D&D 5E Player knowledge and Character knowledge

[Guest 6801328]

Sometimes, the forum needs a voice of reason. People have forgotten what role-playing actually means, so in this thread which is about how to role-play a particular facet of a character, I'm here to offer the simple reminder: do what the character would do.

If you choose to take that as an insult, when it was not intended as such, then that's your issue.

Apparently this thread is about cheating, not roleplaying, but anyway...

The problem with your definition is that who gets to define "what the character would do"? The player, and only the player. So it's kind of a meaningless criterion. You may have a really strong opinion of how, say, an Elf with 5 Intelligence will act, but that and an empty soda can will get you 5 cents in some states.

Roleplaying becomes interesting when it becomes:
1) Describing actions for your character that contribute to a rich fictional narrative for others at the table. That's it. Just leave out anything that doesn't reinforce in a useful way* the narrative you're weaving.
2) Immersing yourself in the role, in the sense that when your character is afraid, you are afraid. When your character feels betrayed, you feel betrayed. When your character savors victory, you savor victory.

So, assuming that a player isn't actually cheating and reading the adventure (or, heck, let's assume that the player HAS intentionally cheated and read the adventure) here's what this means for roleplaying:

1) If other people have NOT read the adventure then, yeah, keep your mouth shut. Why? Because if you give any of the secrets away you're going to be robbing them of the immersion (#2 above) of being surprised by the scary BBEG, or panicking when the BBEG isn't dying properly, or of feeling elation when they solve the puzzle. Don't be a jerk...let them experience that. But that's not about roleplaying, it's courtesy.

2) If other people HAVE read the adventure then what exactly is the point of pretending you haven't? You've already robbed yourselves of any of the actual excitement and challenge...what's the value of playing make believe at this point? Is that seriously what you consider worthwhile roleplaying? That you all put on a pretense of ignorance and pretend to not know the BBEG's secret vulnerability? Why exactly is that fun or interesting? Is that really what you consider "good roleplaying"? That's like defining "good driving" as adjusting your mirrors and locking your seatbelt.

God save me from such a table.

*To elaborate on "reinforce the narrative in a useful way" I mean taking those key actions (or inactions) that actually contribute to the perception of your character. If your character is the noble protector who charges into the fray to protect his companions you don't need to always announce that. Heck you don't even need to always even do it. But if you do it at key moments, when it will be particularly dramatic, that aspect of your character will be reinforced.

I play a lot of PbP, and some of the participants feel like they have to narrate every single (expletive deleted) sword swing in character. "Ajax charges in recklessly, singing the war song of his people, heedless of the spears....etc." You know what I mean. Frankly I can't recall the specifics of very many of those posts, because they don't really contribute to the narrative.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

2) If other people HAVE read the adventure then what exactly is the point of pretending you haven't? You've already robbed yourselves of any of the actual excitement and challenge...what's the value of playing make believe at this point? Is that seriously what you consider worthwhile roleplaying? That you all put on a pretense of ignorance and pretend to not know the BBEG's secret vulnerability? Why exactly is that fun or interesting? Is that really what you consider "good roleplaying"? That's like defining "good driving" as adjusting your mirrors and locking your seatbelt.

The point of pretending that you haven't read the adventure is that you're supposed to pretend that you are your character, and your character has not read the adventure. That's all there is to it. That's what you've signed up for. That's why everyone decided to play a role-playing game in the first place - so they can pretend to be their characters for a while.

It's not about drama. Drama is subjective, and what you think is dramatic may not be seen as such to anyone else at the table, nor would it necessarily be appreciated. Your character probably doesn't want drama, so you should not want drama while you are pretending to be your character.

It's not about challenge. Your character will have goals, and you may achieve those goals or fail to achieve those goals, but that's not a metric for success or failure in the game. It's not possible to win or lose an RPG, in that sense.

It's not even about the narrative. Your characters aren't just characters in some story; for all intents and purposes, within the game world, they are real people while you are playing the game. They see themselves as real people, certainly, so you must treat them as real people while you pretend to be one of them.

It's about role-playing. You sit around a table, and give your honest best effort to play your character to the best of your ability, and everyone else does the same, and together you have shared the experience of role-playing. As long as everyone does their best to role-play, by doing what their characters would do, then you have succeeded at role-playing. And if you don't do that, then you have not only cheated yourself out of the experience, but you've also hurt the game for everyone else at the table - who are forced to suffer through the inconsistencies and poor characterization of someone they interact with on a regular basis.

It sounds like you're not much a fan of role-playing, as a process, just for its own sake. You want to overcome challenges, or tell a dramatic story. And that's... fine... if you're into that sort of thing. But it's not really useful or applicable advice, in this thread about how to role-play, if your suggestion is to not.

 

[ccs]

When I roleplay I don't even remotely try to stay in-character all the time. It just bogs things down, and frankly most "acting" I've seen from gamers is pretty terrible. If you don't have something that actively contributes to the development and portrayal of your character, if you're just making everything more complicated for the sake of not breaking character, then you're wasting precious table time.

