D&D 5E (2014) player knowlege vs character knowlege (spoiler)

[Crimson Longinus]

What evidence would you (and @Maxperson) accept that would show that the game considers your position on "metagaming" to be a table rule?

It would probably require absence of numerous rules (knowledge skills, spells etc) and in setting items (Volo's guide) that are clearly intended to be used for the characters to gain access to information.

 

[iserith]

It would probably require absence of numerous rules (knowledge skills, spells etc) and in setting items (Volo's guide) that are clearly intended to be used for the characters to gain access to information.

I can't take rules away. What about something saying outright that the group's stance on "metagaming" is a table rule? Would you accept that?

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh, I agree! But some people in this thread seem to think that the trolls are a very serious problem, and that if people use fire on them without trying indeterminate number of other things first (we can't seem to get a clear answer on what that number is) that they are somehow breaking a very important but nevertheless undocumented rule.

Let’s be fair to our debate opponents, the troll “problem” is just an example that makes it easy to illustrate our points, not a serious issue at anyone’s table. It’s like the chandelier that characters always seemed to want to swing on during the edition war - a rhetorical tool.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But it only matters when a secret is involved. No one cries "metagaming" if a player declares a random NPC a lich. It's only when it is a lich, and the GM cares about that remaining secret, that "metagaming" is a problem. This is true even in a case where the player is convinced that the non-lich NPC is a lich because of something the player read.

In other words, "metagaming" is only ever checked for if a secret is being revealed. Even if that secret is that trolls regenerate or devils are immune to fire.

Because it really isn't 'metagaming' unless that player used OOC knowledge. It might easily be bad roleplaying though, and thus equally frowned upon.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Like let's examine this think/know divide with another lovely practical example.

The module says "On a successful DC 20 history check a character can identify the carving above the entrance of the dungeon as the seal of King Tharguz and recall that said king ruled the are three centuries ago and was killed in an uprising that started by the rumours of the king dealing with the devils."

Would it be acceptable if after failing at the roll the player picked up the module book, looked at the page and declared that their character thinks that the thing above the door is a seal of King Tharguz who was rumoured to be dealing with devils? Do you really think that the makers of the game intended this to be a valid way to handle this?

Do you think it's really the same thing? One involves a NPC who has appeared in multiple media depicting the setting and one with which many players may be familiar prior to the start of playing this adventure. We could argue she was included entirely for this reason.

Another involves a bit of setting lore created specifically (I admit I'm presuming here) for this adventure, and which the player then reads after the fact, and then retroactively wants his character to know?

Does this seem apples to apples to you?

 

[iserith]

Like let's examine this think/know divide with another lovely practical example.

The module says "On a successful DC 20 history check a character can identify the carving above the entrance of the dungeon as the seal of King Tharguz and recall that said king ruled the are three centuries ago and was killed in an uprising that started by the rumours of the king dealing with the devils."

Would it be acceptable if after failing at the roll the player picked up the module book, looked at the page and declared that their character thinks that the thing above the door is a seal of King Tharguz who was rumoured to be dealing with devils? Do you really think that the makers of the game intended this to be a valid way to handle this?

Since I play mostly online, I'd have no way of knowing if the player did this anyway, so even if it was done in person, I don't see why I would care. Given that there's never been a module I didn't alter in some way, the module itself is not an entirely reliable source of information and we're back to the smart play being to verify one's assumptions before acting on them.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Like let's examine this think/know divide with another lovely practical example.

The module says "On a successful DC 20 history check a character can identify the carving above the entrance of the dungeon as the seal of King Tharguz and recall that said king ruled the are three centuries ago and was killed in an uprising that started by the rumours of the king dealing with the devils."

Would it be acceptable if after failing at the roll the player picked up the module book, looked at the page and declared that their character thinks that the thing above the door is a seal of King Tharguz who was rumoured to be dealing with devils? Do you really think that the makers of the game intended this to be a valid way to handle this?

Do you really think that's what we're talking about? Or is that an unrealistic and extreme caricature of it that you've devised in order to prove us wrong?

But, sure let's look at that example: the player does exactly what you describe. But I want to add one element: this information about King Tharguz is important. It's either the key to, or at least it is in support of, completion of the adventure. Somehow knowing this fact will enable them to declare an action later that helps them with their goals. (Otherwise it's too easy to dismiss it as not mattering.)

So this player opens their copy of the module and reads the text aloud. I won't even pass judgment on whether or not the player is being a jerk. Let's just see what happens.

Well, with everybody rolling...probably with Guidance and/or taking the Help action...there's a decent chance somebody is going to get lucky anyway. So clearly having somebody know the answer is one of the acceptable outcomes. And I would even say it's a desirable outcome. So let him/her have it. In-game, one of the characters knew the answer (and maybe even the lowest Int character, the explanation of which is a great opportunity for roleplaying). So everybody at the table looks at that player strangely, wondering where they picked up their D&D playstyle, and the game continues.

Great. Our playstyle survived this unrealistic stress test. I can't imagine this ever actually happening, but if it did, there's no real impact.

Now it's my turn to interrogate your playstyle, similar to the way I did before, using the same situation.

Everybody fails their lore test, so they forge ahead into the dungeon. When it gets to the moment where the information about King Tharguz would suggest a particular course of action, one of the players does exactly the right thing.

If you ask the player why, he/she shrugs and says, "I dunno. It just seemed like a cool idea."

And this isn't the first time this has happened.

What do you do?

P.S. And let's also think about which of these scenarios is something more likely to occur at the table. A player reading aloud from the module, or a player coming to the game with information about the module but not telling anybody?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Do you think it's really the same thing? One involves a NPC who has appeared in multiple media depicting the setting and one with which many players may be familiar prior to the start of playing this adventure. We could argue she was included entirely for this reason.

Another involves a bit of setting lore created specifically (I admit I'm presuming here) for this adventure, and which the player then reads after the fact, and then retroactively wants his character to know?

Does this seem apples to apples to you?

Well they are both at least some sort of fruit. It's really a continuum and as you will see some people would be fine with this too. But this was really just to illustrate why the think/know difference really is bullcrap.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It would probably require absence of numerous rules (knowledge skills, spells etc) and in setting items (Volo's guide) that are clearly intended to be used for the characters to gain access to information.

But think about what that absence would actually imply: not that it's just ok to use player knowledge, but that it's assumed that characters know everything (or, conversely, nothing). Because without those skills there would be no way for a player to seek more information if they wanted to, or to determine if the information they thought they knew was correct or not.

So, no. Faulty logic. You're making the same mistake Max did, and assuming that A being compatible with B means that A is equivalent to B.

 

[iserith]

But think about what that absence would actually imply: not that it's just ok to use player knowledge, but that it's assumed that characters know everything (or, conversely, nothing). Because without those skills there would be no way for a player to seek more information if they wanted to, or to determine if the information they thought they knew was correct or not.

So, no. Faulty logic.

What I'm trying to gauge from @Crimson Longinus (and @Maxperson) is whether they will accept evidence showing that the game treats their position on "metagaming" as a table rule or whether no amount of evidence will change their mind on this matter. I'm not even trying to change their mind as to abandoning such a table rule. Just what it will take for them to leave off on asserting that there is rules support for their position on "metagaming."