D&D General "I make a perception check."

[Mannahnin]

yeah so tragic they learn the rules

Really?

No, it's tragic when they're trained to substitute invoking mechanics in place of narrative description and immersion.

 

[Celebrim]

right... and I didn't. I can assume pretty well that anyone raised in a real world setting has a base idea what a vampire is... and an aliens but I can't believe they would think those as true options unless they were portrayed as the kind of nutty person that would believe in those things...

a) So? Why does it matter what you believe?
b) If it hasn't come up before, how do you know the character doesn't believe in UFOs and aliens? Lots of people do and it doesn't necessarily come up in normal interactions with them. I've been frequently surprise in life to learn specific beliefs of people I know.
c) Once you introduce evidence to a scene that might imply vampires or aliens, how do you know that evidence wouldn't cause the character to reassess their beliefs. Like I don't believe in either, but if I found evidence that had as a possible cause "It's aliens", I'd probably at least become agnostic to the idea and treat it as a possibility until could rule it out. Aliens aren't impossible from known facts just incredibly unlikely.

I really hope that the first time you find even the hint of vampires you don't hope holy water or garlic will protect you and you would jump to the MUCH saner "someone is acting like a vampire but is a normal person" theory...

I'm the sort of person that would probably hedge my bets and consider that MUCH saner. As soon as I encounter a potential out of context problem, one of my first thoughts is, "Maybe I don't know as much as I think I know."

cause in the real world vampires are NOT real...(I can't believe I just had to type that)

But in the real world we don't get evidence that suggests vampires very often either, or we might have other ideas.

I'm sorry what?!?! supernatural killer is as likely as body armor or PCP(or a mix)?!!? really?

It doesn't really matter if it is or not. Once you present evidence that could reasonably be interpreted as a supernatural killer, it's up to the player to decide whether they leap to that explanation or not. You can't tell the player, "Your character would never leap to the explanation, "supernatural killer"." Because you can't know that. The player has to decide, and whatever the player decides is correct.

nore did I claim to... I asked for consistency and role playing based on the character NOT out of game knowledge.

You are claiming GMing right to know what out of game knowledge is and squash it. You're filtering and rejecting propositions based on your opinion as "What the character would know" or "What the character would do"

I have not once told a player how to play there character so KNOCK IT OFF!!!!!

So it kind of feels like this is a contradiction. Are you or are you not asserting that you can reject a proposition you feel is out of character or "metagaming"?

unless they are literally saying "Oh the battle matt is out so I know there is a fight..." I can tell them there character can't see the battle matt or dice...

I can know that the player has seen the battle matt and the character hasn't

I don't even see your point. If the player says, "My character shouldn't get a surprise roll because I saw you get out the battlemat" then, sure you can deny that advantage because it's not based on fictional positioning in the game world. But if the player says, "My character shouldn't need a surprise roll because as soon as we started talking to the scruffy gentlemen I suspected bandits and readied myself for the possibility of an ambush", I totally agree with the player. I even agree with the player if in reality the real reason he suspected an ambush is you the GM got out a battlemat. The fact that you dropped an OOC clue isn't the player's fault. It's your mistake. You can't know whether if you didn't get out a battlemat, the player and hence the character still might have suspected an ambush. You ought not tell the player, "You ought not suspect an attack (that is actually coming) and get ready for it because that's metagaming."

because again that is IN CHARACTER knowledge.... as opposed to the presence of the battle mat, or me opening the monster manual, or me taking out the dragon mini... those are OUT OF CHARACTER things.

I still don't your point. No one was talking about table cues until you suddenly introduced the idea. Things like "You hear a noise outside" are in character events that produce in character knowledge. If the character says, "I get and load my shotgun" you as the GM shouldn't say, "That's metagaming. You're character would probably wouldn't think much of it or would think it was a racoon or something."

the only knowladge I want them to lack is out of game

You seem to think you can arbitrate what that knowledge is.

um... then why play as a character at all?

Because I'm the only one that can make those decisions. I don't know everything my character knows. I can't know what my character would act like in absence of my knowledge as a player. I can try to imagine it, but ultimately whatever I decide the GM will have to be happy with, because it's my character.

At one time I tried to throw dice or flip coins to decide what my character would know so it wouldn't be influenced by my knowledge as a player, but after a little while I started to wonder why play my character at all if I'm just going to let the dice play my character.

