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

[Guest 6801328]

Yeah, free metagaming and the GM not being allowed to limit what the characters think would totally allow this. Again, I have really hard time imagining that the designers intended it to be played this way.

And if that's how the players want to play it, what does it accomplish to not let them?

Again, the problem isn't metagaming, is differing expectations.

 

[Cadence]

And, have they had clean and issue free play resulting from their skim?

Except for 4e it seems to have gone pretty well. I'm trying to think of how rough it is just when someone tries something new in a version we'd been playing for a while. I would suggest anyone going from an earlier edition to 5e not miss skimming the healing rules first! (And Detect Alignment's change was a pleasant surprise).

 

[Cadence]

I wonder, would the 11 year old have been extremely disappointed to receive an actual F-14, and then not be able to use it because, for example, there's no runway?

If the answer is "yes" then that's evidence that was actually wanted was, as you say, the idea of an F-14. The good bits, but not all those other bits.

I remember worrying about fuel and eventually constructing runways. I'm not sure if the not-much-older-than-me DM though of the take-off requirements at first either. It would have been disappointing to get it and not use it!

 

[Ovinomancer]

The most humorous implication of not policing player knowledge is a party who never speaks to each other. The player speaks, and other characters think they know what that character is thinking. It's permanent Telepathic Bond.

For example. A rogue is scouting dark tunnels, and the rest of the party is getting live updates on what the rogue sees. Or the wizard gets mugged while shopping, and the party across town come running.

Granted, this absolutely would make the game run faster. I won't deny that for a second.

Not really a problem. The players come up with in-character reasons for why they perform certain actions, and I, as GM, adjudicate them. I already don't take the rogue aside when scouting alone so all the players see the play already. Hasn't once been a problem, because I'm not super keen making players wait around until enough time has passed or one thinks of an excellent enough justification to go help the rogue. I'd rather everyone be engaged in the game, and the players will almost always solve this problem for me by stating a rational.

Look, ultimately this is on the GM, again. If you're running a game where 1) a rogue scouting alone down dark and distance tunnels is a smart play and 2) you're going to reveal details to the rogue that will impact whoever follows after without them seeing it as well, then you've set up your own problems. Usually, I'll completely elide a moment by moment scouting mission like this, and ask for a skill check to determine what happens, then narrate the entire scout. "Okay, Bob, your rogue (also Bob) is going scouting. How far are you going and what are you doing? " "Um, I'll head out about 15 minutes scout ahead, keeping quiet and being alert for bad guys, I guess." "Cool, give me a DEX check to remain quiet. DC 15 as this seems a medium challenge." "I'm gonna use my Stealth proficiency <clatter> 12?" "Okay, you move ahead, and shortly find that the passage opens into a large room. Smoky fires near the far wall illuminate the room and you see shadowy figures moving behind them. They look armored, medium sized, and humanoid. There's maybe 12 of them, total. You're pretty sure that if you approach more closely, you'll be spotted, though -- the entrance to the room is as far as you can go on that 12. What do you do?"

This approach -- check using success with cost or limited success. Bob gets some info, and is told this is as much as they'll get. They can return to the party and tell them, or do something else, but the party can then decide, perfectly in character, that Bob's likely gotten into trouble (I mean, if Bob tries something else, this is a perfectly reasonable assumption about Bob) and come investigate themselves.

 

[Seramus]

And if that's how the players want to play it, what does it accomplish to not let them?

It certainly doesn't harm anything. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, the same way there is nothing inherently wrong with someone having unlimited Greater Restoration, or unlimited Commune With Nature. I don't think the game was intended to be run that way, but if everyone is having fun then that's all there is to it.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

It certainly doesn't harm anything. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, the same way there is nothing inherently wrong with every player having unlimited Greater Restoration, or unlimited Commune With Nature. I don't think the game was s intended to be run that way, but if everyone is having fun then that's all there is to it.

Judging by the fact that D&D has undergone numerous and significant changes since 1974, I don't seen any reason to believe that the game was intended to be played a specific way.

 

[Campbell]

So the scouting example highlights part of the reason why I find metagame aversion harmful - because it holds players back from developing an understanding why certain types of behavior have negative impact on play. It also hinders the development of player level awareness of things like narrative spotlight, pacing, collaboration skills and the like.

