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

[Guest 6801328]

What saved this from ugliness was the player's reaction of, "What?! Really?! There's actually a secret door there?!" They just got a wild hair and randomly decided to search.

Ha. Turns out the dirty metagamer was actually the best actor at the table.

Ironic, huh?

 

[Charlaquin]

Matt Mercer used to do this a lot during the first campaign for Critical Role even after he had been DMing for a very long time, which seemed to fit their playstyle fine, but may have not been modeling the best behavior for others picking up the game from watching their liveplay.

Yeah, he kept doing the asking players to leave thing into campaign 2 for a little while, until the players asked if they could stay for those scenes, cause they were finding they would just relay the information to each other anyway, so it was mostly just taking up time on transitioning rooms and repeating information.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, he kept doing the asking players to leave thing into campaign 2 for a little while, until the players asked if they could stay for those scenes, cause they were finding they would just relay the information to each other anyway, so it was mostly just taking up time on transitioning rooms and repeating information.

I still occasionally do this, but really only for things that are personal to a PC that I think they may not share. Of course, it's super easy to do for me, as we play on roll20 and use TeamSpeak, so it's a double-click to enter a different channel on the TS server and have a quick sidebar (I keep these very short) and pop back to the main channel. I've done this, let's see, about 3 times over 30 sessions in my current 5e game (and never in my current Blades game), and every time the player kept the info to themselves. All for strictly that PC personal things, mind. One may affect the game much later, but if it does it won't be a surprise by that point -- lots would need to happen and none of it secret.

 

[Wishbone]

Yeah, he kept doing the asking players to leave thing into campaign 2 for a little while, until the players asked if they could stay for those scenes, cause they were finding they would just relay the information to each other anyway, so it was mostly just taking up time on transitioning rooms and repeating information.

Even Matt Mercer fell prey to the Matt Mercer effect I guess. It probably keeps the pacing for a game more on track to have everyone sit through those scenes if they're open to it. Sidebars via text or other channels like Ovinomancer mention still seem worthwhile to preserve suspense so the specific player has the agency to reveal that information to others in the time and place of their choosing.

 

[Charlaquin]

I still occasionally do this, but really only for things that are personal to a PC that I think they may not share. Of course, it's super easy to do for me, as we play on roll20 and use TeamSpeak, so it's a double-click to enter a different channel on the TS server and have a quick sidebar (I keep these very short) and pop back to the main channel. I've done this, let's see, about 3 times over 30 sessions in my current 5e game (and never in my current Blades game), and every time the player kept the info to themselves. All for strictly that PC personal things, mind. One may affect the game much later, but if it does it won't be a surprise by that point -- lots would need to happen and none of it secret.

Yeah, I think there are times when it’s appropriate. But I definitely way overused it, and I think Matt Mercer used to as well.

 

[iserith]

This is simply untrue. I have no interest in saying no or looking to prevent anything. Asking for that purpose would be an example the adversarial kind of DMing that I have no interest in. I'm going to ask to find out why he feels that his PC should automatically have that knowledge, rather than that knowledge being uncertain and requiring an ability check. If he points to Uncle Troll Slayer in his background(assuming I don't remember that detail), he gets that knowledge with no roll. If he tells me that it's because he read the MM or encountered trolls three campaigns ago, it's going to be a roll of the dice to see if the PC knows. At no point, though, am I looking to prevent the action. Prevention isn't why I'm going to ask.

What happens if the check fails and the player has the character attack the troll with a torch anyway, given that knowledge of troll's weaknesses is not required to attack a troll with a torch?

 

[Maxperson]

What happens if the check fails and the player has the character attack the troll with a torch anyway, given that knowledge of troll's weaknesses is not required to attack a troll with a torch?

Given that it would be metagaming at that point and metagaming is not allowed in my game, I'd let the attack happen and talk to the player 1 on 1 afterwards about metagaming.

I would not forbid the attack and/or call the player out in front of everyone at the table.

 

[iserith]

Given that it would be metagaming at that point and metagaming is not allowed in my game, I'd let the attack happen and talk to the player 1 on 1 afterwards about metagaming.

I would not forbid the attack and/or call the player out in front of everyone at the table.

How about if the reason for attacking the troll with a torch is because "My character feels like it." Does that get an unprompted roll for the character to recall lore and, if the player insists on having control over what the character says and does, a talking to after the game?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I wonder what would happen if a player “had a talk after the game” with one of these DMs and explained that 5e doesn’t distinguish between player knowledge and character knowledge, and that if they wished to keep participating they should stop imposing an antiquated play style on others.

Or are only DMs allowed to be patronizing/condescending?

 

[Maxperson]

How about if the reason for attacking the troll with a torch is because "My character feels like it." Does that get an unprompted roll for the character to recall lore and, if the player insists on having control over what the character says and does, a talking to after the game?

Iserith, if the player uses his weapon or spells in every other encounter, but this time uses a torch because he "just feels like it," it's blatant metagaming. Blatant violations of the social contract and the metagaming rules of my game don't sit well with me.