D&D 5E Player knowledge and Character knowledge

[Yardiff]

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.

Was this ment to be funny?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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.

Absolutely. Players and DM sharing the table together not agreeing how much authority the DM has, and over what that authority applies, is a recipe for absolute disaster.

...but I have to ask, Max, what rule says that players don't have the ability to have their characters dream about particular topics?

 

[Maxperson]

Absolutely. Players and DM sharing the table together not agreeing how much authority the DM has, and over what that authority applies, is a recipe for absolute disaster.

...but I have to ask, Max, what rule says that players don't have the ability to have their characters dream about particular topics?

The rules say the player describes what they want the PC to do. Those are actions and dreams are not an action. A player can direct that his PC goes to sleep. The DM decides if any unusual dreams happen. Unless it's a more permissive game where the DM allows the player that sort of control, such as Iserith's and probably yours.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

I don't think we do, actually. The DM shouldn't need to exercise that authority with any great frequency. I'm pretty sure that we're in agreement on that point. The difference is that you think your DM - for whatever reason - should be perfectly okay with blatant meta-gaming rather than role-playing.

It just goes to show how ridiculously out of touch you are with role-playing and the RPG hobby in general, and how pointless it is to even try and include you in these sorts of discussions.

/ignore

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The rules say the player describes what they want the PC to do. Those are actions and dreams are not an action. A player can direct that his PC goes to sleep. The DM decides if any unusual dreams happen. Unless it's a more permissive game where the DM allows the player that sort of control, such as Iserith's and probably yours.

I see your point. Would you consider a lucid dreamer, however the group might determine the character to be such a person, an exception to that rule?

And yes, in my own games I would allow quite a lot of player control over their character's dreams - it's functionally impossible for the player to use that control in a way that is harmful to the campaign.

 

[Maxperson]

I see your point. Would you consider a lucid dreamer, however the group might determine the character to be such a person, an exception to that rule?

Lucid dreaming would be a background trait that I would have pre-approved. If a PC was a lucid dreamer, the answer would be yes and no. Yes I would allow control over what happens in dreams, but because lucid dreaming is based on PC experiences, there would be no jackhammer instructions allowed. If he wanted to ride the skies with a dragon under each foot in his dreams, more power to him.

And yes, in my own games I would allow quite a lot of player control over their character's dreams - it's functionally impossible for the player to use that control in a way that is harmful to the campaign.

Until the first nuclear weapon is built

Seriously, though, I figured you'd allow it. I'd allow it on a case by case basis myself. If a player said he wanted to dream about purple pixies, I'd tell him to go for it. If he wanted to dream up the answer to the puzzle, I'd say no way.

 

[Hriston]

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.

No, that isn't my argument. Role-playing is obviously an important ingredient. But tell me, oh Protector of Role-play, what would I win if I agreed with you?

Role-playing is making decisions as your character would.

That's sort of circular, isn't it? Since I create my character through game-play, my character would do whatever I decide for it to do. I don't think that's a very helpful definition.

Making decisions not as your character would is known as meta-gaming.

No. Meta-gaming is using OOC knowledge to make in-game decisions, whether or not your character would make those decisions itself. I think that's what this thread is supposed to be about.

Meta-gaming is expressly forbidden under all circumstances, except where permitted by discretion of the DM.

Where?

 

[Guest 6801328]

It just goes to show how ridiculously out of touch you are with role-playing and the RPG hobby in general, and how pointless it is to even try and include you in these sorts of discussions.

/ignore

That's actually quite funny.

Achievement Unlocked?

 

[Arial Black]

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.

I totally disagree with the assertion that the DM gets to dictate the colour of my PC's eyes (so long as that colour is not impossible for that race, and even then we are playing a fantasy RPG and if I want my PC to have metallic gold irises it would be a strange DM decision to interfere).

The only thing the player has is their own PC. As long as that PC is made within the rules, the decisions about that PC are the player's to make. Sure, the player and DM can work together on some aspects of the PC (and this works very well in practice) but the DM cannot dictate that stuff.

Why can't he? Because players do get to vote...with their feet! If the DM is a total knob'ead then he'll lose his players and he can be the dictator of himself.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Why can't he? Because players do get to vote...with their feet! If the DM is a total knob'ead then he'll lose his players and he can be the dictator of himself.

It's funny that Max says "it's not a Democracy" because of course it is. Well, at least as much of a Democracy as any country is. In no Democracy are the citizens polled on every decision; rather you get to vote at discrete times, and in between you are expected to abide by the rulings of those to whom you have granted power.

Likewise at an rpg table. Sure, you can't override a DM decision during a session, but you can cast a very clear vote on his performance by the beginning of the next session. And in the case of extreme tyranny you can cast your vote mid-session.