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

[Crimson Longinus]

Assuming I’m the DM, I do. But I determine it in the moment based on the action declared. Rather than an objective DC20 History to learn that it’s the seal of king whatshisname and he worked with demons, floating there, independent of any action declarations, I will evaluate each goal and approach independently for chance of success, chance of failure, consequences for failure, and for difficulty if it has all of the above. In the previous post, the three different example actions I provided might all have different difficulties and yield different information.

The character who said they would think back to their time studying with the Dwarven smiths of madeupname (approach) to try and remember if they’ve seen that symbol before (goal) might, for example, succeed automatically if the seal was crafted by that group. You studied with them, you’ve definitely seen it, no chance of that approach failing at that goal.

The player who said they thought back to their study of Dwarven history (approach) to try and remember any details about king whatshisname (goal) might have read that, or might not have, and I could allow progresss with a setback on a failure, so I might call for an Intelligence check - DC 10 if this king guy is well recorded, DC 15 if he’s a bit obscure, DC 20 if information about him is obscured or hidden. I might even scaffold different bits of that information to the different DCs, with failure perhaps meaning that the character has read the name before, but doesn’t recall any pertinent details.

The player who said they would study the seal (approach) to look for any symbols influenced by Infernal (goal) might fail if none of the symbols on the seal are influenced by infernal, as there would be no chance of the approach succeeding in accomplishing the goal. It is indeed the seal of king whatshisname.

These are all examples I’m pulling out of thin air, of course. To give more confident rulings I would need more context. But the point is, there’s no objective check that exists independently of the characters’ actions. What you might learn and if you need to make a check to learn it depends entirely on the task you describe; what you’re trying to achieve and how.

OK, I get it now. I really don't think this reflects terribly well how memory and knowledge works in reality though and I don't like the idea of forcing the players to guess the correct thing to say to get the information. This seems far more restrictive than my approach.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Which rules are being ignored? We've already established through direct quotation that a group's stance on "metagaming" is a table rule, not a rule.

Knowlege skills being bypassed by using OOC knowledge.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Right. But lets assume that one player invested in knowledge skills and and onether just used their OOC knowledge? You don't think that gaining the knowledge via OOC means thus negating the need for the skill would in this instance be unfair to the player who invested resource in the skill?

No, I don't. I think it's not a wise decision on the part of the invested player to accept the translation without confirming it.

This actually confuses me. Sure, you can do that. Like how in the Valindra example a lot of people suggested that once they kill 'the lich' it turns out it was just an innocent elf with the same name. But this implies that you would actually want to discourage metagaming and I really don't believe in trying to 'educate' players in roundabout way in the game. If I don't wan them to do something (like use meta knowledge) I just tell them that instead pretending to be OK with it and then later punishing them for it in the game.

Oh, I see.

No, it's not punishing them for using metagame knowledge. You're not trying to bludgeon them into keeping their metagame knowledge to themselves without acting on it. Rather you're teaching them to doubt their metagame knowledge. This helps preserve the "genuine ignorance" that we both agree is the preferred state.

In the seal-above-the door-example, if you've been playing the campaign this way, when the player blurts out, "I know this....!" the other players will think "This may or may not be one of those details that the DM changed." And they'll try to use other means to confirm the information.

If all you do is outlaw metagame knowledge, then maybe the next time they find themselves in this situation they will comply, but in their heads they still know that information, and know it's true. So they're stuck pretending to be ignorant. Which isn't as fun as being genuinely ignorant.

I'd much rather...as both DM and player...let them always wonder whether or not their metagame information is accurate.

I kinda get it, but if I want to freeform then I will freeform and not have some weird hybrid where there is a DM and rules which can be ignored in certain situations if the player feels like it.

If you don't have an anti-metagame rule, then there's nothing to ignore when you feel like it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Knowlege skills being bypassed by using OOC knowledge.

I addressed this in my longer response, but I'll say it again: without using knowledge skills (or other tools) the players aren't sure if the OOC knowledge is accurate. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. What they need is somebody with Religion proficiency and a high Int...or a really clever plan, or a spell, or something else...to help them confirm it.

 

[iserith]

Knowlege skills being bypassed by using OOC knowledge.

There is no onus on the players to make ability checks except when the DM decides the action they have declared has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. Because a player determines what the character thinks, says, and does, the DM cannot adjudicate into a result what the player says the character thinks. No "knowledge skills" are being "bypassed" here.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I addressed this in my longer response, but I'll say it again: without using knowledge skills (or other tools) the players aren't sure if the OOC knowledge is accurate. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. What they need is somebody with Religion proficiency and a high Int...or a really clever plan, or a spell, or something else...to help them confirm it.

If the OOC information is from the setting book or other similar source it is only uncertain in situation where the GM is willing to alter those things and as I have said may times this simply is not a thing many GMs are willing to do.

 

[jasper]

@iserith 1. It's easy to change lore or monster stats.. Unless you are an AL dm, then it is not allowed. I am allow to adjust for party strength. And make the game challenging but beatable.

 

[iserith]

If the OOC information is from the setting book or other similar source it is only uncertain in situation where the GM is willing to alter those things and as I have said may times this simply is not a thing many GMs are willing to do.

Especially not DMs concerned about "metagaming." Strange, that.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If the OOC information is from the setting book or other similar source it is only uncertain in situation where the GM is willing to alter those things and as I have said may times this simply is not a thing many GMs are willing to do.

Ok. I guess those GMs who want to use published content but are unwilling to change lore will just have to deal with problems like the OP describes then.

AND....let me say it once again, because I'm still not sure it sunk in....you say "willing to alter those things", but the GM doesn't have to change any particular bit of lore. If the players have learned that the GM occasionally switches things up, then no particular detail has to be changed, even if the players use OOC knowledge on it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

@iserith 1. It's easy to change lore or monster stats.. Unless you are an AL dm, then it is not allowed. I am allow to adjust for party strength. And make the game challenging but beatable.

Neither do AL rules grant DMs permission to arbitrarily tell players that they can't take certain actions.