"My Character Would Know That"

[Kichwas]

What I want to dig into is the idea of what the PC is assumed to know based on their class and race and background and skillset and whatever, versus what the player THINKS the PC should know, and how those thinsg interact at the table.

What's your take? Do you expect the GM to inform the player when they are making a bad plan that differs from what the GM expects the PC to know? Or should the GM adjust to fit what the player believes their character should know to be a solid plan?

Most tRPGs have something of a knowledge skill system. Use that. This is a dual failing when this problem happens.

GMs should call for or make knowledge checks when there is a 'right way' to do a given X. If that fails, a player should remember to say "Can I make a check against 'Knows XYZ' to see if I recall anything on how to handle this situation?
- then give appropriate clues for the level of success or failure on that.

Systems without that level of granularity require ad-hoc rulings to the same basic point.

GM should offer up "here you are, trying to figure out XYZ, you can rush through it or take a moment to think it through." If the player opts for 'think it through' the GM gives a clue based on that character's thus far provided background.

No "well, I'm deciding now that I was an apprentice in the grand school of XYZ. Have that clear before hand (I'm mostly a develop in play player, but not as a way to get around puzzle solving - but I am for pulling to backstory to see what kind of clue to give).

And again a player can also start this up BEFORE making the check or declaring the action they will take. "Hey, I was raised in ABC where there was an XYZ academy. My character didn't go there, but is there a chance I picked up something that might help us here?" GM responds, then player decides what to do.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What's your take? Do you expect the GM to inform the player when they are making a bad plan that differs from what the GM expects the PC to know? Or should the GM adjust to fit what the player believes their character should know to be a solid plan?

Like @payn I think it's a combination of the two.

I think it's extremely important to have character-knowledge in a TT RPG. If you ditch that element, it sort of turns all RPGs into essentially an Isekai - i.e. the PLAYER is transported into another world and body, rather than it being the appropriate genre, where you're playing a CHARACTER who is not you.

If I see a player is doing something I think their character would "obviously" know not to do, or missing something they should do, I'll stop them and tell them that. But that does rely on me catching it, so it'd probably only be really wild things.

If a player asks about what their character knows about a thing, I think that's good and helpful, and if they assert that the PC would know something because of X, Y and Z, where X, Y and Z are true, then I am usually happy with that. I really hate games where the DM try to micromanage that stuff in a block-y kind of way, because again, it turns genre into ghastly Isekai, and also relies on the DM knowing stuff, which the DM often doesn't.

This does cut the other way to be clear. Just because I know the proportions for gunpowder or whatever, doesn't mean my PC does. Just because I can cook, doesn't mean my PC can. And so on.

TLDR: It's not* a bloody Isekai so character knowledge is an extremely important thing to engage with.

* = Unless it is. But I've played a couple of games like that and they were tedious AF.

 

[bloodtide]

It is just combat is war vs combat is sport but for adventure. Maybe Adventure is fluff vs Adventure is life.

A lot of players will say they want to be an "expert" something. Though when I ask what that means they get vague and confused. Eventually they might get around to saying something like "They want to feel cool and smart". And I have to tell them you can't fake that feeling.

But if a player wants to "feel" like an expert by asking the DM questions their character would know the answer to and once in a while do a retcon for "oh my character would never do that silly mistake I did" , then it's not such a big deal to just let the player do that. They just play the game however they want to, ask if a wall of fire will burn their character, and get a recon when they make a wacky mistake. But at the end of the game they "feel" like they have played an expert character....and that is good enough for them. Then it's all good.

 

[MichaelSomething]

No.

Is it going camping so that players will have a better understanding of what their characters would need during outdoor adventuring??

 

[The Soloist]

A few years ago I asked a player at what time his dwarven captain wants to leave the garrison and march towards the battlefield with his troops.

Answer: 'At the time my character knows best.'

I wanted a stated hour so I could start counting enemy troop movements to determine how things would unfold when they reached the battlefield. The evil guy had his schedule.

I asked the question two more times and got the same answer. I told him, you leave at 6 am? He said is that the best time? I said you tell me. It was a weird never-ending loop. Once in a while he 'bugs' defaults to saying my character knows more than me and refuses to role-play the situation.

 

[Reynard]

A few years ago I asked a player at what time his dwarven captain wants to leave the garrison and march towards the battlefield with his troops.

Answer: 'At the time my character knows best.'

I wanted a stated hour so I could start counting enemy troop movements to determine how things would unfold when they reached the battlefield. The evil guy had his schedule.

I asked the question two more times and got the same answer. I told him, you leave at 6 am? He said is that the best time? I said you tell me. It was a weird never-ending loop. Once in a while he 'bugs' defaults to saying my character knows more than me and refuses to role-play the situation.

This is a good example of exactly what I was talking about: a conflict between what the GM and the player expect.

 

[The Soloist]

This is a good example of exactly what I was talking about: a conflict between what the GM and the player expect.

It's very annoying. Seems like he is trying to meta-game because he thinks it's a gotcha moment when there is none. I only needed a simple answer to move the story forward.

 

[CandyLaser]

It's very annoying. Seems like he is trying to meta-game because he thinks it's a gotcha moment when there is none. I only needed a simple answer to move the story forward.

Personally, when I'm just looking for information so I can provide color/better set the scene, I say so explicitly. When I've asked similar questions of players, I try to phrase it like "What time do you set out? This is just so I know how to describe things." My players also ask me from time to time if their answers to my questions are likely to have immediate mechanical import or not.

 

[Maxperson]

It's very annoying. Seems like he is trying to meta-game because he thinks it's a gotcha moment when there is none. I only needed a simple answer to move the story forward.

I'll offer a different perspective than metagaming. Usually when the DM asks something I will have an answer. Occasionally, I have no freaking idea, but my character would. I'm not a captain of a garrison with experience leading troops. I'm not even a fighter. Sure I could give you an arbitrary time, but that's doing both me and my character a huge disservice, since he would not be arbitrary about it.

If a player did something like that to me, I'd give him a roll and the better he did, the better time I would tell him that his character thinks is best. Even a low roll wouldn't be bad, it just wouldn't be the best. He is a captain after all.

Metagaming isn't what I am doing or trying to accomplish. It's also not about fearing a gotcha. I have no idea of your player is going through what I describe above, but at least I can provide an alternative for you to consider.

 

[Bagpuss]

It's very annoying. Seems like he is trying to meta-game because he thinks it's a gotcha moment when there is none. I only needed a simple answer to move the story forward.

If there wasn't a gotcha moment, (which there seemed to be since the enemy had a schedule, so if he was particularly late it definitely would have been a gotcha) why couldn't you just say, "Well dawn seems normal, unless you want to try and organise under cover of darkness for some reason?" nothing wrong with narrowing the choice down or even picking for the player in this instance.