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

[Guest 6801328]

Why would someone reading the module and using the information ruin the fun if using OOC information to solve problems is acceptable?

I didn't say it would ruin the fun; you can still work around the player knowledge. I said I'm not ok with somebody trying to ruin the fun.

How is this different from my example? That is literally the example.

You are still confusing the outcome in the game, which can work out just fine, even with somebody reading the module at the table, with my feelings about the intent of that person doing so.

Now I am even more confused. What is the acceptable intent and what is not and how is policing that easier or more acceptable than just policing what a character would reasonably know?

Huh? I don't think it should be policed. Philosophically I'm not ok with somebody being a jerk, but I'm not going to try to determine what is jerky and what isn't at the table. I'm going to assume good faith.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don’t understand this. In order for using foreknowledge of the module to your advantage to spoil the fun, the fun would have to be predicated on lack of knowledge of the module. And if that’s the case, replaying it should inherently not be fun. And yet, replaying modules is indeed fun, so I have to assume the fun comes from something other than lack of knowledge.

The fun comes from roleplaying, assuming a role of a person in the setting who has different perspective and different amount of knowledge than the player. Now some of the fun does indeed come from the players (as opposed to just characters) figuring things out and being surprised. That part of the fun indeed is spoiled by knowing the stuff beforehand, but that cannot be avoided with a replay. Now if some players are playing the module first time, those who have played it before can spoil this sort of fun for the first timers too, unless they're willing to not metagame using their OOC knowledge gained via the first playthrough.

 

[iserith]

I don’t understand this. In order for using foreknowledge of the module to your advantage to spoil the fun, the fun would have to be predicated on lack of knowledge of the module. And if that’s the case, replaying it should inherently not be fun. And yet, replaying modules is indeed fun, so I have to assume the fun comes from something other than lack of knowledge.

Self-inflicted wound arising from a social contract that may have made sense at one time but less so today and that, over time, developed into a group identity that is not so easily discarded, particularly as it may be underpinned by some notion of the identity being moral or ethical.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I didn't say it would ruin the fun; you can still work around the player knowledge. I said I'm not ok with somebody trying to ruin the fun.


You are still confusing the outcome in the game, which can work out just fine, even with somebody reading the module at the table, with my feelings about the intent of that person doing so.



Huh? I don't think it should be policed. Philosophically I'm not ok with somebody being a jerk, but I'm not going to try to determine what is jerky and what isn't at the table. I'm going to assume good faith.

You just assumed that someone bringing a copy of the module to the game was a jerk. So you did determine that. And you only have an issue with the assumed motivation of ruining the game, even though according to you it wouldn't ruin the game...

Sorry, but this just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Self-inflicted wound arising from a social contract that may have made sense at one time but less so today and that, over time, developed into a group identity that is not so easily discarded, particularly as it may be underpinned by some notion of the identity being moral or ethical.

No, it is just that some of us are merely capable of understanding that the character is person in a fictional setting and thus doesn't have access to same information that the player and this is pretty integral to playing a role and that the game master is ultimately the arbiter of what can or cannot be known by the fictional people in the setting.

 

[iserith]

No, it is just that some of us are merely capable of understanding that the character is person in a fictional setting and thus doesn't have access to same information that the player and this is pretty integral to playing a role and that the game master is ultimately the arbiter of what can or cannot be known by the fictional people in the setting.

You'd have some work to do to prove that is true given the rules of D&D 5e. DMs can adjudicate attempts by the character - as established solely by the player - to recall lore and make deductions, and they can establish necessary context in the description of the environment. A DM cannot simply say an action declaration is invalid because the character lacks requisite knowledge. In order to say the DM can do that, one must create a table rule.

The reason some can't have fun if the guy or gal next to them is "metagaming" is entirely due to internalizing a social contract as a moral position or group identity. Set aside that social contract and deprogram oneself from this legacy thinking and it's not an issue.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You'd have some work to do to prove that is true given the rules of D&D 5e. DMs can adjudicate attempts by the character - as established solely by the player - to recall lore and make deductions, and they can establish necessary context in the description of the environment. A DM cannot simply say an action declaration is invalid because the character lacks requisite knowledge. In order to say the DM can do that, one must create a table rule.

I really have no interest in engaging with your rules-lawyering.

The reason some can't have fun if the guy or gal next to them is "metagaming" is entirely due to internalizing a social contract as a moral position or group identity. Set aside that social contract and deprogram oneself from this legacy thinking and it's not an issue.

That's the case with basically all human interaction. You cannot just 'set aside' a social contract. Manners are social contract. People are at the table to roleplay, not to 'win' a module using sophistry.

 

[iserith]

I really have no interest in engaging with your rules-lawyering.

If you make an assertion, the burden's on you to back it up. Since we're talking about a game with actual rules, you know where to look if you care to be credible on the subject.

That's the case with basically all human interaction. You cannot just 'set aside' a social contract. Manners are social contract. People are at the table to roleplay, not to 'win' a module using sophistry.

