"My Character Would Know That"

[Umbran]

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?

It depends a bit on the game we are playing, and what roll the element in question has in events.

Say we are talking about the Whatzit. The players misunderstand how the Whatzit behaves. If that matters to them understanding other events in the narrative, which become nonsensical if their misapprehension were truth, then the player probably ought to be corrected.

If, however, they are on a side-trek Whatzit hunt, and their misapprehension doesn't touch on anything else, I'm happy to roll with what the player comes up with.

All in all, the characters live in the fictional world 24/7, while the players don't. We sometimes have to smooth over the gap somehow.

 

[Bagpuss]

Side note; I had this happen in a Call of Cthulhu game. My investigator was originally from England and game started in New York. The investigators ended up taking a steamer across the pond. Upon arrival, one of the investigators had a revolver and caught hell at customs. The GM essentially said the players were stupid for not knowing this was not allowed in 1920's London. I pointed out my character being from there originally surely would have known this, but to no avail. At this point the GM was strongly suggesting to us that this particular game was not only going to be skill play focused, but historical skill play as well. So, the answer varies it seems for different types of players/GMs. YMMV

As another side note a lot of players assume that in the 1920s the firearms laws in the US were near none existent, or at least more lax than they are today. When in fact they were noticeably stricter in many states, and often in ones you wouldn't expect. For example in 1871 Texas made concealed carry illegal and banned all handguns within towns, in 1895 you had to be over 21 to own a gun and in 1917 Texas passed a law that required guns to be registered with the state.

In 1837, Georgia made it illegal “to sell. . .or to keep or have about their persons” pistols or other listed weapons. The restriction applied both to merchants and private citizens, and its stated purpose was “to guard and protect the citizens of this State against the unwarrantable and too prevalent use of deadly weapons.” By the end of the 18th century, four states had enacted gun carry restrictions. In the 19th century, 37 states did so and another four states followed suit in the early 20th century.

Arkansas barred all handgun transfers, and pistol cartridges, in 1881; Kansas barred all firearms carrying in 1901; Tennessee criminalized any transfer of handguns as well as their importation into the state in 1879; and Wyoming banned all firearms from “any city, town or village” in 1876.

Consider this state law...

“every person within the state . . . who owns or has in his possession any fire arms or weapons shall make a full, true and complete verified report . . . to the sheriff of the county in which such person lives, of all fire arms and weapons which are owned or possessed by him or her or are in his or her control, and on sale or transfer into the possession of any other person such person shall immediately forward to the sheriff of the County in which such person lives the name and address of that purchaser and person into whose possession or control such fire arm or weapon was delivered. . . .For the purpose of this Act a fire arm or weapon shall be deemed to be any revolver, pistol, shot gun, rifle.”

That was enacted in Montana in 1918. (source)

 

[cranberry]

In my group, we simply ask the GM, "would my character know that".

If we feel strongly that the PC would know, we explain why, and the GM either agrees or doesn't and we move on.

 

[payn]

As another side note a lot of players assume that in the 1920s the firearms laws in the US were near none existent, or at least more lax than they are today. When in fact they were noticeably stricter in many states, and often in ones you wouldn't expect. For example in 1871 Texas made concealed carry illegal and banned all handguns within towns, in 1895 you had to be over 21 to own a gun and in 1917 Texas passed a law that required guns to be registered with the state.

In 1837, Georgia made it illegal “to sell. . .or to keep or have about their persons” pistols or other listed weapons. The restriction applied both to merchants and private citizens, and its stated purpose was “to guard and protect the citizens of this State against the unwarrantable and too prevalent use of deadly weapons.” Arkansas barred all handgun transfers, and pistol cartridges, in 1881; Kansas barred all firearms carrying in 1901; Tennessee criminalized any transfer of handguns as well as their importation into the state in 1879; and Wyoming banned all firearms from “any city, town or village” in 1876.

Consider this state law...

“every person within the state . . . who owns or has in his possession any fire arms or weapons shall make a full, true and complete verified report . . . to the sheriff of the county in which such person lives, of all fire arms and weapons which are owned or possessed by him or her or are in his or her control, and on sale or transfer into the possession of any other person such person shall immediately forward to the sheriff of the County in which such person lives the name and address of that purchaser and person into whose possession or control such fire arm or weapon was delivered. . . .For the purpose of this Act a fire arm or weapon shall be deemed to be any revolver, pistol, shot gun, rifle.”

