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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Sure, I of course get that. But it still requires the GM to occasionally change things. If the player knows that the GM has terrible taste and they really love the Forgotten Realms and are really attached to the setting details they can treat any OOC knowledge gained from the setting books as verified fact as they know that the GM wouldn't change those things.

 

[jasper]

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

al dmg guide 9.1
Cheating
D&D Adventurers League play is meant to be fun and inclusive—not competitive. As the DM, correct cheating players quickly and discreetly (if possible) by resolving the issue and making a fair ruling on what happens. You can review paperwork (character sheets, adventure logsheets, and certificates) at any time. If something seems amiss or inappropriate—either with the paperwork or during the game—discuss it with the player and resolve irregularities. You can disallow something that seems outside the rules or have a player reroll dice. Be professional—make every effort to avoid embarrassing the player or assume wrongdoing. We’re all here to have fun and enjoy the challenge!
***
If Bob declares the correct combination to the lock before I get done describing the door. Something is amiss and inappropriate. Depending on which Bob it is. I Either changing the combination on the spot. Or asking how Bob guessed the correct code.

 

[Charlaquin]

OK, I get it now. I really don't think this reflects terribly well how memory and knowledge works in reality though

That is true, and for this reason it took me a while to embrace this adjudication method for lore recollection. Even long after I had embraced it for other tasks, I handled lore recall entirely through passive checks. But ultimately I found it was making lore part of narration instead of part of gameplay, so I switched to this method, accepting it as a necessary break from reality that serves an important gameplay function.

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.

It’s not about guessing the correct thing to say, it’s about imagining the fictional environment described by the DM as a real place and your character as a real person in it, and using your intuitive understanding of how the world works and how your character thinks and acts to decide what to do in the fictional scenario. What I would call really roleplaying, as opposed to merely acting. And you’ll notice, all three hypothetical players described actions that made sense in the scenario, and all three resulted in useful information. The first player confirmed the metagamer’s suspicion that the symbol was the seal of the dwarf king like he thought. The second player may have gained valuable information about this king, and the third player gained evidence that might suggest the metagamer’s suspicion that the king worked with demons might not be accurate. So you see, the metagamer using knowledge of the published adventure not only didn’t ruin the game, it actually lead play down an interesting path, where characters are taking action and gaining information that may help them form a more complete picture of what’s going on. They are serving the goals of play, having fun and working together to create a memorable story.

 

[Charlaquin]

Knowlege skills being bypassed by using OOC knowledge.

I’ve just illustrated how use of OOC knowledge does not necessarily bypass knowledge skills. You even said you get it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I feel like the fact that, in the scenario in question, the player had the knowledge of the NPC and that's what triggered the issue. Now, the argument is about how meaningless it makes lore checks when one player can simply decide that their character knows whatever they'd like, and the other is bound by results of his lore check. How is this even the case?

But that's not really going to happen, is it? The issue in question specifically requires a NPC about whom the player knows things because that NPC has appeared in novels and video games. That's not going to typically be the case, so I don't know why that logic is being applied to other instances.

Let's say the PCs encounter another NPC, one entirely of the DM's creation and of whom the players have no prior knowledge. When the NPC introduces herself, does anyone here really expect a player to blurt out "This lady's a grumkin" and then that becomes the truth? Of course not. They may say "I don't think I trust this person...." and then declare some kind of action in an attempt to prove or disprove their suspicion.

I feel like the fact that this kind of fluke doesn't actually violate the proscribed play of 5E has been made clear.

Anyone for whom it is a problem is applying their play preference (and they are perfectly allowed to do so). What I'm trying to figure out is why they feel that way? All I seem to be seeing is some lip service to verisimilitude....but it seems more about the DM being the sole authority to establish facts in the fiction.

So all I want to know is: why is it important for the DM to be the sole authority on establishing the fictional world?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That is true, and for this reason it took me a while to embrace this adjudication method for lore recollection. Even long after I had embraced it for other tasks, I handled lore recall entirely through passive checks. But ultimately I found it was making lore part of narration instead of part of gameplay, so I switched to this method, accepting it as a necessary break from reality that serves an important gameplay function.

To me it feels that working more like real memory helps immersion.

