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

[iserith]

I have no problem with any of that. Never asking or never considering them a jerk at some point kind of feel as not good to me as asking very frequently and having a low threshold for starting to ascribe jerkiness. You need to trust your players if they're worth playing with. Not everyone is worth playing with.

Yes, and I find it helps to enshrine certain concepts into table rules to be shared with players before the game. There isn't so much a need to do this with an existing group (though it wouldn't hurt), but I also play with a lot of strangers, for example, so getting everyone on the same page prior to the game is very useful. This is my very first table rule, which is just an acknowledgement of what the game already says for us to do:

Goals of Play. We are here to have fun and to create an exciting, memorable story together. We will choose our actions accordingly. If it's not fun and/or does not help create an exciting, memorable story, we won't do it.​

So a player agreeing to this needs to filter what they do through that lens. If the PC is charmed, some constraints are placed on the character's actions. Those actions still need to be fun, exciting, and memorable.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yes it absolutely is a declaration of an action. The action I want to do is buy a lottery ticket. It's no different than a player saying to the DM that he wants to attack the orc.

You are right. It is no different than saying “I want to attack am orc.”

Neither is an action declaration. Both express aloud (perhaps for role playing reasons?) the inner thoughts of the character.

Now, a DM might skip ahead and assume that means the character would like to attempt an attack. But that’s interpreting. It’s not what the player actually said.

 

[Maxperson]

You are right. It is no different than saying “I want to attack am orc.”

Neither is an action declaration. Both express aloud (perhaps for role playing reasons?) the inner thoughts of the character.

Now, a DM might skip ahead and assume that means the character would like to attempt an attack. But that’s interpreting. It’s not what the player actually said.

Both are action declarations. If the DM asks what you are going to do, a declaration of "I want to attack the orc." gives the DM plenty to adjudicate. Usually, okay, roll to hit.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Okay. Let's forget 7-11 and I'll use a D&D example.

Suppose the party is fighting Caholdus Impersonatus, who loves to use Hold Person against his enemies. He casts the spell on one of the PCs who fails his save and is held. 3 other players take their turns and the turn of the held PC comes up. For the sake of this example, let's assume that he was distracted by something and has forgotten that his PC is held. For his turn he declares in good faith that his PC is going to attack Caholdus.

Are you guys really going to argue that I can't adjudicate a, "No you can't do that. You don't get an action due to being held. Make your save."? Because I'm pretty sure that I can adjudicate a denial of the action declaration under those circumstances.

I don’t understand what you think this example says.

The character can think whatever the player wants. The character can try to do whatever the player wants.
However, the attempt will fail because the character is unable to move.

???

 

[Maxperson]

I don’t understand what you think this example says.

The character can think whatever the player wants. The character can try to do whatever the player wants.
However, the attempt will fail because the character is unable to move.

???

I don't "think" it says anything. I know it says that the player declared an action and the DM adjudicated that action declaration with an appropriate, "No you can't do that."

 

[Guest 6801328]

Both are action declarations. If the DM asks what you are going to do, a declaration of "I want to attack the orc." gives the DM plenty to adjudicate. Usually, okay, roll to hit.

I will repeat: it is easy to infer what the action declaration probably is, but it is not an action declaration. It describes a state of thought.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't "think" it says anything. I know it says that the player declared an action and the DM adjudicated that action declaration with an appropriate, "No you can't do that."

Well, if you don’t see a difference between “because of the rules of the game your character is physically unable to accomplish the task you attempted” and “because I find it unrealistic that your character would have the information that I think would be necessary to arrive at the conclusion that the action you declared is the optimal one, I’m telling you that you are not even allowed to attempt that action”....

...then there probably isn’t a good ending to this conversation.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, if you don’t see a difference between “because of the rules of the game your character is physically unable to accomplish the task you attempted” and “because I find it unrealistic that your character would have the information that I think would be necessary to arrive at the conclusion that the action you declared is the optimal one, I’m telling you that you are not even allowed to attempt that action”....

That's entirely irrelevant to my argument. You asked if I thought that denying an action is adjudication. And I responded that it is, but happens very rarely. It doesn't matter if the rules are the reason why I deny the action, it's denied as adjudication. Period.

I've also said that I wouldn't do that under the circumstances we've been discussing in this thread. So clearly I do see the difference. Can you differentiate between the two separate discussions happening here? It doesn't seem like it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes it absolutely is a declaration of an action. The action I want to do is buy a lottery ticket. It's no different than a player saying to the DM that he wants to attack the orc.

“I want to X” communicates intent, not activity. You want to buy a lottery ticket? Great. What do you do about it? Do you want to attack the orc, or do you attack the orc? Until you’ve made a declarative statement of activity, I don’t have enough to work with to determine the outcome of your action. You can want to buy that ticked all day long, but until you actually make an attempt to buy it, I have nothing to adjudicate. You go to the 7-11 to try and buy a lottery ticket, now I have a goal and an approach, and I can determine that it has no chance of success because the store is closed.

 

[Charlaquin]

Okay. Let's forget 7-11 and I'll use a D&D example.

Suppose the party is fighting Caholdus Impersonatus, who loves to use Hold Person against his enemies. He casts the spell on one of the PCs who fails his save and is held. 3 other players take their turns and the turn of the held PC comes up. For the sake of this example, let's assume that he was distracted by something and has forgotten that his PC is held. For his turn he declares in good faith that his PC is going to attack Caholdus.

Are you guys really going to argue that I can't adjudicate a, "No you can't do that. You don't get an action due to being held. Make your save."? Because I'm pretty sure that I can adjudicate a denial of the action declaration under those circumstances.

In this case the specific rules for the paralyzed condition are overruling the general rule that the player has control over their character’s actions.