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

[Cadence]

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.

Presumably at least some parts of physics, chemistry, and biology still work the same. But skip that, does basic mathematics no longer work in your world or can the character decides to invent trigonometry and differential and integral calculus by deciding to write down the formulas that are actually correct? What roll is there even there for them to make?

Even simpler, maybe they just invent slide rules, printing presses with movable type, door knobs, bicycles, and efficient interior plumbing. Presumably putting ink on blocks, sticking a piece of metal in another, gears, and water pressure still function. Is there even anything requiring a roll on the players part if they have the entire idea correct and the thing the craftsmen would need to contribute are an easy DC. I guess the typewriter might require a more skilled craftsmen for the manufacturing part. Where this goes is played out in books 10 and on in Cook's Garrett PI books iirc.

It feels like there's a line somewhere, and at some point the player is obviously just being an <expletive> with no interest in actually playing the game as a character from that world - and I find it bizarre to expect the DM and other players to just have to go along with it. As always, YMMV.

 

[iserith]

Presumably at least some parts of physics, chemistry, and biology still work the same. But skip that, does basic mathematics no longer work in your world or can the character decides to invent trigonometry and differential and integral calculus by deciding to write down the formulas that are actually correct? What roll is there even there for them to make?

Even simpler, maybe they just invent slide rules, printing presses with movable type, door knobs, bicycles, and efficient interior plumbing. Presumably putting ink on blocks, sticking a piece of metal in another, gears, and water pressure still function. Is there even anything requiring a roll on the players part if they have the entire idea correct and the thing the craftsmen would need to contribute are an easy DC. I guess the typewriter might require a more skilled craftsmen for the manufacturing part. Where this goes is played out in books 10 and on in Cook's Garrett PI books iirc.

At some point it feels like the player is obviously just being an <expletive> with no interest in actually playing the game as a character from that world - and I find it bizarre to expect the DM to just roll with it. As always, YMMV.

The player says what the character thinks. The DM gets to narrate the result of an adventurer's actions - what they do. Physics, chemistry, biology, maths, or any of the inventions you mention above might not work in this fantasy world. Or maybe they do. That's up to the DM.

If the player is acting in a way that the DM believes is not in keeping with the social contract, then that is a separate issue worthy of an out-of-game discussion. On its face, however, I do not think a player doing any of the things you cite above is necessarily a problem according to the rules of the game which give us the tools necessary to resolve it. You would have to have a social contract in place that says players aren't to do these things in order to make a determination that the player is not acting in accordance with said social contract.

 

[LordEntrails]

I would argue that my character, a fighter-ranger with a 13 wisdom, 18 intelligence, proficient in history and arcana would have probably, maybe heard that name as well?

Not your call to make. Doesn't matter what your stats are. It is up to the DM to tell you what history or lore you're character might know. In Part, BECAUSE maybe the NPC is not a lich, yet. Maybe she is but no one knows about it. Maybe a thousand things that you ignored.

knows this companion is a lich.

No your character doesn't. You the player think this NPC is a lich, but even you do not know it. Because DMs are free to change anything at their table.

We are working on a strategy to surprise attack her involving acid,

That would simple be evil. Your characters are going to murder someone because a player thinks they NPC is evil. But again, you don't know it. And your characters have no reason to believe it. So, murdering someone like this would be a pure evil act.

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.

Absolutely. You need to learn to separate your knowledge from that of the character. It's what is called make believe, or in our community Role playing.

I would have so much fun screwing with a player like you at my table. I would use your player knowledge against you. Oh, you meet Laeral Silverhand, she's a beautiful elven princess who needs your help. And then betrays you because she is an evil lich and puts your souls in a magic jar. Roll new characters.

Next party, oh you meet XYZ who you know is an evil Zhent, nope, he's a polymorphed ancient gold dragon, you are now dead since you tried to kill him.

What you are doing is a lot like reading the module before you play it. You are making the DMs job harder, you are taking away fun from the other players by removing mystery. In short you are being a bad player.

Now, instead of saying "She's a lich!" Say to your party and the DM, "I've got a bad feeling about her. Can I get a feeling if I should trust her? Or perhaps since I've studied in history have I ever heard of her name or someone matching her description?" Then your DM can maybe have you roll and tell you what you know and what you feel about her. Then you get to react according to what your character knows. And what fun it might be when the mystery is revealed. And, don't hesitate to tell the DM, privately and out of session, hey, I read the Salvatore books and I think I know this character. So just in case, feel free to mix things up.

 

[Coroc]

difficult case here, one thing is you got a player who cares about (official) setting lore (which is a nice thing if the dm is using that lore) and who seems to have stats and skills to verify that mechanically.

otoh you spoiled something for the group by simply blurting your maybe ic knowledge.
a better approach would have been to do a 4 eye convo with the dm, or at least asking for check if you really got that knowledge.

dm now has to wing it to whatever outcome

 

[Guest 6801328]

The PCs are going to feel bad when they get the jump on her and kill her, and realize she's not THAT Valindra Shadowmantle.

