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

[Bawylie]

I ask if I can recall hearing this name before. DM calls for a History (Intelligence) check. So whether I succeed or fail at that check, DM is going to rule that I DO recall the name and know who she is. Unbeknownst to me, what I am apparently actually doing is making an Intelligence (History) check to see if I succeed on a Charisma (Deception) check. Yeah, that sort of thing is going to annoy me. So much so that I would tend to shut down and avoid making any skill checks at all if I can help it, since the results are likely to be wholly unrelated to what I was trying to do. In this case, what if my character is a professional charlatan with expertise in Deception? I'm still going to drop my poker face while trying to remember a name?

Sounds like there should be some discussion about the stakes before the roll, then.

I might not want to risk the fail conditions that tip off the NPC. And as you point out, you weren’t setting out to bluff.

Nevertheless, the thread isn’t about A POSSIBLE fail condition on an Int check. Iserith’s broader point, as I read it, is that there are various ways forward from knowing the NPC is a villain.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I have the same problem when a player rolls poorly on a search, then everyone wants to make a search roll. The character doesn't know what the player rolled.
For groups where suddenly everyone wants to search once they see a poor roll by one player, then group tasks come into play and a plurality of the characters need to succeed.

I typically only allow a group 1 roll to search. Other players can use the Help action to grant advantage. That roll counts as the group's best effort.

 

[Charlaquin]

The DM did not necessarily "set the stage" for metagaming in this instance. The character in question is obscure enough that the DM could easily have been totally unaware that she was a pre-existing character not original to the adventure, and have no way of knowing that a player would know who she is. The DESIGNER set the stage for metagaming, which is why I question the designer using this character in this way.

You’re not wrong, but a DM who runs a published module without making changes to it is setting the stage for metagaming as well, given that the published information is widely available for players to read if they wish. Obviously you can establish as part of the social contract of your game that players agree not to read the published module, and I’d wager most DMs do exactly that.

 

[Charlaquin]

I typically only allow a group 1 roll to search. Other players can use the Help action to grant advantage. That roll counts as the group's best effort.

I run group checks in a similar way. If the action would succeed if any of the participants succeed, the player with the highest modifier to the check rolls. If the action would fail if any of the participants fail, the player with the lowest modifier to the check rolls. If having multiple participants would meaningfully help (usually yes in the former case, no in the latter case), the player making the roll can do so with advantage.

 

[iserith]

I ask if I can recall hearing this name before. DM calls for a History (Intelligence) check. So whether I succeed or fail at that check, DM is going to rule that I DO recall the name and know who she is. Unbeknownst to me, what I am apparently actually doing is making an Intelligence (History) check to see if I succeed on a Charisma (Deception) check. Yeah, that sort of thing is going to annoy me. So much so that I would tend to shut down and avoid making any skill checks at all if I can help it, since the results are likely to be wholly unrelated to what I was trying to do. In this case, what if my character is a professional charlatan with expertise in Deception? I'm still going to drop my poker face while trying to remember a name?

The task to be resolved was whether the character recalled the relevance of the NPC's name. The task succeeded - the character recalled it. However, there's a setback because of the failed check - the NPC appears to know that the character knows. "Progress combined with a setback" is one of the two PHB options the DM has to narrating the result of the adventurer's actions after a failed check. It's also the best option in my view to avoid situations where a failed check and null result can incentivize the very "metagaming" about which some posters are concerned (see practicalm's post and my subsequent response upthread).

Further, the NPC's reaction does not necessarily say anything about the PC, as you suggest. If there's a task to be resolved in that regard, it's the NPC trying to suss out what the PC knows. And in this example, the DM is effectively saying that the task is trivially easy for the NPC for reasons the DM is free to establish and thus there is no roll needed to resolve it.