 

[Mort]

right... and I didn't. I can assume pretty well that anyone raised in a real world setting has a base idea what a vampire is... and an aliens but I can't believe they would think those as true options unless they were portrayed as the kind of nutty person that would believe in those things...

I really hope that the first time you find even the hint of vampires you don't hope holy water or garlic will protect you and you would jump to the MUCH saner "someone is acting like a vampire but is a normal person" theory...

cause in the real world vampires are NOT real...(I can't believe I just had to type that)

now in a D&D setting they may be real and it may be as reasonable to suspect a vampire as in the real worlds it would be to suspect a crazy person...

no... and if my real life buddies acted like they thought that a vampire was loose in the city in real life I would look at them like they were crazy. AND IF SOMEHOW IT TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE VAMPIRES DID EXSIST, i would not even feel dumb for saying "No they don't" until overwhelming evidence was given.

correct... another way that a character may know or be used to things that we the players are not.

I'm sorry what?!?! supernatural killer is as likely as body armor or PCP(or a mix)?!!? really?

no it doesn't... it is slightly more reasonable then it was when 'someone died in my city and now I hear a noise' but only slightly... like I feel like at this point you are pulling my leg.

I'm sorry how does that disprove anything... a real life thing that has happened in history (including resent history) and half the people wont believe it... but you seem to think that something that (as far as we know) has not only never happened but is literally based on stories we tell our children should be just accepted?


I can see a movie character being superstitius and seen by most other characters as crazy jumping to vampire... and in the story even being right. I just can't see regular people just going "Oh must be the children's story"

nore did I claim to... I asked for consistency and role playing based on the character NOT out of game knowledge.

I have not once told a player how to play there character so KNOCK IT OFF!!!!!

there will come a point when that is true... and with 5 recon marines it may be 5 different times... with 5 players and 5 PCs it may be 5 different times... I just ask that the movie be based on the characters not the writer or audicane knowing it is a movie, and that the character not the players that know it is a game.

nore did I... I asked they play the characters they made... consistent with the world we all worked on. KNOCK IT OFF!!!!!

yes and no one disagrees with that.

yup... but who said it sin't?

unless they are literally saying "Oh the battle matt is out so I know there is a fight..." I can tell them there character can't see the battle matt or dice...

I can know that the player has seen the battle matt and the character hasn't

no and I expect that even the most annoying write a novel length back story player can't have it and I for one have never required such


I agrree... in the real world no one is choosing to jump off a 50ft cliff let alone a 100ft one... but as I said before in my games the characters grew up knowing that strong/tough adventurers CAN survive that... and when they are tough enough they have a good idea about that.

because again that is IN CHARACTER knowledge.... as opposed to the presence of the battle mat, or me opening the monster manual, or me taking out the dragon mini... those are OUT OF CHARACTER things.

YOUR side doesn't want to separate in and out of game... I do. and that makes me wonder what happens if someone sees your notes... does there character get some view of what is to come?!?!

the only knowladge I want them to lack is out of game

um... then why play as a character at all? why ROLE PLAY what your character knows instead of just talking useing your out of game mindset... make it like chess and pandamic, just a board game not a role playing game

I agree that is 100% the way the characters should be thinking if they live in an average D&D world. I never even hinted it isn't... my Predator example was characters in the modernish world

no one... not me not anyone else is asking players to play dumb.

Why are we discussing "real world..." anything?

The game world is absolutely NOT that. BUT it is the "reality" of the PCs.

In the game world any PC that DOESN'T believe in vampires might well be considered crazy.

And that gets into the player dictating the PCs beliefs. It's not my role as DM to dictate what the player has his PC believe, even when the player seems to always have the PC believe what is most advantageous to the player.

It is my role as DM to throw some wrenches into that though. Maybe these vampires LOVE garlic and a stake through the heart will just piss them off. If I pull something like that, there will be ample ways for the players to discover this and these vampires' actual weaknesses. But a player who makes assumptions (these are standard vampires) without bothering to verify - will get themselves and possibly the group into trouble.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

a great example of out of character thinking is in the most recent run of Xmen... the Mutants have got a set of 5 or 6 mutants that if they work together can bring back the dead. Not some 1 in a million thing they are bringing mutants back in mass... and it is a state secrete of the mutant state.

now cyclops died in public and everyone said he couldn't show his face post resurrection... everyone would flip if they knew 1 x man came back from the dead (and when the story leaked to the press there was this HUGE blow back)...

