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

[Imaculata]

I don't think it is always trivially easy. Sometimes the narrative is explicitly that the character encounter something completely unknown to them, like my 'orc' example from the earlier. Granted, if one wants to not fuss about the IC/OOC knowledge gap in such a situation then the GM can change the monsters. But not everyone always play that way. I have played in many Cthulhu games where the characters encounter eldritch lovecraftian horrors and are utterly flabbergasted by them whilst the players are Cthulhu aficionados and fully well know what they are.

Why does the narrative have to be so explicit though? Why can't the players respond to the Lovecraftian horrors with what they know as players? Does it change anything about the running for your life and going mad? And even then, could it not be that one of the characters read about Cthulhu? In the fiction of Lovecraft's work, there are books referring to Great Cthulhu. It is not impossible or uncommon for player characters to have briefly gazed upon such esoteric texts. Such knowledge is as rare as you want it to be. In several of Lovecraft's stories, protagonists know of the necronomicon and have read it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think you did anything wrong, or at least not on purpose. Blurting out that the character with the lame sinister name is a Lich, is akin to blurting out that Darthvader is a certain someone's daddy during a StarWars rpg. Spoiling this 'twist' is a shame for your DM and fellow players, but I don't presume malice on your part.

But Vader being Luke's dad is explicitly a big secret in the setting (until certain point anyway) so it definitely would be highly inappropriate for some random character to know that IC. Good example.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why does the narrative have to be so explicit though? Why can't the players respond to the Lovecraftian horrors with what they know as players? Does is change anything about the running for your life and going mad? And even then, could it not be that one of the characters read about Cthulhu? In the fiction of Lovecraft's work, there are books referring to Great Cthulhu. It is not impossible or uncommon for player characters to have briefly gazed upon such esoteric texts. Such knowledge is as rare as you want it to be. In several of Lovecraft's stories, protagonists know of the necronomicon and have read it.

Of course the narrative can be that the characters know something beforehand if that is agreed upon. But encyclopaedic knowledge that a fan reading novels and sourcebooks written from omniscient perspective simply isn't comparable to some vague misunderstood hints that a character in the setting could have.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think it is always trivially easy. Sometimes the narrative is explicitly that the character encounter something completely unknown to them, like my 'orc' example from the earlier.

I could come up with a few explanations off the top of my head for why a character might call the creatures in that example orcs. I mean, we live in a world where humans are (probably) the only extant sapient species, yet we have not only a word for orcs, but a broadly accepted concept of what one looks like. One could easily decide that this is also the case in the fictional setting. Alternatively, if the GM doesn’t want that to be the case in the setting, “orc” could just be a random noise the character used to describe the unfamiliar creature he encountered. “We need a name for those green monsters with the tusks. Something short and gruff-sounding. How about ‘orc’?” Easy. Trivially so, one might say.

Granted, if one wants to not fuss about the IC/OOC knowledge gap in such a situation then the GM can change the monsters. But not everyone always play that way.

Changing the monsters because the players are familiar with orcs sounds like the opposite of not fussing about the knowledge gap to me. It’d certainly be an effective strategy for avoiding the knowledge gap, if that was something the GM cared about. But not fussing about it I think would look more like my example above where the characters just call them orcs cause they need something to call them.

I have played in many Cthulhu games where the characters encounter eldritch lovecraftian horrors and are utterly flabbergasted by them whilst the players are Cthulhu aficionados and fully well know what they are.

We’re not talking about Call of Cthulhu though. A social contract that players must portray characters unfamiliar with the Cthulhu mythos would be a pertinent thing to have in a game of Call of Cthulhu, but last I checked we were discussing D&D 5e. I don’t run CoC like D&D 5e and I don’t run D&D 5e like CoC.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why does the narrative have to be so explicit though? Why can't the players respond to the Lovecraftian horrors with what they know as players? Does is change anything about the running for your life and going mad? And even then, could it not be that one of the characters read about Cthulhu? In the fiction of Lovecraft's work, there are books referring to Great Cthulhu. It is not impossible or uncommon for player characters to have briefly gazed upon such esoteric texts. Such knowledge is as rare as you want it to be. In several of Lovecraft's stories, protagonists know of the necronomicon and have read it.

