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

[Burnside]

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.

The DM did not necessarily "set the stage" for metagaming in this instance. The character in question is obscure enough that the DM could easily have been totally unaware that she was a pre-existing character not original to the adventure, and have no way of knowing that a player would know who she is. The DESIGNER set the stage for metagaming, which is why I question the designer using this character in this way.

 

[iserith]

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.

What you're quoting of mine is a response to practicalm's concerns about metagaming as it relates to rolls made to resolve searching tasks. It does not apply to the issue in the original post.

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.

That's your choice, but there's nothing really in the rules that mandates the player must have his or her character think a certain way or base their actions on anything other than what the player decides. The only possible exception is that the DM is advised to remind players that bad assumptions can lead to negative game experiences, so they should do what they can to avoid that.

It's clear you have a preference that exists at the level of social contract or table rules. And I would admonish DMs to consider that things they are doing are incentivizing the very "metagaming" they hope to avoid, either at the level of content presentation or adjudication.

 

[Burnside]

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."

As a player I would be very annoyed by that ruling. It presumes that my character has no poker face, which is wholly unrelated to their knowledge.

 

[iserith]

The DM did not necessarily "set the stage" for metagaming in this instance. The character in question is obscure enough that the DM could easily have been totally unaware that she was a pre-existing character not original to the adventure, and have no way of knowing that a player would know who she is. The DESIGNER set the stage for metagaming, which is why I question the designer using this character in this way.

The DM set the stage for this outcome knowingly or unknowingly. It doesn't matter. It happened. Perhaps the designer understands what the DMG says which is to remind players that bad assumptions can lead to bad game outcomes, so savvy players are going to take in-game action to verify their assumptions before acting upon them.

 

[Bawylie]

As a player I would be very annoyed by that ruling. It presumes that my character has no poker face, which is wholly unrelated to their knowledge.

That’s a failure condition. A success might well preserve the poker face.

 

[iserith]

As a player I would be very annoyed by that ruling. It presumes that my character has no poker face, which is wholly unrelated to their knowledge.

That could be one presumption. Another presumption is that the NPC is just very good at noticing when people recognize her. The latter says something about the NPC and not the character.

 

[Bawylie]

Friends, if you’re thinking of using an established villain in your games, maybe don’t use their villain name when they’re talking to your party.

“Who me? I’m Questgiver the Betrayer. No, no, it’s just a name!”

And if someone takes the surprise out of your surprise party, you still have a party. You’re just gonna enjoy it in a different context.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Note tomb of annihilation spoiler below.................




So I am a 5th level player in Tomb of Annihilation. We were traveling through the Aldani basin and came across the heart of Ubtao. We have Artus Cimber in the party and he dimension doors up into the heart and drops a rope for the rest of us. I climb first and as I am halfway up I see him talking to an elf, Artis seemed to be having a gay old time talking to her. Ok, I get to the top and join the conversation. She introduces herself as Valindra Shadowmantle ,...... .... danger Will Robinson danger .....

I think the DM intended her to be treated as just an elf that wanted to join our search for the soulmonger. Of course I (the player) have read Salvatore and other FR lore and I know Shadowmantle was head of part of the Hostower in Luskan, ally to a lich Gleek or Greek or something like that, eventually joined Sazz Tam and became a lich herself. Not sure about the order of all that but I (the player) am pretty sure that is what happened. I of course announced that at the table (she is a lich!) .... so the less FR-savy players know it now as well. The question is what do we do with that? It really suprised the DM that I knew that name and I think I ruined a little part of the module. 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?

The DM intended her to be treated as a simple elf that joined the party and I guess there is a story later (no spoilers please), but now the whole party .... and it is an entirely good and leaning lawful party .... knows this companion is a lich. We can't live with that but we are honestly probably no match for her unless she is some nerfed version of a lich. We are working on a strategy to surprise attack her involving acid, grappling, silence .... although even with all that and these awesome spells Artis can cast I still don't like our odds. Worse still I am terrified she is going to ESP us or something and figure out the party is plotting to kill her. She is a lich after all and we have no protections against scrying.

So two questions:

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.

2. What do you think of our strategy to eliminate her? The party is me (fighter2/ranger3), Cleric 4, wizard 5, rogue3/warlock2, two tabaxi hunters, Artis Cimber and a shield guardian (bonded to the cleric). We have a jug of alchemy so we are going to spend the next week or so making acid, since none of us other than Artis have a magic weapon. The cleric could use magic weapon spell, but we need her concentration for silence. So here is the plan so far:
Attack her when she is not expecting it. Hex with disadvantage on dex checks, have the shield guardian cast spiritual weapon (guessing this will be counterspelled) and grapple her with his action. The cleric lays down silence (from over 60feet away). Haste Artis and have him go in and stab her then disengage every round to keep from getting hit by her legendary actions (he might have some awesome spell he can use too???). Have the cleric pound her with guiding bolt while maintaining silence, have the wizard pound her with magic missile and fireball (evoker with sculp to not damage shield guardian), both from outside counterspell range and moving to cantrips when they run dry. Have everyone else throw acid at her. If she breaks the grapple and moves out of the silence shove her back into it and regrapple.