Okay, make sense in the real world, 1 guy may have come back from the dead once and changed the world and it is something that as far as we know is impossible.
.
PROBLEM... they don't live in the real world. they live in a world were 3 times before this cyclops died... the last 2 times quite public.
My argument was that the answer cyclops should give to the reporter is "I would love to interview with you about coming back to life if you do me a favor and get a list of how many times Tony Stark died and came back because I would love to say my 4th time I MIGHT have just passed him for now" but instead they act like no one comes back ever...

and years ago there was a story where a character died, and his daughter was at the funeral and not greaving... when someone asked why she answered "He's an Xman they always come back" and I don't remember if she listed the LONG list of dead characters that had come back or if me and my friends added that when we joked about it... but that seems to me to be the more in world thought

 

[Celebrim]

a great example of out of character thinking is in the most recent run of Xmen... t... but that seems to me to be the more in world thought

What's frustrating about your example is that you now seem to be agreeing with me - characters in the setting should be more genre savvy and act according to their knowledge. Stories shouldn't rely on characters being blind and stupid. The example you raise here is an exactly the sort of thing I called out as bad writing which you earlier disagreed with me on.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ok, so you don’t like the way I interpret the rules for perception. Cool. Glad we spent a dozen posts getting that figured out.

We knew that when we started. You just seem to find discussing differences in style and goal a complete waste of your time. Because any time I critique your style, you just seem to shrug and say "so what? I don't care" and move on.

Yes, I’m aware. I believe the intent of the passive check mechanics is for them to apply when a character is looking/listening not just seeing/hearing. That’s why you can’t use them while engaged in another task.

So, you understand that seeing is passive and looking is active. So you can understand that the passive check is different than the active check. So, again. I can use my eyes to receive visual information and "look" and that is very different than just seeing passively.

So when calling for an Active Perception roll, that's the difference. I understand you don't rule it that way and you bundle everything into passive skills for some reason, but do you at least finally understand the difference and why I can narrate a difference between the two?

Yes, things are going on in the locations. Which of those things will end up mattering to the story we create together by playing the game, and which won’t? I don’t know, and can’t know until we actually play.

If things happening in the location don't matter, why are you bothering with them at all?

But besides that, you know what is happening in that location, so you know what is important to convey that information within that location. You don't need for the location to have some grand importance to the sixteen act structure of the campaign to be able to have important things happening within the microcosm of the location.

Wait? Is that it? Do you think I'm using "important" to mean something like an item introduced at level 3 will have some significance to the grand plot by level 15? No. I'm talking in here, in this moment, maybe foreshadowing since I do tend to have larger goals than just the single location (I've found, "go do whatever" tends to leave players just staring at me asking what they should do and where they should go. Overarching goals and working in opposition to something else helps them be more focused. "Here's a problem, do you want to fix it? Okay, how do you want to fix it?" works way better)

No, I do not generate treasure randomly when the players find it, with the exception of pocket change carried by humanoid enemies. Yes, I do come up with information connecting the stuff I generate or place to the locations they’re in. Since I can’t seem to understand what you mean when you say “important,” I can’t tell you if any of that information is what you would consider “important” or not. I can tell you that I have no idea what if any of that information the players will learn, or how they will use it, or if it will end up impacting the story we create together in any meaningful way.

To me this reads like you create stuff, give it importance, then turn around and say that you have no idea what could possibly be important. If i t has a connection to the location and tells them something about the location, it is important. What else could it possibly be? How is it not important?

Honestly, what do you consider important? I've tried to explain this multiple times and your answers make no sense. So let's flip roles. What would you define as important in a location? And for the love of all that is holy, don't just say "I don't know" explain why you can't know and then an example of what would be and what wouldn't be important within the location. Unless this is entirely a "I don't know what will matter six sessions down the line" which isn't what I'm talking about.

Seems like a clever plan.

No it isn't. It is basic, likely to backfire, and possibly lead to far more problems than it solved. But catching things on fire is the only thing they have left other than letting themselves get stabbed,

I have not ignored their intent at all. They wanted to find out if there was a trap, and arguably they will. Since the trap is set off by standing in the center of the room, standing in the center of the room will result in the trap being set off. I don’t understand how this statement can be disputed, it is tautological.

That bolded part? That is BS. That is "You wanted the sword, I stabbed you with the sword and arguably now you have it. Your intent was fully realized." It is a fundamentally sadistic twisting of their words.

