D&D 5E (2014) player knowlege vs character knowlege (spoiler)

[Guest 6801328]

@Maxperson the only passage I can think of might be this one:

METAGAME THINKING

Metagame thinking means thinking about the game as a game. It's like when a character in a movie knows it's a movie and acts accordingly. For example, a player might say, " The DM wouldn't throw such a powerful monster at us!" or you might hear, " The read-aloud text spent a lot of time describing that door- let's search it again!"

Discourage metagame thinking by giving players a gentle reminder: " What do your characters think? " You can curb metagame thinking by setting up situations that will be difficult for the characters and that might require negotiation or retreat to survive.

(heavily edited as I think about it)

Although this is talking about a different sort of "metagame thinking", even if we did apply this to player knowledge, it comes out to mean more what @Charlaquin and @iserith have been saying. Notice the specific advice:

• Ask them what their characters think (not to tell them what their characters think, or restrict what the choices might be)
• Sometimes put them in situations where their assumptions will be wrong (not that DMs should tell players they are not allowed to play this way, or shame them for being bad roleplayers)

 

[Cadence]

It's the default RAW way to play. Of course it's only one way, though. DMs can and are encouraged to make the game their own. That includes changing it so that it's not the DM's call on if you succeed fail or roll due to the outcome being in doubt..

As @Elfcrusher notes, having your character know what you know doesn't appear to be discussed in 5e that I could find. Apparently it isn't harshed on in 4e either? I believe it was explicitly said to be bad in B/X, 1e, and 2e.

 

[Guest 6801328]

As @Elfcrusher notes, having your character know what you know doesn't appear to be discussed in 5e that I could find. Apparently it isn't harshed on in 4e either? I believe it was explicitly said to be bad in B/X, 1e, and 2e.

Vert skateboarding takes over.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's the default RAW way to play.

Not so! The only thing the books have to say on the subject of metagame thinking is:

Metagame Thinking
Metagame thinking means thinking about the game as a game. It’s like when a character in a movie knows it’s a movie and acts accordingly. For example, a player might say, “The DM wouldn’t throw such a powerful monster at us!” or you might hear, “The read-aloud text spent a lot of time describing that door — let’s search it again!”

Discourage metagame thinking by giving players a gentle reminder: “What do your characters think?” You can curb metagame thinking by setting up situations that will be difficult for the characters and that might require negotiation or retreat to survive.

This says nothing about players utilizing knowledge from outside the game, it only advises the DM to discourage players from making decisions based on considering the scenario as part of a game, by setting up challenges that require negotiation or retreat to survive, and gently reminding players to consider what their character might do from a fiction-first perspective. Nothing at all about forbidding the players from making attacks against monsters’ weaknesses if they know them, or assuming things about famous characters based on what the player has read about them.

 

[Maxperson]

Could you cite where in 5e it's RAW?



It's not that the jerk attacks the werewolf with silver without the DM knowing, it's that he "pretends" to discover it after another character fails to damage the wolf. Then it becomes a game of "Wait, I think you already knew that." "No, really, I just thought of it." Etc.

Yes, that's being a jerk (if the social contract of that game expressly forbids it.). But that's my point: both playstyles are vulnerable to jerks. Therefore neither side in this debate can rely on the jerk argument.




Again, why is it the 5e default? (Not being snarky, I honestly don't know what the passage is.)



I meant "necessary" in an objective sense. If a group of players decide that they must always voice act when speaking aloud, that by definition is "necessary" at their table, but that does't make it necessary for the game to function well.

Also, maybe it's quick and easy for you because you know FR well, but as I think the OP's story illustrates, the "no player knowledge" approach causes problems if the players know more lore than the DM does, which effectively creates a barrier to entry for DMs. The "player knowledge is fine" approach doesn't have that problem.

I'm at work. I'll get you a detailed response later.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm at work. I'll get you a detailed response later.

If only we could get paid for arguing on the internet about D&D.

I'd be richer.

 

[Charlaquin]

@Maxperson the only passage I can think of might be this one:


(heavily edited as I think about it)

Although this is talking about a different sort of "metagame thinking", even if we did apply this to player knowledge, it comes out to mean more what @Charlaquin and @iserith have been saying. Notice the specific advice:

• Ask them what their characters think (not to tell them what their characters think, or restrict what the choices might be)
• Sometimes put them in situations where their assumptions will be wrong (not that DMs should tell players they are not allowed to play this way, or shame them for being bad roleplayers)

This is an excellent point! The passage in question actually encourages the DM to ask the players to decide what their own characters think, as a way to discourage metagame thinking!

 

[Charlaquin]

If only we could get paid for arguing on the internet about D&D.

I'd be richer.

A couple of enterprising individuals probably could. Imagine a blog or podcast where you had a hardcore OSR grognard and a hippy-dippy storygame fanatic debate about RPG design philosophy! I bet that would do pretty well.

 

[Guest 6801328]

A couple of enterprising individuals probably could. Imagine a blog or podcast where you had a hardcore OSR grognard and a hippy-dippy storygame fanatic debate about RPG design philosophy! I bet that would do pretty well.

Especially if it involved longswords.

 

[iserith]

This is an excellent point! The passage in question actually encourages the DM to ask the players to decide what their own characters think, as a way to discourage metagame thinking!

Yes, and in that section, taken as a whole the DM is telling the players to do this so they don't, to use the DMG's examples, waste session time trying to figure out a door when there's really nothing to it (despite the DM's lengthy description) or get their characters killed thinking the monster is appropriate for their level. Which tells me - tell the players to verify their assumptions with action to avoid potentially bad outcomes.