I set aside the social contract regarding "metagaming" at my table a decade ago when the game and its rules stopped supporting the idea. I told my group "You know what, let's stop caring about this." And we did. It took some getting used to, but it wasn't all that hard.

Further, "winning" in D&D 5e is defined as everyone having fun together and creating an exciting, memorable story as a result of playing. That can be accomplished by way of using player skill and knowledge as long as you don't have a table rule derived from some other game that says doing so is cheating.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If you make an assertion, the burden's on you to back it up. Since we're talking about a game with actual rules, you know where to look if you care to be credible on the subject.

I am talking about roleplaying hobby in general. The GM is the final arbitrator of what goes. But hey, if you insist, for example DMG page 5:

Sometimes mediating the rules means setting limits.
If a player tells you, "I want to run up and attack the
orc," but the character doesn't have enough movement
to reach the orc, you say, "It 's too far away to move up
and still attack. What would you like to do instead?"
The player takes the information and comes up with a
different plan.

So yeah, the action cannot be attempted, because the GM determined that the prerequisite conditions are not met. This is no different than GM determining that an action cannot be attempted because the character doesn't have the prerequisite knowledge. I trust that in light of this information you will now alter how you run your games to be in compliance with the rules as written!

I set aside the social contract regarding "metagaming" at my table a decade ago when the game and its rules stopped supporting the idea. I told my group "You know what, let's stop caring about this." And we did. It took some getting used to, but it wasn't all that hard.

Further, "winning" in D&D 5e is defined as everyone having fun together and creating an exciting, memorable story as a result of playing. That can be accomplished by way of using player skill and knowledge as long as you don't have a table rule derived from some other game that says doing so is cheating.

I think you're confused about what the assumptions of the D&D's designers are, but I really don't care about that. Rules are just guidelines anyway, so you of course are free to have fun whatever way you like.

 

[Charlaquin]

The fun comes from roleplaying, assuming a role of a person in the setting who has different perspective and different amount of knowledge than the player.

Sure, but...

Ok, maybe an outside-D&D example will help me get across what I’m trying to express here. Are you familiar at all with the Dragon Age series of video games? CRPGs with a heavy emphasis on characters, roleplaying, and player choices with significant story consequences. One of the most infamous decision points in the first game has you choosing who will become the next king of the Dwarven city of Orzamar. One candidate is presented as power-hungry and corrupt, willing to go to any lengths to become king, and in fact had his own elder brother assassinated so he would be next in line (and if you play as a dwarf noble, you’re the middle child who he framed for the assassination.) But, he is more progressive than the other candidate, who is presented as honorable and kind; an advisor to the previous king, who allegedly named him as his successor on his death bed (though no one else was around to corroborate the story). He is a staunch traditionalist. Now, when you make this decision, you have relatively little information about either candidate, unless you are a dwarf noble.

Most players, on their first time playing, tend to pick the candidate who is presented as more noble. Now, in the epilogue, it is revealed that this candidate ruled pretty incompetently, becoming essentially a puppet for the corrupt noble council, driving Orzamar into further isolation from the surface, and exacerbating the extreme wealth and power inequality in dwarven society. Many players, on a repeat playthrough, want to find out if the other candidate would be a better choice. Choosing differently the second time around is in part based on out of character knowledge. You, the player, know what happens when one candidate is chosen, and want to see the outcome if you choose the other. But choosing the other candidate on a second playthrough can still be a roleplaying decision; you’re still imagining yourself as the character you’ve created, in the fictional scenario, making the decision as you imagine that character would. You’ve just decided to play a character with different values than the one you played the first time, who would pick the more progressive candidate even if he seems less “honorable.” That decision may have been motivated by out of character information (I want to see what happens if I pick the other guy), but it is still arrived at through roleplaying (“I’ll play an ends-justify-the-means” anti-hero this time,” or “I’ll play a dwarf noble who forgives her brother this time.”)

Now, to bring this back to D&D, when a player comes in with foreknowledge of the setting, module, or whatever, I trust that even if some of their decisions are motivated by their foreknowledge, they are still arriving at those decisions through roleplaying. They’re still imagining themselves as their characters, making decisions as they imagine their characters would. And frankly, even if they’re not... what’s it to me? As long as they’re working towards the common goal of having fun and creating exciting, memorable stories, I’m not worried about whether or not they’re “really roleplaying.” Different players have fun in different ways, I don’t think it’s my business to judge them as bad roleplayers if they let their own foreknowledge influence their characters’ decisions.

Now some of the fun does indeed come from the players (as opposed to just characters) figuring things out and being surprised. That part of the fun indeed is spoiled by knowing the stuff beforehand, but that cannot be avoided with a replay. Now if some players are playing the module first time, those who have played it before can spoil this sort of fun for the first timers too, unless they're willing to not metagame using their OOC knowledge gained via the first playthrough.

Sure. I think if you’ve got players who want to do a blind playthrough of a module, for whom a significant part of the fun is being genuinely surprised, it’s probably a good idea to either not invite players who have played that module before, or to talk to any players who have and remind them not to spoil any of the surprises for the others.