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

[ccs]

I disagree. If I know trolls can only be killed by fire and acid, I get four choices:

1) Use fire and acid because my character thinks it might work.
2) Use fire and acid even though my character wouldn't know to use it.
3) Use fire and acid because my character would know to use it.
4) Don't use fire or acid because my character don't know what.
5) Don't use fire or acid because I think my character wouldn't know what.

Personally, I don't think anyone can differentiate between 1 and 2 or 1 and 3.

How does someone who's already read the MM meaningfully arrive at option 1?

Because it's my go to third option upon meeting most new monsters?
If beating it with a stick didn't work, & stabbing/chopping it didn't work, let's try the old fire/acid trick.... Not many creatures like being lit on fire or doused in acid!

Because I'm an adventurer & if somethings not on fire by the end of the fight there's something wrong?

 

[Cadence]

So it sounds like I have less "metagame" than your games and more "metagaming" by the "classic example" as you call it, but even so, it has no impact on achieving the goals of play whatsoever. Which to me argues for not thinking about it so much.

What if playing the part of the character (and avoiding player knowledge the character wouldn't have) when dealing with challenges, is a key part of the goal of playing?

Moldvay in his Basic book notes that "A player should not allow his or her character to act on information that character has no way of knowing (for example, attacking an NPC because the NPC killed a previous character run by the player, even though the NPC and current character have never met). If the players get careless about this the DM should remind them. The DM may, in addition, forbid certain actions to the characters involved. The DM should make it clear to the players before the adventure begins that characters may not act on information they don't have. It will save lots of time later."

Gygax in the 1e DMG talks about "players that continually attempt actions or activities their characters would have no knowledge of" among those that are troublesome and need to be dealt with. (I'm not sure his suggestion about using peer pressure to do it is necessarily the way to go....).

Zeb Cook & co. in the 2e PhB notes that "The player makes deicsions, interacts with other charactersand players, and, essentially, "pretends" to be his character during the course of the game." In the DMG they go even further:

"Your players must understand the distinction between what they know as players and what their characters know. Your players have read the rules and shared stories about each other's games. They've torn out their hair as the entire party of adventurers was turned into lawn ornaments by the medusa who lived beyond the black gateway. That is all player information. No other characters know what happened to that group, except this: they went through the black gateway and never returned.

The problem of player knowledge/character knowledge is always present, but it is much worse when players control more than one character in the same region. It takes good players to ignore information their characters have no way of knowing, especially if it concerns something dangerous. The best solution is to avoid the situation. If it comes up and players seem to be taking advantage of knowledge they shouldn't have, you can discourage them by changing things a bit. Still, prevention is the best cure."

Aldridge in D&D and Philosophy notes "However most D&D players would suppose that characters should not act on knowledge that would be unavailable to them according tot the usual causal laws (physical, magical, or otherwise) established within the particular setting." He notes that the DMG II for 3.5 also says that players shouldn't act on information their characters don't have.

----

Of course lots of rules and guidelines are ignored, modified, and hacked by players, and rule 0 gives that a ringing endorsement. So the importance of the rulebooks' condemning on the use of out of character knowledge are no more binding than any of the other things everyone house rules away.

Rose in D&D and Philosophy brings up the a gunpowder creating example like the one used posts ago to lead into a discussion of ludology vs. storytelling in metagaming. The author comes to many of the same conclusions offered previously for the players "antics" in trying to make gun-powder contra to the story. In real life the DM angered the player greatly by resorting to fiat, where a simple badly failed experiment might have given fine in-game cover.

Aldridge in the same book talks about the immersion-gamer spectrum, and goes into how the player and character relate in the ideal play Gygax would use peer pressure to enforce, and whether it matters that it may very well be impossible to do.

It feels to me like avoiding using player knowledge the character has is more true to the spirit D&D's creators meant it to have... but D&D's creators aren't playing at your table, and even if they were the solution of just dealing with whatever the player says in game might be easiest all around.

 

[Charlaquin]

@Cadence you aren’t going to make much headway with @iserith by citing previous editions. They are firmly of the opinion that each edition should be approached on its own terms, as if it were a completely separate game (which arguably it is), and that carrying over assumptions and habits from one edition to the next tends to cause gameplay problems.

 

[Campbell]

You have missed the critical distiction. It may be possible for the player not to act on that information. However, what we are talking about is the character acting on that information. A character not using fire/acid on a troll because they don't know it will stop the regeneration and a character not using fire/acid on a troll because the player decided their character doesn't know that - in both cases the character is not acting, including in the negative, on that information.

That's why your second example is polite, because you can play your character and not ruin a module for others because of your player choice of inaction.

When I know something that my character does not I do not get to really play my character as if they do not know it. Instead it is fully in my mind and I am often choosing to act contrary to that. My actions are always informed by that information.

For me that inaction is polite not because of this separation between player and character knowledge. Given the type of characters I usually play inaction and hanging back would usually be quite out of character. It's polite to do it because it is like sporting to the GM and you do not want to spoil the adventure for the other players.

Basically in my experience almost all cases where metagaming would be a bad thing the actual metagaming is an irrelevant concern as to why it's bad. For me personally metagame aversion tends to result in less rather than more immersive play as I have to manage these conflict streams of information in my head.

 

[iserith]

@Cadence you aren’t going to make much headway with @iserith by citing previous editions. They are firmly of the opinion that each edition should be approached on its own terms, as if it were a completely separate game (which arguably it is), and that carrying over assumptions and habits from one edition to the next tends to cause gameplay problems.

This is correct.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't really see the problem here. I feel like the reason the writers of the adventure used characters like Valindra and Artus is that they expect some players may be familiar with them, and enjoy their PCs interacting with them.

