D&D 5E Player knowledge and Character knowledge

[Guest 6801328]

It's more a matter of separating out personal preference for what is fun from the group preference for what is fun. What works for one person is fine, for that person; but the only thing that we know about the group - every group that's playing an RPG - is that they've all come together to play a role-playing game.

This is a group-based hobby, and everyone at the table needs to participate. If your personal preferences put you at odds with the group, then you should probably find a different group. If you don't like role-playing, then you might have difficulty in finding an RPG group where you fit in. Don't be that player who ruins it for everyone else.

This is the first thing you've written in this thread that I agree with.

I would add that it's important to have some agreement...or at least some understanding...of what other people at the table mean by "roleplaying."

And also that "my way is real roleplaying and all other ways are...something else" is neither true nor useful nor respectful.

 

[Yardiff]

Let's define role-playing. Is it "playing a role"? Or is it playing a role-playing game? If it's the former then I would suggest that role-playing is not the primary activity involved in a role-playing game. Playing the game is. Some call it RPGing to make the distinction.

I would also suggest that RPGing primarily involves what Gary Gygax called role-assumption, rather than engaging in make-believe or play-acting.

Here's an interpretation of the Gygax article your bringing up again.

Well, none of us can assume the role of a wizard. His point is that "as they progress the activity should evolve into something akin to role assumption." Not, note, "become role assumption." But as the game progresses, you should get closer and closer to becoming the person you are role-playing, for example, by responding to things more as the person you are inhabiting would, and less as you would. "A spy, for example, speaks in one way to his superiors, in another way when he converses with his equals, and in yet an entirely different way when he is attempting to penetrate an enemy installation and is impersonating a plumber, perhaps" -- and this is something that you as the player should be able to "assume" instead of simply saying "I speak diplomatically to him."

Similarly, "Problem solving, in this context, has to do with a problem to be solved by the character, not a problem [...] to be solved by the player."

In the case of playing a role of a wizard,... yes, spellcasting is a problem that probably precludes full role assumption. But one key aspect of the wizard that can be "assumed" is that the wizard herself knows her spell list and capacities, so she can quickly decide what an appropriate thing is. As a player, I don't need to know what my spells actually do, and I can simply look them up -- "hey, I have a spell called `spectral force,' maybe it's useful here?" -- when I need. The wizard doesn't need to do this, as she knows what the spell does, and it's better for the game if I know at least that much, too. So the closer I can get to role assumption, the better an experience I and the rest of the table will have.

Cf: "The magic-user character (and thus, the player of that character) must know his or her spells and how to utilize them efficiently."

This quote I took from the Paizo forums


My take is that at no point in the article does Gygax say to use player knowledge but he several times says to makes decisions based on character knowledge not player knowledge.

 

[Satyrn]

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

I don't think about that at all when starting a character.

I don't think about it much at all during play, either. Every once in a while I probably wonder if my PC knows something I do, but it's not an aspect I bother with much. Nor does the rest of my group, as far as I can tell.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

That's when gaming is the most entertaining & most immersive for me - when I stop thinking about what my character would do and just do it. My most memorable sessions are ones where I pause at least once to say, "Where did that come from?!" or "What did I just say?!".

Years ago. Ongoing serialized superhero RPG with fiends at our 3-times-per-year convention. Recurring characters. Lots of fun. My hero was the team leader or sorts. In an epic battle with the baddies, my buddy's female character got critically injured. Ended up in a coma, questionable if she would pull through. In the epilogue scene at the end of the session, to wrap it up, the GM decided we were all standing around saying our goodbyes to her in the hospital bed. The GM went around the table to get a short blurb. I ended up being last around the table. Still not sure what prompted it, but I said something like:I linger and wait until I'm the last in the room. I touch her hand and whisper, "I'm sorry I was never brave enough to tell you... I love you."

The whole table was stunned. It was a pretty amazing moment, if I do say so myself. The GM ended the session right then and there. My buddy punched me in the arm. It's something we still talk about to this day. Of course, several story arcs later she comes back into the story and we get to deal with the secret, unrequited love subplot. But up to that moment I never even hinted at roleplaying any kind of romantic interest. I was the strong-quiet-leader-type. Reserved and proper. Almost military commander in my sterile application of my responsibilities. But that momentary instinct to just go for something crazy and wing it changed that campaign forever.

True story.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Years ago. Ongoing serialized superhero RPG with fiends at our 3-times-per-year convention. Recurring characters. Lots of fun. My hero was the team leader or sorts. In an epic battle with the baddies, my buddy's female character got critically injured. Ended up in a coma, questionable if she would pull through. In the epilogue scene at the end of the session, to wrap it up, the GM decided we were all standing around saying our goodbyes to her in the hospital bed. The GM went around the table to get a short blurb. I ended up being last around the table. Still not sure what prompted it, but I said something like:I linger and wait until I'm the last in the room. I touch her hand and whisper, "I'm sorry I was never brave enough to tell you... I love you."

