A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Aldarc]

This utterly failed argument again? Really?! Once again, no preclusion does not mean inclusion. There is also no rule prohibiting my PC's longsword from now detonating a nuclear blast destroying a 2 mile radius around him with each hit. There is a rule stating that if you roll a 1 on the d20 for an attack, you automatically miss, but no rule that prohibits the normal longsword from casting hold person whenever that happens.

What do you like to say again? Oh, yes. False equivalence is false.

If something is not explicitly included or precluded in the rules, it can only happen in the game if the DM agrees to allow it to happen. Players do no get to invent rules for the game without the DM giving them that ability.

Mother May I. Roleplaying a character and their headspace is not inventing a rule.

Quote me the rule that explicitly allows players the freedom to invent things for the game in those silent spaces.

I believe that it's called "roleplaying a character." You should try engaging those parts of the game some time.

Only if you are incapable of understanding that asking some questions and getting some answers is not "Mother May I." If you do have a failed understanding of what "Mother May I" is, then sure you could see it as that.

LOL. You just literally described how the Mother May I children's game is played. Both here and practically earlier as well.

It's inherently derogatory. That's bad.

So I guess that means you will never mention "railroading" or "metagaming" (which you equate to 'cheating') in your posts ever again? Ever.

 

[darkbard]

Sure, just as he's not entitled to not have his thread derailed by people who he offends with those words and fight back against them.

At this point, I hope we all might be less concerned with attacking the troll with fire than not feeding the troll, defined by Wikipedia as one who "In Internet slang [...] starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain."

 

[Maxperson]

What do you like to say again? Oh, yes. False equivalence is false.

Let's see. Your example was of something being included in the game just by virtue of it not being explicitly denied. So were mine. That is not a False Equivalence.

Here you go by the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Mother May I. Roleplaying a character and their headspace is not inventing a rule.

Metagaming is not roleplay.

I believe that it's called "roleplaying a character." You should try engaging those parts of the game some time.

You are mistaken. It's called metagaming.

LOL. You just literally described how the Mother May I children's game is played. Both here and practically earlier as well.

So I guess that means you will never mention "railroading" or "metagaming" (which you equate to 'cheating') in your posts ever again? Ever.

So this claim that simply asking some questions and getting some answers is "Mother May I" is so absurd, is has to be a joke. It was very funny!

 

[Aldarc]

Here you go by the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Yes, this link describes your argumentative style pretty well.

Metagaming is not roleplay.

You are mistaken. It's called metagaming.

Roleplaying a character who knows things without asking for DM permission to know them is not metagaming; it's just called "roleplaying."

So this claim that simply asking some questions and getting some answers is "Mother May I" is so absurd, is has to be a joke. It was very funny!

Your entire DMing approach has been advocating for players fishing for DM permission out of the wazoo. Including what the characters can know. How is that not MMI?

 

[Maxperson]

Your entire DMing approach has been advocating for players fishing for DM permission out of the wazoo. Including what the characters can know. How is that not MMI?

Um, no. My players don't have to ask my permission to have their PCs wake up in the morning. Or get dressed. Or make breakfast as they break camp. Or ask me if it's okay if they set off to the north. Or, or, or, or, or... That's what "Mother May I" is. It's having to ask permission for every little thing. Had you ever played the game, you'd know that. That's why it's a pejorative term.

 

[Bedrockgames]

At this point, I hope we all might be less concerned with attacking the troll with fire than not feeding the troll, defined by Wikipedia as one who "In Internet slang [...] starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain."

One could make a strong case that the OP veers into trolling territory.

 

[Maxperson]

One could make a strong case that the OP veers into trolling territory.

Apparently [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] thinks that people defending against the attacks that the OP(inadvertently) and supporting posters(deliberately) have engaged in is somehow trolling.

 

[darkbard]

You guys keep doing you. The posting history makes clear what's what.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You guys keep doing you. The posting history makes clear what's what.

I am not a troll, if that is what you are suggesting. Heck this thread was started as a refutation if one of my own posts. Just because people disagree with you about something, that doesn’t make them a troll.

 

[pemerton]

By the way, the metagaming portion specifically says to discourage metagame THINKING, so yes the rules state that the DM has authority of what the PC thinks and direct the DM to use that authority with metagaming.

The thinking being referred to is thinking by the players. The PCs can't have metagame thinking unless you're playing a game like Over the Edge, which has a self-referential dimension within the fiction.

The into section of 5e. The players decribe to the DM what they want their characters to do. You want your character to remember what a troll's weakness is. The DM narrates the results after deciding yes, no or uncertain which requires a roll.

Read the exchange where the player experienced at the game doesn't just know what a gargoyle is. He "has a feeling" that the gargoyles may not be statues, but still has to look at them and make a roll to see if they are gargoyles or not. The DM ultimately has him make an intelligence(investigation) check.

You also have the Commune with Nature spell, which allows the player to get knowledge of some kinds of creatures. You wouldn't need a 5th level spell for that if you could just use your player knowledge about those creatures.

The Ranger favored enemy gives you a bonus on intelligence rolls to recall information about them. Even the Ranger has to roll to remember info about his FAVORED ENEMY. It's not something the player can just automatically decide.

I was going to post a reply to this but then saw that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] posted exactly what I would have done.

All I would add is that it's not true that a GM gets to adjudicate every declaration of "I recall such-and-such." For instance, if during a session of play the PCs met a shady broker at the merchant's house, and then the next session one of the players says (in character) "Remember that broker we met - let's track her down," the GM is not entitled to call for a INT check which, if it fails, prevents the player from making that suggestion.

Contrast: if the player recalls his/her PC being introduced to the broker, but has forgotten the broker's name, and says to the GM "I try and recall her name," then the GM is entitled to call for an INT check which - if it succeeds - will oblige the GM to tell the player the NPC's name.