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

[Charlaquin]

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

Yes it did, the player who first said they thought it was the seal of king dwarfyguy who was rumored to have worked with demons.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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!

It doesn’t strike you as odd that, if their goal...or even one of their goals...was to prevent OOC knowledge use, they didn’t just say that?

You seem to be suggesting that the passage “disallow something that seems outside the rules” gives you the license you want, but nothing in the rules says anything about using OOC knowledge.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes it did, the player who first said they thought it was the seal of king dwarfyguy who was rumored to have worked with demons.

Right. So that totally did bypass the skills and you ruling the knowledge skills very strictly makes it even worse.

 

[Charlaquin]

It doesn’t strike you as odd that, if their goal...or even one of their goals...was to prevent OOC knowledge use, they didn’t just say that?

You seem to be suggesting that the passage “disallow something that seems outside the rules” gives you the license you want, but nothing in the rules says anything about using OOC knowledge.

This is kind of a red herring, as the AL-specific rules are table rules. Whether they forbid use of OOC knowledge or not doesn’t really reflect on what the 5e rules themselves say.

Given that AL DMs aren’t allowed by those table rules to make changes to the published material, I actually think a table rule against using OOC knowledge would make sense in that context.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is kind of a red herring, as the AL-specific rules are table rules. Whether they forbid use of OOC knowledge or not doesn’t really reflect on what the 5e rules themselves say.

Given that AL DMs aren’t allowed by those table rules to make changes to the published material, I actually think a table rule against using OOC knowledge would make sense in that context.

By the same token, though, AL sort of turns it into a board game, so interrogating what a character “would” know or do or think seems kind of beside the point.

 

[Charlaquin]

Right. So that totally did bypass the skills and you ruling the knowledge skills very strictly makes it even worse.

No, it didn’t. Until those actions were taken, neither the players nor their characters knew for sure if any of that information was correct. Three characters then took actions to try to confirm or deny that information, one of which required an Intelligence check to resolve, and the cumulative result of which was determining that it was indeed the seal of the dwarf king in question, adding some potentially useful information about said king, and casting doubt on the notion that he worked with demons.

EDIT: It’s also not a strict ruling at all. It’s extremely flexible, as it allows me as DM to adjudicate any action the character might think of on its own terms, rather than creating the problem the DMG describes the “roll with it” method creating, where the players learn that their actions don’t matter as everything will just result in a check anyway.

 

[iserith]

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.

Because it's not enough to just play your own character as you see fit and be happy with that. You also have to make sure that the person sitting next to you is parsing information in the same way according to the group identity (which has probably been framed in moralistic terms e.g. not doing so is cheating). This means having sidebars with the DM periodically to get permission to take certain actions - only then will the other players know with certainty you have not sinned. If someone doesn't do this and has the audacity to just say what their character thinks, you inform on them because, if they happen to be correct, they may have sinned and you get to show how you're an exemplar of the group's identity. (But of course if they are wrong, it's fine.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

And that's why it is somethimes OK for the GM to just say 'roll knowledge X' when the characters just observe a thing the characters could potentially know about. Because that's how memory works. If you know about a thing, seeing the thing can trigger the memory without any active effort.

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.

You said that a player looking for infernal influence would fail as such was not present. That was asking the wrong question. Whereas I would accept 'I examine the seal' as a perfectly valid action declaration. They would then roll know what their roll lets them know (a better result might yield more information.)

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.

Well, I can adjudicate that just fine. Now I would not make up contacts for the character without the players input but if such were already established and they can be logically referenced in this context then sure, why not? And ultimately saying 'you remember X' on a successful knowledge check is no different than saying 'you see X' on a successful perception check.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, it didn’t. Until those actions were taken, neither the players nor their characters knew for sure if any of that information was correct. Three characters then took actions to try to confirm or deny that information, one of which required an Intelligence check to resolve, and the cumulative result of which was determining that it was indeed the seal of the dwarf king in question, adding some potentially useful information about said king, and casting doubt on the notion that he worked with demons.

But they really did know though. Let's not pretend otherwise. If the information was gained from sources such as reading the module in question instead of just being a highly unlikely guess they did know. I am super tired with this particular bit of sophistry.

 

[iserith]

And that's why it is somethimes OK for the GM to just say 'roll knowledge X' when the characters just observe a thing the characters could potentially know about. Because that's how memory works. If you know about a thing, seeing the thing can trigger the memory without any active effort.

A call for an ability check follows a description by the player of what the character is doing, if what the player described has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. In this case, recalling lore or making deductions. Like it or not, those are the rules.