D&D 5E (2014) Player knowledge and Character knowledge

[Yardiff]

That the way in which building nuclear weapons was brought up in this thread seems to have been intended to distract from the discussion going on in the thread prior to that point.

Ok I see what your getting at.

 

[iserith]

That does seem to be the intent behind bringing it up in the way it was in this thread.

But this depends on what campaign setting the campaign is taking place in - a Mystara campaign in which the characters are attempting to harness nuclear technology is just a campaign that is utilizing unique elements of the setting's established history, and even has the spelled out consequences that it will draw the attention of the Immortals who have been actively trying to hide away all such technology since the Blackmoor civilization thought they had a handle on things and basically ended the world because they thought wrong.

Right, as long as it's genre-appropriate, then it's fair game. I mean to say that if a player is aware of what's appropriate for the genre and purposefully goes against that, it's an out-of-game issue.

 

[GreenTengu]

On the other hand, any fictional character I create has me as their author. They know whatever I decide they know. As fictional characters, they are ultimately shaped by all the previous experiences I've had gaming & otherwise; all the books I've read read, film and television I've seen. All the genre assumptions that come of that. That's what they're made out of.

Except that the characters must inherently be created from within the allowable concept and rules of the fictional world you are building them in. Furthermore, when you build the character you make choices about what they do and do not know and can and cannot do when you assigned their stats and put their background in place. There are simply things that you as a player might know from the numerous novels and campaign guides that there would be no way for the character you built to know.

Gamers are going to learn the games they play. Short of reading the current published module I'm running, I'm cool with acknowledging the fact experienced players are, in fact, experienced. If I want to confound, challenge, and/or surprise them, all I need do is make their assumptions work against them by customizing things a bit.


Nothing in my description said anything about "natural bounds". I'm guessing if I were to use that phrase, I'd mean something significantly different than you.


If by this you mean something like plain old cheating, i.e. reading the current module to gain an advantage, then yes, I'd agree that's poor form. But outside of that? The whole game is built around having & using outside knowledge. We model PCs after characters in external media. We let genre- and adventure-writing conventions guide our in-character decision making. Character decisions are often shaped by consideration for the other real people at the table, i.e. metagaming in service of the social contract. In most systems we're forced into acquiring some level of system mastery in order to get things done. Most settings can be described as a thin crust of specific custom-written fiction layered over a much larger mantle & core made of shared assumptions/elements derived from various external media (game-related & otherwise).


If all we're talking about is outright, egregious cheating, then yes, I agree.

And here is where you demonstrate that you have not thought this through.

You admit yourself that reading the current module is in fact "cheating". But how and why should that be considered cheating if, indeed, as you stated-- you think your character should be built and contain all knowledge and experience you have acquired a gamer. That your 8 Intelligence character with no training in religion can rattle off all gods and their symbols and their domains, can identify all outsider and fey creatures at a glance, knows absolutely all the secret events that happened in all the novels you have read about the world and all the dark secrets of the secret organizations because you read the campaign guide and has complete knowledge of every action and every previous experience of every other character you have ever played.....

And to you, none of that is cheating. Not one bit of it.

But then suddenly you bar off reading the module in advance and claim that knowledge alone is cheating. Why? In what imaginable way is reading that one extra book in any way cheating while reading all the other ones and utilize all the other knowledge that the character would not have acquired from their assigned background and stats and backstory? It is just one more book of knowledge and once you read it, it becomes part of that bit about being an "experienced player" and thus giving all characters created by you access to this full knowledge.

It is just one more thing for the character to be "made of" as you so elegantly put it. You cannot rationalize banning knowledge of that one particular book while allowing for all the other things that a fictional character within that fictional world would not know.

The only way reading the module is cheating is if, in fact, you agree that using knowledge of the game and the gameworld beyond the bounds of what a character should reasonably be able to know or infer in order to gain an edge in the game is cheating-- because that's precisely what foreknowledge of the module is, extra knowledge that the character should not have.

So if reading the module in advance is cheating, so too is reading the monster manual, reading the book of deities, reading the campaign guide and so forth... Or, rather, if you have read them, you need to feign lack of knowledge of the parts of it that the fictional character would not know-- at least not yet.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Furthermore, when you build the character you make choices about what they do and do not know and can and cannot do when you assigned their stats and put their background in place.

