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

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

I'm not sure that it is that much more extreme that the Prime Minister of Thay. The point is to show that the knowledge skills exist for a reason and that calling your metagaming 'thinking' instead of 'knowing' doesn't really change the fact that you're bypassing the intent of the rules.

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.)

If it was the key and this was the only point to gain this critical information then it would be a badly made adventure. But yes, the information probably matters somehow.

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.

Yes, you can do this, sure. But I have tried to already ask this before, but I don't think you answered. Why only apply this approach to knowledge? If we are just going to ignore the knowledge skills because a failure might cause inconvenience to the characters, why not apply that to everything. Why just not let characters to declare that they succeed in any task? Why not just let them declare that they win a combat? It is the same thing.

And it works, and you don't even need a GM, I have freeform roleplayed a lot. I just really don't think that D&D is intended to be played like that. The skills exist for a reason, including the knowledge skills.

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?

Sometimes people can guess correctly. But if we are at the situation where that really isn't a plausible explanation, then it really the same situation like if you would suspect someone cheating with their dice rolls or something like that. It really is not a game issue any more. But I can trust that my friends don't cheat so this would never come up.

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?

The latter obviously. Which already tells us that overwhelming majority of people consider using OOC information for their advantage unacceptable so even unscrupulous ones wouldn't do so openly. So if the game indeed is intended to be played using such information they certainly have done absolutely terrible job at communicating it!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Hopefull we'll see a good answer...meaning an answer with practical implications, that doesn't rely on an extreme edge case to show all the bad things that can happen when you allow player knowledge...but so far all I've seen is "because it's WRONG!"

I really am curious what the answer may be.

I've really been giving that encounter some thought.....both how it played out at my table, and how it may play out at others. So far, I can only think of one reason to want to maintain that secret about Valindra, and that reason would pretty much require that both the PCs and the players to not know about her.

I'm not saying there can't be a good answer......I just really can't think of any.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

What action did the player declare that the DM decided required a History check to resolve? What consequences did the DM establish for failure? By placing the player’s assertion of what the character thinks after a contextless knowledge check, you have introduced a problem that would not exist in my games.

Instead, a player who has read the module might say, “I think that thing above the door is a seal of King Tharguz, who was rumoured to be dealing with devils.” That’s a valid thing to assert, but it’s also a risky thing to assume is true based solely on having read the module, since I make it clear that when I run published modules they have the same beats but different details. If the players are willing to take that risk they can, but a smart player might say, “I think back to my time studying with the Dwarven smiths of blagrammar to try and recall if I’ve seen that seal before,” or “I cast my mind back to my studies of Dwarven history to see if that name rings a bell,” or “I carefully study the seal to try and deduce if any of the markings on it might be derived from Infernal,” or something along those lines, to any of which I might rule succeed, fail, or require a check to resolve.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

By the way, I don’t think that Volo’s Guide sidebar is as compelling evidence as you think it is. 5e is chock full of opportunities for useless expenditure of coin. Buying a component pouch instead of a staff focus, buying a trident instead of a spear... I don’t see choosing to buy Volo’s Guide instead of deciding your character has already read it as all that different.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

If we follow this assertion through logically, that a player can’t establish character knowledge without first succeeding in a check, the game quickly becomes absurd. Does my character know how to tie her shoes? Better make a knowledge check. Does my character know her mother’s maiden name? Knowledge check. Does she know basic arithmetic? Knowledge check.

Similarly like with all things, there are some things that the characters simply can do without a roll. Like walking and knowing certain basic things. But that you can walk without first succeeding in an athletics roll doesn't mean that you can also just declare that your character jumps over a tall wall without a roll.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because those things are part of the environment, which the rules clearly lay out as the DM’s responsibility to determine and describe.

How is the knowledge not part of the setting in the same way? I really don't get this? Do you really think that the GM cannot determine that people in this setting do not know about gunpowder or that no one knows that the high priest of Hyperion is secretly a mind flayer in disguise?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think it is. I don't necessarily play that way, but I absolutely see the reason for doing so, and how it's a consistent approach. I probably lean far more that way than in trying to maintain secrets that are no longer actually secrets.

