D&D 5E player knowlege vs character knowlege (spoiler)

[Guest 6801328]

I tell you very kindly that your conclusion is wrong, and I have already explained many times why that is. Perhaps these things were true for you, that I cannot know, nor it is something that I would speculate upon.

Likewise, all the accusations of "not roleplaying" and doing it for "gamist" reasons have been replied to many, many, many times, in this thread and others. And yet the denigrations continue.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Sweeping? Maybe. Baseless? No. One need only read this thread to see the basis for this conclusion, particularly in what looks like post-hoc reasoning for not taking two simple steps to neutralize the effects of "metagaming" without demanding control over player action declarations.

To be fair, when one starts with the assumption that the DM is allowed to, or even supposed to, police character thoughts, it probably doesn't feel like a control thing, or a power grab. I suspect most attempts at control (outside of RPGs) are not recognizable as such to the person doing it. It just seems like the way things are supposed to be. It probably describes most dysfunctional family dynamics.

 

[Maxperson]

Who are you to say there is no in-character reason for it though? Why not just mind your own business, assume there's a reason, and stay in character?

I'm a player who knows that there is no in game reason for it, and it is my business, in as much as game enjoyment is a foundation of play and it ruins my enjoyment.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm a player who knows that there is no in game reason for it, and it is my business, in as much as game enjoyment is a foundation of play and it ruins my enjoyment.

Sure. But that's you, not your character, speaking.

My suggestion is to step into your character more.

Be the ball, Max, be the ball.

 

[Cadence]

Who are you to say there is no in-character reason for it though? Why not just mind your own business, assume there's a reason, and stay in character?

I'm trying to imagine grading exams or reviewing journal articles. I think at some point there are things that occur that rise to a level where I am popped out of just trying to follow the logic of the work and start to wonder if there was cheating or plagiarism. If, when that happens, it's almost always a case where there is additional clear evidence of cheating or a google search confirms plagiarism, is that a fault in me not being able to focus on just following the logic, or in what I'm reading for having something jarring in it? What if my correctness is 50/50? What if it is almost always not cheating or plagiarism? Those three cases feel very different to me.

If the DM doesn't particularly notice minor OOC uses of knowledge and only pauses in the rare cases where it seems the PC is using something secret or trying something genre breaking or going over the top in using player knowledge -- and is usually correct that the player knew something very obscure or was acting on something they didn't know-- then it doesn't strike me as a major thing to call it out and rewind. Why rework one's entire DMing for something that only happens a handful of times over a decade.

At the other extreme, if the DM is always noticing possible uses of OOC knowledge and finds it jarring and needs to pause the game to deal with it, then it seems like your approach makes a ton of sense.

I have no idea where the tipping point comes from going from the former to the later.

 

[iserith]

That the DM by way of this approach is overstepping the role to take control over player action declaration is not even a denigration. It's a statement of fact. Some will say that they do this, not for the sake of control, but for some other reason and I believe they believe that. But then when offered a solution that achieves the stated goal without the DM overstepping the role, out come the excuses for why that control simply cannot be given up. This is plain to see.

 

[Cadence]

Can you give me an example of an action for which there is NO in-character reason?

(Note that this isn't the same as thinking, as a player, that the actual reason is not in-character.)

I'm trying to remember if we once had a character in a D&D world wish for some F-14s and not have any trouble flying them when they appeared. We were 11 or 12, those things happen and we were ok with it then. I think I'd feel different about that now.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm trying to imagine grading exams or reviewing journal articles. I think at some point there are things that occur that rise to a level where I am popped out of just trying to follow the logic of the work and start to wonder if there was cheating or plagiarism. If, when that happens, it's almost always a case where there is additional clear evidence of cheating or a google search confirms plagiarism, is that a fault in me not being able to focus on just following the logic, or in what I'm reading for having something jarring in it? What if my correctness is 50/50? What if it is almost always not cheating or plagiarism? Those three cases feel very different to me.

Telling example.

If the DM (or other player) is in a mindset of evaluating or assessing the validity of the roleplay, just as the teacher is grading exams or an academic is reviewing an article, then...yeah. That's going to happen.

But is that the job of the other people at the table?

 

[iserith]

I'm a player who knows that there is no in game reason for it, and it is my business, in as much as game enjoyment is a foundation of play and it ruins my enjoyment.

Staying in-character seems like a better solution to me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm trying to remember if we once had a character in a D&D world wish for some F-14s and not have any trouble flying them when they appeared. We were 11 or 12, those things happen and we were ok with it then. I think I'd feel different about that now.

I've wished for light sabers, flying cars, and teleporters, even though they don't exist in this world.

Is that metagame thinking leaking through from another dimension?

EDIT: Maybe a better example is my 7-year-old son, who we don't allow to watch most media, has fantasized about having "a machine that let's us get to (place we frequently drive 4 hours to) in one second". Is he metagaming?