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

[Guest 6801328]

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.

And, likewise, you either trust your players or you don't.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And, likewise, you either trust your players or you don't.

And I do. And like in that orc example you derided, the GM didn't tell us to not refer to them as orcs. We just didn't as it was obvious to all us players that of course our characters wouldn't call them that. But as you said earlier, these things are subjective and sometimes there is a misalignment in expectations, and because the game actually has a designated referee, they might as well be the one to sort such a situation out.

 

[Cadence]

And I do. And like in that orc example you derided, the GM didn't tell us to not refer to them as orcs. We just didn't as it was obvious to all us players that of course our characters wouldn't call them that. But as you said earlier, these things are subjective and sometimes there is a misalignment in expectations, and because the game actually has a designated referee, they might as well be the one to sort such a situation out.

In the other playstyle, if one were in a world where the descriptions and attributes of creatures were more variable, wouldn't it be dangerous to assume they were orcs (with the usual meaning)?

 

[Guest 6801328]

And I do. And like in that orc example you derided, the GM didn't tell us to not refer to them as orcs. We just didn't as it was obvious to all us players that of course our characters wouldn't call them that. But as you said earlier, these things are subjective and sometimes there is a misalignment in expectations, and because the game actually has a designated referee, they might as well be the one to sort such a situation out.

So let's say somebody referred to them as "orcs" in-character. As in, "We were up by the old mine today and realized two orcs were spying on us."

I see two ways to address this:

A: "Bob, you wouldn't know they are orcs, your character has never heard of such a thing."

B: "Huh? What in tarnation are Tuorcs?"

I like B, because there's no need for a "referee" to "sort out" any "situation". Everybody stays in character; nobody has to go metagame.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In the other playstyle, if one were in a world where the descriptions and attributes of creatures were more variable, wouldn't it be dangerous to assume they were orcs (with the usual meaning)?

I'm not even sure they were. But their description sounded like orcs to the players.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So let's say somebody referred to them as "orcs" in-character. As in, "We were up by the old mine today and realized two orcs were spying on us."

I see two ways to address this:

A: "Bob, you wouldn't know they are orcs, your character has never heard of such a thing."

B: "Huh? What in tarnation are Tuorcs?"

I like B, because there's no need for a "referee" to "sort out" any "situation". Everybody stays in character; nobody has to go metagame.

If I were that player, I would have appreciated if I was reminded that I made a mistake instead of trying to somehow enshrine my gaffe as apart of the narrative. Like if I were playing in a historical setting and accidentally in-character referred to some technology or person or other thing that was not known then (an easy mistake to make) I would just prefer my mistake to be corrected.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Honestly I don't understand the problem with just calling them "orcs" regardless of whether or not that's the stat block the DM is using.

Let's say one of the players started using the word "goblin" instead. The word predates D&D and even Tolkien (actually, so does "orc": Google ngram), and is actually a pretty good word for an unknown scary monster. So maybe, because of that history of the word, everybody could agree that "goblin" would be a good, non-metagamey term.

But, if so, why not "orc"? To complain about it pretty much requires metagame thinking. If the word didn't exist, it means the character just made something up.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If I were that player, I would have appreciated if I was reminded that I made a mistake instead of trying to somehow enshrine my gaffe as apart of the narrative. Like if I were playing in a historical setting and accidentally in-character referred to some technology or person or other thing that was not known then (an easy mistake to make) I would just prefer my mistake to be corrected.

Ok.

Weird, but ok.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Honestly I don't understand the problem with just calling them "orcs" regardless of whether or not that's the stat block the DM is using.

Let's say one of the players started using the word "goblin" instead. The word predates D&D and even Tolkien, and is actually a pretty good word for an unknown scary monster. (Google ngram). So maybe, because of that history of the word, everybody could agree that "goblin" would be a good, non-metagamey term.

But, if so, why not "orc"? To complain about it pretty much requires metagame thinking. If the word didn't exist, it means the character just made something up.

We just saw them couple of times. I'm sure if we would have had more contact we would have learned to communicate with them. And it was explicitly clear that they didn't resemble any mythological creature known to us. We similarly encountered giants which we didn't know existed, but in that case we knew them as myths.

 

[Imaculata]

This reminds me of the time my players were preparing to visit a Copper Dragon.

Player: Copper dragons breath acid and gas. So if we bring protection from acid, we should be fine. Besides, copper dragons are good.

Me: For your sake, I hope you're right, and that I didn't change things.

Other player: On second thought, lets take all the precautions we can, just in case.