Knowledge of the Cthulhu mythos is represented by a skill in CoC, and starting characters are actually not able to invest resources in raising it at character creation. It has to be increased through play, and it’s generally a bad thing to have because it puts your Sanity score at greater risk.

None of this is really relevant to D&D 5e though. You don’t roll d20s in monopoly, you don’t collect $200 for passing Go on Call of Cthulhu and D&D characters don’t have a Cthulhu Mythos score. What works for one game doesn’t necessarily work for another.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

We’re not talking about Call of Cthulhu though. A social contract that players must portray characters unfamiliar with the Cthulhu mythos would be a pertinent thing to have in a game of Call of Cthulhu, but last I checked we were discussing D&D 5e. I don’t run CoC like D&D 5e and I don’t run D&D 5e like CoC.

Certainly that just depends on the basics of the setting? If in it is an established fact about the setting that no one has ever heard of Beholders or Mind Flayers then that's that. Like perhaps in this setting they literally have not ever visited the world ever before and the player characters are the first people to ever have any contact with them. Sort of an alien invasion plot.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Knowledge of the Cthulhu mythos is represented by a skill in CoC, and starting characters are actually not able to invest resources in raising it at character creation. It has to be increased through play, and it’s generally a bad thing to have because it puts your Sanity score at greater risk.

And then you should easily understand why I don't like players just using their OOC knowledge for information that is governed by the knowledge skills in D&D.

 

[Charlaquin]

But Vader being Luke's dad is explicitly a big secret in the setting (until certain point anyway) so it definitely would be highly inappropriate for some random character to know that IC. Good example.

But there have been characters in Star Wars canon who put together that Vader was Anakin Skywalker, so it doesn’t seem unreasonable that a PC might be able to do so as well, and from there it’s not a stretch to realize that the dude with the same last name might be his son.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But there have been characters in Star Wars canon who put together that Vader was Anakin Skywalker, so it doesn’t seem unreasonable that a PC might be able to do so as well, and from there it’s not a stretch to realize that the dude with the same last name might be his son.

Granted, it makes little sense that people in the setting didn't figure it out sooner. Same doesn't apply to Leia though. And regardless, that is still something I feel certainly would be highly inappropriate without confirming it with the GM first. If you're playing in a setting that appears in films or books and the game takes place in an earlier point in time, the characters simply cannot declare to be prescient and know all that before it happens. That would be blatantly absurd.

 

[Charlaquin]

Certainly that just depends on the basics of the setting? If in it is an established fact about the setting that no one has ever heard of Beholders or Mind Flayers then that's that. Like perhaps in this setting they literally have not ever visited the world ever before and the player characters are the first people to ever have any contact with them. Sort of an alien invasion plot.

Sure, though in such a game I think it would be wise of the DM to make changes to the lore and/or stats of such entities, or at the very least to remind the players that they may have made such changes and that assuming anything about these creatures and acting on those assumptions without taking steps to verify them is a risk. And just because Mimd Flayers are unheard of in the setting doesn’t mean that no one would think to describe the creatures that flay minds by that name.

 

[Charlaquin]

And then you should easily understand why I don't like players just using their OOC knowledge for information that is governed by the knowledge skills in D&D.

I can absolutely understand why you don’t like it. And if you don’t like it, creating a table rule against it makes sense.

 

[Charlaquin]

Granted, it makes little sense that people in the setting didn't figure it out sooner. Same doesn't apply to Leia though. And regardless, that is still something I feel certainly would be highly inappropriate without confirming it with the GM first.

Personally I think seeking such confirmation in-character, by taking steps to verify assumptions, is preferable to confirming with the DM out of character. At least in the context of D&D 5e.

If you're playing in a setting that appears in films or books and the game takes place in an earlier point in time, the characters simply cannot declare to be prescient and know all that before it happens. That would be blatantly absurd.

Unless prescience is a thing in the setting, of course. But yeah, different games have different concerns and need different rules to address them. Game rules against relying on knowledge of future events seems much more pertinent to me in a game set in a historical flashpoint in an established fictional franchise make much more sense than I think such rules do in a D&D 5e context.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I can absolutely understand why you don’t like it. And if you don’t like it, creating a table rule against it makes sense.

