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

[iserith]

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.

Sure, people should be held to their agreements. I'm questioning the basis for the agreement itself though. It has no rules support in this game, it pushes the group to operate more in the metagame by working out who knows what in order to figure out what action declarations won't break the agreement, and it gives more power to the DM over the players in order to fix something the DM is largely creating in the first place.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Re: settings -- this isn't a problem I see, still, or, if it is, it's the GM's fault, not the player's. If the GM is presenting scenes that hinge on setting details being secret, then that's on them if a player is well read. It's pretty trivial to present scenes where setting details are present but not the crux of the problem, so if a player knows that detail it's neat and interesting and is possibly something that can be leveraged through clever action, but knowing doesn't obviate the challenge. This is a pretty simple approach change, where you look at a setting detail not as "oh, I'll make an adventure about discovering this detail, and finding out will be the crux of it!" to "oh, I like this detail, I'll make an adventure that uses this detail as a thematic element, but it's not the crux!" The latter lets players enjoy seeing things they know operate in the game, the former leads to acrimony or forced pretend ignorance.

Re: modules -- this is trickier and goes to "don't play with jerks." If the premise of your game is that you'll be running a module, or you add one in the middle, the table should expect the players to pipe up when they realize it and say they've played/read/run that module before. Then you and that player can discuss how you want to approach it. If, instead, a player keeps that information to themselves, this isn't a metagame problem, it's a jerk player problem. As @Elfcrusher keeps beating, this drum is pretty darned important. Let's not make a jerk player a vector to criticize someone's playstyle. Also as previously noted, this player, if clever enough (and that's not very), can still disrupt a game with a "no metagaming" rule -- they just are a tad sneakier.

Right, so here it is. I said that we just draw the line at the different place. You feel that having information from the module is something that needs to be dealt with in some way, but not if the information is from the setting book. I really don't see a difference here, I'd treat the both the same way.

 

[Cadence]

Or are only DMs allowed to be patronizing/condescending?

Hopefully most DMs aren't as patronizing and judgmental in person as just about everyone who uses chat boards comes off as on at least some of the threads they participate in ;-)

Edit: Self included, of course!

 

[Guest 6801328]

Hopefully most DMs aren't as patronizing and judgmental in person as just about everyone who uses chat boards comes off as on at least some of the threads they participate in ;-)

100% true.

...AND there’s this pattern of posters explaining how they would “correct” players that has a tone evocative of a vice principal disciplining a student.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

It seems that posters here are pretty good at that as well...

Now I don't think that such talks are likely to occur, as in my experience most players understand what playing a character means and thus are able to differentiate between what they know and what their characters knows. But of course if there is some misunderstanding, then it is good to clarify it that everyone is on the same page.

As for antiquated playstyle, 5e is super light on any proper roleplaying advice, but certainly the knowledge skills and other methods of gaining information and the talk about the GM presenting information and clues are all written with assumption that the character and the player may have access to different information and that the GM is the one who ultimately decides what information is available.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right, so here it is. I said that we just draw the line at the different place. You feel that having information from the module is something that needs to be dealt with in some way, but not if the information is from the setting book. I really don't see a difference here, I'd treat the both the same way.

Let me explain the difference I see. The player that has previous knowledge of a module can play through it without problem, so long as the play isn't disruptive. By this, I mean that the player is using foreknowledge at a macro level to chart a path through the adventure instead of engaging with it. I wouldn't have a problem with a player, knowing a door is trapped, declaring a specific action to check the door for traps, for instance. At this point, the door is introduced into the game and the action is reasonable, regardless of the motivation. The action can be adjudicated with the rules, so this knowledge will still be tested by the play loop. On the other hand, if a player draws a sketched map prior to entering the dungeon (frex) and points to a door on the sketch saying, "avoid this door, it's trapped," then we're at the point of the player being disruptive. I'll admit there's a fuzzy line between the two, but, in general, since I'm not looking for "metagaming" if something actually registers with me, it's likely crossing the line.

Setting info, though, is usually at a level that isn't very detailed or precise. Further, it's usually a catalyst for adventure rather than the point of it. So, here, even if a player pushes towards a certain location because of some setting detail there, that's just a cue to me as GM that this is something that the player cares about and I can use that to create adventure around that. Rarely would a setting detail rise to the level of being disruptive unless I, as GM, have made it so. If you don't do that, it won't ever be a problem -- in other words, don't make adventures that hinge on a setting detail being secret, make adventures that use the setting detail as a thematic element. Even NPC plotlines are loose enough that you can do this very easily. I've found that if you willingly tell the players this info and then figure out what adventures are possible, you'll find that there's still a huge amount of things that are fun, engaging, and challenging that don't rely on keeping secrets and monitoring players for possible knowledge of said secrets. And additional work necessary is outweighed by the work saved from playing hall monitor to player action declarations.