Also, the real mistake here was to squander brain cells reading trash fiction in the first place.

 

[LordEntrails]

The PCs are going to feel bad when they get the jump on her and kill her, and realize she's not THAT Valindra Shadowmantle.

Damn right. She actually was a Silverhand who took a fake last name so she could adventure without the mantle of her family's name. She thought Shadowmantle was amusing when she chose it.

Now the evil party has to face the wraith of a powerful and good family. And the bounty that has been placed on their head by Laeral herself

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

People assume things that have no validity all the time.

 

[Mort]

difficult case here, one thing is you got a player who cares about (official) setting lore (which is a nice thing if the dm is using that lore) and who seems to have stats and skills to verify that mechanically.

otoh you spoiled something for the group by simply blurting your maybe ic knowledge.
a better approach would have been to do a 4 eye convo with the dm, or at least asking for check if you really got that knowledge.

The character's presence is essentially an Easter Egg. Shadowmantle is known outside the module and I suspect she was thrown in here precisely to give knowledgeable players a "holy crap!" moment.

The player should probably tie his OC knowledge to the character just to make future actions easier - but recognition was likely an intended possibility.

As for in general, out of character knowledge is dangerous and should not be wholly relied on! The DM may well through a curve ball for such actions.

dm now has to wing it to whatever outcome

He doesn't actually. The module expressly addresses what happens if the PCs recognize her, attack her etc. Nor will it wreck the module, it may add to it.

 

[Blue]

I have never run into these issues - probably because I have never run a game in someone else's world. Never the less, if I was to play in the FR, it would not be Greenwood's FR. It would be, by definition of me not being Greenwood, my FR. The mistake is assuming the a specific DM's FR is the same as any other DM FR. It isn't. It cannot be. The same way as when two people read the same book, they see a different story in their mind. The stories are similar, but never identical. Even I read the same book twice, the stories I experience are not identical.

I don't feel like you actually answered the question. This thread is about recognizing a name from a novel the player read and applying that knowledge as their character. Please answer within that context.

The DM is running a specific world. You personally recognize a name and act on it. That is a truth because it has occurred. Please move forward from there.

 

[Coroc]

Presumably at least some parts of physics, chemistry, and biology still work the same. But skip that, does basic mathematics no longer work in your world or can the character decides to invent trigonometry and differential and integral calculus by deciding to write down the formulas that are actually correct? What roll is there even there for them to make?

Even simpler, maybe they just invent slide rules, printing presses with movable type, door knobs, bicycles, and efficient interior plumbing. Presumably putting ink on blocks, sticking a piece of metal in another, gears, and water pressure still function. Is there even anything requiring a roll on the players part if they have the entire idea correct and the thing the craftsmen would need to contribute are an easy DC. I guess the typewriter might require a more skilled craftsmen for the manufacturing part. Where this goes is played out in books 10 and on in Cook's Garrett PI books iirc.

It feels like there's a line somewhere, and at some point the player is obviously just being an <expletive> with no interest in actually playing the game as a character from that world - and I find it bizarre to expect the DM and other players to just have to go along with it. As always, YMMV.

actually from the late middle ages onward which is the best equivalent to FRs tech level, people did a lot of stunning things already.
if you can build a pocket watch (1400) a bicycle is piece of cake, yes it would not have rubber tires. In ancient Rome they had hydraulic ballistas, with a leather piston running inside a brass cylinder.

 

[Bihlbo]

I see the OP's situation as more of a DM issue than a player issue.

It's likely the DM can still salvage it. Or at least, will later learn how it could have been done.

 

[R_J_K75]

People assume things that have no validity all the time.

True enough.

 

[practicalm]

. 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.

Using player knowledge that the character had no way to acquire is a bane of role playing.
I don't like it and I prefer players that do not take advantage of it.
The character didn't read the book, how would the character know that name?

My preferred approach would have been to have your character attempt some in game tests to detect her being a lich.

I have the same problem when a player rolls poorly on a search, then everyone wants to make a search roll. The character doesn't know what the player rolled.
For groups where suddenly everyone wants to search once they see a poor roll by one player, then group tasks come into play and a plurality of the characters need to succeed.

 

[R_J_K75]

"I've got a bad feeling about her. Can I get a feeling if I should trust her? Or perhaps since I've studied in history have I ever heard of her name or someone matching her description?"

Happens all the time in real life. I've met people at bars, parties, work, etc that I could tell were sketchy and knew enough to keep my distance or just came right out and told them to stay away from me or Im gonna kick their ass. So I think the "I've got a bad feeling based on nothing more than intuition is definitely plausible.

 

[Cadence]

actually from the late middle ages onward which is the best equivalent to FRs tech level, people did a lot of stunning things already.
if you can build a pocket watch (1400) a bicycle is piece of cake, yes it would not have rubber tires. In ancient Rome they had hydraulic ballistas, with a leather piston running inside a brass cylinder.

Yes. And I would expect a character designed to have inventor tendencies who said they were spending down-time working on inventions and making some rolls to see how successful they were to come up with something really cool as they gained levels.