On this I agree. I'll flip in & out of character as I please. I'll speak in 1st person, describe actions & dialogue in 3rd person, whatever I think will best fit the moment.
And I don't do voices.

And when you pretend to not know something, you're not really being your character because you're not feeling like your character. Your character is thinking "gaaaaah.....what are these things that keep regrowing limbs!" but YOU are thinking "I wonder how long we have to keep this up before we can use fire?"

Well if you've got a better way for me to portray a character who doesn't know something other than NOT using my RL knowledge, please enlighten us all.

And no, from your troll example, that is not what I'm thinking when that happens.

 

[Sunseeker]

Since this thread was apparently about Reading Ahead and not extra-character knowledge, I will make an additional response to that:

I've read ahead in a number of published adventures. Why? Typically because I ran them or intended to run them, before/after someone else did. Yes, I do make an effort not to bring whatever story related information I've learned to bear at the table but not to protect the integrity of the game or to keep from clouding other people's judgements. I keep quiet because I want to hear how the DM sets up the story. What do they leave out? What do they add? What do they modify? Does the story change based on our actions? Does it remain static, as though we had never taken actions? Does the death, or survival against all written odds of an important NPC change the outcome of the game? How do my expectations of the theme and the story match up to what the DM is offering?

Lets face it: we've probably all seen/read Dracula. Yet, we still often go see/read new Dracula-based movies/books. Does that prevent us from enjoying Curse of Strahd? No, I don't think it does. It may based on what sort of preconceptions we generate about the type of story we're reading, but it also helps us set out personal expectations of what we want to gain from reading, watching or playing through a new Dracula-styled story.

I don't think reading ahead negatively impacts your enjoyment of the game unless you set for yourself very rigid parameters of enjoyment, ie: THE GAME MUST PLAY EXACTLY AS THE BOOK WROTE IT! But RPGs are inherently like choose-your-own-adventure books. There's no single, linear path through it. Conversely, I think you can have a negative experience if you are open to something new, and the DM runs a very rigid game.

I still do, and will continue to read ahead. Because 1: I can. 2: I enjoy it. 3: It helps me get in the right mindset. 4: it gives me a better angle to judge the game from.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The point of pretending that you haven't read the adventure is that you're supposed to pretend that you are your character, and your character has not read the adventure. That's all there is to it. That's what you've signed up for. That's why everyone decided to play a role-playing game in the first place - so they can pretend to be their characters for a while.

It's not about drama. Drama is subjective, and what you think is dramatic may not be seen as such to anyone else at the table, nor would it necessarily be appreciated. Your character probably doesn't want drama, so you should not want drama while you are pretending to be your character.

It's not about challenge. Your character will have goals, and you may achieve those goals or fail to achieve those goals, but that's not a metric for success or failure in the game. It's not possible to win or lose an RPG, in that sense.

It's not even about the narrative. Your characters aren't just characters in some story; for all intents and purposes, within the game world, they are real people while you are playing the game. They see themselves as real people, certainly, so you must treat them as real people while you pretend to be one of them.

It's about role-playing. You sit around a table, and give your honest best effort to play your character to the best of your ability, and everyone else does the same, and together you have shared the experience of role-playing. As long as everyone does their best to role-play, by doing what their characters would do, then you have succeeded at role-playing. And if you don't do that, then you have not only cheated yourself out of the experience, but you've also hurt the game for everyone else at the table - who are forced to suffer through the inconsistencies and poor characterization of someone they interact with on a regular basis.

It sounds like you're not much a fan of role-playing, as a process, just for its own sake. You want to overcome challenges, or tell a dramatic story. And that's... fine... if you're into that sort of thing. But it's not really useful or applicable advice, in this thread about how to role-play, if your suggestion is to not.

You should go back and reread the OP, because I don't see him asking for advice on how to roleplay.

And, no, I'm not a fan of roleplaying "as a process, just for its own sake." I'm a fan of roleplaying for its narrative power, for the value in collaborative storytelling. If the burgomaster needs to be negotiated with, I don't really care if the Tiefling or the Paladin or whoever does so "like their character would do it", unless doing so helps me see their character in a new way.

It does absolutely nothing for me if Fred and I both know that trolls burn, but Fred does a convincing job of pretending he doesn't. Yay, Fred. You are fine thespian. His ignorance of trolls just isn't an interesting part of his character, so why is he wasting time emphasizing it.

However, if Fred is playing a character who is at least partly defined by his inability to remember monster weaknesses, then it could be a lot of fun to watch him bumble through it. But now his ignorance is a relevant and interesting highlight of his character.