 

[Cadence]

Sure, people should be held to their agreements. I'm questioning the basis for the agreement itself though. It has no rules support in this game, it pushes the group to operate more in the metagame by working out who knows what in order to figure out what action declarations won't break the agreement, and it gives more power to the DM over the players in order to fix something the DM is largely creating in the first place.

Is it uncontroversial to say that many (if not most) experienced players and DMs pick up a new edition of D&D and jump into it before absorbing everything in the PhB and DMG, and rely on what came before to fill in the gaps? And that many (if not most) DMs eventually have house rules of various sorts to tailor the game to their own favorite styles - often relying on what they did in past versions, either by RAW or house rule? It feels like a reason why some might like the previously rules-enshrined enjoinment against OOC knowledge-use needs no further justification than comfort with the familiar. (At some point the defense of tradition does seem to back up your argument that it's become an identity issue. But it feels like converts to things are also wont to be overly self assured in their own defense - even moreso than those who have always done that same thing ).

It feels like over the years, in groups I've DM'd and played in, that too-blatant levels of using OOC knowledge have almost never come up. I'm not sure I can remember the last time it came up during play in a way that felt derailing or jarring. Maybe a player asking the DM pre-emptively if everyone in a particular world would know something? That said, It feels like once we've known something regenerates we've always jumped to either acid or fire and the DMs and players all seem to assume that's common knowledge. My memory of 38+ years ago doesn't have how I first learned that fact as a player -- and I can't remember the last time I ran into trolls.

At some point, the rule against using anything that a character wouldn't know gets silly, right? "What do you mean that your character from the planes stops before they get to the edge of the 200' cliff? You've always just jumped down the shorter ones? How does your character know how acceleration and damage work from great heights?"

On the other hand, even some who are ok with OOC knowledge have admitted a place in their games for secret in-game side-bars between the DM and an individual player. If OOC knowledge never matters, why should such side-bars ever be desirable or beneficial? If additional player knowledge never diminishes anything, why should it matter if player A knows player B is planning something character A would object to? Maybe character B will change their mind anyway or has a good reason for doing it!

I wonder how much of it being an issue is how high or low each player and DMs bar of being blatant is (EDIT: see the two posts above this by @Crimson Longinus and @Ovinomancer ), and how often that line is crossed once the tables expectations are discussed in session 0.

In any case, I kind of wish the current books mentioned avoiding OOC knowledge use as a playstyle thing some tables have. But the don't-worry-about-it side has convinced me that if the book had to pick one, it's better to leave out mention of OOC knowledge than to forbid its use.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Is it uncontroversial to say that many (if not most) experienced players and DMs pick up a new edition of D&D and jump into it before absorbing everything in the PhB and DMG, and rely on what came before to fill in the gaps? And that many (if not most) DMs eventually have house rules of various sorts to tailor the game to their own favorite styles - often relying on what they did in past versions, either by RAW or house rule? It feels like a reason why some might like the previously rules-enshrined enjoinment against OOC knowledge-use needs no further justification than comfort with the familiar. (At some point the defense of tradition does seem to back up your argument that it's become an identity issue. But it feels like converts to things are also wont to be overly self assured in their own defense - even moreso than those who have always done that same thing ).

It feels like over the years, in groups I've DM'd and played in, that too-blatant levels of using OOC knowledge have almost never come up. I'm not sure I can remember the last time it came up during play in a way that felt derailing or jarring. Maybe a player asking the DM pre-emptively if everyone in a particular world would know something? That said, It feels like once we've known something regenerates we've always jumped to either acid or fire and the DMs and players all seem to assume that's common knowledge. My memory of 38+ years ago doesn't have how I first learned that fact as a player -- and I can't remember the last time I ran into trolls.

At some point, the rule against using anything that a character wouldn't know gets silly, right? "What do you mean that your character from the desert stops before they get to the edge of the 200' cliff? You've always just jumped down the shorter ones? How does your character know how acceleration and damage work from great heights?"

On the other hand, even some who are ok with OOC knowledge have admitted a place for secret in-game side-bars between the DM and an individual player. If OOC knowledge never matters, why should such side-bars ever be desirable or beneficial? If additional player knowledge never diminishes anything, why should it matter if player A knows player B is planning something character A would object to? Maybe character B will change their mind anyway or has a good reason for doing it!

