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

[Guest 6801328]

Clear things have been disputed before and will be again. Courts make formal judgments and toss out lawsuits because of clear rules all the time.

In the case of my example and the DMG example on page 5, the player is trying to take an action that clearly violates the rules. The DM then steps in and makes a judgment saying, "Hey, the rules on this are clear and you can't do that."

Referees in Football games do it, too. When one team lines up 12 men on the field, they haven't taken an action yet and the rules are clear. When the ball is snapped, the Ref then tosses a flag and adjudicates the situation, halts the action telling the team no, you can't do that, and then assesses a penalty to the offending team.

It is a formal judgment, even if it's to tell the person no, because there's a rule preventing it. The clarification you mention is just the reason behind the judgment.

Yeah, ok. I can see a case (the hold person one probably isn't it) where an appeal to the written rules is being made, but the answer isn't clear, so the DM has to adjudicate. With the result perhaps being, "You weren't allowed to take an action just then."

So I was off in the weeds trying to overly restrict the use of the word "adjudicate". Somehow we got from "adjudicate the outcome of an attempted action" to adjudication in general. And honestly I've lost track of why.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, ok. I can see a case (the hold person one probably isn't it) where an appeal to the written rules is being made, but the answer isn't clear, so the DM has to adjudicate. With the result perhaps being, "You weren't allowed to take an action just then."

So I was off in the weeds trying to overly restrict the use of the word "adjudicate". Somehow we got from "adjudicate the outcome of an attempted action" to adjudication in general. And honestly I've lost track of why.

I don't even know why, either. All I remember is that at some point you asked me if I thought preventing an action was adjudication and I responded with, "Yes, in very rare instances." I figured that would be the end of it, but you know, internet.

 

[Guest 6801328]

A player can't. They can remind the player, but only the DM can say no.

I disagree, but it's way off in the weeds to keep arguing about it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But the spell only makes the character to think that the charmer is a friendly acquaintance. It doesn't stop the character from taking any physical actions. What if the player says that their character thinks that hitting friendly acquaintances with a sword is an OK thing to do sometimes? Or perhaps they decide that their character thinks that their acquaintance wishes to commit suicide and out of mercy decide to help. Or whatever such obvious nonsense with which they can use to 'justify' their action.

Sure, this would not happen due the player self policing but logically your stance should allow it.

Well, point of fact, you can't attack your charmer. I forgot to mention in my above that I made an except for that time. The Charmed condition prevents attacks on the charmer. Further, the mechanical effect of being a friendly acquaintance is advantage on CHA checks against them. As a table rule in my games, the outcome of such checks isn't up to me, as GM, but the player, as the player determines what their character thinks. The result is that none of the parade of horribles you present are possible according to the rules of the game (unless, as I did, the GM overrules them), and therefore none of them are, at all, a logical outcome of my play.

 

[Campbell]

I think there is a substantial difference between your character not being able to accomplish something because you lack the necessary fictional positioning to accomplish it and the GM deciding your character would not do something that they have the fictional positioning to accomplish. There are games where the GM has a measure of latitude (usually by calling for some sort of check built into the rules of the game) over a player character's thoughts, feelings, and actions. D&D has not been one of those games historically.

For what's it is worth I expect people to play their characters with integrity and be good sports. I just do not think trying to enforce that integrity at the table is worth my mental energy or the mental energy of everyone else at the table. I also think that metagame aversion usually does more harm than good. There are so many positive applications of using player knowledge to the benefit of the game including things like being mindful of narrative spotlight, paying attention to pacing, working to involve other players' characters, etc.

The following is specific to Dungeons and Dragons : At some level every iteration of Dungeons and Dragons is meant to be a game of skill. At some point players are going to be expected to use what lays between their ears to win the day. When you create an environment where having knowledge about monsters, traps, and stuff places constraints on player behavior that do not exist if you are ignorant then cultivating skill at playing the game becomes a liability instead of a boon.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think there is a substantial difference between your character not being able to accomplish something because you lack the necessary fictional positioning to accomplish it and the GM deciding your character would not do something that they have the fictional positioning to accomplish. There are games where the GM has a measure of latitude (usually by calling for some sort of check built into the rules of the game) over a player character's thoughts, feelings, and actions. D&D has not been one of those games historically.