It’s not about guessing the correct thing to say, it’s about imagining the fictional environment described by the DM as a real place and your character as a real person in it, and using your intuitive understanding of how the word works and how your character thinks and acts to decide what to do in the fictional scenario. What I would call really roleplaying, as opposed to merely acting. And you’ll notice, all three hypothetical players described actions that made sense in the scenario, and all three resulted in useful information. The first player confirmed the metagamer’s suspicion that the symbol was the seal of the dwarf king like he thought. The second player may have gained valuable information about this king, and the third player gained evidence that might suggest the metagamer’s suspicion that the king worked with demons might not be accurate. So you see, the metagamer using knowledge of the published adventure not only didn’t ruin the game, it actually lead play down an interesting path, where characters are taking action and gaining information that may help them form a more complete picture of what’s going on. They are serving the goals of play, having fun and working together to create a memorable story.

That's all fine and good but one could describe it that way even if the player didn't understand to start with the correct question. Like even if the player just say 'I examine the seal' the GM can still mention the characters dwarven smith contacts or whatever. Granted, if the player mentions it it is even better and the GM can build upon that.

 

[Charlaquin]

al dmg guide 9.1
Cheating
D&D Adventurers League play is meant to be fun and inclusive—not competitive. As the DM, correct cheating players quickly and discreetly (if possible) by resolving the issue and making a fair ruling on what happens. You can review paperwork (character sheets, adventure logsheets, and certificates) at any time. If something seems amiss or inappropriate—either with the paperwork or during the game—discuss it with the player and resolve irregularities. You can disallow something that seems outside the rules or have a player reroll dice. Be professional—make every effort to avoid embarrassing the player or assume wrongdoing. We’re all here to have fun and enjoy the challenge!
***
If Bob declares the correct combination to the lock before I get done describing the door. Something is amiss and inappropriate. Depending on which Bob it is. I Either changing the combination on the spot. Or asking how Bob guessed the correct code.

I’d describe the AL DM guide as a set of table rules shared across all AL tables.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I’ve just illustrated how use of OOC knowledge does not necessarily bypass knowledge skills. You even said you get it.

Your example didn't really contain the use of OOC knowledge.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I feel like the fact that, in the scenario in question, the player had the knowledge of the NPC and that's what triggered the issue. Now, the argument is about how meaningless it makes lore checks when one player can simply decide that their character knows whatever they'd like, and the other is bound by results of his lore check. How is this even the case?

But that's not really going to happen, is it? The issue in question specifically requires a NPC about whom the player knows things because that NPC has appeared in novels and video games. That's not going to typically be the case, so I don't know why that logic is being applied to other instances.

Hey, this is the Forgotten Realms we're talking about. There are like seventeen billion established NPCs or something, I'm sure most of the people in the setting have some sort of official write up .

So all I want to know is: why is it important for the DM to be the sole authority on establishing the fictional world?

It's not. I freeform quite a bit and there even isn't a GM. It just happens that in traditional tabletop RPGs the GM is the final arbiter of things.

 

[Charlaquin]

To me it feels that working more like real memory helps immersion.

Well, two things here: first, we accept lots of things in D&D that don’t work like real life for the sake of gameplay. This is just one more example, and in my opinion, not a particularly egregious one. Obviously your mileage may vary, and that’s fine.

Second, it’s not like asking the DM if you know a thing and being told to make a check works like real memory either. In fact, the process is very similar to what I (now) do, which is precisely why it took me so long to warm up to it. Describing an action to “try and remember” a thing didn’t feel meaningfully different to me than just asking to make a check, which is a thing I find undesirable.

That's all fine and good but one could describe it that way even if the player didn't understand to start with the correct question.

What “correct question”? First of all, these are statements of action, not questions, and second of all none are right or wrong. They all have different outcomes, all of which are valuable.

Like even if the player just say 'I examine the seal' the GM can still mention the characters dwarven smith contacts or whatever. Granted, if the player mentions it it is even better and the GM can build upon that.

If all the player says is “I examine the seal,” I don’t have enough to go on to adjudicate the action, without establishing a goal and approach for the player, which you do here by having the DM interject the bit about the character’s contacts. That’s not my role as DM. My job is to describe the environment, adjudicate the players’ actions, and describe the results, not to establish the character’s thoughts or actions. That’s for the player to do. I find the game is more enjoyable when the player is in complete control of what their character thinks and does.