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

[Guest 6801328]

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

I have to admit I've completely lost track of Max's attempted point in this example.

 

[iserith]

If you're buying a lottery ticket, you already failed the Intelligence check.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have to admit I've completely lost track of Max's attempted point in this example.

He’s trying to argue that the power to veto an action on the basis of lack of established character knowledge is part of the DM’s role because the rules indicate that the DM adjudicates the results of the players’ actions. This argument hinges on the assumption that vetoing an action is covered under the umbrella of adjudication, which he is trying to use the closed 7-11 example to illustrate. In my opinion he has not been successful in this so far.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.)

Then perhaps we can just conclude this by stating that to a lot of people the objective of the game is to portray believable fantasy people whose capabilities are reflected by the statistics on their character sheet and that they solve problems using those capabilities in a manner consistent to how a such person living in that setting would behave and that the realities of that setting are decided and adjudicated by the GM and thus metagaming that interferes with this is counterproductive and unwelcome?

 

[iserith]

Examples in these discussions do not serve to illuminate. Their purpose is to obfuscate. They are best avoided in my view.

If someone cannot argue their point from the rules, then they don't have one. They just have a preference. Which is fine. Nobody can say someone's preference is wrong as long as it's not hurting anyone.

 

[iserith]

Then perhaps we can just conclude this by stating that to a lot of people the objective of the game is to portray believable fantasy people whose capabilities are reflected by the statistics on their character sheet and that they solve problems using those capabilities in a manner consistent to how a such person living in that setting would behave and that the realities of that setting are decided and adjudicated by the GM and thus metagaming that interferes with this is counterproductive and unwelcome?

That sounds like a fine table rule. I would hope that anyone showing up to your table would be told exactly this. Just like how when someone shows up at my table, they're told I don't care if they engage in "metagaming" but that they should be aware assumptions can be risky and the smart play is to verify one's assumptions before acting on them.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Er, you left out "to buy." You know, the action.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Then perhaps we can just conclude this by stating that to a lot of people the objective of the game is to portray believable fantasy people whose capabilities are reflected by the statistics on their character sheet and that they solve problems using those capabilities in a manner consistent to how a such person living in that setting would behave and that the realities of that setting are decided and adjudicated by the GM and thus metagaming that interferes with this is counterproductive and unwelcome?

May I edit that?

Then perhaps we can just conclude this by stating that to an indeterminate number of people the objective of the game is to portray fantasy people in a way they find believable, which for some of them depends on the extent to which they rely solely on the statistics on their character sheet to solve problems in a manner that is consistent with their own subjective conceptions of how such a person living in that setting would most likely behave and that the realities of that setting, including the thoughts of the characters, are decided upon and adjudicated by the GM and thus players taking actions the GM finds improbable interferes with this is counterproductive and unwelcome?

 

[Maxperson]

If you're buying a lottery ticket, you already failed the Intelligence check.

It's fun and I'm not in Vegas(not that I want to be right now).

 

[Guest 6801328]

Er, you left out "to buy." You know, the action.

The fact you think this changes anything boggles my mind.