I wonder how much of it being an issue is how high or low each player and DMs bar of being blatant is (EDIT: see the two posts above this by @Crimson Longinus and @Ovinomancer ), and how often that line is crossed once the tables expectations are discussed in session 0.

In any case, I kind of wish the current books mentioned avoiding OOC knowledge use as a playstyle thing some tables have. But the don't-worry-about-it side has convinced me that if the book had to pick one, it's better to leave out mention of OOC knowledge than to forbid its use.

To answer the question directed at me, I NOT do occasional sidebars with players because of OOC knowledge issues, but because it's sometimes fun to have a character with a secret. Not for me, but for that player. I'll lean into that, and respect that. The two things are kinda orthogonal. The secrets that are allowed are ones that don't impact other PCs, or, if they do, they come out into the open prior to that.

The examples in my current game are:

1) one PC is an escaped ex-mind flayer thrall who doesn't recall their previous life. They have a burning hatred for the mind flayers. Due to the outcome of a houserule in my game (PCs can't die unless they agree to, but if they would otherwise die, I get carte blanche to enact a consequence) I revealed to the PC that they remember one thing -- that they volunteered to become a thrall. The whys and whatfors are still unresolved (and I have no idea at this point), but it's been an interesting twist for the PC. This was handled in sidebar.

2) another PC currently has a powerful spirit that has taken up residence in her and occasionally does things. This is being mechanically represented by the intelligent item rules, with empathic communications only (at this point). I've taken a sidebar with this PC in a situation where it happened that she could directly commune with the spirit, which I used to set the abilities and motivations of the spirit in a version of a skill challenge. Failures made thing more challenging, successes added an ability or made the spirit's motivations more aligned with the PCs. This was really all about the PC and their gear, and was a fun bit for the player (she actually ate it up), and doing it in private let the player be more open and less guarded than they would be at the table -- it also meant that the entire thing was only up to her (a thing the player likes) instead of being open to comment/suggestion from the table.

So, yeah, sometimes I indulge players, but never because OOC knowledge is a consideration. They're perfectly free to share or not share as they want, and, to date, both have kept that info to themselves.

 

[iserith]

Is it uncontroversial to say that many (if not most) experienced players and DMs pick up a new edition of D&D and jump into it before absorbing everything in the PhB and DMG, and rely on what came before to fill in the gaps? And that many (if not most) DMs eventually have house rules of various sorts to tailor the game to their own favorite styles - often relying on what they did in past versions, either by RAW or house rule? It feels like a reason why some might like the previously rules-enshrined enjoinment against OOC knowledge-use needs no further justification than comfort with the familiar. (At some point the defense of tradition does seem to back up your argument that it's become an identity issue. But it feels like converts to things are also wont to be overly self assured in their own defense - even moreso than those who have always done that same thing ).

Which is to me like insisting on putting little blue and pink pegs in my Monopoly race car token because Life was the game I played previously and I didn't bother to read all the rules for Monopoly. Fine, I suppose, but the pegs don't exactly fit in the little Monopoly car and the game may not run as smoothly as it could do.

On the other hand, even some who are ok with OOC knowledge have admitted a place in their games for secret in-game side-bars between the DM and an individual player. If OOC knowledge never matters, why should such side-bars ever be desirable or beneficial? If additional player knowledge never diminishes anything, why should it matter if player A knows player B is planning something character A would object to? Maybe character B will change their mind anyway or has a good reason for doing it!

The advice to do this with players is as old as the hills and was something I did back in 2e and 3e. I don't do it now because the payoff is not worth the effort in my view. In my games, players split up frequently enough where some PCs aren't in the position to see or overhear other PCs. They use the information, or don't, as they see fit as appropriate to the goals of play. No change to the game via social contract required.

 

[Cadence]

Which is to me like insisting on putting little blue and pink pegs in my Monopoly race car token because Life was the game I played previously and I didn't bother to read all the rules for Monopoly. Fine, I suppose, but the pegs don't exactly fit in the little Monopoly car and the game may not run as smoothly as it could do.

I played at a table where some players used OD&D, some B/X, and some AD&D - and I don't know what the DM used - and it all seemed to generally work fine for a group of up to 20 rotating players over a few years. It feels like trying to sit down and play Monopoly or Life (having only ever experienced the other and not having read the new rules) would run into much greater troubles. YMMV.

It feels like very few DMs have eidetically stored every rule and clarification in the various books (DMG page 240?) or has run into inconsistencies (DMG page 240?), and most I know don't stop play to search out all the details. I'm guessing that the sum of their past experience isn't nicely siloed by edition, and that the call they make is influenced by their experience with past ones.