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

[iserith]

Long story short, you should not have blurted that out and no, your character does not know everything you know (nor do you know everything your character knows). That is exactly why intelligence skill checks exist.

Intelligence checks exist to resolve uncertainty as to the outcome of a character attempting to recall lore or make deductions when there's a meaningful consequence for failure. They have no bearing on what a character may think (which the player has absolute authority to establish), except as the player decides.

You should have said something like, “Does that name mean anything to my character?” and your DM should have called for an Intelligence (History) skill check. If you fail that, then as far as you’re concerned she’s an elf lady in a floating chunk of earth.

Given the above, in my game it would look more like "I try to recall the significance of that name, drawing upon [some past experience and/or training] to see if this is someone we can trust." If the outcome of that task is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure, then I will ask for a check. If I did ask for a check, the failure condition might be something like "she is an evil lich of some renown... and the expression on her face suggests she knows you know it."

If I was your DM, the fact that your entire party is now conspiring to kill this character based entirely on meta game knowledge they shouldn’t have would immediately cause me to make her an innocent elf who is just trying to help you.

I would never do this as DM. In this instance the DM set the stage for "metagaming" to occur and some DMs would then demand the players don't "metagame" in the face of that. Changing things to thwart the very "metagaming" the DM encouraged is not the way to go in my view. The problem - if it can even be called a problem - is easier solved upstream by reminding the players that assumptions can be wrong and that the smart play is to verify one's assumptions before acting on them.

 

[iserith]

I would say that their assumption that the NPC is a lich should be grounded on some hint or fact that the DM has asserted throughout the course of the adventure or campaign to have any validity.

The player can have the character think, say, and do whatever the player wants for any reason the player wants. It's just that what the character thinks, as established by the player, might be wrong.

 

[Mort]

I would say that their assumption that the NPC is a lich should be grounded on some hint or fact that the DM has asserted throughout the course of the adventure or campaign to have any validity.

The issue here, is that the NPC is well enough known within certain groups. The PC is fifth level and could have easily come upon this information.

As @iserith said above the PC should indicate his suspicions and the DM should determine if he automatically knows the information or if the outcome isn't certain and the PC needs an arcana, history etc. Check.

Frankly, if I where the DM, the cat's of of the bag.

Since the adventure anticipates the PCs identifying her anyway, why go against it if they do? Just confirm the PCs suspicions and move on. Heck it'll add a lot to the adventure of the PCs know who they're dealing with.

The next challenge is dealing with it without getting themselves killed!

 

[R_J_K75]

The player can have the character think, say, and do whatever the player wants for any reason the player wants. It's just that what the character thinks, as established by the player, might be wrong.

True I agree to an extent but if a a player has a regular tendency to have his character come up with unfounded assumptions as a DM I might be inclined to say something in game to subtlety alleviate their concerns.

 

[jasper]

Thanks @Mort

Spoiler: what happen in my campaign

A few hours later they came across Heart of Ubtao. Nuuz Tsarai was able to fly up to the stair landing and throw down some ropes. After the bard slipped, they discover belaying clumsy pc was a good thing. When they all arrived on the landing, they talked and talked and talked, and voted, and voted and voted. They did not want to split the party but did not come to a decision until from out of the darkness of the cave a voice yelled, “Up or in dears, I am tired of hearing argue over it!”. The group fled up the stairs to investigate the hollow tree, and air vent. The Gar Shap the green Grung was lowered down the air vent. He was eaten and as the rope was paying out the Tortle was dragged down also.

The group decide to walk down to the cavern to discover what ate two of their members. They started laughing when they discover both the frog and turtle dress up in doll clothes, tied up, and seated around a kids tea party table. Various markings using the Tortle magical pigments were drawn on his shell. Valindra talked with the group while making her two dollies drink her tea. She gave them the location of Omu, and various others. She disappeared while they rested overnight in the heat.

I forgot my group encounter her. But I think NONE of the players at the time read the books.

 

[iserith]

True I agree to an extent but if a a player has a regular tendency to have his character come up with unfounded assumptions as a DM I might be inclined to say something in game to subtlety alleviate their concerns.

Why do you think the DM should care about this, provided it's not negatively impacting the group's ability to achieve the goals of play?

 

[R_J_K75]

As @iserith said above the PC should indicate his suspicions and the DM should determine if he automatically knows the information or if the outcome isn't certain and the PC needs an arcana, history etc. Check.

I havent read or played the adventure or the novel in question. If the adventure assumes the PCs will find out who she is then as you said continue, but correct its up to the DM to determine the extent of the players knowledge or lack thereof.

 

[R_J_K75]

Why do you think the DM should care about this, provided it's not negatively impacting the group's ability to achieve the goals of play?

Just how I prefer to play. Automatically giving a character information because of something they read in a novel and possibly circumventing a portion of the adventure is not how I run my games as I think it breaks the immersion and Id rather they actually interact with the character to figure things out.