Using "the character says anything the player has them say" lets them drop inventions in ex nihilo . To me, it feels like its missing the entire point of role playing in dungeons and dragons in a campaign world.

 

[R_J_K75]

I have the same problem when a player rolls poorly on a search, then everyone wants to make a search roll. The character doesn't know what the player rolled.
For groups where suddenly everyone wants to search once they see a poor roll by one player, then group tasks come into play and a plurality of the characters need to succeed.

Ditto, that gets on my nerves too. I honestly preferred years ago when the DM did alot of rolling behind the screen and told you when you found something because they operating on the premise that as an adventuring party you always have a modicum of awareness and constantly looking for stuff. We didnt have to actively tell them we were searching x, y or z every single time, it was only the very specific stuff we told them we were searching or when they asked what we were doing.

 

[iserith]

Using player knowledge that the character had no way to acquire is a bane of role playing.
I don't like it and I prefer players that do not take advantage of it.
The character didn't read the book, how would the character know that name?

Can you imagine there's a reasonable explanation in the context of a fantasy world in which the character think an NPC is a lich just by hearing his or her name? Or do you think the only possible way the character could have reached this conclusion is because the character read a book that exists only in the real world?

I have the same problem when a player rolls poorly on a search, then everyone wants to make a search roll. The character doesn't know what the player rolled.
For groups where suddenly everyone wants to search once they see a poor roll by one player, then group tasks come into play and a plurality of the characters need to succeed.

The reason "metagaming" may be happening in this example is because of how the DM adjudicated the action described by the player. Once again, this is an instance of the DM creating a situation where "metagaming" is incentivized, then expecting the players not to "metagame."

If the DM either called for no roll (because there's no uncertain outcome and/or no meaningful consequence for failure) or narrated the result of the failed check as being progress combined with a setback (the character finds something but it costs them or hinders them in some way) then the incentive to "metagame" is removed and the DM doesn't have to worry about the players "metagaming."

 

[jasper]

Ideally, the DM should have guessed that using a famous character who has a secret would have just been a bad idea. However, once used, ideally the DM should have recognized immediately that using that name, sex, and race combination would clearly lead to this assumption, and had the quick wit to change something. For instance, the real so-and-so uses a disguise at all times.

um. um. HA HA. LOL. I quit reading Realm fiction before 3E; so looking at Amazon and some wiki, It appears she was not created until this decade. So are you hinting DMs must know ALL the Realms lore?

 

[Mort]

It's likely the DM can still salvage it. Or at least, will later learn how it could have been done.

In this particular situation, there is almost certainly nothing to "salvage."

The recognition was almost certainly an intended consequence. And even if it wasn't the only way the players could "muck this up" would likely to not know when to quit and end up in a TPK near TPK (which is a kind of resolution)!

As to doing this in a general sense (inserting character easter eggs etc.). If you're playing in an established world, or a world where the players have explored before - not only do I see this kind of easter egg as not a problem, I see it as a fun reference to history/past events!

My current campaign is in Greyhawk and the PCs are 6th level, there is a lot they haven't seen, don't know. The players on the other hand (most of them anyway) have adventured in this same world to epic/near epic levels - they know, have seen, a lot. For example, the current characters passed through an area where past characters had carved out a little kingdom/established a dynasty. You better believe I played up the nostalgia with tons of references to past campaigns/characters. It wasn't for the characters benefit, it was for the players - fun was had by all, and then they moved on.

The point is, nothing wrong with throwing in a bit of player but not character knowledge if it adds to the fun of the campaign.

 

[BluejayJunior]

Can you imagine there's a reasonable explanation in the context of a fantasy world in which the character think an NPC is a lich just by hearing his or her name? Or do you think the only possible way the character could have reached this conclusion is because the character read a book that exists only in the real world?



The reason "metagaming" may be happening in this example is because of how the DM adjudicated the action described by the player. Once again, this is an instance of the DM creating a situation where "metagaming" is incentivized, then expecting the players not to "metagame."

If the DM either called for no roll (because there's no uncertain outcome and/or no meaningful consequence for failure) or narrated the result of the failed check as being progress combined with a setback (the character finds something but it costs them or hinders them in some way) then the incentive to "metagame" is removed and the DM doesn't have to worry about the players "metagaming."

The DM didn't adjudicate any action by the player or character. The player just blurted out that the NPC is a lich to all other players. The DM had no input into the conclusion. Without knowing more about the character's background, it's hard to say whether or not the character would no anything about the NPC. If they are not from the Sword Coast or Thay, it is unlikely. And I'm not sure Valindra is well known as being a lich, especially outside of those regions. Even if you can make a reasonable explanation for why the character might know about Valindra, it still kinda takes the fun out of the game to spoil that surprise for everyone.
Yes, players do get to decide what their characters think, but there is an expectation of separation between character and player knowledge about some things. If players are constantly using what they know about the game to make choices for their character when they character would have no reasonable source for that knowledge, I'm going to stop playing with them.