It looks like you're mostly objecting to the stakes here as @Bawylie says which I would typically go over with a player prior to the roll anyway, so you'd have a chance to object. But ultimately, it sounds like you either (1) think that a failed check resulting in "You don't know" is a meaningful consequence for failure in context or (2) want to make a check with no meaningful consequences at all. With regard to (2), if there's no meaningful consequence for failure to your task, then there's not going to be a roll anyway. (As an aside and to address your statement regarding the same, since there must be a meaningful consequence for failure in order for there to be a roll, then I would very much expect you as a player to avoid rolling wherever possible and shoot for automatic success since that's the smart play.)

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m always amused by how alien people find @iserith’s DMing style.

 

[Burnside]

If I'm aware of the stakes, I have no objection. I just wouldn't want to be ambushed by what is otherwise a totally unforeseeable result on an apparently unrelated check.

However, I would argue that in this case a failure state of "you don't know" has obvious meaningful consequences. And if the player badly failed the check, I might have them recall wholly inaccurate/mistaken information.

In the scenario you suggest, if a player said, "I try to recall if I've heard that name before" (or something similar) and I, as a DM, decided that they would recall the name regardless of success or failure, I simply wouldn't call for an Intelligence (History) check. I would just say, "Yeah, you have heard of an elven wizard by that name who is rumored to have become a lich." I might very well also roll a Wisdom (Insight) check for Valindra against the characters's passive Charisma (Deception) if the character is standing right there sizing her up while she's looking right at him.

 

[Blue]

If I were the DM, I would reward the player's knowledge and move on. No problem.

Since the question I posed was about incorrect player knowledge backfiring in game, what you'd do as a DM does yet again not answer the question.

Sorry, the whole "fool me once, fool me twice", I don't see that it's worth it asking the same question a third time.

So let me ask you a question along the lines of what you were just saying - as a DM. IF you happened to be running a module, and a player bought it explicitly to know the secrets, traps, and hidden treasure, would you reward them for their knowledge?

Basically, is there any line for you where a player exploiting knowledge their character hasn't learned from play a bad thing?

 

[iserith]

If I'm aware of the stakes, I have no objection. I just wouldn't want to be ambushed by what is otherwise a totally unforeseeable result on an apparently unrelated check.

I think the issue is trying to find some kind of causal connection between the failed check and the changed circumstances. There needn't be one, though causal results are easier to understand certainly. On a failed check, a task can either fail outright or succeed with a setback. (Those are the PHB options anyway. There are other options in the DMG.)

However, I would argue that in this case a failure state of "you don't know" has obvious meaningful consequences. And if the player badly failed the check, I might have them recall wholly inaccurate/mistaken information.

Reasonable people can disagree on what a "meaningful consequence" is in context. As for your adjudication on the badly failed check, you are creating a problem of a disconnect between what the player sees on the die and what information they are giving which incentivizes "metagaming." That's going to be an issue for some DMs and players.

In the scenario you suggest, if a player said, "I try to recall if I've heard that name before" (or something similar) and I, as a DM, decided that they would recall the name regardless of success or failure, I simply wouldn't call for an Intelligence (History) check. I would just say, "Yeah, you have heard of an elven wizard by that name who is rumored to have become a lich." I might very well also roll a Wisdom (Insight) check for Valindra against the characters's passive Charisma (Deception) if the character is standing right there sizing her up while she's looking right at him.

Yes, per the rules, if the task is trivially easy or impossible, then the character just succeeds or fails, no roll. I wouldn't roll for the NPC in your example here. I would say what the NPC is doing and ask the player what his or her character does. What the character does may call for a roll or it might not, as per the standard adjudication.

 

[practicalm]

Can you imagine there's a reasonable explanation in the context of a fantasy world in which the character think an NPC is a lich just by hearing his or her name? Or do you think the only possible way the character could have reached this conclusion is because the character read a book that exists only in the real world?

Considering that according the wiki she was in Neverwinter as an agent, the idea that anyone would know she was a lich while she was in the city is extremely unlikely.
Her role as an agent would mean keeping the secret of her true form to be critical.