Anyway, you're stating a lot of things as if they are objective fact, with apparently zero recognition that it's your opinion, and just one interpretation among many. You seem pretty convinced that yours is the One True Way. So, uh, if this isn't going to be a discussion but just endless sanctimony and repetitive lecturing about how I have forgotten what roleplaying is, or am obviously not good at it, or other such patronizing tripe then I'll opt out, thanks.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Since this thread was apparently about Reading Ahead and not extra-character knowledge, I will make an additional response to that:

I've read ahead in a number of published adventures. Why? Typically because I ran them or intended to run them, before/after someone else did. Yes, I do make an effort not to bring whatever story related information I've learned to bear at the table but not to protect the integrity of the game or to keep from clouding other people's judgements. I keep quiet because I want to hear how the DM sets up the story. What do they leave out? What do they add? What do they modify? Does the story change based on our actions? Does it remain static, as though we had never taken actions? Does the death, or survival against all written odds of an important NPC change the outcome of the game? How do my expectations of the theme and the story match up to what the DM is offering?

Lets face it: we've probably all seen/read Dracula. Yet, we still often go see/read new Dracula-based movies/books. Does that prevent us from enjoying Curse of Strahd? No, I don't think it does. It may based on what sort of preconceptions we generate about the type of story we're reading, but it also helps us set out personal expectations of what we want to gain from reading, watching or playing through a new Dracula-styled story.

I don't think reading ahead negatively impacts your enjoyment of the game unless you set for yourself very rigid parameters of enjoyment, ie: THE GAME MUST PLAY EXACTLY AS THE BOOK WROTE IT! But RPGs are inherently like choose-your-own-adventure books. There's no single, linear path through it. Conversely, I think you can have a negative experience if you are open to something new, and the DM runs a very rigid game.

I still do, and will continue to read ahead. Because 1: I can. 2: I enjoy it. 3: It helps me get in the right mindset. 4: it gives me a better angle to judge the game from.

I just ran Death House twice in a row, at two different tables in two different FLGSs. At the second one I told the DM and the other players, and then played a passive role. I told the other players that I would leave it up to them to decide when my Paladin should use Divine Sense, so that I wouldn't have to worry about whether I was using prior knowledge. The second table nearly got us killed, splitting the party up and triggering two of the fights simultaneously, but I held my tongue.

Of course it was less fun the second time...it's way more fun when you don't know what's coming. But still fun. Especially burning everything we had surviving the double fight.

 

[robus]

I don't think you can ever completely avoid meta-gaming in that way, and trying to do so isn't fun. Instead, I break it into three categories.

1. The unknown unknown. These are the metagame aspects that I don't even consciously think about, things like, maybe, "zombies and skeletons are undead," which of course I know, but my character may or may not. You can't worry about that or you'll go crazy.

2. The known unknown. These are slightly more specialized, but perhaps fall under general knowledge or all so "well-known" that I probably shouldn't worry about it. "Trolls and fire" is a common example - I assume my character knows it unless instructed otherwise.

3. The known known. These are the things that I know because I also DM, read the monster manuals, and so on. Specific immunities and vulnerabilities, magic resistance, and so on. Unless my character has a reason to know this, I don't play it. In short, for this category, if I ever think to myself, "Self, am I metagaming here?" then I know the answer is yes and I try to avoid it.

One common alternative to (3) in 5e is to roll against a requisite skill to see if your character has the knowledge.

Well knock me down with a feather. Donald Rumsfeld plays DnD!

 

[Maxperson]

When starting a new character how do you decide how much of your knowledge as a seasoned player is available to your character?

It mostly depends on his background. After background I look at his skills. Then I look at what he has experienced in game play.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, you're talking about cheating. Yeah, cheating is bad.

What does not cheating have to do with roleplaying again? Sorry...you lost me.

There's no difference between those examples and using fire on a troll when your character would not know about it. If one is cheating, they all are............and they all are. For it not to be the DM has to make it okay to do.

 

[Maxperson]

Apparently this thread is about cheating, not roleplaying, but anyway...

The problem with your definition is that who gets to define "what the character would do"? The player, and only the player. So it's kind of a meaningless criterion. You may have a really strong opinion of how, say, an Elf with 5 Intelligence will act, but that and an empty soda can will get you 5 cents in some states.

And that state is denial.

1) If other people have NOT read the adventure then, yeah, keep your mouth shut. Why? Because if you give any of the secrets away you're going to be robbing them of the immersion (#2 above) of being surprised by the scary BBEG, or panicking when the BBEG isn't dying properly, or of feeling elation when they solve the puzzle. Don't be a jerk...let them experience that. But that's not about roleplaying, it's courtesy.

And also because saying or doing something with that knowledge is cheating.

2) If other people HAVE read the adventure then what exactly is the point of pretending you haven't? You've already robbed yourselves of any of the actual excitement and challenge...what's the value of playing make believe at this point? Is that seriously what you consider worthwhile roleplaying? That you all put on a pretense of ignorance and pretend to not know the BBEG's secret vulnerability? Why exactly is that fun or interesting? Is that really what you consider "good roleplaying"? That's like defining "good driving" as adjusting your mirrors and locking your seatbelt.

And this can be translated as, "If we all cheat, it's okay!"