No one asks to look for traps with the intent of setting off the trap in their face. They look for traps so they don't set the traps off. That's the entire point.

As for disputing the trap being set off. MAYBE HAVE THEM ROLL TO SEE THE TRAP FIRST! I'm pretty sure you are a person who moves through space and has eyes, so I'm certain you have been moving through physical space and noticed something before stepping on it. You insisted that they had to "change the situation" to get a chance to roll to find traps. Well, they did. They started moving, everything is now changed, they want to look fro traps. Why are you declaring and ruling that they automatically fail to find the trap?

Again, I didn’t ignore that intent at all. I understand they intend to find out if there’s traps; their approach to achieving that intent happens to be one that will inevitably result in the trap being set off. I don’t see any other way that action could be resolved.

Let them roll before setting off the trap, it isn't hard. They aren't robots who must move to a location before running the proper script.

Well, it’s a choice to keep watch for danger while traveling or exploring, instead of, say, navigating, making a map, looking for secret doors, etc.

How is looking for danger different than looking for secret doors? That is the same thing. Hint: Everyone knows that a secret door can be used to hide an ambush

What difference is there between making a map and navigating? They are the same thing.

And finally, this has NOTHING to do with my point. Okay, fine, they (while in a clearly hostile and dangerous location) made the choice to look for danger. And you decide that looking at number A and looking at number B, they fail. Wonderful. Then they make a NEW choice, with the intent of trying to spot that danger again. You insist they need to take a new action. So they do. You auto-fail them and trigger the damage, because "how else could I rule it?"

Again, arguably they have been quite successful at finding out if there’s a trap. But, yeah, sometimes you make a decision and that decision has an outcome that is negative for your character. It is important to me that those negative outcomes be a result of your decisions, not random chance. Accordingly, I endeavor to give the players the tools they need to make informed decisions, and I expect them to give me the tools I need to determine the outcomes of those decisions.

Again, any argument that triggering a trap is finding a trap is BS and sadistic sophistry.

Secondly, you are big on decisions, but you seem to missed something. The player's decision isn't made in a vacuum. Informed decisions are one way to prevent a decision from actually being random chance, and the player clearly wasn't making an informed decision to step on a trap.

But again, INTENT MATTERS.

Let us say the player is at a fancy ball, I describe people dancing in the crowded room and the duke talking to a group of generals. The player says "I want to go across the room and talk to the Duke about the Dragon War". So I say sure, you march across the room, shoving people out of your way, and interrupt the Duke's conversation, everyone is pissed at you and now you have to figure out how to not get thrown out of the party. Decisions have consequences and sometimes bad things happen, right?

Except, clearly the player did not intend to be rude. Despite the fact that I clearly followed their declared actions (move across the crowded room and talk to the Duke who is in the middle of a conversation) I completely ignored and ruined their intent. I was in fact actively hostile towards their intent.

You are doing almost the same thing. "Well, you said you moved to the center of the room, the trap was in the center of the room. There is no other choice, I gave you telegraphed clues. But you did find the trap in the room at least."

I don’t want to assume an approach that would cause them to fail. Nor do I want to assume an approach that could not fail. I don’t want to assume an approach at all. That’s why I expect them to tell me their approach.

Why not assume an approach that is uncertain then? Then you don't have to assume if it would fail or not fail. The player may not want to give you a detailed breakdown of their every action, you've said repeatedly you don't require that, but when we give vague actions your response is you need more detail. Why?

So far the only reason has been "because there is a trap in this room and I need to know if you automatically trigger it or not?" and I find that a poor reason.

Depends where and how you search. I need a clear and reasonably specific declaration of goal and approach to determine that. “Search the whole room” is not reasonably specific in my opinion because there’s practically infinite ways that could be done. I need something specific enough that if we both play it out like little movies in our heads, those movies would look pretty similar. Otherwise, we are likely to have misunderstandings as we imagine entirely different narratives.

So, the approach was uncertain, they rolled well, but even then you need even more information to determine if they find the door or not? Because even an uncertain result turning positive isn't good enough? It was a thorough search, how close to an inch-by-inch search do I need to get before you can determine if a thorough search checked the bookcase or not? A thorough search would check everything. That's what thorough means.

Cool. You do you.

If you see player intent as so easily discarded, then I don't know if continuing to have a conversation will ever lead to anything productive. I can't imagine dismissing my players so casually.

When I play as a player, I often succeed without a roll by describing actions that eliminate either any reasonable chance of failure, any potential consequences for failure, or both. In my experience, it’s not that hard to do.