I must admit this right here has me at a loss for words...

How? How is that possible?

 

[Satyrn]

And here is where you demonstrate that you have not thought this through.

You admit yourself that reading the current module is in fact "cheating". But how and why should that be considered cheating if, indeed, as you stated-- you think your character should be built and contain all knowledge and experience you have acquired a gamer.

For my part (and I'm answering this question because I hold the same view as [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION] on this topic , and I figure my perspective could help you understand) I would consider reading the module to be cheating because the player is doing so in order to cheat. He did not spend those years of playing other campaigns, gaining knowledge and experience, in order to cheat, so that is not cheating to me. I just don't have a problem with players bringing all their experience to my table.

Again, if he read the module to cheat, then he cheated. It's that simple to me.



(also, yes I know that means that if he read the module for some other reason, it's not cheating.)

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I must admit this right here has me at a loss for words...

How? How is that possible?

Well, you're deciding that your character cannot bench-press an ogre when you assigned that 8 into Strength for example.

For my part (and I'm answering this question because I hold the same view as [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION] on this topic , and I figure my perspective could help you understand) I would consider reading the module to be cheating because the player is doing so in order to cheat. He did not spend those years of playing other campaigns, gaining knowledge and experience, in order to cheat, so that is not cheating to me. I just don't have a problem with players bringing all their experience to my table.

Again, if he read the module to cheat, then he cheated. It's that simple to me.



(also, yes I know that means that if he read the module for some other reason, it's not cheating.)

If he read the module for some other reason, but applies his full OOC knowledge about it to his character's actions, would you regard that as cheating?
Would you be OK with it? (Do you regard it as really bad form even if not technically cheating for example?)

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Well, you're deciding that your character cannot bench-press an ogre when you assigned that 8 into Strength for example.

The statement I quoted said nothing about extreme limits. Heck, I'm not sure its safe to say a 16 strength PC can bench press an ogre. So, hyperbole aside, what else is that 8 Strength pre-deciding? Can I climb to the roof of that building? Can I swim across a river? Can I even swim at all?

Am I supposed to write a long, exhaustive list of what I can/cannot do with my character before we start playing? What about things I do/don't know? Should I jot all of those down?

What if I, at the start of the campaign as I assign my scores, I write down that I know trolls are hurt by fire? Is that good enough? I've stated in advance that my character knows it. Does that qualify for [MENTION=6777454]TheHobgoblin[/MENTION]'s stated criteria that I have decide in advance?

 

[Mallus]

But then suddenly you bar off reading the module in advance and claim that knowledge alone is cheating. Why? In what imaginable way is reading that one extra book in any way cheating while reading all the other ones and utilize all the other knowledge that the character would not have acquired from their assigned background and stats and backstory?

Let me put it this way.

When you're trying to unlock your car, say, in a blinding rainstorm, would you rather have...

1) A giant pile of car keys that do not contain the one for your car.

2) Your car keys.

(hint: they're not of equivalent utility).

I'll write a better response later, after I get home from the office. Possibly after I mix a large drink. I have the feeling I might need one...

 

[Satyrn]

If he read the module for some other reason, but applies his full OOC knowledge about it to his character's actions, would you regard that as cheating?
Would you be OK with it? (Do you regard it as really bad form even if not technically cheating for example?)

I'd be fine with it. Nor would I even consider it bad form. I think it might be good form, though, to tell the group that he's read it, so that all the players get to decide how they want to use the info.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What if I, at the start of the campaign as I assign my scores, I write down that I know trolls are hurt by fire? Is that good enough? I've stated in advance that my character knows it.

As always, the answer is "Ask your DM".

If you write down in your backstory that your character should know this, then the DM is more likely to agree that it is the case. It is also possible that the DM will just veto that backstory, though, or line-item veto the part about knowing trolls are weak to fire. The is more likely to occur if trolls are very rare within the world (similar to the previous argument about nobody knowing how Drow work, in a world where nobody has ever encountered a Drow before).