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

[Guest 6801328]

I used wish to get F-14s. I then flew them.

If I wished for a flying machine I could use to get the dragons, and then used it, that seems different to me. It could very well have resulted in me getting F-14s and a knowledge dump on how to fly them.

Replied similarly to your sons desire for teleporters. I too would like one if he ever succeeds!

Oh, but now we are DEEP into DM adjudication territory.

 

[Maxperson]

But we just agreed (didn't we?) that your annoyance happened out-of-character. It was Max, not your character, that was annoyed.

Didn't I just tell you that when there is no in-character reason for something that it knocks me out of character?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yes. I think the specifics make it different in the examples at hand.

I get why it would seem that way. But it doesn't have to be.

If the other player makes up new names...something so novel that it doesn't evoke any fiction with which you're familiar...does that make it better?

What if you found out later that, actually, the other player had read a book you hadn't, and was lifting the names from there?

Well, your character is not familiar with Star Trek or 20th century military technology. So...I don't want to tell you what your character would do...but wouldn't it be entirely reasonable for your character to think another character had just invented some fantastical names?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Didn't I just tell you that when there is no in-character reason for something that it knocks me out of character?

Yes, you keep using those words. But you, Max, are the one making the judgment. "No in-character reason" is a metagame viewpoint. So the only conclusion I can possibly reach is that you are already out-of-character.

 

[iserith]

Yes, you keep using those words. But you, Max, are the one making the judgment. "No in-character reason" is a metagame viewpoint. So the only conclusion I can possibly reach is that you are already out-of-character.

As was discussed upthread, people who really care about "metagaming" don't seem to have any problem constantly playing and thinking in the "metagame." Different concepts. You can't even really play in a "no metagaming" group without heavily accessing the "metagame," particularly as it relates to having a sidebar with the DM periodically to determine what your character knows so that you can't be accused of "metagaming."

 

[Cadence]

Oh, but now we are DEEP into DM adjudication territory.

Are wishes a traditional location for maximal adjudication?

I get why it would seem that way. But it doesn't have to be.

If the other player makes up new names...something so novel that it doesn't evoke any fiction with which you're familiar...does that make it better?

What if you found out later that, actually, the other player had read a book you hadn't, and was lifting the names from there?

Well, your character is not familiar with Star Trek or 20th century military technology. So...I don't want to tell you what your character would do...but wouldn't it be entirely reasonable for your character to think another character had just invented some fantastical names?

I just wished for "a pair of F-14s". Would the proper DM response be to interpret that as it would be in world. A sheet of paper with the words F14 written twice maybe?

If you hadn't read the Silmarillion as the DM and I wished for the Vingilot to come to the rescue, how would you adjudicate that?

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, you keep using those words. But you, Max, are the one making the judgment. "No in-character reason" is a metagame viewpoint. So the only conclusion I can possibly reach is that you are already out-of-character.

It happens in game. That's where the action happens. Then it goes out of game and ruins my enjoyment. From in game to out of game, not the other way around.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, just stay in character and react in response to this. Easy. But people who ascribe to this viewpoint typically won't do that in my experience. Why?

Probably for the same reason that DMs who are concerned about "metagaming" don't do two simple things to mitigate its effects and remove the incentive to do it. They will steadfastly refuse and come up with all manner of reasons why they can't be bothered to solve the problem their own DMing is creating. Why?

Likely because it's not about roleplaying in my view - it's about control cloaked in group identity.

Or a desire to be accepted within the group. There’s a lot of shaming around metagaming, which encourages a lot of folks to go to great lengths prove that they’re not bad metagamers.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I get why it would seem that way. But it doesn't have to be.

If the other player makes up new names...something so novel that it doesn't evoke any fiction with which you're familiar...does that make it better?

What if you found out later that, actually, the other player had read a book you hadn't, and was lifting the names from there?

Well, your character is not familiar with Star Trek or 20th century military technology. So...I don't want to tell you what your character would do...but wouldn't it be entirely reasonable for your character to think another character had just invented some fantastical names?

Right. So this sort of crap is the reason for my questioning the 'roleplaying' of the people engaging this. Referring modern tech or modern pop culture as an inhabitant of some pseudo-medieval fantasy world is to me blatantly terrible roleplaying unless we were intentionally aiming for some pythonesque absurd comedy.

 

[iserith]

Or a desire to be accepted within the group. There’s a lot of shaming around metagaming, which encourages a lot of folks to go to great lengths prove that they’re not bad metagamers.

Yes, agreed. People will willingly give up their freedoms for such things and that goes for more than just D&D.