Right, so you rely on your method because it is just auto-successes all the time. And so when you encounter someone who has failed, you can't understand why they might see the possibility of failure.

Yes, I too could describe everything in excruciatingly precise detail to eliminate any reasonable chance of failure on my end. I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a spoon. It is so mind-numbingly irritating and then it gets to the point where the DM, tired of me never taking any risks, punishes me for never taking any risks, making all the risk avoidance worthless.

So, you can't understand why someone would risk a die roll that could fail? Because every described action that doesn't rely on die roll can fail too. Both methods have equal chance of failure, so it doesn't matter which you choose.

I just fundamentally disagree. There’s no great skill involved in deciding whether to hide under the ogre’s table or in the pantry; that’s something I think everyone who has played hide and seek as a child has probably picked up. The +17 becomes relevant when and if a stealth check becomes necessary.

And yet one of those received an auto-pass and the other a roll (or an auto-failure in some cases), so clearly there must be some skill involved.

There are people who are professionally trained in stealth, can you accept that is a thing and that they know how to hide more effectively than people not trained without resorting to "any child who played hide and seek can hide"?

If you don’t think Frodo wanted to get to Mt Doom as quickly and efficiently as possible, we got very different impressions of that story.

When the Fellowship decides to go to Moira is Gimli wanting to run through it as fast as possible to get to Mount Doom as quickly and efficiently as possible? If you think so, we got very different impressions of that story.

Weirdly, it seems that a story involving a party of Nine people might have had more than one character with more than one goal in it.

 

[iserith]

I am less and less inclined to use things liek persuasion checks. I don't care if players act out their dialogue, but I want to know what they say to the NPC and then I will judge the response based on what I know about the NPC. I usually only used skill checks in those circumstances where I don't know the NPC well -- the players just picked some poor unimportant bastard out of a crowd -- or I literally have no reason to believe the NPC will respond one way or the other. And even then half the time I am not really judging the PC's performance -- they did what they said they did -- so much as I am taking the temperature of the NPC. Poor result? It might not be you; maybe that guard just got chewed out for sleeping on the job last night, or that courtier was rebuffed by his romantic target.

I think the social interaction rules are mostly concerned with whether an NPC, given their disposition toward the end of the interaction, is willing to take a risk or incur a cost for the PCs. Anything outside of that doesn't really need much in the way of mechanics in my view.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

b) If it hasn't come up before, how do you know the character doesn't believe in UFOs and aliens? Lots of people do and it doesn't necessarily come up in normal interactions with them. I've been frequently surprise in life to learn specific beliefs of people I know.

I mean if it hasn't come up... why or how would I know? this seems a weird argument. DO you mean in real life in a game or a story..., good stories foreshadow it by making it come up, in real life and games it doesn't work that way (no reworks after you get to the end to add forshadows)

c) Once you introduce evidence to a scene that might imply vampires or aliens, how do you know that evidence wouldn't cause the character to reassess their beliefs.

I would think that in the form of a movie it would be based on the flow of the story. In a game based on how the Player feels... in real life though I fully reserve the right to call someone nuts if they jump to vampire for no reason.

I'm the sort of person that would probably hedge my bets and consider that MUCH saner. As soon as I encounter a potential out of context problem, one of my first thoughts is, "Maybe I don't know as much as I think I know."

um... you are saying you would defualt to maybe magic? in real life? like right now in the real world?

But in the real world we don't get evidence that suggests vampires very often either, or we might have other ideas.

right so again.... real world (and stories based on the real world) should require some real hard evidence and a fantasy story where your dad died in the great vampire purge should not be disbelieving it (see mutant resurrections)

It doesn't really matter if it is or not. Once you present evidence that could reasonably be interpreted as a supernatural killer, it's up to the player to decide whether they leap to that explanation or not.

and all I ask is they keep it in game... not out...

so "Oh wow my character thinks X Y ansd Z" is cool... "I know you have the ravenloft book open to vampires so I..." no, that is not cool.

You can't tell the player, "Your character would never leap to the explanation, "supernatural killer"." Because you can't know that. The player has to decide, and whatever the player decides is correct.

the player gets to make a choice... if the rest of the table (cause this isn't something we force 1 person at the table to do) thinks it's out of character or worse out right cheating (see has ravenloft book open) then we as a group will try to talk it out... like adults (okay maybe immature adults with sense of humors that have not improved since highschool)

You are claiming GMing right to know what out of game knowledge is and squash it.

nope... again this is a discussion not some weird house rule... this is a game for fun. What do you think I do as a DM!?!?