As such, recognizing Valindra is no big deal. In fact, it's likely expected, no?

So just roll with it. She can curb stomp a party. Have her just look at the character and say "Yes, and....?"

There are a nearly unlimited number of ways that can be used to justify the character's knowledge. I'd personally ask the player how the character knew that, and see if they came up with something cool to incorporate into the game. Maybe the PC knows about Valindra because someone they love had past dealings with her. Maybe that person came to great harm because of their dealings with her? Will the PC accept help from someone who hurt a loved one? How desperate are they for the aid she offers?

Honestly....the only way the scenario is even very interesting is if the players and their PCs know she's not 100% trustworthy.

A player should not allow his or her character to act on information that character has no way of knowing

I think that this kind of passage is key to the discussion, but also a bit misleading.

What constitutes "no way of knowing" when we're talking about what a fictional character may or may not know? Is there really no way a character could know that a NPC is a lich? There could be any number of ways they may have learned that. She's a pretty infamous figure.....certainly there stories about her that are told, and people who have heard such stories?

For there to be "no way" for a character to know something, it has to be pretty extreme.

Honestly, just let the secret be known and then get on with asking the players what to do about it. That is where something interesting may happen.....having everyone sit around pretending to not know something they know isn't exactly riveting gaming.

 

[Charlaquin]

Frankly, I think the whole “no way of knowing” thing is a red herring. It focuses the conversation on what the character does or doesn’t know, instead of the more pertinent question of what the character is actually doing. Whether or not the character knows who Valindra Shadowmantle is by name, it is still in my opinion perfectly reasonable for the character to be suspicious of this elf they’ve just met. Have you seen PCs? They’re suspicious of every third NPC they run into!

Personally, when I set aside the question of what the character knows or doesn’t know, I find it hard to imagine pretty much any action a character might take that a reasonable justification can’t be made for. So, I don’t worry about it. I give the player the benefit of the doubt and assume that whatever action they declare their character taking, they have a valid reason for doing so.

 

[Cadence]

@Cadence you aren’t going to make much headway with @iserith by citing previous editions. They are firmly of the opinion that each edition should be approached on its own terms, as if it were a completely separate game (which arguably it is), and that carrying over assumptions and habits from one edition to the next tends to cause gameplay problems.

This is correct.

@iserith , in that case, did you play any of B/X, 1e, 2e, or 3.5?

If so, did the admonition against the use of out of character knowledge by the rules of that version - and implication or statement that using OOC knowledge was, to some degree, not good play - affect your view of the goal of playing that game? If not, could you please elaborate?

Did your view of use of out of character knowledge in those game differ from what you do in the game 5e that lacks that admonition? If so, could you elaborate how? If not, do you believe that your approach to the game 5e was heavily influenced by what you did in those previous games about OOC knowledge, or were you capable of fully separating your previous play in the different game system from the new version in the way a player and character can't to make the decision entirely fresh? If you were not able to completely separate your play across editions, does that have any bearing on the usefulness of quoting past editions when discussing current ones?

 

[Guest 6801328]

If so, did the admonition against the use of out of character knowledge by the rules of that version - and implication or statement that using OOC knowledge was, to some degree, not good play - affect your view of the goal of playing that game? If not, could you please elaborate?

Did your view of use of out of character knowledge in those game differ from what you do in the game 5e that lacks that admonition? If so, could you elaborate how? If not, do you believe that your approach to the game 5e was heavily influenced by what you did in those previous games about OOC knowledge, or were you capable of fully separating your previous play in the different game system from the new version in the way a player and character can't to make the decision entirely fresh? If you were not able to completely separate your play across editions, does that have any bearing on the usefulness of quoting past editions when discussing current ones?

Could you cite any of those passages?

Not trying to be snarky, I'm actually really curious what they say. IIRC, I've seen one such passage, but in context it had a fairly narrow meaning. But now I don't remember the specifics.

 

[Charlaquin]

Could you cite any of those passages?

Not trying to be snarky, I'm actually really curious what they say. IIRC, I've seen one such passage, but in context it had a fairly narrow meaning. But now I don't remember the specifics.

They just did.

Moldvay in his Basic book notes that "A player should not allow his or her character to act on information that character has no way of knowing (for example, attacking an NPC because the NPC killed a previous character run by the player, even though the NPC and current character have never met). If the players get careless about this the DM should remind them. The DM may, in addition, forbid certain actions to the characters involved. The DM should make it clear to the players before the adventure begins that characters may not act on information they don't have. It will save lots of time later."

Gygax in the 1e DMG talks about "players that continually attempt actions or activities their characters would have no knowledge of" among those that are troublesome and need to be dealt with. (I'm not sure his suggestion about using peer pressure to do it is necessarily the way to go....).

Zeb Cook & co. in the 2e PhB notes that "The player makes deicsions, interacts with other charactersand players, and, essentially, "pretends" to be his character during the course of the game." In the DMG they go even further:

"Your players must understand the distinction between what they know as players and what their characters know. Your players have read the rules and shared stories about each other's games. They've torn out their hair as the entire party of adventurers was turned into lawn ornaments by the medusa who lived beyond the black gateway. That is all player information. No other characters know what happened to that group, except this: they went through the black gateway and never returned.

The problem of player knowledge/character knowledge is always present, but it is much worse when players control more than one character in the same region. It takes good players to ignore information their characters have no way of knowing, especially if it concerns something dangerous. The best solution is to avoid the situation. If it comes up and players seem to be taking advantage of knowledge they shouldn't have, you can discourage them by changing things a bit. Still, prevention is the best cure."