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

[Charlaquin]

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.

But it doesn’t follow the standard play loop described by the rules. Now, if there’s a detail I think a character would just know based on their background and/or skills, sure, I’ll give that to them. But in that situation I wouldn’t call for a check anyway.

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.)

It’s not “the wrong question”, or even the wrong action. It just doesn’t have a chance of succeeding - if there’s no infernal influence to be found, you won’t find any, no need to make a check to determine that. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a valid action declaration - it absolutely is, and it yielded valuable information. The player now knows with certainty that there is no infernal influence - something they might not have learned if the DM had called for a check, they had rolled poorly, and the DM has simply said they didn’t find anything.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

They didn’t though. They were straight-up wrong about the “worked with demons” part, and the failed attempt to find infernal influence that you described as an invalid action revealed that to be the case.

 

[iserith]

But it doesn’t follow the standard play loop described by the rules. Now, if there’s a detail I think a character would just know based on their background and/or skills, sure, I’ll give that to them. But in that situation I wouldn’t call for a check anyway.

I have a sneaking suspicion the poster is conflating actions/tasks with ability checks.

An ability check is not a task, nor a task an ability check.

 

[Charlaquin]

Accidental post, disregard, please.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Nobody is pretending otherwise. We, or at least I, am saying:
a) In these hypothetical examples with perfect information we "know", but when this actually happens at the table we don't, and...
b) It just doesn't matter, anyway

 

[Charlaquin]

Another accidental post, forum seems to be acting strangely.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nobody is pretending otherwise. We, or at least I, am saying:
a) In these hypothetical examples with perfect information we "know", but when this actually happens at the table we don't, and...
b) It just doesn't matter, anyway

No, in the hypothetical scenario I’ve been discussing, the metagaming player was mistaken about the dwarf king having worked with demons, because I changed that detail of the story. He’s lucky his fellow players took action to verify his assumption, because the one who checked for infernal influence and failed to find it without a check revealed that to be the case.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

This relies on very myopic reading of the rules. 'Attempts an action doesn't' necessarily mean active declared effort, it can just as easily be interpreted to mean a reflexive or automatic response. If trip on my shoelaces I will attempt to balance myself or failing that attempt to fall without hurting myself yet both of those are purely reflexive responses.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, in the hypothetical scenario I’ve been discussing, the metagaming player was mistaken about the dwarf king having worked with demons, because I changed that detail of the story.

And as it have been stated not about seven thousand times, changing the setting/adventure details to thwart metagaming is not something all GMs can or are willing to do and certainly it is not something that they should need to worry about. And personally to me it seems like rather dysfunctional way to address the issue.

 

[iserith]

This relies on very myopic reading of the rules. 'Attempts an action doesn't' necessarily mean active declared effort, it can just as easily be interpreted to mean a reflexive or automatic response. If trip on my shoelaces I will attempt to balance myself or failing that attempt to fall without hurting myself yet both of those are purely reflexive responses.

It's a straightforward reading of very plain and simple rules.

If you need a mechanic to resolve a character's instant response to a harmful effect, that's a saving throw. An ability check resolves the outcome of a task that the character actively attempts to accomplish, when the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure.