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

[Maxperson]

I thought we were supposed to keep player knowledge and character knowledge separate. If so, whether the player “knows” her to be a lich or not (which, again, he doesn’t for sure) shouldn’t have any bearing on what the character thinks.

Exactly. By declaring her a lich with player knowledge, he broke that.

Says who? That’s a perfectly plausible thing for the character to think.

Common sense. Reason. Logic. In 30+ years of playing D&D, I've never seen or heard of a player having his PC just announce some random NPC was a lich based on nothing in game to clue the PC/Player in and no out of character knowledge about it. Not once.

And no, it wasn't a plausible thing for the character to think. They met a human woman with no other circumstances to change that perception. It's not only implausible, it's outright insane for the PC to think that.

 

[Charlaquin]

Exactly. By declaring her a lich with player knowledge, he broke that.

No, if we are to truly keep player knowledge and character knowledge separate, then whether a player knows something or not should have no impact on whether or not the character can think the thing. In other words, if it would be valid for a character to think a thing when their player didn’t know it, it must also be valid for the character to think a thing when their player does know it, otherwise your assessment of the thought’s validity is based on player knowledge.

Common sense. Reason. Logic. In 30+ years of playing D&D, I've never seen or heard of a player having his PC just announce some random NPC was a lich based on nothing in game to clue the PC/Player in and no out of character knowledge about it. Not once.

So? Are characters only allowed to do things you’ve seen them do before?

And no, it wasn't a plausible thing for the character to think. They met a human woman with no other circumstances to change that perception. It's not only implausible, it's outright insane for the PC to think that.

Well, she was an elf, not a human. But more important deciding one thinks a random woman they’re met could be a lich is a valid thing to do. Is it a strange thing to do? Sure. Makes the character seem paranoid and possibly delusional. But paranoia and delusions are real things a character could have. It’s up to the player, not the DM, to decide what their character thinks, and if the player wants their character to think “I bet this random woman I’ve just met is a lich,” that’s their prerogative. Probably best to take steps to confirm or deny that suspicion before ganking her though, if you don’t want to risk the possibility of having murdered an innocent woman for no reason.

 

[Flamestrike]

I thought we were supposed to keep player knowledge and character knowledge separate. If so, whether the player “knows” her to be a lich or not (which, again, he doesn’t for sure) shouldn’t have any bearing on what the character thinks.


Says who? That’s a perfectly plausible thing for the character to think.

His character just walks around thinking people he meets are Liches?

Youre looking silly now.

 

[Maxperson]

No, if we are to truly keep player knowledge and character knowledge separate, then whether a player knows something or not should have no impact on whether or not the character can think the thing. In other words, if it would be valid for a character to think a thing when their player didn’t know it, it must also be valid for the character to think a thing when their player does know it, otherwise your assessment of the thought’s validity is based on player knowledge.

That's not how it works, though. If you the player knows it and the PC acts on it without an in game reason to do so, then you the player have brought player knowledge into the game. They are connected and there's nothing you can do or say to alter that.

For the PC to act on something that the player knows, there needs to be an in game reason for the PC to know or even to assume it. For example, if in the OP that NPC smelled like death and used magic, then it wouldn't be the fantastically insane stretch that it was to name that NPC a Lich.

Well, she was an elf, not a human. But more important deciding one thinks a random woman they’re met could be a lich is a valid thing to do. Is it a strange thing to do?

It's an insane thing to do, not a strange one. Now, if the PC up to that point ran around declaring half the NPCs it met Liches, then it wouldn't be so insane. Out of the blue, though, it's absurd to think that it was anything other than the player bring player knowledge to his PC.

Makes the character seem paranoid and possibly delusional. But paranoia and delusions are real things a character could have. It’s up to the player, not the DM, to decide what their character thinks, and if the player wants their character to think “I bet this random woman I’ve just met is a lich,” that’s their prerogative. Probably best to take steps to confirm or deny that suspicion before ganking her though, if you don’t want to risk the possibility of having murdered an innocent woman for no reason.

Has that PC been roleplayed as paranoid about random strangers being undead? If so, then yes it would have been a perfectly valid thing to think and do. If no, then spontaneously developing this specific "paranoia" at that moment is metagaming.

 

[Charlaquin]

His character just walks around thinking people he meets are Liches?

Youre looking silly now.

That’s his decision as a player to make.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's not how it works, though. If you the player knows it and the PC acts on it without an in game reason to do so, then you the player have brought player knowledge into the game. They are connected and there's nothing you can do or say to alter that.

So, your playstyle is not truly based on keeping player knowledge and character knowledge separate, but in forbidding players from taking actions that relate to player knowledge. That was my point.

For the PC to act on something that the player knows, there needs to be an in game reason for the PC to know or even to assume it.

No such rule exists in 5e. If that’s how you run your games, fine, but don’t treat it like a universal truth of the game.

It's an insane thing to do, not a strange one. Now, if the PC up to that point ran around declaring half the NPCs it met Liches, then it wouldn't be so insane. Out of the blue, though, it's absurd to think that it was anything other than the player bring player knowledge to his PC.

That’s up to the player to decide. It’s not my business as a DM to judge a player’s reasoning for the actions their characters take.

Has that PC been roleplayed as paranoid about random strangers being undead? If so, then yes it would have been a perfectly valid thing to think and do. If no, then spontaneously developing this specific "paranoia" at that moment is metagaming.

Again, it’s not my business to judge why the player has decided their character has taken this action. It’s a valid action, regardless of what the player does or doesn’t think they know.

 

[Guest 6801328]

He suspects her to be a Lich based on that player knowledge that his character does not have.

He wouldnt hold that suspicion but for that player knowledge.

So there is NOBODY in the Forgotten Realms who knows who she is? At least, nobody who also becomes an adventurer?

 

[Maxperson]

So, your playstyle is not truly based on keeping player knowledge and character knowledge separate, but in forbidding players from taking actions that relate to player knowledge. That was my point.

Nope. I've already given a very few of the many ways to do both. There just needs to be an in game explanation.

No such rule exists in 5e. If that’s how you run your games, fine, but don’t treat it like a universal truth of the game.

It's in the social contract, though. It's presumed that you the player aren't going to try and get unfair advantage in the game. The game assumes those weaknesses, resistances and immunities in the challenge rating of the monster. If the player is using player knowledge to get around that, and the DM has not okay'd that behavior like you and Iserith, then it's a violation of the social contract.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's in the social contract, though. It's presumed that you the player aren't going to try and get unfair advantage in the game. The game assumes those weaknesses, resistances and immunities in the challenge rating of the monster. If the player is using player knowledge to get around that, and the DM has not okay'd that behavior like you and Iserith, then it's a violation of the social contract.

The thing about a contract is that you have to agree to it in order to be bound by it. So, it doesn’t make sense to treat a social contract against taking certain actions without first making a check to establish character knowledge as default. It’s common enough in D&D that you probably don’t need to spell it out in those terms; just saying “don’t metagame” is generally enough to get the point across. But I think it’s something that should be stated explicitly if it’s going to be enforced.

 

[Maxperson]

The thing about a contract is that you have to agree to it in order to be bound by it. So, it doesn’t make sense to treat a social contract against taking certain actions without first making a check to establish character knowledge as default. It’s common enough in D&D that you probably don’t need to spell it out in those terms; just saying “don’t metagame” is generally enough to get the point across. But I think it’s something that should be stated explicitly if it’s going to be enforced.

It's pretty much the default social contract not to take UNFAIR ADVANTAGE of a game. You want it to be otherwise, you need to explicitly okay the unfair advantage.