 

[jgsugden]

PCs do not know everything a player does. You should have your PC act as if he does not know who she is. You should not have blurted anything out to ruin the fun of the rest of the PCs. This is akin to someone buying the module, reading it, and then using that knowledge to cheat through encounters.

It is entirely up to the DM to determine if you might know the name based upon an intelligence check. If the DM does not ask you to make one, you can ask if it is appropriate, but you need to accept the ruling of the DM.

 

[iserith]

Just how I prefer to play. Automatically giving a character information because of something they read in a novel and possibly circumventing a portion of the adventure is not how I run my games as I think it breaks the immersion and Id rather they actually interact with the character to figure things out.

To be clear though, the player may establish that his or her character thinks the NPC Is a lich, but doesn't actually know for sure. The character hasn't been "given" any information that is reliable until verified through in-game action. So what is different from this reality and what it is you say you prefer? The character is still in the same spot and has to interact or otherwise take action to figure things out or risk being tragically wrong.

 

[R_J_K75]

This is akin to someone buying the module, reading it, and then using that knowledge to cheat through encounters.

I actually had a player do that once. I had an idea shortly after we started. After he said to me wow you skipped alot of that adventure, I asked him how he knew? As he went to media play and bought it he read it before giving it to me to run.

 

[Cadence]

The player can have the character think, say, and do whatever the player wants for any reason the player wants. It's just that what the character thinks, as established by the player, might be wrong.

And so the player has the character collect saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal and put them together in the right amounts... or start collecting food molds to find penicillium... or start purifying acetone and bleach... or start cultivating Clostridium botulinum... or experimenting with different shaped wings and the air flow speed over and above the wings in just the right ways... or experiment with magnets and wires and spinning in just the right way... etc...

 

[iserith]

And so the player has the character collect saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal and put them together in the right amounts... or start collecting food molds to find penicillium... or start purifying acetone and bleach... or start cultivating Clostridium botulinum... or experimenting with different shaped wings and the air flow speed over and above the wings in just the right ways... or experiment with magnets and wires and spinning in just the right way... etc...

Sure. And like any other task a character undertakes, the DM determines if the outcome is uncertain (or not) and if there's a meaningful consequence for failure (or not) and narrates the result of the adventurer's actions. The character might well be wrong about what those tasks will achieve in the world of swords and sorcery in which the character lives. Or the character might be right. It's up to the DM.

 

[R_J_K75]

To be clear though, the player may establish that his or her character thinks the NPC Is a lich, but doesn't actually know for sure. The character hasn't been "given" any information that is reliable until verified through in-game action. So what is different from this reality and what it is you say you prefer? The character is still in the same spot and has to interact or otherwise take action to figure things out or risk being tragically wrong.

Fair enough. I was under the impression the DM immediately verified the the NPC was a lich after the PC blurted it out. Perhaps I read the OP wrong.

 

[Cadence]

Let me ask you this. As a DM, I introduce a character that has a name matching someone from a novel or other FR resource. You make assumptions about that character. It turns out it is another character of the same name, just like there are plenty of John Smiths in the world. (Maybe a coincidence, I heard the name somewhere and it stuck in my subconcious, maybe intentionally.)

I confess to sometimes having fun with unrelated names. A D&D-esque murder mystery once had many of the townsfolk with names from Star Wars and Star Trek and were reminiscent of them. I think the only way it would have helped them though is if they new which of the characters I disliked the most at the time and thus had be the villain.

 

[billd91]

This was probably something you should have pulled your DM aside for - recognizing a character you, personally, read about in a novel appearing as an NPC - to ask if it's something your character might know about. Novels can definitely include elements for the reader that wouldn't be common knowledge to characters in the setting - that good ol' 3rd-person, omniscient point of view. No doubt, the character was included as an NPC so that people who remember that Salvatore book can nod and say "Oh, yeah," and feel good about understanding some of the narrative context. But that doesn't mean your PC should know about it.

Role playing as if you're separating your own personal knowledge from what your PC might know is a skill. But it's a worthwhile one to pursue developing if you're interested in a lot of in-character focus. If you're playing more of a kick in the door/murder hobo campaign, it won't be as important. Figure out what kind of game you're group is involved in and work in the appropriate direction for this sort of circumstance.

 

[iserith]

Fair enough. I was under the impression the DM immediately verified the the NPC was a lich after the PC blurted it out. Perhaps I read the OP wrong.

Even if the DM did though, that's fine in my view. It just brings the players and their characters to the next decision point: What, if anything, do you do about it? And the game marches on...

 

[Bihlbo]

1. Do you think I did anything wrong and how am I supposed to play this? I can't like forget that she is an evil lich.

Of course you did wrong. Of course! You can just assume anything, but the whole reason there's a system of rules is to keep you from jumping to conclusions and running with your assumptions. "I have 18 Int so I assume I've heard her name before and know her best-kept secret" is no different than "I have 18 Str so I assume I kill the entire tribe of troglodytes and loot all their treasure." No need to play the game! Just ask everyone what they expect will happen and pretend that's fun, somehow.