I haven't played (an official) Cthulhu game for a while. Does it have an explicit rule about the players not being allowed to rely on their OOC mythos knowledge or is it just implicit by there being rules for the character's mythos knowledge in the game?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Personally I think seeking such confirmation in-character, by taking steps to verify assumptions, is preferable to confirming with the DM out of character. At least in the context of D&D 5e.

I strongly disagree (surprise!) The GM trying to play in game catch up with a player determined to use their OOC knowledge from the movies sounds like a recipe for disaster. Much easier to just state that let's not go there.

Unless prescience is a thing in the setting, of course. But yeah, different games have different concerns and need different rules to address them. Game rules against relying on knowledge of future events seems much more pertinent to me in a game set in a historical flashpoint in an established fictional franchise make much more sense than I think such rules do in a D&D 5e context.

I think this is pretty similar than the situation in OP though. That of course was way less overt, but it is similar type of a thing.

 

[Charlaquin]

I haven't played (an official) Cthulhu game for a while. Does it have an explicit rule about the players not being allowed to rely on their OOC mythos knowledge or is it just implicit by there being rules for the character's mythos knowledge in the game?

I don’t know, I’ve only played a handful of times, and like half of them were the D&D 3.5 conversion.

 

[Charlaquin]

I strongly disagree (surprise!) The GM trying to play in game catch up with a player determined to use their OOC knowledge from the movies sounds like a recipe for disaster. Much easier to just state that let's not go there.

It’s only playing catch up if the DM is invested in trying to prevent the player from using that knowledge in the first place.

I think this is pretty similar than the situation in OP though. That of course was way less overt, but it is similar type of a thing.

I think it’s a meaningfully different situation.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Certainly that just depends on the basics of the setting? If in it is an established fact about the setting that no one has ever heard of Beholders or Mind Flayers then that's that. Like perhaps in this setting they literally have not ever visited the world ever before and the player characters are the first people to ever have any contact with them. Sort of an alien invasion plot.

I haven't played (an official) Cthulhu game for a while. Does it have an explicit rule about the players not being allowed to rely on their OOC mythos knowledge or is it just implicit by there being rules for the character's mythos knowledge in the game?

I think that was the point Charlaquin was making earlier: When their group plays Call of Cthulu, there is an explicit social contract to police distinction between knowledge the characters have and knowledge the players have.
When they play D&D they do not have this in place, and thus use of OOC knowledge is fine.
Likely because it is possible to play CoC and D&D as very different games: For example if you play CoC as investigation of plots and discovery of unknowable horrors, using OOC knowledge is going to spoil some things. If you play D&D as a more casual hack & slash, its not.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It’s only playing catch up if the DM is invested in trying to prevent the player from using that knowledge in the first place.

Sure. But I think that in this specific Star Wars example it is something that a lot of people might want to prevent. Even you agreed that at least using knowledge of the future events would be crossing the line.

I think it’s a meaningfully different situation.

I really don't see why. If the thing from the OOC source is likely to be unknowable to the character, it really doesn't matter whether that was because it is a secret or whether because it has not happened yet. You certainly can come up with a fictional reason to explain having the knowledge of either if you absolutely want to.

 

[Imaculata]

But Vader being Luke's dad is explicitly a big secret in the setting (until certain point anyway) so it definitely would be highly inappropriate for some random character to know that IC. Good example.

Thanks. I think in a Starwars rpg, it would be fair to assume that every player at the table probably knows this twist. So if the DM tried to make this a big reveal, you would find yourself in a similar situation. At the odd chance that one player at the table doesn't know the twist, there is a high likelyhood someone else will blurt it out.

I think a DM is best advised not to incorporate plot twists from widely available books or movies, if they want them to be a surprise. Also, don't call your npc Shadowmantle.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Thanks. I think in a Starwars rpg, it would be fair to assume that every player at the table probably knows this twist. So if the DM tried to make this a big reveal, you would find yourself in a similar situation. At the odd chance that one player at the table doesn't know the twist, there is a high likelyhood someone else will blurt it out.

I think a DM is best advised not to incorporate plot twists from widely available books or movies, if they want them to be a surprise. Also, don't call your npc Shadowmantle.

Sure, making it a plot twist in the game would be dumb, but the GM certainly might want to have a Luke or Leia briefly appear and it would then be highly inappropriate for one character to go "So Darth Vader is your dad?" (Assuming a time point when those things were still secrets of course.)