You're filtering and rejecting propositions based on your opinion as "What the character would know" or "What the character would do"

when did I do that? How is that the same as expecting my players to think in game not out of game?!?! and we all agree on that so I have not seen even a small discussion (other then immature jokes) in years.

So it kind of feels like this is a contradiction. Are you or are you not asserting that you can reject a proposition you feel is out of character or "metagaming"?

as a table, as a group of friends I see no reason we can't talk out if something isn't working... but no I don't think since I was 17 I have said "You can't do that it's metagaming" and that was when I had only been playing for 2ish years in 90's

I don't even see your point. If the player says, "My character shouldn't get a surprise roll because I saw you get out the battlemat" then, sure you can deny that advantage because it's not based on fictional positioning in the game world.

okay... so how is that different then me calling it in and out of game knowledge?

But if the player says, "My character shouldn't need a surprise roll because as soon as we started talking to the scruffy gentlemen I suspected bandits and readied myself for the possibility of an ambush", I totally agree with the player.

I mean I don't normally run alot of suprise but when I do i go with the rule of thumb of asking (to a player or tomyself) "Did you see that coming?"

but I got into a BIG argument over that interpretation of suprise with people here on enworld and REALLY don't want to go through that again...

You can't know whether if you didn't get out a battlemat, the player and hence the character still might have suspected an ambush. You ought not tell the player, "You ought not suspect an attack (that is actually coming) and get ready for it because that's metagaming."

I don't know why you think that I think I am a mind reader...
my every example ways Someone saying... if you say the quite part out loud "I know a fight is coming you took out the minis" you can't then hide behind "You don't know why I think that"

but this isn't something that really comes up except in jokes... in years

I still don't your point. No one was talking about table cues until you suddenly introduced the idea. Things like "You hear a noise outside" are in character events that produce in character knowledge. If the character says, "I get and load my shotgun" you as the GM shouldn't say, "That's metagaming. You're character would probably wouldn't think much of it or would think it was a racoon or something."

when did I even suggest not letting a player load a weapon? this is quite frustrating... I don't understand where you get this.

You seem to think you can arbitrate what that knowledge is.

no expect the players to self police. IF over time the table thinks someone isn't a good fit we may talk to them but not one of my examples of play had that (mostly because I would take pages of set up context)

Because I'm the only one that can make those decisions. I don't know everything my character knows. I can't know what my character would act like in absence of my knowledge as a player. I can try to imagine it, but ultimately whatever I decide the GM will have to be happy with, because it's my character.

well at my tables if we as a whole disagree too much you will be asked to leave... although again it's been years and years since this happened. It also isn't 1 DM... we all DM (some more often, some a bit better then others by consensuses) so again no 1 person has somme special mind reading or turn of argument... just self police... do what your character would do.

At one time I tried to throw dice or flip coins to decide what my character would know so it wouldn't be influenced by my knowledge as a player, but after a little while I started to wonder why play my character at all if I'm just going to let the dice play my character.

I am not a fan of that... although some people have done it... that seems an odd way to make a choice outside a corner case.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Why are we discussing "real world..." anything?

becuse that is what happens when people keep trying to paint me into a corner... the discussion turns and turns as I try to show what I mean and isntead of taking any of it as written they keep twisting... until we now have real life people thinking vampires may be real...

The game world is absolutely NOT that. BUT it is the "reality" of the PCs.

right and that was the point... Our world and there world are (normally) very different. We when playing (PC or NPC) should be (IMO) trying our best to play in the mindset of the in game not the out of game... I still can't believe how controversial that is on enworld this week

In the game world any PC that DOESN'T believe in vampires might well be considered crazy.

yeah in a standard D&D game I agree,

And that gets into the player dictating the PCs beliefs. It's not my role as DM to dictate what the player has his PC believe, even when the player seems to always have the PC believe what is most advantageous to the player.

has anyone actually said they want to dictate what a player has there PC think or do (outside of magic effects).... the closest I came was we should (IMO) be trying to be in the shoes of our characters...

 

[Mort]

has anyone actually said they want to dictate what a player has there PC think or do (outside of magic effects).... the closest I came was we should (IMO) be trying to be in the shoes of our characters...

It's when the dreaded "metagame thinking" came into the discussion.