You didn't do anything in the game world, as your character, to find out she's a lich. As a player you have to grab that knowledge nugget, wrap it in greasy foil, and slide it back behind the frozen peas in the freezer of your mind. You still have it, but you'll never see it again. Because you don't actually know she's a lich. Your DM might have changed the lore for this game, or this could be before she became a lich, or she's lying about her name. So that knowledge is something you can think of as a possibility, but it's not a given. And as you play, you have to remember that your character does not have your knowledge. Your character doesn't think of her being a lich as even a possibility.

Part of the fun of D&D is discovering new things. Even when it's something you expected, assumed, or knew because you read some other book, it's fun to go through the process of finding out what the DM has in store for your game. That discovery might not come until the lich reveals her true nature and kills your favorite NPC, but even that is lots of fun. That's the story you're telling through the process of playing the game, and it's an important element. You completely sidestepped it and shot a big hole in a lot of potential fun for your entire gaming group by blurting out that she's a lich.

Step-be-step, here's how you should have played it:
1. I don't really know she's a lich. My character doesn't even think it's possible. I'll keep this to myself and find out what the DM has in store for this character.
2. My character meets a friendly elf and learns her name. What would I do if this were anyone else?
3. The DM is going to drop hints about this character if she has any backstory at all. I should pay attention to those. Maybe I'll make some good rolls to find out she's a lich, or that she's something else entirely.
4. I accept that if she's a lich we'll get to have a cool enemy, and she'll be more connected to us if she was once a friend. This will make the game better, and I shouldn't ruin it.

2. What do you think of our strategy to eliminate her?

I think it doesn't matter. The DM already let you use metaknowledge to sidestep most of the challenge she presented. Just grab the piece of paper with her stats and run off with it. There, she's defeated. Might as well.

 

[jsaving]

I see no real way of separating character and player knowledge.

Ordinarily the point of role-playing would be to play someone who is different from yourself rather than rolling a character who is you with some character levels. When people act, which is basically what role-playing is, you wouldn't typically "break immersion" by failing to separate your mind from theirs, such as a movie-remake character remarking on what a newly introduced NPC did in the original version of the movie.

However not every player cares all that much about acting or is equally proficient at it. Some may want to play a thinly disguised version of themselves, with the point of the gaming session being to let players fight foes with powers they wish they had. Others may care more about winning/power than role-playing and see any advantage they may have, including player knowledge, as fair game. Still others may like role-playing in theory but not be especially good at it, creating situations where metagame knowledge is blurted out and is then met by awkward silence by people who feel like a line was crossed without being able to fully articulate why they feel that way.

However I see the OP's situation as more of a DM issue than a player issue. As DM your job is to meet players where they are, read the mood of the table, and present your adventures accordingly. If it's known that players read fantasy novels (a really common thing around gaming tables) then choosing to import a fantasy-novel character into your campaign will always carry the risk that players will know who the character is and what their twist is going to be. If the OP's DM was shocked by that then I would respectfully suggest it's mainly the DM rather than the OP who made an error in judgment.

 

[GMMichael]

Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible...

Okay, "infinitely" is a bit audacious, but still, go ahead and spoil the DM's plan. See what happens

I see no real way of separating character and player knowledge. The best way to avoid inappropriate overlap between the two is for the DM to mix things up.

Or, you could role-play.

1. the DM describes the environment
2. the players describe their characters’ actions
3. the DM describes the result
By having your character react to something that isn’t part of the DM’s description, you’re upsetting the play-loop. This can be frustrating for the DM because it feels like you aren’t interested in playing the game as presented.

Sound advice. But:

You also invent the personality, appearance, and backstory of your character.

Characters have histories that, in theory, go all the way back to the moment of their birth (or conception). So players have a lot to consider beyond what the DM is describing. Why did the player say "she is a lich?" Let's just chalk that up to momentary indiscretion. Why did the character say "she is a lich?" Maybe that character has met one or two Valindras or Shadowmantles in the past, and they were liches? Maybe the character saw some graffiti (wizard's mark, and all that) that said "Shadowmantle = LICH!" We just don't know, because the player invents the backstory.

Absolutely you did something wrong IMO. . . As a player I always played from the standpoint of my character and what knowledge they may or do have no matter how familiar I was with the game and the setting. This was just always ingrained in me as player very early on and used self control to separate player vs. character knowledge. I don't think a DM should have to necessarily mix things up to accommodate trigger happy players but in reality this is usually what it comes down to.

I wouldn't quite say "wrong." Maybe "unseemly." Wrong is detracting from the fun that the other players have. Oh, wait...
I'd modify Hriston's rule number 2 to say: the player describes what the character would do. That way, you're playing from the standpoint of your character.

So, OP:

1. Yes, you actually can forget that she's an evil lich. Well, your character can. If you somehow said "she's a lich!" in-character, that will have to be your new nervous tick throughout the campaign.

2. Since you said "we are probably no match for her," I find your strategy to eliminate her to be foolhardy, at best.