For what's it is worth I expect people to play their characters with integrity and be good sports. I just do not think trying to enforce that integrity at the table is worth my mental energy or the mental energy of everyone else at the table. I also think that metagame aversion usually does more harm than good. There are so many positive applications of using player knowledge to the benefit of the game including things like being mindful of narrative spotlight, paying attention to pacing, working to involve other players' characters, etc.

The following is specific to Dungeons and Dragons : At some level every iteration of Dungeons and Dragons is meant to be a game of skill. At some point players are going to be expected to use what lays between their ears to win the day. When you create an environment where having knowledge about monsters, traps, and stuff places constraints on player behavior that do not exist if you are ignorant then cultivating skill at playing the game becomes a liability instead of a boon.

Well said.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think there is a substantial difference between your character not being able to accomplish something because you lack the necessary fictional positioning to accomplish it and the GM deciding your character would not do something that they have the fictional positioning to accomplish. There are games where the GM has a measure of latitude (usually by calling for some sort of check built into the rules of the game) over a player character's thoughts, feelings, and actions. D&D has not been one of those games historically.

We are not really talking about the GM controlling the character's feelings, thought's and action in general. But ultimately I see no reason to differentiate how mental and physical tasks are handled. Mental restrictions (your character simply doesn't know how to do that) are just as real than physical restrictions and it is perfectly fine to enforce them in the rare situation it is needed.

One thing I was thinking earlier is that a player describing the action in detail or in parts can kinda break the action declaration logic. Like if the player just said: "my character tries to make gunpowder" you would probably call for some sort of skill roll if you assumed that this was something that was at all possible (let's assume that in this instance it is possible by the physics of the setting) or just say they fail because no one in the setting knows how to do that. If the player instead starts to list the ingredients and tells how their character combines them, then they just succeed? I don't think so. I think that in the latter case the player is actually trying to declare the same action, just in more complicated way i.e. the character is trying to make gunpowder, and should be handled in the same way. This same issue applies to any task which is physically easy to do and the real difficulty is knowing what to do.

For what's it is worth I expect people to play their characters with integrity and be good sports. I just do not think trying to enforce that integrity at the table is worth my mental energy or the mental energy of everyone else at the table. I also think that metagame aversion usually does more harm than good. There are so many positive applications of using player knowledge to the benefit of the game including things like being mindful of narrative spotlight, paying attention to pacing, working to involve other players' characters, etc.

I fully agree that the players being good sports is ultimately the key. If the GM actually has to often step in and say 'no, you can't do that' then there probably is some fundamental miscommunication about the premises of the game or the setting. That being said, sometimes wrong assumptions or miscommunication about the details of the situation or the setting happen and in such a situation it is perfectly fine for the GM to clarify things.

The following is specific to Dungeons and Dragons : At some level every iteration of Dungeons and Dragons is meant to be a game of skill. At some point players are going to be expected to use what lays between their ears to win the day. When you create an environment where having knowledge about monsters, traps, and stuff places constraints on player behavior that do not exist if you are ignorant then cultivating skill at playing the game becomes a liability instead of a boon.

This is a good point. A lot of people like to play D&D in rather gamist manner, as a game of 'solving' dungeons. In such an approach fussing about whether the character actually knows the monsters vulnerability might feel like an unnecessary burden. That being said, this goes back to what I have said may times: it is not good idea to make plot critical mysteries that hinge on things that the players actually know but their characters don't. Thus when setting up a mystery, whether it was what weapon can harm the monster or who the murderer is, the GM should endeavour to build it in a manner that such an discrepancy doesn't exist. I still feel that this is not the same than the players adhering to more tangential limitations of their characters' knowledge i.e. 'no one in this setting knows how to make gunpowder,' 'my character is uneducated idiot from backwoods of nowhere and thus cannot describe the exact details of the political system of Thay'

 

[Cadence]

Well, point of fact, you can't attack your charmer. I forgot to mention in my above that I made an except for that time. The Charmed condition prevents attacks on the charmer.

I'm kind of surprised the spell description doesn't make it clear the target acquires the charmed condition (by putting the condition in caps or the like). Blindness/deafness are the same. Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm kind of surprised the spell description doesn't make it clear the target acquires the charmed condition (by putting the condition in caps or the like). Blindness/deafness are the same. Thanks for pointing that out!

I think it is capitalized.

 

[Cadence]

I think it is capitalized.

Not in the 10th printing PhB or the Essentials Kit Rulebook.