The silence should mean she has virtually no useful spells, but she is still a force due to legendary actions and a pretty good attack. I figure the shield guardian can last about 7 or 8 rounds if she attacks it, more if she trys to break the grapple. After she kills the shield guardian (which seems inevitable), I can have the fighter or rogue grapple her in the silence. They won't last very long though. Probably 3 rounds if they are unscathed until that point.

What are my odds and do you have a better idea?

Since you know already, as a DM, I'd just say, "Yeah, you've heard that name before. You're not sure if she's the same person or if she just has the same name."

Easy as that.

Then you have lots of in-character ways of figuring out if she's the same person.

4th level clerics have DETECT GOOD/EVIL which can detect undead. Super easy. But maybe she's masking her aura with the 'Magic Aura' spell.

So another handy method that I like to use when I'm playing Straight Shooter characters:

"Hey, so your name is Valindra Shadowmantle. Neat. Did you know there's a lich who has the exact same name as you? Or are you the same person?"

cue: sense motive. Insight

If she is a Lich, I see no reason why she wouldn't straight out kill you if that's what she wanted to do. Since they didn't, It might be worth asking what they're doing.


Edited spelling n' stuff

 

[Burnside]

That’s a failure condition. A success might well preserve the poker face.

I ask if I can recall hearing this name before. DM calls for a History (Intelligence) check. So whether I succeed or fail at that check, DM is going to rule that I DO recall the name and know who she is. Unbeknownst to me, what I am apparently actually doing is making an Intelligence (History) check to see if I succeed on a Charisma (Deception) check. Yeah, that sort of thing is going to annoy me. So much so that I would tend to shut down and avoid making any skill checks at all if I can help it, since the results are likely to be wholly unrelated to what I was trying to do. In this case, what if my character is a professional charlatan with expertise in Deception? I'm still going to drop my poker face while trying to remember a name?

Having said all that, yes, it's not a huge deal that the cat is out of the bag in this case. She's kind of a weirdo and numerous first-level spells and low-level abilities would blow her cover partially or completely. When I played, we had a warlock with Eldritch sight who detected within one minute of meeting her that she was magically disguised in some way, which quickly led to various proddings and inquiries until the full truth was out within 1-2 sessions.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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.

If I were the DM, I would reward the player's knowledge and move on. No problem.

 

[Bawylie]

I ask if I can recall hearing this name before. DM calls for a History (Intelligence) check. So whether I succeed or fail at that check, DM is going to rule that I DO recall the name and know who she is. Unbeknownst to me, what I am apparently actually doing is making an Intelligence (History) check to see if I succeed on a Charisma (Deception) check. Yeah, that sort of thing is going to annoy me. So much so that I would tend to shut down and avoid making any skill checks at all if I can help it, since the results are likely to be wholly unrelated to what I was trying to do. In this case, what if my character is a professional charlatan with expertise in Deception? I'm still going to drop my poker face while trying to remember a name?

Sounds like there should be some discussion about the stakes before the roll, then.

I might not want to risk the fail conditions that tip off the NPC. And as you point out, you weren’t setting out to bluff.

Nevertheless, the thread isn’t about A POSSIBLE fail condition on an Int check. Iserith’s broader point, as I read it, is that there are various ways forward from knowing the NPC is a villain.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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.

I typically only allow a group 1 roll to search. Other players can use the Help action to grant advantage. That roll counts as the group's best effort.

 

[Charlaquin]

The DM did not necessarily "set the stage" for metagaming in this instance. The character in question is obscure enough that the DM could easily have been totally unaware that she was a pre-existing character not original to the adventure, and have no way of knowing that a player would know who she is. The DESIGNER set the stage for metagaming, which is why I question the designer using this character in this way.

You’re not wrong, but a DM who runs a published module without making changes to it is setting the stage for metagaming as well, given that the published information is widely available for players to read if they wish. Obviously you can establish as part of the social contract of your game that players agree not to read the published module, and I’d wager most DMs do exactly that.

 

[Charlaquin]

I typically only allow a group 1 roll to search. Other players can use the Help action to grant advantage. That roll counts as the group's best effort.

I run group checks in a similar way. If the action would succeed if any of the participants succeed, the player with the highest modifier to the check rolls. If the action would fail if any of the participants fail, the player with the lowest modifier to the check rolls. If having multiple participants would meaningfully help (usually yes in the former case, no in the latter case), the player making the roll can do so with advantage.

