"My Character Would Know That"

[Reynard]

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 don't know why you wouldn't answer the question.

 

[The Soloist]

I don't know why you wouldn't answer the question.

I told him you leave at the crack of dawn hoping the arrive before the enemy and choose the better position. We went with that. He won the battle and lost only 25% of his men before the morale of the enemy broke.

His character was the first son of the King. The player is an avid war historian and a capable wargamer. He was being a wuss and trying to put the responsibility of a defeat on me if things went south. Blame the DM for giving him the wrong info. It was disappointing.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

He won the battle and lost only 25% of his men before the morale of the enemy broke.

only 25%?

 

[The Soloist]

only 25%?

When the enemy reached 50% casualties I rolled morale. They broke. At that juncture, the player had lost 25% of his men. He could have lost more men but made good tactical decisions on the field. Hence the use of 'only'.

 

[overgeeked]

I told him you leave at the crack of dawn hoping the arrive before the enemy and choose the better position. We went with that. He won the battle and lost only 25% of his men before the morale of the enemy broke.

His character was the first son of the King. The player is an avid war historian and a capable wargamer. He was being a wuss and trying to put the responsibility of a defeat on me if things went south. Blame the DM for giving him the wrong info. It was disappointing.

For some players it doesn’t matter what you do, you’re the enemy. Best you can do is not play with people like that.

 

[Voadam]

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.

I think on the second time asking I might rephrase it as "I don't have a best time to advise you, it is your choice, I just want to describe things based off your decisions." Or give some considerations you can think of like how well rested do you want your troops versus do you want to get there earlier or whatever.

 

[Brumal]

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.

An idea (or maybe an observation) I have about knowledge skill systems is that groups can choose between

Knowledge skill checks determine whether some fiction the player contributes is true; OR​

Knowledge skill use by a player invites their GM to contribute some fiction.​

​

Fiction, once made true, persists. Framed in terms of the OP, the options could play out as

Player says that digging a pit on a game trail is the best way to catch a watzit. GM calls for a knowledge skill check. Success means that as it turns out, in this world watzits are best caught by digging pits.​

​

Player says they (as their character) would know how to catch a watzit because they have skill or background X. Negotiation may be required to agree applicability, but let's say they agree that Watzit's are supernatural creatures and those are in scope for skill or background X. A successful check forces GM to contribute some fiction - the best way to catch one is to wait in the watzit tree. (With interesting opportunities around how to handle failed checks e.g. the fiction can turn out to be troublesomely true, dangerously false, or I suppose just false.)​

GM pre-authoring watzit-catching fiction either rules out the first option (in which case, why not just disclose it?) or remains contingent (i.e. is subject to change until it enters campaign canon via either option.) Where a knowledge skill check is called for to force GM to disclose something they pre-authored, that can be viewed as falling into the second option (does it really matter when GM authors it?)