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

[Guest 6801328]

Ah, my bad. I was catching up on the thread and missed that post. BRB after reading.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

I gotta give a gold star for having gone through and found all those passages.

But, yeah, basically I think they're wrong* and outdated. Like I said upthread, I used to play this way. Now I see it as "the way we used to play RPGs before we realized it was totally unnecessary."

*I do agree with Zeb Cook about pretending to be my character. If I pretend my character has a sudden flash of inexplicable inspiration to use fire on trolls, I'm still pretending to be my character. It sounds awfully boring to me to always make the most obvious, predictable assumptions about my character.

 

[iserith]

@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?

I have played all of those games through the years. I have certainly played with the notion that "metagaming" was a problem for most of my RPG life. I can't say with certainty where that came from but it likely had much to do with the group's preferences which were picked up from somewhere or another. That could have been from the rules themselves. We certainly made it part of our group's mantra. If you did it, you got called out for it. We still call each other "filthy metagamer" ironically when someone lobs a fire bolt at a troll.

I started to fall out of love with this way of playing in D&D 4e when I felt like my D&D 4e game wasn't as good as it could be. It was at that time I decided to forget what I new about previous editions of D&D - all the baggage of the 90s and 00s - and read the rules and try to imagine the game that best fits those rules, including everything in the DMG. When I implemented it, the game started to sing. This is where I developed the process that I still use which is to treat every game distinctly. To examine every approach I'm using and ruthlessly question its place in the game I'm playing to make sure it didn't belong better in some other game. Different games demand different approaches. Among those approaches was not worrying about "metagaming" as I had done for years. (D&D 4e & D&D 5e take similar positions on "metagame thinking.")

There isn't any support in these games for making a deal out of "metagaming." And the game simply works better in my experience without this concern. I've been in games recently where there was a "No Metagaming" provision and I have to say it was slower paced, contained poorer roleplaying, and a lot of metagame distractions like (what I would say are) unnecessary checks compared to what goes on in my games. Lots of Q&A with the DM. And almost always, the DM was setting the stage for "metagaming" to occur. All the usual stuff that I left behind years ago in other editions and other games.

In truth, I think this "no metagaming" approach is more of an identify for many groups now than it is a playstyle. It's how they've always done it. They haven't questioned it very much even as they change editions or games. It's just what they do and it has become in effect who they are. Other people who don't share their views are "filthy metagamers" or "cheaters" or "rollplayers" or worse. In part I think this explains the often visceral reactions one gets when pointing out its flaws or inconsistencies. Or how the approach doesn't really seem to reliably achieve its intended goals compared to other approaches where the presentation and adjudication obviates the push to "metagame" and where players have an incentive to verify their assumptions through action.

 

[Cadence]

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!

It feels like being suspicious that someone may be up to no good, and that being pretty sure that someone is a particular type of undead, are two very different things.

What constitutes "no way of knowing" when we're talking about what a fictional character may or may not know?

Who, besides possibly themselves, can even tell what a real person may or may not know?

Say a student had some crossed-out incorrect work (that matched that of their neighbor to the right) and had the bald correct answer written below it (that matched the one their neighbor to their left got, where that neighbor did their work on the back of another page).

Whose to say the poor accused student didn't recognize their mistake, realize it was the same as a practice problem they attempted earlier, and just put down the answer they remembered?

 

[Charlaquin]

It feels like being suspicious that someone may be up to no good, and that being pretty sure that someone is a particular type of undead, are two very different things.

Sure, but either way the next steps are similar, right? Try to get to the bottom of who they are and what they’re up to.

 

[auburn2]

Absolutely you did something wrong IMO. Player knowledge doesn't translate to character knowledge, at least not at my table and I make that clear from the start for those who are familiar with the setting. Unless your player had some inside knowledge I don't see anyway that your character would immediately know that the elf was a lich if she was taking pains to disguise her true nature, which in this case it sounds like she was. In previous editions there were telltale signs that if one knew what to look for could reveal that they were undead and possibly even what type. So if your character had the appropriate skill and was actively trying to determine this I'd allow a skill check possibly.



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.

Well turns out she is a lich, or at least is undead based on our cleric casting detect evil and good.

I get what you are saying, but she took no pains to disguise her identity. She does cloak herself in illusions to look like a living elf (as Shadowmantle is know to do), but Vilandra Shadowmantle is famous (or infamous). She is probably the 3rd most famous lich in all of Ferun. I think my character would know who that was, especially since she grew up on the sword coast and is proficient in history and arcana. If someone came up to you and introduced herself as Nanci Pelosi I think you would immediately think - wow a Senator! Quite frankly considering her celebrity, I would argue, if (the player) did not recognize the name the DM should have given me a check to see if I knew it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Say a student had some crossed-out incorrect work (that matched that of their neighbor to the right) and had the bald correct answer written below it (that matched the one their neighbor to their left got, where that neighbor did their work on the back of another page).

Whose to say the poor accused student didn't recognize their mistake, realize it was the same as a practice problem they attempted earlier, and just put down the answer they remembered?

So...wait...are you saying that the player should have to keep notes of their thought processes, and if you think they might be metagaming they should have to produce the notes that led to the action declaration?

 

[Cadence]

I have played all of those games through the years....

Thank you for your response. It might not change how I view the game, but it does let me revisit your previous posts with a different mindset.

Although it kind of feels like your last paragraph is verging on painting me and a lot of folks I've played with as "unreflective roleplaying bigots". It does make me curious now about how many of the posters above who dislike use of OOC knowledge have tried a lot of games where use of OOC knowledge was either just fine or encouraged. I've got at least one friend who I'm pretty sure has and still prefers no OOC in his D&D.

 

[Charlaquin]

*I do agree with Zeb Cook about pretending to be my character. If I pretend my character has a sudden flash of inexplicable inspiration to use fire on trolls, I'm still pretending to be my character. It sounds awfully boring to me to always make the most obvious, predictable assumptions about my character.

I have a feeling this was more pertinent advice when the concept of a roleplaying game was more novel.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If someone came up to you and introduced herself as Nanci Pelosi I think you would immediately think - wow a Senator!

I see what you did there. Subtle roleplaying.