the character from attacking the orc.
The distance (because the character has insufficient movement) prevents the character from reaching the orc in one turn.
The suggestion spell prevents you from acting that way.

But above you are using "prevents you from taking that action" to really mean "doesn't offer an obvious explanation that I find sufficiently plausible." Nothing is actually preventing it.

So here's what's ironic: it's often the same people (including you, in this thread) who say that our way of playing is "pixel bitching" because we don't use fixed DCs, and we use the approach described by the player to adjudicate the outcome, who also think that the player needs to offer a sufficiently plausible explanation...as determined by the DM...to be allowed to know something.

How is one "mother may I?" and the other is not?

 

[Maxperson]

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

If I walk into a 7-11 5 minutes after the lottery sales for that night close down and say, "I want to buy a ticket for tonight's game."(action declaration), the 7-11 DM adjudicated by saying, "No. You can't do that."

Saying no to an action declaration when it's not possible for the PC to do it, is in face adjudication.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That is spectacular.
What about then trying to kill her because they know she's a lich, albeit a friendly one?

Much hilarity would ensue.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If I walk into a 7-11 5 minutes after the lottery sales for that night close down and say, "I want to buy a ticket for tonight's game."(action declaration), the 7-11 DM adjudicated by saying, "No. You can't do that."

Saying no to an action declaration when it's not possible for the PC to do it, is in face adjudication.

(edited)
"The clerk says no."
"I beg and plead."
"Gimme a persuade check."
"4"
"Sorry, the clerk won't break the rules and sell you a ticket."

But the attempt was still made.

If you honestly couldn't see that for yourself I'm not sure it's possible to explain this to you.