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

[Crimson Longinus]

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 difference you describe only exist in a situation where the GM is willing to alter (or create as a reaction to) the setting in order to counter the metagaming. If the GM doesn't want to do that (like wanting to run a published adventure as is or not alter a setting they are very fond of) there is no difference. Furthermore, willingness of letting player'thought' declarations to affect the quantum state of the setting opens door to even far greater amount of metagaming as such declarations literally affect the reality of the setting.

 

[Guest 6801328]

...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.

Maybe it would be helpful to Crimson to acknowledge that, yes, it can certainly be awkward if you, the DM, were expecting the high priest of Hyperion's identity to be a secret, and it turns out one of the players knows the secret, and either acts on it or blurts it out to the others.*

But the traditional solution to that, which is enforcing a "no metagaming" rule, has been very dissatisfying to many of us, for many years. What we've found is that a set of DMing tools (e.g., don't overly rely on secrets, switch things up occasionally so players won't rely on their own knowledge, etc.) not only avoids those problems, but turns out to result in smoother play with more immersive roleplaying.


*Although....just to play Devil's Advocate...if pretending to be ignorant is good roleplaying, wouldn't you want to give the others the opportunity to roleplay also? If it's so easy to separate player knowledge and character knowledge, why not share away? Heck, why not share the whole module and then say, "Ok, now let's roleplay!" I'm being facetious, but also illustrating that pretending to be ignorant is not the same as, nor as fun as, actually being ignorant.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

[

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.

This is simply rules-lawyering in attempt to bypass the intent of the rule. If the lichn-status of a person is information that would require a history check to know, then using meta-knowledge to 'think' that a person is a lich is bypassing the roll by metagaming.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The difference you describe only exist in a situation where the GM is willing to alter (or create as a reaction to) the setting in order to counter the metagaming. If the GM doesn't want to do that (like wanting to run a published adventure as is or not alter a setting they are very fond of) there is no difference. Furthermore, willingness of letting player'thought' declarations to affect the quantum state of the setting opens door to even far greater amount of metagaming as such declarations literally affect the reality of the setting.

No, you don't necessarily have to change the reality of the game on a dime. If you have previously established with the players that you sometimes change elements, then when they blurt out "She's a Lich!" you can just smile and shrug and ask, "Did your character say that out loud, or are you whispering that to the others?"

(And maybe there's another disconnect: yes, if you've always played with a no-player-knowledge rule, and then suddenly, at this moment, when the player identifies Valindra, you decide to switch to a whole new paradigm....yeah, that's going to be tricky.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is simply rules-lawyering in attempt to bypass the intent of the rule. If the lichn-status of a person is information that would require a history check to know, then using meta-knowledge to 'think' that a person is a lich is bypassing the roll by metagaming.

I don't understand why you keep calling it "rules lawyering" when they/we point out how the game is described in the books, but it's not rules lawyering when you try to infer a non-existent rule from the presence of a related skill, and then insist your imaginary rule is RAW.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Reducto ad Absurdem doesn't help your case. My argument holds up just fine when used by reasonable people.

 

[iserith]

There are two things the game gives us that shut down the impact of "metagaming" and therefore the incentive to do it.

1. It's easy to change lore or monster stats. Change it from time to time and tell the players you do this and the incentive to mitigate risk will kick in because acting on unreliable knowledge is risky. Most players inherently understand this and, if they don't for some reason, they will after some setbacks and character deaths.

2. "Progress combined with a setback" can happen on a failed check. If the result on a die (or rolling a die at all) relative to the result the DM narrates suggests something is amiss to the player, narrate the result instead as progress combined with a setback i.e. they succeed, but at a cost or with a complication.

That's it. It's all you really need to do.

The question then becomes why people concerned about "metagaming" won't do it. And that, in my view, comes down to identity. "If I stopped caring about this thing I've built up as a big deal with my group after all these years, even going so far as to call people who didn't care about 'metagaming' cheaters, how am I going to explain this is no longer the case?"

 

[Guest 6801328]

Reducto ad Absurdem doesn't help your case. My argument holds up just fine when used by reasonable people.

Oh. So does that mean you are rejecting Crimson's imaginary scenario where a player reads the module at the table? If so, jumping in to say so would have bolstered your credibility.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is simply rules-lawyering in attempt to bypass the intent of the rule. If the lichn-status of a person is information that would require a history check to know, then using meta-knowledge to 'think' that a person is a lich is bypassing the roll by metagaming.

Considering this is how I rule when I DM, and when I play in a game someone else is DMing I abide by their local rulings regarding lore and checks to know it, the assertion that this is rules lawyering to attempt to bypass a rule holds no water.

What’s actually going on here is that you think about checks in a different way than I do. The idea that a particular piece of lore “would require a history check to know” doesn’t compute with the way I DM. At my table, checks are made only to resolve actions with uncertain outcomes in the moment. There is no outcome that objectively requires a check to succeed, checks are tools I employ to help resolve uncertainty in the outcome of tasks. There’s no “players who succeed on a DC20 history check know (whatever)” floating out there on its own waiting for a player to ask to make a check or me to tell them to make it. If a player wants to draw on their character’s memory, education, logic, or deductive reasoning to achieve a goal, they describe an action and I will resolve it in the moment, setting a DC and calling for a check only if I determine it is necessary to resolve uncertainty in the outcome.

 

[iserith]

This is simply rules-lawyering in attempt to bypass the intent of the rule. If the lichn-status of a person is information that would require a history check to know, then using meta-knowledge to 'think' that a person is a lich is bypassing the roll by metagaming.

@Charlaquin is explaining to you how the game works. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's how it's written. You're free to create table rules to play it some other way.