D&D 5E Player knowledge and Character knowledge

[Hriston]

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



This quote I took from the Paizo forums

This wouldn't be the first time someone was unable to understand Gary's prose. I mean, it isn't called Gygaxian for nothing.

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.

I think the issue of player-knowledge versus character-knowledge is not addressed by this article. Gygax says players should rely on the skills of their characters to solve problems, but he doesn't say anything about characters relying on the skills of their players. To me this is a non-issue. The character makes no actual decisions at the level of metagaming and has no access to the knowledge of the player in making fictional decisions. If a character just so happens to know something a player knows, there is no reason to assume the character learned it from the player. The character has fictionally acquired that knowledge elsewhere.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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?

Wait...what's this part about "never heard of technology"? Speak for yourself. My D&D character has heard all about technology. It comes to him in dreams, which he suspects are actually messages from Izzard Woz, the patron deity of the Silkon Vale.

The problem is, he can picture how these contraptions would work, but he can't find any artisans willing to make the parts that he sketches in his the margins of his spellbook.

Now, you may not appreciate this particular character appearing in your game. It might not really fit into the fantasy aesthetic that you're going for. And I'm right with you; I wouldn't really want such a character inhabiting the worlds I usually envision either (for the same reason I don't want rapiers and hand crossbows, for example.)

But that doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Deferring to Gygax on roleplaying is a little like deferring to the Wright Brothers on aerospace engineering.

Sure, in both cases you want to nod your head in respect and gratitude. (Unless you're from Ohio, in which case you know that the Wright Brothers didn't really invent the airplane.) But that doesn't mean their opinions are especially valuable.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

A role-playing game is a game which is played by role-playing. If you're trying to argue that you should play a role-playing game by not role-playing, then you've already lost.

Role-playing is making decisions as your character would. Making decisions not as your character would is known as meta-gaming. Meta-gaming is expressly forbidden under all circumstances, except where permitted by discretion of the DM.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

Actually, every rule in the book says that the DM does get to dictate that. Your character doesn't exist unless the DM agrees to it. You could say that your character has grey eyes, and if the DM says your character has blue eyes, then your character has blue eyes.

This is not a democracy. You do not get to vote. The DM is the final and only authority on what happens in the game.

The DM should not be required to exert that authority. If you have pushed the DM to that point, then you have failed as a player, and you should leave the table.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Actually, every rule in the book says that the DM does get to dictate that. Your character doesn't exist unless the DM agrees to it. You could say that your character has grey eyes, and if the DM says your character has blue eyes, then your character has blue eyes.

This is not a democracy. You do not get to vote. The DM is the final and only authority on what happens in the game.

The DM should not be required to exert that authority. If you have pushed the DM to that point, then you have failed as a player, and you should leave the table.

Well, technically the DM can also say that all characters must be Lawful Good Female Dwarf Rogues who wield only darts, right? Does that mean that putting such a restriction on player choice is the "right" way to play?

So, yeah, ultimately the DM has complete authority. And you and I have differing opinions on how much exercise of that authority is too much.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Role-playing is making decisions as your character would.

You keep repeating this. Do you not understand that "as your character would" is, for a lot of gamers, something that is decided by the player? Yes, we get that you don't play that way, that you and your friends have some kind of agreement about what the narrow boundaries of behavior are, about what a character in a fictional world "should" or "would" do.

We understand, and we have compassion for you. Really.

Some day, if you do your homework and say your prayers, you may understand that there's a much wider world out there.

 

[Manbearcat]

Some day, if you do your homework and say your prayers, you may understand that there's a much wider world out there.

This is ridiculous. You think doing your homework and saying your prayers works without taking your vitamins?

You may be a role player, but you sir, you are not a role model. Your incomplete advice will lead only to RPG Purgatory.

 

[Maxperson]

Wait...what's this part about "never heard of technology"? Speak for yourself. My D&D character has heard all about technology. It comes to him in dreams, which he suspects are actually messages from Izzard Woz, the patron deity of the Silkon Vale.

Dreams are not something a character can control. It's outside what a PC can do, so it requires the DM to do it, or the DM to approve it in some fashion. Players cannot cause things outside of the PC's control to happen without some sort of rules change.

Now, you may not appreciate this particular character appearing in your game. It might not really fit into the fantasy aesthetic that you're going for. And I'm right with you; I wouldn't really want such a character inhabiting the worlds I usually envision either (for the same reason I don't want rapiers and hand crossbows, for example.)

But that doesn't mean it's wrong.

It's not wrong, but it isn't something that can happen in that manner without a rules change. Players don't have the ability to have a PC do something that is outside of PC control, and dreams are outside.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, technically the DM can also say that all characters must be Lawful Good Female Dwarf Rogues who wield only darts, right? Does that mean that putting such a restriction on player choice is the "right" way to play?

So, yeah, ultimately the DM has complete authority. And you and I have differing opinions on how much exercise of that authority is too much.

It's not just you and him. I expect that you, him, myself, Iserith and Aaron will have 5 different opinions on exactly how much DM authority is too much. It's one of those things you have to either accept and play with, or move along to another table that has a better fit.