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

[Guest 6801328]

This is a really good angle to look at this. Free metagaming stance would logically render this spell completely powerless.

Uhh....why? Free metagaming stance doesn't require players to roleplay the action that provides them the most benefit. I mean, they could. But as all of us who actually use (or try to use, in the case of us apprentices) this approach will attest, that's not what actually happens. On the contrary, we've found more creative, expressive roleplaying.

You seem to have a low opinion of players.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Uhh....why? Free metagaming stance doesn't require players to roleplay the action that provides them the most benefit. I mean, they could. But as all of us who actually use (or try to use, in the case of us apprentices) this approach will attest, that's not what actually happens. On the contrary, we've found more creative, expressive roleplaying.

You seem to have a low opinion of players.

Again, this just relies the players internalised limitations on metagaming which would not exist if there was nothing wring with any sort of metagaming.

 

[Maxperson]

...huh?

All I said was that I wanted to buy the ticket. A declaration of intent only. I was told I can't do that. Adjudication of declaration.

Now, if I then put money on the counter or attemper to persuade, those would be actions that I could Nd would fail.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Again, this just relies the players internalised limitations on metagaming which would not exist if there was nothing wring with any sort of metagaming.

Ah, ok. I think I see the disconnect here.

To take your machines example, if the characters were playing through Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, and got a bee in their bonnet to figure out how the machines work, so that they could turn D&D into a game of running a business, I would consider that just as unfortunate of an outcome...in the sense that I would lose interest in DMing it...as if they had just used OOC knowledge to get to the same point. Either way, no thank you.

Now, I suppose one might argue that in the Barrier Peaks version, the DM could prevent this from happening by asking for stupidly high DCs to figure out the technology, or just simply rule that it can't happen. But....if that's what the players want to do, what does that accomplish?

The problem isn't the metagaming, it's the disconnect in game objectives. (Which, now that I type it, I realize is pretty much exactly what the Angry DM said is always the case when metagaming seems to be the problem.)

 

[Charlaquin]

Except Charm Person only requires them to act like they would towards a friendly acquaintance. How can one judge how a character thinks they should act towards a friendly acquaintance anymore than they can judge anything else a character from a particular world would react in any other situation? (As opposed to Dominate Monster where the spell compels certain specific actions if I read it correctly).

Indeed! In the case of Charm Person, I leave it up to the player to interpret what it means for their character to treat the charmer as a friendly acquaintance, trusting them to do so in good faith.

 

[Guest 6801328]

All I said was that I wanted to buy the ticket. A declaration of intent only. I was told I can't do that. Adjudication of declaration.

Ohhhhhhh. Sorry, I misunderstood. I could have sworn you described the outcome, too.

I'll start over:

Max: "I want to buy a lottery ticket."
DM: "Ok. Thanks for sharing."
Max: "Can I?"
DM: "I don't know, can you?"
Max: "Um, I go to the convenience store and..."
DM: "You try to open the door, but it's locked."
Max: "I smash through the glass with my Mace of Disruption."
DM: "Ok, you succeed."
Max: "I go in and buy a lottery ticket."
DM: "How do you do that?"
Max: "I ask the clerk for a ticket."
DM: "He's cowering in a corner behind the counter, shaking in fear."
Max: "I try to calm him down."
DM: "Any particular way?"
Max: "Well, I put the mace away, try to smile, and use soothing words."
DM: "Gimme a straight up Cha check."
Max: "11"
DM: "Close enough. The clerk stands up and comes tentatively to the counter."
Max: "I tell him I want to buy a lottery ticket."
DM: "He says, 'I...I...I can't sell you one. Can't sell lottery tickets after 6:00 and...' he points to the clock '...it's 6:01.'"
Max: "I tell him I'll give him 50 gold if he sells me one ticket."
DM: "He says, 'I literally can't. The machines lock me out at 6:00, unless I'm in the middle of a transaction.'"

etc.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oooh. That's a nice split of the Gordian knot.

Is it, though? The DM already adjudicates all hostile actions the PCs take against NPCs. And for that matter all friendly actions they take, and all actions they take period. So despite sounding clever, this observation doesn’t actually mean much.

 

[Charlaquin]

All I said was that I wanted to buy the ticket. A declaration of intent only. I was told I can't do that. Adjudication of declaration.

Now, if I then put money on the counter or attemper to persuade, those would be actions that I could Nd would fail.

“I want a lottery ticket” isn’t a declaration of action. There’s nothing to adjudicate there.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is a really good angle to look at this. Free metagaming stance would logically render this spell completely powerless.

Not completely powerless. Just subject to interpretation by the player. Which, it is.

 

[iserith]

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

It is magical compulsion. The only constraint is "friendly acquaintance." The player can decide what that means. A DM might even award Inspiration for portraying that constraint in a fun and memorable way in order to incentivize the behavior.

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?

I don't have any particular opinion on charm person and no stance on how a DM decides things for the monsters and NPCs under their control.