The whole table was stunned. It was a pretty amazing moment, if I do say so myself. The GM ended the session right then and there. My buddy punched me in the arm. It's something we still talk about to this day. Of course, several story arcs later she comes back into the story and we get to deal with the secret, unrequited love subplot. But up to that moment I never even hinted at roleplaying any kind of romantic interest. I was the strong-quiet-leader-type. Reserved and proper. Almost military commander in my sterile application of my responsibilities. But that momentary instinct to just go for something crazy and wing it changed that campaign forever.

True story.

[video=youtube;TEAIVXJ1Qds]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEAIVXJ1Qds[/video]

 

[Maxperson]

So characters never change during the course of a campaign? From a fictional standpoint, that sounds like an absence of character development, i.e. boring. From a rules standpoint, that's contrary to the way a PCs evolving role is baked into more than one edition of the game. For example, AD&D assumes a PC begins little better than a common peasant, grows into an important landowner/political figure, and finally into a demigod capable of going toe to toe with mythological figures. That's, umm, more than a single role.

There is a big difference between a PC growing, which happens from gameplay with the reasons for it happening game related and obvious, and a PC suddenly knowing something that it couldn't possibly know just because the player knows it.

This change happened slowly & organically over the course of several years of real time. Z. grew, just like a good character in a novel. Or a real person in real life. This is bad role-playing?

Nope. It's also not even remotely what I am talking about. You never stepped outside of the defined role. The role grew with you.

 

[Maxperson]

I want to clarify that I'm not claiming using player knowledge is roleplaying. I'm just saying that not roleplaying all the time isn't synonymous with "bad" roleplaying. Nor is staying in character synonymous with "good" roleplaying.

See, that makes a whole lot more sense.

Player 1 never breaks character. He never metagames, he pretends to not know that trolls burn, and every action he takes he is thinking, "Ok, how would my wood elf archer with low Charisma do this" and tries his best to behave that way. As a result he ends up repeating the same roleplaying, over and over again. For example, every time he interacts with an urban NPC he makes the same off-putting comments about their lack of connection with nature and their wastefulness with wood. Or something like that. But he's consistent.

Player 2 is almost never in character. He says anachronistic things as he charges into combat. He metagames ("if you move one square over you'll let so-and-so use his such-and-such ability"). He simply states skill use without describing it ("I guess I'll roll Deception..."). But he's developed a unique and interesting character, and every now and then...a few times per session...he'll jump into character with something brilliantly descriptive, with the result that everybody at the table knows this character's personality. So that even when he's not roleplaying at all ("I roll Deception...") the other players at the table have a colorful mental model. Sort of like when a character in a novel says or does something totally innocuous (c.f. anything by Cormac McCarthy) you have a strong image because the author has already done a great job developing that character.

Player1 is clearly the more disciplined roleplayer. But I might very well call Player2 the better roleplayer.

By the way, I am NOT saying these two things are mutually exclusive. Player 1 might very well also have moments of sublime roleplaying. And Player 2, based on personal observations, is just as likely (if not more so) to be a bad roleplayer in general. I acknowledge that. I'm making a necessary vs. sufficient argument, not a mutual exclusivity argument.

I just don't find version 1, by itself, very interesting or "immersive". Consistency is not a prerequisite for quality.

I play in a group where the players all are almost always in character. It's done very well and it's lots of fun. While you are correct that simply being in character isn't enough to be good roleplay, in my opinion, good roleplay that involves staying in character most or all of the time is superior to good roleplaying that doesn't.

 

[Guest 6801328]

There is a big difference between a PC growing, which happens from gameplay with the reasons for it happening game related and obvious, and a PC suddenly knowing something that it couldn't possibly know just because the player knows it.

Unless I, who am the final arbiter of my character, decide that my player "knows it". Then it's perfectly in character for my character to know it. If you know what I mean. (The parallels between this and the 5 Int discussion do not escape me...)

Now, maybe you play a form of D&D where the DM has authority to say, "No, you don't know that. I designed this world, and I get to dictate what knowledge the characters have." That's fine, you're allowed to play that way, but there's nothing that says yours is the "correct" way to play. Many of us simply do not grant that authority to the DM; we prefer to let players have some say in those decisions. And/or we would prefer that the DM, if he really doesn't want players to know things, simply change the bits he wants to keep a mystery so that the players don't actually know, and therefore don't have to pretend.

 

[Maxperson]

Unless I, who am the final arbiter of my character, decide that my player "knows it". Then it's perfectly in character for my character to know it. If you know what I mean. (The parallels between this and the 5 Int discussion do not escape me...)

So you think it reasonable for a D&D character who has never heard of technology to know how to build a jackhammer just because you decided that he should know it?

 

[Wuzzard]

My players always have full knowledge of their characters..

Err. what was the question?