 

[iserith]

I ask if I can recall hearing this name before. DM calls for a History (Intelligence) check. So whether I succeed or fail at that check, DM is going to rule that I DO recall the name and know who she is. Unbeknownst to me, what I am apparently actually doing is making an Intelligence (History) check to see if I succeed on a Charisma (Deception) check. Yeah, that sort of thing is going to annoy me. So much so that I would tend to shut down and avoid making any skill checks at all if I can help it, since the results are likely to be wholly unrelated to what I was trying to do. In this case, what if my character is a professional charlatan with expertise in Deception? I'm still going to drop my poker face while trying to remember a name?

The task to be resolved was whether the character recalled the relevance of the NPC's name. The task succeeded - the character recalled it. However, there's a setback because of the failed check - the NPC appears to know that the character knows. "Progress combined with a setback" is one of the two PHB options the DM has to narrating the result of the adventurer's actions after a failed check. It's also the best option in my view to avoid situations where a failed check and null result can incentivize the very "metagaming" about which some posters are concerned (see practicalm's post and my subsequent response upthread).

Further, the NPC's reaction does not necessarily say anything about the PC, as you suggest. If there's a task to be resolved in that regard, it's the NPC trying to suss out what the PC knows. And in this example, the DM is effectively saying that the task is trivially easy for the NPC for reasons the DM is free to establish and thus there is no roll needed to resolve it.

It looks like you're mostly objecting to the stakes here as @Bawylie says which I would typically go over with a player prior to the roll anyway, so you'd have a chance to object. But ultimately, it sounds like you either (1) think that a failed check resulting in "You don't know" is a meaningful consequence for failure in context or (2) want to make a check with no meaningful consequences at all. With regard to (2), if there's no meaningful consequence for failure to your task, then there's not going to be a roll anyway. (As an aside and to address your statement regarding the same, since there must be a meaningful consequence for failure in order for there to be a roll, then I would very much expect you as a player to avoid rolling wherever possible and shoot for automatic success since that's the smart play.)

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m always amused by how alien people find @iserith’s DMing style.

 

[Burnside]

If I'm aware of the stakes, I have no objection. I just wouldn't want to be ambushed by what is otherwise a totally unforeseeable result on an apparently unrelated check.

However, I would argue that in this case a failure state of "you don't know" has obvious meaningful consequences. And if the player badly failed the check, I might have them recall wholly inaccurate/mistaken information.

In the scenario you suggest, if a player said, "I try to recall if I've heard that name before" (or something similar) and I, as a DM, decided that they would recall the name regardless of success or failure, I simply wouldn't call for an Intelligence (History) check. I would just say, "Yeah, you have heard of an elven wizard by that name who is rumored to have become a lich." I might very well also roll a Wisdom (Insight) check for Valindra against the characters's passive Charisma (Deception) if the character is standing right there sizing her up while she's looking right at him.

 

[Blue]

If I were the DM, I would reward the player's knowledge and move on. No problem.

Since the question I posed was about incorrect player knowledge backfiring in game, what you'd do as a DM does yet again not answer the question.

Sorry, the whole "fool me once, fool me twice", I don't see that it's worth it asking the same question a third time.

So let me ask you a question along the lines of what you were just saying - as a DM. IF you happened to be running a module, and a player bought it explicitly to know the secrets, traps, and hidden treasure, would you reward them for their knowledge?

Basically, is there any line for you where a player exploiting knowledge their character hasn't learned from play a bad thing?

 

[iserith]

If I'm aware of the stakes, I have no objection. I just wouldn't want to be ambushed by what is otherwise a totally unforeseeable result on an apparently unrelated check.

I think the issue is trying to find some kind of causal connection between the failed check and the changed circumstances. There needn't be one, though causal results are easier to understand certainly. On a failed check, a task can either fail outright or succeed with a setback. (Those are the PHB options anyway. There are other options in the DMG.)

However, I would argue that in this case a failure state of "you don't know" has obvious meaningful consequences. And if the player badly failed the check, I might have them recall wholly inaccurate/mistaken information.

Reasonable people can disagree on what a "meaningful consequence" is in context. As for your adjudication on the badly failed check, you are creating a problem of a disconnect between what the player sees on the die and what information they are giving which incentivizes "metagaming." That's going to be an issue for some DMs and players.

In the scenario you suggest, if a player said, "I try to recall if I've heard that name before" (or something similar) and I, as a DM, decided that they would recall the name regardless of success or failure, I simply wouldn't call for an Intelligence (History) check. I would just say, "Yeah, you have heard of an elven wizard by that name who is rumored to have become a lich." I might very well also roll a Wisdom (Insight) check for Valindra against the characters's passive Charisma (Deception) if the character is standing right there sizing her up while she's looking right at him.

Yes, per the rules, if the task is trivially easy or impossible, then the character just succeeds or fails, no roll. I wouldn't roll for the NPC in your example here. I would say what the NPC is doing and ask the player what his or her character does. What the character does may call for a roll or it might not, as per the standard adjudication.

 

[practicalm]

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?

Considering that according the wiki she was in Neverwinter as an agent, the idea that anyone would know she was a lich while she was in the city is extremely unlikely.
Her role as an agent would mean keeping the secret of her true form to be critical.