So what do you think is gained or maintained by not allowing the PC to know Valindra is a lich and may be up to no good?

Considering that I am not familiar with either the character or the adventure in question, I really cannot answer on specifics. This is really more about the general principle.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Why only apply this approach to knowledge? If we are just going to ignore the knowledge skills because a failure might cause inconvenience to the characters, why not apply that to everything. Why just not let characters to declare that they succeed in any task? Why not just let them declare that they win a combat? It is the same thing.

That's a great question, and maybe reveals what some of the disconnect is.

First, we're advocating neither ignoring knowledge skills, nor allowing player knowledge "because a failure might cause inconvenience". We are advocating for using knowledge skills to resolve uncertainty (including whether what a player thinks is true is actually true), and for allowing player knowledge in order to eliminate metagame policing.

Second, "Hey guys I think she's a Lich! I read that in a novel!" is categorically different from "I kill the orc with my sword without rolling dice." The former is an assertion, which may or not be true in this particular game. Stating it aloud does not change the game state; the DM still gets to determine whether or not it is true.

Declaring the outcome to a combat, on the other hand, does change the state of the game world. A closer analogue to the Valindra example would be, "I point my finger at the orc and say 'bang'. Which my patron told me would kill it. So we're good now."

At that point the DM can say, "Surprisingly, the orc does not in fact fall over dead." Or the DM might say, "Was that eldritch blast? If so, I'll need an attack roll." Or even..."Surprisingly...the orc falls over dead." (Which, honestly, would be awesome if it happened just that once.)

The latter obviously. Which already tells us that overwhelming majority of people consider using OOC information for their advantage unacceptable so even unscrupulous ones wouldn't do so openly. So if the game indeed is intended to be played using such information they certainly have done absolutely terrible job at communicating it!

Irrelevant. I freely acknowledge that your playstyle was the dominant one for decades; it's unlikely the majority have (yet) seen the light.

I think the vast majority of players still say things like, "I make a Perception check" and roll the dice, whereas the rules very clearly say they should declare an action, and the DM will call for a dice roll if needed.

So, yeah, I don't really care how many people play a game with concepts left over from previous editions.

 

[Charlaquin]

How is the knowledge not part of the setting in the same way?

Because the character’s thoughts are clearly laid out by the rules as the players’ responsibility to determine and describe.

I really don't get this? Do you really think that the GM cannot determine that people in this setting do not know about gunpowder or that no one knows that the high priest of Hyperion is secretly a mind flayer in disguise?

Obviously the DM can do whatever they want, but determining what the player characters can or can’t think is not part of the DM’s role as laid out by the rules. It is part of the DM’s role as laid out by the rules to determine whether or not gunpowder works like it does in real life, and whether or not it’s true that the high priest of Hyperion is secretly a mind flayer in disguise, as well as any knowledge or opinions any NPCs have about either subject.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, you can do this, sure. But I have tried to already ask this before, but I don't think you answered. Why only apply this approach to knowledge? If we are just going to ignore the knowledge skills because a failure might cause inconvenience to the characters, why not apply that to everything. Why just not let characters to declare that they succeed in any task? Why not just let them declare that they win a combat? It is the same thing.

The players can declare any task they wish, and at that point it is up to the DM to determine whether that task succeeds, fails, or requires a check. The difference is, “She’s a lich!” isn’t a task. There’s nothing there for the DM to determine success or failure on. The player can say anyone they want is a lich, that doesn’t make it true. If they want to find out if it’s true, they need to declare a task (e.g. “I try to recall if I’ve heard that name before”). Then it’s up to the DM whether that task succeeds, fails, or requires a check.

EDIT: Also, far from ruining any twists of the adventure, I expect a player blurting out “she’s a lich!” at my table would be far more likely to end up in jokes about whether she weighs the same as a duck and burning her anyway.