In the scouting and running across town example the problem from my perspective is not metagaming. I think the problem is that one character has the narrative spotlight and the other players instead of being fans of that character are disrupting that moment.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In my mind this isn't a metagaming problem, it's a problem with varying expectations at the table.

But beyond that, you are putting a value judgment ("any sensible player") on what is really a subjective opinion. Sure, in this extreme case (gunpowder in ancient Egypt) it seems clear-cut. But the real problems in metagame-policing emerge when there's a difference in opinion about what is appropriate and what is not. What about if you're playing a 10th century Viking game? Gunpowder existed in China during that time; I could see one player's conception of fantasy roleplaying, even historical fantasy roleplaying, being more than just sticking to the established timeline.

Or a more down-to-earth example: how appropriate/possible/likely is it for a 5th level character in Chult to recognize the name Valindra Shadowmantle? Opinions are going to vary widely.

One possible answer is "The DM decides by fiat". That is one way of approaching this, and it works, I guess (I mean, I played that way for a long time). But it also works to let each player decide for themselves, and have others react to it.

The GM being the final arbiter means that there is a consistent standard, even if it was subjective. One player isn't playing super realistic, historically accurate viking adventure while another is doing gonzo alternate history with pop culture references. Because ultimately everyone should be playing the same game or no one will have fun. And because D&D is a game where one person is explicitly the referee, then that person doing it makes perfect sense. Granted, need for such actual in-game adjudicating on these sorts of matter is greatly reduced to a good session zero.

I don't think you are understanding what @Ovinomancer is saying, because the above makes no sense.

I totally am not understanding them and I don't think they have understood me for couple of posts so that thing is probably going nowhere.

And you think this bolsters your argument?

For f$#%'s sake how trivial would it have been to just slightly change them so the players actually wouldn't know what they are, instead of pretending to not know? I read "so never in-character did we call them orcs" and I don't think, "Wow, great roleplaying." I think "what a total f*$%ing waste of precious game time."

I really don't understand how that was waste of time, it was perfectly natural. It added to the atmosphere of exploring unknown lands. Not that we interacted them with a lot, I think they only appeared in two or three sessions. I'm actually still not sure if they were just normal orcs, they seemed a bit weird.

"Category error" has a technical meaning and that's not it.

Putting two things that belong to the same category to different categories is still a category mistake.

But, that aside, there is a distinction between knowing/believing and acting, and I think you know that. You are deciding to treat them the same, in the sense that both are ultimately under control of the DM. Which is one way of approaching it.

Somewhere you have to have a "line" between the player's control and the DM's control. The problem I see with your approach is, as discussed at the top of this post, that your line, whether you call it believable vs. non-believable, or good roleplaying vs. bad roleplaying, or "would happen" vs. "would not happen" is arbitrary and the rulings are subjective. The DM jumps in when he/she thinks a player has overstepped, and it requires everybody at the table to have the same expectations for it to work.

The advantage of the character thought vs. physical reality line is that it is distinct and clear: the player gets absolute control over the character's thoughts/emotions/motivations/knowledge/beliefs, the DM gets absolute control over the physical environment.

So what that it is subjective? Even in your playsyle the GM has to make countless calls on various things based on their subjective understanding. So either you trust them to do that in a manner that is acceptable to you or you don't. And if you don't then setting limits on what sort of thing they can adjudicate isn't really gonna cut it, they're gonna adjudicate in a manner that is disagreeable to you on some another matter.

 

[Seramus]

I don't seen any reason to believe that the game was intended to be played a specific way.

I would say it's a pretty wide spectrum. I wouldn't put everything under that umbrella, but most ways are peachy keen if everyone is having fun.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I probably wouldn't, because it's an extreme edge case. There's a few things I would bring up that would likely head it off, and that a discussion of genre expectations in play -- this is very much an important topic when setting up a game. And, if done, would probably help this discussion:

"I wish for an F-14!"

"Bob, we talked about this, and everyone agreed this was going to be a stock fantasy game with no technology. An F-14 violates that. Can we work out what a genre appropriate version of what you want would look like, because if you ask me to adjudicate that, it doesn't exist in this game and the wish can't grant it."

This is pretty much the sort of GM oversight I'm been advocating for. Weird that this now your solution. Also, it is rather subjective where something becomes so 'extreme' that it warrants this sort of discussion. Only if I had known that I should have used fighter planes as an example instead of the pathetic gunpowder!