Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6995061" data-attributes="member: 6778044">So I agree that there are times where this is quite important (such as somebody who might have read, played, or even run a published adventure that you are using). And i would totally agree that if you are selecting a published adventure, and somebody goes out and reads it, that's just plain wrong. It really ruins their fun more than anything, but it can impact the fun of others.I used to think that the MM lore was as sacrosanct as the adventure I was running, right down to trolls and fire. I was wrong. I've mentioned the main reason why I think that several times. People who live where real trolls exist will know what trolls are vulnerable to. More importantly, what is the benefit from a game perspective? A single encounter where they don't know the secret and then learn it? Usually that's all it amounts to. And for that 15 minutes acting like you don't know the answer. This doesn't apply to me, because frankly I find it's harder to find players that want to be part of a shared-narrative design. But, a lot of the more modern RPGs make this the central focus of the design, and to a number of people, seems to be considered a more evolved form of RPG. YMMV.This tends to work best if you are playing with a group that prefers (and is good) with the acting style of role-playing. Of course, there are some purists as well. The AD&D DMG suggested (potentially jokingly, it's hard to tell with Gygax some time), severe penalties for those that dare read anything other than the approved player books.So what I think this best illustrates is this: First, your objection (as stated twice here) is when the player acts on information that they don't think their character would have. Yet you also seem to object to when they act on information that you (the DM) think they shouldn't know either. I agree with you that for whatever the character is going to do, the more the player can explain and support that, the more likely I am to allow it (such as a clever social interaction). But if one of your players felt they knew something, you disagreed, and they couldn't make their case, it would be a problem (it seems).The reality is really pretty simple, though: some players and DMs appreciate the challenge(?) of keeping character and player knowledge separate. If the rules are clear at your table, and particularly if you are playing with a group that agrees (which is not unusual since like-minded players tend to filter themselves into a particular DMs group), then it's the right option for you.In the groups that do feel that way, i tend to find they are a bit too restrictive in what they think is "reasonable" for a character to know. I was one of them. It's not wrong to enjoy this, and if it's enjoyable, then go for it.At this stage, I'm of the opposite mind. One of the reason I love the Forgotten Realms is that with so much material published, players can (if they choose) be very immersed in the world. There's shared lore and I want them to read more of it, not less. Much like you can start a Star Wars campaign on Tatooine and you don't have to mention that there are two suns, or that the planet is a desert, or what a sand person or jaws is, the Forgotten Realms has that opportunity. It's easier to immerse yourself in the world in that way than it is to decide "my character doesn't know this" or have to ask (which pulls you out of the immersion). It's much easier for me to modify things to my liking, which also keeps the players and the characters guessing. Because it's one thing for the character to "have" a feeling or know something, but it's a different thing altogether when the player does too. A good example would be Ravenloft. It's fine to say your character is feeling a sense of dread, but it's much more fun if you can make the players feel a sense of dread too.</blockquote>

Verification