That was enacted in Montana in 1918. (source)

Yeap, I had a long argument on the forums here about that. In a game I had a player who thought it normal for his investigator to walk around with a B.A.R. slung over his shoulder. "totally legit thing in 1920's"

 

[TiQuinn]

Side note; I had this happen in a Call of Cthulhu game. My investigator was originally from England and game started in New York. The investigators ended up taking a steamer across the pond. Upon arrival, one of the investigators had a revolver and caught hell at customs. The GM essentially said the players were stupid for not knowing this was not allowed in 1920's London. I pointed out my character being from there originally surely would have known this, but to no avail. At this point the GM was strongly suggesting to us that this particular game was not only going to be skill play focused, but historical skill play as well. So, the answer varies it seems for different types of players/GMs. YMMV

Which to me is kind of crazy. How many players are knowledgeable about the laws of early 20th century London? This is where the GM has spent time researching and reading, and is punishing those who haven't. Not to mention characters in mythos stories were carrying pistols all the time...for all the good it did them.

 

[Umbran]

Sure. Stuff happens. I am talking more about something like "You just walked 12 miles carrying full gear in the summer heat. You need to rest 8 hours before you can dig in."

No, no I do not.

So, hold on a second. That's sounds different from what you set up in the OP.

The GM made a mechanical rules call (in 5e, this would be about regarding exhaustion and rests). You, having a different opinion (based on.. what?), are trying to tell the GM that they are incorrect?

That sounds like using player opinion to argue rules with the GM, which is not okay in the middle of the session.

 

[Reynard]

So, hold on a second. That's sounds different from what you set up in the OP.

The GM made a mechanical rules call (in 5e, this would be about regarding exhaustion and rests). You, having a different opinion (based on.. what?), are trying to tell the GM that they are incorrect?

That sounds like using player opinion to argue rules with the GM, which is not okay in the middle of the session.

I clarified in a follow up post, but to reiterate: if the system says you have fatigue or whatever, fine., That is what the system says. But if it is a off the cuff call by the GM, I think it is appropriate to briefly make your case.

 

[Blue]

Something I've said multiple times: the character sheet is the floor of what the character can do - it can't go lower. If it says you can cast a spell, you can cast that spell even if the player spouts out faux-Latin and that's not how the DM envisions verbal components. Or gives poor lyrics to a love song their bard is trying to sing to the neglected princess on her balcony. The player not knowing shouldn't hurt the proficient character's chances.

It can go up from what's on the character sheet - D&D has always been a combination of both. even before skills existed combat was a player's tactics, choice of targets, choice of spells and abilities, combined with the numbers on their sheet.

Where this is going is that the player should never need to backtrack to "my character would know better", because even with the player screwing it up, the DM should never give a chance less than what the character, knowing better, does. To have to backtrack to this is a DM failure.

Now, I can see a player bringing this up ahead of time. If as a player I indicated my ranger was looking for a good campsite to deal with the incoming storm that was still defensible because we're in hostile terrain, and the DM asked how I was doing it, I'd default back to "my character knows". The DM needs my intent - that I'm looking first for someplace to deal with the storm and second defendable, and the unspoken parts of it, like I'm not prioritizing it being hidden, but the player doesn't need to know the "how" of it any more than they know the "how" of casting a spell.

 

[Umbran]

I clarified in a follow up post, but to reiterate: if the system says you have fatigue or whatever, fine., That is what the system says. But if it is a off the cuff call by the GM, I think it is appropriate to briefly make your case.

Okay. I didn't get that from what I felt was the tone of ,"No, no I do not," I guess.

About a year ago, I had a player argue with me for about 10 minutes over how a piece of in-game technology was supposed to look, based on how that's what the player actually built in his day job.

And, this was over a piece of technology that was 1) Not built on the same technological basis as our current technology, and 2) not even present in the scenario!

So, perspective on having player pushback can vary a bit.

 

[Reynard]

Okay. I didn't get that from what I felt was the tone of ,"No, no I do not," I guess.

About a year ago, I had a player argue with me for about 10 minutes over how a piece of in-game technology was supposed to look, based on how that's what the player actually built in his day job.

And, this was over a piece of technology that was 1) Not built on the same technological basis as our current technology, and 2) not even present in the scenario!

So, perspective on having player pushback can vary a bit.

Supposed to look?!? Was that even relevant?