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

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

Yeah, just like I said in the part you omitted, you're hung up on physically preventing part. Nothing physically prevented the ancient Egyptians from making gunpowder but their lack of understanding of chemistry did. In practice it is just as real limitation. There really is not any more 'mother may I' here than any other denied action.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yeah, just like I said in the part you omitted, you're hung up on physically preventing part. Nothing physically prevented the ancient Egyptians from making gunpowder but their lack of understanding of chemistry did. In practice it is just as real limitation. There really is not any more 'mother may I' here than any other denied action.

Bad example. Gunpowder was invented loooooong before the chemistry was understood.

Shouldn't that be impossible, based on your criteria?

 

[Guest 6801328]

But to address your critique about the "physical" thing:

1. Yeah, I think that's to some extent true. We could argue whether a silence spell is "physical" but certainly the thing it prevents, speaking, is physical.
2. Given that my premise is that the difference between internal thoughts and external action is the least ambiguous line to draw (compared to the more traditional way of the DM deciding what is reasonable), it would follow that I'm drawing a distinction between mental and physical.
3. That's true even for a charm spell: I'm totally fine with a player saying, "In the deepest parts of my brain I know what's going on, but every action I try to take comes out differently." Whatever. As long as the actions they take in the game comply with the rules, they can have whatever they want going on in their character's brains. (This is a big part of what Max objected to in the glorious "5 Int Genius" debate).

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

In this case you have attempted to buy a ticket and failed on the basis of having no possibility of success. That is not the same as being prevented from making an attempt in the first place.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Bad example. Gunpowder was invented loooooong before the chemistry was understood.

Shouldn't that be impossible, based on your criteria?

Pre-modern chemistry is still chemistry even if may not have been called that. Playing an inventor character certainly would be possible in certain settings. Then that character would have appropriate skills, feats and such to back that up. The player could say 'I would like to make some sort of an explosive.' There would be a skill check involved, possibly several. Again, a no-skill character bypassing all that by using player knowledge is not appropriate.

But really, are we really back at arguing why a medievalish fantasy person drawing on the players modern scientific understanding is not appropriate? Is this really what you want to argue about?

 

[Maxperson]

(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.

You changed the action declaration. 10 yard penalty. Replay the down.

My action declaration warranted a no you can't do that. Your DIFFERENT declaration did not.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Pre-modern chemistry is still chemistry even if may not have been called that. Playing an inventor character certainly would be possible in certain settings. Then that character would have appropriate skills, feats and such to back that up. The player could say 'I would like to make some sort of an explosive.' There would be a skill check involved, possibly several. Again, a no-skill character bypassing all that by using player knowledge is not appropriate.

"Mother may I mix sulpher, potassium nitrate, and charcoal in (insert correct proportions, which I don't know offhand) proportions?"

"Sure. You can do whatever you want."

"Cool, I make gunpowder!"

Yawn. "That mixture of ingredients does not, in this game world, seem to produce gunpowder. Hmmm. Strange, huh?"

Fixed.

But really, are we really back at arguing why a medievalish fantasy person drawing on the players modern scientific understanding is not appropriate? Is this really what you want to argue about?

Hey, I didn't bring that topic back.

 

[Maxperson]

In this case you have attempted to buy a ticket and failed on the basis of having no possibility of success. That is not the same as being prevented from making an attempt in the first place.

No. I declared my action only.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You changed the action declaration. 10 yard penalty. Replay the down.

My action declaration warranted a no you can't do that. Your DIFFERENT declaration did not.

Only because you are trying to combine action declarations and action outcomes in one sentence and pretend it's just a declaration.

Why do you keep doing that?

EDIT: Sure, I sometimes do the same thing. "I kill the orc with my sword!" What I really mean, of course, is that I'm going to make a sword attack, and that the outcome has yet to be determined. My statement was interpreted to mean a specific action declaration, but technically it included an assumed but as-of-yet-undetermined outcome.

So you can be forgiven for making action declarations that way, but not for failing to see the difference.

 

[Cadence]

That's true even for a charm spell: I'm totally fine with a player saying, "In the deepest parts of my brain I know what's going on, but every action I try to take comes out differently." Whatever. As long as the actions they take in the game comply with the rules, they can have whatever they want going on in their character's brains. (This is a big part of what Max objected to in the glorious "5 Int Genius" debate).

Why do there actions necessarily need to come out differently? The rules only require they act like the caster is a friendly acquaintance. Maybe they just sometimes attack friendly acquaintances, or run away from them in fear? Who is to judge that those aren't the thoughts a character might have to a friendly acquaintance?

Why should a DM ever expect anything from a character who has been subjected to a Charm Person and how would it be adjudicated without requiring the player to explain what the character was thinking (seemingly contra to half this entire thread)? @iserith , for example, said they would leave it fully up to the player (see #963) to decide what was appropriate. Would your table differ?